© Kamla-Raj 2012 J Psychology, 3(1): 39-45 (2012)

The Influence of Social Intelligence of Secondary School Teachers

on Classroom Discipline Strategies
Soleiman Yahyazadeh Jeloudar1, Aida Suraya Md Yunus2, Samsilah Roslan2 and
Sharifah Md. Nor2
1
Universiti of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran
2
Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400, Serdang, Selangor,
Malaysia
E-mail: [email protected]
KEYWORDS Social Intelligence. Classroom Discipline. Teachers

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to analyze the level of social intelligence among teachers employed in government
secondary schools based on a selected demographic variable. The sample of the study comprised 203 teachers. The findings of
the study showed that there was a significant difference among the teachers from (Malaysia, India and China) and their social
intelligence. The study also revealed that there were significant differences between teachers with high and moderate level of
social intelligence in five strategies of classroom discipline used, that is, teachers with high level of social intelligence scored
higher in the classroom discipline strategies of discussion, recognition, involvement, and hinting, whereas teachers with moderate
level of social intelligence scored higher in the use of aggression. However, no significant difference was found concerning one
strategy of classroom discipline (punishment).

INTRODUCTION ous physical arrangements in the classroom ac-

cording to the educational method and content
A teacher’s most important activity in a typi- (Evertson et al. 1997).
cal class environment is the one related to class- Classroom discipline management involves
room discipline strategies. Learning and teach- teachers encouraging positive social interactions
ing cannot take place in a classroom without as well as active management in learning and
discipline (Marzano et al. 2003). Disciplinary self-motivation. They shape a positive learning
problems have long been recognized as a major society in which the students are actively en-
issue in schools (Edwards 2008). Classroom dis- gaged in individual learning process and class-
cipline management refers to control of time and room management (Burden and Byrd 2002).
behavior of students as well as of teachers in a Classroom discipline management strategies
classroom setting (Fredrick et al. 2000). Class- play an effective role in building positive teach-
room discipline management involves many ers and students relationships (Wang et al.
interrelated and complicated facets arising from 1993).
class and environment. The teacher, as the class Classroom discipline management strategies
manager, is expected to lead the class environ- are a set of interactions that assist teachers to
ment, as stated by Lemlech (1988) considering influence students’ behavior and teach them to
these dimensions as an orchestra. Another im- act positively. These interactions are developed
portant dimension of classroom management is not only to reduce teacher’s stress level but to
to create a proper learning environment and to help these professional people and students to
prepare the physical conditions of the class. Not establish social climates of cooperation, a set-
only are the already present things pedagogi- ting in which children and adults can learn to-
cally affective, so are their arrangement appear- gether, play together, and build quality relation-
ance (Becher 1993). A well-prepared physical ship (Danforth and Boyle 2007). Discipline,
environment and order facilitates the learning during the past decade, has been referred to as
and teaching process and can enhance students’ the main problem for classroom teachers
class participation. On the contrary, a dull, un- (Chiodo and Chang 2000). Teachers, themselves
aired, noisy and ill-prepared classroom environ- accept that disciplinary problems are becoming
ment adversely affects class participation and an epidemic phenomenon in the public schools
learning. Environment also affects the quality (Elam et al. 1996; Rose and Gallup 2004). Many
of teacher-student relations (Grubaugh and teachers have been reported to have left schools
Houston 1990). The teacher has to make vari- because of the frequent problems of classroom
40 SOLEIMAN YAHYAZADEH JELOUDAR, AIDA SURAYA MD YUNUS, SAMSILAH ROSLAN ET AL.

disruption (Ingersoll and Smith 2003). Charles before they show any reactions to the behavior.
(2008: 9) mentioned: One concept of social intelligence referred to it
Overall, the tactics teachers use to manage as the “ability to read non-verbal cues or make
student behavior are referred to as discipline accurate social inferences” and “one’s ability to
or behavior management. The term of discipline accomplish relevant objectives in specific so-
has traditionally suggested teacher control, co- cial settings” (Brown and Anthony 1990: 197;
ercion, and forceful tactics’ educators today of- Ford and Tisak 1983).
ten use the term behavior management to indi- According to Zirkel (2000), social intelli-
cate preventing, suppressing, and redirecting gence is closely related to one’s own, personal-
misbehavior. ity and individual behavior. Those with social
Some scholars such as Lewis et al. (2005) intelligence are fully aware of themselves and
indicated that both students and their teachers understand their environment. This enables
can be distinguished by two distinct discipline them to control their emotions, make decisions
styles. The first is referred to as ‘‘coercive’’ dis- about their goals in life. Her model centered on
cipline and includes punishment and aggression the term “purposive behavior” which is deliber-
(yelling in anger, sarcasm, group punishments, ate action taken after evaluating one’s environ-
etc.) and the second includes discussion, hints, ment, opportunities and risks and the goals set.
recognition, involvement and punishment and In fact this model of social intelligence assists
is named ‘‘relationship based discipline’’. in creating a sense of identity for the individual,
Students who receive more relationship- emphasizes intrapersonal and interpersonal
based discipline are less disrupted when teach- skills and focuses on thinking and resultant be-
ers deal with misbehavior and generally act havior within social contexts.
more responsibly in that teacher’s class. In con- Magida (2006) agreed that educators’ with
trast, coercive discipline appears to lead to more high levels of social intelligence are able to
students’ distraction from work and less respon- mould individuals from different age groups to
sibility (Hyman and Snook 2000: 315). lead a wholesome life (Dincer 2007). Albrecht
Yet, some results can be subtle as the teach- (2006) considers social intelligence as a pre-
ers who experience stress as a result of other requisite for teachers. He is of the view that the
factors (for instance excessive workload) can educational system and teachers should respect
interpret the students’ behavior more negatively the rules and behaviors associated with high
(Whiterman et al. 1985 as cited in Lewis et al. social intelligence.
2005) and hence exaggerate its importance as a In this study, the researcher used a multifac-
stressor. Anyway, discipline matters are always eted theory of social intelligence as it facilitated
among the strongest factors of the teacher’s the understanding of social behavior in the aca-
stressors. demic settings (Silvera et al. 2001). Social in-
It is important to study how teachers promote telligence involves a number of different capa-
classroom discipline and limit or reduce disrup- bilities, special social habits, and attitudes
tive behavior of students. Scholars believe that (Thorndike and Stein 1937). Some people ar-
high intelligent quotient (IQ) does not neces- gue that it is a multidimensional component that
sarily guarantee success in a person’s life (Gole- does not necessarily apply across all situations
man 1997). It is not responsible for the differ- (Ford and Tisak 1983). Silvera et al. (2001) in-
ences beyond personality factors and charac- troduced three components of social intelligence
teristics (Mehrabian 2000). Hence, other forms meaning, social information processing, social
of “intelligence” were investigated (Goleman skills and social awareness.
1997). Social intelligence is yet an effective el- According to Rahimah and Norani (1997),
ement in classroom discipline management. schools in Malaysia have some disciplinary
Albrecht (2006) claimed, the teachers whose problems such as petty crimes, immoral con-
behaviors are associated with high social intel- duct, dressing, truancy, disrespect for others and
ligence, stress the value of collaboration. Simi- maladjustments with the school environment.
larly, there is a need for educational system They also added that bullying, school violence
which equips the students to state their opin- and maladjustments are increasing among stu-
ions obviously in order to make themselves un- dents. They stated that the government had
derstood, and to try to understand the others warned that some school teachers will soon not
THE INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE OF SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 41

be allowed to publicly punish students for dis- Cohen table (1992) is considered sufficient to
ciplinary offenses. In earlier years, students who answer all the research questions that required
had severe disciplinary problems such as steal- the use of mean, standard deviation, percent-
ing, vandalism and smoking were punished by age, ANOVA and MANOVA. The sample was
school principals. It was easier to manage class- chosen according to government secondary
room discipline then and there were lesser prob- school types (public) and region.
lems.
The main objective of the study is to analyze Measures
the teachers’ social intelligence and their class-
room discipline strategies in secondary schools Social Intelligence Scale
in Selangor State of Malaysia. The social intel-
ligence level of teachers is important for teach- Silvera et al. (2001) constructed a scale for
ers and students communication and for improv- the assessment of social intelligence, the Tromsø
ing classroom discipline strategies. The specific Social Intelligence Scale (TSIS). In this ques-
objectives of the study involve examining the tionnaire, after recoding items that were nega-
significant difference between levels of teach- tively worded, an Exploratory Factor Analysis
ers’ social intelligence based on classroom dis- (EFA) using principle compo-nents analysis and
cipline strategies (punishment, discussion, rec- varimax rotation was conducted on the 103 pre-
ognition, aggression, involvement, hinting), liminary TSIS items. This solution explained a
possible differences between the level of teach- total of 30% of the variance in the original item
ers’ social intelligence and teachers of different set. Based on this result, items were selected
races (Malaysian, Indian and Chinese). according to the following criteria: (a) a mini-
mum factor loading of 0.45 on one of the three
METHODOLOGY factors and a maximum cross-loading of 0.35
on the other factors; and (b) a maximum corre-
Design lation of 0.30 with the MCSD (Marlowe-Crowne
Social Desirability Scale). In addition, it was
Quantitative approach is applied in this study.
agreed that an equal number of items would be
This study is designed to use the influence be-
selected to represent each factor. This resulted
tween classroom discipline with six strategies
(punishment, discussion, recognition, aggres- in the selection of 21 items, seven of which rep-
sion, involvement and hinting) as a dependent resented each of the three factors in the EFA
variable, and, teachers’ social intelligence as the solution. Based on the content of the items load-
independent variables. ing on each factor, the subscales of items repre-
senting the three factors were labeled Social
Sample Information Processing, Social Skills, and So-
cial Awareness. The scale has a Cronbach al-
The target population for this study was sec- pha of .89.
ondary school teachers. However, the accessible
population was Form Two and Form Four teach- Classroom Discipline Strategies
ers in secondary schools. This study employed
the multi-stage sampling procedures: random In 2009 Shlomo Romi developed this ques-
sampling and cluster sampling. To obtain the tionnaire. The questionnaire for classroom dis-
required number of samples, two moderate cipline strategies for teachers’ perception com-
classes (one class form two and one class form prises 25 items and six strategies. The strate-
four) in secondary school teachers were chosen gies measured include punishment, reward or
from each school. Once the class is identified, recognition, involvement in decision-making,
about 10 teachers teaching different subjects in hinting, discussion and aggression, all of which
the class were selected. This is based on cluster are based on teachers’ perceptions. Examina-
sampling where each teacher teaching the se- tion of a number of discipline texts (Charles
lected class was included as sample for the study. 2008; Lewis 1997; Tauber 2007; Wolfgang
Based on this method, 203 teachers were cho- 1995) indicated that one or more of these strat-
sen. Moreover, a sample size of 180, based on egies were the basis for most of the available
42 SOLEIMAN YAHYAZADEH JELOUDAR, AIDA SURAYA MD YUNUS, SAMSILAH ROSLAN ET AL.

approaches to classroom discipline. It would Table 1: Distribution of respondents’ SI scores

have been possible to utilize exploratory factor Levels Mean Frequency Percentage
analysis on data sets from point of view of na- Low 1 – 3.0 0 0
tionality to obtain assessments of discipline most Moderate 3.1 – 5.0 151 74.4
appropriate to other countries (Australia and High 5.1 – 7.0 52 25.6
China). This questionnaire focused on teachers’ Total 203 100.0
perceptions on classroom discipline strategies.
The scale has a Cronbach alpha of .086. Mean=4.66 Std=.56 Minimum=3.43 Maximum=6.19

Data Analyses following research is intended to pursue the

stated question: Is there any significant differ-
SPSS version 17 was used to analyze the data. ence in the level of teachers’ social intelligent
Descriptive statistics such as; mean, standard across teachers from Malaysia, India and
deviation, percentage was used to describe the China?
level of teachers’ social intelligence and behav- To answer the research question, the re-
ior management. MANOVA tests were used to searcher used one-way ANOVA to compare the
examine the differences mean and influence total scores of three variables; teachers’ social
between teachers’ social intelligence and class- intelligence across the teachers’ from Malaysia,
room discipline strategies. The ANOVA test was India and China. Table 2 shows that there were
used to examine the teachers from different eth- significant differences among teachers from
nic groups. Malaysia, India and China and their level of
social intelligence, F (2, 200) = 2.91, P= .047.
RESULTS There was a statistically significant difference
between teachers from India and China.
Level of Teachers’ Social Intelligence
Teachers’ Levels of social Intelligences
Table 1 displays the teachers’ levels of social across Classroom Discipline Strategies
intelligence. The findings indicated that the
majority of the respondents’ social intelligence The objective is to investigate the cross in-
scores were moderate (n = 151, 74.4%). The teraction effects of two levels of the social intel-
data also showed that 52 respondents (25.6%) ligences with the classroom discipline strategies
had high social intelligence scores, while none as practiced by respondents, and the research
scored in the low level of social intelligence. question is if there were any significant differ-
Based on the results, the minimum score was ences between level of teachers’ social intelli-
3.43 and the maximum was 6.19, with a stan- gence based on classroom discipline strategies
dard deviation of .56. The mean score for social (punishment, discussion, recognition, aggres-
intelligence was 4.66 implying that the level of sion, involvement, hinting).
social intelligence score was moderate. This study proceeds with a multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA). The purpose
Teachers from Different Race Groups of this test is to see if there are any significant
differences between teachers with high and
This section would also fulfill the research moderate social intelligence in their level of
objective, which is to determine the level of usage of the six disciplinary strategies. Only two
teachers’ social intelligence with respect to the groups (moderate and high) are used because
teachers from Malaysia, India and China. The there is no respondent in the low category group.

Table 2: ANOVA results of social intelligence of teachers fromMalaysia, India and China
Variable Teachers N Mean SD F Sig.
Social Intelligence Malay 130 4.65 .54 2.91 .047
China 40 4.54 .47
India 33 4.86 .71
Total 203 4.66 .57
THE INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE OF SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 43

Table 3: Multivariate analysis of SI across classroom discipline strategies

Effect Value F H df Error df Sig. Partial Eta
Squared
Recod SI Pillai’s Trace 0.21 9.17a 6 196 .000 0.21
Wilks’ Lambda 0.78 9.17a 6 196 .000 0.21

Table 4: Test between subject effects

Source Dependent variable df F Sig. Partial Eta
Squared
Recode EQ T.punishment 1 2.69 .102 .013
T.discussion 1 41.75 .000 .172
T.recognition 1 38.19 .000 .160
T.aggression 1 14.05 .000 .065
T.involvement 1 19.70 .000 .089
T.hinting 1 30.97 .000 .134

The first step is to ensure if there are signifi- social intelligence scored higher in discussion,
cant differences using multivariate tests. In this recognition, involvement and hinting. In con-
study, both Wilk’s Lambda and Pillai’s Trace trast, teachers with moderate level of social in-
(Pallant 2007) are referred. Table 3 shows both telligence scored higher in the usage of aggres-
tests are suitable when comparing two groups. sion and punishment.
However, in cases where there are violations of
assumptions, Pillai’s Trace is normally recom- Table 5: Descriptive of means across level of SI
mended as it is more robust (Pallant 2008). Strategies Recode SI Mean Std. N
Based on Table 3, it is clear that all the tests deviation
show significant difference between teachers T-Punishment Moderate 3.82 .68 151
with high and moderate social intelligence in High 3.64 .69 52
using six disciplinary strategies. T-Discussion Moderate 4.37 .81 151
H=Hypothesis High 5.16 .57 52
T-Recognition Moderate 4.55 .76 151
According to Pallant (2008), as there are High 5.25 .51 52
many numbers of separate analyses involved, a T-Aggression Moderate 2.98 .95 151
stricter alpha level is set to reduce the chance of High 2.43 .82 52
Type 1 error. This is done by applying Bonfe- T-Involvement Moderate 3.73 .69 151
High 4.25 .83 52
ronni adjustment, involving dividing the origi- T-Hinting Moderate 4.49 .76 151
nal alpha level (.05) by the number of analyses High 5.13 .57 52
conducted (in this study, six) resulting in a new Total 4.66 .77 203
alpha level of .0083. Therefore, only those find- SI = stands for the Social Intelligence
ings with significant values of less than .0083
will be considered as significant. Table 4 indi- DISCUSSION
cates the findings show that there are signifi-
cant differences between teachers with high and In terms of social intelligence and teachers
moderate level of social intelligence in all of from Malaysia, India and China, the findings
the six disciplinary strategies used, except pun- above indicated that there were significant dif-
ishment. Referring to the partial eta square val- ferences in social intelligences among teachers
ues, social intelligence was found to have the from (Malaysia, India and China). One-way
most impact on discussion strategy, explaining ANOVA was conducted which explored the dif-
17.2% of its variance. This is followed by rec- ferences between teachers from Malaysia, India
ognition (16.0% variance explained), hinting and China across levels of social intelligences.
(13.4% variance explained), involvement (8.9% The analysis showed teachers from India scored
variance explained) and aggression (6.5% vari- significantly higher than from China in their
ance explained). social intelligence as measured by the research
The estimated marginal means computed in instrument. However, the results obtained in the
Table 5 shows that teachers with high level of study did not show statistically significant dif-
44 SOLEIMAN YAHYAZADEH JELOUDAR, AIDA SURAYA MD YUNUS, SAMSILAH ROSLAN ET AL.

ferences in social intelligences between teach- human behavior. The findings of the present
ers from Malaysia and India, as well as Malay- research also agree with Zirkel (2000) which
sia and China pointed out that social intelligence is closely
Another objective of the study was to deter- related to individual behavior. Those with so-
mine the level of teachers’ social intelligence cial intelligence are fully aware of themselves
based on classroom discipline strategies (pun- and understand their environment. This enables
ishment, discussion, recognition, aggression, them to control their emotions, make decisions
involvement and hinting). To this end, MAN- about their goals in life.
OVA clearly indicated that teachers of different
levels of social intelligence significantly differ CONCLUSION
in their usage of both positive disciplinary strat-
egies (discussion, recognition, hinting and in- The results showed that teachers from Ma-
volvement) and negative ones (punishment and laysia, India and China, were significantly dif-
aggression). The effect size of the impact of ferent in their social intelligence. The results
teachers intelligences on the strategies used also revealed that to determine the level of teach-
ranged from small (explaining around 5% of ers’ social intelligence based on classroom dis-
the variance) to quite large (explaining 17.2% cipline strategies (punishment, discussion, rec-
of variance). This implies that the teachers’ in- ognition, aggression, involvement and hinting).
telligences play an important role in influenc- The MANOVA clearly indicated that teachers
ing the kind of strategies teachers use and imple- of different levels of social intelligence signifi-
ment in their quest to achieve educational goals. cantly differ in their usage of both positive dis-
Concerning the role of social intelligence, the ciplinary strategies (discussion, recognition,
findings of this study were similar to the find- hinting and involvement) and one negative strat-
ings of Albrecht’s (2006) who believed, social
egies (aggression), However, no significant dif-
intelligence is a requirement for the teachers and
ference was found concerning one strategy of
plays an important role in classroom behavior
classroom discipline (punishment).
management. He pointed out that we need teach-
ers who enjoy high level of social intelligence
and model them for their students. He stated RECOMMENDATIONS
that the teachers who were socially intelligent,
organize the classroom through establishing Based on these findings, the researcher
supportive and encouraging relationships with makes a few recommendations in this section.
their students, developing the lessons which are It is recommended that the Ministry of Educa-
based on the students’ strong points and abili- tion include some teacher training programmes
ties, creating and applying behavioral guidelines in order to enhance teachers’ social intelligence
in the ways which enhance intrinsic motivation, for classroom discipline strategies. Such pro-
such as discussion, hinting, recognition and in- grammes will assist teachers in developing bet-
volvement. ter strategies for classroom discipline. Teacher
Bjorkqvist and Osterman’s (1999) findings education programmes should provide instruc-
are also in line with the findings of this study. tion for novice teachers to increase their under-
These researchers stated that social intelligence standing and knowledge of social intelligence,
has a negative relationship with aggression in methods, programmes, or strategies that might
school. The result in this study supported by be employed to teach and discipline classroom
Curwin and Mendler (1997) believed that teach- students. Research indicates that emotional in-
ers should punish students in private to allow telligence encompasses various abilities that can
students to maintain their dignity. In addition, be improved when a person learns about these
McLeod et al. (2003) stated that the purpose of intelligences, thus reflecting upon his or her own
negative reinforcement or punishment is to behavior in the classroom. It is suggested that
change misbehaviors, and not to torture stu- this study be replicated with other variables such
dents. The findings of the current research sup- as different age groups and different religions.
port the theoretical foundations by Mayer et al. It is also recommended that a future study take
(1999) who acknowledged that social intelli- into account the perceptions of school princi-
gence may share common ground in relation to pals and parents as well.
THE INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE OF SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 45

REFERENCES Ingersoll RM, Smith TM 2003. The wrong solution to the

teacher shortage. Educational Leadership, 60(8): 30-
33.
Albrecht K 2006. Social Intelligence: The New Science of Lemlech JK 1988. Classroom Management. 2nd Edition.
Success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Longman Inc.: New York.
Becher R 1993. The aesthetic classroom environment and Lewis R, Romi S, Qui X, Katz YJ 2005. Teachers’ classroom
student attitude toward school. Dissertation Abstracts discipline and student misbehaviour in Australia and
International, 53(9): 37-41. China. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(6): 729-
Bjorkqvist K, Osterman K 1999. Social intelligence - 741.
Empathy = Aggression? Aggression and Violent Lewis R 1997. Discipline in schools. In: LJ Saha (Ed.):
Behaviour, 5(2): 191-200. International Encyclopedia of the Sociology of
Brown LT, Anthony RG 1990. Continuing the search for Education. Oxford, UK: Permagon, pp. 404-411.
social intelligence. Personality and Individual Marzano RJ, Marzano JS, Pickering D 2003. Classroom
Differences, 11(5): 463-470. Management that Works: Research-based Strategies for
Burden P R, Byrd D M 2002. Methods for Effective Every Teacher. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Teaching. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Canter L, Canter M 2002. Lee Canter’s Assertive Discipline. Mayer JD, Caruso D, Salovey P 1999. Emotional Intelli-gence
Santa Monica, CA: Lee Canter and Associates. Meets Traditional Standards for an Intelligence. New
Charles MC 2008. Building Classroom Discipline. 9 th York: Port Chester.
Edition. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. McLeod J, Fisher J, Hoover G 2003. The Key Elements of
Chiodo JJ, Chang L 2000. First year teachers: Analysis of Classroom Management: Managing Time and Space,
their concerns related to the research on professional Student Behavior, and Instructional Strategies.
development. National Forum of Teacher Education Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Journal, 70(1): 31-40. Curriculum Development.
Cohen J 1992. A power primer. Psychology Bulletin, 112(1): Mehrabian A 2000. Beyond IQ: Broad-based measurement of
155-159. individual sucess potential or “emotional intelligence”.
Curwin RL, Mendler AN 1997. As Tough as Necessary: Genetic Social and General Psychology Monographs,
Countering Violence, Aggression, and Hostility in Our 126(2): 133-240.
School. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision Pallant J 2008. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step By Step Guide
and Curriculum Development. to Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows (Version 15).
Danforth S, Boyle JR 2007. Cases in Behavior Manage- Australia: Allen and Unwin.
ment. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall Inc. Rahimah H, Norani MS 1997. Bullying and violence in the
Dincer K 2007. Educators role as spiritually intelligent Malaysian school. In: Toshio Ohsako (Ed.): Violence at
leaders in educational institutions. International School. Lausanne, Switzerland. Unesco International
Bureau of Education, 62(63): 57-71.
Journal of Human Sciences, 4(1).
Rose LC, Gallup A M 2004. The 36th annual Phi Delta Kappa/
Edwards CH 2008. Classroom Discipline and Management. Gallup poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 41-52.
Elam SM, Rose LC, Gallup AM 1996. The 28th annual Phi Silvera D, Martinussen M, Dahl TI 2001. The Tromsø Social
Delta kappa/Gallup Poll of the public’s attitudes toward Intelligence Scale: A self report measure of social
the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(1): 41-59. intelligence. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,
Evertson CM, Emmer ET, Clements BS, Worsham ME 1997. 42(4): 313-319.
Classroom Management For Elementary Teacher. 4th Tauber RT 2007. Classroom Management: Sound Theory
Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. and Effective Practice. 4th Edition. Orlando, FL: Har-
Ford ME, Tisak MS 1983. A further search for social court Brace College Publisher.
intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, Thorndike E L, Stein S 1937. An evaluation of the attempts to
75(2): 196-206. measure social intelligence. Psychological Bulletin,
Fredrick LD, Deitz SM, Bryceland JA, Hummel JH 2000. 34(5): 275-285.
Behavior Analysis, Education, and Effective Wang MC, Haertel GD, Walberg HJ 1993. Towards a
Schooling. Reno, NV: Context Press. knowledge base for school learning. Review of
Grubaugh S, Huston R 1990. Establishing a classroom Educational Research, 63(3): 249-250.
environment that promotes interaction and improved Wolfgang CH 1995. Solving Discipline Problems: Methods
student behavior. Clearing House, 63(8): 375-378. and Models for Today’s Teachers 3rd Edition. Boston,
Goleman D 1997. Emotional Intelligence. New York: MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bantam Books Inc. Zirkel S 2000. Social Intelligence: The Development and
Hyman IA, Snook P A 2000. Dangerous schools and what Maintenance of Purposive Behavior – The Handbook
you can do about them. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(7): 488- of Emotional Intelligence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
501. Bass.