’ personality traits moderate relationship

B a k u , A z e r b a i j a n | 393

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 3. No. 4. July, 2011, II Part

DO STUDENTS’ PERSONALITY TRAITS MODERATE RELATIONSHIP OF TEACHER’S LEADERSHIP STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC

PERFORMANCE? EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM INSTITUTE OF HIGHER LEARNING

Ishfaq Ahmed1*, Tehmina Fiaz Qazi2

1Lecturer, 2Research Scholar (M.Com Hons.) at Hailey College of Commerce,

University of the Punjab (PAKISTAN) *Corresponding author: [email protected]

ABSTRACT Current research establishes the relationship between leadership style of a teacher as per students’

assessment and their own perceived academic performance, keeping their level of emotional intelligence as the moderator of this relationship. Students had been selected as the target population of the study because the purpose of the study was to assess the leadership style of a teacher and to explore its impact on the academic performance of students. Out of 250 students (estimated sample size), 212 students voluntarily participated and contributed in data collection comprising a response rate of 85%. Questionnaire was used to elicit their responses. They all have/had been the students of author (a permanent faculty member of Hailey College of commerce, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan). In 1st portion of questionnaire they were asked to assess the leadership style of their teacher, secondly they had to mention their perception about their academic performance. In 3rd portion of the questionnaire, EI level of students had been assessed. 3 categories had been made among students on the basis of their study period with the mentioned teacher i.e 111 students studied for 1 semester; 70 students studied for 2 semesters and 31 students assessed the leadership style after 1 year of their studies taught by the said teacher. Study concluded that there is a significant effect of teacher’s transformational leadership style (IV) on students’ perceived academic performance (DV). Similarly, teacher’s Transactional leadership style (IV) affects students’ perceived academic performance (DV) significantly. But the presumed moderator (Emotional Intelligence) does not moderate the effects of the predictors (Teacher’s transformational and transactional leadership style) on the outcome variable (Students’ Academic performance).

Key words: Emotional Intelligence, Transformational leadership, Transactional leadership, Education,

Academic performance, Pakistan 1. INTRODUCTION Education is the key towards development of a nation as a whole and the most effective channel to bring

about the prosperity in a society (Aikaman & Unterhalter, 2005). Economic and social progress of a country do not just depend upon the richness of its natural resources or monetary capital rather human capital has always been considered as the ultimate source to speed up the pace of a country’s development and formal education system is the basic mechanism behind developing this human capital (Nsubuga, 2003). Educational institutions not only serve as an accelerator of socio-economic productivity but they also act as boosting agent of positive ideas, attitudes and values required for natural development of a nation.

1.1. Leadership and Educational productivity There is always a strong leadership acting behind a successfully running organization and same is the case

with educational institutions where efficiency and productivity can definitely be enhanced with leading reforms such as increasing teachers’ time devoted for tasks, increasing accountability and reducing repetition (Nsubuga, 2003). Power of leadership enhances the motivational level of others to achieve common goals that ultimately affects the outcome and productivity (Porter and Applewhite, 1968; Davis, 1969; Byar and Rue, 1970) so, the efficiency of students rises to an optimal level because of the motivational power that a teacher induces into his students through exhibiting an effective leadership style.

It always requires the enhanced association and dedication of all the group members to achieve the aims under the dynamic process of leadership at educational institutions (Cole, 2002) where students are considered as units of the whole group leading by their teacher and getting all the students along the path towards achievement of study targets is considered the responsibility of the teacher. Activities related to leadership of an educational institution such as morale building, remuneration, coercion pursue effective performance and productivity of that institution (Balunywa, 2000). Hence, teachers’ effective leadership not only boosts up the morale of individual students to get their study targets but can also takes the overall productivity of an educational institution to its peak.

1.2. EI and performance predictors Competition has become the basic evolutionary element behind all the progress in this era. Whether it is

about getting an admission into a learning institution or securing a post in a business organization, the criteria for being selected is getting crucial with each day passing. Other than traditional qualification, now certain factors and personality traits are identified in the candidates to predict their type of personality and chances of being successful in the future. Institutions apply additional criteria to identify these personality traits and success predictors while

394 | www.ijar.lit.az


scrutinizing the applicants (Chisholm et al. 1995; Allen & Bond, 2001; Hardigan, 2001; Kidd & Latif, 2003; Thomas & Draugalis, 2002; Latif, 2004).

Reason behind establishing such additional criteria is the fact that traditional success markers (educational qualification etc.) do not deal with some important success predictors such as behavioral variations, intangible characteristics and personality traits of the candidates (Latif, 2005). According to some studies, occupational and educational performance can better be predicted through these intangible characteristics and subsequently these can be measured through extent of emotional intelligence “EI” (Goleman, 1998). Hence, it is very important to identify the level of EI in students to observe its impact on their academic performance.

1.3. Leadership styles of teacher effecting students’ performance Authority is the power basically (Walberg and Anderson, 1968) and classroom can be considered as an

ordinary organization where authority retains with the teacher as manager over the students (Jenkins and Lipitt, 1951). This decision making power of teacher maintains a specific psychological climate in classroom that affects students’ performance as Walberg and Anderson (1968) found that students in a democratically organized class show better understanding of what they are taught. Unlike authoritative and arrogant teachers, the teachers who create a good rapport with their students have a positive impact on the academic performance of their students (Cogan, 1954).

Authoritative style of teacher’s leadership is translated into distant and directive relationship of teacher with his students. Authoritative teacher is task oriented who just dictates the course of interaction in the classroom (Krech and Crutchfield, 1962; Edem 1979). Outcome of this style has been observed as anxiety; frustration; aggression; tension and fighting among the students (Ekpe, 1982). Hence, the major determinant of students’ productivity is the behavior of teacher (Ann, 1974, Bergan and Dunn, 1976). Deliberate decisions such as strong, healthy, harmonious and two way interactions between teacher and students affect the outcome of students that significantly base upon teacher-student relationship (Flander, 1965; Porter & Applewhite, 1968; Donaldson and Elias, 1976; Gronund, 1985;). Being a leader, a teacher decides the course of interaction between teacher and student and among students as well and acts as a moderator in the classroom to keep the communication and ways of interaction aligned with the overall study targets set for the students. Democratic style of teacher’s leadership promotes the co-operation among students and thus, improved relationships reinforce their learning experience and outcomes (Gronlund, 1985). Teacher being a moderator provides autonomy of self expression to interact within the peer groups. Greater the autonomy given to students for maintaining their peer group relationships, the more they feel socially accepted and satisfied both in personal and work related matters. This, in turn, affects their academic output (Walberg & Anderson, 1968).

Thus, this research is a contribution to the comprehensive approach of establishing the relationship between leadership style of a teacher as per students’ assessment and their own perceived academic performance, keeping their level of emotional intelligence as the moderator of this relationship.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW This study focuses on two distinct class leadership styles of teachers (Transformational & Transactional)

which they follow to influence the students and ultimately their academic performance. 2.1. Transformational vs. Transactional leadership style of teachers Burns (1978) developed the “Transformational leadership theory” with further enhancements made by

various others (Bass 1985, 1998; Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Tichy & Devanna, 1986). Krishnan (2005) explained this theory with focus kept on its root premise of the leader’s ability to motivate the follower and to superimpose this motivation over what they planned to do. Thus, a leader (teacher) exhibiting transformational leadership style influence the follower (students) in four major ways i.e. inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, idealized influence. A transformational leader focuses on synchronizing the core values of followers with overall organizational goals; provides followers with the sense of autonomy of the work; inspires them being a role model; help followers identify their strong and weak points and optimize their performance (Bass, 1985).

2.2. Individual Outcomes of Transformational leadership style

Table 1.

Individual outcomes

Features Previous researches

Commitment 1) Work experiences, organizational and personal factors serve as antecedents 2) Enthusiasm

Allen & Meyer, 1990, 1996; Dee, Henkin, & Singleton, 2004; Nguni, Sleegers, & Denessen, 2006

Empowerment 1) Self-efficacy 2) Followers’ power to think on their own 3) Participative climate

Masi & Cooke, 2000

Job satisfaction 1) Responsibility and autonomy in work tasks 2) Stems from follower’s perception

Maeroff, 1988; Nguni, Sleegers, & Denessen, 2006; Emery & Barker, 2007

Motivation 1) Extra effort is an indicator 2) One of three main domains of follower’s development 3) High energy level among followers

Hatter & Bass, 1988; House & Shamir, 1993

Self-efficacy beliefs

1) Influences patterns of thoughts, emotions and actions 2) Increases when leader shows confidence in followers

Bandura, 1977, 1993; Gist, 1987; Waldman & Spangler, 1989

Trus

1) Essential in relationship between transformational leader and followers 2) Determines much of the organization’s character and influences organizational structure

Podsakoff et al. 1990; Butler, Cantrell, & Flick, 1999; Gillespie & Mann, 2000;



On the other hand, a transactional leader focuses on the achievement of desired results by followers though offering them reward (or punishment). Aim of following this type of leadership style is to ensure the coherence of individual efforts with the fulfillment of desired goals. Transactional leadership style can be explained on the basis of 4 major dimensions i.e.

1. Contingent Rewards: Goals are first agreed upon mutually by leader and the follower and then rewards (punishment) is offered in exchange for the task accomplishment.

2. Active Management by exception: Corrective measures are adopted by leader to mitigate the effects of deviation from the set standards and regulations.

3. Passive Management by exception: Transactional leader does not interfere unless there is a violation of rules and standards.

4. Laissez-faire: Transactional leader hands over the responsibilities and passes up the decision making authority in certain situations (Burns, 1978).

2.3. EI and performance predictors Competition has become the basic evolutionary element behind all the progress in this era. Whether it is

about getting an admission into a learning institution or securing a post in a business organization, the criteria for being selected is getting crucial with each day passing. Institutions apply additional criteria of personality and success predictors to scrutinize the applicants (Chisholm et al. 1995; Allen & Bond, 2001; Hardigan, 2001; Thomas & Draugalis, 2002; Kidd & Latif, 2003; Latif, 2004).

Reason behind establishing such additional criteria is the fact that traditional success markers do not deal with some important success predictors such as behavioral variations, intangible characteristics and personality traits of the candidates (Latif, 2005). According to some studies, occupational and educational performance can better be predicted through these intangible characteristics and subsequently these can be measured through extent of emotional intelligence “EI” (Goleman, 1998).

2.4. Emotional Intelligence and Its key Elements Intelligences are grouped into three main clusters by psychologists’ i.e. social intelligence, abstract

intelligence and concrete intelligence (Young, 1996). Social intelligence was first recognized by Thorndike in 1920 as the ability to manage the human relations wisely and EI has its origin into the concepts of social intelligence. Sternberg (1983, 1985) classified human intelligence into three groups’ i.e. analytical intelligence, social and practical intelligence and creative intelligence. Gardner (1993) gave theory of multiple intelligences and included interpersonal & intrapersonal intelligences as major components of social intelligence.

Definition of EI was given by Salovey and Mayer (1990) as the capability of a person to identify the emotions and feelings of his own and of others as well; to discriminate these emotions and feelings and to direct his thinking and actions according to this information. Lately, Mayer and Salovey (1997) amended the above definition as the ability of accurate perception, appraisal and expression of the emotions; the ability of identification and (or) generation of feelings to facilitate the thinking process; the capability of understanding the emotional knowledge and the ability of emotions’ regulation to enhance intellectual & emotional growth (p. 10).

Then Goleman gave popularity to EI concept through publication of his book in 1995 and subsequently by a lead article in TIME magazine (Gibbs, 1995). He defined EI on the basis of five dimensions including the four suggested by Mayer and Salovey. Davies, Stankov and Roberts (1998) also identified the same four dimensions of EI in their literature.

2.5. Ability EI vs. Trait EI Conceptually “Trait EI “and “Ability EI” are two distinct types of EI as proposed by Petrides and Furnham

(2000a, 2000b, 2001). “Trait EI” (emotional self-efficacy) refers to the various characteristics of personality such as impulsivity, assertiveness and empathy. It also encompasses various forms of self-perceived abilities such as dispositions of personal intelligence (Gardner, 1983) and EI (Thorndike, 1920). Actual ability of a person to recognize, process the emotions and utilize this information to regulate the thinking process is called cognitive-emotional ability or “Ability EI”.

Self-report questionnaires are used to measure the Trait EI while performance tests measure the “Ability EI” on the basis of correct and incorrect responses. The measurement of ability EI remains a challenging task because of its subjective nature while there are various extensively used, straightforward instruments for the measurement of trait EI (Bar-On, 1997; Schutte et al., 1998). But measuring “Ability IE” is comparatively difficult because of devising relevant items and their objective assessment (Petrides & Furnham, 2001; Roberts et al., 2001).

2.6. EI & Academic Performance Some researchers proposed that EI is not correlated with academic performance and cognitive ability of the

students when measured through self-reports (Newsome et al. 2000; van der Zee et al. 2002). But cognitive ability (assessed objectively) is different from personality traits such as “Trait IE” (measured through self-report instruments). Many researches explored various distinct dimensions of personality and trait EI (Eysenck, 1947; Eysenck, 1997; Barrett et al. 1998; Petrides & Furnham, 2003). So, trait IE is not likely to have strong correlation with psychometric intelligence or its alternative elements (Eysenck, 1994; McCrae, 1994; Zeidner, 1995). Researchers also explained the empirical verification of the fact that cognitive ability is just about orthogonal to trait EI (Newsome et al., 2000; Derksen et al. 2002; Saklofske et al., 2003).

A study suggested that students who had learning disabilities scored lower on trait EI as compared to non-disabled students (Reiff et al. 2001) and a variety of deviant behaviors is caused by low trait EI and these



behaviors have an association with emotional deficits (Cohen & Strayer, 1996; Eisenberg, 2000; Roberts & Strayer, 1996). As trait EI is correlated with learning disabilities so, the effects of cognitive ability on academic performance might be moderated by trait IE. Also, classroom disruption and truancy is correlated with negative self-perceptions (Fergusson et al. 1995; Williamson & Cullingford, 1998) that can affect academic performance of students. Psychometric intelligence varies among the students of different subjects (Jensen, 1998). Similarly, Pau et al (2004) proposed that students with higher EI are more proficient to cope with the stressful situations in academic or non-academic scenarios. Academic literature has continuously been enriched with researches made on its different perspectives in lieu of emotional intelligence and different related aspects (Spielberger, 1966; Donaldson and Elias, 1976; Greenspan, 1989; Seipp, 1991; Boekaerts, 1993; Furnham & Medhurst, 1995; Williamson & Cullingford, 1998; Stewart et al., 1999; Ciarrochi et al., 2001; Reiff et al. 2001; Charbonneau & Nicol, 2002; Van der Zee et al., 2002).

This study identifies the level of EI in students to predict their academic performance with the exploration of direct relationship between leadership style of a teacher and students’ perceived academic performance.

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This study establishes the relationship between leadership style of a teacher as per students’ assessment

and their own perceived academic performance, keeping their level of emotional intelligence as the moderator of this relationship.

MODEL-1.

Students had been selected as the target population of the study because the purpose of the study was to assess the leadership style of a teacher and to explore its impact on the academic performance of students. A teacher was selected to assess his leadership style perceived by students. For study researcher was selected as the teacher to be assessed by students for his leadership style. In the second stage of research those students were selected for responses that have been or they are students of specified teacher. For sample 250 students (estimated sample size) were selected with a choice to participate in research, 212 students voluntarily participated and contributed in data collection comprising a response rate of 85%.

MODEL-2.

Questionnaire was used to elicit their responses. In 1st portion of questionnaire they were asked to assess the leadership style of their teacher, secondly they had to mention their perception about their academic performance. In 3rd portion of the questionnaire, EI level of students had been assessed. 3 categories had been made among students on the basis of their study period with the mentioned teacher i.e 111 students were currently being taught for 1 semester; 70 students were currently being taught for 2 semesters and 31 students assessed the teacher who had been student of the teacher a year back. To identify the transformational and transactional leadership style was assessed by using MLQ (Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire) developed by Bass and Avolio (1992). To judge the emotional intelligence of students’ instrument developed by Goleman (1995) was used. SPSS 16.0 was used for analysis of data. Average age of the respondents was 23.8 years, out of these respondents 61% were male and 39% were female. Detailed findings are discussed in the findings section.

4. RESEARCH FINDINGS Table-2 shows the summarized resultant values of the regression analyses. Findings of the table prove that

there is weak relationship between teachers leadership style and their performance (r=.146). R square value of the table shows that only 2.1% of the change in dependent variable is attributable to independent variable. It also

Academic performance of

student

Transformational leadership style

of teacher

Emotional Intelligence Level

of the student

Academic performance of

student

Transactional leadership style of

teacher

Emotional

Intelligence Level of the student



shows that this relation is significant (t=2.136, p<.05). So it can be inferred that transformational leadership style of teacher is a significant but weak predictor of students’ academic performance.

Table 2. Impact of teacher’s transformational leadership style on Academic Performance

Independent Variable R R2 B F P Transformational leadership--Academic Performance .146 .021 .188 4.564 .034

Table-3 shows the summarized resultant values of the regression analyses. Findings of the table prove that

there is weak relationship between teachers leadership style and their performance (r=.141). R square value of the table shows that only 2% of the change in dependent variable is attributable to independent variable. It also shows that this relation is significant (t=2.239, p<.05). So it can be inferred that transformational leadership style of teacher is a significant but weak predictor of students’ academic performance.

Table 3. Impact of teacher’s transactional leadership style on Academic Performance

Independent Variable R R2 B F P Transformational leadership style—Academic Performance .141 .020 .145 4.253 .04

Table-4 shows the summarized values of the regression. Change Statistics show that R2 change is 0.002

when the interaction variable (transformational leadership*EI) is added in regression analysis. This change is insignificant, F (1,208) = 0.478, p = (0.490>0.05).

The insignificant interaction proves that EI has no moderating affect between relationship of transformational leadership style and academic performance.

Table 4. Impact of Moderator (EI) on the Model-1

Model-1.

a. Predictor: (Constant), Transformational leadership, EI b. Predictor: (Constant), Transformational leadership, EI, Transformational-EI c. DV: Academic performance

Table-5 shows the summarized values of the regression. Change Statistics show that R2 change is 0.006 when the interaction variable (transformational leadership*EI) is added in regression analysis. This change is insignificant, F (11,746) = 1.465, p = (0.227>0.05).

The insignificant interaction proves that EI has no moderating affect between relationship of transactional leadership style and academic performance.

Table 5. Impact of Moderator (EI) on the Model-2

Model-2. a. Predictors: (Constant), Transactional leadership style of teacher, EI b. Predictors: (Constant), Transactional leadership, EI, Transactional-EI DV: Academic performance

5. CONCLUSION Findings of the study suggest that teacher as a leader has a weak impact on the academic performance of

students, similarly when the EI was tested as the moderating variable between teacher leadership style and academic performance it is concluded that EI doesn’t moderate the relation. These findings contradict the findings given by Walberg & Anderson (1968) who found that autonomy given by the leader increases students interaction in groups and that ultimately increases their performance. These findings prove that these findings are same for both transactional and transformational leadership styles.

Model R R Square Change Statistics

R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .286a .082 .082 9.330 2 209 .000 2 .290b .084 .002 .478 1 208 .490

Model R R Square Change Statistics

R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .286a .082 .082 9.281 2 209 .000 2 .297b .088 .006 1.465 1 208 .227



6. FUTURE IMPLICATIONS As future implication of the current research, a comparison could be made between transformational and

transactional leadership style of the teacher as predictor of the students’ academic performance. Moreover, other types of class leadership could be undertaken to elaborate the study. Sample may also be increased to get more detailed results.

REFERENCES

1. Adams A. A. (2005). Accounting education in Nigeria. The professional Accountant, 2(5), 10-13. 2. Aikman S. & Unterhalter, E. (2005). Beyond access: Transforming policy and practice for gender

equality in education. London: Oxford. 3. Allen D.D. & Bond, C. A. (2001). Pre-pharmacy indicators of success in pharmacy school: grade point

averages, pharmacy college admission test, communication abilities, and critical thinking skills. Pharmacotherapy, 21,842–849.

4. Allen N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.

5. Allen N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252-276.

6. Ann J. K. (1974). Sex differences in performance ability test as a function of masculity, feminity and androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 42-51.

7. Avolio B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Transformational leadership, charisma, and beyond. In J. G. Hunt B. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vitas (pp. 29-49). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

8. Balunywa, W.S. (2000). A hand book of business management. Kampala: Ugandan Press. 9. Bandura A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational

Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148. 10. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unified theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review

84, 191-215. 11. Bar-On R. (1997). BarOn EmotionalQuotient Inventory: technicalmanual. Toronto: Multi-Health

Systems Inc. 12. Barrett P. T., Petrides, K. V., Eysenck, S. B. G., & Eysenck, H. J. (1998). The Eysenck Personality

Questionnaire: An examination of the factorial similarity of P, E, N, and L across 34 countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 805–819.

13. Bass B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press. 14. Bass B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Mahwah

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 15. Bass B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational

leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

16. Bennis W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.

17. Bergan J., Dunn J. (1976). Psychology and education: A science for instruction. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

18. Boekaerts M. (1993). Being concerned with well-being and with learning. EducationalPsychol ogist, 28, 149–167.

19. Burns J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. 20. Butler J., Cantrell R., & Flick, R. (1999). Transformational leadership behaviors, upward trust and

satisfaction in self-managed work teams. Organization Development Journal, 17(1), 13-28. 21. Byars U., Rue L.W. (1970). Personnel Management: Concepts and application. New York: W. E.

Saunder press. 22. Charbonneau D., & Nicol A. A. M. (2002). Emotional intelligence and leadership in adolescents.

Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 1101–1113. 23. Chisholm M.A., Cobb H.H., Kotzan J.A. (1995). Significant factors for predicting academic success of

first-year pharmacy students. Am J Pharm Educ, 59, 364–370. 24. Ciarrochi J. V., Chan A. Y. C., & Bajgar J. (2001). Measuring emotional intelligence in adolescents.

Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1105–1119. 25. Cogan M. L. (1954). Preparation for college in the United States. Higher Education Quarterly, 8(3),

251–264. 26. Cohen D., & Strayer J. (1996). Empathy in conduct-disordered and comparison youth. Developmental

Psychology, 32, 988–998. 27. Cole G.A. (2002). The administrative theory and workers’ motivation, Zante institute of administration

Press LtD, ABU Zaria, Nigeria 28. Davies M., Stankov L., & Roberts R.D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: In search of an elusive

construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(4): 989-1015. 29. Davis J.H. (1969). Group performance. Reading. Mass: Addison Wesley.



30. Dee J. R., Henkin A. B., & Singleton C. A. (2004). Organizational commitment of teachers in urban schools: Examining the effects of team structures. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

31. Derksen J., Kramer I., & Katzko M. (2002). Does a self-report measure for emotional intelligence assess something different than general intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 37–48.

32. Donaldson B., Elias R. F. (1976). Mood and memory in learning. Sail Francisco: The Free Press. 33. Eisenberg N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. AnnualReview of Psychology, 51,

665–697. 34. Ekpe E.S. (1982). The personal characteristics of secondary school principals and their relationship to

teachers' participation in decision making in secondary schools in Calabar Municipality. Unpublished M.Ed Thesis. University of Calabar.

35. Emery C. R., & Barker K. J. (2007). The effect of transactional and transformational leadership styles on the organizational commitment and job satisfaction of customer contact personnel. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict, 11(1), 77.

36. Eysenck H. J. (1947). Dimensions of personality. New York: Praeger. 37. Eysenck H. J. (1994). Personality and intelligence: psychometric and experimental approaches. In R.

J. Sternberg & P. Ruzgis (Eds.), Personality and intelligence (pp. 3–31). New York: Cambridge University Press.

38. Eysenck H. J. (1997). Personality and experimental psychology: the unification of psychology and the possibility of a paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1224–1237.

39. Fergusson, D. M., Lynskey, M. T., & Horwood, L. J. (1995). Truancy in adolescence. New Zealand Journal of EducationalStudies, 30, 25–37.

40. Flander N.A. (1965). Teachers' influence on students' altitudes and achievement. Coop. Res. Mono. 12: 17-21.

41. Furnham A., & Medhurst S. (1995). Personality correlates of academic seminar behavior: a study of four instruments. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 197–208.

42. Gardner H. (1983). Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. 43. Gibbs N. (1995). ( October 2). The EQ factor. Time, 60–68. 44. Gillespie N. & Mann L. (2000). The building blocks of trust: The role of transformational leadership and

shared values in predicting team members’ trust in their leaders. Paper presented at the 2000 Academy of Management Conference, Toronto.

45. Gist M. E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 12, 472-485.

46. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books. 47. Goleman D. 1998. What makes a leader? Harvard Bus Rev,11–12; 92–102. 48. Goleman D. 1998. Working With Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantom Books. 49. Greenspan S. I. (1989). Emotional intelligence. In K. Field, B. J. Cohler, & G. Wool (Eds.), Learning

and education: psychoanalytic perspectives (pp. 209–243). Madison, CT: International Universities Press.

50. Gronlund N. E. (1985). Measurement and evaluation in teaching. New York: Macmillan Press. 51. Hardigan P. C., Lai,L.L., Arneson,D., Robeson,A. 2001. Significance of didactic merit, test scores,

interviews, and the admissions process: a case study. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 65,40–43.

52. Hatter J. J., & Bass B. M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transforma-tional and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695-702.

53. House R. J., & Shamir B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary theories. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 81-107). San Diego: Academic Press.

54. Jenkins D.H., Lipitt R. (1951). Interpersonal perception of teachers, students and parents. Washington DC: National Education Association.

55. Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor. Westport, CT: Praeger. 56. Kidd R.S., Latif D.A. 2003. An evaluation of traditional and novel predictors of didactic and professional

practice success of pharmacy students. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 67, Article 109.

57. Krech D., Crutchfield L. (1962). Individuals in society: A textbook of social psychology. New York: McGraw - Hill.

58. Krishnan V. R. (2005). Transformational leadership and outcomes: Role of relationship duration. Leadership & Organization Journal, 26(5/6), 442-457.

59. Latif D.A. 2004. Using the structured interview for a more reliable assessment of pharmacy student applicants. Am J Pharm Educ, 68, Article 21.

60. Latif D.A. 2005. Including the assessment of nontraditional factors in pharmacy school admissions. Ann Pharmacother, 39, 721–726.

61. Maeroff G. (1988). The empowerment of teachers. New York: Teachers College Press. 62. Masi R. J., & Cooke, R.A. (2000). Effects of transformational leadership on subordinate motivation,

empowering norms, and organizational productivity. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 8(1), 16-47.



63. Mayer J. D., & Salovey P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey, & D. Sluyter (Ed.). Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications, pp. 3-34. New York, NY, USA: Basicbooks, Inc.

64. McCrae R. R. (1994). Openness to experience as a basic dimension of personality. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 13, 39–55.

65. Newsome S., Day A. L., & Catano V. M. (2000). Assessing the predictive validity of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1005–1016.

66. Nguni S., Sleegers P., & Denessen E. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership effects on teachers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 145-177.

67. Nsubuga Y.K.K.2003, Development and examination of secondary in Uganda: Experience and challenges Kampala; Uganda.

68. Pau A.K.H. & Croucher,R. 2003. Emotional intelligence and perceived stress in dental undergraduates. Journal of Dental Education, 67, 1023–1028.

69. Petrides K. V., & Furnham A. (2000a). Gender differences in measured and self-estimated trait emotional intelligence. Sex Roles, 42, 449–461.

70. Petrides K. V., & Furnham A. (2000b). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 313–320.

71. Petrides K. V., & Furnham A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journalof Personality, 15, 425–448.

72. Petrides K. V., & Furnham A. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence: behavioural validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. European Journal of Personality, 17, 39–75.

73. Porter D.E., Applewhite P.A. (1968). Studies of organizational behavior and management. Scranton: Textbook Press.

74. Reiff H. B., Hatzes N. M., Bramel M. H., & Gibbon T. (2001). The relation of LD and gender with emotional intelligence in college students. Journalof Learning Disabilities, 34, 66–78.

75. Roberts R. D., Zeidner M., & Matthews G. (2001). Does emotional intelligence meet traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data and conclusions. Emotion, 1, 196–231.

76. Roberts W., & Strayer J. (1996). Empathy, emotional expressiveness, and prosocial behavior. Child Development, 67, 449–470.

77. Saklofske D. H., Austin E. J., & Minski P. S. (2003). Factor structure and validity of a trait emotional intelligence measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 707–721.

78. Salovey P. & Mayer J.D. (1990). Emotional Intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185-211.

79. Schutte N. S., Malouff J. M., Hall L. E., Haggerty D. J., Cooper J. T., Golden C. J., & Dornheim L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167–177.

80. Seipp B. (1991). Anxiety and academic performance: a meta-analysis of findings. Anxiety Research, 4, 27–41.

81. Spielberger, C. D. (1966). The effects of anxiety on complex learning and academic achievement. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and behavior (pp. 361–398). New York: Academic Press.

82. Sternberg R.J. (1983). Components of human intelligence. Cognition, 15, 1-48. 83. Sternberg R.J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. 84. Stewart S. M., Lam, T. H., Betson, C. L., Wong, C. M., & Wong, A. M. P. (1999). A prospective

analysis of stress and academic performance in the first two years of medical school. MedicalEducation, 33, 243–250.

85. Thomas M.C. & Draugalis J.R. 2002. Utility of pharmacy college admissions test (PCAT): implications for admissions committees. Am J Pharm Educ, 66, 47–51.

86. Thorndike E.L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harper’s Magazine, 140, 227-235. 87. van der Zee K., Schakel L., & Thijs M. (2002). The relationship of emotional intelligence with academic

intelligence and the big five. European Journalof Personality, 16, 103–125. 88. Tichy N. M., & Devanna M. A. (1986). The transformational leader. New York: Wiley. Tichy, N. M., &

Devanna M. A. (1986). The transformational leader. New York: Wiley. 89. Van der Zee K., Schakel L., & Thijs M. (2002). The relationship of emotional intelligence with academic

intelligence and the big five. European Journalof Personality, 16, 103–125. 90. Walberg H.J., Anderson G.J. (1968). Classroom climate and individual learning. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 59(6), 414-419. 91. Waldman D. A., & Spangler W. D. (1989). Putting together the pieces: A closer look at the

determinants of job performance. Human Performance, 2(1), 29-59. 92. Williamson I., & Cullingford C. (1998). Adolescent alienation: its correlates and consequences.

EducationalStudies,24, 333–343. 93. Young C.A. (1996). Emotional intelligence. Retrieved on February 20, 2011, from

http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/gallery/young/emotion.htm 94. Zeidner M. (1995). Personality trait correlates of intelligence. In D. H. Saklfoske, & M. Zeidner (Eds.),

International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 299–319). New York: Plenum Press

’ personality traits moderate relationship

Documents