Los incentivos en proyectos conservacionistas y agroforestales

Historically most of the research and literature on academic success/achievement has focused on cognitive factors and aptitudes (Sparkman, Maulding, & Roberts, 2012). Despite these efforts much of the variance in academic success remains unaccounted for, which pointed to other factors that needed to be investigated as possible predictors. There has been a growing amount of research that supports the link between EI and academic success. These studies have normally revolved around two major points of interest. Firstly the relationship between EI and academic achievement, and secondly how EI relates to adjustment (Parker, Saklofske, Wood, & Collin, 2009)

In a study conducted by Eastabrook, Duncan and Eldridge (2005) EI was demonstrated to predict school performance. The authors demonstrated that the Emotional Quotient Inventory’s Youth Version (EQ: YV) (Bar-On & Parker, 2000) scales could accurately discriminate between above average and below average students. They emphasised that EI is an important predictor of academic success even in children as young as 7-12 years. Petrides, Sangareau, Furnham and Frederickson (2006) investigated the role of EI in various pro-social and anti-social behaviours. Their findings revealed that children with higher EI were more likely regarded as having leadership abilities and being co-operative. Children lower on EI was described by their teachers as disruptive, aggressive and dependent. The authors suggested that EI was important for developing friendships during childhood and that individuals who experienced difficulties with peers could struggle in other adjustment areas later in life. Qualter, Whiteley, Hutchinson and Pope (2007) explored the role of EI in adjustment from primary to secondary schools. Their findings revealed that children with higher EI were better able to cope with the transition, scored higher academic marks and were not regarded by teachers as a concern. An interesting study by Petrides, Frederickson and Furnham (2004) revealed that EI moderates the effects of IQ. Therefore EI played a significant role in predicting academic performance for individuals with low IQ. However as IQ scores increased the impact of EI weakened. This emphasises the importance of EI development especially in individuals with lower cognitive abilities. More recent studies have also confirmed that EI can predict academic success at a secondary school level (e.g. Nwadinigwe & Azuka-Obieke, 2012).

In the post-secondary (i.e. universities or colleges) educational environment EI seems to become even more important as Parker et al. (2004) explain that the transition from school to university is a particularly stressful time in a person’s life. Individuals need to build new relationships, modify existing ones, acquire new study habits, learn to function independently and deal with a vast amount of stressors such as possibly being a member of the ethnical minority or having to deal with a sudden increase in responsibility. Similarly Rode et al., (2007) argued that EI might play an important role in university success, as academic pressures are much more diverse and stress inducing. Students face multiple assignments, which they still have to balance with other non-academic pursuits. Other authors have also argued that as one grows older, life skills and “street smarts” (such as people skills and social experience) start to play a much more important role in life success than mere cognitive abilities (Stein & Book, 2011). Furthermore research has shown that individuals often withdraw from university for reasons unrelated to their cognitive ability (Pancer et al., 2000; Parker et al., 2004).

Some empirical findings suggest that EI might play an important role in attaining success in tertiary education. Parker et al. (2004) conducted a study on 372 first-year students and found that academic success was associated with various dimensions of EI. Furthermore the EQ-i:S (Bar-On, 2002) was a better predictor of university GPA than school GPA, confirming the increasing role of EI in a post-secondary environment. Similar results were found by Parker et al. (2005) who demonstrated that academically successful students had higher overall EI scores than those who were academically unsuccessful. Parker et al. (2006) also investigated student retention and found that students who persisted in their studies scored significantly higher on most of the EI dimensions (measured with the EQ-i:S) compared to those students who withdrew from their studies. Similarly, Sparkman et al. (2012) also demonstrated that EI played a significant role in a student’s ability to persist and graduate within the necessary time period. In addition, Keefer et al. (2012) also demonstrated that individuals with lower levels of EI had a particular weakness with interpersonal relationships and stress management that put them at risk for terminating their studies before the degree was completed. Some authors have even gone as far as to claim that EI can uniquely explain individual cognitive- based performance over and above general intelligence (Thi Lam & Kirby, 2002), while others have argued that the effects might be more indirect (Rode et al., 2007).

Despite these positive results there have been several studies that failed to demonstrate any significant relationship between EI and academic performance. O'Connor and Little (2003)

assessed 90 students on both the EQ-i and MSCEIT and compared their EI ratings with the student’s GPA. Results revealed that only the EQ-i correlated with GPA and that the MSCEIT failed to demonstrate any significant relationships. These authors concluded that EI is therefore not a good predictor of academic success due to its low patterns of correlation. Newsome et al. (2000) also found no correlation between EI and academic success. In their research 180 students between the ages of 17 and 56, completed the EQ-i as a measure of EI while their GPA was used as a measure of academic success. Other studies have focused on the limited predictive ability of EI, and have argued that IQ remains the dominant predictor of academic performance (Barchard, 2003; Lofti, Lofti, & Vaziri, 2012).

Parker et al. (2004) points out that these contradictory results might be due to some methodological issues. In both the studies of O'Connor and Little (2003), and Newsome et al. (2000) full time students were combined with part time students. These students face different challenges and stressors that might influence their academic achievement in various ways. Furthermore, first-year students were combined with upper-year students, resulting in large age differences amongst the samples. Since EI increases with age (Roberts et al., 2001), predictive validity would severely be reduced if various age groups are clustered together. It should also be noted that most successful studies have used Bar-On’s EQ-i or some variation thereof. Given the argument raised by McCrae (2000) as cited in Gardner (2005) that the EQ-i was constructed using personality variables relating to life success, such correlations with academic achievement can be expected. The question of whether other measures of EI, which are defined much more narrowly, such as the SUEIT (which focuses exclusively on emotions), can replicate these results still needs to be investigated4.

The question should also be asked whether mere correlations between EI and academic achievement serve as an adequate representation of the complex interaction between these two constructs. This might be an oversimplification of reality. It was therefore the aim of this study to investigate the relationship between EI and variables that have previously been associated with academic achievement such as academic self-efficacy, academic self- leadership, affective states and stress. Therefore by uncovering the interaction between EI and outcome variables related to academic achievement, one might understand how EI can impact academic achievement.

4 _{Due to the timing of the development programme implemented by this research and the difficulty in comparing}

different subject’s GPA, as a measure of academic achievement, it was not possible to include academic achievement in this study.

A question that comes to mind is that if EI plays such a prominent role in academic success, should it not be taken into account when considering candidates for university acceptance? Furthermore, is it not important that we start investigating the development thereof, to provide individuals the necessary capacity to reach their full academic potential? If the development of EI could form part of the foundation of universities’ curriculum, then this should hold some significant advantage for students. For example, universities often provide compulsory courses to help students stay up to date with the latest computer literacy as a basic building block for their futures. EI might be such a crucial building block for individuals who need to face new life challenges, build new relationships and develop a well- established self-identity, while still achieving academic success. In this study it is argued that if the necessary empirical evidence can be provided for the utility of an EI development programme in a university context, it could be the first step towards sensitising academic institutions regarding the need for the development of EI as a basic non-cognitive capacity to help facilitate academic and life success in first-year students.