Emotional Intelligence and its Relationship to Academic Performance Among Saudi EFL Undergraduate Students
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractThe purpose of the present study was to provide a description of the emotional intelligence level of Saudi EFL undergraduate students, as well as to examine the effect of emotional intelligence on success in foreign language learning. A total of 80 Saudi undergraduate students from the English Department at King Khalid University participated in this study. Data was collected by means of Schutte Self Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SSEIT), and by an English achievement test. SSEIT questionnaire data was matched with the students’ academic scores in the English language achievement test, and was analysed using SPSS. The findings indicated that Saudi EFL students scored a high level of emotional intelligence. The most popular intelligence subscales they used were “Utilization of Emotion” followed by “Management of Others Emotion” and “Management of Self Emotion” and finally, “Perception of Emotion”. Another finding indicated that two of the four subscales, “Utilization of Emotion and “Management of Others Emotion” were significantly associated with their English achievement level. The implications of the value of emotional intelligence in fostering academic achievement were considerable for both EFL teachers and academic policy makers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it