Issuu

Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies, Online ISSN 2278-8808, SJIF 2018 = 6.371, www.srjis.com PEER REVIEWED & REFERRED JOURNAL, JULY-AUG, 2019, VOL- 7/52

A STUDY ON SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE OF STUDENT TEACHERS Mrs. Shobha Jadhav Adhyapak Mahavidyalya, Aranyeshwar, Pune-9 Abstract The study was intended to find the social intelligence of college students in Pune, Nashik and Ahmednagar districts of Maharashtra. Random Sampling Technique was used to compose a sample of 469 student teachers. Mean, standard deviation and t value were calculated for the analysis of data. The result revealed that overall status of social intelligence of the selected student teachers was ranged from low to average. Keywords: Student teachers, social intelligence

Scholarly Research Journal's is licensed Based on a work at www.srjis.com 1. Introduction In teaching- learning process everybody is acquainted with the word „Academic intelligence‟. Generally intelligence means to perceive and retain knowledge and apply it to its self or other instances of knowledge. But to become successful in life different types of intelligence is required. One of them is Social intelligence. Social Intelligence is the capacity to effectively negotiate complex social relationships and environment. Social Intelligence is equivalent to interpersonal intelligences. One of the types of intelligence identified in Howard Gardner‟s theory of multiple intelligence and closely related to theory of mind. The original definition by Edward Thorndike in 1920 is „‟the ability to understand and manage men and women, boys and girls to act wisely in human relation.”

More recently popular science writer Daniel Goleman has drawn on social

neuroscience research to propose that social intelligence is made up of social awareness (including empathy, attunement, empathic accuracy and social cognition) and social facility (including synchrony ,self presentation , influence

and concern ). Goleman‟s research

indicates that our social relationships have a direct effect on our physical health and the relationship the deeper the impact. Effect include blood flow , breathing , mood such as fatigue & depression and weakening of the immune system. Thorndike and Goleman contribute in the field of social intelligence. 2.Statement of the problemA study on social intelligence of student teachers. Copyright © 2017, Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies

Mrs. Shobha Jadhav (Pg. 12713-12721)

12714

3.Objective of the study1) To compare the social intelligence of student teachers according to theira) Faculty b) Locale c) Gender 4.Hypothesis of the studyHO1: There is no significant difference in the social intelligence between male and female student teachers. HO2: There is no significant difference in the social intelligence between urban and rural student teachers. HO3: There is no significant difference in the social intelligence between the science and non-science student teachers. 5.Sample of the studyIn this present study 469 students studying the B. Ed, course were taken as sample. The random sampling technique has been used in the selection of sample. The samples were collected from the colleges situated in Pune, Nashik, Ahmednagar district of Maharashtra. 6.Tool usedThe following tool was used in the present investigation. Social Intelligence Scale by Chadha N.K.and Usha Ganeshan (1986) 7.Method of the studyNormative survey method was employed. The tool is administered to the samples of 469 students. The data was collected and subjected to statistical analysis to arrive at a conclusion. 8.Statistical TechniqueThe following statistical techniques have been used in the present study for the analysis of collected data. 1. Mean 2. S.D. 3. „t‟ test 9.Analysis and InterpretationResults of comparison between group (Male & Female) in Level of Social Intelligence

Mrs. Shobha Jadhav (Pg. 12713-12721)

Social Intelligence

Gender

Mean

SIL

Male

124

20.55

±2.5

High

Female

289

20.30

±2.20

High

Male

124

26.02

±3.04

Average

Female

289

27.54

±2.52

Average

Male

124

20.81

±2.75

High

Female

289

21.31

±2.17

High

Male

124

21.39

±2.38

Average

Female

289

21.12

±2.28

Average

Male

124

0.96

±0.77

Low

Female

289

0.87

±0.71

Low

Male

124

4.05

±1.39

Low

Patience

Cooperativeness

Confidence

Sensitivity

Recognition of social environment

Tactfulness Female

289

4.26

±1.18

Low

Male

124

3.60

±1.44

Low

Female

289

3.78

±1.60

Low

Male

124

8.23

±2.42

Low

Female

289

8.65

±2.13

Low

Male

124

105.65

±16.49

Average

Female

289

107.87

±14.38

Average

Sense of humour

Memory

Total

12715

Sig

0.960

p>0.05

4.88

p<0.001

1.80

p>0.05

1.10

p>0.05

1.12

p>0.05

1.5

p>0.05

1.09

p>0.05

1.67

p>0.05

1.30

p>0.05

Results of comparison between rural and urban student teachers in level of

Social

Intelligence Social Intelligence

Gender

Mean

SIL

Urban

274

20.31

±2.33

High

Patience Rural

139

20.46

±2.27

High

Urban

274

27.13

±2.82

Average

Rural

139

26.98

±2.69

Average

Cooperativeness

Sig

0.960

p>0.05

0.52

p>0.05

Mrs. Shobha Jadhav (Pg. 12713-12721)

Urban

274

20.98

±2.35

High

Rural

139

21.31

±2.39

High

Urban

274

21.10

±2.35

Average

Confidence

Sensitivity

Recognition of social environment

Rural

139

21.38

±2.23

Average

Urban

274

0.83

±0.72

Low

Rural

139

1.05

±0.74

Low

Urban

274

4.17

±1.22

Low

Tactfulness

Rural

139

4.28

±1.30

Low

Urban

274

3.71

±1.54

Low

Rural

139

3.76

±1.59

Low

Urban

274

8.51

±2.34

Low

Sense of humour

Memory Rural

139

8.52

±2.00

Low

Urban

274

107.06

±7.97

Average

Rural

139

107.43

±7.95

Average

Total

12716

1.10

p>0.05

1.13

p>0.05

2.82

p<0.05

0.89

p>0.05

0.29

p>0.05

0.03

p>0.05

0.37

p>0.05

Results of comparison between science & Non-science student teachers in Level of Social Intelligence Social Intelligence

Gender

Mean

SIL

Science

148

20.65

±2.21

High

Patience Nonscience Science

265

20.32

±2.47

High

148

27.17

±3.02

Average

Nonscience Science

265

26.89

±2.58

Average

148

21.03

±2.39

High

Cooperativeness

Confidence Nonscience Science

265

21.12

±2.59

High

148

21.22

±2.42

Average

Nonscience Science

265

21.35

±2.20

Average

148

0.97

±0.76

Low

Sensitivity

Recognition of social environment

Nonscience

265

0.91

±0.74

Low

Sig

1.82

p>0.05

0.45

p>0.05

0.85

p>0.05

0.12

p>0.05

1.53

p>0.05

Mrs. Shobha Jadhav (Pg. 12713-12721)

Science

148

4.14

±1.31

Low

Nonscience Science

265

4.13

±1.27

Low

148

3.79

±1.65

Low

Tactfulness

Sense of humour Nonscience Science

265

3.70

±1.39

Low

148

8.55

±2.46

Low

Nonscience Science

265

8.41

±2.39

Low

148

107.06

±7.97

Average

Memory

Total Nonscience

265

107.55

±8.30

12717

0.77

p>0.05

0.55

p>0.05

0.17

p>0.05

0.65

p>0.05

Average

10.Major FindingsComparison of “Social intelligence” between male and female student teachers is summarized below: 

Although male student teachers scored higher level of “patience” than the females, but real difference was not significant statistically [alpha level t=(203.05) = 0.96, p>0.05].



Male student teachers scored lower level of “cooperativeness” than the females statistically [alpha level t (198.6) = 4.88, p<0.001].



The level of “confidence” in male student teachers was higher than the females; however inferential statistics indicates that such difference was not significant statistically [alpha level t (191.05) = 1.80, p>0.05].



The result indicates that although male student teachers scored higher level of “sensitivity” than the females, but real difference was not significant statistically [alpha level t (411) = 1.10, p>0.05].



Although male student teachers scored higher level of “recognition of social environment” than the females, but real difference was not significant statistically [alpha level t (411) = 1.12, p>0.05].

Mrs. Shobha Jadhav (Pg. 12713-12721)



12718

The level of “tactfulness” in male and female student teachers was high however real difference was not significant statistically [alpha level t (411) = 1.58, p>0.05].



The level of “sense of humour” in male and female student teachers was high, but real difference was not significant statistically [alpha level t (411) = 1.09, p>0.05].



Both the male and female student teachers scored low in “memory” and no statistically significant difference was evident in them [alpha level t (208) = 1.67, p>0.05].



The overall level of “social intelligence” in male and female student teachers was average and the real difference was not significant statistically [alpha level t (206) = 4.88, p>0.05)]. The result summarized above indicates that both the male and female student teachers

possessed a similar status of “social intelligence”; however, the status was ranged from low to average level.

II) Findings on Strata-wise “Social intelligence” in Survey

Comparison of “Social intelligence” between Urban & Rural student teachers is summarized below: 

Both the urban and rural student teachers possessed an average level of “patience” and their real difference was not significant statistically [alpha level t (411) = 0.55, p>0.05].



The level of “cooperativeness” in urban and rural student teachers was average and similar, and no significant difference was evident between them [alpha level t (411) = 0.52, p>0.05].



The “confidence” level of both the urban and rural student teachers was average and possess a similar trend [alpha level t (411) = 1.10, p>0.05].

Mrs. Shobha Jadhav (Pg. 12713-12721)



12719

The level of “sensitivity” in both the urban and rural student teachers was average and there was no statistically significant difference [alpha level t (411) = 1.13, p>0.05].



The level of “recognition of social environment” in both the urban and rural student teachers was low but such level of rural student teachers was higher than the urban [alpha level t (411) = 2.87, p<0.05].



The “tactfulness” ability of both the urban and rural student teachers was low and no significant difference was seen statistically [alpha level t (411) = 0.89, p>0.05].



The status of “sense of humour” in both the urban and rural student teachers was low and their real difference was not significant statistically [alpha level t (411) = 0.29, p>0.05].



Although urban student teachers scored higher level of “memory” than the rural, but real difference was not significant statistically [alpha level t (411) = 0.03, p>0.05)].



Average status of “social intelligence” was evident among the urban and rural student teachers and no statistically significant difference was seen between them [alpha level t (411) = 0.45, p>0.05].

The result summarized above indicates that both the urban and rural student teachers possessed a similar status of “social intelligence”; however, the status was ranged from low to average level. III) Findings on Subject-wise “Social intelligence” in Survey

Comparison of “Social intelligence” between the subject-wise (science & non-science) student teachers is summarized below:

Mrs. Shobha Jadhav (Pg. 12713-12721)



12720

The level of “patience” in both science and non-science student teachers was although high, but there was no statistically significance between them [alpha level t (411) = 1.82, p>0.05].



The “cooperativeness” ability of both the science and non-science student teachers possessed average status; however, the difference was statistically nonsignificant [alpha level t (271) = 0.45, p>0.05].



The level of “confidence” among science and non-science student teachers was found average and their difference was not significant statistically [alpha level t (411) = 0.85, p>0.05].



Although the “sensitivity” level of both science and non-science student teachers possessed average status, however, their difference was not significant statistically [alpha level t (411) = 0.12, p>0.05].



The level of “recognition of social environment” of the science student teachers was low, whereas higher status was evident among the non-science students [alpha level t (411) = 1.53, p<0.05].



Low status of “tactfulness” was evident among both the science and non-science student teachers, however, their difference was not significant statistically [alpha level t (411) = 0.77, p>0.05].



The status of “sense of humour” in both the science and non-science student teachers was low, and there was no statistically significant differences in this ability [alpha level t (411) = 0.55, p>0.05)].



The “memory” status of both the science and non-science student teachers was found low and likely there was no statistically significant difference in “memory” between them [alpha level t (265) = 0.17, p>0.05].

Mrs. Shobha Jadhav (Pg. 12713-12721)



12721

The overall result on “social intelligence” revealed that both science and non-

science student teachers had average status and no significant difference was evident between them [alpha level t (411) = 0.65, p>0.05]. Thus, result of survey study indicates that overall status of social intelligence of the selected student teachers was ranged from low to average. 11. ConclusionBased on the results, this investigation draws following conclusion: Overall status of social intelligence among the student teachers studying in Savitribai Phule Pune University resides in the range of low to average which needs to be improved. Moreover, social intelligence does not differ irrespective of sex (males and females), strata (urban and rural) and subjects (science and non-science). Thus, there is a requisite of specific need-based innovative common programme (SIP i.e., Social Intelligence Programme) to improve overall social intelligence level among the student teachers. 12. SuggestionSince inculcation of social intelligence among the student teachers is essential, every Teacher Training Institutions is required to assess the social intelligence status regularly. However, the teacher training institutions affiliated Savitribai Phule Pune University should incorporate this newly developed SIP in the syllabi so that student teachers can enhance their ability in social intelligence. Thus, the large population of student teachers is benefitted. 13. ReferencesBest, J.W.& Kahn JV, (2006), Research in Education New Delhi, Prentice Hall at India Gay L.R., Airasian peter (1996) Educational Research New Delhi, Prentice Hall of India Mangal S.K (2008), statistics in psychology & Education New Delhi, Prentice Hall of India Misra K.S.(2007), Emotional Intelligence: Concept, Measurement and Research Isk me path net/km education www.ejkm.com/issue/dounloud www.isk me org www.ktu.IT/IL/mokslas/zurnlai/inreka www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/20 2074931, www.jhuccp.org/what wdo/projects. www.emeralsinsight.com/doi/abs/10.11.08/095135