Abstract:

The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between sensory learning styles and Emotional Intelligence (EI) in adolescence. Previous research has shown the need to explore ways that promote effective learning and the link with EI skills. A quantitative survey conducted on adolescents (N=97), aged 13 to 19 years, from December 2021 to March 2022 in Athens, Greece (convenience sample). Participants completed a demographic questionnaire, the Sensory Learning Styles Questionnaire (Greek version) (Zenakou, 2013) and the Emotional Intelligence Scale for Adolescents (TEIQue-ASF) (Petrides, Sangareau, Furnham & Frederickson, 2006).
The predominant learning style of the sample was visual (N=48) versus auditory (N=34) and kinesthetic (N=15). Previous studies also reported visual as the dominant type of learning in student populations (Frankel, 2009; Ibrahim & Hussein, 2016; Prashnig, 2004; Riadil & Nur, 2019; Zenakou, 2011). As for the second most frequent type of learning, results of other studies seem to differ, Frankel (2009) found the auditory type as the second most frequent, while the kinesthetic type emerged by Ibrahim & Hussein (2016) and Zenakou (2011).
Participants were found to have an average and a higher level of EI at 46.4% (average) and 53.6% (high). A statistically significant difference was found between the two variables, the visual learning style was found statistically significant (p=0.038) in the average score of EI in relation to the auditory type. An effect of gender on the EI scale was also identified, with boys recording a statistically significant higher average score on the Well-being factor (p=0,031). This result differs from studies in which women were observed to score higher than men on the level of STD (Bar-On, 2000; Mayer et al., 1999; Petrides & Furnham, 2000; Shuttle et al., 1998). Platsidou (2005), who conducted a study in teenage population in Greece, found differences in favor of girls. Several studies agree with the findings of this study, namely that boys can score high or even higher on EI than girls (Ahmad, 2009; Chu, 2002; Khan, 2013).
Similar results are observed between learning types and EI, learning type can influence EI as a dependent variable (Alavinia & Ebrahimpour, 2012; Inglés et al., 2017; Leassa et al., 2017, Roohani, Etesami & Mirzaei, 2020; Vidyakala, 2019). As Leassa and colleagues (2017) identified kinesthetic type scores a higher level of EI, in contrast to this study, which identified the visual type as having this role. The visual type of information processing was found to be the most frequent in students with high EI (Kholid et al., 2016). Similar findings to this study were made by Roohani and colleagues (2020), who identified that students with high EI used more often visual and kinesthetic learning styles, while students with low EI were more often identified as kinesthetic and auditory types. In their study, the high EI group also appeared to be accuracy-oriented and negotiation-oriented for meaning strategies and showed a preference for group learning activities, while the low EI group preferred individual classroom activities and word and visual scanning-oriented learning strategies. Moreover, positive correlations were found between EI and students’ oral communication strategies.

Keywords:

Learning styles, Emotional Intelligence, adolescence.