Abstract

The study analyzed the factors affecting social-emotional competence (SEC) at the secondary level. A stratified random sampling technique was used. 382 students were taken as a sample after using desired sample size table. Two research tools were used, the Factors affecting social, emotional competence questionnaire and the Social-Emotional Competence Questionnaire (SECQ). Data were analyzed by using mean, percentage and standard deviation. Results indicated that friends’ response, classroom environment and home environment affects SEC the most as compared to media interaction. It was concluded that self-consciousness, social consciousness and the factor decisiveness were possessed by the students the most. And the factor self-regulation was possessed by the students the least. The skills in which the students were weak included calming down, dealing with wrong things and skill of staying positive during crises.

Key Words

Social-Emotional Competence, Secondary Level

Introduction

Learning at the secondary school level usually is the result of students and teachers interaction and their day to day communication regarding the syllabus and scheme of studies. Students’ ability to understand the attitude of their teachers and peers and act accordingly is important for their academic achievement and SEC development (Taylor & Schellinger, 2011).

SEC is the capability to recognize emotions and behavior patterns of the family members, peers, teachers, and other society members to understand them and act accordingly in order to achieve the desired goals of education, namely “social adjustment” (Seal, Naumann, Scott & Royce-Davis, 2011). It also deals with the recognition of one’s own behavior patterns, ideas, beliefs, values and, in other words, one’s own self and to make responsible decisions for one’s own self (DeLay. et al., 2016).

The term social, emotional competence is derived from social competence and emotional competence. Social competence is the ability to have relations with one another to survive in society. The relations based on empathy, cooperation, respect of others helps the individual to get his desired results while living in the gathering of mixed abilities of the people, having different emotions, feelings, behavior and ideology (Larson, Whitton, Hauser, & Allen, 2007). The person who has the skill of social competence usually have a higher level of life satisfaction and a higher level of academic achievement rather than those persons who do not have the skill of social competence (Smart & Sanson,2003). Social competence is the source of removing anxiety, depression and stress due to the healthy relationship with the members of the society.  It is a skill of expressing the most suitable and acceptable verbal and non-verbal behavior in society (Oberst, Gallifa, Farriols & Villaregut, 2009). Social competence is a way to have a positive attitude in all types of relationships, i.e., kinship relationship, formalized relationship and non formalized relationship. Kinship relationship refers to genetical relations and marriage relations, formalized relationship refers to a counsellor, teacher and boss, and non formalized relationship refers to friends, family members and cousins (Murakami, Murray, Sims & Chedzey, 2009). Emotional competence is the ability to recognize, understand other’s emotions and express one’s own emotions accordingly (Ciarrochi & Scott, 2006). It is a skill based on emotional intelligence and a process of managing the life routine of a person wisely with having control over his emotions and his dealing with other people and solving his problems. Social competence and emotional competence are interrelated. Social competence provides the basis for emotional competence, and emotional competence is necessary for social competence. One who has the first competence necessarily has the second one (Abraham, 2014).

The objective of the SEC is to produce such educated manpower that not only possesses academic achievement, but they also have a sense of civic values. They may know well how to perform their social roles, how to deal with social problems and how to handle the unethical and problematic behaviors of others (Virtual lab school, 2019). 

Teachers are in a position to directly affect the personality of the students in order to achieve the objectives of the schools related to SEC. They have the authority to transmit not only the knowledge or information to the students, yet they have the responsibility of their character building by enabling them to identify and adopt the most suitable patterns of behaviors that are mostly accepted by the society through practising these patterns in the classroom (Jones, Barnes, Bailey & Doolittle, 2017).

Schools are not only the institutions of providing information to the learners, but the main purpose of the schools is to enable the learners to take their own responsibility of learning, i.e., to develop the critical thinking skill, to develop the social adjustment skill and to develop problem-solving skill among them so that they might be able to cope with all perplexing situation of their life when they are outside the school or the educational institution, and they might be able to perform their social and personal duties as well (Patrick, Ryan & Kaplan, 2007). As a result of this social association and social preparation, the term SEC has evolved over the last two decades (Weissberg, Durlak, Domitrovich, & Gullotta, 2015).

In Pakistan, the teaching process and assessment system focus on lower levels of learning objectives, i.e., knowledge and comprehension. Most of the attention is given to the achievement of the cognitive domain of educational objectives at the secondary level. Whereas affective domain is concerned, it is not focused (Chandio & Iqbal, 2016; Iftikhar, Jafri & Arian, 2012; Malik & Zaheer,2012). SEC is directly related to the affective domain of educational objectives (Brett, Smith & Huitt, 2003). In the affective domain, students learn how to receive the piece of information from others, how to act or respond accordingly, how to value the piece of information get from others, how to organize and even characterize it (Kirk, 2020). Keeping in view the whole scenario, the researcher thought it appropriate to conduct the study to analyze factors affecting SEC at the secondary level. Therefore following were the research objectives 

1. To identify the factors affecting the social-emotional competence of secondary school students.

2. To examine the social-emotional competence of secondary school students.

Literature Review

SEC is an umbrella term, including in itself various skills like self-reliance, self-management, social sensitivity, task orientation, openness to experience and positive reactions to challenges (Stewart & Chisholm, 2012). There are five components of SEC, namely

• Self-consciousness 

• Self-regulation

• Social consciousness

• Relationship building

• Decisiveness (Zhou & Ee, 2012).




Self-Awareness

It leads towards self-control, self-management, self-regulation and self-help skills. It is a door that opens the way of self-concept and self-reliance that leads toward emotional insight. It is a process whereby one understands himself, his emotions, felling and attitude with others in the light of past experiences and the relations with others (Raver, 2004). One understands himself deeper how to communicate with others and in what tone to communicate with others and which type of relationship to be held with others, i.e., with peers, teachers, administration and classmates in the educational institution, with a colleague, boss subordinates in the professional life, with friends, parents, suppose and children in the personal life (Singh, 2014). The self-awareness provided to the child at an early stage mater a lot for him, and on the basis of this self-awareness, he develops his attitude and behavior pattern that affects his whole life. And unconsciously the person uses that pattern of behavior throughout his life without thinking about the end result or consequences of that pattern of behavior (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1997).




Self-Regulation

It is an umbrella term having organizing, self controlling, self-directing, communicating and problem-solving skills in itself. Organizing is the activity of sequencing the elements of necessary work being done by a person. To set the priority list for the work and to sequence the essential steps of the work in the personal life of anyone is included in self-organization Marsh and Carven (2002). Self-controlling is the process of regulating one’s own desires, priorities and emotions that become a hurdle in the way of getting success and achievement of goals. Self-directing is the process to monitor one’ own progress, suggesting the path for one’s own self and recognizing the opportunities for one’s own self (Raver, 2004). Problem-solving skill includes identifying the problem, locating the alternate resources for the solution of the problem, selecting the best one option in the resources available, applying the chosen one solution of the problem and finally taking the follow up the mechanism of the solution of the problem to evaluate either it is a most suitable solution or the least suitable solution of the problem (Mill & Kim, 2017).




Social Consciousness

It is a process of perceiving and comprehending the information of others and act accordingly. It is the process of sharing ideas, feelings and information to others in the most suitable and acceptable manner in society (Denham, 2006).




Relationship Building

It is the ability to have positive connections with others (Frisby & Martin, 2010). To build healthy relationship students needs to have communication with others. Here it means they have the ability to understand each other, to talk with each other, genuinely listen to each other, not to criticize rudely, to stay with the topic, to admit their own mistakes and have the courage to say sorry when they are wrong and not to consume things but have a look on the reality (Beaty-O’Ferrall, Green & Hanna, 2010). 




Decisiveness

Reasonable decision making skill involves goals and objectives, insight of the matter and SWOT (strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis. Students need to develop the skill of decision making in order to have social adjustment and judgment about their career and achievement. They also need to understand the importance of their decision and the importance of the activities based on their decision. They also need to realize the impact of their decision on themselves and on other people (Joseph & Strain, 2013). 

Research Methodology

Research Design

The study is descriptive by nature. It involves defining the problem, formulating a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, analyzing the relationship between variables and developing generalizations.

 

Population and Sampling

All the students of 10^th grade of Punjab, Pakistan, were the population of the study. However, the target population comprised of secondary school students from three districts of Punjab having the highest literacy rate, intermediate literacy rate and lowest literacy rate. And these are Rawalpindi, Multan and Rajanpur.

In the study, a stratified random sampling technique is used because there were three districts having different literacy rates. Each district is considered as a stratum. Each selected school in the selected district was divided into two strata, i.e. government-funded schools and non-public schools. Every stratum was additionally isolated into two parts, i.e. boys schools and girls schools. Thus, the test was included 12 schools (4 schools from each district). To meet the required sample size, 32 students were taken from each school by utilizing a simple random sampling procedure. In this way, the aggregate no. of the students 384 was achieved for having their opinion on the questionnaire.

 

Table 1.  Required Sample Size Table

>

Categories      width="105"> Population size width="357"> Sample size (confidence interval 95% & margin of error 5%)

Students                width="105"> 51096 width="357"> 382

(Raosoft, 2019).

 

Development of Research Tool

Two types of tools were developed.

·         Factors affecting social-emotional competence questionnaire

·         Social-Emotional Competence Questionnaire (SECQ)

 

Factors Affecting Social Emotional Competence Questionnaire

A questionnaire on factors affecting SEC was developed by the researcher based on five points Likert scale after having a deep and comprehensive study of related literature. Seven factors were developed by the researcher in the questionnaire, i.e., teachers’ responses, parents’ responses, classmates’ responses, friends’ responses, classroom environment, home environment and media interaction.

 

Social-Emotional Competence Questionnaire (SECQ)

A questionnaire on the Possession of SEC was developed by the researcher based on five points Likert scale after having a deep and comprehensive study of related literature. Five factors were developed by the researcher in the questionnaire, i.e., self-consciousness, social consciousness, self-regulation, relationship building and decisiveness.

 

Pilot Study

Before administering the instrument in the actual field, a pilot study was conducted. Questionnaires were administered on the sample of 40 students in 2 schools in Multan city. The flaws were identified, and changes were made accordingly to finalize the tool.

 

Validity and Reliability of the Instrument

Reliability was calculated and found to be 0.85, which indicates high reliability. The tool was got validated by three experts’ constructive opinion

 

Statistical Analysis

Data was analyzed mean performance-wise, percentage-wise and standard deviation were calculated for the study.

Results

To achieve the first objective, identification of the factors affecting SEC of secondary school students, the result of the study is as follows

 

 

Table 2.  Students’ Attitude Regarding Teachers’ Responses

> > > > > > >

No. width="118"> Statement width="65"> Options width="44"> SA width="52"> A width="37"> U width="51"> DA width="51"> SDA width="40"> M width="41"> SD

TR1 width="118"> Positive Attitude of Teacher width="65"> F align="center">% width="44"> 189 align="center">49% width="52"> 49 align="center">12.7% width="37"> 17 align="center">4% width="51"> 68 align="center">17.7% width="51"> 61 align="center">15.8% width="40"> 3.61 width="41"> 1.59

TR2 width="118"> Negative Attitude of Teacher width="65"> F align="center">% width="44"> 66 align="center">17% width="52"> 93 align="center">24% width="37"> 0 align="center">0% width="51"> 139 align="center">36% width="51"> 86 align="center">22% width="40"> 2.8 width="41"> 1.46

TR3 width="118"> Modeling SEC width="65"> F align="center">% width="44"> 203 align="center">53% width="52"> 55 align="center">14% width="37"> 11 align="center">3% width="51"> 61 align="center">16% width="51"> 54 align="center">14% width="40"> 3.8 width="41"> 1.54

TR4 width="118"> Encouragement of students width="65"> F align="center">% width="44"> 139 align="center">36% width="52"> 93 align="center">24% width="37"> 0 align="center">% width="51"> 66 align="center">17% width="51"> 86 align="center">22% width="40"> 3.3 width="41"> 1.62

TR5 width="118"> Public dealing width="65"> F align="center">% width="44"> 197 align="center">51% width="52"> 66 align="center">17% width="37"> 0 align="center">0% width="51"> 64 align="center">16% width="51"> 57 align="center">15% width="40"> 3.7 width="41"> 1.56

TR6 width="118"> Completion of syllabus width="65"> F align="center">% width="44"> 70 align="center">18% width="52"> 40 align="center">10% width="37"> 26 align="center">7% width="51"> 185 align="center">48% width="51"> 63 align="center">16% width="40"> 2.6 width="41"> 1.36

width="118"> Total width="65"> F width="44"> 864 width="52"> 396 width="37"> 54 width="51"> 583 width="51"> 407 width="40"> 3.3 width="41"> 1.5

 

The table indicates that the factor of teachers’ responses in the classroom affects the development of SEC. The teachers’ positive attitude with students in the classroom, their modelling of SEC in the classroom, their behavior of encouragement of the students in the classroom to deal with their daily life problems and the skill they develop in the students to deal with others or to respect others affect the development of SEC the most. And their negative attitude, their threatening behavior or their shouting behavior in the classroom least affects the development of SEC.

 

Table 3. Students’ Attitude Regarding Parents’ Responses

> > > > > >

S. No width="114"> Statement width="58"> Options width="46"> SA width="50"> A width="40"> U width="48"> DA width="48"> SDA width="42"> M width="42"> SD

PR1 width="114"> Parent-children interaction width="58"> F align="center">% width="46"> 139 align="center">36% width="50"> 66 align="center">17% width="40"> 0 align="center">0% width="48"> 93 align="center">24% width="48"> 86 align="center">22% width="42"> 3.2 width="42"> 1.64

PR2 width="114"> The angry mood of parents width="58"> F align="center">% width="46"> 66 align="center">17% width="50"> 93 align="center">24% width="40"> 15 align="center">4% width="48"> 139 align="center">36% width="48"> 71 align="center">18% width="42"> 2.8 width="42"> 1.41

PR3 width="114"> Happy mood of parents width="58"> F align="center">% width="46"> 151 align="center">39% width="50"> 93 align="center">24% width="40"> 9 align="center">2% width="48"> 60 align="center">16% width="48"> 71 align="center">18% width="42"> 3.35 width="42"> 1.56

PR4 width="114"> Modeling to stay calm width="58"> F align="center">% width="46"> 59 align="center">15% width="50"> 229 align="center">60% width="40"> 3 align="center">1% width="48"> 50 align="center">13% width="48"> 43 align="center">11% width="42"> 3.5 width="42"> 1.21

PR5 width="114"> Hesitation in sharing feelings width="58"> F align="center">% width="46"> 66 align="center">17% width="50"> 197 align="center">51% width="40"> 0 align="center">0% width="48"> 64 align="center">16% width="48"> 57 align="center">15% width="42"> 3.4 width="42"> 1.34

width="114"> Total width="58"> F width="46"> 481 width="50"> 678 width="40"> 27 width="48"> 406 width="48"> 328 width="42"> 3.25 width="42"> 1.4

 

The table indicates that parents children interaction, provision of opportunities to children to discuss their problems and issues of daily life, the happy mood of the parents (their encouraging attitude) and their skill to stay calm in different stressful situations develop SEC among students. And their shouting attitude, their insulting attitude is less effective.

 

Table 4. Students’ Attitude Regarding Classmates’ Responses

> > > > > >

S. No width="120"> Statement width="66"> Options width="42"> SA width="48"> A width="42"> U width="48"> DA width="48"> SDA width="48"> M width="34"> SD

CR1 width="120"> Criticism from classmates width="66"> F align="center">% width="42"> 50 align="center">13% width="48"> 101 align="center">26% width="42"> 18 align="center">5% width="48"> 153 align="center">40% width="48"> 62 align="center">14% width="48"> 2.8 width="34"> 1.33

CR2 width="120"> Sharing attitude of classmates width="66"> F align="center">% width="42"> 185 align="center">48% width="48"> 40 align="center">10% width="42"> 26 align="center">7% width="48"> 70 align="center">18% width="48"> 63 align="center">16% width="48"> 3.5 width="34"> 1.6

CR3 width="120"> Helping attitude of classmates width="66"> F align="center">% width="42"> 203 align="center">53% width="48"> 55 align="center">14% width="42"> 11 align="center">3% width="48"> 61 align="center">16% width="48"> 54 align="center">14% width="48"> 3.8 width="34"> 1.54

CR4 width="120"> Hesitation in asking the question width="66"> F align="center">% width="42"> 66 align="center">17% width="48"> 197 align="center">51% width="42"> 0 align="center">0% width="48"> 64 align="center">16% width="48"> 57 align="center">15% width="48"> 3.4 width="34"> 1.34

CR5 width="120"> Consideration of classmate’s view width="66"> F align="center">% width="42"> 151 align="center">39% width="48"> 69 align="center">18% width="42"> 3 align="center">1% width="48"> 90 align="center">24% width="48"> 71 align="center">18% width="48"> 3.4 width="34"> 1.61

width="120"> Total width="66"> F width="42"> 655 width="48"> 462 width="42"> 58 width="48"> 438 width="48"> 307 width="48"> 3.4 width="34"> 1.5

 

The table indicates the total mean of all the items 3.4 and the standard deviation 1.5, which shows that almost overall, the factor of classmates’ response affect SEC of students.

 

Table 5. Students’ Attitude Regarding Friends’ Responses

> > > > > >

S. No width="116"> Statement width="58"> Options width="47"> SA width="50"> A width="41"> U width="47"> DA width="48"> SDA width="41"> M width="43"> SD

FR1 width="116"> The apologetic attitude of friends width="58"> F align="center">% width="47"> 221 align="center">57% width="50"> 61 align="center">16% width="41"> 5 align="center">1% width="47"> 52 align="center">14% width="48"> 45 align="center">12% width="41"> 3.9 width="43"> 1.47

FR2 width="116"> Reading facial expressions width="58"> F align="center">% width="47"> 63 align="center">16% width="50"> 185 align="center">48% width="41"> 0 align="center">0% width="47"> 40 align="center">10% width="48"> 96 align="center">25% width="41"> 3.2 width="43"> 1.48

FR3 width="116"> Tolerance of friends’ mistake width="58"> F align="center">% width="47"> 215 align="center">56% width="50"> 58 align="center">15% width="41"> 8 align="center">2% width="47"> 52 align="center">13% width="48"> 51 align="center">13% width="41"> 3.9 width="43"> 1.51

FR4 width="116"> Quarrel with friends width="58"> F align="center">% width="47"> 69 align="center">18% width="50"> 139 align="center">36% width="41"> 5 align="center">1% width="47"> 81 align="center">21% width="48"> 90 align="center">23% width="41"> 3.0 width="43"> 1.49

FR5 width="116"> The caring attitude of friends width="58"> F align="center">% width="47"> 229 align="center">60% width="50"> 59 align="center">15% width="41"> 3 align="center">1% width="47"> 50 align="center">13% width="48"> 43 align="center">11% width="41"> 4.0 width="43"> 1.46

width="116"> Total width="58"> F width="47"> 797 width="50"> 502 width="41"> 21 width="47"> 275 width="48"> 325 width="41"> 3.6 width="43"> 1.5

 

The table indicates the total mean of the items of factor “friends’ response” 3.6 (greater than 3.00) and the standard deviation 1.5 that shows the high level of acceptance of the statements.

 

Table 6. Students’ Attitude Regarding Classroom Environment

> > > > > >

S. No width="120"> Statement width="60"> Options width="48"> SA width="48"> A width="42"> U width="48"> DA width="48"> SDA width="42"> M width="40"> SD

CE1 width="120"> Friendship with teachers width="60"> F align="center">% width="48"> 203 align="center">53% width="48"> 55 align="center">14% width="42"> 11 align="center">3% width="48"> 61 align="center">16% width="48"> 54 align="center">14% width="42"> 3.8 width="40"> 1.54

CE2 width="120"> Task centered environment of the classroom width="60"> F align="center">% width="48"> 66 align="center">17% width="48"> 197 align="center">51% width="42"> 0 align="center">0% width="48"> 64 align="center">16% width="48"> 57 align="center">15% width="42"> 3.4 width="40"> 1.34

CE3 width="120"> Punishment of students width="60"> F align="center">% width="48"> 232 align="center">60% width="48"> 56 align="center">15% width="42"> 3 align="center">1% width="48"> 51 align="center">13% width="48"> 42 align="center">11% width="42"> 4.0 width="40"> 1.45

CE4 width="120"> Feedback provision width="60"> F align="center">% width="48"> 214 align="center">56% width="48"> 59 align="center">15% width="42"> 8 align="center">2% width="48"> 52 align="center">13% width="48"> 51 align="center">13% width="42"> 3.9 width="40"> 1.51

CE5 width="120"> Consideration of the opinion of students width="60"> F align="center">% width="48"> 63 align="center">16% width="48"> 185 align="center">48% width="42"> 0 align="center">0% width="48"> 40 align="center">10% width="48"> 96 align="center">25% width="42"> 3.2 width="40"> 1.48

width="120"> Total width="60"> F width="48"> 778 width="48"> 552 width="42"> 22 width="48"> 268 width="48"> 300 width="42"> 3.6 width="40"> 1.4

 

The table indicates the mean score of total items of the factor classroom environment 3.6 (greater than 3.00) and the standard deviation of 1.4, which shows that the factor “classroom environment” affect the development of SEC.

 

Table 7. Students’ Attitude Regarding Home Environment

> > > > > > >

S. No width="120"> Statement width="60"> Options width="48"> SA width="48"> A width="42"> U width="48"> DA width="48"> SDA width="42"> M width="40"> SD

HE1 width="120"> Kindness to the children width="60"> F align="center">% width="48"> 233 align="center">61% width="48"> 55 align="center">14% width="42"> 3 align="center">1% width="48"> 50 align="center">13% width="48"> 43 align="center">11% width="42"> 4.0 width="40"> 1.46

HE2 width="120"> Nervousness in a new situation width="60"> F align="center">% width="48"> 218 align="center">57% width="48"> 41 align="center">11% width="42"> 9 align="center">2% width="48"> 52 align="center">13% width="48"> 64 align="center">17% width="42"> 3.7 width="40"> 1.6

HE3 width="120"> Act of being frightened from parents width="60"> F align="center">% width="48"> 152 align="center">39% width="48"> 92 align="center">24% width="42"> 9 align="center">2% width="48"> 61 align="center">16% width="48"> 70 align="center">18% width="42"> 3.3 width="40"> 1.5

HE4 width="120"> Act of fighting width="60"> F align="center">% width="48"> 217 align="center">57% width="48"> 42 align="center">11% width="42"> 9 align="center">2% width="48"> 51 align="center">13% width="48"> 65 align="center">17% width="42"> 3.7 width="40"> 1.6

HE5 width="120"> Act of thinking before doing width="60"> F align="center">% width="48"> 66 align="center">17% width="48"> 197 align="center">51% width="42"> 0 align="center">0% width="48"> 64 align="center">16% width="48"> 57 align="center">15% width="42"> 3.4 width="40"> 1.34

HE6 width="120"> Socioeconomic status of family width="60"> F align="center">% width="48"> 188 align="center">50% width="48"> 50 align="center">13% width="42"> 17 align="center">4% width="48"> 67 align="center">18% width="48"> 62 align="center">16% width="42"> 3.6 width="40"> 1.59

width="120"> Total width="60"> F width="48"> 1074 width="48"> 477 width="42"> 47 width="48"> 345 width="48"> 361 width="42"> 3.6 width="40"> 1.5

 

The table indicates the overall mean of all items of the factor “home environment” 3.6 (greater than 3.00) and the standard deviation 1.5, which shows that the factor home environment affects the development of SEC.

 

Table 8. Students’ Attitude Regarding Media Interaction

> > > > > >

S. No width="132"> Statement width="60"> Options width="42"> SA width="38"> A width="40"> U width="47"> DA width="48"> SDA width="40"> M width="42"> SD

MI1 width="132"> Undesired effects of media width="60"> F align="center">% width="42"> 202 align="center">53% width="38"> 56 align="center">14% width="40"> 11 align="center">3% width="47"> 60 align="center">16% width="48"> 55 align="center">14% width="40"> 3.8 width="42"> 1.55

MI2 width="132"> Media addiction width="60"> F align="center">% width="42"> 203 align="center">53% width="38"> 55 align="center">14% width="40"> 11 align="center">3% width="47"> 54 align="center">14% width="48"> 61 align="center">16% width="40"> 3.8 width="42"> 1.5

MI3 width="132"> Participation in public debates width="60"> F align="center">% width="42"> 139 align="center">36% width="38"> 66 align="center">17% width="40"> 15 align="center">4% width="47"> 71 align="center">18% width="48"> 93 align="center">24% width="40"> 3.2 width="42"> 1.64

MI4 width="132"> Meeting new people through social media width="60"> F align="center">% width="42"> 62 align="center">16% width="38"> 186 align="center">48% width="40"> 0 align="center">0% width="47"> 39 align="center">10% width="48"> 97 align="center">25% width="40"> 3.2 width="42"> 1.48

MI5 width="132"> Lack of interaction with family width="60"> F align="center">% width="42"> 218 align="center">57% width="38"> 41 align="center">11% width="40"> 9 align="center">2% width="47"> 52 align="center">13% width="48"> 64 align="center">17% width="40"> 3.7 width="42"> 1.6

width="132"> Total width="60"> F width="42"> 824 width="38"> 404 width="40"> 46 width="47"> 276 width="48"> 370 width="40"> 3.5 width="42"> 1.5

 

The table shows the overall mean of all items of the factor “Media Interaction” 3.5 and the standard deviation 1.5, which shows that the factor media interaction affects the development of SEC among students.

 

Students’ Social-Emotional Competence

To achieve the second objective, students’ possession of SEC, the result of the study is as follows

 

Table 9. Students’ Response Regarding Self-Consciousness

> > > > > >

S. No width="117" valign="top"> Statement width="64" valign="top"> Options width="46" valign="top"> SA width="49" valign="top"> A width="40" valign="top"> U width="46" valign="top"> DA width="48" valign="top"> SDA width="40" valign="top"> M width="42" valign="top"> SD

SC1 width="117"> Handling different situations width="64"> F align="center">% width="46"> 229 align="center">60% width="49"> 59 align="center">15% width="40"> 0 align="center">0% width="46"> 53 align="center">14% width="48"> 43 align="center">11% width="40"> 3.9 width="42"> 1.46

SC2 width="117"> Knowledge of actions and reactions width="64"> F align="center">% width="46"> 45 align="center">11% width="49"> 221 align="center">57% width="40"> 5 align="center">1% width="46"> 61 align="center">16% width="48"> 52 align="center">14% width="40"> 3.4 width="42"> 1.26

SC3 width="117"> Understanding moods width="64"> F align="center">% width="46"> 127 align="center">13% width="49"> 162 align="center">42% width="40"> 2 align="center">1% width="46"> 32 align="center">8% width="48"> 61 align="center">16% width="40"> 3.7 width="42"> 1.41

SC4 width="117"> Understanding emotions width="64"> F align="center">% width="46"> 151 align="center">40% width="49"> 93 align="center">24% width="40"> 0 align="center">0% width="46"> 71 align="center">18% width="48"> 69 align="center">17% width="40"> 3.5 width="42"> 1.57

SC5 width="117"> Facial expressions width="64"> F align="center">% width="46"> 138 align="center">36% width="49"> 67 align="center">17% width="40"> 14 align="center">4% width="46"> 73 align="center">18% width="48"> 92 align="center">24% width="40"> 3.2 width="42"> 1.64

width="117" valign="top"> Total width="64"> F width="46"> 690 width="49"> 602 width="40"> 21 width="46"> 290 width="48"> 317 width="40"> 3.5 width="42"> 1.4

 

It is indicated that the total mean scores of the statements of the factor “self-consciousness” is 3.5, and the standard deviation of the items is 1.4, which shows that mostly the students possess the skill of self-consciousness.

 

Table 10. Students’ Response Regarding Social-Consciousness

> > > > > >

No. width="129"> Statement width="50" valign="top"> Options width="46" valign="top"> SA width="53" valign="top"> A width="40" valign="top"> U width="46" valign="top"> DA width="46" valign="top"> SDA width="40" valign="top"> M width="42" valign="top"> SD

SoC1 width="129"> Personality judgment width="50"> F align="center">% width="46"> 153 align="center">39% width="53"> 93 align="center">24%% width="40"> 8 align="center">2% width="46"> 62 align="center">16% width="46"> 68 align="center">18% width="40"> 3.3 width="42"> 1.55

SoC2 width="129"> Knowing others’ feelings width="50"> F align="center">% width="46"> 43 align="center">11% width="53"> 223 align="center">57% width="40"> 5 align="center">1% width="46"> 62 align="center">16% width="46"> 51 align="center">14% width="40"> 3.4 width="42"> 1.25

SoC3 width="129"> Feeling down width="50"> F align="center">% width="46"> 153 align="center">40% width="53"> 91 align="center">24% width="40"> 0 align="center">0% width="46"> 73 align="center">18% width="46"> 67 align="center">17% width="40"> 3.5 width="42"> 1.57

SoC4 width="129"> Understanding others’ actions and reaction width="50"> F align="center">% width="46"> 153 align="center">39% width="53"> 93 align="center">24% width="40"> 7 align="center">2% width="46"> 60 align="center">16% width="46"> 71 align="center">18% width="40"> 3.3 width="42"> 1.57

SoC5 width="129"> Understanding others’ moods width="50"> F align="center">% width="46"> 231 align="center">60% width="53"> 57 align="center">15% width="40"> 0 align="center">0% width="46"> 54 align="center">14% width="46"> 42 align="center">11% width="40"> 3.9 width="42"> 1.46

width="129"> Total width="50"> F width="46"> 733 width="53"> 557 width="40"> 20 width="46"> 311 width="46"> 299 width="40"> 3.5 width="42"> 1.5

 

It is indicated that the total mean scores of the statements of the factor “social consciousness” are 3.5, and the standard deviation of the items is 1.5, which shows that mostly the students possess the skill of social consciousness.

 

Table 11. Students’ Response Regarding Self-Regulation

> > > > > >

S. No width="110"> Statement width="59"> Options width="47"> SA width="51"> A width="41"> U width="48"> DA width="49"> SDA width="41"> M width="44"> SD

SR1 width="110"> Dealing with crises width="59"> F align="center">% width="47"> 67 align="center">17% width="51"> 92 align="center">24% width="41"> 15 align="center">4% width="48"> 137 align="center">36% width="49"> 73 align="center">18% width="41"> 2.8 width="44"> 1.41

SR2 width="110"> Manage anxiety width="59"> F align="center">% width="47"> 72 align="center">19% width="51"> 181 align="center">47% width="41"> 5 align="center">1% width="48"> 81 align="center">21% width="49"> 45 align="center">12% width="41"> 3.4 width="44"> 1.31

SR3 width="110"> Dealing with wrong things width="59"> F align="center">% width="47"> 75 align="center">19% width="51"> 91 align="center">23% width="41"> 14 align="center">4% width="48"> 135 align="center">36% width="49"> 69 align="center">18% width="41"> 2.9 width="44"> 1.41

SR4 width="110"> Stay positive width="59"> F align="center">% width="47"> 63 align="center">16% width="51"> 185 align="center">48% width="41"> 0 align="center">0% width="48"> 40 align="center">10% width="49"> 96 align="center">25% width="41"> 3.2 width="44"> 1.48

SR5 width="110"> Use of calm down strategy width="59"> F align="center">% width="47"> 66 align="center">17% width="51"> 93 align="center">24% width="41"> 15 align="center">4% width="48"> 139 align="center">36% width="49"> 71 align="center">18% width="41"> 2.8 width="44"> 1.41

width="110"> Total width="59"> F width="47"> 343 width="51"> 642 width="41"> 49 width="48"> 532 width="49"> 354 width="41"> 3.0 width="44"> 1.4

 

It is indicated that the total mean scores of the statements of the factor “self-regulation” are 3.0 (in the range of acceptance), and the standard deviation of the items is 1.4, which shows that the average number of the students possess the skill of self-regulation however average number of students don’t possess the skill of dealing with crises, dealing with wrong things and the skill of calming down.

 

Table 12. Students’ Response Regarding Relationship Building

> > > > > >

No. width="120"> Statement width="58" valign="top"> Options width="46" valign="top"> SA width="50" valign="top"> A width="40" valign="top"> U width="47" valign="top"> DA width="48" valign="top"> SDA width="43" valign="top"> M width="43" valign="top"> SD

RB1 width="120"> Apologetic attitude width="58"> F align="center">% width="46"> 149 align="center">39% width="50"> 92 align="center">24% width="40"> 9 align="center">2% width="47"> 62 align="center">16% width="48"> 72 align="center">18% width="43"> 3.3 width="43"> 1.5

RB2 width="120"> Comforting friends width="58"> F align="center">% width="46"> 64 align="center">16% width="50"> 184 align="center">48% width="40"> 0 align="center">0% width="47"> 39 align="center">10% width="48"> 97 align="center">25% width="43"> 3.2 width="43"> 1.48

RB3 width="120"> Avoiding criticism width="58"> F align="center">% width="46"> 129 align="center">33% width="50"> 160 align="center">42% width="40"> 2 align="center">1% width="47"> 31 align="center">8% width="48"> 62 align="center">16% width="43"> 3.7 width="43"> 1.42

RB4 width="120"> Possessing tolerance width="58"> F align="center">% width="46"> 93 align="center">24% width="50"> 71 align="center">18% width="40"> 0 align="center">0% width="47"> 62 align="center">16% width="48"> 158 align="center">42% width="43"> 2.7 width="43"> 1.7

RB5 width="120"> Maintaining dignity width="58"> F align="center">% width="46"> 214 align="center">56% width="50"> 59 align="center">15% width="40"> 6 align="center">2% width="47"> 53 align="center">13% width="48"> 52 align="center">13% width="43"> 3.9 width="43"> 1.52

width="120"> Total width="58"> F width="46"> 649 width="50"> 566 width="40"> 17 width="47"> 247 width="48"> 441 width="43"> 3.36 width="43"> 1.5

 

It is indicated that the total mean scores of the statements of the factor “relationship building” is 3.36 (in

the range of acceptance) and the standard deviation of the items is 1.5, which shows that the average number

of the students possess the skill of relationship building.

 

Table 13. Students’ Response Regarding Decisiveness

> > > > > >

S. No width="120"> Statement width="65"> Options width="45"> SA width="48"> A width="39"> U width="46"> DA width="47"> SDA width="39"> M width="41"> SD

D1 width="120"> Consideration of consequences width="65"> F align="center">% width="45"> 50 align="center">13% width="48"> 101 align="center">26% width="39"> 18 align="center">5% width="46"> 153 align="center">40% width="47"> 62 align="center">16% width="39"> 2.8 width="41"> 1.33

D2 width="120"> Positive outcome width="65"> F align="center">% width="45"> 128 align="center">33% width="48"> 161 align="center">42% width="39"> 2 align="center">1% width="46"> 30 align="center">8% width="47"> 63 align="center">16% width="39"> 3.7 width="41"> 1.42

D3 width="120"> Situation analysis width="65"> F align="center">% width="45"> 74 align="center">19% width="48"> 179 align="center">47% width="39"> 6 align="center">1% width="46"> 80 align="center">21% width="47"> 45 align="center">12% width="39"> 3.4 width="41"> 1.32

D4 width="120"> Wise recommendation width="65"> F align="center">% width="45"> 228 align="center">8% width="48"> 60 align="center">15% width="39"> 0 align="center">0% width="46"> 54 align="center">14% width="47"> 42 align="center">11% width="39"> 3.9 width="41"> 1.46

D5 width="120"> Analyzing pros and cons width="65"> F align="center">% width="45"> 216 align="center">56% width="48"> 57 align="center">15% width="39"> 10 align="center">2% width="46"> 51 align="center">13% width="47"> 50 align="center">13% width="39"> 3.9 width="41"> 1.5

width="120"> Total width="65"> F width="45"> 696 width="48"> 558 width="39"> 36 width="46"> 368 width="47"> 262 width="39"> 3.5 width="41"> 1.4

 

It is indicated that the total mean scores of the statements of the factor “decisiveness” are 3.5 (in the range of acceptance), and the standard deviation of the items is 1.4, which shows that the average number of the students possess the skill of decisiveness.

Discussion

The first objective of the study was to identify the factors affecting SEC of secondary school students. After having analysis, it was found that factors teachers’ response, parents’ responses, classmates’ responses, friends’ responses, classroom environment, home environment and media interaction affect the development of SEC.

The teachers’ positive attitude with students in the classroom, their modelling of SEC in the classroom, their behavior of encouragement of the students in the classroom to deal with their daily life problems and the skill they develop in the students to deal with others or to respect others affect the development of SEC the most. And sharing attitude of classmates, the helping attitude of the classmates and consideration of classmates’ positive views affect the most. This is in the streamline with the result previously conducted by Becker & Luthar (2002). According to this study, the teachers’ support in the classroom and appreciation from peers helps a lot in the development of SEC among students.

In the study, it was founded that parents children interaction, provision of opportunities to children to discuss their problems and issues of daily life, parents’ encouraging attitude, and their skill to stay calm in different stressful situations develop SEC among students. And the act of kindness to the children affects the most in the development of SEC, whereas the act of being frightened from parents affect the least in the development of SEC. These findings are in line with the results previously conducted by Pierce (2000). According to him, the lack of a strong relationship between parents and the children and strict behavior of the parents creates the problem related to SEC among children.

Schultz, Richardson, Barber & Wilcox (2011) argued that cooperation of friends paves the way to get SEC, and so is the finding of the present study, it was found that apologetic attitude of the friends, caring attitude of the friends and tolerance of friends’ mistakes affect the most in the development of SEC. Frey, Nolen, Edstrom & Hirschstein (2005) argued that students who have media interaction a lot are noticed to have dense friendship networks that affect their SEC. Guo & Johnson (2020) investigated that undesired effects of media such as hate speeches affect the development of students’ SEC, and so is the result of the present study. 

The second objective of the study was to examine the SEC of secondary school students. After analysis, it was found that the most possessed skills are handling different situations and understanding one’s own mood that is included in the factor of self-consciousness. Most of the students possess the skill to understand the mood of others that is included in the factor of social consciousness. They are weak in possession of the skills of calming down, dealing with wrong things and skill of staying positive during crises that are included in the factor of self-regulation. They are good at keeping their dignity and avoiding criticism in case of quarrels with friends; however, they are not good at dealing with every matter with tolerance that is included in the factor of relationship building. They are good at making recommendations wisely; however, they are weak in considering the consequences before taking the actions that are included in the factor of decisiveness.

Conclusion

For the first objective, it is concluded that friends’ response, classroom environment and home environment affecting SEC the most as compared to other factors. While the factor least affect the development of the SEC is media interaction. For the second objective, it is concluded that self-consciousness, social consciousness and the factor decisiveness are possessed by the students the most. And the factor self-regulation is possessed by the students the least. The skills in which the students are weak included calming down, dealing with wrong things and skill of staying positive during crises in the factor of self-regulation. Students are not good at dealing with every matter with tolerance, and they are weak in considering the consequences before taking the actions. Both of these are included in the factors of relationship building and decisiveness, respectively.

Furthermore, it is suggested that for the development of SEC training must be provided to the teachers and other staff.

References

• Abraham, R. (2014). Emotional competence as antecedent to performance: a contingency framework. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs 130(2), 117-143.
• Beaty-O'Ferrall, M. E., Green, A., & Hanna, F. (2010). Classroom management strategies for difficult students: Promoting change through relationships. Middle School Journal, 41(4), 4-11.
• Becker, B. E., & Luthar, S. S. (2002). Social-emotional factors affecting achievement outcomes among disadvantaged students: Closing the achievement gap. Educational psychologist, 37(4), 197-214.
• Brett, A., Smith, M., & Huitt, W. (2003). Overview of the affective domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University.
• Chandio, & Iqbal. (2016). Improving assessment and teaching learning process.
  https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1161460.pdf
• Ciarrochi, J. & Scott, G. (2006). The link between emotional competence and well-being: a longitudinal study. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 34, 231-243.
• DeLay, D., Zhang, L., Hanish, L. D., Miller, C. F., Fabes, R. A., Martin, C. L., & Updegraff, K. A. (2016). Peer influence on academic performance: A social network analysis of social-emotional intervention effects. Prevention Science, 17(8), 903-913.
• Denham, S. A. (2006). Social-emotional competence as support for school readiness: What is it and how do we assess it? Early education and development, 17(1), 57-89.
• Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Losoya, S. (1997). E
• Frey, K. S., Nolen, S. B., Edstrom, L. V. S., & Hirschstein, M. K. (2005). Effects of a school-based social- emotional competence program: Linking children's goals, attributions, and behavior. Journal of applied developmental psychology, 26(2), 171-200.
• Frisby, B. N., & Martin, M. M. (2010). Instructor-student and student-student rapport in the classroom. Communication Education, 59(2), 146-164.
• Guo, L., & Johnson, B. G. (2020). Third-Person Effect and Hate Speech Censorship on Facebook. Social Media Society, 6(2), 2056305120923003.
• Iftikhar, S., Jafri, H., & Arain, A. (2012). Assessment of instructional objectives.
  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321300401
• Jones, S. M., Barnes, S. P., Bailey, R., & Doolittle, E. J. (2017). Promoting social and emotional competencies in elementary school. The Future of Children, 49-72.
• Joseph, G. E., Strain, P. S. (2013). Helping young children control anger and handle disappointment. Young Exceptional Children, 7(1), 21-29.
• Kirk, K. (2020). student motivation and attitude.
  https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/affective/intro.html
• Larson, J. J., Whitton, S. W., Hauser, S. T., & Allen, J. P. (2007). Being Close and Being Social: Peer Ratings of Distinct Aspects of Young Adult Social Competence. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89 (2), 136-148.
• Malik, & Zaheer. (2012), An analysis of question paper at secondary level.
  https://journal- archieves23.webs.com/340-366.pdf
• Marsh, H., & Craven, R. (2002). Structure, stability, and development of young children's selfconcepts: A Multicohort-multioccasion study. Child Development, 69(4), 43-53.
• Mill, K., & Kim, H. (2017). Teaching problem solving: Let students get 'stuck' and 'unstuck'.
  https://www.brookings.edu/blog/education-plus-development/2017/10 /31/ teaching-problem- solving-let-students-get-stuck-and-unstuck/
• motional responding: Regulation, social correlates, and socialization. New York: Basic Books.
• Murakami, K., Murray, L., Sims, D., & Chedzey, K. (2009). Learning on Work Placement: The Narrative Development of Social Competence. Journal of Adult Development, 16, 13-24.
• Oberst, U., Gallifa, J., Farriols, N., & Villaregut, A. (2009). Training Emotional and Social Competences in Higher Education: The Seminar Methodology. Higher Education in Europe, vol. 34, no. 3-4.
• Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents' perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 83- 98.
• Pierce, R. (2000). A Good Beginning: Sending America's Children to School with the Social and Emotional Competence They Need to Succeed.
• Raosoft. (2019).sample size calculator.
  http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html
• Raver, C. (2004). Placing emotional self-regulation in sociocultural and socioeconomic contexts. ChildDevelopment, 75, 346-353.
• Schultz, B. L., Richardson, R. C., Barber, C. R., & Wilcox, D. (2011). A preschool pilot study of connecting with others: Lessons for teaching social and emotional competence. Early Childhood Education Journal, 39(2), 143-148.
• Seal, C. R., Naumann, S., Scott, A., & Royce-Davis, J. (2011). Social-emotional development: a new model of student learning in higher education. Research in Higher Education Journal, 10, 37-47.
• Singh, M. (2014). psychology notes on relationship management.
  https://www.slideshare.net/samsinghpunjabi333/07e77-relationship-management
• Smart, D., & Sanson, A. (2003). Social competence in young adulthood - its nature and antecedents. Journal of the Australian Institute of Family Studies, 1, 56-71.
• Stewart, M. F., & Chisholm, C. U. (2012). Comparative analysis of emotional competency within distinct student cohorts. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 14(2), 163-169
• Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405- 432.
  http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624 .2010.01564.
• Virtual lab school. (2019). Promoting Children's Social Skills and Emotional Competence
  https://www.virtuallabschool.org/preschool/child-abuse-prevention/lesson
• Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Domitrovich, C. E., & Gullotta, T. P. (2015). Social and emotional learning: Past, present, and future. New York, NY: Guilford.
• Zhou, M., & Ee, J. (2012). Development and Validation of the Social Emotional Competence Questionnaire (SECQ)
  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261872642_Development_and_validation_of_social _emotional_competency_questionnaire