A Model for Emotional Intelligence in Biology Education Research

Abstract

Informed by social science fields including psychology and public health, we propose a Model for Emotional Intelligence to advance biology education research in affective learning. The model offers a shared discourse for biology education researchers to develop and assess evidence-based strategies to perceive, use, understand, and manage emotions for students and instructors in life sciences classrooms. We begin by reviewing the connection between stress, emotional invalidation, Sense of Belonging, and Science Identity as it relates to emotions in undergraduate life sciences classrooms. Next, we highlight the impact that emotionally invalidating classroom environments have on science students’ development of psychological distress, maladaptive coping, and high-risk behaviors. Assuming Emotional Intelligence can be taught and learned (i.e., the ability model of Emotional Intelligence), we develop a Model for Emotional Intelligence to advance biology education research in this arena. This essay aims to inform assessments of current and future interventions designed to counteract emotional invalidation and encourage the development of emotional management among students and instructors. In alignment with our collective effort to support student well-being in the life sciences, the study of Emotional Intelligence in undergraduate biology education has the potential to support student mental health as future scientists and health care practitioners.

INTRODUCTION

The mental and emotional health of college students should be of high concern for education research and practice. The transition to college life can lead to experiencing chronic amounts of stress for many students (Darling et al., 2007), and anxiety is highly prevalent among undergraduate students—especially first-year students (England et al., 2019). In fact, the American College Health Association's (ACHA) (2023) report, surveying over 50,000 college students, found that nearly half (52%) of the respondents had problems or challenges with academics. Further, 88% reported that these academic challenges caused moderate or high distress (ACHA, 2023, p. 13). It is well known that recruiting and retaining Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) majors continues to be an issue for the field, especially for students from underrepresented and marginalized backgrounds (Whalen and Shelley II, 2010; Seymour and Hunter, 2019). Factors such as perceived course difficulty, stress, and a “chilly climate” can contribute to departure from the sciences (Whalen and Shelley II, 2010).

STEM majors tend to be more susceptible to mental health challenges than non-STEM majors, yet STEM majors are less likely to engage in help-seeking behaviors to alleviate mental health concerns due to the competitive academic environment and lack of perceived support for mental health within STEM (Kalkbrenner and Carlisle, 2023). When we specifically examine the mental health of life sciences students as they progress through their academic and professional training, we see that their struggles progress along with them. Literature reveals a trail of depression and distress as life sciences students advance through premedical programs (Fang et al., 2010, 2012; Grace, 2018), doctoral programs (Tsai and Muindi, 2016; Hish et al., 2019; Nagy et al., 2019; Lubega et al., 2023), medical school (Jackson et al., 2016; Mousa et al., 2016; O'Marr et al., 2022; Ranasinghe et al., 2022; Nair et al., 2023), and their professional careers (Shanafelt et al., 2009; West et al., 2018; Arnsten and Shanafelt, 2021). One source of distress, depression, and overall burnout is emotional suppression, a form of emotional regulation that involves the intentional “holding back” of authentic emotional experiences and expression (Pugh and Groth, 2011; Beblo et al., 2012; Chapman et al., 2013; Kenworthy et al., 2014; Indregard et al., 2018). These expectations of emotional suppression shape who persists and who leaves STEM programs. Relative to the life sciences, graduates in the psychological and social sciences are closer to parity in terms of racial, ethnic, and gender representation (National Science Board, 2023). Switchers from STEM majors to non-STEM majors describe “unwelcoming and emotionally sterile STEM environments,” and that they, “related more to the enthusiasm and expansive sense of opportunity that was projected by [non-STEM] students and faculty in contrast to the dullness of the biology program” (Seymour and Hunter, 2019, p. 312).

In the context of a classroom, emotional states can and do influence how students progress through their learning journey. This has been referred to as the affective domain (Trujillo and Tanner, 2014). Namely, “affective learning is described as those activities ‘directed at coping with the feelings that arise during learning, … [leading] to an emotional state that may positively, neutrally or negatively affect the progression of a learning process’” (Vermunt, 1996, p. 26 as cited in Trujillo and Tanner, 2014).

Thanks to advances in cognitive and affective neuroscience, we have an increased understanding of the functional role of emotions in human adaptation and survival (Erickson and Schulkin, 2003; Deak, 2011; Spunt and Adolphs, 2019). Functional imaging studies have confirmed the existence of a neural emotional processing system that provides us with the ability to interpret and communicate emotional information. Such information can help ourselves and others identify situations to seek out or avoid, thereby shaping decisions to minimize consequences and maximize rewards (Erickson and Schulkin, 2003; Ochsner et al., 2004; Naqvi et al., 2006; Deak, 2011). When we choose to obstruct this process by suppressing our emotions, we in turn suppress our cognitive function, memory, and ability to learn from our experiences and avoid future harm (Naqvi et al., 2006; Katsumi and Dolcos, 2020; Sikka et al., 2022). In contrast, applying Emotional Intelligence skills—identifying and expressing emotions; using emotions to understand, think, and reason; and regulating emotions in ways that allow one to feel while thinking and acting—neurally enables adaptive cognitive, psychological, and social functioning (Hogeveen et al., 2016). Expressing one's emotions in response to distressing experiences can alleviate feelings of distress, minimize disturbing thoughts, facilitate self-understanding and insight, and improve interpersonal interactions (Kennedy-Moore and Watson, 2001; Murakami et al., 2015). So what role does Emotional Intelligence play in affective learning in undergraduate biology education?

In this essay, we emphasize the need for biology education researchers (BER) to study Emotional Intelligence—for students and instructors—to inform interventions and change in the academic culture of the life sciences. We start by reviewing the impact of emotional invalidation in higher education. Building on the work of educational psychology, we propose how BER can address emotional invalidation by designing studies to assess and cultivate Emotional Intelligence, specifically focusing on the ability model of Emotional Intelligence. To guide future research design, we share our holistic Model of Emotional Intelligence in BER to encompass instructors, students, and contextual factors. Next, we summarize examples of BER that align with aspects of the Model and describe opportunities for future studies to consider other factors in each context. The essay concludes with recommendations for biology education researchers to study Emotional Intelligence holistically.

Before we continue, we acknowledge that some of the terms discussed in this essay may be unfamiliar or often misconstrued. Jingle jangle fallacies of socioemotional constructs have been critiqued (Olderbak and Wilhelm, 2022). Thus, to help facilitate a smooth reading experience and foster transparency in our definitional landscape, we have included a summary of key terms in Table 1. While a portion of these terms may be used interchangeably, we chose to keep the specific terms as used in their respective cited literature throughout our essay, so the statements we make align with the studies referenced. For additional “examples of coping behaviors in academic contexts,” see Table 4 in Henry et al. (2019).

TABLE 1.

Definition of terms

Term	Definition	Application in biology education
Emotion Regulation	The cognitive and behavioral strategies used to increase, decrease, or maintain an emotional state under any circumstance (Schreiber and Veilleux, 2022).	This term encompasses any behavior one engages in to keep or change their emotional state, whether pleasant or unpleasant, in response to a variety of situations. For example, a student may ask questions during class to maintain a feeling of excitement and curiosity.
Coping	Emotion regulation efforts employed specifically to alleviate stress while navigating distressing situations (Compas et al., 2013).	This term concerns the behaviors one engages in to stop or prevent unpleasant emotional states in response to or preparation for an upsetting situation. For example, a student may play with a fidget toy during class to reduce feelings of stress or anxiety.
Emotional Invalidation	Rejecting, discouraging, and/or punishing emotional expression (Crowell et al., 2009).	This term covers any behavior that may communicate to someone that their emotional expression is not important, wanted, and/or believed. For example, a student shares with an instructor that they are worried about an upcoming exam to receive relief and advice. The instructor tells the student that if they are worried, then they may not be fit to be a scientist.
Emotional Validation	Accepting, understanding, and learning more about someone's emotional experience (Kuo, Fitzpatrick, and Uliaszek, 2022).	This term covers behavior that may communicate to someone that their emotional expression is important, wanted, and believed. Using the above example, the validating instructor tells the student it is normal to be worried about an exam and asks the student to share more about why they are worried and how they can help the student feel less worried.
Emotional Suppression	The intentional “holding back” of authentic emotional experiences and expression (Chapman et al., 2013).	This term relates to hiding or pushing away emotional reactions and altering one's emotional expression in a way that does not accurately reflect how one feels in a given situation. For example, a student may be offended and hurt by something an instructor says and choose to ignore that feeling and smile as they leave class.
Emotional Inhibition	The intentional suppression of unwanted emotional expressions, thoughts, or feelings (Krause et al., 2003).	This term is similar to emotional suppression but denotes a perpetual state of suppressed feelings throughout one's life as opposed to just in one situation. For example, a student does not allow themselves to feel proud of their grades in college because their family has been telling them they are not good enough since elementary school.
Affective Learning	Activities directed at coping with the feelings that arise during learning, leading to an emotional state that may positively, neutrally or negatively affect the progression of a learning process (Vermunt, 1996, p. 26 as cited in Trujillo and Tanner, 2014).	This term represents the recognition that there are emotions elicited throughout the process of learning. We use this term in our rationalization of why BER should increase explicit exploration into the emotional experiences of students and instructors in higher education.

Emotional Invalidation and Inhibition in Higher Education

“I'm not here to hold your hand.”

– Biology Student Memory of Instructor Language, perceived as promoting a negative learning environment (Ovid et al., 2021)

Emotional expressions can be tolerated, accepted, even validated in classrooms, or they can be ignored and disregarded through emotional invalidation. An emotionally invalidating environment is one that rejects, discourages, and/or punishes emotional expression (Crowell et al., 2009) and is associated with the development of social problems and long-term poor health outcomes for children (Krause et al., 2003; Zielinski et al., 2023). In contrast, environments where emotional expression is encouraged and emotional distress is positively responded to lead to healthier social development (Krause et al., 2003). When emotional distress is ignored—especially followed by a dismissed attempt to receive support—it can communicate to students that displays of emotion are inappropriate.

Students in emotionally invalidating learning environments may deduce that they must cope alone with the unpleasant emotional experiences provoked by their instructors. A common response to emotionally invalidating environments is emotional inhibition, defined as the intentional suppression of unwanted emotional expressions, thoughts, or feelings (Krause et al., 2003). It is logical for a person tied to an environment that does not accept emotional expression to conclude that they must limit or inhibit their emotional expression in order to avoid social penalties, though this choice could lead to more dire consequences. For example, emotional suppression is the most commonly used emotional regulation strategy by college students (Jarrell et al., 2022), yet it has been found to increase negative affect and decrease positive affect (Brans et al., 2013), which is negatively associated with well-being (Gross and John, 2003). Further, chronic emotional inhibition is linked as an etiological factor in various psychological disorders, including anxiety, depression, disordered eating, obsessive/compulsive tendencies, and posttraumatic stress disorder (Krause et al., 2003; Zielinski et al., 2023). Therefore, ignoring the presence of emotional distress does not make the distress dissipate, but instead encourages it to manifest in different ways.

Chronic emotional inhibition in response to emotional invalidation correlates with emotion regulation difficulties or maladaptive coping strategies (Pennebaker et al., 1988; Krause et al., 2003; Brandão et al., 2022). Emotion regulation is defined as the cognitive and behavioral strategies used to increase, decrease, or maintain an emotional state under any circumstance (Schreiber and Veilleux, 2022), whereas coping refers to emotion regulation efforts employed specifically to alleviate stress while navigating distressing situations (Compas et al., 2013). Maladaptive coping can include engaging in health-endangering behaviors such as substance misuse, unprotected sexual activity with multiple partners, and driving while intoxicated, behaviors that occur at high rates among college students (Rivers et al., 2013). As for instructors, there is a mental and emotional toll that emotional suppression and inauthentic emotional expression takes leading to decreased job satisfaction and performance (Hülsheger and Schewe, 2011; Mahoney et al., 2011; Yin et al., 2019; Chang, 2020; Kariou et al., 2021).

A Missing Thread in BER: Stitching Together Sense of Belonging and Science Identity with Emotional Intelligence

How might Emotional Intelligence inform our understanding of well-studied constructs in BER? Emotions are always present and shape how we experience the world. Thus, we propose that BER can add depth to our understanding of key constructs in student persistence in STEM through the lens of Emotional Intelligence. In this section, we focus on Science Identity and Sense of Belonging to consider potential limitations of these constructs and propose how Emotional Intelligence could shed light on student experiences in relation to these constructs.

What Might be Missing from Our Understanding of Sense of Belonging and Science Identity?

While BER recognizes affective learning (Trujillo and Tanner, 2014), it is often interpreted through the lens of complex constructs such as Science Identity and Sense of Belonging, and how they impact success in STEM for both students (Le et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2021; Knekta and McCartney, 2021) and instructors (Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2011; Balgopal et al., 2022). While there are several measures used to assess Science Identity and Sense of Belonging, one may wonder whether certain items are synonymous with pressures to assimilate to dominant culture. For example, to collect evidence of validity for such measures, expert panels may be asked to “describe in detail a student who was committed to science” (Lockhart et al., 2022), which is a legitimized method for validation but is also riddled with survivor bias by asking those who succeeded in current structures. Such measures end up with items that, based on scholarship in social work and psychology, seem to conflate belonging and assimilation, such as “I think in the same way as do people who do well at [school]” (Stanford SPARQ, 2023). What is missing from a students’ response to this item is how they felt when they first arrived, if they felt a disconnect between who they were at home versus at school, and if they felt pressure to change (or pretend to change) to think the same way as the “people who do well” in a given context.

For clarity on this important distinction, consider examples of how middle schoolers distinguish “belonging” and “fitting in” in Brené Brown's work (2021, p. 162):

“Belonging is being somewhere where you want to be, and they want you. Fitting in is being somewhere you really want to be, but they don't care one way or the other.”

“Belonging is being accepted for you. Fitting in is being accepted for being like everyone else.”

“I get to be me if I belong. I have to be like you to fit in.”

To foster a Sense of Belonging, “people often behave in ways that increase the likelihood that they will be socially accepted, and lower the likelihood that they will be rejected” (Leary and Baumeister, 1995). One way that people attempt to be socially acceptable is by suppressing their emotions (Buck et al., 1992; Gosserand and Diefendorff, 2005; Butler et al., 2007; Grandey et al., 2015; Chervonsky and Hunt, 2017). While there is a pressure to modify emotions in order to adhere to social and occupational expectations, emotional suppression has a negative impact on Sense of Belonging and identity (Jansz and Timmers, 2002; Avraamidou, 2020; Whiting, 2021; Pardede and Kovač, 2023). What may be less explored is the impact of emotional inhibition and inauthentic self-expression on Sense of Belonging and Science Identity in STEM (de Moor et al., 2018; Denollet and Duijndam, 2019).

How Emotional Intelligence can Inform Our Understanding of Sense of Belonging and Science Identity.

To address this gap, we invite the BER community to consider how Emotional Intelligence can help explain Sense of Belonging and Science Identity and advance research in biology education.

So what is Emotional Intelligence? It is a widespread term used in fields ranging from business management to popular psychology. Because of how often it is referenced, it can also be misunderstood. Developed in 1990 by psychologists Peter Salovey and John Mayer, Emotional Intelligence is defined as “the ability to monitor one's own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions” (Salovey and Mayer, 1990, p. 189). Emotional Intelligence is one of many theories grounded in the belief that emotions do not hinder cognition but rather facilitate it. Emotional Intelligence represents a framework for understanding the human capacity to engage in a cognitive-emotional process that produces sound judgment, reasoning, understanding, and problem-solving (Salovey and Sluyter, 1997).

Research from other fields suggest a relationship between Emotional Intelligence and the two well-studied aspects of affective learning: Sense of Belonging and Science Identity. Namely, Emotional Intelligence skills correspond to higher levels of a Sense of Belonging (Moeller et al., 2020) and play a role in identity development (Maher et al., 2017). Additionally, Emotional Intelligence has been linked to an increase in people's ability to successfully adapt in stressful situations, avoid maladaptive coping in response to emotionally distressing events, and experience fewer symptoms of psychopathology (Mikolajczak et al., 2008; Saklofske et al., 2012). Possessing the ability to understand and manage emotions has also been found to reduce risk-taking behavior among college students (Rivers et al., 2013) and increase job satisfaction and performance for employees (Sy et al., 2006; Kafetsios and Zampetakis, 2008; Vratskikh et al., 2016).

This evidence supports the claim that Emotional Intelligence has a positive impact on the well-being, success, and quality of life of students and instructors and therefore should be explored more explicitly in the field of BER. The supplemental document shows a lack of literature related to examining Emotional Intelligence among undergraduate biology majors. At the time of writing this manuscript, CBE—Life Sciences Education, a leading academic journal in life sciences education, has only one article (Werner-Washburne, 2018) that mentions the keyword “emotional intelligence” (Boolean Modifiers included) once in a sentence! While there have been prominent studies published regarding affective learning in undergraduate biology education (see section titled A Patchwork Quilt of Emotional Intelligence in Biology Education Research), we contend that specifically using a model for Emotional Intelligence in BER would reveal even more perspectives and interactions to investigate.

To support future scholarship in BER that considers affective learning using an Emotional Intelligence perspective, we will focus on the ability model of Emotional Intelligence and provide recommendations for areas of study in BER—from the informed perspective of our positionalities in relation to this scholarship.

POSITIONALITY STATEMENTS

Before we continue, it is of utmost importance that we, the authors, describe who we are in relation to this work so our readers have an idea of the position from which our subjectivity is based. Importantly, “dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen can emerge for researchers when they do not pay careful attention to their own and others’ racialized and cultural systems of coming to know, knowing, and experiencing the world” (Milner IV, 2007). Here, we disclose relevant aspects of self, self in relation to others, and self in relation to systems to disrupt normative narratives in scientific education of universal absolutism (Ovid and Leonardo, 2022).

First, we recognize and acknowledge that science is not entirely objective, as the personal feelings, opinions, and desired outcomes of investigators influence our research topic, design, analysis, and interpretation choices. Second, the authors value the counterstereotypical representation of not only the social identities of scientists but also the values we bring. We encourage future scientists to challenge long-standing assumptions and change our collective perceptions of what it means to be scientists.

The first co-author identifies as a Black, neurodivergent, and queer person who has survived a multitude of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). It was these ACEs that inspired her to pursue and achieve a Master of Social Work and a Master of Public Health, resulting in professional experience in mental and behavioral health, social work, and health education. She brings her knowledge, values, and skills in social science and application to discipline-based education research (DBER) with the intent of calling to attention how higher education impacts the quality of life of students and instructors.

The second co-author identifies as a White Hispanic woman/gender nonconforming member of LGBTQIA+ community and first-generation college going. With a disciplinary background in comparative reproductive endocrinology and over a decade of personal experience and scholarly engagement with counseling and psychoanalysis, this scholarship advances the nexus of the personal and professional, for each one influences the other. They bridge their experience in DBER with the expertise of the first co-author, not only to reveal a multitude of collaborative possibilities for the future of this field but also to transform what teaching and learning looks like—to bring hope and change for a world in crisis.

THE ABILITY MODEL OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

There is a common belief that human behavior is either rational or emotional, implying that emotions disrupt cognition resulting in illogical behavior and substandard decision-making (Salovey and Sluyter, 1997; Gallardo et al., 2019). As a result, people may opt to minimize or avoid emotional recognition and expression in an attempt to maintain a sense of cognitive and behavioral control to increase the likelihood of social acceptance. In contrast, instead of conflating the emotional with the illogical, another field of thought perceives emotions as beneficial sources of information that aid cognitive processing and guide behavior (Baumeister et al., 2007; Gayathri, 2013). We contend that emotions can and do shape our capacity to teach and learn, and Emotional Intelligence is a specific ability worth cultivating in academic spaces.

Because its introduction, literature on the theory of Emotional Intelligence has expanded, resulting in varying definitions and the development of three major models of Emotional Intelligence: trait, mixed, and ability models. The trait and mixed models operate from the perspective that Emotional Intelligence has an intrinsic nature, which accounts for personality traits and social skills (Toriello et al., 2022). These models are used more in relation to professionals in the workplace, such as researching leadership and managerial skills (Jan et al., 2017). The ability model, developed by Mayer and Salovey (1997), conceptualizes Emotional Intelligence as a set of cognitive skills whereby an individual uses internal and external emotional information to engage in problem-solving and decision-making. Because the ability model posits that Emotional Intelligence can be taught and improved through education (Mayer and Salovey, 1997; Toriello et al., 2022), it is often used to study students and their academic experiences (Jan et al., 2017).

The ability model of Emotional Intelligence consists of a four-branch diagram depicting Emotional Intelligence skills in order from more basic psychological processes to higher, more integrated psychological processes (see Figure 1). These four branches include:

1. perceiving emotions: the ability to accurately identify emotions experienced by self or displayed by others and express emotions;

2. using emotions to facilitate thought: the ability to use emotional states to enable creativity, problem solving, and obtaining multiple points of view;

3. understanding emotions: the ability to recognize the causes and consequences of emotions, including complex emotions and emotional sequences; and

4. managing emotions: the ability to remain open to both pleasant and unpleasant emotions and monitor, reflect on, and manage emotions in oneself and others (Gunasekara et al., 2022).

FIGURE 1.

Adaptation of Mayer and Salovey's (1997) ability model of Emotional Intelligence.

We place emphasis on the inclusion of “others” in the model to highlight that Emotional Intelligence inherently entails a social, interpersonal element that requires being cognizant of and attentive to the emotional information provided by those outside ourselves. Scholars of Emotional Intelligence are careful to describe emotions as “pleasant” or “unpleasant”, intentionally avoiding descriptions such as “positive”, “negative”, “good”, or “bad.” This practice is done to avoid minimizing their importance and to emphasize that whether an emotional experience is pleasant or not, the experience itself is always beneficial when used intelligently (Mayer and Salovey, 1997).

Based on the ability model, what separates an emotionally intelligent experience from a mere emotional incident is the presence of learning, problem-solving, and behavioral regulation (see Figure 2). If an individual is 1) stimulated by an external event, 2) takes notice of their emotional reaction, 3) appropriately connects their response to the stimulus, and 4) uses this information to reason, problem-solve, and enact a behavior—all simultaneously—then this would result in management of the emotional reaction and would constitute Emotional Intelligence. In contrast, if an individual is stimulated by an external event and simply ignores the emotional reaction without engaging in acknowledgement, inductive reasoning, or behavioral modification, Emotional Intelligence has not been used. Each branch of the ability model provides an area to explore in relation to researching evidence-based strategies that promote emotionally validating learning environments in undergraduate biology education. Although we have alluded to how emotional suppression and Emotional Intelligence impact both the student as learner and instructor as employee experience, we will focus our research recommendations in relation to the classroom environment moving forward.

FIGURE 2.

Emotionally Intelligent experience.

A MODEL FOR EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN BER

As instructors and students recognize and respond to changes in emotional states in themselves and each other, Emotional Intelligence and an emotionally validating learning environment can be fostered. The following model (see Figure 3) illustrates potential areas of study in BER as determined by the interaction of instructors, students, and contextual factors within the classroom environment.

FIGURE 3.

Model for Emotional Intelligence in BER.

In Table 2, we describe the different types of interactions that can involve emotionally intelligent experiences (see Figure 2) represented in the model.

TABLE 2.

Types of interactions in the Model for Emotional Intelligence in BER

Type	Symbol	Description
1	I – Self	Instructors engage in an intrapersonal interaction with themselves (e.g., self-reflection, self-disclosure) while identifying and interpreting emotional information from themselves and their environment to make decisions.
2	S – Self	Students engage in an intrapersonal interaction with themselves (e.g., self-reflection, self-disclosure) while identifying and interpreting emotional information from self and environment to make decisions.
3	I – C	Instructors engage in a contextual interaction with curricular and pedagogical decisions then identify and interpret their personal emotional reactions to these choices.
4	S – C	Individual students engage in a contextual interaction with the curricular and pedagogical choices applied by instructors then identify and interpret personal emotional responses to these choices.
5	SSS – C	The group of students engage in a contextual interaction (e.g., with the curricular and pedagogical choices applied by instructors) while adhering to social norms as a collective or during group work.
6	I – SSS	Instructors engage in an interpersonal interaction with the group of students while identifying and interpreting emotional information from themselves and students to make decisions.
7	I – S	Instructors engage in an interpersonal interaction with individual students while identifying and interpreting emotional information from themselves and the student to make decisions.
8	S – I	Individual students engage in an interpersonal interaction with the instructor while identifying and interpreting emotional information from themselves and the instructor to make decisions.
9	S – SSS	Individual students engage in an interpersonal interaction with peers while identifying and interpreting emotional information from themselves and their peers to make decisions.
10	SSS – SSS	Groups of students engage in an interpersonal interaction collectively when working with other groups while identifying and interpreting emotional information from the group dynamic as a whole.

Based on this model, several areas of study for BER emerge from how we study instructors, students, and contextual factors.

For example, researchers can examine the emotionally intelligent experiences of instructors while facilitating lessons or conversing with students one-on-one. Instructors wield immense power in shaping students’ emotional states because “how people perceive others to respond to their emotions contributes to distress more so than simply how people respond to or regulate their own emotions”(Schreiber and Veilleux, 2022). Instructors’ Emotional Intelligence not only affects their teaching performance, but it also has a positive impact on student performance and achievement by creating a classroom culture that is conducive to learning (Gunasekara et al., 2022). Research in this area can aim to uncover how instructors can model Emotional Intelligence while interacting with students and what factors can obstruct or support their efforts.

Biology education researchers can also explore the emotionally intelligent experience of life science students while learning, or while interacting with classmates or instructors, to reveal how students can practice Emotional Intelligence in class. Future work in BER could characterize how students’ development of Emotional Intelligence corresponds with shifts in Science Identity, Sense of Belonging, and ultimately persistence—even thriving—in STEM majors (see Introduction).

Research for evidence-based interventions can inform how Emotional Intelligence can be integrated into STEM courses through activities and content. Fostering Emotional Intelligence in classroom learning experiences provides students an opportunity to: 1) explore the role of emotions in their academic journey and life in general; 2) examine how different emotions may affect their behavior in various circumstances; 3) compare emotion regulation and coping strategies with fellow classmates and instructors; and 4) experiment with alternative emotional regulation and coping strategies (Brown, 2003). Research in this area can aim to find pedagogical strategies effective in promoting Emotional Intelligence skills or the impact of discussing the biology of emotions in life sciences courses.

In the next section, we explore how some aspects of the Model for Emotional Intelligence in BER have been studied in the context of undergraduate biology classrooms, and we offer an array of opportunities for additional aspects to be considered in future work.

A Patchwork Quilt of Emotional Intelligence in BER

Given how emotions relate to much of what we research, here we highlight a few examples of recent scholarship that serve as platforms for exploring aspects of Emotional Intelligence in BER. We used two strategies to identify and characterize existing research (see Supplemental Materials). Our first strategy was a broad search of “emotional intelligence” in the database Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) using the following search string and restricted to academic journals only: DE “emotional intelligence” AND undergraduate students OR college students OR university students OR undergraduates AND DE “biology.” To narrow our search in relation to our own cultural context, we focused on scholarship in the United States. One author (A.T.) examined 362 of the most relevant articles, of which 25 articles studied STEM majors, only 26 articles were studies conducted in the United States, and only one article was a study that included biology majors. Our second strategy was to conduct a field-specific search in the leading biology education research journal (CBE – Life Sciences Education). Because only one article was published in this journal that used the term “emotional intelligence” (Werner-Washburne, 2018), and it was not the focus of the study, we searched and identified 218 research articles that contained the term “emotion*” therein. One author (D.O.) examined the results and found 80 studied some aspect of emotions in undergraduate biology classroom contexts, of which 19 articles addressed at least three types of interactions from our Emotional Intelligence Model and are included in this section (for remaining citations, see Supplemental Materials).

From our review of the literature, we identified specific examples to illustrate some but not all aspects of the Model of Emotional Intelligence, hence the idea of a “patchwork quilt” of Emotional Intelligence in BER. We identify examples of BER investigating aspects of emotionally intelligent experiences for Instructors and Student(s)—with themselves, contextual factors, and each other. These examples and additional approaches for studying Emotional Intelligence in BER are summarized in Table 3.

TABLE 3.

Using the model for Emotional Intelligence to characterize possible approaches for BER. Left column highlights examples of current BER scholarship, right column explores BER opportunities by considering questions and methodologies from a range of fields to inform the Model for Emotional Intelligence

Interaction	Examples of current BER in emotions and affective learning	Opportunities for BER using the model for emotional intelligence
Instructor
with Self and Contextual Factors	Assessment of self-Efficacy as an instructor and ownership over the educational approach (Hanauer et al., 2016) Personal data collected by instructors through reflective practice (Kogl Camfield et al., 2021) Survey of instructor hesitancies, both personal and political, for implementing curriculum with ideological awareness (Beatty et al., 2023) Interview study of STEM faculty experiences with imposter syndrome, includes teaching (Chakraverty, 2022)	Outcomes of Systematic Self- Assessment, Reflection, Critique (e.g., Bair et al., 2010; Zembylas, 2014; Gregersen and MacIntyre, 2017; Amat and Sellas, 2020) Intervention studies and/or social identity mapping (Jacobson and Mustafa, 2019) for instructors who “explore positionality, raise critical consciousness, and engage in dialogic action to drive change” (Milner, 2007; Powell et al., 2021 as cited in Morton et al., 2023) Evaluation of Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale for faculty (e.g., Abdel-hadi and Gharaibeh, 2023; adapted from Gratz and Roemer, 2004) Assessment of instructor emotions in doing science (e.g., Davidson et al., 2020)
with Student(s)	Outcomes of instructor self-disclosure of concealable stigmatized identities (e.g., Busch et al., 2022; Busch, Cooper et al., 2023; Busch, Mohammed et al., 2023; Busch, Wiesenthal et al., 2023) Assessment of Trust Relations with Students and the Degree of Community Belonging (Hanauer et al., 2016) Evaluation of instructor strategies to alleviate stress and anxiety for students (as cited in Hsu and Goldsmith, 2021), such as using name tents (Cooper et al., 2019) and voluntary participation instead of cold call (Cooper et al., 2018) Impacts of Instructor Talk on students’ perceptions of the learning environment (e.g., Kelly Lane et al., 2021; Meaders et al., 2021; Ovid et al., 2021)	Vignettes from faculty and student experiences (e.g., Barter and Renold, 1999; Thompson and Jensen-Ryan, 2018) Assessment of instructors “perceived caring” (Teven, 2001) and “pedagogical empathy” (Munson and Baldinger, 2023) Outcomes of instructor's promotion of campus resources (Mitchell et al., 2012)
Student
with Self and Contextual factors	Counterstorytelling analysis of Black queer undergraduate student experience in STEM (Leyva et al., 2022, cited in Morton et al., 2023) Understanding students’ emotional experiences with failure in CUREs (e.g., Corwin et al., 2022)	Collection of validity evidence for Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (e.g., Brown and Nedungadi, 2024; adapted from Pekrun et al., 2011) or Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale for students (Gratz and Roemer, 2004) Assessment of cultural differences in self-reflection (Tsai & Lau, 2013) Assessment on how Emotional Intelligence mitigates stress and builds resilience (Thomas and Zolkoski, 2020)
with Instructor	Outcomes for students from instructor intervention studies for improving student self-efficacy (Kogl Camfield et al., 2021) Assessment of students’ self-disclosure of access needs with instructor and impacts of mental health challenges (e.g., Busch, Mohammed et al., 2023b; Pfeifer et al., 2021; Pfeifer et al., 2023)	Intervention studies and outcomes for emotion-based content (Hubert et al., 2024) Considerations for emotional crossover, or how instructors’ emotions impact students’ emotions (e.g., Becker et al., 2014)
with Student(s)	Sense of Belonging (Knekta et al. 2020) Impacts on students disclosing concealable stigmatized identities to peers (e.g., Cooper and Brownell, 2016)	Intervention studies for Emotional Intelligence practice through reflection and peer feedback (e.g., Gill, 2014; Raut and Gupta, 2019)

Instructors’ Emotionally Intelligent Experiences in BER.

Examples we selected to expand upon in relation to the Model of Emotional Intelligence for the Instructor include self-disclosure of concealable stigmatized identities, course content for emotionally charged topics, and non-content instructor language. These examples from BER can help inform how the Model for Emotional Intelligence can be used to design research focused on the instructor experience.

Instructor with Student(s)—Self-Disclosure of Concealable Stigmatized Identities.

How we research what instructors choose to share about themselves with their students can be considered an aspect of Emotional Intelligence—namely, instructor self-awareness of emotional state. Here, we highlight scholarship that emphasizes instructor self-disclosure of concealable stigmatized identities because they are aspects of identity that likely have greater emotional valence in comparison to self-disclosure of hobbies, pets, and other nonstigmatizing information. These are “hidden identities that carry negative stereotypes and can result in a loss of social status if revealed” such as depression, anxiety, LGBQ+ identity, low-income, community college transfer, and first-generation college-going (Busch, Cooper et al., 2023). There is evidence that instructor self-disclosure corresponds to increased Sense of Belonging and intention to pursue a science career for LGBTQ+ students and women (Busch et al., 2022).

A dimension of the Model for Emotional Intelligence that is yet to be explored here is to what extent instructor self-disclosure shapes the emotional experiences for life sciences undergraduates—such as fear of negative evaluation experienced by first-generation college students, LGBTQ+ students, and students with disabilities (Busch, Wiesenthal et al., 2023); or students disclosing depression to science instructors (Busch, Mohammed et al., 2023); or LGBTQ+ students coming out to their peers in active learning classrooms (Cooper and Brownell, 2016). Thus, future research might consider how instructor self-disclosure is not only a model of instructor self-awareness but also corresponds to building instructor-student trust and student-student community.

Instructor with Student(s)—Non-Content Instructor Language.

When an instructor says something that is directed to the whole class, not logistical, and not directly related to course content—that is, Instructor Talk—there is an opportunity to shape the emotional dimension of the classroom experience. Instructor Talk is a phenomenon that has been characterized in a wide range of biology classrooms and labs (Seidel et al., 2015; Harrison et al., 2019; Meaders et al., 2021; Seah et al., 2021; Gelinas et al., 2022). The majority of students remember non-content instructor language and perceive it as promoting positive and negative learning environments (Ovid et al., 2021). There are several categories from the Instructor Talk frameworks (see Table 1 in Ovid et al., 2021) that correspond to dimensions of the Model for Emotional Intelligence. A few relevant categories to expand upon here include the aspects that consider the Instructor-Student connection. For example, “Sharing Personal Experiences” could encompass non-content language an instructor uses to reflect and self-disclose emotional experiences. “Building the Instructor-Student Relationship” corresponds with the connection between the instructor and students, while “Establishing Class Culture” is Instructor Talk which aims to foster community among students.

Despite this promising overlap, there are dimensions of the Model for Emotional Intelligence that research exclusively on Instructor Talk does not encompass. Instructor Talk alone precludes us from considering the self-awareness of emotional states taking place by students and/or between students. Further, due to the constraints of what qualifies as Instructor Talk, all language related to content and the collective perception, understanding, and management of emotions related to course content would not be included in a study dependent on the Instructor Talk frameworks to assess the Emotional Intelligence landscape of a classroom experience. Therefore, the dimensions of the student experiences in relation to content would have to be studied through yet another mechanism.

Instructor with Contextual Factors—Course Content for Emotionally Charged Topics.

Scholarship that identifies how instructors feel about teaching certain topics can also correspond to elements of Emotional Intelligence. As an example, let us consider BER on instructors’ perceptions of the value of ideological awareness, or “understanding of biases, stereotypes, and assumptions that shape contemporary and historical science” (Beatty et al., 2023). While science instructors see value in fostering ideological awareness, there are also anticipated challenges of addressing controversial topics with perspectives often shaped by moral reasoning. Teaching tough topics could foster inclusive spaces, as students report a preference for materials that include ideological awareness (Beatty et al., 2021); however, instructors report fear of negative consequences from embedding ideological awareness in their science courses (Beatty et al., 2023).

Similarly to scholarship in instructor self-disclosure, future research could investigate how the role of the instructor in shaping the classroom environment primes students to be receptive to—even deeply engaged and excited about—engaging with ideological awareness with their instructor and peers. In the context of biology, emerging topics such as Linnean racism, patents on genetic sequences, and scientific accounts of sex and gender are opportunities for biology education researchers to consider emotionally intelligent experiences for instructors and students alike.

Future Areas for BER with Instructor Emotional Intelligence.

We highlight a few examples of existing scholarship in BER that factors in instructor emotions; however, there are opportunities to expand on this work as informed by the Model for Emotional Intelligence. As shown in Table 3, scholarship on instructors’ emotionally intelligent experience with themselves has been growing in fields outside of BER as instructors/faculty practice systematic self-assessment, reflection, and critique (e.g., Bair et al., 2010; Zembylas, 2014; Gregersen and MacIntyre, 2017; Amat and Sellas, 2020). Future research could consider collaborations with disciplines applying underutilized methodologies, such as auto/ethnography (Taylor et al., 2014; Hernandez et al., 2015) or currere (Pinar, 1994, 2019), as sources of inquiry in instructor Emotional Intelligence.

Students’ Emotionally Intelligent Experiences in BER.

In this section, we highlight studies focused on Students in relation to failure and Sense of Belonging as they connect with the broader concept of Emotional Intelligence along with Contextual factors, like the COVID-19 pandemic. These BER studies serve to elucidate how the Model for Emotional Intelligence can inform scholarship from the student perspective.

Students with Instructor—Self-Disclosure of Challenges.

During the COVID-19 pandemic and rise in remote instruction, there was also a rise in studies in science courses that acknowledged how students’ emotions impact their performance and learning. For example, Busch, Mohammed et al. (2023) examined what factors influenced whether or not students disclosed their depression to their online science instructors. The findings from this study could be used to develop a blueprint for how Emotional Intelligence could be demonstrated in college course structures to promote emotionally validating classroom environments. The most common theme reported was that students perceive their instructors to be emotionally supportive when they are open to making accommodations for class assignments and exams, such as providing deadline extensions or alternative options. Instructors that asserted a “no exceptions” culture in their class communicated to students that disclosing any mental, emotional, or social challenges that may impact their ability to complete an assignment will not change anything or help (Busch, Mohammed et al., 2023). From an ability Emotional Intelligence perspective, such classroom cultures push for emotional inhibition. On the contrary, students perceived their instructors to be emotionally supportive when they acknowledged mental health during class and conveyed that they understand how emotional challenges impact the learning process. Doing so can help students believe that disclosing emotional challenges to their instructors will not be viewed as an excuse for incomplete or subpar work but will be taken seriously (Busch, Mohammed et al., 2023).

One may wonder whether the emotional understanding that science instructors provided during a global pandemic have persisted or subsided. Future scholarship could follow-up with participants during the pandemic to inquire about current perceptions and practices of self-disclosure to draw a comparison. With persisting social inequities, the pandemic and its effects are not over for everyone. Do students today self-censor or self-disclose their challenges, and how do instructors respond now relative to during the pandemic?

Student with Students—Sense of Belonging.

As described in the Introduction, the distinction between conformity/emotional inhibition and acceptance/emotional validation are important considerations for studying Sense of Belonging in relation to Emotional Intelligence. For example, when developing a measure for Sense of Belonging in a biology department, Knekta et al. (2020) identified three factors: social acceptance, valued competence, and involvement. The authors noted that additional items would be needed to clarify if students were “feeling connected to others” in the department (Knekta et al., 2020). However, ideas of social acceptance could be interpreted as “fitting in” rather than “belonging” (Brown, 2021, p. 162). Instead of indirectly measuring the acceptance of pressures to assimilate to dominant culture (Stanford SPARQ, 2023), we might consider assessing whether students from marginalized backgrounds feel like they can contribute important values, despite being inconsistent with dominant ideology (i.e., community cultural wealth, Yosso, 2005). For students who have to hide parts of themselves to fit in, this can be characterized as emotional inhibition. For students who feel safe bringing their full selves, this can be characterized as emotional validation.

To distinguish between the emotional inhibition of conformity (fitting in) and the emotional validation of acceptance (belonging), future studies in BER that address students’ Sense of Belonging could factor in Emotional Intelligence.

Student with Contextual Factors—Failure.

For a given task, if there is a gap between an expected outcome and what is achieved, and if certain competencies comparable to some standard are required to carry out the task, then one may call such an experience a failure (Cannon and Edmondson, 2005; Henry et al., 2019). While failure is embraced as part of the learning process and scientific progress (Simpson and Maltese, 2017), students have differential emotional responses to the experience of failure in STEM learning environments. In one study, students in two sequential course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) shifted in their perceptions of failure (Corwin et al., 2022). In the first CURE course, “confusion” was coded significantly more in students’ open-ended responses relative to the responses in the second CURE course in the series (Corwin et al., 2022). Coping patterns were categorized as mostly adaptive (e.g., repeating an experiment, problem solving) while a much smaller proportion of students reported maladaptive responses (e.g., dwelling on it); however, Corwin et al. (2022) note that this could be due to fading affect bias (Walker et al., 2003) and/or social desirability bias (Krumpal, 2013). Importantly, students’ emotional perceptions of failure likely shape how they report it in research studies.

There is ample opportunity to consider multiple axes of the Model of Emotional Intelligence in BER as it relates to students’ perceptions of failure. For example, intervention studies could assess the impact of instructors who self-disclose their own failures (see section on Instructor with Student(s)—Non-Content Instructor Language), or characterize how students discuss failures with each other (see section on Student with Students—Sense of Belonging) in the context of CUREs and other course types.

Future Areas for BER with Student Emotional Intelligence.

As with any exercise in Emotional Intelligence, one would have to consider if students are practicing emotional inhibition to maintain social desirability, and if so, how we might design interventions and research shifts in the learning environment to acknowledge the presence of emotions like frustration, confusion, and disappointment, as well as the sources of maladaptive coping mechanisms and opportunities to work through and learn from failure in low-stakes environments. While students report on their emotional states and coping mechanisms in relation to course content, one may wonder about the possible outcomes of including other dimensions of the Model for Emotional Intelligence. As examples, one could study how an instructor fosters a class discussion on the topic of failure (Student-Students) or share with students about their own previous failures in school and in science (Instructor-Students).

As shown in Table 2, each of these foci for approaches to BER—instructor, student, and contextual factors—offers a part of the picture of how Emotional Intelligence could manifest in a classroom setting and be studied in discipline-based education research. Next, we consider the contributions of other fields to enrich our understanding of Emotional Intelligence in BER.

Threading the Needle: Emotional Intelligence for and by Biology Education Researchers

There are efforts to design and evaluate Emotional Intelligence interventions in higher education in fields like management education (Brown, 2003), developmental and educational psychology (Dacre Pool and Qualter, 2012; Ciarrochi and Mayer, 2014; Majeski et al., 2017; Gilar-Corbí et al., 2018; Gilar-Corbi et al., 2019), organizational psychology (Kastberg et al., 2020), and business education (Gunasekara et al., 2022). While such interventions could offer fruitful possibilities to consider implementing in undergraduate life sciences, we strongly urge biology education researchers to ground our intervention designs in our own context relevant to our unique student needs. Murray and Evers (1989) warn us of the pitfalls of “theory borrowing”, which is the process of “removing a theory from its original context and using it in another to explain a phenomena important to the field” (p. 647) and is a common practice among relatively new interdisciplinary fields. To avoid assimilating a borrowed theory to the point that its origin is lost, CohenMiller and Pate (2019) remind us that interdisciplinary research is an intentional integration of ideas and methods from multiple disciplines to achieve a broader understanding of a phenomena.

Emotional Intelligence is a theory based on the values and assumptions of social psychology, and the interventions previously cited are grounded in the social contexts of psychology and business education. Designing and implementing Emotional Intelligence interventions in undergraduate life sciences will present a unique challenge given the historical objective nature of the field, the typical curricular and pedagogical strategies used in the field, and even the standard structure of large class sizes and content-heavy courses. As we have modeled through our collaboration on this manuscript, it would behoove biology education researchers to partner with colleagues from disciplines such as psychology, sociology, or social work to maintain theoretical and context integrity in the pursuit of exploring Emotional Intelligence in undergraduate life sciences.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Before we conclude this essay, there are some guidelines we wish to impart to our readers to carefully engage with Emotional Intelligence in BER. We acknowledge that discipline-based researchers and education researchers are not typically trained in crisis intervention for emotionally dysregulated students, and researchers themselves may be experiencing emotional dysregulation in times of stress and overwhelm. Thus, researchers should exercise caution when designing and conducting studies and refrain from attempting to provide services beyond the scope of their abilities. Instead, we suggest that biology education researchers become familiar with the mental health services provided by their respective campuses and delegate such interventions to trained professionals.

We also want to emphasize that research aiming to foster Emotional Intelligence should not be something students are required to practice against their will but be provided as an opportunity for those who are interested in participating. Not all students will be receptive to or interested in discussing their emotional experiences, nor should they be forced to do so. Future scholarship might consider how to foster Emotional Intelligence in an ethically sound and noncoercive manner to assess undergraduates’ analysis and management of emotions in their classrooms.

Lastly, we believe that any research plan related to Emotional Intelligence should be developed with a trained professional in social work and/or counseling psychology. Given that there is a power dynamic that exists between researchers and participants, biology education researchers who have not received such training may cause unintended harm by collecting emotional information from students or instructors without follow-up. Any proposed intervention should be accompanied by an appropriate assessment to determine if intended outcomes are met and unintended consequences are avoided.

Given the increased rates of mental health challenges that impede undergraduate student success and disproportionately afflict students pursuing STEM majors from marginalized backgrounds, here we synthesized scholarship in Emotional Intelligence, identified parallels in research related to affective learning, and developed a Model for Emotional Intelligence in BER. Biology education researchers should strive to discover evidence-based interventions that help to minimize rates of anxiety, depression, and health-endangering behaviors among life sciences majors in ways that discourage emotional inhibition and instead foster emotional validation. Thus, we urge the field of BER to investigate curricular and pedagogical strategies that promote emotionally validating learning environments in undergraduate biology education by considering Emotional Intelligence.

To advance our collective efforts to support student well-being in the sciences, the model proposed here offers a scaffold for future scholarship on Emotional Intelligence in BER. There is a growing body of scholarship on social and emotional learning in K-12 settings that could be a fruitful starting point for higher education. While there are abundant recommendations and ideas related to Emotional Intelligence, we encourage the development of assessment tools with evidence for validity based on social context. Future research should also consider how systems shape the acceptability of expressing emotions in academic spaces, like life sciences classrooms, and how this varies by social identity.