Attention, Emotion, and Memory

Attention is not a spotlight that a learner either chooses to point or fails to control. It is a limited, dynamic allocation of a living system. What captures it depends on goals, uncertainty, emotion, prior knowledge, fatigue, perceived safety, and the structure of the task. A student who cannot sustain attention in one environment may show extraordinary concentration in another. The difference is not proof of laziness or proof that every task must be entertaining. It is evidence that attention has conditions.

Memory has conditions too. Working memory can hold and manipulate only a limited amount at once. ^1,2 Long-term memory supplies organized knowledge that makes new material easier to interpret. That is why novices and experts can appear to perform different cognitive tasks while looking at the same problem: the expert recognizes structures and retrieves chunks that the novice must construct element by element. Good instruction manages that difference without turning it into a permanent label.

Emotion is part of this system, not an interruption to it. Affective and social neuroscience has argued that thought, meaning, and emotion are integrated in learning rather than operating as separate channels. ³ Fear, humiliation, boredom, curiosity, belonging, pride, and anticipated usefulness change what receives attention and what is later available to memory. The claim is not that learners must feel good at all times. Productive struggle can be uncomfortable. The distinction is between difficulty that serves a comprehensible goal and threat that consumes the resources needed to pursue it.

Motivation likewise cannot be reduced to rewards. Self-determination research distinguishes forms of motivation and emphasizes autonomy, competence, and relatedness as conditions that can support more self-directed engagement. ⁴ External rewards can be useful, especially for beginning, unpleasant, or socially necessary tasks. But when points, rankings, and punishments become the entire architecture, learners can become skilled at obtaining the signal while avoiding the underlying challenge.

Memory makes the long view unavoidable. Immediate performance is often a poor guide to durable learning. A fluent rereading session can feel productive because the material is familiar. Retrieval after delay is harder and more informative. Spacing can reduce the comfort of practice while improving later retention. ⁵ This creates an institutional problem: systems that reward visible smoothness today can discourage the difficulties that make knowledge available tomorrow.

Metacognition offers part of the answer, but it should not be romanticized as pure self-awareness. Learners need experience comparing predictions with outcomes. I recommend giving them opportunities to retrieve, explain, apply, and inspect the gap between confidence and performance, rather than treating confidence itself as evidence of mastery. Teachers support this process by making criteria visible and by treating error as information about strategy, knowledge, or task design, not as a character judgment.

For education leaders, attention, emotion, and memory demand a schedule and culture built for cognition. Fragmented periods, constant notifications, public ranking, chronic threat, and overloaded curricula are not neutral containers. They shape what learners can do. A serious learning system protects depth, returns to important ideas across time, and creates relationships in which a learner can expose confusion without surrendering dignity.

Attention is an allocation problem

Attention is often discussed as if it were a virtue possessed by a compliant learner. In practice, it is an allocation under constraint. Competing sensory input, unresolved threat, social meaning, prior knowledge, task difficulty, fatigue, and anticipated reward all influence what becomes available for further processing. A learner can look attentive while mentally rehearsing a worry; another can appear restless while following the argument closely. Observable compliance is an imperfect proxy for cognitive engagement.

That matters because institutions control much of the competition. They design room acoustics, device expectations, transition schedules, task duration, interruption patterns, public error, and the number of simultaneous demands. They also decide whether a learner understands the purpose of the work and can see a route into it. An attention problem may belong partly to the learner, but it may also be evidence about the environment.

This does not mean every task must be entertaining. Sustained learning often requires effort after novelty has disappeared. The goal is not maximal stimulation; stimulation can fragment attention as readily as it attracts it. The design question is whether the task gives attention somewhere worthwhile to go: a meaningful problem, a visible structure, an attainable next move, and feedback that helps the learner adjust.

Emotion carries information

Emotion is not a decorative layer placed on cognition. It helps mark relevance, risk, belonging, and anticipated consequence. Work on affect and learning emphasizes that emotion and cognition are intertwined in how people interpret and act. ³ The educational implication should be stated carefully. It does not follow that a leader can improve learning by demanding positivity, scoring emotional displays, or purchasing a system that claims to recognize internal states from faces or voices.

Fear can narrow attention toward immediate threat. Curiosity can sustain exploration. Pride can reinforce effort; shame can make an error feel like evidence about identity. Yet emotions are context-dependent, culturally expressed, and not transparent to observers. A quiet learner is not necessarily disengaged. A smiling learner is not necessarily safe. Emotional data deserves more humility, not more aggressive inference.

I recommend examining what an error means inside the institution. Public or permanent judgment may create a reason to conceal uncertainty; this is a risk to investigate rather than a universal account of student behavior. Specific feedback can make an error actionable, but its usefulness depends on the learner and task. ⁶ The design question is whether consequences support the next attempt or sort learners before a genuine opportunity to improve.

Memory is a future availability claim

A successful lesson is an event. Learning is a claim about what becomes available later. That later moment may require recall, recognition, explanation, execution, or the selection of a strategy in a new context. Different evidence supports different claims.

Short-term fluency can mislead both learner and teacher. Rereading makes material feel familiar; blocked practice makes the next step predictable; immediate repetition keeps an answer active. Those conditions can improve performance during practice without producing equally strong retention. Reviews of learning techniques have found stronger general utility for approaches such as practice testing and distributed practice than for several familiar study habits, although effectiveness still depends on task and implementation. ⁷

Retrieval is useful because it requires the learner to reconstruct access rather than merely encounter the answer again. In experimental work, retrieving information has improved later retention compared with additional study under specified conditions. ⁸ The finding does not justify constant high-stakes testing. Low-stakes retrieval and consequential examination serve different purposes. A humane design uses retrieval frequently as practice and sparingly as judgment.

Spacing similarly changes the temporal conditions of practice. A quantitative synthesis found robust spacing effects across verbal-memory studies, with the useful interval related to the desired retention interval. ⁵ Leaders should resist turning that relation into one universal formula. The practical principle is to build return into curricula: revisit important ideas after some forgetting, in varied tasks, with feedback.

The ethics of engagement

Digital products often define engagement through observable activity: time on task, clicks, response speed, streaks, completion, gaze, or return frequency. Some signals can help diagnose a confusing interface or an abandoned task. None is equivalent to learning. Optimization toward visible activity can reward compulsion, superficial speed, or compliance.

Leaders should require an engagement claim to name its purpose. Is the system helping a learner re-enter after interruption, helping a teacher notice who lacks a route into the task, or maximizing daily use? Those goals are not ethically or educationally interchangeable. The relevant outcome is not whether the platform captured attention. It is whether the learner developed capability and retained agency over where attention went.

Designing conditions for attention and memory

The practical sequence begins with cognitive clarity. Reduce irrelevant demands. Show the structure of the task. Connect new information to what learners already understand. Alternate explanation with effortful use. Return to important ideas after time has passed. Make feedback specific enough to guide the next attempt. Protect some attempts from permanent judgment.

Then examine emotional conditions. Can learners make an error without humiliation? Do they know why the work matters? Are expectations high and support credible? Does help arrive in a form that preserves dignity? Are belonging and safety treated as conditions for serious work rather than rewards for easy work?

Finally, measure what remains. If the goal is durable memory, assess after delay. If the goal is flexible use, change the surface and context. If the goal is self-regulation, ask learners to plan, monitor, and revise, not merely complete a self-report. Attention begins the process, but retention and transfer are how an institution learns whether attention was used well.

Motivation without manipulation

Motivation is not a fuel that a school pours into a learner. It is a changing relation among a person, a goal, an environment, and a judgment about whether action is worthwhile and possible. Self-determination theory directs attention to autonomy, competence, and relatedness, but these needs should guide design rather than become three scores on a dashboard. ⁴

Rewards can alter behavior, but that is neither a complete defense nor a complete indictment of incentives. Nikooyan and Ahmed’s motor-task experiment found accelerated adaptation when reward supplemented visual feedback; Zhao and colleagues’ review describes variation across stages and experimental conditions. ^9,10 Dopamine models help explain how prediction and consequence participate in updating behavior. ¹¹ None of these findings demonstrates that badges teach algebra or that a streak produces durable reading skill.

The educational question is what the reward makes salient. Self-determination theory distinguishes informational support from controlling incentives rather than treating all rewards alike. ⁴ My concern is that a design may reward pursuit of a prize or penalize a learner who needs more time without improving the intended capability. The proper comparison is not “reward” against “no motivation.” It is one motivational design against credible alternatives, followed by a test of whether interest, strategy, retention, and independent performance remain when the incentive is absent.

Emotion is not an error state

Emotion helps determine what matters, what is remembered, and which possibilities a learner can consider. ³ That does not mean schools should engineer constant positivity. Confusion can signal a conceptual conflict. Frustration can indicate that a strategy has stopped working. Anxiety can consume attention, but the appropriate response may be clearer expectations, more preparation, less humiliation, or a safer relationship, not an application that claims to regulate the learner’s mood.

Students need ways to name emotion, seek support, recover, and re-enter difficult work. Universal social and emotional learning programs have shown positive average outcomes across a large body of school studies, but those averages do not validate every program, a single emotional-intelligence score, or surveillance of facial affect. ¹² Emotion belongs in education because learners are people, not because feeling can be converted into another optimization variable.

Cognitive processes and self-regulation

Attention selects; working memory maintains and transforms a limited amount of information; long-term knowledge changes what can be perceived and processed; retrieval reconstructs access; and metacognition helps a learner judge and adjust. These processes interact. A “working-memory training” score or a completion metric does not by itself establish improvement in the academic capability that matters.

Self-regulation can be taught as a cycle of forethought, performance, monitoring, and reflection. ¹³ Learners can identify a goal, select a strategy, notice evidence, change course, and evaluate the result. Technology may make the plan visible or provide timely information. It should not quietly make every consequential choice: completion under extensive assistance does not establish that the learner can make those choices independently.

Useful supports therefore fade or change. A checklist can externalize a process until it becomes familiar. A prompt can ask for a prediction before revealing an answer. A progress display can show completed practice without equating completion with mastery. The success criterion is not dependence on the tool. It is growing capacity to plan, persist, seek help, and judge one’s own understanding under increasingly independent conditions.

Biometric attention claims require a higher burden of proof

Eye movement, posture, pulse, facial movement, and interaction timing can be measured under bounded conditions. None is a direct meter of attention, emotion, honesty, or understanding. The inference from a physical or behavioral signal to a psychological state introduces uncertainty that varies with disability, culture, equipment, fatigue, context, and task. A sensor can be accurate about where a learner looked and still be wrong about why.

For consequential educational use, the default should be non-use. A proposed exception must establish necessity, validity in the actual learner population and setting, proportionality, security, a meaningful non-biometric alternative, and a practical route to challenge an inference. An engagement feature should invite a learner back into the work; it should not create a permanent compliance score. The governance standard developed in Chapter 10 treats these signals as high-risk data, not as objective access to an inner state. ^14,15

Attention as a design responsibility

I recommend beginning with a legible task, an attainable next step, fewer avoidable interruptions, and actionable feedback. The off-task media literature supplies a specific reason to examine competing demands, without making every device use equivalent. ¹⁶ Short activities or interactive questions can be useful when they serve the argument of a lesson. They are not inherently superior because they produce more clicks. Nor does activity in a named brain region validate a commercial “focus” intervention.

Leaders should begin with environmental causes before locating failure inside the learner: unclear instructions, inaccessible materials, unnecessary switching, threat, noise, hunger, exhaustion, or work that offers no intelligible purpose. Attention is partly a learner capacity and partly an institutional achievement.

The Role of Memory in Learning

Definition and Types of Memory

Encoding, retention, and retrieval name different parts of the memory problem. A student may understand an explanation while hearing it but be unable to reconstruct it later. A learner may remember an answer yet not recognize when it applies. The National Academies’ account places memory inside a wider system of knowledge, context, motivation, and activity; it is not a warehouse whose size an application simply increases. ¹

For a leader, the distinction changes what a memory claim must specify. Was the outcome recognition of a familiar item, unaided recall, explanation, or application? Was it assessed immediately or after a delay? Were the original cues still available? Those questions are more informative than the number of flashes, repetitions, or brain regions in a product demonstration.

Memory Processes in Learning

Evidence for retrieval and spacing supports particular arrangements of practice, not every tool that invokes those terms. The tested contrast might be retrieval against additional study or distributed against massed practice. A comparison with an undefined “traditional method” does not tell us whether a commercial scheduler adds value beyond a simple planned review. ^8,5

My recommendation is to distinguish a practice principle from its implementation. A flashcard system should identify what is retrieved, when the answer is revealed, how errors are corrected, and what later assessment is used. Learners should not be asked to infer mastery from a streak. The relevant question is whether the knowledge remains available when the streak, prompt, and interface are absent.

Transfer of Learning

Memory is necessary for many forms of transfer, but a retention result is not a transfer result. Changing a task’s surface, context, social arrangement, or purpose can change the knowledge required to succeed. Barnett and Ceci’s framework makes those distances explicit rather than treating “real-world application” as one outcome. ¹⁷

Consider a hypothetical simulation review. Before using the simulation as evidence of readiness, a team would name which parts of the later task it represents and which it omits. A simulation could reproduce choices while removing physical demands, uncertainty, interpersonal pressure, or consequences. The team should assess the omitted elements separately where they matter. This is a proposal for validation, not a report that a simulation has already improved problem solving.

Emotional Intelligence and Academic Achievement

Understanding Emotional Intelligence

“Emotional intelligence” is not a single, universally interchangeable measurement. Research distinguishes ability-based measures from self-reports and broader mixed measures. MacCann and colleagues’ meta-analysis found a positive relationship between measured emotional intelligence and academic performance, but the strength depended on how emotional intelligence was measured. It does not establish that raising an EI score causes higher grades. ¹⁸

The distinction matters when a school moves from a humane aim to an assessment. Helping a learner describe a difficulty is different from claiming to measure a stable emotional capacity. A questionnaire about confidence, a task asking how someone might respond, an adult’s observation, and an inferred expression are different forms of evidence. They should not be merged into one allegedly objective rank.

The Importance of Emotional Intelligence in Education

There is a strong ethical argument for teaching respectful communication, conflict repair, help-seeking, and ways to discuss emotion. That argument does not depend on converting every human interaction into an academic gain. A student deserves to be heard even if listening does not immediately raise a test score.

Intervention research answers a different question from EI-score research. A large contemporary meta-analysis of universal school-based social and emotional learning found positive average effects across several outcomes while documenting substantial differences among programs and settings. ¹⁹ That supports serious consideration of evaluated programs. It does not validate every activity marketed as emotional intelligence or prove that an emotion-detection system can deliver the same benefits.

Emotional Intelligence in the Learning Process

The practical starting point should be a difficulty the learner can help describe. Perhaps a student does not know how to ask for clarification without embarrassment. Perhaps a group needs a way to disagree about work without attacking a person. These are proposed instructional problems, not diagnoses inferred from a face, pulse, or typing rhythm.

A teacher might model a request for help, give students a low-stakes opportunity to rehearse it, and invite feedback on whether the routine is usable. A student might decline a public role while still contributing substantially. The design should allow those possibilities. Its success would have to be evaluated through the intended behavior and the learner’s experience; participation alone would not establish improved concentration or memory.

Emotional Intelligence and Academic Performance

The earlier synthesis by Durlak and colleagues and the larger contemporary SEL review concern organized interventions, not merely the observation that emotionally skilled learners earn higher grades. ^12,19 An intervention can contain several elements: adult preparation, structured lessons, practice, relationships, and changes in classroom routines. An average program effect cannot identify which component caused an improvement.

This gives leaders two responsibilities. First, do not dismiss the intervention evidence because emotion is difficult to measure. Second, do not describe a commercial EI score as validated by that evidence. Specify the program, population, comparator, outcome, implementation requirements, and follow-up period. If academic attainment was not measured, do not invent an academic success story to make the program sound important.

Developing Emotional Intelligence in Students

I recommend treating these capacities as practices that can be discussed and revisited, not as points on a permanent character profile. A learner could rehearse how to identify uncertainty, request time, disagree respectfully, repair a misunderstanding, or seek adult help. A teacher could make the purpose explicit and ask whether the routine respects the learner’s language and communication needs.

Assessment should remain proportionate. A short reflection can reveal what a student wishes to discuss; it should not be treated as a complete account of the student’s inner life. A record of observed communication can support feedback on that communication. It should not become a prediction of employability, honesty, leadership, or future worth.

The Long-Term Impact of Emotional Intelligence on Academic Achievement

A long-term claim needs a long-term outcome. An immediate change in self-report does not establish later graduation, career success, or lifelong adaptability. The EI–achievement association and the SEL intervention evidence reviewed here do not authorize that chain of promises. ^18,12

Institutions can still make long-term commitments. They can ensure that students repeatedly encounter respectful adults, accessible help, opportunities to practice communication, and a fair process for repairing conflict. Those are the commitments I advocate. Their durability should be assessed rather than presumed, and benefits to well-being should not be made subordinate to a narrow academic metric.

Conclusion

Emotion belongs in education because the learner is a person. Research provides reasons to examine particular interventions and associations carefully; it does not turn emotional life into a universal performance lever. A school that wishes to teach self-regulation must also examine whether its own deadlines, public comparisons, and response to error are reasonable.

The distinction is foundational to this book’s argument. A proxy becomes a gate when the institution forgets what it can and cannot show. Emotional-intelligence scores, like academic scores, require interpretation. Neither should decide whose experience is credible or whose future deserves investment.

Understanding and Teaching Emotion Management

The Concept of Short-Term Mood Regulation

Short-term coping routines should not be sold as guaranteed attention or test-performance interventions. A learner may choose a pause, a quieter setting, a conversation, or another established support that they find useful. Whether a particular strategy improves a particular educational outcome is a separate question.

For ordinary classroom practice, I recommend offering choices and preserving the right not to disclose private feelings. A short pause should not require a recorded emotional score. Persistent distress or a clinical concern belongs with appropriately qualified support; a general educational routine is not a diagnosis or treatment plan. The institution should not make students responsible for privately regulating conditions that adults could change.

Understanding Emotions

An invitation to name an emotion is an invitation to describe experience, not a test with one correct answer visible to an observer. “I feel frustrated” may be a useful starting point for conversation. It does not tell an institution whether the source is confusing instruction, peer conflict, pain, a concern outside school, or something the learner does not wish to discuss.

The practical discipline is to ask rather than infer. What does the student want help with? What can the adult change? What information is necessary to act? A school need not know the whole story before providing an accessible explanation, a reasonable break, or a private route to assistance.

Expressing Emotions Constructively

I propose a simple classroom boundary: students should be able to express disagreement, concern, and uncertainty without humiliation, while remaining responsible for how they treat others. The boundary should apply to adults too. Calm presentation should not be mistaken for truth, and an unconventional communication style should not erase a legitimate concern.

In a hypothetical group project, members could agree on a way to flag an unrealistic deadline and request a discussion. The exercise would rehearse a specific communication practice. Its value would be assessed through whether members can use it and whether the response is fair, not by asserting that the exercise has already improved everyone’s well-being or attainment.

Developing Empathy and Active Listening

Active listening, as used here, means attending to another person’s account and checking one’s interpretation rather than substituting one’s own story. Empathy does not require claiming identical experience. A useful response may be “What am I missing?” rather than “I know exactly how you feel.”

This is a recommendation about adult practice, not a genetic explanation of empathy. The educational-attainment genetics discussed in Chapter 1 cannot establish an individual biological ceiling for a different social capacity. ^20,21 Schools should not use candidate-gene stories to decide who can become considerate, communicative, or trustworthy.

A learner’s account may be incomplete or contested; listening does not require treating every account as the final finding. It requires a fair process in which evidence, context, and correction remain possible. That is also what institutions should ask of learners.

Advanced Emotion Management Techniques

“Advanced” should not mean more intrusive measurement. A mood diary voluntarily used by its owner is different from an institution collecting inferred emotions, linking them to achievement, and retaining them indefinitely. Technical capacity to record a signal does not establish the necessity or legitimacy of collection. ¹⁴

Leaders should keep the educational and clinical boundaries visible. They should explain which services are available, who is qualified to provide them, what confidentiality means in that setting, and how a learner can seek help. A school should not present a monitoring app as a substitute for professional care, nor use a student’s willingness to share private information as evidence of cooperation. These are governance recommendations, not claims that a particular app improves performance.

Productive difficulty without manufactured distress

The phrase “productive struggle” is sometimes used to justify leaving learners unsupported. Difficulty is productive when it directs effort toward a learnable problem, offers information, and preserves a plausible path forward. It becomes manufactured distress when expectations are opaque, prerequisite knowledge is absent, errors are punished socially, or support arrives only after failure has become identity.

Leaders cannot optimize every learner’s mood, nor should they try. They can design the conditions under institutional control: pace, interruption, feedback, psychological safety, opportunities for revision, and access to a trusted adult. The goal is not emotional comfort. It is an environment in which emotion can inform learning without being weaponized as evidence of worth.

Implications for leaders

• Audit schedules and platforms for avoidable interruption and cognitive switching.
• Build delayed retrieval into evaluation instead of relying on immediate fluency.
• Protect revision and low-stakes error before consequential judgment.
• Train adults to distinguish disengagement, overload, threat, and missing knowledge.
• Measure belonging and safety cautiously, as context for action rather than labels attached to individuals.

Questions to carry forward

1. What does your system do when a learner’s confidence and performance disagree?
2. Which incentives direct attention toward learning, and which direct it toward appearances?
3. Where can a learner reveal confusion without increasing the stakes?

Notes

1. 1National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. “How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures”. The National Academies Press.↩
2. 2Sweller, John. 2024. “Cognitive Load Theory and Individual Differences”. Learning and Individual Differences, vol. 110, 102423.↩
3. 3Immordino-Yang, Mary Helen and Damasio, Antonio. 2007. “We Feel, Therefore We Learn: The Relevance of Affective and Social Neuroscience to Education”. Mind, Brain, and Education, vol. 1, no. 1, 3–10.↩
4. 4Deci, Edward L. and Ryan, Richard M.. 2000. “The ‘What’ and ‘Why’ of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior”. Psychological Inquiry, vol. 11, no. 4, 227–268.↩
5. 5Cepeda, Nicholas J., Pashler, Harold, Vul, Edward, et al.. 2006. “Distributed Practice in Verbal Recall Tasks: A Review and Quantitative Synthesis”. Psychological Bulletin, vol. 132, no. 3, 354–380.↩
6. 6Shute, Valerie J.. 2008. “Focus on Formative Feedback”. Review of Educational Research, vol. 78, no. 1, 153–189.↩
7. 7Dunlosky, John, Rawson, Katherine A., Marsh, Elizabeth J., et al.. 2013. “Improving Students’ Learning With Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology”. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, vol. 14, no. 1, 4–58.↩
8. 8Roediger, Henry L. III and Karpicke, Jeffrey D.. 2006. “Test-Enhanced Learning: Taking Memory Tests Improves Long-Term Retention”. Psychological Science, vol. 17, no. 3, 249–255.↩
9. 9Nikooyan, Ali A. and Ahmed, Alaa A.. 2015. “Reward Feedback Accelerates Motor Learning”. Journal of Neurophysiology, vol. 113, no. 2, 633–646.↩
10. 10Zhao, Jingwang, Zhang, Guanghu, Xu, Dongsheng. 2024. “The effect of reward on motor learning: different stage, different effect”. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 18, 1381935.↩
11. 11Glimcher, Paul W.. 2011. “Understanding Dopamine and Reinforcement Learning: The Dopamine Reward Prediction Error Hypothesis”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 108, 15647–15654.↩
12. 12Durlak, Joseph A., Weissberg, Roger P., Dymnicki, Allison B., et al.. 2011. “The Impact of Enhancing Students’ Social and Emotional Learning: A Meta-Analysis of School-Based Universal Interventions”. Child Development, vol. 82, no. 1, 405–432.↩
13. 13Zimmerman, Barry J.. 2002. “Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview”. Theory Into Practice, vol. 41, no. 2, 64–70.↩
14. 14National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2020. “NIST Privacy Framework: A Tool for Improving Privacy Through Enterprise Risk Management, Version 1.0”. NIST.↩
15. 15Global Education Monitoring Report Team. 2023. “Global Education Monitoring Report 2023: Technology in Education: A Tool on Whose Terms?”. UNESCO.↩
16. 16May, Kaitlyn E. and Elder, Anastasia D.. 2018. “Efficient, helpful, or distracting? A literature review of media multitasking in relation to academic performance”. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 15, no. 1, 13.↩
17. 17Barnett, Susan M. and Ceci, Stephen J.. 2002. “When and Where Do We Apply What We Learn? A Taxonomy for Far Transfer”. Psychological Bulletin, vol. 128, no. 4, 612–637.↩
18. 18MacCann, Carolyn, Jiang, Yixin, Brown, Luke E. R., et al.. 2020. “Emotional intelligence predicts academic performance: A meta-analysis.”. Psychological Bulletin, vol. 146, no. 2, 150-186.↩
19. 19Cipriano, Christina, Strambler, Michael J, Naples, Lauren H, et al.. 2023. “The state of evidence for social and emotional learning: A contemporary meta-analysis of universal school-based SEL interventions”. Child Development, vol. 94, no. 5, 1181-1204.↩
20. 20Lee, James J, Wedow, Robbee, Okbay, Aysu, et al.. 2018. “Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a genome-wide association study of educational attainment in 1.1 million individuals”. Nature genetics, vol. 50, no. 8, 1112-1121.↩
21. 21Kong, Augustine, Thorleifsson, Gudmar, Frigge, Michael L, et al.. 2018. “The nature of nurture: Effects of parental genotypes”. Science (New York, N.Y.), vol. 359, no. 6374, 424-428.↩