Rhizomatic-based educational model and its effect on creative thinking

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of Management and educational planning , Faculty of Education and Psychology, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Prof , Department of Management and Educational Planning, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

4 Assistant Professor, Department Management and educational planning, Faculty of Education Sciences and Psychology, Shiraz University, Shiraz. Iran

Abstract

Educational systems require optimal educational methods to achieve their large scale goals and promote creative thinking. This study aimed to propose a rhizomatic model for training creative thinking. This mixed-methods exploratory research proposed and approved a model. The rhizomatic model was designed and presented qualitatively, and then implemented via a quantitative quasi-experimental design. In the quantitative phase, the statistical population comprised all the sixth-grade male students in state-run schools of Sahneh (Iran) in the academic year 2018-2019. A sample was selected purposively from two classes in this city. A class of 34 students served as the experimental group, and another class of 34 as the control group. The data collection tool was Schaeffer’s Creative Attitude Survey. The analysis of covariance demonstrated the model's influence on the students’ creative thinking growth
Introduction: Research indicates that teachers, from kindergarten to high school, have diminished students’ creativity over the past two decades because creativity is associated with nonconformity, impulsivity, and disruption of class activities (Shahalizadeh et al., 2014). Educational authorities must, therefore, focus on the improvement of creativity in teachers and students (Magdalena and Krzysztof, 2013, pp. 18-19).
Post-structuralist philosophers Deleuze and Guattari believe that thinking used to be tree-like, vertical, and hierarchical in the past; in the contemporary world, however, it is rhizomatic and horizontal (Raeesi, Mahmoudi, and Oveisi Kahkha, 2019). In rhizomatic thinking, the educational setting is open to new ideas. Learners grow through discussion, curiosity, and participation in learning, and teachers act as guides or facilitators in students’ process of discovery (Charney, 2017). Zamani (2020), Shakoori Monfared and Ardalani (2020), Sajjadi and Baghernejad (2011), Selahshoori and Haghverdi (2015), Ahmadabadi, Farajollahi, and Abollahyar (2017) studied rhizomatic education and its relationship with creativity, the curricula, education, philosophy, and epistemology.
According to what was stated, a close tie between rhizomatic thinking and creativity has been established. The present study aimed to identify and document the dimensions and components of the educational model of rhizomatic thinking, and then assess the model's impact on the creativity of sixth-grade students in the Experimental Sciences course. This study addressed the following questions:
What are the dimensions and components of rhizomatic education?
Does the rhizomatic educational model promote students’ creative thinking?
Methodology: This was a mixed-methods research. Herein, based on the research objectives and questions, the two-phase exploratory sequential design of the theory-building type was deemed to be the best design. In the qualitative phase, the relevant literature was analyzed with a review of the theoretical foundations using deductive content analysis, and the rhizomatic education model was extracted. Due to the plurality of sources, a sample of accessible print and digital documents was purposively selected. The data were collected via note-taking. After extracting the initial concepts, semi-structured interviews were conducted with six experts to develop the rhizomatic thinking educational model. Confirmability and credibility were adopted to validate the results through triangulation. Inter-rater agreement served as a reliability measure. Then, the data were analyzed by thematic analysis. In the quantitative phase, a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design was employed. The statistical population comprised all the sixth-grade male students in state-run schools of Sahneh (Iran) in the academic year 2018-2019. Two classes were purposively selected as the sample. A class of 34 students taking the Experimental Sciences course served as the experimental group, and another class of 34 as the control group. The experimental group was educated based on the educational model (rhizomatic content and method) in three sessions, while the control group received conventional education (conventional content and method). The data collection tool was Schaeffer’s Creative Attitude Survey. To assess the reliability of the test, a Cronbach's alpha of 0.82 was calculated based on the scores of 26 students.  The data were analyzed via multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA).
Results: The first question was qualitatively answered. Among the limited resources and documents available on rhizomatic thinking (two specialized books, two theses/dissertations, and 11 research articles on rhizomatic education), 129 statements were extracted upon an in-depth review; then, 17 basic themes and six organizing themes were extracted: methodological thinking, design thinking, deconstructive thinking, creative thinking, conflicts, and the concept of communication. In the quantitative phase, a univariate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was run in SPSS 22 to assess the research hypotheses. The mean ± SD of the pretest scores of creativity were 12.44 ± 3.72 and 11.64 ± 3.32 in the experimental and control groups, respectively. The mean ± SD of the posttest scores of creativity were 17.79 ± 4.47 and 12.05 ± 3.65 in the experimental and control groups, respectively.
The F value was not significant at the 0.05 level on pretest in the two groups (F = 2.005, df = 1), yet it was significant at the 0.0001 level on posttest in the two groups (F = 35.53, df = 1, p > 0.0001) (Table 1). Therefore, the rhizomatic educational model affects students’ creativity. For a closer examination of mean and SD, the gains made by each group are presented in Table 2.
Table 2 demonstrates the higher mean gains made by the experimental compared to the control group, and this difference was significant (t = 2.66, df = 66, p > 0.0008). Although the means of both groups increased on the posttest, the magnitude of this increase was greater in the experimental than that in the control group.
Discussion and Conclusion: In this study, we designed and presented a rhizomatic-based educational model and assessed its effects on the creative thinking of the sixth-grade male students. In the first phase, the rhizomatic educational model was qualitatively designed and presented. In the second phase, the magnitude of the effect of this model on students’ creative thinking growth was assessed via a quasi-experimental quantitative design. The findings revealed that creativity was enhanced in the group educated based on the rhizomatic model. This finding is consistent with the results reported by Cronje (2018), Wilson (2018), Zamani (2020), Shakoori Monfared and Ardalani (2020), Abdollahyar, Sobhaninejad, and Farmihani (2019), Ahmadabadi Arani, Farajollahi, and Abdollahyar (2017), Selahshoori and Haghverdi (2015).
Implications of this study include: 1. More educational courses can be offered to teachers and students to familiarize them with rhizomatic thinking-based education so that they can accurately implement it. 2. The school and class setting can be adapted to the dimensions, components, and skills of rhizomatic education.

Keywords

References

Abdolahyar, A., Sobhāni Nejād, M., Sajjādi, S. M., & Farmahini Farāhāni, M. (2019). Explaining the creative teaching pattern based on the rhizomatic principles of Gilles Deleuze. Educational Innovations, 18(1), 61-84. https://doi.org/10.22034/jei.2019.88542 (Text in Persian)
Abdolahyar, A, Sobhaninejad, M, Sajadi, S.M, & Farmahini Farahani, M. (2021). Designing creative teaching pattern based on Gilles Deleuze & Felix Guattari’ s epistemological components. Curriculum Planning Knowledge & Research in Educational Sciences, 18(41 (68) ), 1-15. (Text in Persian)
Abdulla, A. M., & Cramond, B. (2017). After Six Decades of Systematic Study of Creativity: What Do Teachers Need to KnowAbout What It Is and How It Is Measured? Roeper Review, 39 (1): 9-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2016.1247398 (Text in Persian)
Ahmad Abadi Arani, N., Farajo Allahi, M., & Abdolahyar, A. (2017). Implicating Gilles Deleuze’s idea of the rhizome with a view to using it in improving the educational system in Iran. Journal of Innovation and Creativity in Human Science, 7(2), 83-110. (Text in Persian)
Amirazadi, Fahmia (2015). Methods of effective questions in science education. Studies in Psychology and Educational Sciences, 5(2): 96-85 (Text in Persian).
Anorim, A. C., & Ryan, C. (2005). Deleuze, action research and rhizomatic growth. Educational Action Research, 13(4): 581–593. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650790500200346(Text in Persian)
Bagheri-Najad, Zahra (2010). Explanation and criticism of the rhizomatic approach to knowledge and its challenges for religious education (with an emphasis on the epistemological approach of realism), unpublished master's thesis, Tarbiat Modares University. (Text in Persian)
Bennett, D., Rowley, J., & Dunbar-Hall, P. (2014). Electronic portfolios and learner identity: An ePortfolio case study in music and writing. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/2ARXivQrDrrNw7yCr4ZQ/full.
Bergson, H. (2001). Time and free will: An essay on the immediate data of consciousness. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.za/books?hl=en&lr = &id = g_8JmPzRKaAC&oi = fnd&pg = PA1& dq = Bergson%27s + Essay + on + the + Immediate + Given+of+Awareness + &ots = 0lk4NWBhMM &sig = ScRmEDHUAZKg1FSMYy1eisk7CwE.
Bissola R. and Alferdo Biff (2016), A rhizomatic learning process to create collective knowledge in entrepreneurship education: innovation beyond boundaries, Management Learning:1-21. http://ow.ly/GNhn309Xzr4.
Bigdali, Leila; Qanbarpour, Zahra and Samani, Zahra (2016). The relationship between citizenship education and training with the rhizomatic space and its educational implications from the point of view of curriculum planning experts in higher education. International and National Conference on Management and Humanities Researches in Iran, 2: 1500-1521. (Text in Persian)
Burnard, p (2011). Creativity, pedagogic partnerships, and The Improvisatory Space of Teaching. In S Keith (Ed), structure and improvisation in creative teaching, Cambridge press, pp 51-77.
Carrington, S. (2011). Service-learning within higher education: Rhizomatic interconnections between university and the real world. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(6): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2011v36n6.3
Charney, R. (2017). Rhizomatic Learning and Adapting (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Antioch, Ohio.
Choubak, P., Akvan, M., Sharifzadeh, M., Rahbarnia, Z. (2021). Analyze of Deleuze's View about Human Existence and Its Relation with the Audience in Interactive Art. Journal of Philosophical Investigations, 15(34), 83-99. https://dx.doi.org/10.22034/jpiut.2020.40279.2586 (Text in Persian)
Clarke, B., & Parsons, J. (2013). Becoming rhizome researchers. Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.7577/rerm.685
Cronje, J. C. (2018). Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Cape Peninsula: University of Technology.
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. Springer
Cormier, D., & Stewart, B. (2010).  Life in the open: 21st Century learning & teaching. Atlantic Universities’ Teaching Showcase, 24.
Connell Mark (2008) From shame to Joy: Deriving a pedagogical Approach from Gilles Deleuze Tps-OISE university of Toronto.Available at: http://mpctfrum5.pbwork.com/Mark Connell Deleuzanpedagoy.pdf
Cormier, D. (2008). Rhizomatic knowledge communities: Edtechtalk, Webcast Academy. [Weblog entry, February 29.] Dave's Educational Blog.
Daskalaki, M., & Mould, O. (2013). Beyond urban subcultures: urban subversions as rhizomatic social formations. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(1): 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01198.x
Dau Gaspar, O. (2011). The Teachers Creative Attitudes an Influence Factor of The Students Creative Attitudes. International Conference on The Future of Education, Florence, Italy, 16-17 June.
Davies, M. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: what are the differences and do they matter? Higher Education, 62(3): 279–301.
Deleuze, Gilles & Felix Guattari, (2015). A Thousand Plateaus: A Critical Introduction and Guide Edinburgh University Press.
Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus. London: Bloomsbury.
Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
De Freitas, E. (2012). The classroom as rhizome new strategies for diagramming knotted interactions. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(7): 557-570. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800412450155
De Koning, E., & Hamers, J. H. M. (1999). Teaching inductive reasoning: Theoretical background and educational implications. Csapo´(Eds.), Teaching and learning thinking skills, 156–188. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Dukhai, L., Ardalani, H (2021). The influence of Deleuze's thoughts on the design of the church 2000 by "Peter Eisman". Journal of New Researches in Geography, Architecture and Urban Planning, 4(31): 63-79. (Text in Persian)
Fleming, David H. (2016). Affective Teaching for Effective Learning: A Deleuzian Pedagogy for the (Corporate Era and) Chinese Context, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(10): 1160–1173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2013.803239
Fleming, N. D. (1995). I’m different; not dumb. Modes of presentation (VARK) in the tertiary classroom. In Research and Development in Higher Education. Proceedings of the 1995 Annual Conference of the Higher Education and Research Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA), HERDSA, 18: 308–313.
Freitas, E. (2012). The Classroom as Rhizome: New Strategies for Diagramming Knotted Interactions, Qualitative Inquiry, 18(7): 588– 601, http://qix.sagepub.com.
Galloway, E., & Lesaux, N. (2014). Leader, teacher, diagnostician, colleague, and change agent. The Reading Teacher, 67(7): 517–526. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/trtr.1251/full .
Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic books.
Glăveanu, Vlad Petre (2018). Educating which creativity?, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27: 25–32.
Glen, R.; Suciu, C.; Baughn, C. C. & Anson, R. (2015). Teaching Design Thinking in Business Schools. The International Journal of Management Education, 13(2): 182-192.
Goodley, D. (2007). Towards socially just pedagogies: Deleuzoguattarian critical disability studies. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11(3): 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110701238769
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2013). Primal leadership, with a new preface by the authors: Unleashing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Gough. Noel (2005). Geophilosophy and methodology: science education research in a rhizomatic space. University of Canberra, Australia. science and technological education in societies in transition, January 2005.
Hamers, J. H.and et. al. (1998). Inductive reasoning in the third grade: Intervention promises and constraints. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23: 132–148.
Herrmann, N (1995). The creative brain. (2nd ed). Kingsport: Ouebecor.
Irwin, R. L., Beer, R., Springgay, S., Grauer, K., Xiong, G., & Bickel, B. (2006). The rhizomatic relations of a/r/tography. Studies in Art Education, 70-88.
Jones, A. and Bennett, R. (2016). Reaching beyond an online/offline divide: invoking the rhizome in higher education course design, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(2):193-210.
Jove, G. (2011). How do I improve what I am doing as a teacher, teacher educator and actionresearcher through reflection? A learning walk from Lleida to Winchester and back again. Educational Action Research, 19(3): 261–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2011.600526
Kazemi, Zahra (2012). Enrichment model of experimental science lessons in elementary school for learning and developing students' cognitive skills, Humanities Research Quarterly, 5(27): 37-66. (Text in Persian)
Kharazi, M.; Mashhadi Farahani, M. and Fatemi, M. (2015). Predicting patient care tolerance based on moral development of nurses. The third national congress of social psychology of Iran. (Text in Persian)
Kimbell, L. & Street, P. E. (2009). Beyond Design Thinking: Design-as-practice and Designsin-practice. CRESC Conference, Manchester.
Klein, P. D. (2003). Rethinking the multiplicity of cognitive resources and curricular representations: alternatives to ‘learning styles’ and ‘multiple intelligences. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(1): 45–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220270210141891
Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. A. (2013). Kolb learning style inventory: LSI workbook. New York, NY: HayGroup.
Kozhevnikov, M., Evans, C., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2014). Cognitive style as environmentally sensitive individual differences in cognition a modern synthesis and applications in education, business, and management. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15(1): 3–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100614525555
Lawson, Brian and Nadimi, Hamid (2012). How do designers think? Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University. (Text in Persian)
Leverenz, C. S. (2014). Design Thinking and the Wicked Problem of Teaching Writing. Computers and Composition, 33: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2014.07.001
Leander, K. M., & Rowe, D. W. (2006). Mapping literacy spaces in motion: A rhizomatic analysis of a classroom literacy performance. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(4): 428-460.
Le Grange, L. L. L. (2011). Sustainability and higher education: From arborescent to rhizomatic thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory,43(7): 742-754. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2008.00503.x
Le Grange, L. (2007). The 'theoretical foundations' of community service-learning: From taproots to rhizomes. Education as Change, 11(3): 3–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16823200709487174
Lombard, M. D. (2008). Professional writing, technology, and the rhizomatic transmission of knowledge (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University).
Maroofi Y, Khoramabadi Y, Molavali Z. (2011) Impact of Teaching Deductive Thinking Skills on Academic Achievement in Students with Intellectual Disabilities. JOEC; 11 (2) :101-115 http://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.16826612.1390.11.2.1.1 (Text in Persian)
Maleki, H., Afshar Kohan, Z., & Nowruzi, B. (2012). Assessing the contents of sciences textbooks in Guidance schools from Plesk's creativity training model perspective. Journal of Innovation and Creativity in Human Science, 1(4), 123-151 Text in Persian).
Machera, R.P.; Machera, P.C. (2017). Emotional Intelligence (EI): A Therapy for Higher Education Students. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(3): 461-471. http://dx.doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2017.050318
Masny, D.(2013). Cartographies of Becoming in Education: A Deleuze-Guattari Perspective, Rotterdam: Sense.
Magdalena, G.G, & Krzysztof, J.S (2013). Teaching for Creativity: How to Shape Creative Attitudes in Teachers and in Students. In M. B Gregerson, H. T Snyder, & J. C Kaufman (Eds), Teaching Creatively and teaching Creativity. Springer Press, PP 15-36.
Malamed, C. (2016). 10 definitions of learning. Retrieved March 18, 2017, from http://theelearningcoach.com/learning/10-definitions-learning/.
McKeough, A., Lupart, J., & Marini, A. (2013). Teaching for transfer: Fostering generalization in learning. Retrieved from https://books.google.co. za/books?hl = en&lr = &id = GVFcAgAAQBAJ &oi = fnd&pg = PP1&dq = teaching + for +transfer + of + learning&ots = F17aMaLX2e&sig = nntYcK fpS22ScZR2dzwjJPvmNQw.
Moradi, Bahram; Mahmoudnia, Alireza; Keshavarz, Sosan and Zarghami, Saeed (2019). Criticism of several approaches to art education with emphasis on Deleuze's value-cognitive point of view. Journal of Art and Media Studies, 2(2): 113-138. (Text in Persian)
Moradi, M., Aliabadi, K., & Dortaj, F. (2013). Comparing the effect of teaching methods Bybee (5E) and traditional on junior-high school students’ creativity and learning. Journal of Innovation and Creativity in Human Science, 3(1), 19-38. (Text in Persian)
Mohajer, B., Shafiee, Z., & Khaje ahmad attari, A. (2019). Identifying the Role of Creative Art-Based Tourism with an emphasis on handicrafts education to Children. Journal of Innovation and Creativity in Human Science, 8(3), 217-240. (Text in Persian)
Munday, I. (2012). Roots and Rhizomes—Some Reflections on Contemporary Pedagogy, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 46(1).
Nankeli, Yasser (2018). Explaining the concept of space in education and its applications in the educational environment. Master's thesis. Payam Noor University, Hamedan. (Text in Persian).
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3): 105–119.
Peng. J., Chen, Y., Xia, Y., & Ran, Y. (2017). Workplace loneliness, leadermember exchange and creativity: The cross-level moderating role of leader compassion. Personality and Individual Differences, 104: 510-515.
Raminnia, Maryam (2014). The rhizomatic and tree approaches are two different ways of creating and reading a literary work. Research Literature Quarterly, 32: 31-62. (Text in Persian)
Rahmani; M., Wasali, M (2010). Designing a lesson plan based on the induction model for teaching the concepts of latent heat and change of state of matter and checking its effectiveness in increasing students' questioning skills, Master's Thesis, Human Sciences Portal. (Text in Persian)
Raesi, M.R., Mahmoudi, M.A., Oveysi kehkha, A., (2019) From a tree character to a rhizome character, explaining the differences between the characters of classic, modern and postmodern stories. Contemporary Persian Literature, 9(2), 155-179 https://doi.org/10.30465/copl.2019.4416 (Text in Persian).
Rodgers, P. A. (2013). Articulating Design Thinking. Design Studies, 4(34): 433-437.
Semetsky, I (2007). Towards a semiotic theory of lcarning: Deleuzes philosophy and educational cxperience. Semiotica 164-14
Sajjadi Seyed Mehdi, Imanzadeh Ali (2008). Examining and explaining the rhizomatic space and its implications in the curriculum, Curriculum Studies Quarterly, 4(12): 23-32. (Text in Persian)
Sajjadi, S. M., & Bagherinejad, Z. (2012). A Rhizomatic Approach to Education; A Criticism on its Challenges for Islamic Education (From an Epistemological Point of View of Critical Realism). Journal of Islamic Education, 6(13), 123-144. (Text in Persian)
Selahshuri, Ahmad and Haq Virdi, Reza (2014). Analysis and criticism of the rhizomatic approach based on the philosophy of enlightenment. Research Journal of Islamic Wisdom and Philosophy, 44: 81-102. (Text in Persian)
Shah Alizadeh, M; Dehghani, S., Dehghanzadeh, H (2013). Cultivating creativity and increasing the amount of learning by using Williams' model of cultivating creativity in social sciences. Quarterly Journal of Innovation and Creativity in Human Sciences 4(2): 111-134. (Text in Persian)
Shakouri monfared A, Ardalani H. (2020) The influence of using Gilles Deleuze's poststructuralist thoughts in improving educational space. Haft Hesar J Environ Stud; 9 (33) :141-156 http://dx.doi.org/10.29252/hafthesar.9.33.141 (Text in Persian)
Shokouhi Amirabadi, L., Delavar, A., Abbasi Servak, L., & Koshki, S. (2019). Content Analysis on the Fundamental Reform Document of Education based on Creativity ‎and Happiness. Journal of Innovation and Creativity in Human Science, 8(3), 165-192. (Text in Persian)
Soh, K. (2017). Fostering student creaivity through teacher behaviors. Thinking Skills and creativity, 23: 58- 66.
Taylor, M., Klein, E. J., & Abrams, L. (2014). Tensions of reimagining our roles as teacher educators in a third space: revisiting a co/autoethnography through a faculty lens. Studying Teacher Education, 10(1): 3–19. http://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2013.866549.
Taylor, L. & Parsons, J. (2011). Improving Student Engagement. Current Issues in Education,14(1). Retrieved from http://cie.asu.edu/.
Vark Learn Limited. (2015). The VARK Questionnaire | VARK. Retrieved April 10, 2015, from http://vark-learn.com/the-vark-questionnaire/.
Wallin, J.J. (2010). A Deleuzian Approach to Curriculum: Essays on a Pedagogical Life, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wilson, L. o. (2018). Characteristics of creative children. Retrieved from https://thesecondprinciple.com/creativity/...creativity/characteristics-of-creative-hildren/
Yu, J. E. (2006). Creating ‘rhizomatic systems’ for understanding complexity in organizations. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 19(4): 337-349.
Zamanijamshidi, M. (2020). Deleuze and post-modernism: a critical approach to aesthetic politics. Journal of Recognition, 13(1), 171-149 (Text in Persian)
Ziauddini, M. & Naroei, H. (2013). Examined the Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Quality of Working Life City Executive Personnel Khash. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3(11): 337-345.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics