\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={EFL Teachers' Emotional Intelligence, Self-Efficacy and Pedagogical Success: In the Case of three Selected High Schools},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2017-01-15 (revised: 15 January 2017)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2017-01-15}
\title{EFL Teachers' Emotional Intelligence, Self-Efficacy and Pedagogical Success: In the Case of three Selected High Schools}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Atalay  Biresaw}

             \affil[1]{  WOLAITA SODO UNIVERSITY}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 9 December 2016 Accepted: 3 January 2017 Published: 15 January 2017}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


The rationale of the present study was to examine the relationships among high school EFL teachers sense of self-efficacy, emotional intelligence, and pedagogical success of Ginbot20, Amber and Gojjam Ber high school EFL teachers (N=25). To this end, three different types of questionnaires (EIS, TSES and CSTQ) and four statistical tools (mean, correlation, ANOVA and regression) were occupied. The findings of the mean revealed that EFL teachers in the study fall short of the expectation of practicing the affective competencies. Further, there was also significant correspondences among most sub constructs of emotional intelligence, self-efficacy and pedagogical success, however, there were some sub constructs correlated insignificantly for instance, instructional strategy with pedagogical knowledge as p>0.05. In addition, motivating oneself associated with instructional strategies and classroom management slightly. Finally, it was found that, emotional intelligence and selfefficacy sub constructs such as empathy, handling relationships, self-awareness, classroom management, and students? engagement are the variables significantly adding anything to the prediction of pedagogical success. The ANOVA table depicts F=13.807 and its significant value is 0.000 showing high significant, which indicates that the combination of the Predictors significantly predict pedagogical success. In this study, it was recommended that the affective competences that is EI and TSE should be included in CPD activities.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{emotional intelligence, teacher self-efficacy and pedagogical success.}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par
oday, English as a foreign language (EFL) pedagogy has come through a number of theories and methods designed through time. In relation to this idea, \hyperref[b8]{Kumaravadivelu (2001)} suggested, theories of teaching, which facilitates language teachers to hypothesize what they practice and practice what they hypothesize more attention has been paid to them. Thus, it can be argued that the EFL teaching variables have to be given due attention. The variables include psychological constructs among teachers.  {\ref Stern (1983)} and William and Burden (1997) stated that theories of TEFL could never be isolated from the field of psychology. From the executive variables of psychology, self-efficacy and emotional intelligence are the two main strands of research, which shape the framework of this study as a predictor of pedagogical success.\par
Teachers as practitioner of educational principles and theories are heavily involved in different teaching and learning processes, so understanding teachers' emotions, perceptions and beliefs is important. The result of research most frequently points to a combination of knowledge, skill, and genetic traits (such as overall intelligence) as the best indicator of individuals' competence \hyperref[b7]{(Jaeger, 2003)}.  {\ref Wallace (1991:33-34}) on his part pointed out that the key aspects of the academic processes are acquisition, reflection, application and evaluation. In similar way,  {\ref Shulman (1987:8)} stated categories of knowledge bases as follows: They are content knowledge, curriculum knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, knowledge of learners and their characteristics, knowledge of educational context, and knowledge of educational ends, purposes and values. Both scholars' idea more likely emphasize on cognitive competencies. However, new research has generated evidence that these characteristics may be less important for effective performance than the teachers emotional intelligence (Abraham, 2000; Ashforth and Humphrey, 1995; Ashkanasy and Daus, 2002) cited in  {\ref (Rastiger and Memarpour, 2009)}.\par
Knowing the perceptions and beliefs of teachers enables to evaluate the teachers' pedagogical success. Educational experts think that feelings are important for students overall progress and in their dayto-day activities. Intelligence quality (IQ) alone does not assess success; emotional intelligence and social intelligence also play a pivotal role in a person's achievement \hyperref[b6]{(Goleman, 1995)}. Nevertheless, the researcher believes that both IQ and EQ are fabric to bring success in EFL teaching. \hyperref[b2]{Bandura (1986)} suggested that the ability to complete successfully pedagogically oriented task is related to a person's affective (emotional) make up in particular. Moreover, \hyperref[b0]{Abisamra (2000)} suggested that emotionally intelligent people are more likely to succeed in activities they undertake\par
In fact, the English language in Ethiopia assumes two main roles. Firstly, it is a medium of instruction at secondary and tertiary levels. Secondly, it is taught as a subject. In both cases, it has mainly instrumental goals. Therefore, teachers need to attain enough mastery of the language to enable them to achieve general pedagogic success. Hence, it is crucial to look for ways to help teachers and make them more successful in their pedagogy to teach English as a foreign language, especially; in our context, emotionally intelligent and self-efficous teachers will be more likely to bring conducive classroom environment and effective teaching.\par
Today is the time of communicative orthodoxy that the paradigm is shifted from teacher centered that considers teachers as an encyclopedic mind to student centered, which makes the students at the center of learning process. The paradigm shift has the objective to promote active learning. In order, to promote this active learning successfully teachers need to balance both the cognitive and affective competence. In order to bring affective competence into picture, teachers need to be self-efficous and emotionally intelligent. However, these qualities were not attempted to practice in Amber, Ginbot20 and Gojjam Ber high school EFL teachers that will make the teacher effective in the teaching methodology.\par
Even if emotional intelligence and self-efficacy have an important role on teachers' pedagogical success, there is little information about these variables in high school EFL teachers in our context. Local research by  {\ref Dawit (2008)} entitled "An Investigation of the Correlation among Efficacy Sources, Students' Self-Efficacy, and Performance in Reading and Writing Skills". The result was that students' self-efficacy has great contribution to reading and writing skills performance. Adding up, from the researcher's working experience, the researcher had observed and heard the following basic teaching learning problems as hampering the effectiveness of the process on the part of the teachers. Research participants are observed to focus on the cognitive competencies that is, simple recall of facts rather than change the students' behavior or out looks to be interested about EFL activities, get angry when students do not do home works and class works rather than trying to motivate them to do by telling the importance of doing, do not tend to solve problem like students truants during the EFL periods, low achievement etc.\par
Above and beyond, teachers fall short of the expectation to receive feedbacks from students, know their strengths and limitations, tolerate while the students misbehave, not to monitor students to do home works and classroom activities. The abovementioned problems and absence of adequate local studies in the area initiated the researcher to examine the relationships among emotional intelligence, selfefficacy and pedagogical success. Since the two factors are of current concern in all levels of education  {\ref (Gilolarte et al., 2006)} and they contribute to teaching effectiveness \hyperref[b10]{(Mortiboys, 2005}; Pajares, 1992), it seems that some serious research is called for to address the would be togetherness between these two focal constructs as well as, pedagogical success. To this end, the following research objectives were formulated: ? Assessing the link among teachers' sense of selfefficacy, emotional intelligence and their pedagogical success. ? Exploring such a prediction in various high school EFL teachers' pedagogical success in view of emotional intelligence and self-efficacy.\par
II. 
\section[{Methodology of the Study a) Design of the Study}]{Methodology of the Study a) Design of the Study}\par
This research project was aimed at investigating the relationships of self-efficacy, emotional intelligence and teachers' pedagogical success. A quantitative approach was employed because it was very important for the sake of representation. Besides, it allows the researcher numerically analyze the interaction among the dependent and independent variables in the study. Correlation design was employed for the variables to see each pairs of relationships 
\section[{b) Subjects and Sampling Technique}]{b) Subjects and Sampling Technique}\par
In this study, 25 high school EFL teachers participated. The participants were from three high schools that is GojjamBer, Ginbot20 and Amber. The teachers teach at grade nine and ten. The schools were chosen using purposive sampling as the researcher believes they can represent the other high schools, in addition, the schools geographical proximity to the researcher. As the total number of teachers was 25, the number was manageable to use in the study; therefore, comprehensive sampling technique was used. All the participants show their consent to provide in formations on the questionnaires that was intended from them. After that, the researcher gave a concept clarification paper about self-efficacy and emotional intelligence in order to make them well informed about the contents of questionnaires.\par
The participants were from high school because the researcher teaches at this level and have better background information about the participants. It is also the fact that they are expected to boost self-efficacy and emotional intelligence for better pedagogical performance, as their students are on the way to take national exams and to make them better competent with Ethiopian students. In addition, it is the basic level to help students minimize their problems in order to be effective to their preparatory education for better competition to entrance exam.\par
Further, it helps teachers to be in advance to teach the next grade levels that is preparatory and higher education. Furthermore, since Amber secondary school does not have preparatory level, the researcher wanted to see the participants from the same grade level. 
\section[{c) Data Gathering Instruments}]{c) Data Gathering Instruments}\par
The data-gathering instruments used in this study were questionnaires such as Emotional intelligence scale (EIS), Teachers self-efficacy scale (TSES) and Characteristics of Successful EFL Teachers Questionnaire (CSTQ).A questionnaire enables a researcher to collect data from large groups of individuals within a short period; and it is also easy to administer to a number of subjects in one place at a time. Moreover, the questionnaire allowed the researcher to collect information on a variety of issues in a relatively short period, and it enabled comparison among respondents. Quantitative data presentation was employed for the analysis. The questionnaires were all close ended as this is very simple to assemble and administer on wide areas of contents. The instruments external validity can be checked by other researchers if there is the same finding. 
\section[{d) Specific methods of data analysis}]{d) Specific methods of data analysis}\par
In analyzing the quantitative data, some statistical procedures were carried out. The statistical data analyses were conducted utilizing the statistical package for social science version 16 (SPSS-16). Descriptive statistics including Cronbach alpha and mean were computed to summarize the teachers' response for questionnaires of self-efficacy, emotional intelligence and pedagogical success. Pearson correlations were conducted to examine the relationships among self-efficacy, emotional intelligent and pedagogical success. In order to find out to what extent self-efficacy and emotional intelligence predict teachers' pedagogical success, regression analyses were run. The questionnaires were piloted on a representative of 10 teachers from Wejjel and Yesenbet high schools because the schools have similar context with the schools that the researcher were studying. As the numbers of teachers in those high schools were totally 10, comprehensive sampling techniques were used. It was conducted for checking the appropriateness and clarity, and for evaluating the proper ways of administering the instruments. Finally, data were analyzed to see the responses resemblance of the likert scales and decide which of the sub construct of each variable are now on application, and which is not applied. Besides, the correlations among the sub constructs of each variable were proved. Finally, whether the dependent variable could have been predicted from the independent variables were checked. 
\section[{III.}]{III.} 
\section[{Result and Discussion}]{Result and Discussion} 
\section[{a) Descriptive statistics showing the results of the mean for the subscales of each variable Table 3.1: Descriptive statistics showing the mean, maximum and minimum values Descriptive Statistics}]{a) Descriptive statistics showing the results of the mean for the subscales of each variable Table 3.1: Descriptive statistics showing the mean, maximum and minimum values Descriptive Statistics}\par
As the table designates, the total mean score of self-awareness was 2.57. This number represents that teachers fall short of the expected to be self-aware since this number approaches to three having the representation of disagree. Next to this is managing emotions, its total mean score of items was 2.66, which almost approached to three. This also entails that the participants of this study were not live up to the expected results to manage their own emotions. Then motivating oneself was the other big issue raised in the descriptive statistics that has 2.78 grand mean. As the mean indicated, EFL teachers in the study were less likely to motivate themselves to teach English. The other two sub constructs of emotional intelligence are empathy and handling relationships its mean score were 2.59 and 2.64 respectively that had also the same implication with the previous one.\par
The sub constructs of self-efficacy are student engagement, instructional strategies and managing emotions, which has the mean score of 2.61, 2.78 and 2.68 respectively. This has the implication that participants in the study fall short of to influence motivating students engaged indifferent activities, use different instructional strategies, and manage the classroom in a well manner.\par
The last point is the sub constructs of characteristics of successful EFL teachers that has the mean score of 2.75, 2.66, and 3.06 for organization and communication skills, pedagogical knowledge and social affective skills respectively that involves teachers in this study were less likely to perform EFL activities.\par
b) The relationship among emotional intelligence, selfefficacy and pedagogical success Correlation coefficient was computed to test whether there is a statistically significant relationship among teachers' emotional intelligence, teacher sense of self-efficacy and pedagogical success. As shown in Table \hyperref[tab_2]{3}.2, statistical strong relationships were observed among emotional intelligence, teachers' sense of self-efficacy, and pedagogical success. Emotional intelligence strongly correlated with teachers sense of self-efficacy (r=.598**, p<0.05, two tailed). Teachers' sense of selfefficacy also strongly associated with pedagogical success (r=.403*, p<0.05, two tailed). Besides, emotional intelligence very strongly related with pedagogical success (r=.748**, p<0.001, two tailed). The table demonstrates the multiple correlation coefficient (R) using all the predictors simultaneously, is 0.935 (R 2= .873) and the adjusted R 2 is .81 meaning 81\% of the variance in pedagogical success can be predicted from classroom management, empathy, selfawareness, handling relationships, instructional strategies, students engagement, managing emotions, and motivating oneself. a. 
\section[{c) Inferential statistics that shows the predictability of high school EFL teachers' emotional intelligence and selfefficacy to their pedagogical success}]{c) Inferential statistics that shows the predictability of high school EFL teachers' emotional intelligence and selfefficacy to their pedagogical success}\par
Empathy, handling relationships, classroom management, self-awareness and students' engagement with level of significance.000, .028, .041, .049 and .05 respectively are the variables significantly adding anything to the prophecy from the highest to the lowest when the other four variables are already considered. It is important to note that all the variables are being considered together when these values are computed. 
\section[{d) Descriptive statistics about high school EFL teachers trends of emotional intelligence, self-efficacy and pedagogical success}]{d) Descriptive statistics about high school EFL teachers trends of emotional intelligence, self-efficacy and pedagogical success}\par
As the table portrays, the grand mean score of teachers response in this study about self-awareness was 2.57. This number representation almost approaches to three, which means disagree. This implies that the participants in the study fall short of the expected outcome of being self-awareness. To be brief, they were not exposed to know about themselves like their strengths and weaknesses; they were not intended to receive feedbacks about the teaching learning process from their students; they were not more likely successful in teaching their students, etc. When we see the total mean score of managing emotions, it is possible to deduce that the teachers are less likely to manage their emotions as the score is 2.66 which is almost nearer to the response disagree or coded as three. Since the participants in this study were less likely emphasized to know how to teach their students; they were unlikely to use instructional materials; they were not proposed to use emotion laden instructional materials, etc., that made managing emotion did not live up to the expectation. The third variable is motivating one self. As the mean score is 2.78, it is possible to say that teachers in the study were less likely in motivating by their own because of the education system by itself isn't more likely to appreciate them. The same finding was also found for the limitation of teachers' facilitation Year 2017 EFL Teachers' Emotional Intelligence, Self-Efficacy and Pedagogical Success: In the Case of three Selected High Schools\par
Dependent Variable: pedagogical success for students' motivation. Empathy is the other important aspects of emotional intelligence. The total means score of this variable is also 2.59 that show fall short of the expected response. In this, also, teachers in the study were not guided to respect the students' opinion; to consider the students' opinion as valuable; etc. The last sub constructs of emotional intelligence is handling relationships its grand mean of items was 2.64. The number also more approaches to three that implies the participants did not live up to the expected result since they were less likely informed to interact socially with their students. The mean score of the total item of efficacy in students' engagement was 2.615, which had the implication teachers were fall short of the expected involvement to the activities that were performed by the students. As the data revealed, teachers were less likely informed how to help students to think critically, how to control disruptive students, how students will be effective in EFL activities, etc., and these less awareness hinders teachers not to engage students in different EFL activities. Besides, the grand mean of efficacy in instructional strategies was 2.78. This number is almost closer to number three, which represents teachers did not live up to the standard to facilitate students to give values for EFL teaching and learning. Here teachers were not likely informed to enable students to value learning, to judge the students comprehension, to foster the students creativity; etc., which indicates the education system do not give equal emphasis to affective competencies with the cognitive one. The third sub constructs of self-efficacy is efficacy in classroom management. The total mean of the items to this variable was 2.68 that imply teachers in the study fall short of the standard in shaping the classroom to go on in a well manner. Teachers were less likely aided to use alternative strategies, to adjust the lessons to the individual level, to give appropriate challenging activities for gifted students; etc., all these were indicators of deficiency of information to teachers how to manage their classrooms.\par
The other variable is organization and communication skills which is the sub constructs of pedagogical success its grand mean score was 2.75. The mean score is closer to three which represents the activities were done less than the expected ratio. The finding shows teachers did not prepare the lesson carefully, did not vary the speed and tone of voice, etc., which was the indicator of lack of organization and communication skills. The other sub category is pedagogical knowledge of teachers its grand mean of the total number of items represented 2.66, which did not show sufficient involvement of teachers. Teachers were not more probably aware to teach the subject matter in a way that are accessible to all learners, promote students to communicate outside the classroom, provide constant feedback, etc., which put the participants pedagogical knowledge under quotation. The last sub construct is social affective skill, which has 3.06 grand mean of the total score. As the grand mean implies teachers' social affective skill in the study was not live up to the standard. Teachers were less likely initiated to treat students fairly and equally, to be patient, to listen the students' point of view in EFL lessons, etc., which are indicators of the teachers' of social affective skills were less than the standard.\par
e) The contribution of emotional intelligence and selfefficacy to pedagogical success As it was realized in the correlation analysis, both emotional intelligence and self-efficacy correlated with pedagogical success positively. Studies that support this idea is Zajacova,* Lynch, ** and Espenshade (2005) the results suggest that academic self-efficacy is a more robust and consistent predictor academic success. In this regard, we are going to see the predictability of emotional intelligence and selfefficacy sub constructs with pedagogical success.\par
The fourth research question was intended to identify variables that contributed for pedagogical success of teachers. The findings of the questionnaire data analyses reveal that different variables contributed to predict pedagogical success. Most of the factors that contributed for the pedagogical success are selfefficacy and emotional intelligence sub constructs. In this part, the teachers' emotional intelligence and selfefficacy sub constructs that have greatest contribution to the teachers' pedagogical success were identified. In order to determine the factors that triggered teachers' pedagogical success, multiple regression analysis was employed. Table \hyperref[tab_2]{3}.3 above illustrates the contributions of the factors that mediated teachers' pedagogical success based on the sub constructs of emotional intelligence and self-efficacy.\par
As it was shown in the table, the multiple correlation coefficient (R) using all the predictors simultaneously, was 0.935 (R 2= .873) and the adjusted R 2 was .81. It denotes 81\% of the variance in pedagogical success can be envisaged from classroom management, empathy, self-awareness, handling relationships, instructional strategies, students' engagement, managing emotions, and motivating one self, which proves the highest predictability power of the independent variables. The ANOVA table depicts F=13.807 and is highly significant. This be a sign of that the combination of the Predictors significantly foresee pedagogical success. Empathy, which is the sub constructs of emotional intelligence, has the highest position to affect the dependent variable. Handling relationships has the second highest position of influencing the dependent variable. Classroom management also has the third uppermost rank to forecast the teachers' pedagogical success. The other variable that has greatest involvement to pedagogical success is self-awareness. Students' engagement has also significant input to pedagogical success. However, the other three variables are also considered to the prediction. It implies it is important to note that all the variables are being considered together when these values are computed. From the regression analysis, we can predict that the sub constructs of the emotional intelligence and self-efficacy has the greatest power to foresee pedagogical success as the value of the adjusted R 2 is 81\%. This involves that there are other predictors to influence teachers' pedagogical success although the highest prediction is covered by the given variables.\par
Researches that have related findings are having high teaching efficacy leads to an increase of implementation of new classroom practices, an increase of motivation to work with students and staff, and an increase desire to improve one's teaching techniques \hyperref[b1]{(Bandura, 1997)}. \hyperref[b3]{Berenson (2008)} found combination of EI and personality served as a stronger predictor of online student academic success. EI was directly associated with GPA among online students. Since pedagogical success is seen in students' academic change, this idea was one that can support this hypothesis. \hyperref[b9]{Maguire (2011)} found that teacher efficacy significantly predicted student achievement, with the best combination of predictor variables being the subcategories of teacher efficacy in student engagement and teacher efficacy in classroom management. Thus, the finding of the study implies that sub categories of the independent variables of course, are taking the largest part of the effect in the success of pedagogy. 
\section[{IV. Conclusions and Recommendations a) Conclusions}]{IV. Conclusions and Recommendations a) Conclusions}\par
Based on the data gathered and analyzed, the following concluding remarks are forwarded: ? Emotional intelligence, EFL teacher sense of selfefficacy, emotional intelligence and pedagogical success interrelated positively and significantly. ? Emotional intelligence and self-efficacy sub constructs are the variables that predict pedagogical success highly and appropriately. 
\section[{b) Recommendations}]{b) Recommendations}\par
Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations are forwarded in line with the potential problems that were discussed under the introduction as grounds of the study. The recommendations are bulleted next to the problems stated.\par
EFL teachers' emotional intelligence and self efficacy in the study did not live up to the expectation, which may hinder the effectiveness of the pedagogy and bring low achievement of the students.\par
The finding of the study revealed there was a positive and significant correlation with in SE, EI and PS.\par
EFL teachers in this study were less likely effective in teaching their students. As the finding implies teachers, pedagogical success is mainly relying on the teachers' sense of self-efficacy and emotional intelligence.\par
? Since self-efficacy and emotional intelligence of EFL teachers are integral part of the whole teachinglearning process, they should be embedded in teachers professional development (CPD) activities; ? EFL teachers should be sensitize on work shop complexion by educational experts; ? Curriculum and syllabus designers should incorporate theories of emotional intelligence, especially in self-awareness, managing emotions, motivating one self, empathy and handling relationships and give for the terms equal weight with the cognitive competencies.\par
Thus, if the above points are given due emphasis by the teachers and educational experts, teachers will be more likely to be successful in their pedagogy. ? A study should be done to examine other factors contributing to the quality of effective teachers.\par
V.\begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{32} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3842465753424657\textwidth}P{0.25616438356164384\textwidth}P{0.20958904109589038\textwidth}}
Correlations\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
emotional\tabcellsep teachers self-\tabcellsep pedagogical\\
intelligence\tabcellsep efficacy\tabcellsep success\end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: N**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level(2-tailed).]} 
\caption{\label{tab_1}Table 3 . 2 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{3} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.5759057971014493\textwidth}P{0.021557971014492753\textwidth}P{0.08623188405797101\textwidth}P{0.06467391304347826\textwidth}P{0.10163043478260869\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{3: Model Summary}\tabcellsep \\
Model\tabcellsep R\tabcellsep R Square\tabcellsep Adjusted R Square\tabcellsep Std. Error of the Estimate\\
1\tabcellsep .935 a\tabcellsep .873\tabcellsep .810\tabcellsep 2.72096\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{a. Predictors: (Constant), classroom management, empathy, self-}\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{awareness, handling relationships, instructional strategies,}\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{students engagement, managing emotions, motivating oneself}\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_2}Table 3 .}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{3} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.5375675675675675\textwidth}P{0.06891891891891892\textwidth}P{0.1791891891891892\textwidth}P{0.056666666666666664\textwidth}P{0.0015315315315315315\textwidth}P{0.006126126126126126\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{4: ANOVA b}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Model\tabcellsep Sum of Squares\tabcellsep df\tabcellsep Mean Square\tabcellsep F\tabcellsep Sig.\\
1 Regression\tabcellsep 817.782\tabcellsep 8\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{102.223 13.807 .000 a}\\
Residual\tabcellsep 118.458\tabcellsep 16\tabcellsep 7.404\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Total\tabcellsep 936.240\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{6}{l}{a. Predictors: (Constant), classroom management, empathy, self -}\\
\multicolumn{6}{l}{awareness, handling relationships, instructional strategies, students}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{engagement, managing emotions, motivating oneself}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{b. Dependent Variable: pedagogical success}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{The ANOVA table represents F=13.807 and its}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{significance. This points out that the combinations of the}\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{level of significance is 0.000, which illustrates high}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{Predictors significantly foretell pedagogical success.}\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_3}Table 3 .}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{35} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.002043269230769231\textwidth}P{0.32079326923076923\textwidth}P{0.13689903846153847\textwidth}P{0.09603365384615384\textwidth}P{0.12259615384615383\textwidth}P{0.09194711538461539\textwidth}P{0.0796875\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Unstandardized}\tabcellsep Standardized\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Model\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Coefficients}\tabcellsep Coefficients\tabcellsep t\tabcellsep Sig.\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep B\tabcellsep Std. Error\tabcellsep Beta\tabcellsep \\
1\tabcellsep (Constant)\tabcellsep -15.355\tabcellsep 6.903\tabcellsep \tabcellsep -2.224\tabcellsep .041\\
\tabcellsep Self -awareness\tabcellsep .663\tabcellsep .236\tabcellsep .288\tabcellsep 2.113\tabcellsep .049\\
\tabcellsep Managing emotions\tabcellsep .388\tabcellsep .321\tabcellsep .173\tabcellsep 1.209\tabcellsep .244\\
\tabcellsep Motivating oneself\tabcellsep .877\tabcellsep .937\tabcellsep .156\tabcellsep .936\tabcellsep .363\\
\tabcellsep empathy\tabcellsep 1.115\tabcellsep .200\tabcellsep .755\tabcellsep 5.567\tabcellsep .000\\
\tabcellsep Handling relationships\tabcellsep .808\tabcellsep .334\tabcellsep .267\tabcellsep 2.418\tabcellsep .028\\
\tabcellsep Students engagement\tabcellsep .621\tabcellsep .331\tabcellsep .242\tabcellsep 2.102\tabcellsep .05\\
\tabcellsep Instructional strategies\tabcellsep .079\tabcellsep .225\tabcellsep .043\tabcellsep .350\tabcellsep .731\\
\tabcellsep Classroom management\tabcellsep .702\tabcellsep .225\tabcellsep .249\tabcellsep 2.228\tabcellsep .041\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_4}Table 3 . 5 :}\end{figure}
 			\footnote{EFL Teachers' Emotional Intelligence, Self-Efficacy and Pedagogical Success: In the Case of three Selected High Schools} 			\footnote{© 2017 Global Journals Inc. (US) Volume XVII Issue IV Version I 20 ( G )} 		 		\backmatter   			 
\subsection[{Acknowledgement}]{Acknowledgement}\par
The process of bringing this thesis to success rested upon the encouragement, support and effort of some people. First of all, I want to express my deepest gratitude to Simachew (PHD), Ato Dilnessa Debassu(BA), Ato Birhanu Chekol(MA), Ato BukayawWudie(BA) and MisMedhanit Adane (MA)for their constructive comments and , validating the questionnaires and analyzing the data. And I should cordially thank all EFL high school teachers of Ginbot20, Amber and GojjamBer for devoting their precious time in filling out the questionnaire items. Generally those colleagues and assistants participated in questionnaire distribution and collection serve a special note of thanks. 			  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[Dawitamogne ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		‘An Investigation of the Correlation among Efficacy Sources, Students' Self-Efficacy and Performance in Reading and Writing Skills: Bahir Dar University in Focus. un published MA thesis in AAU’.  		 			Dawitamogne 		.  	 	 		\textit{Educational Review}  		2008. 57  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Goleman ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		\textit{Emotional intelligence},  		 			D Goleman 		.  		1995. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.  	 
\bibitem[Abisamra ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		\textit{Emotional Intelligence and Academic Achievement.The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Academic Achievement in Eleventh Graders. Auburn University at Montgomery},  		 			S N Abisamra 		.  		2000.  	 	 (Research in Education .FED 661) 
\bibitem[Berenson (2008)]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		\textit{Emotional intelligence as a predictor of success in online learning},  		 			R Berenson 		.  		 \url{www.irrodi.org>Home>vo19}  		2008. July,24, 2013.  	 
\bibitem[Jaeger ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		\textit{Job competencies the curriculum: an inquiry in to emotional intelligence in graduate professional education},  		 			A J Jaeger 		.  		2003. 44 p. .  	 	 (Research in higher education) 
\bibitem[Shulman ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		\textit{Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.Harvard college 15},  		 			L S Shulman 		.  		1987. 1983. Stern, H.H; New York: Oxford University Press.  	 	 (Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching) 
\bibitem[Maguire ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		 			K Maguire 		.  		\textit{The Role of Teacher Efficacy in Student Academic Achievement in Mathematics},  				2011.  	 
\bibitem[Williams and Burden ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		\textit{Psychology for Language Teachers: A Social Constructivist Approach},  		 			M Williams 		,  		 			R Burden 		.  		1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  	 
\bibitem[Gil-Olarte et al. ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		‘Relating emotional intelligence to social competence and academic achievement in high school students’.  		 			P Gil-Olarte 		,  		 			R Palomera 		,  		 			M A Brackett 		.  	 	 		\textit{Psicothema}  		2006. 18 p. .  	 	 (Suppl.) 
\bibitem[Bandura ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		\textit{Self -efficacy: The exercise of control},  		 			A Bandura 		.  		1997. New York: W. H. Freedman \& Co.  	 
\bibitem[Zajacova et al. ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		‘Self-Efficacy, Stress, and Academic Success in College’.  		 			A Zajacova 		,  		 			M S Lynch 		,  		 			J T Espenshade 		.  	 	 		\textit{Research in Higher Education}  		2005. 46  (6) .  	 
\bibitem[Bandura ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		\textit{Social Foundations of Thought size and graduate study: do these variables impact teachers' beliefs regarding},  		 			A Bandura 		.  		1986.  	 
\bibitem[Pajares ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		‘Teachers' Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning up a Messy Construct’.  		 			M F Pajares 		.  	 	 		\textit{Review of Educational Research}  		1992. 62  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Mortiboys ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		\textit{Teaching with Emotional Intelligence: A Step-by-Step Guide for Higher and Further Education},  		 			A Mortiboys 		.  		2005.  	 
\bibitem[Rastegar and Memarpour ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		\textit{The relationship between emotional intelligence and selfefficacy among Iranian EFL teachers. System},  		 			M Rastegar 		,  		 			S Memarpour 		.  		2009. 37 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Kumaravadivelu ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		‘Toward a post method pedagogy’.  		 			B Kumaravadivelu 		.  	 	 		\textit{TESOL Quarterly}  		2001. 35  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Wallace ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		\textit{Training foreign language teachers: A reflective approach Constructivist Approach},  		 			M Wallace 		.  		1991. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
