Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Implications of Contemporary Intelligence
Theories to Marketing Education
James A. Muncy
To cite this article: James A. Muncy (2006) Implications of Contemporary Intelligence Theories to Marketing Education, Journal of Education for Business, 81:6, 301-306, DOI: 10.3200/ JOEB.81.6.301-306
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.81.6.301-306
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 42
View related articles
ABSTRACT. In recent years,
promi-nent psychologists have redefined
intelli-gence to refer to one’s ability to
successful-ly perform within a sociocultural context.
They have also questioned the historical
unidimensional conceptualization of
intelli-gence. In this article, the author briefly
reviews the history of intelligence research
to this point then presents a discussion of
the implications of contemporary
intelli-gence theories to marketing education.
Copyright © 2006 Heldref Publications
ne of the primary purposes of a university education is to improve a person’s ability to intellectu-ally perform in a chosen field of endeav-or. A promising area of research that may lend insight into how to best do this can be found in the writings of two highly influential psychologists. Over the past 25 years, they have changed the way many people view intelligence. One is the noted educational psycholo-gist Howard Gardner of Harvard Uni-versity. His ideas have been so influen-tial in the area of education that his books have been among the best sellers in that field (National Education Associ-ation [NEA], 1997). His work has also been noted in the popular press even to the extent that he was featured on the cover of Timemagazine (Collins, 1998). The other is Yale psychologist, and recent president of the American Psy-chological Association, Robert Stern-berg. To understand the importance of Gardner’s and Sternberg’s research, it is useful to briefly review the history of intelligence theory and the two funda-mentally different ways that intelligence is viewed.
History of Intelligence Research
For the past century, most of the work on intelligence has been strongly influenced by the Stanford–Binet para-digm of intelligence (Binet 1905/1916;
Binet & Simon, 1916/1983). Binet was an educational psychologist with a background in law and medicine. He founded the French school of intelli-gence testing. Binet’s goal was to iden-tify those students who were incapable of being educated so that they could be removed from the public schools. Binet’s concern with intelligence test-ing was highly practical and, for the most part, atheoretical, as were most other early attempts to measure intelli-gence (Spearman, 1904; Terman, 1916). This approach fit well within the environment of operationalism, which flourished during this time in Western psychology. Influential Harvard psy-chologist Edward G. Boring (1923) embodied this approach to intelligence by stating that, “intelligence as a mea-surable capacity must at the start be defined as the capacity to do well on an intelligence test. Intelligence is what the tests test” (p. 35).
This emphasis on purely operational definitions began to subside with what has been called the cognitive revolution. In the 1960s, researchers became more willing to move beyond the realm of pure observation into speculation as to what actually occurs within the “black box” of the brain. As psychologists moved away from purely operational definitions, the idea that intelligence is what intelligence tests measure seemed no longer adequate.
Implications of Contemporary Intelligence
Theories to Marketing Education
JAMES A. MUNCY
VALDOSTA STATE UNIVERSITY VALDOSTA, GEORGIA
O
VIEWPOINT
By the 1980s, there were those who were questioning whether or not intelli-gence should be within the sole domain of the psychometricians. Most notable was the aforementioned work of Gard-ner and Sternberg (for a comparison of the work of Gardner and Sternberg, see Messick, 1992). They approached intel-ligence in terms of one’s ability to achieve success in one’s sociocultural context. Sternberg argued that one’s ability to achieve success depends on the ability to capitalize on one’s strengths and to correct or compensate for one’s weaknesses. Sternberg’s defin-ition of intelligence strongly empha-sized one’s environment and the ability to adapt to it. Thus the same person could be seen as possessing high intelli-gence in one environment and low intel-ligence in a different environment. With Sternberg’s work, intelligence was no longer simply an objective measure but a means to an end (see Sternberg, 1977, 1985, 1990, 1997, 1999; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2000).
Around the same time as Sternberg, Howard Gardner was working on two different research projects (Gardner, 1983, 1987, 1993a, 1993b, 1995, 1997a, 1997b, 1998a, 1998b, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c). In the morning, he worked with adults with brain damage. Then in the afternoon he would work with develop-mentally challenged children. He noted many similarities between the two groups. What was of particular interest to him was that people who had brain damage in a particular portion of their brains could function perfectly well on tasks that were localized in other parts of the brain; brain damage did not appear to cause an overall diminishment of intelligence but rather only special-ized types of intelligence were affected. Gardner noted that, with regard to intelligence, developmentally chal-lenged children exhibited a similar pat-tern as did adults with brain damage. Children who had been labeled develop-mentally challenged did not have an overall problem; they were perfectly capable of performing at high levels in some areas while struggling in others. An extreme example of this phenome-non is someone with savant syndrome. People with savant syndrome have below average intelligence quotients
(IQs), which classify them as mentally handicapped, but exhibit extreme genius in areas such as music, art, or math. Such individuals may also have the abil-ity to perform memory tasks that are nearly impossible for the average per-son (Howe, 1992; Treffert, 1989).
From his study on the physiology of the brain, Gardner sought a new way of defining intelligence. In actuality, Gard-ner’s definition of intelligence was sim-ilar to Sternberg’s in that intelligence was placed in a cultural context. For something to be considered an intelli-gence, it needed to be both rooted in biology and valued in one or more cul-tural settings. As a result, Gardner (1983) originally hypothesized what he labeled as seven intelligences. Eventual-ly, he added an eighth intelligence (Gardner, 1999b). He has also acknowl-edged that there may be others. Gard-ner’s eight intelligences are (a) Linguis-tic Intelligence, the ability to process and use language, (b) Logical-Mathe-matical Intelligence, the ability to understand and apply formal and infor-mal rules of logic, (c) Musical Intelli-gence, the ability to compose, perform, or appreciate music, (d) Spatial Intelli-gence, the ability to recognize or manip-ulate patterns in either wide space (e.g., navigation) or small space (e.g., surgery or architecture), (e) Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence, the ability to use the body, or part thereof, to solve problems or cre-ate products, (f) Naturalist Intelligence, the ability to categorize and interpret the environment, (g) Interpersonal Intelli-gence, the ability to interpret and affect the motivations and intentions of others, and (h) Intrapersonal Intelligence, the ability to manage one’s own self in such a way to achieve one’s goals in life. Gardner placed a high degree of empha-sis on affective introspection, but one could argue that anticipation and manip-ulation of the environment in such a way as to create desired affective responses are equally as relevant.
Current State of Intelligence Research
By the mid-1990s two clear schools of thought had developed as to how to best view intelligence (see Ulric et al., 1996, for a report of the American
Psy-chological Association’s Task Force on Intelligence). It was precisely at that time that two best-selling books were released representing these divergent schools of thought. One was The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life(Herrnstein & Murray, 1994), a controversial book that was written by two highly regarded researchers who subscribed to the tradi-tional view of intelligence. Herrnstein and Murray relied on a massive amount of empirical data, which correlated psy-chometric-based measures of intelli-gence with a variety of social and behavioral outcomes (e.g., career suc-cess, crime). They surmised that intelli-gence, a unidimensional construct roughly equivalent to analytic and ver-bal ability, was normally distributed across the population. They further con-cluded that higher intelligence strongly relates to higher achievement and that many of the social problems faced today can be traced to those who score poorly on traditional measures of intelligence.
At about the same time, Goleman (1995) published the book Emotional Intelligence: Why It May Matter More Than IQ. Although it lacked the vol-umes of empirical findings that Herrn-stein and Murray’s book had, it did have great popular appeal, becoming a worldwide best seller. As the title implies, Goleman argued that the type of intelligence measured by psychome-tricians was not as important as another type of intelligence, which he labeled emotional intelligence. Emotional intel-ligencereflects an ability to successful-ly deal with emotional and interperson-al chinterperson-allenges. Goleman’s book was closely aligned with the work of Stern-berg in that it focused on successful application of intelligence to real-life issues as opposed to pure analytic or verbal abilities. It was also closely aligned with part of Gardner’s work in that Goleman’s idea of emotional intel-ligence was roughly equivalent to two of Gardner’s eight intelligences.
The previous paragraphs outline the stance of current research on intelli-gence today and how it evolved. The traditional school of thought empha-sizes well-designed measures of intelli-gence that closely correspond to the skills needed to achieve in a
al classroom setting. Of particular inter-est to this school of thought are logical or analytical skills and verbal ability. This school also emphasizes a general level of intelligence as measured by standardized tests, such as the IQ test or college entrance exams (i.e., SAT, ACT). There is also a more contempo-rary approach to intelligence, which emphasizes multiple intelligences that go beyond analytical and verbal ability. Traditional psychometric methods are less able to capture the full breadth of these intelligences. The level of a given person’s intelligence is better assessed by his or her ability to perform within some context that is valued by the soci-ety and culture in which he or she resides and operates.
Applying Intelligence Research to Marketing Education
Trade-offs are always being made in the classroom. For example, lectures take up class time that could be devoted to in-class activities. Trade-offs are made between group projects and indi-vidual papers. When professors make pedagogical trade-offs such as these, they also are likely to be making trade-offs as to the type of intelligence that is being developed. Lectures are great for developing mathematical or logical and linguistic intelligence. Their ability to develop the other intelligences may be much more limited. This is true even when the lectures and reading material deal with the applied behavioral science or intrapersonal motivation. A person may be able to demonstrate a linguistic understanding of material and be totally unchanged by the material.
Mathematical or logical and linguis-tic intelligences are important in mar-keting, but are they more important than the two personal intelligences (i.e., interpersonal and intrapersonal) identi-fied by Gardner? Probably not. Cooper and Sawaf (1997) looked at intelligence from a business perspective. Following up on the work of Goleman (1995), they argued that emotional intelligence (which is roughly equivalent to Gard-ner’s two personal intelligences; see Gardner, 1999c) is what matters most in business. This seems particularly true in marketing. Marketing graduates need to
be able to understand and influence the motivations of others. They must also have a degree of maturity that enables them to set and achieve their own goals. An appreciation of multiple intelli-gences (MI) theory has been extremely useful to those who teach a variety of subjects, such as physical education (Mitchell & Kernodle, 2004), music (Kaschub, 2002), drama (Roper & Davis, 2000), English (McClaskey, 1995), science (Goodnough, 2001; Man-ner, 2001), leadership (Ashkanasy & Dasborough, 2003), and history (Walker, 1998). It has also been effectively employed in corporate training (Lowey, 2003; Martin, 2003; Rae, 2002). Although the majority of work was con-ducted in primary and secondary educa-tion, there are those who have worked to bring MI theory into higher education (Brougher, 1997; Gardner, 1993a; J. Johnson & White, 2002; Kezar, 2001). Although MI theory has been effectively employed to teach marketing concepts in the lower grades (see Beck & Wade, 2004; Glasgow & Bush, 1995, 1996; S. Johnson, 2005), no work could be found that specifically focused on MI within the context of a university level market-ing education program. This does not imply that the personal intelligences are not being incorporated into marketing education. What it implies is that, although many other disciplines are looking at education from an MI para-digm, there is no evidence that market-ing educators are domarket-ing so when makmarket-ing pedagogical trade-offs.
What follows are 10 areas in which the personal intelligences may be taught in the classroom and through outside assignments. This list is not exhaustive and some of it is speculative. My pur-pose in this article is to encourage mar-keting educators to look at these peda-gogical techniques within the context of the groundbreaking work of Sternberg and Gardner.
Group Projects
Campbell (1997) proposed that one primary way of teaching from an MI perspective is to have students engage in group projects. Often professors avoid doing group projects because of the problems that are associated with them.
However, the problems that arise during group work may provide the best labo-ratory in which to develop interpersonal intelligence. Much of the benefit of a group project may actually be in the problems that arise if the students are taught how to effectively resolve these problems. However, one must be careful not to assume that just because the prob-lems arose the students learned some-thing. It is only when students are taught how to best work through the challenges they face when doing group work that interpersonal intelligence can be developed. Reisenwitz and Eastman (in press) discuss how to help students recognize problems, accept responsibil-ity, and resolve conflict within a group project environment. As students learn these skills, they are developing their personal intelligences.
Mentoring Projects
It can be useful to have students asso-ciate with people who have demonstrat-ed their abilities in the areas of interper-sonal and intraperinterper-sonal intelligence. Returning to the idea that intelligence is measured by success within an environ-ment, professors can challenge students to identify people who have demonstrat-ed success in the areas in which they would like to excel. Then, the students could spend time with these individuals, asking them specific, predesigned ques-tions that will help them better under-stand their personal intelligences. For years, math teachers have taken students who were good in math and paired them with students who were struggling in the area. This has helped struggling stu-dents increase their mathematical intel-ligence. In the same way, pairing mar-keting students with people who have demonstrated the intelligences needed to succeed in marketing may help them gain valuable insights that will affect their own personal intelligences.
Journaling
When discussing intrapersonal intelli-gence, Gardner strongly emphasized the role of introspection. Anything market-ing educators could do to help their stu-dents reflect on their own goals, motiva-tions, strengths, and weaknesses can help them with their intrapersonal
gence. A project that I have successfully used is to have students read books of their choosing within a well-defined set of parameters. They are then required to write in a journal on a daily basis about these books and the ideas they have gath-ered from them. The successful assign-ment would not be one in which the stu-dents simply demonstrate a linguistic understanding of the material but rather are able to bridge the material with events that are actually occurring in their lives. Life becomes to the personal intel-ligences what case studies are to the ana-lytical intelligences. Roommate prob-lems, customer service problems at work, problems with superiors and sub-ordinates, and the like can be grounds for discussing ways to use the personal intel-ligences to solve problems.
Popular Press Assignments
There is not a shortage of books on interpersonal skills, which are specifi-cally targeted toward sales profession-als. These books have been useful to marketing and sales professionals throughout the years as they have strived to increase their interpersonal efficiency. They seldom have the strong empirical foundation or precision of presentation that academics are accus-tomed to but they have certainly passed the test of time for those who make a living in marketing and sales. An exam-ple of one such book is the self-help classic How to Win Friends and Influ-ence People by Dale Carnegie (1936). In very simple language, this book pre-sents advice such as smiling and remembering people’s names. One can have students read a book such as this, apply the lessons, and discuss the results with the class. Though the books themselves may not be quite as academ-ic as most professors prefer, a class dis-cussion can quickly turn to many of the more challenging aspects of interper-sonal intelligence.
Class Presentation
Performance on tests of analytic or lin-guistic intelligence are affected by the confidence a student brings to the exam (e.g., see Sjostrom & Marks, 1994). This seems to occur independently of how well the student is prepared for the exam.
Low confidence results in low perfor-mance on analytic and linguistic tasks. High confidence causes the opposite result. It seems reasonable to conclude that the same thing may also happen with the personal intelligences. As students become more confident in their personal intelligences, they will develop faster in these intelligences. One area that seems to be particularly challenging for many students but is very important for gradu-ates is in the area of presentations before a group. Although many marketing grad-uates move into careers that require pre-sentations before groups, most students show signs of apprehension when asked to make such presentations in class. Pre-sentation skills can improve with prac-tice if the students’ nervousness and fear are diminished. One of the goals of class presentations should be to make students feel more comfortable when speaking before a group. Although there are other goals of class presentations, professors should not minimize the importance of using these presentations as confidence-building exercises. If a class presentation is being used to build confidence, instructors need to be careful not to undermine the confidence-building part of the presentation by being too critical of the presenters in front of their peers. Students fear making presentations before peers because they fear that they will say something wrong. If a professor holds the students’ presentations up to excessive public criticism, that fear will heighten rather than decrease and the stu-dents’ anxiety about future presentations will increase. When doing class discus-sion and group presentations, professors may want to consider the leadership axiom of “praise in public, criticize in private.”
Class Discussion
A big part of interpersonal intelligence is to develop the ability to influence oth-ers’ ideas and opinions. Class discussion can be a place where students sharpen these abilities. Many classes teach stu-dents to develop well-thought-out argu-ments for their position. However, there is a cardinal rule in sales that a salesper-son should never argue with the prospect. Students need to learn how to persuade without arguing. Teaching students the
“Yes and . . . ” rather than the “No, because . . . ” approach to influence through class discussion can help them become persuasive without being com-bative. It is important that they learn to build on what is being said and still add the points they want to communicate. Class discussion can be a great place where professors can teach and model this approach to influence.
Web-Based Instruction
Technology is changing how people interact. Osciak and Milheim (2001) have shown how Web-based instruction can tap into the various intelligences. A problem e-marketing is facing is that it is often used to replace rather than augment personal interaction and strong customer service. As professors are relying more and more on Web-based technology for instruction, creativity can be used to show marketing students how to com-bine high-tech and high-touch technolo-gy. If professors can use this new tech-nology to get closer to their students, then students will learn how to use tech-nology to get closer to their customers.
Student-Centered Learning Exercises
Fogarty (1997) has argued that the MI paradigm requires more student-cen-tered learning. That seems especially true for developing intrapersonal intelli-gence. Too often students are passive participants in the learning experience. From the first day of class, the professor makes all the decisions. That does not encourage students to develop in the areas of responsibility and planning. Rather than be told what to do, students can be forced to make more of the deci-sions that will affect their semesters. The more students are forced to take respon-sibility for the things that affect their class performance, the more they learn to do so in other areas. This does not require a total abdication of responsibil-ity by the professor to the students. It can be much more subtle, such as having the students decide when assignments will be due.
Gaming
In these days when parents often lament the endless hours that children
spend playing computer games, two recent books propose that gaming may actually help kids develop the skills needed in the workplace. Beck and Wade (2004) present the results of extensive research that indicates that certain types of popular computer games actually train people in critical business skill areas, such as risk taking, multitasking, and leadership. These are all related to the personal intelligences. S. Johnson (2005) looked at a wide range of popular culture activities, including gaming, and also concluded that computer games help teach students life skills. It is unlikely that many pro-fessors will bring strategy computer games like Halo or Home World into their classrooms. However, most col-lege classes will have students who have developed a high degree of proficiency in such games. Finding ways to bring out gaming skills from these students may help other students develop in the area of intrapersonal intelligence.
Role-Playing
In K–12 education, MI has been taught by encouraging students to see things from different perspectives (e.g., Glasgow, 1999). Certainly, the empathy needed for high interpersonal intelli-gence requires the ability to see things from various perspectives. Also, improved intrapersonal intelligence likely comes from looking at problems from many different angles so as to find which angle has the best perspective. Assigning students a specific role in the solving of a problem can help them to approach problems from different per-spectives.
Conclusion
One of the biggest challenges facing university-level marketing education today is the shortage of marketing fac-ulty. Put simply, there are more students wanting to major in marketing than there are qualified professors available to teach these students. University administrators often deal with this chal-lenge in two ways: (a) by increasing class size or (b) by increasing the requirements necessary for admission into business classes (e.g., raising grade-point requirements). It is clear
that larger classes present a major chal-lenge for developing the personal intel-ligences. When lower-achieving stu-dents are weeded out before getting into marketing classes, it is often done based on their mathematical or logical and lin-guistic intelligences. Thus, possibly one of the biggest casualties of faculty shortages in marketing is the develop-ment of the full spectrum of intelli-gences that marketing graduates need to compete. One of the biggest challenges for marketing education is to deal with faculty shortages while still turning out the kinds of graduates who can become well-rounded marketing and sales pro-fessionals.
NOTE
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to James A. Muncy, Harvey Lang-dale, Jr. College of Business, Valdosta State Uni-versity, Valdosta, GA 31698.
E-mail: muncyj@valdosta.edu
REFERENCES
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. T. (2003). Emotional awareness and emotional intelli-gence in leadership teaching. Journal of Educa-tion for Business, 79, 18–22.
Beck, J. C., & Wade, M. (2004). Got game: How the gamer generation is reshaping business for-ever. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Binet, A. (1916). New methods for the diagnosis of the intellectual level of subnormals. In E. S. Kite (Trans.),The development of intelligence in children(pp. 191–244).Vineland, NJ: Publi-cations of the Training School at Vineland. (Original work published 1905)
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1983). The development of intelligence in children. Salem, NH: Ayer Com-pany. (Original work published 1916) Boring, E. G. (1923). Intelligence as the tests test
it. New Republic, 10(6), 35–37.
Brougher, J. Z. (1997). Creating a nourishing learning environment for adults using multiple intelligence theory. Adult Learning, 8(4), 28–29.
Campbell, L. (1997). How teachers interpret MI theory. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 14–19. Carnegie, D. (1936). How to win friends and
influ-ence people. New York: Pocket Books. Collins, J. (1998). Seven kinds of smart. Time,
152(16), 94–97.
Cooper, R. K., & Sawaf, A. (1997). Executive EQ: Emotional intelligence in leadership and orga-nizations. New York: Grosset/Putnam. Fogarty, R. (1997). Problem-based learning and
other curriculum models for the multiple intel-ligences classroom. Arlington Heights, IL: IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of
multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1987). Beyond the IQ: Education
and human development. Harvard Education Review, 57(2), 187–193.
Gardner, H. (1993a). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1993b). The necessity of “Individ-ual-centered schooling.” Chronicle of Higher Education, 39(34), B2.
Gardner, H. (1995). Reflections on multiple intel-ligences: Myths and messages. Phi Delta Kap-pan, 77, 200–208.
Gardner, H. (1997a). Extraordinary minds: Por-traits of four exceptional individuals and an examination of our own extraordinariness. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1997b). Multiple intelligences as a partner in school improvement. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 20–21.
Gardner, H. (1998a). A multiplicity of intelli-gences. Scientific American, 9(4), 18–23. Gardner, H. (1998b). A reply to Perry D. Klein’s
“Multiplying the problems of intelligence by eight.”Canadian Journal of Education, 23(1), 96–102.
Gardner, H. (1999a). The disciplined mind: What all students should understand. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Gardner, H. (1999b). Intelligence reframed: Mul-tiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999c). Who owns intelligence?
Atlantic Monthly, 283(2), 67–76.
Glasgow, J. N. (1999). Recognizing students’ mul-tiple intelligences in cross-age buddy journals.
English Journal, 88(6), 88–97.
Glasgow, J. N., & Bush, M. (1995). Promoting active learning and collaborative writing through a marketing project. English Journal, 84(8), 32–40.
Glasgow, J. N., & Bush, M. (1996). Students use their multiple intelligences to develop promo-tional magazines for local businesses. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 39, 638–641. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books.
Goodnough, K. (2001). Multiple intelligences the-ory: A framework for personalizing science curricula. School Science and Mathematics, 101(4), 180–193.
Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in Amer-ican life. New York: Free Press.
Howe, M. (1992). Fragments of genius: The strange feats of idiots savants. Oxford, Eng-land: Routledge.
Johnson, J., & White, J. T. (2002). The use of mul-tiple intelligences in criminal justice education.
Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 13, 369–390.
Johnson, S. (2005). Everything bad is good for you: How today’s popular culture is actually making us smarter. New York: Riverhead Books. Kaschub, M. (2002). Defining emotional
intelli-gence in music education. Arts Education Poli-cy Review, 103(5), 9–16.
Kezar, A. (2001). Theory of multiple intelli-gences: Implications for higher education.
Innovative Higher Education, 26, 141–155. Lowey, S. (2003, December). MI your business.
Training Journal, 203, 26–32.
Manner, B. M. (2001). Learning styles and multi-ple intelligences in students. Journal of College Science Teaching, 30, 390–393.
Martin, J. (2003). Multiple intelligences and busi-ness diversity. Journal of Career Assessment, 11, 187–205.
McClaskey, J. (1995). Assessing student learning through multiple intelligences. English Journal, 84(8), 56–59.
Messick, S. (1992). Multiple intelligences or multi-level intelligence? Selective emphasis on
tive properties of hierarchy: On Gardner’s
Frames of mindand Steinberg’s Beyond IQin the context of theory and research on the structure of human. Psychological Inquiry, 3, 365–384. Mitchell, M., & Kernodle, M. (2004). Using
mul-tiple intelligences to teach tennis. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 75(8), 27–33.
National Education Association (1997). NEA pro-fessional library top 10 bestseller list. NEA Today, 16(2), 45–46.
Osciak, S. Y., & Milheim, W. D. (2001). Multiple intelligences and the design of Web-based instruction. International Journal of Instruc-tional Media, 28, 355–362.
Rae, L. (2002, December). Multiple intelligences: A trainer’s resource of activities. Training Jour-nal, 35, 39.
Reisenwitz, T., & Eastman, J. K. (in press). Deal-ing with student group project traumas: Teach-ing students recognition, responsibility, and
res-olution of group project problems. Marketing Education Review.
Roper, B., & Davis, D. (2000). Howard Gardner: Knowledge, learning and development. Drama and Art Education, 5, 217–244.
Sjostrom, K. P., & Marks, A. (1994). Pretest and posttest confidence ratings in test performance by low-, medium-, and high-scoring. Teaching of Psychology, 21(1), 12–17.
Spearman, C. (1904). General intelligence, objec-tively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–293.
Sternberg, R. J. (1977). Intelligence, information processing, and analogical reasoning: The componential analysis of human abilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cam-bridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Metaphors of mind: Con-ceptions of the nature of intelligence. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful intelligence. New York: Plume.
Sternberg, R. J. (1999). The theory of successful intelligence. Review of General Psychology, 3, 292–316.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2000).
Teaching for successful intelligence. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight.
Terman, L. M. (1916). The measurement of intel-ligence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Treffert, D. A. (1989). Extraordinary people: Understanding idiot savants. New York: Harper Collins.
Ulric, N., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S., et al. (1996). Intelli-gence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psy-chologist, 51(2), 77–102.
Walker, M. D. (1998). Multiple intelligences and the World Wide Web: A new approach to teaching about the war. Magazine of History, 12(3), 44–47.
