The Research Of The Relationship Between Practical Intelligence And Class Management Performance Of University Class Leaders

There is a common phenomenon in our daily life: Some people have remarkableacademic achievements as well as a less good performance in dealing with everydayproblems; Others just be the opposite. The main cause of this phenomenon is thatacademic and non-academic environment requires different structure of intelligence orability. The phenomenon also caused academia’s rethinking towards traditionalintelligence theories. Under this specific background, Sternberg and other researchersproposed practical intelligence theory, which covered the shortage of traditionalintelligence theory and showed the way for intelligence research. Furthermore, theresearchers had constructed some tests on practical intelligence.The objects of this study are university class leaders in China mainland. Basedon Sternberg’s practical intelligence theory and Wagner’s tacit knowledge theory, myresearch constructed “the tacit knowledge questionnaire of university class leaders”.The reliability and validity of the questionnaire both reached psychometrics standard.Then, the research discussed the relationship between university class leaders’practical intelligence, intelligence, personality and their class managementperformance. The predictive factors for class management performance were foundand compared. The samples of this research were all junior class leaders. They weremainly from Shandong Normal University. Their practical intelligence, intelligenceand personality were measured by psychological tests. The data collected wereanalyzed and processed using SPSS17.0.Afterward, the results were discussed. Theresearch reached the conclusions below.(1)The class management tacit knowledge questionnaire reached good reliabilityand validity;(2)The contents of tacit knowledge contained three dimensions: managing oneself, managing tasks and managing others;(3)University class leaders’ practical intelligence was related to their intelligencesignificantly;(4)University class leaders’ practical intelligence, intelligence and personality allhad significant correlations with their class management performance;(5)University class leaders’ practical intelligence and intelligence are bothsignificant predictors for their class management performance, but the two factorshave unequal predictive powers. Practical intelligence have bigger contributiontowards class management performance variations.