I have been reading several books proposing various individual differences that should be addressed in instruction. I have long supported the use of technology to address differences in speed of learning, but the notion of learning styles or intelligences makes little sense (and has little empirical support).
The multiple intelligences proposed by Gardner make a good example. Robert Sternberg had a simpler system and made more progress in operationalizing the three intelligences he proposed and determining whether these intelligences demonstrated trait by treatment interactions in achievement. However, the books I read seem to focus on Gardner. I think the notion of individual differences in social, musical and motor skills resonates with readers. They understand that others can sing and they can’t or that others are better athletes or dancers.
The issue is really what differences in skill areas have to do with achievement in other areas. Since research success has little to do with whether or not individuals have a role to play in education, I will ignore the lack of empirical support and try to make my point in another way.
The common argument is that education typically focused on a certain kind of thinking – one or at most a couple of the intelligences. I would propose that these in the Gardner system are verbal and logical. I am ignoring art, music, and physical education for the moment, but I will get back to these areas. I will accept this position. Reading, writing, math, physics, chemistry, etc., do emphasize and involve linguistic and analytical skills. The question I would ask for those concerned about this focus is “Do we want to help learners develop linguistic and analytical skills or do we assume they should learn to compensate for lack of these skills?” While compensation may always be possible (I may be able to use my social skills to convince a colleague to write a paper for me because my linguistic skills are not at her level?), should developing coping mechanisms really be the goal?
We tend to make this argument commenting on linguistic and analytical skills, but what if we focus on some of the other competencies (I cannot use the term intelligences). I did say I would return to discuss other areas of talent schools address. Should I tell the football coach I would rather he focus on analytical skill because my son does not have the coordination to catch a pass or the endurance to run a lap around the field? What expectations should I have of the choral director? Isn’t the idea to develop whatever level of motor or musical skill can be developed. You might hope the football coach would not ignore social competence as team cohesiveness is a major component of team success, but in the final analysis, the goal is really to develop motor skills.
If the idea in addressing styles or intelligences is assuming that some trait by treatment interaction exists, I just have a hard team imagining how that would work for any given intelligence one might designate.
