Research by cognitive scientists into the differences among students can shed light on this question, but before I get into that research, it is important to clarify whether I’m talking about differences in cognitive abilities or differences in cognitive styles. The definition of cognitive ability is straightforward: it means capacity for or success in certain types of thought. If I say that Sarah has a lot of ability in math, you know I mean she tends to learn new mathematical concepts quickly. In contrast to abilities, cognitive styles are biases or tendencies to think in a particular way, for example to think sequentially (of one thing at a time) or holistically (of all of the parts simultaneously). Abilities and styles differ in a few important ways. Abilities are how we deal with content (for example, math or language arts) and they reflect the level (that is, the quantity) of what we know and can do. Styles are how we prefer to think and learn.We consider having more ability as being better than having less ability, but we do not consider one style as better than any other style. One style might be more effective for a particular problem, but all styles are equally useful overall, by definition.
**
Everyone can appreciate that students differ from one another.What can (or should) teachers do about that? One would hope we could use those differences to improve instruction.Two basic methods have been suggested. One approach is based on differences in cognitive style—that is, if one matches the method of instruction to the preferred cognitive style of the child, learning will be easier. Unfortunately, no one has described a set of styles for which there is good evidence.
The second way that teachers might take advantage of differences among students is rooted in differences in abilities. If a student is lacking in one cognitive ability, the hope would be that she could use a cognitive strength to make up for, or at least bolster, the cognitive weakness. Unfortunately, there is good evidence that this sort of substitution is not possible.To be clear, it’s the substitution idea that is wrong; students definitely do differ in their cognitive abilities (although the description in Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory is widely regarded as less accurate than other descriptions).
**
I admit I felt like a bit of a Grinch as I wrote this chapter, as though I had a scowl on my face as I typed “wrong, wrong, wrong” about the optimistic ideas others have offered regarding student differences. As I stated at the start of the chapter, I am not saying that teachers should not differentiate instruction. I hope and expect that they will. But when they do so, they should know that scientists cannot offer any help. It would be wonderful if scientists had identified categories of students along with varieties of instruction best suited to each category, but after a great deal of effort, they have not found such types, and I, like many others, suspect they don’t exist. I would advise teachers to treat students differently on the basis of the teacher’s experience with each student and to remain alert for what works.When differentiating among students, craft knowledge trumps science.
**
Learning-style theories don’t help much when applied to students, but I think they are useful when applied to content.Take the visual-auditory-kinesthetic distinction. You might want students to experience material in one or another modality depending on what you want them to get out of the lesson; a diagram of Fort Knox should be seen, the national anthem of Turkmenistan should be heard, and the cheche turban (used by Saharan tribes to protect themselves against sun and wind) should be worn. The distinctions in Table 1 provide a number of interesting ways to think about lesson plans: Do you want students to think deductively during a lesson, or to free-associate creatively? Should they focus on similarities among concepts they encounter, or should they focus on the details that differentiate those concepts? Table 1 may help you to focus on what you hope your students will learn from a lesson and how to help them get there.
**
Every teacher knows that change during a lesson invigorates students and refocuses their attention. If the teacher has been doing a lot of talking, something visual (a video or a map) offers a welcome change.Table 1 provides a number of ways to think about change during the course of a lesson. If the students’ work has demanded a lot of logical, deductive thinking, perhaps an exercise that calls for broad, associative thinking is in order. If their work has required many rapid responses, perhaps they should do another task that calls for thoughtful, measured responses. Rather than individualizing the required mental processes for each student, give all of your students practice in all of these processes, and view the transitions as an opportunity for each student to start fresh and refocus his or her mental energies.
If you have felt nagging guilt that you have not evaluated each of your students to assess their cognitive style, or if you think you know what their styles are and have not adjusted your teaching to them—don’t worry about it.There is no reason to think that doing so will help. And if you were thinking of buying a book or inviting someone in for a professional development session on one of these topics, I advise you to save your money.
If “cognitive styles” and “multiple intelligences” are not helpful ways to characterize how children differ, what’s a better way? Why do some children seem to breeze through mathematics while others struggle? Why do some children love history, or geography? The importance of background knowledge has come up again and again in this book. In Chapter One I argued that background knowledge is an important determinant of what we find interesting; for example, problems or puzzles that seem difficult but not impossible pique our interest. In Chapter Two I explained that background knowledge is an important determinant of much of our success in school. Cognitive processes (such as analyzing, synthesizing, and critiquing) cannot operate alone.They need background knowledge to make them work.
Still, background knowledge is not the only difference between students.There is something to the idea that some students are simply really clever.
READ MORE:
Why Is It Hard to Make Students Think Like Experts?
Why Is It So Hard for Students to Understand Abstract Ideas?
Why Do Students Remember Everything That’s on Television and Forget Everything I Say?
Factual knowledge must precede skill
Why Don't Students Like School?
