Christopher J. Ferguson, a behavioral sciences professor at Texas A&M, highlights the lack of empirical evidence in support of the theory of multiple intelligences.

There probably is just a single intelligence or capacity to learn, not multiple ones devoted to independent tasks. To varying degrees, some individuals have this capacity, and others do not. To be sure, there is much debate about Gardner’s theory [of multiple intelligences] in the literature, with contenders for and against. Nonetheless, empirical evidence has not been robust. While the theory sounds nice (perhaps because it sounds nice), it is more intuitive than empirical. In other words, the eight intelligences are based more on philosophy than on data.

There is, he notes, ample empirical data to indicate a single intelligence, ‘an innate cognitive ability that powers learning.’  This capacity arises from heredity not environment, and some possess more of it than others.  The theory of multiple intelligences may satisfy our democratic aspirations — we want it to be true — but it doesn’t rest on an empirical foundation that can be measured.  The obvious differences we see in children and adults Ferguson attributes to varying talents and inclinations, not intelligences.

I just finished three days at camp, assisting in the faith development of eight-year-old girls and boys and deepening my own in the process.  Our curriculum made generous use of the theory of multiple intelligences, even tagging elements of each lesson with specific ones, but Ferguson’s commentary makes me wonder about this approach now.  I don’t know enough about educational theory, though, to argue one way or another.

Mostly at camp I saw how children learn through story, song, repetition and activity.  These elements also characterize the church’s weekly communal worship.  I imagine they’re among the ways we learn in all seasons of life.