This is a question we get asked often, and this going to be a short one.
There is no rush(ing): we teach Joey, he gets 'it', we move forward. If he doesn't get 'it', we stay on 'it' until he does. Repeat.
Of course, I could have opted not to start teaching Joey anything in particular, but not only this is kind of a moot point, but not challenging this little brain which was so eager to absorb information is just not who I am. Plenty of children grow up to be successful adults without a lot of enrichment at first, but there is no denying that the brain is never as malleable and ready to learn than during early childhood. And once you know something, no one can take it away from you. I like this kind of 'savings' account.
Also, as I said in other parts of this blog, not accelerating is not a harmless decision for gifted children. They need the stimulation, and if they don't get it that way, they find other ways to cope, not all of which are positive. Further, there is data out there (see this article on Gifted Child Quarterly) suggesting that the processing speed (how fast they think) of gifted children who receive acceleration is significantly faster than that of those who don't. In other words, it is really a case of 'use it or lose it' with the brain, very much like a muscle.
Also, as I said in other parts of this blog, not accelerating is not a harmless decision for gifted children. They need the stimulation, and if they don't get it that way, they find other ways to cope, not all of which are positive. Further, there is data out there (see this article on Gifted Child Quarterly) suggesting that the processing speed (how fast they think) of gifted children who receive acceleration is significantly faster than that of those who don't. In other words, it is really a case of 'use it or lose it' with the brain, very much like a muscle.
Sometimes, I do slow down on purpose, when I want to make sure that the information is not just grasped, but really, thoroughly understood. An example is multiplication: he gets it, and he is about half-way through memorizing the multiplication table (August 2013 update: he knows the multiplication tables). These are two different things, by the way, as there would be no value in memorization without understanding, but what can I say? When it comes to math, Joey seems to understand things out thin air.... someone today asked me if any of us (his parents) were particularly good at math. I was a math-physics major in high school (in France), so I was good, but not MIT good. I had to compete, using grit (see my post on that), with the kids who really just 'got it', the future aeronautic engineers, but eventually, science, not math or engineering, was my field. Joey perhaps will be that other kind.
Another example by the way is the alphabet: there are a lot of little kids who have mostly memorized the song, but this is of course absolutely not the same thing as recognizing the letters. So anyway, we take more time when critical concepts are being introduced, even if Joey has a special talent when it comes to math.
Another example by the way is the alphabet: there are a lot of little kids who have mostly memorized the song, but this is of course absolutely not the same thing as recognizing the letters. So anyway, we take more time when critical concepts are being introduced, even if Joey has a special talent when it comes to math.
No comments:
Post a Comment