Approach to teaching a gifted child

[Embassy]

What has been your approach to teaching your gifted child/children? Do you sink deep into topics, cover more topics, or accelerate into a higher grade level?

 

Have you found that your gifted child/children need to be taught a certain way?

[zaichiki]

What has been your approach to teaching your gifted child/children? Do you sink deep into topics, cover more topics, or accelerate into a higher grade level?

 

All of the above depending on the subject, interest in the topic, and the time of year (mine learn in spurts -- like the run and rise of a staircase).

 

Have you found that your gifted child/children need to be taught a certain way?

 

Hmmm... yes? They have different learning styles/strengths and the older one craves learning independently (chafes at being "taught").

 

 

 

Hope this helps.

[MaMa2005]

Last year, we just kept accelerating until DS finally hit a plateau. This year, I have purposefully chosen curriculum levels that will make DS slow down (or that is the plan :D). We are also going more in-depth in some areas.

 

I heard an excellent speaker on gifted children at the SE Homeschool Expo last week. She stressed to be careful about giving gifted children 'extra' work. For example, I have already planned out this entire school year. Just because DS finished his SOTW 2 assignments for the week on Tuesday doesn't mean that he gets 'extra' work for completing work early. Gifted children will very quickly catch on to the fact that working ahead means 'extra' work. (I hope that makes sense. :tongue_smilie:)

 

I teach to DS's learning style. That is the beauty to homeschooling.

[KS_]

What has been your approach to teaching your gifted child/children? Do you sink deep into topics, cover more topics, or accelerate into a higher grade level?

 

Have you found that your gifted child/children need to be taught a certain way?

 

We have accelerated some, but the biggest thing with my ds is that he has had to learn that some subjects are difficult and are going to take some effort. Most things have come very easily to him, and so when he comes up against a subject or concept that he doesn't get immediately, he gets very frustrated and thinks he's stupid. He doesn't like having to work hard at anything, and because he hasn't had to much, it just really throws him for a loop when he does have to make a real effort.

[patchfire]

We have accelerated some, but the biggest thing with my ds is that he has had to learn that some subjects are difficult and are going to take some effort.

 

:iagree: This is a big concern for me based on personal experience. I am so thankful that I have the ability to challenge dd even at her age (ten tomorrow - where did the time go?), and she won't have a rude awakening in, oh, her sophomore year of college. Like I did. :tongue_smilie:

 

Gifted children will very quickly catch on to the fact that working ahead means 'extra' work.

 

This is, I think, a big part of the problem with gifted programs in the public schools. I know it is specifically in our county! Personally, I like to stress to dd that if she finishes her work early/quickly, she has more time for the things she chooses. Since her screen time and her other time-wasting activities are restricted as part of our house rules, I know she'll fill the time with something worthwhile, most of the time. With the definition of 'worthwhile' being pretty broad. :)

 

 

With skill subjects, I let her accelerate, at least to a certain extent. With content subjects, we just go deeper, for the most part. She did request that we accelerate in science, so we're doing that, but I could make the argument that she's just "going deeper" in biology, chemistry, and physics in her sixth, seventh, and eighth grade years. Right? ;)

[Embassy]

Are going deeper and acceleration equal?

[KS_]

Are going deeper and acceleration equal?

 

I think of acceleration as going through a sequence of material faster - such as math. Going deeper implies to me a more thorough and involved treatment of the material.

[MissKNG]

I think of acceleration as going through a sequence of material faster - such as math. Going deeper implies to me a more thorough and involved treatment of the material.

 

:iagree:

[Embassy]

I think of acceleration as going through a sequence of material faster - such as math. Going deeper implies to me a more thorough and involved treatment of the material.

 

Isn't the thorough and involved treatment also addressed at the accelerated level?

[zaichiki]

Are going deeper and acceleration equal?

 

No. We usually slow down when we go deeper (taking the time to read *every* book our library has in the children's section on a particular topic and some from the adult section, visiting several museums that have exhibits on the topic, reading magazine articles, watching documentaries, doing lapbooks, drawings, wrtiting about it, researching reputable internet sites, doing crafts, creating board games, etc.).

[Embassy]

No. We usually slow down when we go deeper (taking the time to read *every* book our library has in the children's section on a particular topic and some from the adult section, visiting several museums that have exhibits on the topic, reading magazine articles, watching documentaries, doing lapbooks, drawings, wrtiting about it, researching reputable internet sites, doing crafts, creating board games, etc.).

 

Okay, I think I'm getting it :) Acceleration is advanced and narrow in scope. Deep can be advanced because you are learning more information than the typical narrow scope. Would you say that is true?

[2smartones]

I'm an "all of the above" kind of person. I do whatever my children want to do 99% of the time. For us, that has meant both radical acceleration and deeper learning of particular topics. My oldest, especially (the more intense/sensitive of the two), has found that there are some things he'd like to learn that he can't learn until he's mastered something else. Like... some science experiments require a basic level of math and some require a more advanced level. That sort of thing. He gets very frustrated when he can't learn something or when I purposely steer him away from something, but then when he finds something he's passionate about, that doesn't require any sort of prerequisite knowledge, he digs in!

[learninearnin]

I think for mine the biggest help has been looking for what makes them want to learn and what frustrates them. We definitely accelerated the learning (mine don't enjoy going deeper unless it's something they have chosen to research) but not at the same pace for every subject. With my almost 10yo I find that giving her the freedom to complete her assignments for the day in the order and time of day she chooses has helped a lot...makes her feel like she is in more control. Learning styles and their interests also play a big part with my kiddos. DS would rather act out a play or create a scene with legos than color any day. DD enjoys making lists and creative writing projects.

 

I thought these were helpful: http://giftedkids.about.com/od/gifted101/a/overexcite.htm

http://www.sengifted.org/index_orig.shtml

[EKS]

Do you sink deep into topics, cover more topics, or accelerate into a higher grade level?

 

 

 

All of the above.

 

It depends on the subject. For example, since my son is good at math but not overly thrilled with it, we go somewhat deeper and have accelerated to a higher level. Of course, end up covering more topics because he is also going faster than normal. For science, which is his passion, we have done all three.

[Crimson Wife]

I use above-grade-level materials, do often compact curricula, and also go "deeper".

[Splash]

I was told to go deeper and broader not ahead so much.

[KAR120C]

What has been your approach to teaching your gifted child/children? Do you sink deep into topics, cover more topics, or accelerate into a higher grade level?

 

Have you found that your gifted child/children need to be taught a certain way?

We definitely go into more depth than is required. We also cover lots of topics that are never covered in a standard curriculum sequence, and we have accelerated several years too.

 

Okay, I think I'm getting it :) Acceleration is advanced and narrow in scope. Deep can be advanced because you are learning more information than the typical narrow scope. Would you say that is true?

I wouldn't say that acceleration is necessarily "narrow" -- I would not accelerate without first making sure that the coverage at grade level is thorough. If it's not an area of particular interest, that would be enough for me. If it's one of his favorite things though, then I want to have expanded to include everything we can before we move on.... so acceleration, in my mind, is only as narrow as the base on which it is built.

 

Basically my approach to teaching DS has been to make sure he is making progress, working at a reasonable challenge level, and that he is putting effort toward those things that interest him. That can mean more depth where there is interesting stuff to get into, that can mean acceleration when we've exhausted the interesting stuff, and that can mean entirely new topics when there's interest outside the standard curriculum.

 

My favorite approach for doing all of those at once is project work. In our case it's primarily his annual science project, although he has done projects in other areas too. The key is that it's a question of his own, background research to get his footing and narrow his focus, contact with experts for "on the ground" input, and experimentation and/or analysis of existing data to find an answer. Invariably his questions are outside the standard curriculum -- otherwise they wouldn't really merit all that work -- and that sort of investigation of a question is about as "deep" as you can get. But it's also easy to accelerate the skill sets required within the scope of the project. The math you need for this particular project might be more than you've already got, and time to learn some statistics. Or the writing and presentation requirements for any competition might require some skills not usually attacked until much later in a kid's education. Not to mention the independence he has had to develop -- I can deliver him to the science fair, but he's the one that has to stand up there answering whatever questions the judges throw at him. None of that is stuff I would normally expect of a kid his age, but in the context of a project it's been a simple thing to move ahead in those regards, giving him lots of options in his toolbox-of-skills that can be applied elsewhere later.

 

These have all been really good things for DS. He has grown tremendously, he has really focused on some solid interests and strengths that he could run with into adulthood, and he has earned real recognition for his work. They are absolutely not the only way to go about it though. You have to consider the individual child and his or her temperment, the particular constellation of strengths and challenges s/he has, and the resources available to you. Giftedness/IQ is not the most important factor. It certainly contributes, but in very different ways for different kids... and as soon as you think you have a handle on where you're going, they change. :)

[JennW in SoCal]

What has been your approach to teaching your gifted child/children? Do you sink deep into topics, cover more topics, or accelerate into a higher grade level?

 

Have you found that your gifted child/children need to be taught a certain way?

 

My approach was to set up an environment where learning was a natural part of living, and let my kids loose to explore. I kept the big picture in my mind the whole time, meaning I never lost sight of the skills my kids would need to master nor the general broad scope of knowledge they should at least touch upon. It also meant that I only the only regimented subjects were math and writing until my kids were much older. Even then math was often in the form of games and writing was no more than copy work until they were 9 or so. I didn't organize history into a year long topics until middle school and didn't formalize science until high school. And I did not ruin my kids!

 

My kids always had passionate interests, so it was natural to go deep. I introduced new topics through our read alouds, or through some documentary on t.v. or through visiting a museum, and if something caught their fancy, we'd then go deeper until their eyes would start to glaze over.

 

By setting up an environment, I mean having lots of books around the house, and I mean having science equipment and craft supplies handy -- not put away. Magnifying glasses and binoculars were ready to be grabbed when needed, as were wildlife guides and science encyclopedias. Craft supplies were arranged on a big table at kid level so they could draw, cut, paste and create when the mood struck. When it was time for tv, we'd watch PBS or the Discovery Channel. Their favorite computer games were science and logic games. Above all we talked about everything we did, shared what we were interested in and doing. I'd listen with interest to them, over time they learned to listen to each other and to their parents and friends.

 

I didn't worry about grade levels, just that they were engaged and learning and improving their math, thinking and writing skills. When it came time for them to enter classrooms in their teen years, they were ahead of their peers in writing, were frustrated that most of the material was stuff they already knew. Both my teens were fortunate to find adult mentors in their fields of interest so they could be challenged and really go deep.

 

To me, gifted means being able to make connections between apparently unrelated bits of information. I didn't see the need to think in terms of grade level or to "teach" history and science and literature as it always seemed my kids would glean something related to all those subjects through whatever they were reading or doing.

 

A wise woman who was a regular on this board years ago said the only thing a parent of a gifted child needed to pay attention to is the "light in the eyes" of their children. When you see that light -- they are engaged and busy learning, and learning far more than we can imagine. When the light isn't there, move on, introduce something else.

[2smartones]

I was told to go deeper and broader not ahead so much.

Not attacking you in anyway... just curious... who told you to do that, what experience or authority over your kids did they have before saying so, and do you follow their advice? I've been told to do a lot of things by a lot of people, but in the end, I know my kids best, and I do what I want to do.

[EKS]

I was told to go deeper and broader not ahead so much.

 

There's only so much of this that you can do with certain subjects. For example, with most skill subjects like arithmetic in the early grades--reading, spelling, grammar, writing, and so forth--there are limits go going broader or deeper. In arithmetic in the early grades, there isn't much depth to be had and if you go broader, you're likely moving up to get there. In reading, would you say to a child that she has to read more books on the same level so as to add breadth even though she is ready and wanting to read more difficult material? Spelling--same thing--are you going to learn to spell more words at the mastered level--and truly, how deep can you go with 2nd grade spelling? Writing--Are you only going to allow a child to write sentences when she is ready for paragraphs?

 

The content areas lend themselves more to adding breadth and depth. But here too, particularly in the early grades, some kids just need more. More than one sentence on a page, more in the way of conceptual development, more facts, and you're generally not going to get all that by staying on level.

 

What I've found is that it's a balancing act. What seems to work here is combining acceleration, going wide, and going deep, in different proportions for different subjects (and different kids) and adjusting as needed.

[catz]

What has been your approach to teaching your gifted child/children? Do you sink deep into topics, cover more topics, or accelerate into a higher grade level?

 

Have you found that your gifted child/children need to be taught a certain way?

 

 

Any and all of the above. My 9 year old works 3-7 grade levels ahead, and it's kind of like stopping a freight train to get him to move slower. But we do have a way of finding the scenic route. We are quite committed to our music lessons and we do as much off the track stuff as we want. I pick deep, open ended curriculum or no curriculum at all if nothing is working. We do lots of field trips and have lots of books. Singapore and MCT work very well for us.

 

I think going deeper is great. Do it as much as you can. Just keep your kids interested and challenged. If you need to move up a level - go ahead. My 9 year old is starting algebra. He'd be at high school science, but we're almost unschooling science and seeing where our interests take us. We'll deal with the consequences when we need to! I don't intend for him to move out of the house before age 18 at least. We have lots of local options for college classes so we may use that too.

[zaichiki]

Okay, I think I'm getting it :) Acceleration is advanced and narrow in scope. Deep can be advanced because you are learning more information than the typical narrow scope. Would you say that is true?

 

I think of accelerated as "faster." If you go faster through the typical curriculum, you end up being "ahead" or more advanced than age/grade level b/c you do more of the curriculum in the same amount of time. You go through the typical scope and sequence when you accelerate (not narrower, broader, or deeper).

 

Right now we are accelerating oldest in math, but we're also compacting the curriculum. He's always gone deeper, not faster, with history. This year we'll go broader with him in science (more biology topics --I'm adding to the curriculum-- than typically covered at this age level, but not necessarily deeper or faster).

[regentrude]

We do all of the above, depending on subject and child.

accelerate: Kids work above of grade level, particularly in math (2-3 grades) and science.

deeper: we cover topics in more depths than standard textbook (we use Art of Problem Solving for math)

broader: more subjects

My kids definitely need to be taught differently (that's why they were miserable in public school)

DD (13) wants explicit challenges, hard material, a tough schedule, likes competitions and exterior measures for how she is doing (she loved taking the SAT).

DS wants a lot of freedom with his learning, almost to an unschooling degree; he self-selects topics, loves doing projects, is very independent and hates all group activities.

Both have the same IQ, so it is not "gifted" per se that's important , but personality.

Agnes

[mom-2-1]

Thanks!

[mom-2-1]

Thanks for the great thread!

[Staceyshoe]

You've gotten some great feedback already. I wanted to mention a couple of books that are very helpful to me. Gifted Children at Home and Creative Home Schooling.

[Dmmetler]

We do both-we tend to go deeper, but also work several years ahead in most subjects. Mostly it's a "take it by ear" situation.

 

My DD's K teacher commented, at the meeting where she suggested that we homeschool, that whole-grade acceleration wasn't going to work-that from what she saw, she could place DD in any grade level in the elementary school, and that by the time they got through the beginning of the year review DD would know what she needed and the pace would start being too slow, but that the writing, behavioral, and social demands would kill her because she was still a typical 5 yr old. What has worked reasonably well at home is to pick a base level that DD can handle independently, but to let her go as deeply as she wants from that point, even if it means using my college faculty ID to bring home books from the University library.

[Laura Corin]

Yes. All of the above. Some subjects we took deeper, some faster, some we added in where the standard curriculum wouldn't have included them. We are a highly verbal family, so each boys studied at least three languages. They were accelerated in maths (a bit) and English (a lot). Their history studies went both wider and deeper. Their science was also both wider and deeper. It really depended on what the child was capable of/enjoyed, as well as what the teacher could cope with.

 

One thing that I was careful to do: whatever the level the boys were working at, they didn't put in more hours each day than was reasonable for their physical age. That might mean working at a high level but doing the course over two years, for example.

 

Laura

[SnegurochkaL]

In arithmetic in the early grades, there isn't much depth to be had and if you go broader, you're likely moving up to get there.

 

What I've found is that it's a balancing act. What seems to work here is combining acceleration, going wide, and going deep, in different proportions for different subjects (and different kids) and adjusting as needed.

 

:iagree:

 

I think it depends what your goals are. If you are using 2-3 different curriculum per 1 subject you more likely will study it wider and deeper.

As an example, I use 3 math programs for my oldest child. She had learnt some Algebra concepts at age 7 using Russian 2nd grade math book and 4 operation problems which are covered in SM 4. Can I say that our math studies are having an accelerated approach? Yes, I can, even my goal was to make it deeper and wider.

Edited July 5, 2011 by SneguochkaL

[catz]

What has been your approach to teaching your gifted child/children? Do you sink deep into topics, cover more topics, or accelerate into a higher grade level?

 

Have you found that your gifted child/children need to be taught a certain way?

 

We do all the above. But I really try to dig into "extras". Music lessons are big and very important here as well as other enrichment type activities (dance, circus classes, engineering team, camps and classes at local museums, etc).

[angela in ohio]

All of the above, and then some.

 

Sometimes we compact curriculum, sometimes we skip things, sometimes we go deeper with the extra time and sometimes we just move on to the next thing instead.

 

My usual go-to method is diagnostic-prescriptive, expecially with textbook courses and purchased curriculum. It involves testing what they already know and only teaching what they don't.

 

For math, we use a combination of accelerating and going deeper. So my dc are "ahead" of the usual sequence, but we also do other things like reading mathematics history and contest math. For history, we go at a "normal" pace, but I expect a higher level of work than typical. And so on. :001_smile:

[Osmosis Mom]

My approach was to set up an environment where learning was a natural part of living, and let my kids loose to explore. I kept the big picture in my mind the whole time, meaning I never lost sight of the skills my kids would need to master nor the general broad scope of knowledge they should at least touch upon. It also meant that I only the only regimented subjects were math and writing until my kids were much older. Even then math was often in the form of games and writing was no more than copy work until they were 9 or so. I didn't organize history into a year long topics until middle school and didn't formalize science until high school. And I did not ruin my kids!

 

My kids always had passionate interests, so it was natural to go deep. I introduced new topics through our read alouds, or through some documentary on t.v. or through visiting a museum, and if something caught their fancy, we'd then go deeper until their eyes would start to glaze over.

 

By setting up an environment, I mean having lots of books around the house, and I mean having science equipment and craft supplies handy -- not put away. Magnifying glasses and binoculars were ready to be grabbed when needed, as were wildlife guides and science encyclopedias. Craft supplies were arranged on a big table at kid level so they could draw, cut, paste and create when the mood struck. When it was time for tv, we'd watch PBS or the Discovery Channel. Their favorite computer games were science and logic games. Above all we talked about everything we did, shared what we were interested in and doing. I'd listen with interest to them, over time they learned to listen to each other and to their parents and friends.

 

I didn't worry about grade levels, just that they were engaged and learning and improving their math, thinking and writing skills. When it came time for them to enter classrooms in their teen years, they were ahead of their peers in writing, were frustrated that most of the material was stuff they already knew. Both my teens were fortunate to find adult mentors in their fields of interest so they could be challenged and really go deep.

 

To me, gifted means being able to make connections between apparently unrelated bits of information. I didn't see the need to think in terms of grade level or to "teach" history and science and literature as it always seemed my kids would glean something related to all those subjects through whatever they were reading or doing.

 

A wise woman who was a regular on this board years ago said the only thing a parent of a gifted child needed to pay attention to is the "light in the eyes" of their children. When you see that light -- they are engaged and busy learning, and learning far more than we can imagine. When the light isn't there, move on, introduce something else.

 

Love this post. This is pretty much my philosophy of homeschooling my kids even though I don't always succeed!