80 likes | 207 Vues
The debate surrounding early academic intervention for gifted children continues to be a topic of public interest, especially for at-risk and minority groups. While many educators support early identification and enrollment in enrichment programs, concerns exist about the pressures faced by identified children. Some argue that formal schooling can stifle creativity and that nurturing environments are crucial for talent development. Research indicates that the earliest entry may enhance confidence and performance but also risks the loss of childhood and creative exploration. A child-centered, flexible approach may be the key to balancing these factors.
E N D
Early Academic Intervention Do Young Gifted Children Benefit ?
High Public Interest • Discussed even in daily newspapers • Especially for at-risk and minority children • High enrollment in enrichment programs (Language Stars, Kumon etc.)
Early identification • Educators generally in favor (McBride, 1992) • Nurture at home independent of ID (Colangelo, 1986; Tannenbaum, 1992) • Danger of being labeled (Freeman, 1995) • Early Identification not reliable (Ziegler, 2004) Identified children on the “gifted track” can be under pressure to perform
Early is the ideal time... • Stimuli work best with children under 5 (Tannenbaum, 1992) • Earlier entry – better performance (Field, 1991) • Children discouraged from learning may hide their talents (Whitmore, 1986; Barbour, 1992) • Early school entry gives confidence – children know the “drill” (Sylva, 1994)
Later is better ... • Loss of childhood (Elkind, 1981) • Children need free time to incorporate learned content (Elkind, 1988a) • Formal schooling “quenches” creativity (Meador, 1992) • If early then child-centered (Stipek, 1995)
Conclusion - or what is best? • Early academics for gifted children must be child-centered / flexible • Gifted children learn early to value and use their talents • Nurturing and supporting environment more important than being or not being in a preschool
References: • Barbour, N. B. (1992). Early Childhood Gifted Education: A Collaborative Perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15(2), 145-162. • Colangelo, N., & Fleuridas, C. (1986). The Abdication of Childhood. Journal of Counseling and Development, 64, 561-563. • Elkind, D. (1981) The Hurried Child – Growing up too Fast too Soon. Cambridge, MA:Perseus Publishing • Elkind, D. (1988a). Our President: Acceleration. Young Children, 43(4) • Field, T. (1991). Quality Infant Day Care and Grade School Behavior and Performance. Child Development, 62, 863-870. • Freeman, J. (1995).Annotation: Recent Studies of Giftedness in Children. Journal of Child Psychology Psychiatry, 36(4), 531-547.
References II: • McBride, N. (1992). Early Identification of the Gifted and Talented Students: Where Do Teachers Stand? Gifted Education International, 8, 19-22. • Meador, K.S. (1992). Emerging Rainbows. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 15(2) • Stipek, D. et al. (1995). Effects of different approaches on Young Children's Achievement and Motivation. Child Development 66(1) • Sylva, K. (1994). School influences on Children’s Development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 36, 135-170. • Tannenbaum, A. (1992). Early Signs of Giftedness. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. • Whitmore. (1986). Intellectual Giftedness in Young Children. New York: Waworth. • Ziegler, A. (2004). Stabilität von Intelligenz und Hochbegabung im Vorschulalter. LVH aktuell, 13.