Teach Your Baby Math - Glenn medical-site.info - Ebook download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read book online. Download Teach Your Baby Math - Glenn medical-site.info Free Infant Stimulation Kit for Glenn Doman "How Smart is Your Baby" Program Click on each image to view and download the pdf files.

Author:JOETTA MUNINGER
Language:English, Spanish, Japanese
Country:Uzbekistan
Genre:Environment
Pages:535
Published (Last):26.08.2016
ISBN:443-9-63364-518-1
Distribution:Free* [*Register to download]
Uploaded by: LASONYA

64720 downloads 133429 Views 14.85MB PDF Size Report


Glenn Doman Pdf

About Glenn Doman: GLENN DOMAN is the founder of The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential to which parents from every continent have been fi. Glenn Doman, founder of the Institutes for the Achievement of Human This is similar to Doman's view that most babies do not learn to read for the simple fact. This is the philoso- phy of child developmentalist. Glenn Doman and the staff of the world-famous. Institutes for the. Achievement of Human. Potential. For nearly .

The first option has ten basic fruits that you can use for the program. The above link includes four squares per page. Weekly checklists for the first year based on activities recommended in the book. Included are:. Having already done this program with my 3 youngest children, I applaud your work to help others. But thankfully most of the materials can be used for any language, you would just have to write your own choice boards and fruit words. Amazing work!!! Hats of to u for taking the time to upload all that u created. Please let me know if I could help u in preparing the printable a in anyway. I have a 4 month old child. I am keen on starting the math program. Tanya, I would be happy to share the word documents.

The third, The Evan Thomas Institute, is for teaching new mothers how to teach their babies to read, do math and do a great many other things, and actually developed as a result of what had been done over past years in the other Institutes.

All three of these Institutes have as their objectives raising these infants, children and young adults to physical, intellectual and social excellence. I begin my day, as do most people, with breakfast, which is pleasant, and my daily dose of depression the morning paper which is not.

Sometimes, as it recites its litany of horror, of war, of murder, of rape, of cruelty, of insanity, of death and of destruction I put it aside with the feeling that there isn't going to be any tomorrow and if this proves to be the case, then that just might be the best piece of news of all. But the morning paper is one form of reality; happily, it is not the only form.

And I have a guaranteed way of putting the world back into instant and delightful perspective. A hundred yards from my home is The Evan Thomas Institute with its charming young mothers, its delightful young staff and its joyous and very ordinary, but extraordinary, babies and tiny kids. I slip quietly into the back of the room, sit on the floor, lean back against the wall, and I watch the world's most important and most gentle revolution taking place.

In five minutes my hopes for the world soar, my spirits skyrocket, my perspective is back in place, and once more it's a great day in the morning.

It's a pleasant room, the Japanese room, with its Japanese tatami floor, shoji screens and nothing else except extraordinary people and a vibrant feeling of excitement, love and respect so palpable that everyone who enters there can feel it. On the opposite side of the room and facing me, three staff members in their late twenties are kneeling.

Around them in a semicircle and facing them are twenty mothers in their twenties and thirties. Sitting on the floor in front of the mothers are the very ordinary, quite extraordinary, lovely two- and three-year-old kids. Some of the mothers also have a baby in their arms.

No one pays the slightest attention to me or to the other observers, which include a college professor, two schoolteachers, a writer from Britain, an Australian pediatrician and a new mother. A beautiful little blond two-year-old girl is reading aloud. So absorbed is she in what she is reading that she sometimes giggles as she reads a phrase that touches her sense of humor.

The humor is lost on me because she is reading in Japanese. Although I often work in Japan with Japanese children, my small store of Japanese is not up to her reading. When she reads the phrase that makes her giggle, the other children laugh too. She is reading the Japanese, not in English characters but in the ancient Kanji, the language of Japanese scholars.

There is only one Japanese person in the room. Beautiful, kimono-clad Miki Nakayachi, the Japanese sensei, interrupts to ask the girl a question. Miki's question and Lindley's answer are both in Japanese, so I understand neither. I remind myself to ask Miki what they were saying that so interested everyone.

Flash Cards for Doman and Right Brain Education

Lindley finishes, and Janet Doman, the director of The Institute, asks in English, "Who would like to compose some funny Japanese sentences? Mark bounces up to take his place beside Suzie Aisen, The Institute's vice director. Suzie places several stacks of large cards before Mark. Each contains a single and, to me, undecipherable Kanji ideograph. Some are nouns or verbs, others articles, adjectives or adverbs. Mark chooses several cards, lays them out on the floor in an order he chooses and reads them aloud.

Everyone laughs, and Janet translates, much to my relief. He has written: "The moose sits on the apple pie. The staff rises and faces the mothers and children. The children stand up with obvious reluctance, and so do the mothers.

Gracefully they all bow to each other. It's such a lovely sight that tears come to my eyes, and I look carefully down at my watch to hide them.

I hear laughter because a fifteen-month-old boy has bowed so low that he has lost his balance. He laughs too as he picks himself up. The reluctance to leave the Japanese language, reading and composing class ends as the cavalcade of mothers and extraordinary but ordinary tiny kids troops down the hall toward the next class, which is advanced math.

I remember how astonishingly far we have come in the fifteen years that have vanished so quickly since May of , when the gentle revolution had begun so quietly with the publication of How to Teach Your Baby to Read. When mothers discovered that they could not only teach their babies to read, but could teach them better and easier at two years of age than the school system was doing at seven, they got the bit firmly in their teethand a new and almost indescribably delightful world opened up.

A world of mothers and kids. It has within it the potential to change the larger world, in a very short time and almost infinitely for the better.

Together they taught their babies to read, superbly in English and adequately in two or three other languages. They taught the kids to do math at a rate that left them agog, in shocked but delighted disbelief. They taught their one-, two-and three-year-olds to absorb encyclopedic knowledge of birds, flowers, insects, trees, Presidents, flags, nations, geography and a host of other things.

They taught them to do Olympic routines on balance beams, to swim and to play the violin. In short, they found that they could teach their tiny children absolutely anything they could present to them in an honest and factual way. Most interesting of all, they found that by doing so, they had multiplied their babies' intelligence. Most important of all, they found that doing so was for them and for their babies the most delightful experience they had ever enjoyed together.

Their love for each other and, perhaps even more important, their respect for each other multiplied. The Evan Thomas Institute does not actually teach children at all.

It really teaches mothers to teach their children. Here then were these young women, at the prime of life, not at the beginning of the end but rather at the end of the beginning. They were themselves, at twenty-five or at thirty-two, learning to speak Japanese, to read Spanish, to play the violin, to attend concerts, to visit museums, to do gymnastics and a host of other splendid things that most women dream of doing at some dim time in the distant future but that for most people are never realized.

That they were doing these things with their own tiny children increased their joy in the doing. Guilt at escaping their children had somehow, and magically, been transformed into pride and a real sense of high purpose for themselves, their children and the contributions they would make to the world. On a particular morning a year or more ago, when I had arrived at the math class, Suzie and Janet were presenting math problems to the tiny kids faster than I could assimilate the problems.

Their answers were correct not nearly right but exactly right. I sat down and wrote out a sextillion. There are 21 zeros in a sextillion. I had seen such splendid things happen many times before, but they never failed to reastonish me. Nor had it ever failed to restore my soul and my faith that tomorrow would be worth seeing and living. It had taken us ten years to learn how, but we were finally ready to teach all mothers who wanted to know how to teach their babies to do math. Considering how extraordinarily bright babies are and how easily they learn, it is not surprising that we could teach them.

What was incredible was that we had learned how to teach them to do math better than their own parents, who had themselves done the teaching.

How could this be, and how had we learned about it? Could it possibly be as simple as it seemed to be? If it was, how could I possibly have been so abysmally stupid as to miss it when I had been staring at the answer for so many years? If it was true, I had been a damned fool. I hoped that I had indeed been a damned fool.

It was an odd place to have stumbled on the obvious answer and, at least for me, an even odder time. I was in the Okura Hotel in Tokyo, and it was a little after 6 a.

I seldom wake so early, since I seldom manage to get to bed much before 2 or 3 A. I had gone to sleep a few hours earlier with the problem very much on my mind. The team and I were in Tokyo, where we go at least twice a year to teach the parents of Japanese children how to multiply the intelligence of their well babies and their hurt kids. We were quite experienced at this, since we also did it twice a year in Britain, Ireland, Italy, Australia and Brazil, just as we did the same thing full time in America.

The Japanese parents, like the other parents we had been teaching at home in Philadelphia and abroad, were succeeding beautifully. Virtually all the children could read at far younger ages than did average children; virtually all the children had stored thousands of bits of encyclopedic information in their brains on a myriad of subjects.

They also did math at speeds that surpassed that of adults, a fact that was at once marvelous and yet somehow distressing to the adults although it bothered the children not at all since they didn't know the grown-ups couldn't do it.

The class on How to Teach Your Baby Math had been a review class, since virtually all the two- and three-year-olds were already doing it successfully. The parents, who were delighted that they had successfully taught their kids, were extremely attentive, but were still not clear on my explanation of why kids could do math faster and better than they themselves could.

I knew the reason that they didn't really understand it was that I didn't really understand, and it was I who was explaining it. Both they and we knew beyond doubt that it was so, because the children were doing math beautifully. Neither the parents nor I had been really satisfied with my answers as to why.

Was it purely and simply the very basic and different way we had developed to introduce them to math? If this was the answer, why had we not yet found a single adult who could master the same simple system? I had gone to bed unhappy with my own complex answers to their questions. I had come awake a few minutes before six, completely alert, which is unusual for me. Was it conceivable that the answer could be so simple and straightforward?

I had considered and rejected a hundred morecomplex answers. Could it possibly be that we adults had so long used symbols to represent facts that at least in mathematics we had learned to perceive only the symbols and were not able to perceive the actual facts?

It was clear that children could perceive the facts, because they were virtually all doing so. I recalled the sound advice of Sherlock Holmes, who had proposed that if you eliminate all the factors that are impossible, whatever solution remains must be the answer no matter how improbable it appears to be.

It's astonishing that we adults have succeeded in keeping the secret of doing math away from children as long as we have. It's a wonder that the tiny kids with all their brightnessand bright they aredidn't catch on. The only reason some careless adult hasn't spilled the beans to the two-year-olds is that we adults haven't known the secret either.

But now it's out. The most important secret is about the kids themselves. We grown-ups have believed that the older you are, the easier it is to learn, and in some things this is true. Languages are made up of facts called words, numbers or notes, depending on which language you're talking about.

In the learning of pure facts, children can learn anything we can present to them in a factual and honest way. What's more, the younger they are, the easier it is. Words, as everyone knows, are written symbols that represent specific, factual things, actions or thoughts. Musical notes are written symbols that represent specific, factual sounds, and numerals are written symbols that represent specific, factual numbers of objects. In reading, music and math most adults do better than most kids, but in distinguishing the individual words, notes or numbers all kids learn quicker and much more easily than all adults if they are given the opportunity young enough.

It is easier for a five-year-old to learn facts than for a six, for a four-year-old than a five, for a three-year-old than a four, for a two-year-old than a three. And by George it is easier for a one-year-old than for a twoif you're willing to be patient enough to wait until he's two to prove it. It is now abundantly clear that the younger one learns to do something the better he does it.

John Stuart Mill could read Greek when he was three. Eugene Ormandy could play the violin when he was three; so could Mozart. Most of the great mathematicians, such as Bertrand Russell, could do arithmetic as small children.

In the learning of mathematics tiny children actually have a staggering advantage over adults. In the reading of words we adults can recognize the symbol or the fact without effort. Thus either the written word refrigerator or the refrigerator itself can be called to mind instantly and easily. Learning the language of music is a little more difficult for adults than for children.

If we adults can read music at all, it is much easier to recognize the written note than it is to be sure of the precise sound it represents. Many of us are tone-deaf and are totally unable to identify the actual sound even though we may be capable of reading the symbol. Very few of us have "perfect pitch" and can always identify the exact sound represented by the note.

Tiny children can be taught with very little effort to have very close to perfect pitch. In mathematics the advantage that tiny children have is staggering.

We adults recognize the symbols that are called numerals with great ease from the numeral 1 to the numeral 1,, and beyond without effort. We are not, however, able to recognize the actual number of objects beyond ten or so with any degree of reliability. Tiny children can actually see and almost instantly identify the actual number of objects as well as the numeral if they are given the opportunity to do so early enough in life and before they are introduced to numerals.

glenn doman method pdf to word

This gives tiny children a staggering advantage over all adults in learning to do and actually to understand what is happening in arithmetic. It will be helpful to the reader's total ultimate understanding if she or he ponders that deceptively simple, but in no way simplistic, fact for a few short chapters.

We had pondered that problem for several long years. Tiny children want to learn math. Tiny children can learn math and the younger the child, the easier it is. Tiny children should learn math because it is an advantage to do math better and more easily. We've devoted a short chapter to each of these vital points.

While naturally, no child wants to learn math until he knows that math exists, all children want to absorb information about everything around them, and under the proper circumstances math is one of these things.

Here are the Cardinal Points concerning a tiny child's wanting to learn and his fantastic ability to learn: 1. The process of learning begins at birth or earlier. All babies have a rage to learn. Little kids would rather learn than eat. Kids would much rather learn than play. Tiny kids believe it is their job to grow up. Little kids want to grow up right now. All kids believe learning is a survival skill.

They are right in so believing. Tiny children want to learn about everything and right now. Math is one of the things worth learning about. There has never been, in the history of man, an adult scientist who has been half so curious as is any child between the ages of four months and four years.

Where can I get a free e-book or pdf of Glenn Doman? - Quora

We adults have mistaken this superb curiosity about everything as a lack of ability to concentrate. We have, of course, observed our children carefully, but we have not always understood what their actions mean. For one thing, many people often use two very different words as if they were the same. The words are learning and educating. Learning generally refers to the process that goes on in the one who is acquiring knowledge, while educating is often the learning process guided by a teacher or school.

Although everyone really knows this, these two processes are frequently thought of as one and the same. Because of this we sometimes feel that since formal education begins at six years of age, the more important processes of learning also begin at six years of age. The truth is that a child begins to learn at birth or earlier.

By the time he is six years of age and begins his schooling he has already absorbed a fantastic amount of information, fact for fact, perhaps more than he will learn in the rest of his life. Before a child is six he has learned most of the basic facts about himself and his family.

He has learned about his neighbors and his relationships to them, his world and his relationship to it, and a host of other facts that are literally uncountable. Most significantly, he has learned at least one whole language and sometimes more than one.

The chances are very small that he will ever truly master an additional language after he is six. All this before he has seen the inside of a classroom. The process of learning through these early years proceeds at great speed unless we thwart it.

If we appreciate and encourage it, the process will take place at a truly unbelievable rate. A tiny child has, burning within him, a boundless desire to learn. We can kill this desire entirely only by destroying him completely. We can come close to quenching it by isolating him. We read occasionally of, say, a thirteen-year-old idiot who is found in an attic chained to a bedpost, presumably because he was an idiot.

The reverse is probably the case. It is extremely likely that he is an idiot because he was chained to the bedpost. To appreciate this fact we must realize that only psychotic parents would chain any child. A parent chains a child to a bedpost because the parent is psychotic, and the result is an idiot child because he has been denied virtually all opportunity to learn. We can diminish the child's desire to learn by limiting the experiences to which we expose him.

Unhappily, we have done this almost universally by drastically underestimating what he can learn. We can increase his learning markedly simply by removing many of the physical restrictions we have placed upon him.

We can multiply by many times the knowledge he absorbs if we appreciate his superb capacity for learning and give him unlimited opportunity while simultaneously Throughout history there have been isolated but numerous cases of people who have actually taught tiny children to learn the most extraordinary things including math, foreign languages, reading, gymnastics and a host of other things by appreciating and encouraging them.

In all the cases we were able to find, the results of such preplanned home opportunity for children to learn ranged from "excellent" to "astonishing" in producing happy, well-adjusted children with exceptionally high intelligence.

It is very important to bear in mind that these children had not been found to have high intelligence first and then been given unusual opportunities to learn, but instead were simply children whose parents decided to expose them to as much information as possible at a very early age.

Once a mother realizes that all tiny children have a rage to learn and have a superb ability to do so, then respect is added to love, and one wonders how she could ever have missed it in the first place. Look carefully at the eighteen-month-old child and see what he does.

In the first place he drives everybody to distraction. Why does he? Because he won't stop being curious. He cannot be dissuaded, disciplined or confined out of the desire to learn, no matter how hard we tryand we have certainly tried very hard.

He would rather learn than eat or play.. He wants to learn about the lamp and the coffee cup and the electric light socket and the newspaper and everything else in the roomwhich means that he knocks over the lamp, spills the coffee, puts his finger in the electric light socket and tears up the newspaper. He is learning constantly and, quite naturally, we can't stand it. From the way he carries on we have concluded that he is hyperactive and unable to pay attention, when the simple truth is that he pays attention to everything.

He is superbly alert in every way he can be to learning about the world. He sees, hears, feels, smells and tastes.

There is no other way to learn except by these five routes into the brain, and the child uses them all. He sees the lamp and therefore pulls it down so that he can feel it, hear it, look at it, smell it and taste it.

Given the opportunity, he will do all these things to the lampand he will do the same to every object in the room. He will not demand to be let out of the room until he has absorbed all he can, through every sense available to him, about every object in the room. He is doing his best to learn, and of course we are doing our best to stop him because his learning process is far too expensive. We parents have devised several methods of coping with the curiosity of the very young child, and unfortunately, almost all of them are at the expense of the child's learning.

He is aware, if we are not, that learning is for human beings a survival skill. His every instinct tells him so. Since we are less aware, we have unconsciously devised several methods for the prevention of learning.

The first general method is the give-himsome-thing-to-play-with-that-he-can't-break school of thought. This usually means a nice pink rattle to play with. It may even be a more complicated toy than a rattle, but it's still a toy. Presented with such an object, the child promptly looks at it which is why toys have bright colors , bangs it to find out if it makes a noise which is why rattles rattle , feels it which is why toys don't have sharp edges , tastes it which is why the paint is nonpoisonous and even smells it we have not yet figured out how toys ought to smell, which is why they don't smell at all.

This process takes about ninety seconds. Now that he knows all he wants to know about the toy for the present, the child promptly abandons it and turns his attention to the box in which it came. The child finds the box just as interesting as the toywhich is why we should always download toys that come in boxesand learns all about the box. This also takes about ninety seconds. In fact, the child will frequently pay more attention to the box than to the toy itself.

Because he is allowed to break the box, he may be able to learn how it is made. This is an advantage he does not have with the toy itself, since we make toys unbreakable, which of course reduces his ability to learn. The truth of course is that the child never saw the toy as a toy in the first place. He saw both the rattle and the box as being simply new materials from which he had something to learn.

The hard and sad truth is that all toys and games are invented by adults to put kids off. Tiny children never invent either toys or games. They invent tools. Give a child a piece of wood and it immediately becomes a hammerand he promptly hammers Dad's cherry table.

Give a child a clam shell and it instantly becomes a dish. If you simply watch children you will see dozens of examples of this.

Yet, despite all of the evidence that our eyes give us, we too often come to the conclusion that when a child has a short attention span, he just isn't very smart. This deduction insidiously implies that he like all other children is not very bright because he is very young.

One wonders what our conclusions would be if the two-year-old sat in a corner and quietly played with the rattle for five hours. Probably the parents of such a child would be even more upsetand with good reason. The second general method of coping with his attempts to learn is the put-him-back-inthe-play-pen school of thought.

The only proper thing about the playpen is its nameit is truly a pen. We should at least be honest about such devices and stop saying, "Let's go download a playpen for the baby.

Few parents realize what a playpen really costs. Not only does the playpen restrict the child's ability to learn about the world, which is fairly obvious, but it seriously restricts his neurological growth by limiting his ability to crawl and creep processes vital to normal growth. This in turn inhibits the development of his vision, manual competence, hand-eye coordination and a host of other things.

We parents have persuaded ourselves that we are downloading the playpen to protect the child from hurting himself by chewing on an electric cord or falling down the stairs. Actually, we are penning him up so that we do not have to make sure he is safe. In terms of our time, we are being penny-wise and pound-foolish. The playpen as an implement that prevents learning is unfortunately much more effective than the rattle, because after the child has spent ninety seconds learning about each toy Mother puts in the pen which is why he will throw each of them out as he finishes learning about it , he is then stuck.

Thus we have succeeded in preventing him from destroying things one way of learning by physically confining him.

This approach, which puts the child in a physical, emotional and educational vacuum, will not fail so long as we can stand his anguished screams to get out or, assuming that we can stand it, until he's big enough to climb out and renew his search for learning. Does all the above assume that we are in favor of letting the child break the lamp? Not at all. It assumes only that we have had far too little respect for the small child's desire to learn, despite all the clear indications he gives us that he wants desperately to learn everything he can, and as quickly as possible.

We have succeeded in keeping our children carefully isolated from learning in a period of life when the desire to learn is at its peak. Between birth and four years the ability to absorb information is unparalleled, and the desire to do so is stronger than it will ever be again. Yet during this period we keep the child clean, well fed, safe from the world about him and in a learning vacuum.

The staff rises and faces the mothers and children. The children stand up with obvious reluctance, and so do the mothers. Gracefully they all bow to each other. It's such a lovely sight that tears come to my eyes, and I look carefully down at my watch to hide them.

I hear laughter because a fifteen-month-old boy has bowed so low that he has lost his balance. He laughs too as he picks himself up. The reluctance to leave the Japanese language, reading and composing class ends as the cavalcade of mothers and extraordinary but ordinary tiny kids troops down the hall toward the next class, which is advanced math.

I remember how astonishingly far we have come in the fifteen years that have vanished so quickly since May of , when the gentle revolution had begun so quietly with the publication of How to Teach Your Baby to Read. When mothers discovered that they could not only teach their babies to read, but could teach them better and easier at two years of age than the school system was doing at seven, they got the bit firmly in their teethand a new and almost indescribably delightful world opened up.

A world of mothers and kids. It has within it the potential to change the larger world, in a very short time and almost infinitely for the better. Together they taught their babies to read, superbly in English and adequately in two or three other languages. They taught the kids to do math at a rate that left them agog, in shocked but delighted disbelief.

They taught their one-, two-and three-year-olds to absorb encyclopedic knowledge of birds, flowers, insects, trees, Presidents, flags, nations, geography and a host of other things. They taught them to do Olympic routines on balance beams, to swim and to play the violin. In short, they found that they could teach their tiny children absolutely anything they could present to them in an honest and factual way. Most interesting of all, they found that by doing so, they had multiplied their babies' intelligence.

Most important of all, they found that doing so was for them and for their babies the most delightful experience they had ever enjoyed together. Their love for each other and, perhaps even more important, their respect for each other multiplied. The Evan Thomas Institute does not actually teach children at all. It really teaches mothers to teach their children. Here then were these young women, at the prime of life, not at the beginning of the end but rather at the end of the beginning.

They were themselves, at twenty-five or at thirty-two, learning to speak Japanese, to read Spanish, to play the violin, to attend concerts, to visit museums, to do gymnastics and a host of other splendid things that most women dream of doing at some dim time in the distant future but that for most people are never realized.

That they were doing these things with their own tiny children increased their joy in the doing. Guilt at escaping their children had somehow, and magically, been transformed into pride and a real sense of high purpose for themselves, their children and the contributions they would make to the world. On a particular morning a year or more ago, when I had arrived at the math class, Suzie and Janet were presenting math problems to the tiny kids faster than I could assimilate the problems.

Their answers were correct not nearly right but exactly right. I sat down and wrote out a sextillion. There are 21 zeros in a sextillion. I had seen such splendid things happen many times before, but they never failed to reastonish me. Nor had it ever failed to restore my soul and my faith that tomorrow would be worth seeing and living. It had taken us ten years to learn how, but we were finally ready to teach all mothers who wanted to know how to teach their babies to do math.

Considering how extraordinarily bright babies are and how easily they learn, it is not surprising that we could teach them. What was incredible was that we had learned how to teach them to do math better than their own parents, who had themselves done the teaching. How could this be, and how had we learned about it? Could it possibly be as simple as it seemed to be? If it was, how could I possibly have been so abysmally stupid as to miss it when I had been staring at the answer for so many years?

If it was true, I had been a damned fool. I hoped that I had indeed been a damned fool. It was an odd place to have stumbled on the obvious answer and, at least for me, an even odder time.

I was in the Okura Hotel in Tokyo, and it was a little after 6 a. I seldom wake so early, since I seldom manage to get to bed much before 2 or 3 A. I had gone to sleep a few hours earlier with the problem very much on my mind. The team and I were in Tokyo, where we go at least twice a year to teach the parents of Japanese children how to multiply the intelligence of their well babies and their hurt kids. We were quite experienced at this, since we also did it twice a year in Britain, Ireland, Italy, Australia and Brazil, just as we did the same thing full time in America.

The Japanese parents, like the other parents we had been teaching at home in Philadelphia and abroad, were succeeding beautifully. Virtually all the children could read at far younger ages than did average children; virtually all the children had stored thousands of bits of encyclopedic information in their brains on a myriad of subjects.

They also did math at speeds that surpassed that of adults, a fact that was at once marvelous and yet somehow distressing to the adults although it bothered the children not at all since they didn't know the grown-ups couldn't do it. The class on How to Teach Your Baby Math had been a review class, since virtually all the two- and three-year-olds were already doing it successfully.

The parents, who were delighted that they had successfully taught their kids, were extremely attentive, but were still not clear on my explanation of why kids could do math faster and better than they themselves could. I knew the reason that they didn't really understand it was that I didn't really understand, and it was I who was explaining it. Both they and we knew beyond doubt that it was so, because the children were doing math beautifully.

Neither the parents nor I had been really satisfied with my answers as to why. Was it purely and simply the very basic and different way we had developed to introduce them to math? If this was the answer, why had we not yet found a single adult who could master the same simple system? I had gone to bed unhappy with my own complex answers to their questions.

I had come awake a few minutes before six, completely alert, which is unusual for me. Was it conceivable that the answer could be so simple and straightforward? I had considered and rejected a hundred morecomplex answers. Could it possibly be that we adults had so long used symbols to represent facts that at least in mathematics we had learned to perceive only the symbols and were not able to perceive the actual facts?

It was clear that children could perceive the facts, because they were virtually all doing so. I recalled the sound advice of Sherlock Holmes, who had proposed that if you eliminate all the factors that are impossible, whatever solution remains must be the answer no matter how improbable it appears to be.

It's astonishing that we adults have succeeded in keeping the secret of doing math away from children as long as we have. It's a wonder that the tiny kids with all their brightnessand bright they aredidn't catch on. The only reason some careless adult hasn't spilled the beans to the two-year-olds is that we adults haven't known the secret either.

But now it's out. The most important secret is about the kids themselves.

We grown-ups have believed that the older you are, the easier it is to learn, and in some things this is true. Languages are made up of facts called words, numbers or notes, depending on which language you're talking about.

You might also like: PUNJAB GK 2014 PDF

In the learning of pure facts, children can learn anything we can present to them in a factual and honest way. What's more, the younger they are, the easier it is. Words, as everyone knows, are written symbols that represent specific, factual things, actions or thoughts.

Musical notes are written symbols that represent specific, factual sounds, and numerals are written symbols that represent specific, factual numbers of objects. In reading, music and math most adults do better than most kids, but in distinguishing the individual words, notes or numbers all kids learn quicker and much more easily than all adults if they are given the opportunity young enough. It is easier for a five-year-old to learn facts than for a six, for a four-year-old than a five, for a three-year-old than a four, for a two-year-old than a three.

And by George it is easier for a one-year-old than for a twoif you're willing to be patient enough to wait until he's two to prove it. It is now abundantly clear that the younger one learns to do something the better he does it. John Stuart Mill could read Greek when he was three. Eugene Ormandy could play the violin when he was three; so could Mozart.

Most of the great mathematicians, such as Bertrand Russell, could do arithmetic as small children. In the learning of mathematics tiny children actually have a staggering advantage over adults. In the reading of words we adults can recognize the symbol or the fact without effort. Thus either the written word refrigerator or the refrigerator itself can be called to mind instantly and easily.

Learning the language of music is a little more difficult for adults than for children. If we adults can read music at all, it is much easier to recognize the written note than it is to be sure of the precise sound it represents. Many of us are tone-deaf and are totally unable to identify the actual sound even though we may be capable of reading the symbol. Very few of us have "perfect pitch" and can always identify the exact sound represented by the note.

Tiny children can be taught with very little effort to have very close to perfect pitch. In mathematics the advantage that tiny children have is staggering. We adults recognize the symbols that are called numerals with great ease from the numeral 1 to the numeral 1,, and beyond without effort.

We are not, however, able to recognize the actual number of objects beyond ten or so with any degree of reliability. Tiny children can actually see and almost instantly identify the actual number of objects as well as the numeral if they are given the opportunity to do so early enough in life and before they are introduced to numerals. This gives tiny children a staggering advantage over all adults in learning to do and actually to understand what is happening in arithmetic.

It will be helpful to the reader's total ultimate understanding if she or he ponders that deceptively simple, but in no way simplistic, fact for a few short chapters. We had pondered that problem for several long years.

Tiny children want to learn math. Tiny children can learn math and the younger the child, the easier it is. Tiny children should learn math because it is an advantage to do math better and more easily. We've devoted a short chapter to each of these vital points. While naturally, no child wants to learn math until he knows that math exists, all children want to absorb information about everything around them, and under the proper circumstances math is one of these things.

Here are the Cardinal Points concerning a tiny child's wanting to learn and his fantastic ability to learn: 1. The process of learning begins at birth or earlier. All babies have a rage to learn. Little kids would rather learn than eat.

Kids would much rather learn than play. Tiny kids believe it is their job to grow up. Little kids want to grow up right now.

All kids believe learning is a survival skill. They are right in so believing. Tiny children want to learn about everything and right now. Math is one of the things worth learning about. There has never been, in the history of man, an adult scientist who has been half so curious as is any child between the ages of four months and four years.

We adults have mistaken this superb curiosity about everything as a lack of ability to concentrate. We have, of course, observed our children carefully, but we have not always understood what their actions mean. For one thing, many people often use two very different words as if they were the same. The words are learning and educating. Learning generally refers to the process that goes on in the one who is acquiring knowledge, while educating is often the learning process guided by a teacher or school.

Although everyone really knows this, these two processes are frequently thought of as one and the same. Because of this we sometimes feel that since formal education begins at six years of age, the more important processes of learning also begin at six years of age. The truth is that a child begins to learn at birth or earlier. By the time he is six years of age and begins his schooling he has already absorbed a fantastic amount of information, fact for fact, perhaps more than he will learn in the rest of his life.

Before a child is six he has learned most of the basic facts about himself and his family. He has learned about his neighbors and his relationships to them, his world and his relationship to it, and a host of other facts that are literally uncountable.

Most significantly, he has learned at least one whole language and sometimes more than one. The chances are very small that he will ever truly master an additional language after he is six. All this before he has seen the inside of a classroom.

The process of learning through these early years proceeds at great speed unless we thwart it. If we appreciate and encourage it, the process will take place at a truly unbelievable rate. A tiny child has, burning within him, a boundless desire to learn.

We can kill this desire entirely only by destroying him completely. We can come close to quenching it by isolating him. We read occasionally of, say, a thirteen-year-old idiot who is found in an attic chained to a bedpost, presumably because he was an idiot.

The reverse is probably the case. It is extremely likely that he is an idiot because he was chained to the bedpost. To appreciate this fact we must realize that only psychotic parents would chain any child.

A parent chains a child to a bedpost because the parent is psychotic, and the result is an idiot child because he has been denied virtually all opportunity to learn. We can diminish the child's desire to learn by limiting the experiences to which we expose him. Unhappily, we have done this almost universally by drastically underestimating what he can learn. We can increase his learning markedly simply by removing many of the physical restrictions we have placed upon him.

We can multiply by many times the knowledge he absorbs if we appreciate his superb capacity for learning and give him unlimited opportunity while simultaneously Throughout history there have been isolated but numerous cases of people who have actually taught tiny children to learn the most extraordinary things including math, foreign languages, reading, gymnastics and a host of other things by appreciating and encouraging them.

In all the cases we were able to find, the results of such preplanned home opportunity for children to learn ranged from "excellent" to "astonishing" in producing happy, well-adjusted children with exceptionally high intelligence.

It is very important to bear in mind that these children had not been found to have high intelligence first and then been given unusual opportunities to learn, but instead were simply children whose parents decided to expose them to as much information as possible at a very early age.

Once a mother realizes that all tiny children have a rage to learn and have a superb ability to do so, then respect is added to love, and one wonders how she could ever have missed it in the first place.

Look carefully at the eighteen-month-old child and see what he does. In the first place he drives everybody to distraction. Why does he? Because he won't stop being curious.

He cannot be dissuaded, disciplined or confined out of the desire to learn, no matter how hard we tryand we have certainly tried very hard.

He would rather learn than eat or play.. He wants to learn about the lamp and the coffee cup and the electric light socket and the newspaper and everything else in the roomwhich means that he knocks over the lamp, spills the coffee, puts his finger in the electric light socket and tears up the newspaper. He is learning constantly and, quite naturally, we can't stand it.

From the way he carries on we have concluded that he is hyperactive and unable to pay attention, when the simple truth is that he pays attention to everything. He is superbly alert in every way he can be to learning about the world. He sees, hears, feels, smells and tastes. There is no other way to learn except by these five routes into the brain, and the child uses them all. He sees the lamp and therefore pulls it down so that he can feel it, hear it, look at it, smell it and taste it.

Given the opportunity, he will do all these things to the lampand he will do the same to every object in the room. He will not demand to be let out of the room until he has absorbed all he can, through every sense available to him, about every object in the room. He is doing his best to learn, and of course we are doing our best to stop him because his learning process is far too expensive.

We parents have devised several methods of coping with the curiosity of the very young child, and unfortunately, almost all of them are at the expense of the child's learning.

He is aware, if we are not, that learning is for human beings a survival skill. His every instinct tells him so. Since we are less aware, we have unconsciously devised several methods for the prevention of learning. The first general method is the give-himsome-thing-to-play-with-that-he-can't-break school of thought.

This usually means a nice pink rattle to play with. It may even be a more complicated toy than a rattle, but it's still a toy. Presented with such an object, the child promptly looks at it which is why toys have bright colors , bangs it to find out if it makes a noise which is why rattles rattle , feels it which is why toys don't have sharp edges , tastes it which is why the paint is nonpoisonous and even smells it we have not yet figured out how toys ought to smell, which is why they don't smell at all.

This process takes about ninety seconds. Now that he knows all he wants to know about the toy for the present, the child promptly abandons it and turns his attention to the box in which it came. The child finds the box just as interesting as the toywhich is why we should always download toys that come in boxesand learns all about the box.

This also takes about ninety seconds. In fact, the child will frequently pay more attention to the box than to the toy itself. Because he is allowed to break the box, he may be able to learn how it is made. This is an advantage he does not have with the toy itself, since we make toys unbreakable, which of course reduces his ability to learn.

The truth of course is that the child never saw the toy as a toy in the first place. He saw both the rattle and the box as being simply new materials from which he had something to learn.

The hard and sad truth is that all toys and games are invented by adults to put kids off. Tiny children never invent either toys or games. They invent tools. Give a child a piece of wood and it immediately becomes a hammerand he promptly hammers Dad's cherry table.

Give a child a clam shell and it instantly becomes a dish. If you simply watch children you will see dozens of examples of this. Yet, despite all of the evidence that our eyes give us, we too often come to the conclusion that when a child has a short attention span, he just isn't very smart.

This deduction insidiously implies that he like all other children is not very bright because he is very young. One wonders what our conclusions would be if the two-year-old sat in a corner and quietly played with the rattle for five hours. Probably the parents of such a child would be even more upsetand with good reason. The second general method of coping with his attempts to learn is the put-him-back-inthe-play-pen school of thought. The only proper thing about the playpen is its nameit is truly a pen.

We should at least be honest about such devices and stop saying, "Let's go download a playpen for the baby. Few parents realize what a playpen really costs. Not only does the playpen restrict the child's ability to learn about the world, which is fairly obvious, but it seriously restricts his neurological growth by limiting his ability to crawl and creep processes vital to normal growth. This in turn inhibits the development of his vision, manual competence, hand-eye coordination and a host of other things.

We parents have persuaded ourselves that we are downloading the playpen to protect the child from hurting himself by chewing on an electric cord or falling down the stairs. Actually, we are penning him up so that we do not have to make sure he is safe. In terms of our time, we are being penny-wise and pound-foolish. The playpen as an implement that prevents learning is unfortunately much more effective than the rattle, because after the child has spent ninety seconds learning about each toy Mother puts in the pen which is why he will throw each of them out as he finishes learning about it , he is then stuck.

Thus we have succeeded in preventing him from destroying things one way of learning by physically confining him. This approach, which puts the child in a physical, emotional and educational vacuum, will not fail so long as we can stand his anguished screams to get out or, assuming that we can stand it, until he's big enough to climb out and renew his search for learning.

Does all the above assume that we are in favor of letting the child break the lamp? Not at all. It assumes only that we have had far too little respect for the small child's desire to learn, despite all the clear indications he gives us that he wants desperately to learn everything he can, and as quickly as possible.

We have succeeded in keeping our children carefully isolated from learning in a period of life when the desire to learn is at its peak. Between birth and four years the ability to absorb information is unparalleled, and the desire to do so is stronger than it will ever be again. Yet during this period we keep the child clean, well fed, safe from the world about him and in a learning vacuum. It is ironic that when the child is older we will tell him repeatedly how foolish he is for not wanting to learn about astronomy, physics and biology.

Learning, we will tell him, is the most important thing in life, and indeed it is. We have overlooked the other side of the coin. Learning is the greatest game in life and the most fun.

Flash Cards for Doman and Right Brain Education

All children are born believing this and will continue to believe this until we convince them that learning is very hard work and unpleasant. Some kids never really learn this lesson and go on through life believing that learning is fun and the only game worth playing. We have a name for such people.

We call them geniuses. We have assumed that children hate to learn essentially because most children have disliked or even despised school. Again we have mistaken schooling for learning. Not all children in school are learningjust as not all children who are learning are doing so in school. My own experiences in first grade were perhaps typical of what they have been foy centuries.

In general the teacher told us to sit down, keep quiet, look at her and listen to her while she began a process called teaching, which, she said, would be mutually painful but from which we would learn or else. In my own case, that first-grade teacher's prophecy proved to be correct; it was painful, and at least for the first twelve years, I hated every minute of it. I'm sure it was not a unique experience. In my own case and I suspect in almost everybody else's it turned out that the teacher could make me sit down, could make me be quiet, could make me look at her, but could not make me listen and think along with her.

During the rest of that year and it seemed to me like a hundred years I found myself in deeper oceans than Cousteau ever visited, on the top of Mount Everest long before Sir Edmund Hillary ever scaled its heights and on the far side of the moon thirty-five years before NASA came into being. I would otherwise have found that century I spent in the first grade a time of crushing boredom interrupted as it was with moments of sheer panic when, during my Jungle Explorations, I dimly heard my teacher calling on "Glenn.

I dare dwell on my personal experiences in school only because I believe I was the rule rather than the exception. Particularly was this so in arithmetic. In first grade we were made to memorize long arithmetic tables such as two times two is four. Being a child, I found this to be dreadfully boring but quite easy. Had I been two years old it would have been quite interesting and even easier.

In the second grade it seemed briefly as if things in arithmetic were looking up. The first day of real multiplication seemed hopeful. What is that, Bobby? How much is that, Eleanor? The teacher smiled. Not everybody in the class was as stupid as some small boys.

She turned to me slowly, letting all the class see her endless patience and how it was tried. The fire was out of control. Now of course the conversation I've just described in such detail never actually took place.

It would have taken place just as I have described it except that I had always known she was bigger than I was. I wasn't very good in arithmetic, but I wasn't stupid enough to miss the fact that my teacher was bigger than I.

Similar articles


Copyright © 2019 medical-site.info. All rights reserved.
DMCA |Contact Us