There may be nothing above that both implies enrichment needs to be an add-on or reserved for the special lesson, nor does there look like any motive to consider its exclusivity to pupils of higher potential. There can also be a rising physique of proof that drawback fixing approaches and mathematical considering supplied can benefit all pupils (e.g. Schoenfeld 1994; Renzulli and Reis 1999; Landau, Weissler et al. 2001) including low-attaining ones (Watson 2001; Watson 2001). This is also supported by our own work with teachers and pupils when using materials from the NRICH site (www.nrich.maths.org). due to this fact, if downside fixing is seen as a basic constituent of enrichment then on the very least this facet of Children enrichment might be shown to learn everyone.
There was a time when giftedness in kids was narrowly defined by way of intellectual skills and knowledge that may very well be examined by a slim range of intelligence assessments. Nevertheless, in recent decades our understanding of giftedness has broadened primarily based on our rising understanding that intelligence can have many manifestations (see for instance my post on Howard Gardner’s A number of Intelligences). And so, whereas we know some gifted youngsters can demonstrate exceptional skills across a variety of capabilities (e.g. memory, language, mathematics, problem fixing and so on), others are extraordinarily gifted in narrower and more specific ways (e.g. visible arts, music, leadership, sport etc).
Referring to the report of the issue Solving Theme Group at the ICME 5, Mason and Davis (1991) stress the importance of the autonomy of the solver by way of what they try to do and what constitutes for them a passable end point. This centring on the solver is reflected in the paper by Pape, Bell et al (2003) who suggest that pupils should see themselves as agents in their very own studying when problem solving.