If you think in seasons plant cereals,

If you think in decades plant trees, and

If you think in centuries educate children.

Sanderson, 1894 

Background

About ten years ago one of us (JJW) was approached by a regional gifted consultant with the request to provide some form of mentorship for a group of young children that she had identified as being gifted in science but unchallenged by their regular school program. In itself this was not an unusual request as our department had a history of running university-based enrichment programs and science days for local schools. These were always days of fun and excitement in which the students explored the magic of chemistry, the mysteries of astronomy and the complexities of physics. However, the uniqueness of this request was that the children were in their early years at school. These young children were described as desperately interested in science but with 'nowhere to go'. This was the beginning of the Enrichment Network for the Very Young - a program for children aged from five to eight years who have a particular interest in science and mathematics. This program is now a decade old and the first participants are nearing the end of high school. Ten years of experience, thought and reflection on this enrichment program have provided us with a wealth of insight into successful (and not so successful) enrichment strategies for young gifted children. These experiences have also contributed to our teaching of undergraduate students in science and mathematics education. In this paper we share some of the key components of a successful enrichment program for young children. Prior to describing the program, the needs of young gifted children are briefly discussed.

Young gifted children

Exceptionally bright and enthusiastic young children who have a thirst for knowledge, a curiosity about the world and a confidence and facility to explore the unknown can be a challenge for the most dedicated early childhood teachers. However in the early years at school such children can be confronted with major dilemmas. Although these children may actively seek new ideas and experiences, too often they are faced with classrooms dominated by slow progression, routine, a focus on content and the 'basics', and the relative immaturity of their age peers. Coping with boredom is an ongoing challenge. Those gifted children who do cope are often distinguished by academic excellence in normal classroom activities. Consequently, there is a widespread perception that gifted children do not need individualised attention and support. For many other young gifted children, frustration sets in and they acquiesce to mediocrity, thus failing to achieve their potential. Teachers who lack confidence in science and mathematics may have reservations about their capacity to meet the needs of these children. But young gifted children need support if they are to play a significant role as scientifically literate and creative leaders in society. The purpose of providing for these children is not necessarily to stream them towards specific careers in science or mathematics but to provide them with opportunities to achieve their full potential. This is the broad purpose of the Enrichment Network for the Very Young.

Overview of the Enrichment Network for the Very Young

The Enrichment Network for the Very Young focuses on providing a group of young gifted students with an interest in science and mathematics with the opportunity to work with like-minded peers on challenging tasks. This program is offered for an hour and a half per week after school or for two hours on Saturday mornings over a 10&endash;week period. This program is very popular and attracts hundreds of applications annually with children attending from a wide geographical area.

Participants for this program are selected from teacher and parent nominations in response to an announcement calling for applications. Selection is a difficult process and entails reviewing the hundreds of applications in which parents, teachers and principals have described, in qualitative terms, the characteristics of the applicants. Anecdotal histories, work samples, counsellor reports (if available), and information from direct contact are also considered. While children's potential features highly in the final selection process, special consideration is given to children who are experiencing difficulty coping in their current classrooms. Thus, the selection of children for the program takes into account those who will benefit intellectually, emotionally or socially from the program. The program is funded through a nominal fee paid by participants for salaries for the staff, and for the provision of consumables. However individual schools often sponsor children who cannot afford the fee or the fee is waived. The University provides the infrastructure support and facilities.

Each workshop is led by a facilitator who works in a team with two student teachers mentoring approximately 16 children. Formation of an effective enrichment group assumes a critical mass of participants, a situation that may not always be possible in isolated or small schools. The teachers who lead the workshops are particularly skilled and experienced teachers whose role is to facilitate rather than direct learning. Student teachers who act as tutors are selected with the attributes of effective teachers in mind but we are cognisant that as 'novice teachers' they will generally not have refined the necessary skills to the requisite level. However during the program, the tutors develop these skills quite rapidly. As tutors frequently work in successive programs, the more experienced staff also play a role in mentoring newer staff and eventually become highly competent. Some of these tutors initiate school-based enrichment strategies after graduation and indeed become strong advocates for gifted education.

Phases of the ten-week program

Over ten weeks, the program progresses through three broad phases that have differing goals. These phases are (1) a familiarisation phase, (2) a skill development phase and (3) an autonomous phase. Each of these phases is discussed shortly. The content within each phase is developed progressively in response to the interests and needs of individual children. The workshops emphasise challenging, open-ended, interactive problem solving tasks and activities built around the integration of science and mathematics. Our experience has shown that it is possible to generate an effective learning environment built around the pursuit of knowledge. Each implementation of the enrichment program differs but to illustrate the implementation of each of the phases, a series of examples from a past program are included.

Familiarization phase

The emphasis in the first few weeks is on establishing a warm, supportive and exciting environment in which children form social relationships with their peers and develop a rapport with the staff. Many children who attend these programs are adult-oriented. This is understandable because their interests are quite different from those of their chronological peers. Hence, some of these children need to develop communication skills to interact appropriately with like-minded peers. Although many of these children have an amazing store of information, they may dominate discussions or not listen to or value the contributions of other children. Such behaviour may militate against the development of links between ideas and the evaluation of alternative viewpoints. Other children are reticent to proffer ideas in group discussions, perhaps due to past experiences of isolation or indifference in their classroom environments, and need to be encouraged to participate. Communication skills are developed in the enrichment program by planning some activities which require team work, by providing opportunities for all children to contribute to discussions, and by establishing an expectation that others listen to the speaker.

During the first phase the activities are designed to provide opportunities for children to work together, but children are also encouraged to undertake follow-up work at home. Through the activities, the children are introduced to process skills which focus on cause and effect and the influence of variables on the outcome. These activities also enable the staff to become familiar with the children's interests, abilities and needs. The floor is used as an activity area and cooperative play is implemented. Whenever possible outdoor activities are included and an area of lawn is frequently utilised for group activities. Program-home interaction is encouraged through personal contact with the parents, a newsletter and by encouraging the children to follow up activities at home. A sample program for Weeks 1 to 3 is shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Sample Program - Weeks 1 to 3

1. Space Travel: The first week explored Space travel through non-fiction and fiction resources. The children listened to a story called Night Flight (Falda, 1994) about a boy called Julian trying to reach the moon. Throughout the story the boy encounters many obstacles which he tries to overcome. This book provides many opportunities for discussing ideas about reaching the moon and for emphasising the need for perseverance in problem solving. The children then watched a video about Space travel in which they saw the astronauts travel to and from the moon, finally returning to earth using a parachute. This session finished with the children working in pairs making and testing parachutes. Variables in the parachutes were discussed and children were encouraged to improve their parachutes at home and bring them back the following week.

2. Space Travel: After discussing the improved parachutes, the children constructed a concept map of Space. The children's knowledge of Space travel was then developed further using board games, reference and construction materials, and computer programs. This session culminated with the children deciding how to travel to the moon. As shown in Figure 1, some of the children adopted a story-telling genre to communicate their ideas, while other children used technically-oriented drawings.

3. Pressure: During the previous week it was apparent that all children had limited understanding of 'pressure', which is an important concept in understanding Space travel. Hence, in Week 3 the children were engaged in a variety of pressure-related activities. For example, they made balloon rockets and fire extinguishers that were activated when vinegar was poured on to sodium bicarbonate. These activities were very popular with the children.

Skill development phase

The intent in the second three weeks is to continue to broaden the children's experiences while encouraging them to make choices, develop their manipulative skills and continue to encourage peer and home interactions. Specific strategies to encourage critical thinking, metacognition, and communication are implemented in the context of the tasks the children are undertaking. Table 2 presents an overview of the implementation of this phase.

Table 2: Sample Program - Weeks 4 to 6 

4. Pressure: Following on from Week 3 (see Table 1), the children were provided with further opportunities to explore applications of pressure, such as suction caps and siphons. At the conclusion of the session, the children were challenged to produce a poster for the next session to answer a question about an application of pressure, e.g. Why do astronauts need pressurised suits? Why do fish swim at different depths? (see Figure 2)

5. Sound: The children presented their pressure posters from Week 4. They then participated in a series of activities that were designed to explicate the link between the concepts of pressure and sound. For example, the children investigated the effect of blowing up and releasing balloons, and explored a model of the human ear. Just as connections had previously been made between pressure and space travel, the links between sound and space were discussed, e.g. Can astronauts hear sounds on the moon? Why? Why not?

6. Movement: Movement had been briefly discussed in the space travel and pressure activities. In this session, the children engaged in activities that highlighted different aspects of movement. For example, they made moving space vehicles from Lego and Capsela and explored the range of movement in the human body by making model skeletons. They also investigated why suspended cans with a series of holes punched in them will spin in different direction when water is poured into them (see Figure 3). The direction the can spins depends on the angle of the holes.

 

3. The Autonomous Phase

The last four weeks of the program are designed to allow the children to pursue topics in greater depth for extended periods of time using the staff as resource personnel. The children are encouraged to trial and justify their ideas and discuss them with peers and staff.  

Table 3: Sample Program - Weeks 7 to 10

7. Light: After exploring sound in the previous week, the children were encouraged to explore light and think about the importance of light in Space travel. At this stage of the program, more variety in activities was provided and children selected those activities that had particular interest for them. Activities included vision tests, electrical circuitry involving lamps, reflection and refraction, microscopes, and periscopes. These activities provided experiences relating to light intensity, distance and luminosity, and the properties of light.

8. Past, present and future: The relationship between distances in Space and the speed of light was discussed with reference to the time light from a star takes to reach the earth. This discussion provided the basis for discussing the past, present and future. A visit to a nearby 'One Teacher School Museum' provided the children with a first-hand experience of classrooms and artefacts of the past (see Figure 4), while a visit to an adjoining rainforest prompted a discussion about our role as caretakers' of the environment for future generations (see Figure 4). The session concluded with the children discussing a small project that they could complete in the next two weeks on 'Living in the Future'. Suggestions for the project included planning a space colony, making a time capsule, designing a new tourist attraction or planning a holiday attraction for pets.

9. Project on Life in the Future: This session was devoted to project work. Some children worked in pairs while others worked independently. The children completing similar projects worked nearby giving each other help and support. The role of the staff was primarily as resource personnel.

10. Presentation of projects: The final session was devoted to preparing a short oral presentation to accompany the project and the children presenting their projects for parents and peers. Examples of two projects are shown in Figure 5.

 

 

Fig. 4: The Museum and the Rainforest

 

Figure 5: A futuristic attraction for pets and a closer look at life on Mars

Outcomes of the Program

The ideal outcome of the program would be for all children to become autonomous learners. However, in a 10&endash;week program, this is an unrealistic objective. Nonetheless, it has always been a very high priority to ensure that the program does benefit young gifted children. The effectiveness of the program is evaluated using multiple sources of data (Fetterman, 1993). Each year we have distributed questionnaires to parents seeking their perceptions of changes in their children, or we have interviewed parents. Common responses made by parents were that their child (1) expanded his or her areas of interest; (2) became a more effective problem solver; (3) became more independent in knowledge acquisition; (4) became more cooperative at school; or (5) exhibited greater confidence in his or her ideas. Thus, parents generally perceived that the program had variously impacted on their child's intellectual, social or emotional development.

We have also routinely videotaped sessions and subsequently analysed the tapes for patterns and indicators of children's learning and levels of cognitive functioning. We have held debriefing meetings at the conclusion of each workshop in which the behaviours of children or the effectiveness of various strategies have been discussed. Independent scholars have also observed sessions and shared their perceptions. The outcomes have encouraged us to continue in the direction we have adopted. The most powerful evidence comes through the analysis of what the children are capable of doing. There is evidence produced continually of high-level thinking, of enhanced motivation and strong indicators of greater cognitive and social autonomy. Levels of children's thinking and associated strategies are reported elsewhere (Diezmann & Watters, 1998a; 1998b; Watters & Diezmann, 1997; Watters & Diezmann, 1998). Direct feedback from children attending the program has been overwhelmingly positive. At the conclusion of the program, children commonly state they liked the enrichment program because, compared with school, the work is challenging and other children are interested in their ideas. In the longer term, teachers report positive influences on children's interests and behaviours in school and parents continue to extol the positive impact on their children and to nominate siblings for the program.

Following their attendance at the enrichment program, many children have pursued their interests in various ways. Some children have contributed entries to the local science fair and a number of children have joined science clubs. Other children became more engaged at home, conducting investigations or designing and constructing models.

Conclusion

The ongoing success of this program lies in the cycle of reflection and refinement. The prime objective has been to provide challenging, motivating and sustained opportunities for children to engage in meaningful problem-based and thematic investigations. Children's learning has been enhanced by the chance to engage in solving these challenges in the company of like-minded peers with the support of facilitators. The content and specific strategies have been less important than the experience of a shared journey of discovery in science and mathematics. Constant self-evaluation and reflection on the roles we have played in supporting these journeys over 10 years has precluded the articulation of a detailed 'how-to' script because we do not believe we are at the end of the journey. However we are able to articulate some generalisations. Constant challenge, an environment of camaraderie and a belief that young gifted children can undertake authentic investigations in science and mathematics (given adequate scaffolding) have guided our actions over the years. We encourage teachers to: (1) be proactive in providing enrichment for young gifted children in science and mathematics; (2) base their programs on well-grounded and researched strategies; and (3) adopt an action-oriented approach where the successes and failures in each iteration of a program provide direction for improving the quality of the program.

References

Diezmann, C.M. & Watters, J.J. (1998a) Strategies for enriching the learning environment of gifted students. Paper presented at the biennial conference of the Australian Association for the Education of the Gifted and Talented, Hobart, July.

Diezmann, C.M. & Watters, J.J. (1998b) Thinking by young children during argumentation: Use of evidence and logic. In Q.M. Ling & H.W. Kam (eds), Thinking processes: Going beyond the surface curriculum (pp. 115-134). Singapore: Simon and Schuster.

Falda, D. (1994) Night flight. Switzerland: North-South Books.

Fetterman, D.M. (1993) Evaluate yourself. Evaluation. Research-Based Decision Making Series, Number 9304. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. [ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED366158]

Watters, J.J. & Diezmann, C.M. (1997, January) Authentic science in the classroom: Strategies and structures (or finding life on Mars). Paper presented at the biennial conference of the Australian Science Teachers Association/The Technology Education Federation of Australia (ASTA/TEFA), Canberra.

Watters, J.J. & Diezmann, C.M. (1998) 'This is nothing like school': Discourse and the social environment as key components in learning science. Early Childhood Development and Care, 140, 73-84.

James Watters and Carmel Diezmann are members of the Centre for Mathematics and Science Education at the Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane. They were winners of the TalentEd 'Best Practice Award' for 1999.