are kids capable of learning advanced maths concepts at an early age?

silverharp

I started junior aged 6 with Khanacademy and 9 months later we just started on Algebra, nothing too advanced so far , just basic linear algebra for instance 4x-6=2x+4 . the thing he is absorbing the concepts without any problems and without any attitude of "why do I neeed to know this?" at this rate by the summer we will have covered most of the algebra section even if I backfill with side topics.
So are kids capable of more with some individual input?

Fremen

I would say typically, no, but in special cases yes. That's some pretty advanced stuff for a seven-year-old. I'm not sure I even knew the whole multiplication table at that age.

I would say just make sure the kid's enjoying himself. It's probably better to foster a hunger for knowledge than cram specific facts in his head. If you push him too hard too soon, it could be counterproductive.

ray giraffe

I would say a smart kid would benefit from some material that is aimed at kids 1 or 2 years older, provided they are having fun doing it.

If you have a smart kid, try to make learning a social activity if possible - something like CTY is ideal http://www4.dcu.ie/ctyi/index.shtml'

There is no inherent 'harm' from a kid learning advanced maths - the danger is that the kid loses time for more important things like playing and socialising. Emotional development is way more important than algebra in the scheme of things.

Quote from here:

Those who advocate hothousing programs pay too little attention to theory and research. Complex developmental processes underlie concepts and skills used in primary and elementary education. Children must actively organize their knowledge, apply it to new events, and relate ideas about time, space, number, and persons. Accelerating young children forces them to rely on lower-level cognitive processes, for example, memorization and visual recognition of letters and numbers. This may stultify learning and damage children's self-esteem and confidence (Elkind, l986; Sigel, 1987). Children must have time and suitable social and educational experiences to develop normally. It is short-sighted to trade human complexity and creativity for accelerated academic learning in early childhood (Minuchin, l987). To do so is counterproductive for long-range educational goals.

For a concrete example, read about Sufiah Yusof - she was held up as a shining example of fast-track learning when she entered Oxford to study maths at age 13:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3636101/Sufiah-Yusof-child-genius-revealed-as-prostitute.html

Some more examples of child prodigies from that article:

James Harries
Presented himself on television - most memorably on Terry Wogan's chat show in 1990 when he was 12 - as an entrepreneur and child prodigy with an encyclopaedic knowledge of antiques. Had a sex change operation in 2001. Now called Lauren, she is a counsellor and also teaches drama in Cardiff.

Terence Judd
Made his first appearance as a classical pianist with the London Philharmonic Orchestra aged 12. Won the British Liszt Piano Competition at 18. He committed suicide in 1979 at the age of 22 by throwing himself off Beachy Head.

Turtwig

I'm sorry I don't quite get this whole "smart kid" business. The way the majority of primary school education curricula are structured there's little to no challenge put on kids. The problem is that the pacing is uniform. Which is unrealistic, there is bound to be a concept here or there that a child gets stuck up on. Once they get left behind on a basic concept they are forever playing catch up. Adults assume because a concept is difficult for them understand that a child will automatically struggle with it. I think such thinking is short sighted. Youngsters are far more receptive to new ideas and counter intuitive concepts than adults are. Once they overcome a difficult problem normal service resumes again, the trouble is by then we have already put that kiddo in the average or worse still "not that adept" label. Perhaps it's time for little Johnny to start focusing on something other than maths?

I'm not saying that they're going to be savants, but I think people vastly over estimate the proportions of people who don't count as smart. In my book, everything is an acquired skill that begins with the basics. Natural ability is more of a myth than anything.

Op, my opinion would be to plow away with the material with the youngster, just remember to ensure he gets the necessary time socialising with his peers.

ZorbaTehZ

Echoing Fremen's words, the danger as I see it is keeping the kids interest, by doing so much mathematics with them so quickly you are in danger of him/her gaining a dislike for the subject because it may become or seem like a chore.

As to the question asked in the thread, absolutely - but it is rare. For a modern example, look up Terence Tao, who won a Fields medal some years ago (arguably the Nobel prize of mathematics).

I was doing graphs functions venn diagrams etc when i was about 4-6, so yes, it is possible
i don't suppose i am average, but there are a lot of children who can move on more quickly than they are taught

kate.m

yep it's possible. My dad's friend was a maths teacher and he began teaching his 4 y/o niece basic maths to start her off. She's 10 now and could probably do the LC.
Not joking. I showed her my maths book from 6th year and she could do the easy stuff anyway. I think maths has now been replaced with music lessons though...

It's ok once they enjoy it. I honestly wish someone had went through it with me when I was younger

silverharp

Jernal wrote: »

Op, my opinion would be to plow away with the material with the youngster, just remember to ensure he gets the necessary time socialising with his peers.

You are right , I wouldnt do it if it interfered with anything, at most it takes 20min out of watching SpongeBob so no opportunity cost so far.

Jernal wrote: »

The way the majority of primary school education curricula are structured there's little to no challenge put on kids. The problem is that the pacing is uniform. Which is unrealistic, there is bound to be a concept here or there that a child gets stuck up on. Once they get left behind on a basic concept they are forever playing catch up. Adults assume because a concept is difficult for them understand that a child will automatically struggle with it. I think such thinking is short sighted. Youngsters are far more receptive to new ideas and counter intuitive concepts than adults are. Once they overcome a difficult problem normal service resumes again, the trouble is by then we have already put that kiddo in the average or worse still "not that adept" label. Perhaps it's time for little Johnny to start focusing on something other than maths?

I've only a sample of one but my impression is that kids have short attention spans but fantastic memories. The khan site suits this because you get a <10min video and then you get questions related to it over the next couple of days and then a revision question will pop up every week or so, plus you have the advantage of moving at the individual speed of the child. Its the complete opposite of how a classroom is taught.

ZorbaTehZ wrote:

Echoing Fremen's words, the danger as I see it is keeping the kids interest, by doing so much mathematics with them so quickly you are in danger of him/her gaining a dislike for the subject because it may become or seem like a chore.

its something I'll keep an eye on, I think the fact I keep it little an often stops him getting to bored by it.

MoogPoo

id say buy him a puzzle book or an algebra problems book. Might make him more interested when he can use it to solve interesting problems

lestat21

silverharp wrote: »

I started junior aged 6 with Khanacademy and 9 months later we just started on Algebra, nothing too advanced so far , just basic linear algebra for instance 4x-6=2x+4 . the thing he is absorbing the concepts without any problems and without any attitude of "why do I neeed to know this?" at this rate by the summer we will have covered most of the algebra section even if I backfill with side topics.
So are kids capable of more with some individual input?

Brilliant idea. The basic algebra you mentioned is actually not covered until 1st/2nd year of secondary school. I'd be lil worried that the child will beome bored with maths at second level because he/she will be so far ahead.

Id definately take a look at reflections, translations and symmetry that are covered in primary to some extent but its an area that is also covered in secondary level. Co ordinate geometry is another topic that kids love and I know teachers who have taught basic topic at primary level.

Im just thinking that if the student advances too fast he/she bored in any future maths lessons... and therefore lose his/her love of the subject