I'll add that I disagree with QT3.1414's post re: learning style, which I
also believe has less to do with how a child has been taught and more to do with innate personality differences than anything else. It's not
necessarily a proxy for high IQ any more than high achievement testing is, but young autodidacts often
are high-ability.
The converse, however, is NOT the case.
There is also maturity to consider. Asynchronous development means that encouraging autodidactic learning has to occur within the confines of what is developmentally
appropriate for a particular child. Forcing that particular mode of learning on people doesn't make them brighter or more capable. It will make some of them less educated, though.
Also-- most of the intellectual giants in physics, mathematics, or any other field... spend a LOT of time learning the conventions and knowledge base before they start breaking those paradigms. Skipping that step doesn't work very well for even most of those with elite cognitive ability. Being autodidactic doesn't mean skipping the foundation. It means learning it on your own, something which
most children find difficult because they lack life experience (perspective) and self-discipline.
They'll get there eventually. Why rush the transition to autodidactic learning with kids who aren't suited to it until they are more mature?
This is one of those things like "leadership." It's an ill-defined proxy of intellectual ability, as far as I can see. I mean, take two children, and suppose that BOTH of them can learn a year of algebra in a week's time. Child A learns it from a tutor, one-on-one, with the occasional use of a print textbook and a whiteboard to work problems, and Child B learns it from a combination of Khan, YouTube, and an online textbook, combined with a graphing calculator. Is one of those children "more intelligent" than the other?
I'd argue not. They are just
different in terms of learning approach and needs. Reverse the learning environments, though... and neither one of them is going to have as much success as with their preferred learning method. QT3.1414 was Child B, and someone like my DD is Child A. No
one classroom methodology is going to be appropriate for both types of children.
It's also pretty obvious to me that ONLY a EG/PG child
can learn like either one of them.
I couldn't have done it. Not in mathematics, anyway.
