Download Teach Your Baby Math - Glenn caite.info Revised and updated edition By Glenn Doman® and Janet Doman Softcover - pages. This book provides parents with a simple and clear daily program for . How to teach your baby math pdf. How to Teach Your Baby Math G Doman Publisher: Gentle Revolution Press Release Date: ISBN.
|Language:||English, Spanish, French|
|Genre:||Health & Fitness|
|ePub File Size:||27.58 MB|
|PDF File Size:||13.42 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Regsitration Required]|
Teach Your Baby Math - Glenn caite.info - Ebook download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read book online. Teaching Your Young Child. MATH. (from baby and up). Everything you need to know about CAN YOU REALLY TEACH MATH TO A YOUNG CHILD?. 9 شباط (فبراير) [pdf] Dowload How to Teach Your Baby Math glenn doman. Download How to Teach Your Baby Mayh. By Glenn Doman. Pages:
Afternoon — Repeat step one and two from Day 1. Babies love to learn. To state it in a slightly different. It's a venture full of mystery and excitement, for you do not know whether you'll have a compartment to yourself or be going second class, whether the train has a dining car or not, what the trip will cost or whether you will end up where you had hoped to go or in a foreign place you never dreamed of. Add 26 to 50 the next day. The entire process should take less than a minute. I hated every minute of it.
Actions Shares. Embeds 0 No embeds. No notes for slide. How to teach your baby math pdf 1. Gentle Revolution Press Release Date: G Doman Download Here http: This book provides parents with a simple and clear daily program for teaching small children mathematics. At the same time, the essential and close contact of learning together enriches the love and respect between parents and baby. Download Here http: You just clipped your first slide! Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.
Now customize the name of a clipboard to store your clips. Visibility Others can see my Clipboard. Add 17 and Day Remove 9 and Add 19 and Morning — Repeat step one and two from Day 1. Then show three random addition problems using cards 1 to For example: Afternoon — Repeat step one and two from Day 1. Evening — Repeat step one and two from Day 1. Remove 13 and Add 23 and Repeat steps in Day 11 with 9 new addition problems — show 3 problems per session.
Remove 15 and Add 25 and At this point, when you do the math problems, you only have to show the answer card. Remove 17 and Add 27 and Remove 19 and Add 29 and Remove 21 and Add 31 and Remove 23 and Add 33 and Remove 25 and Add 35 and Remove 27 and Add 37 and Remove 29 and Add 39 and Then show three random subtraction equations using cards 1 to Remove 33 and Add 43 and Repeat steps in Day 21 with 9 new subtraction equations — show 3 equations per session.
Remove 35 and Add 45 and Remove 37 and Add 47 and Remove 39 and Add 49 and Remove 41 and Add 51 and Remove 43 and Add 53 and Remove 45 and Add 55 and Remove 47 and Add 57 and Remove 49 and Add 59 and Then show three random multiplication equations using cards 1 to Then show three random multiplicationequations using cards 1 to Remove 53 and Add 63 and Repeat steps in Day 31 with 9 new multiplication equations — show 3 equations per session.
Remove 55 and Add 65 and Remove 57 and Add 67 and Nor had it ever failed to restore my soul and my faith that tomorrow would be worth seeing and living. What was incredible was that we had learned how to teach them to do math better than their own parents. Considering how extraordinarily bright babies are and how easily they learn. It had taken us ten years to learn how.
How could this be. It was an odd place to have stumbled on the obvious answer and. I seldom wake so early. I had been a damned fool. I hoped that I had indeed been a damned fool. I was in the Okura Hotel in Tokyo. If it was true. I was stunned. I had gone to sleep a few hours earlier with the problem very much on my mind. Could it possibly be as simple as it seemed to be? If it was. The Japanese parents.
Virtually all the children could read at far younger ages than did average children. They also did math at speeds that surpassed that of adults. We were quite experienced at this. Australia and Brazil.
The team and I were in Tokyo. The parents. I knew the reason that they didn't really understand it was that I didn't really understand. Both they and we knew beyond doubt that it was so. Could it possibly be that we adults had so long used symbols to represent facts that at least. Was it purely and simply the very basic and different way we had developed to introduce them to math? If this was the answer.
I had come awake a few minutes before six. I had gone to bed unhappy with my own complex answers to their questions. Was it conceivable that the answer could be so simple and straightforward? I had considered and rejected a hundred morecomplex answers.
Neither the parents nor I had been really satisfied with my answers as to why. It was the answer. The only reason some careless adult hasn't spilled the beans to the two-year-olds. It's a wonder that the tiny kids with all their brightness—and bright they are—didn't catch on. It's astonishing that we adults have succeeded in keeping the secret of doing math away from children as long as we have.
I recalled the sound advice of Sherlock Holmes. It was clear that children could perceive the facts. In the learning of pure facts. The most important secret is about the kids themselves. We grown-ups have believed that the older you are. Languages are made up of facts called words.
But now it's out. Musical notes are written symbols that represent specific. What's more. It is now abundantly clear that the younger one learns to do something the better he does it. And by George it is easier for a one-year-old than for a two—if you're willing to be patient enough to wait until he's two to prove it. John Stuart Mill could read Greek when he was three.
Eugene Ormandy could. It is easier for a five-year-old to learn facts than for a six. In reading. If we adults can read music at all. Very few of us have "perfect pitch" and can always identify the exact sound represented by the. 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. In the reading of words we adults can recognize the symbol or the fact without effort.
In the learning of mathematics tiny children actually have a staggering advantage over adults. Thus either the written word refrigerator or the refrigerator itself can be called to mind instantly and easily.
Most of the great mathematicians. Learning the language of music is a little more difficult for adults than for children. This gives tiny children a staggering. We are not. In mathematics the advantage that tiny children have is staggering. 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.
We adults recognize the symbols that are called numerals with great ease from the numeral 1 to the numeral 1. Tiny children can be taught with very little effort to have very close to perfect pitch. Tiny children can learn math and the younger the child. Here are some facts: Tiny children want to learn math. Tiny children should learn math because it is an advantage to do math better and more easily. We had pondered that problem for several long years. We've devoted a short chapter to each of.
It will be helpful to the reader's total ultimate understanding if she or he ponders that deceptively simple. The process of learning begins at birth or earlier. Tiny kids believe it is their job to grow up. Here are the Cardinal Points concerning a tiny child's wanting to learn and his fantastic ability to learn: Little kids would rather learn than eat.
While naturally. Kids would much rather learn than play. All babies have a rage to learn. We have. Little kids want to grow up right now. Tiny children want to learn about everything and right now. There has never been. Math is one of the things worth learning about. They are right in so believing. All kids believe learning is a survival skill. For one thing. We adults have mistaken this superb curiosity about everything as a lack of ability to concentrate.
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.
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. 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 encouraging him to learn.
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. Once a mother realizes that all tiny children have a rage to learn and have a superb ability to do so. 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. Look carefully at the eighteen-month-old child and see what he does.
He would rather learn than eat or play. Why does he? Because he won't stop being curious. He is learning constantly and. In the first place he drives everybody to distraction.. He cannot be dissuaded. He wants to learn about the lamp and the coffee cup and the electric light socket and the newspaper and everything else in the room—which means that he knocks over the lamp.
From the way he carries on we have concluded that he is hyperactive and unable to pay attention. He will not demand to be let out of the room until he has absorbed all he can. He is superbly alert in every way he can be to learning about the world.
He sees the lamp and therefore pulls it down so that he can feel it. He sees. Given the opportunity. There is no other way to learn except by these five routes into the brain. He is doing his best to learn. We parents have devised several methods of coping with the curiosity of the very young child. Presented with such an object.
His every instinct tells him so. It may even be a more complicated toy than a rattle. He is aware. Since we are less aware. 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. Now that he knows all he wants to know about the toy for the present. The child finds the box just as interesting as the toy—which is why we should always buy toys that come in boxes—and learns all about the box.
Because he is allowed to break the box. This also takes about ninety seconds. This process takes about ninety seconds. This is an advantage he does not have with the toy itself. In fact. If you simply watch children you will see dozens of examples of this.
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. Give a child a clam shell and it instantly becomes a dish. The hard and sad truth is that all toys and games are invented by adults to put kids off.
They invent tools. Give a child a piece of wood and it immediately becomes a hammer—and he promptly hammers Dad's cherry table. Tiny children never invent either toys or games. The only proper thing about the playpen is its name—it is truly a pen. Probably the parents of such a child would be even more upset—and with good reason. 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. Not only does the playpen restrict the.
Few parents realize what a playpen really costs. This deduction insidiously implies that he like all other children is not very bright because he is very young. The second general method of coping with his attempts to learn is the put-him-back-inthe-play-pen school of thought. We should at least be honest about such devices and stop saying. The playpen as an implement that prevents learning is unfortunately much more effective than the rattle.
We parents have persuaded ourselves that we are buying the playpen to protect the child from hurting himself by chewing on an electric cord or falling down the stairs.
In terms of our time. This in turn inhibits the development of his vision. Thus we have succeeded in preventing him from destroying things one way of learning by physically confining him. 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. This approach. 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. 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.
We have overlooked the other side of the. Between birth and four years the ability to absorb information is unparalleled. Yet during this period we keep the child clean. We call them geniuses. We have a name for such people. Not all children in school are learning—just as not all children who are learning are doing so in school. Again we have mistaken schooling for learning. We have assumed that children hate to learn essentially because most children have disliked or even despised school.
Learning is the greatest game in life and the most fun. All children are born believing this and will continue to believe this until we convince them that learning is very hard work and unpleasant. My own experiences in first grade were perhaps typical of what they have been foy. Some kids never really learn this lesson and go on through life believing that learning is fun and the only game worth playing. I hated every minute of it.
In general the teacher told us to sit down. In my own case and I suspect in almost everybody else's it turned out that the teacher could make me sit down. I'm sure it was not a unique experience. During the rest of that year and it seemed to me like a hundred years I found myself in.
In my own case. I dare dwell on my personal experiences in school only because I believe I was the rule rather than the exception. In first grade we were made to memorize long arithmetic tables such as two times two is. Particularly was this so in arithmetic. I dimly heard my teacher calling on "Glenn.
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. In the second grade it seemed briefly as if things in arithmetic were looking up. Being a child. Had I been two years old it would have been quite interesting and even easier. What is that. I found this to be dreadfully boring but quite easy.
The first day of real multiplication seemed hopeful. The teacher smiled. How much is that. Not everybody in the class was as stupid as some small boys. She turned to me slowly. The fire was out of control. I wasn't very good in arithmetic. It would have taken place just as I have described it except that I had always known she was bigger than I was.
Now of course the conversation I've just described in such detail never actually took place. She really believed that the reason you put down the 1 and carry the 2 was that it was the proper thing to do. I'm sure she believed this because half a century earlier her teacher had told her that the reason you did it that way was that it was the proper way to do it. I'm downright suspicious of all things that are right because somebody especially somebody bigger than I says they are right.
So many such things have turned out not to be right. It still doesn't. Learning is fun whether teachers think it is or not. My teacher had also known that her teacher was bigger than she was. In summary. I suppose this is why I've always been apprehensive about mathejnatics. That this was the right way to do it had never seemed to me to be very persuasive or very logical. This is because we believe that in every way we are superior to kids.
Virtually everybody loves little kids. It is true that we are taller than a little child and heavier. We are taller. Part of that everything is mathematics. Understanding and speaking a language is complex beyond belief and is the single factor that most clearly separates us human beings from the other creatures of the earth.
Let's consider the absolutely extraordinary ability that all babies have to learn a language. Yet in a normal conversation we encode a. There are Those words can be put together in a virtually limitless number of combinations.
No computer in existence. As fast as we can talk by encoding our thoughts into words. This miracle is not the end. It is not surprising that we sometimes misunderstand each other.
We think in thoughts. Only the human brain is capable of this incredible feat. Any adult foolish enough to get himself into a language-learning contest with any average infant would be a fool indeed and would learn that adults are not brighter than babies when it comes to the dreadfully complicated business of learning a foreign language.
It must be remembered that all babies learn a foreign language prior to two years of age. So complex is human language that only a small proportion of adults ever learn a second language and a very. Yet we take it all totally for granted. Daddy and a few dozen other words. He does so with the use of his superb human cortex.
He teaches himself the other tens of thousands of words he will learn. Only we human beings have such a cortex. It is to him no more or no less foreign than French. English is a completely foreign language. Japanese or Portuguese. And who teaches this baby to perform the miracle of learning this foreign language called English?
In our adult arrogance we believe that we do. We must bear in mind that to a baby born today in Philadelphia. Thousands do. So casually do we accept this unbelievable feat that we give it little or no thought— unless. If he is born into a trilingual household he will speak three languages—and with no more effort than he spent in learning one.
The human brain gives us the capacity for language. It is equally true. Since in those days everyone believed against all the evidence that the older you were the easier it was to learn a language. Let's compare the performances of an average baby with an adult trying to learn a foreign tongue or even with an adolescent. I was the only one who kept trying for four years.
I was eager to learn. Nobody in my class came close to learning to speak French. As a child I wanted very much to learn French. My record was not in flunking— lots of students flunked. Again my own experience may be typical. My record was in obstinacy. I flunked four consecutive years of French.
I can still remember my teacher. Yet every average French six-year-old speaks French perfectly to his own environment.
If his family members say the French equivalent of "I seen him when he done it. I was simply too old. I can't really say much of anything in French. Zimmerman can rest easily in his grave because I no longer say.
If his dad is the head of the French Department at the Sorbonne. What does all this mean. As we have just seen. Tens of thousands of mothers have taught one-. The Philadelphia school system produces many eighteen-year-old high school graduates who cannot read labels on jars.
This deplorable situation is not confined to Philadelphia. They have simply been taught too late. Italian and all other languages contain tens of thousands of basic symbols called words which are combined in endless intricate relationships of phrases.
Math contains ten basic symbols called 1. The astounding question is not why babies and tiny kids can do math faster and more easily than adults. Babies can be taught facts with the speed of summer lightning. The written musical note middle C always means middle C. The written word nose always means nose.
This is true whether they are written or sounded. Most especially is this true if the facts are presented in a precise.
These are facts. The problem is that we adults divide information into two kinds. Concrete things are those we understand easily. The younger they are. This includes that very factual and much simpler language called math. Myths die slowly indeed. No myth dies more slowly than the belief that the older you are. We shall see how serious a mistake this is.
That all tiny kids learn thousands of spoken words before they are three and that thousands of kids can read them as well proves that you can teach a baby anything that you can present to him in an honest and factual way. It must by now be obvious to the reader. Yet I have never seen a two-year-old wise enough not to fall out of a tenth-story window or to drown himself.
The older we are. When we speak of a "set of facts" we mean a group of related facts. Thus a group of portraits of Presidents of the United States would be a set of facts. Cards each containing the flag of a different nation would be a set of facts, cards each containing a different number of like objects would be a set of facts, and so on. There are huge advantages in presenting facts to a tiny child in sets; this is discussed in great detail in the forthcoming book Haw to Multiply Your Baby's Intelligence.
That a one-year-old learns sets of facts more quickly than a seven-year-old and that a seven-year-old learns them more quickly than a thirty-year-old has been. Mothers teaching such sets of facts at home find that their children learn them —and retain them longest—in reverse order of age, and that the mother herself learns them the most slowly of all—and forgets them the most quickly.
We have also found this to be true with the staff itself, to their mixed chagrin and delight. With all of the sets of facts presented to the tiny children this fact is the most clear when teaching mathematics. Of all of the unusual things this book has to say, it is possible that this quiet point is the most important. To state it in a slightly different. A beautiful example of this exists in the mistakes that tiny children make in grammar. A three-year-old looks out a window and says, "Here comes the mailer.
We chuckle at the childish mistake and tell the child that he is not called the mailer but the mailman. We then dismiss the matter. Suppose that instead we asked ourselves the question.
Then where did he get it? I've been thinking about it for fifteen years, and I am convinced that there is only one possibility. The threeyear-old must have reviewed the language to come to the conclusion that there are certain verbs a word he's never heard such as run, hug, kiss, sail and paint and that if you put the sound er on the end of them they become nouns another word he's never heard and you have runner, hugger, kisser, sailor, painter, and so on.
That's a whale of an accomplishment. When did you, the reader, last review a language to discover a law? May I suggest when you were three? Still we say, it is a mistake because he is not the mailer, he is the mailman, and so the child is wrong. Wrong word, yes, but right law. The child w T as quite correct about the law of grammar he had discovered.
The problem is that English is irregular and thus,. It is not possible to discover the facts concrete if we are taught only the rules abstractions. Let's look at this as it applies to math. The tiny child has a huge ability to discover the laws if we teach him the facts. If it were regular the three-year-old would have been right. Not all human beings have invented math as all human beings have.
In the following pages the word number means the actual quantity or true value. VI—he will discover the rules of mathematics which we call addition. If you teach a child the facts of mathematics.