There is nothing above that either implies enrichment should be an add-on or reserved for the special lesson, nor does there look like any reason to imagine its exclusivity to pupils of higher capacity. There can also be a growing physique of evidence that problem solving approaches and mathematical considering offered 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 can be supported by our own work with teachers and pupils when using supplies from the NRICH site (www.nrich.maths.org). due to this fact, if downside fixing is seen as a fundamental constituent of enrichment then on the very least this aspect of enrichment might be shown to benefit everyone.
There was a time when giftedness in Children enrichment was narrowly outlined by way of mental skills and knowledge that could be tested by a slim vary of intelligence tests. Nonetheless, in latest decades our understanding of giftedness has broadened based mostly on our growing understanding that intelligence can have many manifestations (see for example my submit on Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences). And so, while we know some gifted kids can exhibit exceptional talents across a variety of capabilities (e.g. memory, language, arithmetic, drawback solving and so on), others are extremely gifted in narrower and more particular ways (e.g. visible arts, music, management, sport etc).
Referring to the report of the issue Solving Theme Group on 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 satisfactory finish point. This centring on the solver is reflected within the paper by Pape, Bell et al (2003) who counsel that pupils should see themselves as brokers in their own studying when downside fixing.