Recently, I attended a lecture that proposed extensive enrichment for the gifted brain. I couldn't help but wonder why the nongifted brain was never mentioned. Below is my reflection on the piece:
Reflection on Distinguished Lecturer Eric Jensen
Topic: Enriching the Gifted Brain”
Having just completed my training classes for my GATE certification through the UCSD extension center, I wasn’t expecting much new information from this lecture. However, I was pleasantly surprised when I saw the outline for the lecture. While my classes covered the idea of enrichment in more general terms, Mr. Jensen intended to focus on the topic specifically within the following guidelines: 1) What is Enrichment?; 2)Who is it for?; 3) Does it really work? And 4) How do I optimize Enrichment?
He stated that enrichment is always positive, maximizing the capabilities of a student. It should have a significant amount of time allotted to it as well, both in school and out. A crucial point to note was that there is no “enrichment” program in isolation; it can only exist in a context. He added that there is only an enrichment response in those students from lower conditions to a positive contrasting condition. In other words, a student is only being “enriched” if the activity in which they are engaged is an activity that is more productive and educational that their living situation would otherwise provide. I found this a troubling point, in part because of the implications for more wealthy students. Simply because their parents are well off doesn’t necessarily mean that they are being exposed to enriching situations. They need more enriching activities to have the same effect as a student from a lower socio-economic background. Jensen concluded that section with the following phrase that offered little solution to my reservations: “Enrichment is not what you do. There are no “enrichment strategies” unless they are contrasted with an impoverished condition.”
‘Then who is it for?’ my mind begged the question. Who should get enrichment? Jensen suggested that students who are identified as gifted thrive in school-based enrichment programs, because without them, gifted students become bored, disillusioned and are less likely to participate in school. Does this imply that because students are easily bored, we should provide them with more? Doesn’t this then ring true with the non-gifted student who is also bored because he is having difficulty with a class or unit? Should not the teacher then also provide a specific enrichment agenda for this student or class, despite the fact that the student is gifted or not? In my (new teacher) opinion, most students, whether gifted or not, deserve a more enriched education. Jensen also provided “evidence” to support his claim that gifted students benefit more claiming that the “brains of Gifted show far more connectivity between key spatial, language, math and working memory areas than more typical brains.” However, in one of my GATE certification classes, the professor discussed the development of the brain, stating that these synapses, these pathways of connectivity in the brain are developed as a result of activity (enrichment). Should we not then again ask the question that the non-gifted brain would also benefit as greatly as the gifted one?
So stepping aside from this question, I had another question to ask: Who says that Enrichment works? What is the proof? Jensen provided the following statement: “Exposure to an enriched environment promotes neurochemical, structural and neurophysiological changes in the brain and is associated with enhanced synaptic plasticity and improved hippocampal-dependent learning.” In other words, my students do not arrive at school “preassembled” by their DNA. Instead they are “glued together” through their life experiences—another point that supports my idea that the non-gifted student would benefit just as greatly from a school-centered enrichment program as a gifted student would. Research on enrichment shows that it can: increase new neuron production, improve recovery from a stroke, enhance learning and memory, improve reading and math scores, improve decision making, reduce aggressive behaviors, and help recover from stress disorders, alcoholism, and maternal separation. (Again, why are we only focused on the gifted students?)
Lastly, Jensen discussed how one “does” enrichment. There are two ways that enrichment can be provided. “Wide” means development in arts, social, cultural, health, emotional, spiritual and physical areas. “Deep” means targeted development in more traditional cognitive areas of reading, science, math and problem-solving. He stressed that enrichment did not mean more content within a set of curriculum. Instead, it provides the ability for the student to process the content more effectively. Jensen suggested the following seven ways to enrich the brain within a classroom context: social support, activity, managed stress levels, positive nutrition, learning to be engaging, challenging and meaningful, escalating skill-building, and sufficient time for change.
I found these guidelines to be somewhat helpful, but not in depth enough for me to have time to apply them to my classroom as such a late date in the year. I look forward to implementing some of these extremely vague ideas in my classroom next year, providing I get a job.
While there was a significant amount of information that described the idea of enrichment specifically, the one weakness of the presentation, in my opinion, is that we weren’t provided with examples of enrichment. Being a new teacher, I would have liked to have been given more information to add to my ever growing repertoire. Adding several specific activities within the sections that he discussed, or providing a general list of ideas would have been immensely helpful for a new teacher, as well as having value for a veteran teacher looking to add to their perhaps stagnant curriculum.
