Glenn Doman Maths/Dot Maths

Early Learning Teaching Your Child Math
1

Further information regarding GD maths-Replies from IAHP and www.rightbrainkids.com

The IAHP has previously confirmed that the ability to recognize quantity is generally not retained even if taught from birth.

Extract from my latest email to the IAHP along with their response-Thank you for taking the time to reply to my email. I have one remaining question regarding verbal responses. You have confirmed that the very young appear to recognize quantity, and derive some visible pleasure from doing so and that this ability appears to disappear between 2 and 5. Does the ability to do rapid calculations disappear at the same time? Why would a child with competent verbal skills be able to demonstrate an ability to perform complex calculations by selecting the correct card whilst being unable to answer much easier questions verbally?
My investigations on the Internet suggest that the ability to perform rapid mental calculations also appears to disappear between 2 and 5.

This is the reply that i received-

I regret to say that I do not have any reliable data on which to base a reply to your question. I am also not convinced that the assumptions implicit in your question can be validated; I have seen no studies which would validate them. I also question whether the Internet is a reliable source of information on these questions, unless it leads you to studies which are validated; but I certainly wish you will in your ongoing investigations.

Please refer to Subitizing to see details of validated studies along with the earlier reply from RBKids and a question left for Elizabeth.

Details from Right Brain Kids -reply to an email-

Hi, Chris.

Thank you for your e-mail.

Our customer support team has forwarded your e-mail to me. I’m curious
about your background. Are you a father, a researcher, or an educator?

I would like to thank you for your reply regarding the ability to give
verbal responses to equations. I have come across several sites where babies
are able to point at the correct answer if given a choice but have not been
able to locate sites where the child can give a verbal answer. I am aware of
cases where the child is able to point at the correct card-again given a
choice-but is unable to answer verbally even though their language skills
are well developed. This is very confusing and suggests that the baby/young
child might be responding to gestural cues.

PAMELA: I know it seems like children are responding to gestures, but it
is not the case. The right brain can communicate through pointing. The
left brain organizes language. So, what is happening is that the left
brain cannot express the genius-like subitization ability of the right
brain. Babies function out of the right brain, before the left has had a
chance to develop fully. I know it seems like children are responding to
gestures, but it is not the case. Infants are more accurate with math dot
and word recognition. As the left brain develops, this ability fades and
then you teach the whole brain at that point with new techniques that
combine both hemispheres.

I am wondering whether it might be more effective to teach Dot Maths using
regular arrangements along with varying color/dot size to draw attention to
the number bonds that exist. r=red b=blue

RRRRR BBBBB
RRRRR BB to represent 17 etc.

6+6 RRRRRB CLEARLY EQUALS 10+2
RRRRRB

PAMELA: Yes, that is how we teach it to older children–those who are
viewing and expressing with more of the left brain involved.

Obviously if there are examples of babies progressing to giving verbal
responses then this method would not be required.

PAMELA: When the baby is able to give verbal responses, then they have
“bridged” over to more left brain thought–and no longer in the more
sponge-like right brain state.

From these responses it appears that the ability to perform rapid mental calculations is also not retained.

The random dots probably help develop number sense but progression to a more regular representation of quantity would possibly be required at some stage.

2

Thankyou for that Chris1 you are very knowledgable!

This makes me wonder if there is any point to teaching maths through the dot system if quantity recognition is not retained? Does the ability to do equations remain? Im just wondering if spending the money on doing Glenn Doman Math is really worth it?

3

I had never heard that the ability to recognize quantity would disappear in a child once they had learned it. Did you find this information out from the people at IAHP. I went to one of their seminars and they never mentioned that the ability would go away. I was under the impression that it would stick around. Thank you for any clarification on this matter.

4

I was amazed when I watched my grandchild doing math when she was very young. I can almost see how it is done because I feel it is intuitive to know the number of items at times.

5

Hi lekeebaugh,

It is odd that they fail to recognize its significance, they also fail to mention it in their book!

Yes the information came from the IAHP-Pls refer to early post titled “Phone conversation with the IAHP” posted by DomanMom. http://forum.brillkids.com/teaching-your-child-math/phone-conversation-with-the-iahp/

I would recommend teaching dot maths as young babies clearly derive pleasure from seeing the cards. The activity helps to develop the visual pathways and provides an understanding of quantity. I think that it is important to realize that the ability to subitize large quantities is not retained and that at some point it would probably be beneficial to introduce dots arranged in regular arrays. It should be noted that studies have only validated that babies can subitize 1-3 and can only recognize larger quantities by their pattern http://forum.brillkids.com/teaching-your-child-math/subitizing-what-is-it/

I am sure that the LITTLE MATH that is about to be released will be an excellent product

Chris

6

Thanks for sharing this. Here is something that bothers me:

Yes, that is how we teach it to older children--those who are viewing and expressing with more of the left brain involved.

The question then becomes: If I have taught my child with the original programme and now he/she is around 3 or so years old and has a good grasp of the concepts, what am I supposed to do next so that the maths ability does not get wasted - is the progression to numerals enough with a vague idea of quantity without being able to see the exact quantity.

These are all very important questions - because what is the idea of teaching math by this method - if I want to stimulate visual pathways, I’d be better off teaching only reading if the math were lost. If it is to stimulate the right brain more, again there are other ways of doing it which may be easier and more stimulating for me (I don’t know about my child) I want to teach my child math so she has a better grasp of numbers and will be more equipped to handle the maths that everyday life throws at her. Basically I suppose I want her to find working with numbers less stress than the majority of adults seem to find it. Will I accomplish this by showing her the dot cards?

7

Hi Tanikit,

At best the GD maths provides a fuzzy understanding of quantity and this weak mental number line will be of little use if other activities that develop understanding are not encountered/provided. It would be easy for the IAHP to prove their claims by inviting Cognitive Psychologist to validate the extraordinary claims made. The reason they gave for the lack of evidence was utter nonsense. http://forum.brillkids.com/teaching-your-child-math/gd-maths-reply-from-iahp/

Subitizing Research has shown that babies can subitize to 3 and that distinguishing between larger quantities is only possible if the difference is large enough. Surely it would be in their interest to discredit these findings. The success rate appears to be close to 0%-there are no examples of babies/young children giving verbal responses to support the claims. Re babies pointing at cards-this is not proof-we can all select the correct card if the difference is large enough and the fact that the tester/parent knows the answer will influence the choice-you can’t hide gestural cues.

On it’s own, GD maths is probably not worth the time invested or money-i can remember having to explain to my upset 3 year old that i couldn’t distinguish between the cards and that it didn’t matter that she was also unable to subitize beyond 3.

8

I thought that DomanMom had said that her child does all these things that you say is not possible. Maybe if she would upload a video of her child’s abilities with math this would be all put to rest. My understanding of this so far is up to the age of three babies have a great ability with quantities that might last longer with use. I had posted an article where this was proven with a formal study of the brain activity and parts of brain used. Obviously this method helps you teach your child addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division at a very early age at the very least.

We are born with an instinct to do math in our right brain. This ability is lost once we are thought the language of numbers 1+1=2. Then the language part of our brain is used. But we use the part of our brain we are born with to compare quantities like < >. These are the things right brain sites test. The article I posted earlier measured this with brain activity readings. I would think being taught with the dot method would make more abstract math concepts understood easier because that part of the brain would be strengthened. It would probably also make simple calculations easier.

Here is a clip from another article:
The importance of an fully integrated and active right hemisphere during mental tasks, especially among the mathematically gifted. Additionally, the researchers note the over-representation of left-handedness among the mathematically gifted (the right brain controls the left half of the body).

Left handed definitely makes a difference in all this. When my daughter was in kindergarten and learning to write you could hold it to the mirror to read it. If your child is left-handed everything is backwards to them. They do not see things the same as right-handed people. Left-handed people in a right-handed world struggle sometimes. Teaching her to tie her shoes was interesting. Then we were told to put her across from us and just do it normally right-handed and she would see it her way. So they see things as if they are in a mirror.

In the category of art, both Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo were left handed. In the category of music, Ludwig van Beethoven was left handed. In the field of science and invention, you find Benjamin Franklin, Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein. In the field of motion pictures, Charlie Chaplin.

Bobby Fisher, the modern chess genius, is left handed. So too musical geniuses Bob Dylan, Paul McCartney, and Wynton Marsalis.

Is DomanMom’s little one left-handed?

I wonder since all babies are right-brain if they too see things backwards? I guess this would be demonstrated by having young babies write. If they write so it can be read in a mirror this would confirm this.

9

Hi Patreiche - I have not seen any evidence to support the claim. The reply from IAHP indicated that they are only claiming a long term benefit which is far from the claims made in their book. Unfortunately, i fear that DomanMom will also discover that her son is unable to progress to verbal responses. I posted a question to DomonMom which has remained unanswered-

Reply referred to above-
IAHP reply regarding evidence - “we have no systematic rigorous longitudinal study showing the positive effect of the use of Dot Cards in developing “number sense,” which is another name for quantity recognition; and we also have no studies showing a direct correlation of the development of number sense with the later academic work of children in studying Math. We have, however, a consensus feeling among hundreds of mothers who have used the Dot Cards program that it has been helpful to their children’s later development of Math skills. The absence of rigorous studies is due to our refusal to use “control groups” who are deprived of any educational advantage we know about. We continue to operate by offering all we know to anyone who will listen, and the “control group” has to be the rest of the world.”

I don’t dispute that the RB plays an important role and recommend teaching maths with quantity cards-i would ,however, modify the approach in line with the existing evidence.

1 quickly show random dot cards 1-20 and 10,20,30 etc teaches what numerals represent and will give the child a basic idea of relative quantity. 1+10=11 based on research will not help. 10+10=20 (larger gap) will provide an understanding of addition-that is that the amount increased-Same applies to other operations. This alone is not enough.
2 Represent quantity in arrays of ten and units/flash cards - also construct quantity -eg 32- place 3 separate 10 cards and a two card on the floor - This should provide a slightly deeper understanding.
3 Introduce color to help the baby visualize the quantities -e.g take 20+20=40 the first 20 card- 2 columns of ten in red, second card 2 columns in blue and answer in red and blue-along side this you could occasionally show the random arrangement to maintain understand-also occasionally show answer in one color-regular representation.
4 Progress to representing columns of ten in two colors 1-5 in red 6-10 in blue e.g 6+6 can then clearly be seen as 10+2 etc ( rrrrrb+rrrrrb )
5 See Ten Frame for example- construct quantity cards with dots covering a guide template- e.g a 10 vertical circle outlines- 9 would be a card with 9 red spots-vertical arrangement along with an empty faint circle outline. Basically referencing quantity. E.g 3x9 will clearly be seen as 3 less than 3x10 or 30-3.
6 Extend outline template-that is empty faint circles to teach multiplication- Show multiplication on an array of 10 by 10 faint circles whilst using the method in 4 above. E.G 25 clearly seen to be a quarter of 100 (shown as 25 red squares) 6x6 can be seen as a square of 25 red a row of 5 blue horizontally , column of 5 blue vertically and a further red spot. This can be visualized and should deepen understanding. Activities-you could show a representation of a multiplication and ask the child to find a matching card. The representation can also be constructed if the cards are cut appropriately.
7 This way of representing multiplication will make the transition to multiplying fractions very east-represented as area 1/2x1/2 is clearly 1/4.
8 Multiplications like 99x99 can clearly be seen as 2 hundreds less than 100X100 plus the overlap of 1-that is 9800+1

Chris.

10

Here are some articles I found regarding studies of math abilities:

http://www.apa.org/releases/interhemispheric.html

According to this article a pregnant woman should take testosterone to produce a math genius. :confused: This study was done by the US ARMY research.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/gut-instinct-an.html ability to succeed at math is related to ability to dintinguish quantity of dots by 14 yr olds test included

11

I tested correct at 92%. I see the girl spin clockwise is suppose to make me right brain and I am very good at math. Does studying dots help your math abilities? I think it warrants a try. I never studied dots.

Take the dot test it is fun! Make sure you go with your first instinct when I didn’t I got it wrong. My test score would have been higher. I was able to distinguish one number difference very easily. I couldn’t tell you how many dots were there. I have never tried this before. So if I can tell one dot difference and baby is suppose to have this ability, I am sure they can distinguish one dot difference.

12

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070108121659.htm

This article suggest what I said about going with first instinct. Your first instinct is your right brain had I gone with that I would have been right 100% of the time. If you were given longer to see the dots your answer would most likely be wrong. With the short time you have to use your right brain, otherwise you try to use your left.

This is the Doman method. With this dot test you can see how important it is to flash quickly. You may not be able to tell how many dots are there but you can distinguish quantity. I can anyways. I am sure babies can too.

13

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-10/bis-aft102004.php

food for thought

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9B03E2D91439F937A1575AC0A963948260

14

Hi Patreiche - thank you for the interesting links- scored in the low 80s

This link is of a dog doing maths-the dog is reading gestural cues.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9BFAX55W1TQ&feature=related

Chris

15

Baby brains are hard-wired for math-Analysis illustrated that babies have similar brain activity to that of adults when served with correct and incorrect mathematical solutions.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14254290/