Study Question: Why is it the case that adults are not as smart as young children in adapting to new situations and developing new knowledge? What makes us lose such smartness as we grow up?
I think a few factors come to play when we pose the question “why are adults not as smart as children in adapting to new situations and developing new knowledge?” I think the first one would be brain development. I think after a certain age we start to worry more. We start to decide what we think as important information, and we start to weed out the information we no longer see relevant to us. That is what makes children so much smarter because at their young ages they are retaining more than an adult does. Also, I think as a child there is less fear of the world. When it comes to adapting to new situations they are more likely intrigued and excited than adults would be. They have this attitude that they can take on the world, and to me, most adults lose that. The book refers to it as “flexibility and willingness to try”, that is what hinders adults from being able to easily adapt to new situations. I feel that adults lose this because of the experiences they go through in life. It makes them more hesitant, unlike children who are still learning. Children are at an age when they are more receptive to new information. They are growing, learning, and experiencing.
Why is it the case that adults are not as smart as young children in adapting to new situations and developing new knowledge? What makes us lose such smartness as we grow up? There are several reasons why adults may not be as adaptive and able to develop new knowledge as children. The reasons are also a mix between cognitive and affective. Cognitively, the adult brain is less plastic than a child’s. This means that new neural connections are more difficult to make and old neural connections are more difficult to change. It is therefore difficult to rid an adult of previous ways of thinking and to introduce new knowledge. Further, Piaget hypothesizes that we learn by associating new knowledge with previous knowledge. While adults may have more previous knowledge on which to ground new knowledge, it is also possible that the new information challenges their previous understanding of something. If this is the case, then they are unable to build on previous knowledge and will have to form new mental constructions. In this case, previous knowledge that is inconsistent with new knowledge could actually hinder the learning process in adults. Affective reasons could also hinder an adult’s ability to learn. Children may feel less self-conscious and bound by social judgments and repercussions than adults, making them more likely to try new methods or accept new ways of thinking. Adults may be more aware of how others perceive them or are afraid of failing. If failure at the workplace could lead to negative consequences, the adult may not be willing to try something new. Further, adults have a stronger sense of identity and “self” than children. As discussed previously in this book, learning something new creates a person who is different physically and mentally than before. Adults may therefore resist learning as it challenges and recreates their self-identity.
Why is it the case that adults are not as smart as young children in adapting to new situations and developing new knowledge? What makes us lose such smartness as we grow up?
I believe that children are overall more flexible and more adaptive than adults. Some reasons I can think of are:
a. Children have more of an exploratory nature, whereas adults tend to stay in their zones of comfort; b. Children’s egos are flexible and adjust easily to new situations, while adults’ egos tend to be more protective and defensive (Piaget’s theory); c. Adults may be affected by anxiety, shame, fear of making mistakes and reluctance to take risks, while children worry less about their performance in social contexts as long as they are (Krashen’s Monitor Hypothesis theory); d. Children are more open to receiving and processing new information as they are less likely to be attached to pre-existent beliefs. Adults may reject or fear new information/ideas that contradict their convictions. e. Children filter less what they are exposed to and have less expectations about what they learn. Adults may set expectations regarding new learning according to former experiences and previous knowledge. f. Self-regulation – children act naturally in social contexts, asking questions, exploring, and experimenting with none or very little self-regulation. Adults tend to monitor themselves more due to their worry of making mistakes and acting inappropriately. g. Maladaptive gain of processing capacity – processing and memory change as humans age. h. Children are, (if I may abuse of a Freudian postulation), more mentally “polymorphously perverse”. They have no, or little, pre-conceptions, and do not make distinctions that adults make. Distinctions and differentiations that are often loaded with prejudices and pre-conceptions, more often than not dictated by social context.
Why is it the case that adults are not as smart as young children in adapting to new situations and developing new knowledge? What makes us lose such smartness as we grow up? When trying to solve new problems or questions, children are much more willing to look at a variety of options with much more willingness and positivity. Children are more flexible in their learning and problem solving styles. This is because children are still in the process of learning different ways to do things whereas adults have the knowledge and experience to know what works for them and what does not. Adults also depend on their ego much more and are less willing to try new things as to preserve their ego. Adults have a much stronger sense of self that might make them less open to taking criticism and advice from others. Children on the other hand are still developing themselves, therefore they will look at opportunities to try new things as experiences in which they can build themselves. In a classroom of adults, it is important to help the adults be open and willing to use new techniques, not as a replacement for how they already do things but as a supplement.
(Well so far we have all chosen the same question. Maybe I can add something new...or at least put a different spin on it!)
Q: Why is it the case that adults are not as smart as young children in adapting to new situations and developing new knowledge? What makes us lose such smartness as we grow up?
R: I think we (adults) are victims of own own success. We have built up a large body of foundational knowledge, so when we see a new situation, we choose (a'la Siegler) a solution/perspective that creates sense of it. As adults we have had much success with this method, so we believe it. We believe that the solutions/perspectives we bring up are good ones, and there's the rub. Our belief keeps us from seeking new options. Because we have a large database of experiences, and because we are mostly successful in matching new experiences to it, we lose a degree of variability (again, Siegler). Stated a different way, we cling to our predispositions. We "already know it." These would be pitfalls to be avoided. So...
It may be that, ironically, if we are not careful our prior success at learning/cognition *hurts* our future learning/cognition.
Why could it be the case that simply conveying information to students is not sufficient enough for the students to learn the content? What processes are missing here?
Simply conveying the information is not enough for students to learn the content, because students must process and internalize the information to truely acquire it. Students learn in many different ways and to teach the information in a way that the students can relate is very important as well. Some students may be visual, and some may be kinesthetic. If a student could learn only by input they can read, or watch TV. Teachers need to make sure that students are internalizing the information. To take the step of input further to assure learning the teacher must create space for activities, or review through learning styles of the students. There are many methods such as holistic, or communicative. I believe that especially for ESL the process of output is extremely important. After the input the student must process, and be able to output. For the students to process and be able to output there needs to be a learning step that the teacher guides the students step by step.
STUDY QUESTION: Why would it be the case that simply conveying information to students is not sufficient enough for the students to learn the content? What processes are missing here?
Information is not enough for us unless we find its meaningfulness. In other words, we find the beneficial consequence of acquiring the knowledge/ information before we are ready to learn it. I think it is human nature that we are not just satisfied by information, but how the information makes our personal life different by bringing in more happiness or better living opportunities. The missing processes here is how to make these personal connections, or how to help students foresee the benefits. According to my experience, for K-12 students, most of them are living in their personal world where concrete experience is mostly talked about. They are still in the growing period of identifying themselves, struggling to make personal connections with the big big world.
Study Question: Why is it the case that adults are not as smart as young children in adapting to new situations and developing new knowledge? What makes us lose such smartness as we grow up?
ReplyDeleteI think a few factors come to play when we pose the question “why are adults not as smart as children in adapting to new situations and developing new knowledge?” I think the first one would be brain development. I think after a certain age we start to worry more. We start to decide what we think as important information, and we start to weed out the information we no longer see relevant to us. That is what makes children so much smarter because at their young ages they are retaining more than an adult does. Also, I think as a child there is less fear of the world. When it comes to adapting to new situations they are more likely intrigued and excited than adults would be. They have this attitude that they can take on the world, and to me, most adults lose that. The book refers to it as “flexibility and willingness to try”, that is what hinders adults from being able to easily adapt to new situations. I feel that adults lose this because of the experiences they go through in life. It makes them more hesitant, unlike children who are still learning. Children are at an age when they are more receptive to new information. They are growing, learning, and experiencing.
Why is it the case that adults are not as smart as young children in adapting to new situations and developing new knowledge? What makes us lose such smartness as we grow up?
ReplyDeleteThere are several reasons why adults may not be as adaptive and able to develop new knowledge as children. The reasons are also a mix between cognitive and affective. Cognitively, the adult brain is less plastic than a child’s. This means that new neural connections are more difficult to make and old neural connections are more difficult to change. It is therefore difficult to rid an adult of previous ways of thinking and to introduce new knowledge. Further, Piaget hypothesizes that we learn by associating new knowledge with previous knowledge. While adults may have more previous knowledge on which to ground new knowledge, it is also possible that the new information challenges their previous understanding of something. If this is the case, then they are unable to build on previous knowledge and will have to form new mental constructions. In this case, previous knowledge that is inconsistent with new knowledge could actually hinder the learning process in adults.
Affective reasons could also hinder an adult’s ability to learn. Children may feel less self-conscious and bound by social judgments and repercussions than adults, making them more likely to try new methods or accept new ways of thinking. Adults may be more aware of how others perceive them or are afraid of failing. If failure at the workplace could lead to negative consequences, the adult may not be willing to try something new. Further, adults have a stronger sense of identity and “self” than children. As discussed previously in this book, learning something new creates a person who is different physically and mentally than before. Adults may therefore resist learning as it challenges and recreates their self-identity.
Why is it the case that adults are not as smart as young children in adapting to new situations and developing new knowledge? What makes us lose such smartness as we grow up?
ReplyDeleteI believe that children are overall more flexible and more adaptive than adults. Some reasons I can think of are:
a. Children have more of an exploratory nature, whereas adults tend to stay in their zones of comfort;
b. Children’s egos are flexible and adjust easily to new situations, while adults’ egos tend to be more protective and defensive (Piaget’s theory);
c. Adults may be affected by anxiety, shame, fear of making mistakes and reluctance to take risks, while children worry less about their performance in social contexts as long as they are (Krashen’s Monitor Hypothesis theory);
d. Children are more open to receiving and processing new information as they are less likely to be attached to pre-existent beliefs. Adults may reject or fear new information/ideas that contradict their convictions.
e. Children filter less what they are exposed to and have less expectations about what they learn. Adults may set expectations regarding new learning according to former experiences and previous knowledge.
f. Self-regulation – children act naturally in social contexts, asking questions, exploring, and experimenting with none or very little self-regulation. Adults tend to monitor themselves more due to their worry of making mistakes and acting inappropriately.
g. Maladaptive gain of processing capacity – processing and memory change as humans age.
h. Children are, (if I may abuse of a Freudian postulation), more mentally “polymorphously perverse”. They have no, or little, pre-conceptions, and do not make distinctions that adults make. Distinctions and differentiations that are often loaded with prejudices and pre-conceptions, more often than not dictated by social context.
Why is it the case that adults are not as smart as young children in adapting to new situations and developing new knowledge? What makes us lose such smartness as we grow up?
ReplyDeleteWhen trying to solve new problems or questions, children are much more willing to look at a variety of options with much more willingness and positivity. Children are more flexible in their learning and problem solving styles. This is because children are still in the process of learning different ways to do things whereas adults have the knowledge and experience to know what works for them and what does not. Adults also depend on their ego much more and are less willing to try new things as to preserve their ego. Adults have a much stronger sense of self that might make them less open to taking criticism and advice from others. Children on the other hand are still developing themselves, therefore they will look at opportunities to try new things as experiences in which they can build themselves. In a classroom of adults, it is important to help the adults be open and willing to use new techniques, not as a replacement for how they already do things but as a supplement.
(Well so far we have all chosen the same question. Maybe I can add something new...or at least put a different spin on it!)
ReplyDeleteQ: Why is it the case that adults are not as smart as young children in adapting to new situations and developing new knowledge? What makes us lose such smartness as we grow up?
R: I think we (adults) are victims of own own success. We have built up a large body of foundational knowledge, so when we see a new situation, we choose (a'la Siegler) a solution/perspective that creates sense of it. As adults we have had much success with this method, so we believe it. We believe that the solutions/perspectives we bring up are good ones, and there's the rub. Our belief keeps us from seeking new options. Because we have a large database of experiences, and because we are mostly successful in matching new experiences to it, we lose a degree of variability (again, Siegler). Stated a different way, we cling to our predispositions. We "already know it." These would be pitfalls to be avoided. So...
It may be that, ironically, if we are not careful our prior success at learning/cognition *hurts* our future learning/cognition.
KAT
Why could it be the case that simply conveying information to students is not sufficient enough for the students to learn the content? What processes are missing here?
ReplyDeleteSimply conveying the information is not enough for students to learn the content, because students must process and internalize the information to truely acquire it. Students learn in many different ways and to teach the information in a way that the students can relate is very important as well. Some students may be visual, and some may be kinesthetic. If a student could learn only by input they can read, or watch TV. Teachers need to make sure that students are internalizing the information. To take the step of input further to assure learning the teacher must create space for activities, or review through learning styles of the students. There are many methods such as holistic, or communicative. I believe that especially for ESL the process of output is extremely important. After the input the student must process, and be able to output. For the students to process and be able to output there needs to be a learning step that the teacher guides the students step by step.
STUDY QUESTION: Why would it be the case that simply conveying information to students is not sufficient enough for the students to learn the content? What processes are missing here?
ReplyDeleteInformation is not enough for us unless we find its meaningfulness. In other words, we find the beneficial consequence of acquiring the knowledge/ information before we are ready to learn it. I think it is human nature that we are not just satisfied by information, but how the information makes our personal life different by bringing in more happiness or better living opportunities. The missing processes here is how to make these personal connections, or how to help students foresee the benefits. According to my experience, for K-12 students, most of them are living in their personal world where concrete experience is mostly talked about. They are still in the growing period of identifying themselves, struggling to make personal connections with the big big world.