When is a learner an adult?
Bob Gerulat wrote:
> Bacal wrote:
> >Insert humans instead of adults and it fits, so why make the distinction
> >about “adults”. Kids are pretty diverse. Kids have less experience
> >quantity wise which actually makes their experiences MORE powerful in
> >terms of how it affects learning.
>
> Gerulat Responds:
>As we can see from Mr. Bacal’s example, there are in fact
> differences in that kids have less experience and that there is a
> difference, in his opinion, in the power of these experiences.
Yes, absolutely, but the PRINCIPLE is exactly the same. Try this on.
New learning is best assimililated by adults when it is tied into what they already know (their present eperiences). New learning is best assimilated by children when it is tied into what they already know (their experiences).
Both fit, right?
>
> Gerulat wrote:
> >> They want to be able to
> >> relate content to real world context-specific to their own lives.
>
> Mr. Bacal wrote:
> >Same for human beings. It’s just that what is relevant to a developing
> >human being may not seem so to an older one.
>
> Gerulat Responds:
> Once again, Mr. Bacal provides an example to show no differences by his
> substitution of the term “human” yet again shows that there is a
> difference between a developing human and an older one!
There are indeed differences, but the important ones have nothing to do with an essentially bankrupt theory or philosophy about what “adults” are like. The important differences (again it depends on content and age) have to do with cognitive processes, and things like moral reasoning.
> Gerulat Wrote:
> >> Thus
> >> they tend to be pragmatic.
>
> Whereupon, Mr. Bacal wrote:
>
> >Who isn’t?
>
> Whereupon, Gerulat Responds:
> Kids tend not to be. Remember, we are talking about tendencies and
> characteristics. Non-adults tend not to be pragmatic.
Depends on the area. A child who wants to learn how to ride a bike so s/he can go play with friends is being as pragmatic as an adult. Where the difference lies (and this is probably a cognitive limit on children up to a certain age) is the TIME SPAN of the cause effect relationships, and how far children are willing and able to project into the future.
But if we look at adults practically, they suffer the same problems in behavior and time projection. They overspend, get into debt, etc, just because they don’t project that link into the future very well. That matches very well with the finding that 50% of adults NEVER make it into the formal ops. stage.
However, I need to > be careful here. The term pragmatic can be defined as that/those concerned
> with facts or actual occurrences–the practical. In adult learning theory,
> we are concerned with a slightly different meaning. We are referring to
> pragmatism. This is a branch of philosophy relating to the study of cause
> and effect with an emphasis on the practical lessons to be learned from
> history or politics. Pragmatism in this context refers to sets of theories
> distinguished by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea lies in its
> “observable practical consequences.” For example, a child might consider
> spending their entire month’s allowance on candy to be a practical
> application of the funds. However, the child’s parent may see this
> differently, relying on historical knowledge to know that there will be
> consequences to the action that the child did not consider (no more funds
> to spend, a belly-ache, a dental bill).
True, and the parent may go out and buy a house that’s way beyond their means. It’s absolutely the same thing.
To place the example in a learning > context, consider offering a child the option of attending a math class or > going to the beach. The child might see sand and surf as a more practical
> application of their time, whereas the parent (or responsible adult) might
> see the math class as more practical for getting into a good college or
> eventually obtaining a job.
From the discussion here about training and education and getting those darned adults off the beach and into the classrooms, I don’t see much of a difference. Why? because many adults haven’t developed the advanced formal thinking required to project into the future, and perhaps even have the working memory (m-space) of younger teens.
I have to stop here, but here’s the bottom line on the adult learning, which is not solely my opinion but that of others who have published and critiqued the “theory”. Formalized adult learning theory is not a description of reality but a notion of what adults “should” be within a very specific cultural bias. It’s the way us adults would like to be seen rather than the way we are. And because of it’s cultural bias, it applies completely to such a small segment of society as to be useless.
That’s why I probably would never hire someone who’s only learning in the learning field is adult ed. I would hire (and do work with people) who have studied LEARNING, cognition, development, etc.
The very WORST learning environments I have ever seen were produced by adult learning supposed experts, and the absolute absolutee worst I’ve seen is within adult learning programs at universities.