Rymel Cognitive Development

Cognitive Development
Learning in Adulthood
Tim Rymel
Adult Teaching and Learning
EDAE 624
Leann Kaiser, Ph. D
March 22, 2008

Rymel Cognitive Development

Introduction
The National Institute of Health (NIH) wanted to know why there were so many more
18-year-old drivers getting in car accidents than older drivers. By all accounts, teenagers should
be the world's best drivers. Their muscles are supple, their reflexes quick, their senses at a
lifetime peak (Williamson, 2005). Researchers fully expected a completely developed brain by
age 18, a theory which used to form the basis of cognitive research. Piagets revised theory
contended that children between the ages and 15 and 20 reached a stage of being able to reason
hypothetically, logically and systematically (Merriam, Caffarella and Baumgartner, 2007, p
326). Though neuroscience may make a difference regarding how fast cognitive development
happens, there are many theories and questions about the differences in that developmental
process. This paper reviews the foundational theory on cognitive development and provides a
synthesis of theories and models in a relevant summary related to adult learning.
The Foundation for Cognitive Development
Jean Piaget was somewhat of a protg as a child. At 11 years old he wrote a paper on the
albino sparrow, eventually spawning over 60 books and several hundred articles (Smith, 2000).
In 1955, he created the Center for Genetic Epistemology (Smith, 2000). His interest in
intellectual development led him to study the development of his own children and eventually
develop a cognitive theory, which has become the foundation for cognitive development (Smith,
2000).
Piaget proposed four stages of cognitive development, which he related to specific ages.
The stages represent qualitatively different ways of making sense, understanding, and
constructing a knowledge of the world (Merriam, et al, p326). Table 1 represents the way in
which Piaget saw the progression of cognitive development in children. This developmental

Rymel Cognitive Development

theory is based on relative stages of human development, ultimately leading the individual to be
able to think abstractly as the apex of mature adult thought (Merriam, et al, p326). Piagets
Age
0-2
2-7
7-11
12+

Stage
Sensory-Motor
Preoperational
Concrete Operational
Formal Operation

Cognitive Ability
Reflex Actions
Represent concrete objects in symbols and words.
Understand concepts and relationships of ideas
Reason hypothetically, logically and systematically
Table 1

theory was not intended to explain every aspect of cognitive development, nor did it take into
account continuing adult maturity and change. It did, however create a foundation for cognitive
theory and serves as a foundational basis for adult learning and neurocognitive studies.
Based on Piagets preliminary information, additional studies have been conducted.
Piagets research was primarily based on his descriptive case studies, leading Piaget to believe
that, biological development drives the movement from one cognitive stage to the next (Huitt
and Hummel, 2003). While data on children from Western cultures seems to support this theory,
similar data from adolescents, do not support the assertion that all individuals will automatically
move to the next cognitive stage as they biologically mature (Huitt and Hummel, 2003).
Knight and Sutton, considered to be neo-Piagetian scholars, noted that moving from
concrete operational thinking to more formal operational thinking may not occur for all aspects
of thinking, but rather tend to be local and domain specific in nature (Merriam, et al, p 327).
Also noted was that, a more advanced level involves an individuals ability not only to think
logically, but also to reflect on this logical thinking (Merriam, at al, p 327). Metacognition
allows adults to take on a dualist approach to cognitive processes. They can think about more
than one way to do things and there can be more than one truth.
Another important aspect to be considered, when looking at the foundation for adult
cognitive development, is the context in which the development occurs. Piaget also

Rymel Cognitive Development

acknowledges the relevance of context in his later work (Merriam, et al). According to Mead,
Both mind and self evolve in a social context (Serafica, 1981 p1). Knight and Sutton, as cited
in Learning in Adulthood (Merriam, et. al, 2007), note that new learning is most robust in the
context in which it was constructed (Merriam, et al, p328). Evidence seems to support this
theory and it is used in many progressive, higher education models catering to adult learners. The
University of Phoenix, for example, developed its programs so that the learner can instantly
apply new theories and practices to his or her job situation (Swenson, n.d
Piaget set the foundation for adult cognitive development by emphasizing qualitative
developmental changes in cognition, rather than quantitative; focusing on the active role of the
individual in developing his or her knowledge; and offering the idea of mature adult thought, or
formal operations (Merriam, et al). Neo-Piagetians added to his theories, recognizing that
people could use formal operational thought in one context and concrete operational thought in
another, and by introducing the idea of development beyond Piagets formal operations theory
(Merriam, et al, p329). Other models were developed, which tested and emphasized these
important contributions.
A synthesis and theory
There tend to be two types of cognitive thinkers, linear and categorical, as referenced in
the text book, Learning in Adulthood (2007). Models fall into one of these categories, as do most
people. Theorists agree with Piagets first three cognitive developmental stages, as listed in
Table 1. The question is what happens after stage three and how does this impact learning?
No single human is alike, nor does anyone think exactly the same. Therefore, one cannot
realistically exalt one theory or explanation over another. The models of adult cognitive
development are relevant and applicable, though perhaps not to every individual. Most

Rymel Cognitive Development

interesting are the models developed using a single demographic. For example, Perrys
developmental scheme, as cited in Learning in Adulthood (Merriam, et. al, 2007), focused on
white male college students. King and Kitchener conducted a ten-year study on male and female
students at various educational levels. Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule conducted
research on women of varying backgrounds. Not surprisingly, each set of researchers developed
their own cognitive theories.
To that end, it is impossible to accurately develop a cognitive theory without meshing
biological and psychological factors. Piaget, himself, was a biologist. He considered himself a
genetic epistemologist (Huit and Hummel, 2003). This writers theory is based in part on other
theorists, biological factors, and speculation.
Most theorists agree that in the early years, knowledge comes from authority figures and
people of influence around an individuals life. King and Kitchener call this prereflective
thinking. Piaget calls this the preoperational stage. However, it is when a person becomes more
aware of the surrounding world that these influences become most pronounced.
Piaget was correct to emphasize qualitative developmental changes in cognition. There
are many influencing factors in a persons life that agree with this theory. A child from an
abusive home is probably going to view life differently than a child from a more stable
environment. Each environment will impact how that child learns and what that child learns in
the future. As an adult, the individual brings those experiences into his or her learning
environment. One person may see the world as more black and white, while the other sees gray
areas. The difficulty is guessing which person sees life which way. There appears to be a major
biological component regarding ones view of the world and how he or she learns.

Rymel Cognitive Development

More and more research reveals how people make decisions based on brain function.
Those decisions can be influenced by more or less of brain chemicals. For example, MSNBC
reported that certain individuals are more susceptible to overeating because of neurohormonal
changes in the brain (Alexander, 2009). It has long been proven that depression is also caused by
low serotonin levels in the brain. If brain chemicals are responsible for behaviors, then they must
also be responsible for changing the way people develop cognitively.
Looking at Perrys position 6, the individual says, I see Im going to have to make my
own decisions in an uncertain world with no one to tell me Im Right. (Merriam, et al, p330).
This persons decisions may not always be logical to an observer if, for example, he or she
suffers from depression. But those decisions are right, based on his or her cognitive processes
and biological influence.
According to King and Kitchener, Decisions and judgments people makeshould
remain open to evaluation and reevaluation (Merriam, et al, p 333). Assuming an individual
doesnt reach these stages of thinking, does that mean this person is not capable of full cognitive
thought? Or could there be mitigating biological factors that exclude him or her from reaching
those stages? How does this person learn and/or move forward into the next phase of
development?
There is no substitute for contextual learning. Regardless of an individuals biological or
environmental influences, contextual application transcends most cognitive dysfunctions.
Labouvie-Vief noted that one key factor in being able to adapt to [the realities of adult life] is
the ability to accept and even thrive on contradiction, which, leads to acceptance of the notion
of inherent relativity of knowledge and the ability to be self-regulating in choosing ones
worldview (Merriam, et al, p347).

Rymel Cognitive Development

People learn contextually throughout the developmental process. New ideas are based on
personal relevancy, regardless of age and regardless of culture. A 9-year-old in a third-world
country is focused on staying alive. Teaching him to type is not relevant, nor is it contextual.
However, perhaps teaching him hunt is relevant and contextual. A 9-year-old in the U.S. is more
likely to see the relevancy of learning to type. She may be a victim of abuse, or prone to
depression, yet typing relates to the world around her. She will continue to build on this new
information as more information becomes relevant.
Conclusion
Piaget laid the foundation for cognitive development. Neo-Piagetians built a solid system
on top of his theories, stating dualistic thought processes and showing evidence for continual
adult learning development. A number of theories have been proliferated, researching specific
demographics and producing interesting results. No single theory, however, can be applied to all
demographics. Biological influence also must be considered when researching cognitive
development, as there is a larger influence than previously understood. The contextual
perspective is inclusive of all cognitive development and allows learning to occur at all levels.

Rymel Cognitive Development

References
Alexander, Brian, Mmmm, The Food Looks Good, So I Eat It, MSNBC.com, January 23, 2009,
Retrieved March 22, 2003, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28794584/
Huitt, W., & Hummel, J. (2003). Piaget's theory of cognitive development. Educational
Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University,
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piaget.html
Merriam, Sharan B., Caffarella, Rosemary S., and Baumgartner, Lisa M., Learning in Adulthood,
a Comprehensive Guide, 3rd Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2007
Serafica, Felicisima C., Social-Cognitive Development in Context, Methuen and Co., 1981
Smith, Leslie, A Brief Biography of Jean Piaget, Jean Piaget Society, November, 2000,
http://www.piaget.org/aboutPiaget.html
Swenson, Craig, New Models for Higher Education: Creating an Adult Centered Institution,
Globalisation: What Issues are at Stake for Universities?, Undated, Retrieved March 22,
2009, http://www.bi.ulaval.ca/Globalisation-Universities/pages/actes/Craig-Swenson.pdf
Williamson, Elizabeth, Brain Immaturity Could Explain Teen Crash Rate, Washington Post,
February 1, 2005, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A526872005Jan31.html

Tim Rymel 2009