Boidhre wrote:I came across a line about chess once, "the strength of the average club player is inversely proportional to the size of their chess library." Not a criticism of chess books but more how we misuse them (either wrong books or not studying them properly and just skimming).
Boidhre wrote:I came across a line about chess once, "the strength of the average club player is inversely proportional to the size of their chess library." Not a criticism of chess books but more how we misuse them (either wrong books or not studying them properly and just skimming).
Shako wrote:Learning constantly with a stronger player who regularly took the time to analyse the game is a fantastic setup (for you!).
BTW, it is also the custom to review hands among tournament bridge players.Shako wrote:Does Go see the same difference between how quickly and easily young players improve compared to older learners? (I imagine so).
Another quote from the same book {by Rowson?} offers an explanation for this..." Paradoxically, the problem seems to be while junior players tend to put what they learn into practice without any real conscious intent, and thereby improve steadily, adult players strain in an effort to understand what they are learning, and this leads to all sorts of problems because rather than gaining in tactile skill, this skill is adulterated by our attempts to formalize it into knowledge".
Bill Spight wrote:Shako wrote:Does Go see the same difference between how quickly and easily young players improve compared to older learners? (I imagine so).
Another quote from the same book {by Rowson?} offers an explanation for this..." Paradoxically, the problem seems to be while junior players tend to put what they learn into practice without any real conscious intent, and thereby improve steadily, adult players strain in an effort to understand what they are learning, and this leads to all sorts of problems because rather than gaining in tactile skill, this skill is adulterated by our attempts to formalize it into knowledge".
Rowson makes the mistake of observing that youngsters learn differently -- and better -- than older players and concluding that the older players should learn like younger players do. But there is an obvious question about that. The older players were young once, and know how to learn like they used to. Why don't they do that?
The short answer is that their brains are different. Older brains are more defined, more structured. They are literally sculpted from their younger, unsculpted form. Building a new structure in a young brain is relatively easy. Doing so does not clash with established structures. If older brains could learn in the same way as younger brains, they would.
I do not mean that nothing can be gained from earlier modes of learning. For instance, when learning Japanese, I realized that one of the functions of language is the organization of experience, and I often spoke to myself in Japanese about what was happening (when I could do so without attracting attention). Later I found out that children go through a phase of talking to themselves.
My point is this. If adults try to understand what they are learning -- and let me fill in the blanks, by associating what they are currently learning with previous learnings -- it is because that is how they learn best. Instead of saying that they should learn like they did when they had less well formed brains, we should tailor our instruction to how adults learn. If they want to understand, help them to do so.
Shako wrote:Bill Spight wrote:Shako wrote:Does Go see the same difference between how quickly and easily young players improve compared to older learners? (I imagine so).
Another quote from the same book {by Rowson?} offers an explanation for this..." Paradoxically, the problem seems to be while junior players tend to put what they learn into practice without any real conscious intent, and thereby improve steadily, adult players strain in an effort to understand what they are learning, and this leads to all sorts of problems because rather than gaining in tactile skill, this skill is adulterated by our attempts to formalize it into knowledge".
Rowson makes the mistake of observing that youngsters learn differently -- and better -- than older players and concluding that the older players should learn like younger players do. But there is an obvious question about that. The older players were young once, and know how to learn like they used to. Why don't they do that?
The short answer is that their brains are different. Older brains are more defined, more structured. They are literally sculpted from their younger, unsculpted form. Building a new structure in a young brain is relatively easy. Doing so does not clash with established structures. If older brains could learn in the same way as younger brains, they would.
I do not mean that nothing can be gained from earlier modes of learning. For instance, when learning Japanese, I realized that one of the functions of language is the organization of experience, and I often spoke to myself in Japanese about what was happening (when I could do so without attracting attention). Later I found out that children go through a phase of talking to themselves.
My point is this. If adults try to understand what they are learning -- and let me fill in the blanks, by associating what they are currently learning with previous learnings -- it is because that is how they learn best. Instead of saying that they should learn like they did when they had less well formed brains, we should tailor our instruction to how adults learn. If they want to understand, help them to do so.
I completely agree
I see this all the time in language learning. Adults want to 'learn grammar and vocabulary' rather than borrowing structures from the target language and applying them (then correcting any inaccuracies). Children learn to speak a language without any formal grammar, and I strongly believe that adults can as well AS LONG AS they learn the same way as children (borrowing, testing, copying, MASSIVE repetition).
Nor have I observed children learning by massive repetition, unless they are forced to do so. She didn't study books. What she did was to communicate with people. The analogy in go is to play the game. But we do not have to follow that example, either. Shako wrote:Children learn to speak a language without any formal grammar, and I strongly believe that adults can as well AS LONG AS they learn the same way as children (borrowing, testing, copying, MASSIVE repetition). Not as fast certainly, but that is a clear way to make progress...and it turns out that means practicing the skills of the language (comprehension and expression rather than just the knowledge ('grammar and vocab')).
Boidhre wrote:Shako wrote:Children learn to speak a language without any formal grammar, and I strongly believe that adults can as well AS LONG AS they learn the same way as children (borrowing, testing, copying, MASSIVE repetition). Not as fast certainly, but that is a clear way to make progress...and it turns out that means practicing the skills of the language (comprehension and expression rather than just the knowledge ('grammar and vocab')).
It's not repetition though, it's heavy exposure to the language in their environment. Very different things, for them language learning has a context that most adult learners can never have due to circumstance. Go analogy, it might be possible to be dan level strength without playing a game with access to enough study materials but it would take many times longer than playing and studying. They also do have a grammar, and can identify grammatical mistakes from rather early on. It's not a formal grammar but they'll can correct formal grammatical mistakes from a context they're familiar with (i.e. everyday language) so it's essentially the same thing after you cut out the parts that aren't relative to their speech. Adults need the grammar book because they lack the raw exposure to the language to be able to infer mistakes. The analogy to go is doing tsumego or replaying pro games when you can't play suitable opponents. You're drawing a distinction between native learners and adult second language learners. These are two very dissimilar groups. It's a bit like talking about adult go hobbyists and students in a Chinese go school. Different worlds.
Bill Spight wrote:
It doesn't seem that way to me. I haven't read Rowson, but from your excerpts it seems like he is more interested in getting learners to adapt to his pedagogy rather than adapting his pedagogy to the learners.
)Bill Spight wrote: I haven't taught language for a long time. However, I have not met many adults who wanted to learn grammar.
) are often determined to attach strong (and often simple) labels to things which are inherently complex, and I think kids DO get heavy repetition, I'd even go as far as to say it's an inbuilt advantage that children have...they have a kind of fascination for repetition. How often do adults watch the same film every day of the holidays like my kids did with Avatar last holidays?! (Adult material DOES NOT COUNT thank you very much!). Young children want the same story every night, sing songs 50 times in a ro etc etcBill Spight wrote: The best adult learner of languages that I have met was the wife of a state department officer. Give her two weeks in a new country and she could go shopping on her own.
Bill Spight wrote: It seems to me that the main difference between me and Rowson (and maybe you) is the difference between student oriented and subject oriented pedagogy. When Rowson talks about skill being "adulterated by our attempts to formalize it into knowledge" I think that he is resisting the adaptation of the subject matter to suit adult students. Not that it is an easy task. Especially if that is not how you learned the subject.
Bill Spight wrote: Language pedagogy shows the pitfalls of the formal approach. To paraphrase the great linguist, Otto Jespersen, if a student of English says, "Please pass the salt," he gets praise from the teacher, while if an English child says, "Please pass the salt", he gets the salt.
Shako wrote:Oh this is going to get complicated...I'll answer this one first because I have to figure out how to cut up quoted posts before I respond to Bill Spight
Boidre, strange as it seems, I think we're mostly saying the same thing. When I said 'massive repetition' I didn't just mean that THEY repeated things...I meant that they were exposed to things repeatedly (can't squeeze 'massively' into that sentence..sorry
Yes, children have a 'working grammar' of their native language (they know when things sound wrong)....without being able to quote a 'rule', often just correcting the mistake. They (we) just know when something's right....because it sounds right. Personally I would LOVE to be able to apply a system like this to Go (or chess) " This move seems good!" , "Why?" "Because I just know it's good!"
I've been a language trainer for the last 21 years, and I honestly believe that the major difference between native speakers and adult second language learners stems from the way adults tackle a language including (and perhaps especially!) all the props involved (artificial methods that short-circuit the natural way people learn languages). Not sure how this really applies to Go in fact, but something I absolutely believe in my daily professsional life.
tentano wrote:I think this is the biggest barrier to language learning in adults. You sound like a moron with a severe speech impediment at first. You need humility and the patience to endure being unable to say everything you want. There is a long period of poor ability, where you can't assert yourself as much and most of the things people say fly right past you.
I don't know about you, but I have the irrational feeling that whatever problem shows up in my life, the answer has to be in a book somewhere, and it's just a matter of finding which one. Having books makes me feel better even when I don't open themAnother thing which really blows my mind, is that I somehow still want more tsumego books, despite having enough to last me at least a year.
Shako wrote:Oh adults don't always SAY that they want grammar...but they (we!
and I think kids DO get heavy repetition, I'd even go as far as to say it's an inbuilt advantage that children have...they have a kind of fascination for repetition. How often do adults watch the same film every day of the holidays like my kids did with Avatar last holidays?!
(Adult material DOES NOT COUNT thank you very much!).
