Mark

My belief is that you can not truly measure learning until long after a learner has left the institution.  Learning is a cumulative measure and as such I'm going to further elaborate on your questions and say

Its an exciting question to ask...but boy is it complex..:-)

Mark

My belief is that you can not truly measure learning until long after a learner has left the institution.  Learning is a cumulative measure and as such I'm going to further elaborate on your questions and say

Its an exciting question to ask...but boy is it complex..:-)

Hello Camille and Mark!

I agree, the question being complex.  Since I at the moment wonder my own choise of perspective for my research in graduation thesis area I would like to share my thoughts in the issue.  When student- success is reduced to a question available to research it becomes even more tricky unless, the perspectives suggested by Camille are outlined clearly according to reasonable research norms. If I understand the hypothesis of Hatties-  is running in the area of student-performance. It would be even connected to the 10.000-hour theory of repetition. In my view, You only change the word success to performance and there it is. Performance is then a conception connected to common used quality indicators for HE. Unfortunately I haven´t any idea on metrix suitable in this case but the following "backward"- perspectives would perhaps be some help in outlining a reserach area. In researching:   

1.  Student-approaches and attitudes, leaves out the teaching dimension

2.  Tutoring, coaching and teaching, leaves out the Learning dimension

3.  Formal Construction and language aspects in written student-works leaves out dimensions of both teaching and Learning.  

Like others, I think this is too broad a question. it depends on the learning task, how much is known before the target instruction, and the child's motivation to learn. 

Hi Jyotsna and others.

Jyotsna, I was working on the division of knowledge into factual, procedural and conceptual (I accidentally used content but meant factual). I agree with your general statement however, as I would distinguish conceptual from the other 2 as deeper learning. I tend to concentrate on conceptual learning in my science teaching.

The issue of measurement is a problem for me at the moment. I have an inherent problem with measurement of learning because I think what we do misses so much that is worthwhile and worse, by missing some forms of learning causes some students to be categorised as  'failures', with long term negative consequences. Hattie's suggestion to determine a 'year's worth of learning for each student' sounds at face value to be a good idea, but he doesn't give any suggestion what it means. 

Knowing that it's not really an answer: 1800 hours.

To that rather simple answer arises a new question:

What means 1 hour of learning?

Hello Mark,

I also agree with many here on the complexity and difficulty to measure certain things. I can answer you from the point of view of what we are doing here in Belo Horizonte (BH), but maybe that's too simple for you l0l.

Here in BH we do not try to measure the knowledge or learning (because it is so difficult, complex and incomplete as many have said) but the students realize do with what we consider important that they know.

In other words, it measures only the skills / competencies that they have and then deduce that they have or not a particular knowledge.

But this model does not contemplate the issues raised by our colleagues and Ani Camille nor those places when you replied to Jyotsna.

In our context for our needs and it helped us a lot and has been very helpful, but it might be an amateur for your needs.

So for us, the value of a year has been measured in terms of what skills / competencies we believe that students should have that year and our proficiency measure expresses this from interpreting a range of skills and competencies for each year (9th year of our elementary school, for example).

Thus the measure tells us what skills / competencies it has and what he should have. Then we compared the students that way. What they do and realize what they should do to realize that year of the course (our assessment measures the skills / reading skills and interpretation in portuguese language and calculus and troubleshooting only).

I think our needs are even more primary than yours.

We may have to accept that at least for now (maybe in a while from technological resources involving electronic games, reading mental / brain field, whatever l0l, we can) some kinds of knowledge (creative and conceptual knowledge eg.) Not are as yet measurable.

I will follow this discussion that is very relevant and may reveal surprises.

From the description I made of our model here in BH I leave you a question. Is it possible to describe conceptual knowledge in terms of skills / competencies? If it may be possible to invest in uncreation these skills and on a scale that can measure these skills and by deduction (latent traits?) generate a measure or a description of the students according to what we expect of them and what they are actually putting on one given year.

A hug to everyone,

S.

salaam:

here are some questions for you to consider.  may you find them relevant and helpful.

1} how do you quantify the "amount' of learning ?

2} what are the short term, mid term, and long term, success results for each child?

3} what constitutes success?

4) how well do the skills/competencies of a given student compliment each other?

5) how well does a given student adapt to life challenges latter in life?

6) what skills/competencies are found to be lacking in recent graduates, and how can that guide curriculum design.

·  As was mentioned by Prof.     Martina Gaisch    "In Bologna terms,. When taking account of recent concepts such as Life-Long Learning (LLL)"  I would like to inform all interested specialists regarding  available at present  FREE of CHARGE online educational platform - you can find here-WWW.TEST.AECP.AM not only MCQ tests   in English , but also Videopresentationes and e-Textbook

I think the problem is centered on the wrong target. We should not be asking HOW much - but, what can the student do after the year that they could not do before. What is it we want them to be able to do? Asking how much focuses on declarative knowledge - the type of knowledge which everyone has at their finger tips now thanks to the Internet. If we focus on what we want them to be able to do - it opens up pedagogies, assessments and application of learning  in real world contexts. All too often today schools focus on quantity - with little regard for relevance.  Literature has shown that when someone understands WHY something is important to know, it becomes much easier to teach because they have context and can conditionalize what they are learning. If we start by what kids need to be able to DO when they reach the end of an academic year it will also help us to be able to individualize instruction to help them get there... my two cents anyways.

Nice response Kimberly. I think that nails it quite well. I think the problem now is the issue that administrators want to evaluate teachers or at least have teachers evaluate themselves for the ske of improvement which is more positive. To do that they need measurables. My fear is that people still do not understand that by creating measurables, you position those who use them to believe that that is what is valued.

Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.  By reducing learning to a measurable thing, it simplifies a complex process. While i can see the reason this is done, I have concerns that the measure may in some instances become more imprtant, more of a focus, than the learning. 

I am agree with all the panel member's view but especially Rochel, Jyotsna, and Kimberly.

Let me give a provocative answer: when the student leaves his poor country after five years of studies because he doesn't find a job - a reality in many African states - the worth of one year learning can be easily reach -60 or -100k  if you include the damage for the country by not getting a doctor, entrepreneur, engineer or administrator. The loss of Human Capital causes external costs that can be higher than the costs for the education itself.

In opposite in rich countries the worth of a year learning can easily reach 500k over the lifetime.

In both cases the annual worth has to be calculated by the earnings and the common value over the lifetime. So the metric is win or loss per year of professional occupation and pension fees divided by the years of higher professional education.

There's a good study on the worth of professions for society called "A bit rich". I include the link. Guess the tax advisor and the damage he causes.

http://commons.ch/wp-content/uploads/A_Bit_Rich.pdf

in language learning we do not count in years, semestres, months etc, but in hours. The Council of Europe has split the continuum of communicative competence into 6 levels, adopted in most countries by now, and for each level there is a threshold level of study hours for average students to get to A1, A2, B1, etc

Thanks Steve. That aphorism is succinct and accurate and your concern mirrors miine.

Interesting Paolo. I must look at it.

Indeed Alexander. That is another measure that never occurred to me. Doesn't help me in my concerns though.

While I agree with many comments above there is another possible answer. One year of schooling is roughly equivalent to 40 points at PISA scale. I even found the following statement on Australia on the Web: "At Year 5, one year of learning is equivalent to approximately 40 points on the NAPLAN scale and at Year 9 one year of learning is equivalent to about 20 points."

Thank for that Dominik. That is interesting. I wonder how that figure was determined? Was it observed, estimated or hypothetical?

In PISA, the 15 years old with different record of previous learning are compared. So both within and between the nations, you compare kids that spent 7, 8, 9 or maybe even 10 years in school. I am not sure but I guess you could compare their average scores and look for the difference that can be attributed to the time spent in school?

I agree with those respondents who reminded us that the focus should be on learning outcomes (what the student can do at the end of the year) rather than on inputs. But if you want to try to quantify learning in terms of hours, look at the European approach. 48 European countries involved in the Bologna Process (Reform of Higher Education) have agreed to use the ECTS (European Credit and Transfer System. It is based on a student earning 60 credits for 1 year of full-time study. Each credit is awarded for approx 25 (some variation between countries) hours of learning (hours of learning include attending lectures, laboratory work, library study, homework, etc.). So you could equate 1 year with 1500 hours of learning. 

I believe that you can quantify 'Teaching' for each students within a span of one year but it is not possible to do the same for 'learning'.  Majority of modern schools, when they talk about a year of learning (syllabus, yearly plans etc.) actually imply the teaching part of the teaching-learning process. Learning will always be different for different students due to individual differences.

Teachers, at best, can make an educated guess for a child's one year learning if they know the child for significant amount of time beforehand. A teacher having new cohorts would not be able to do so.

Noman, While I agree wholeheartedly with your response about knowing the student and teaching vs learning, it still beggs the question of how to quantify learning. Is it number of facts, demonstarted skills, position along a scale of cognitive growth or some combination.

Dear Mark,

Its a tricky question indeed. As much as we want to quantify one year of learning, we need to first ask why do we need to quantify learning into academic years in the first place. Going back to history, learning through academic years was the creation of industrial revolution which was geared towards steady and regulated supply to the industries. Students were admitted in the courses according to the expected future demands of the industry and yearly 'graduation' was the means to ensure that there is no over-supply or under-supply. The overall learning expectations were neatly divided into yearly teaching contents which formed the present standard-based education. The present day education follows the same pattern not because yearly-learning-standards-based  education is the best but because there still isn't a better alternative.

Ideally students should be educated based upon their own aptitude, interest, pace and ability and formal education should continue until the child meets the expected standards that he or she should master before joining the workforce, irrespective of number of years and semesters. Learning should take place in terms of time-independent modules wherein a child masters one set of skills before moving on to the next until he learns whatever he was supposed to learn to 'graduate', if I can borrow the term. In the pre-industrial revolution times, this is how formal learning took place. Socrates did not have school years; neither did he have quantifiable learning outcomes beforehand. Sages of the yore too didn't have yearly learning outcomes!

However, it is easier said than done and not practical in the modern setup. I haven't still answered your question because I believe that there isn't any; at least not the one that is definitive and universal. Educated guesses abound.

Mark, I believe there are two distinct groups of scholars within the educational community. One group thinks learning can and should be measured. The other group believes what is important about true learning/education cannot be expressed in quantitative terms. If you invite members of both groups to discussion about your question, you will just learn there is a quasi eternal division in academic comunity. The people "who measure" tend to focus on technical (subject specific or statistical issues) within their paradigm.  The other group will probably use quite different discourse. 

I agree with Frank Mcmahon in that 1500 hours a year of learning is about right. What I feel is additional is the reflective time required to assimilate this learning. I would put that at another 1000 hours per year for the significance to be developed in frames of clnical reasoning and critical thinking. Outcomes are assessed by on-going assessment, enabling guidance input if a student starts to fall off. One or two major assessments per year is out of date, but we all still know the exigencies of "having to pass an exam".

I have found that a very useful study, in terms of evaluating the number of years of school learning for any study reporting effect sizes, is Bloom, H., Hill, C., Rebeck Black, A., & Lipsey, M. (2008). Performance trajectories and performance gaps as achievement effect-size benchmarks for educational interventions. Journal of Research on Educational Efffectiveness, 1, 289–328.

Hello Mark,

The question of Nomam makes total sense. Because we need to measure learning? The answer that makes sense to me is: to know if they are achieving what we expect of them at a certain level of education. In another post the Nomam also says, always learn will be different for each student. You are absolutely right. However we hope that students are certain things according to their level of education.

For me this is where the (quantitative) makes sense. Monitor, follow the development of the students are coming to see where they are expected to arrive and help teachers / schools to think about strategies that make students to get where we expect.

I do not think it comes to assessing all, as many think. Nor to assess the learning (in its most complex sense) as others think.

May be it only to evaluate what we need to know about the students and their development.

I think that confusion explains a bit of a struggle that the colleague Dominik noted, plus a whole series of negative experiences with evaluation around the world, as we have previously discussed here.

Perhaps only the evaluation has not been used for more fair grounds.

The discussion of the evaluation of the reasons can be a good start to help find a good evaluation model. Often these reasons are not well placed causing confusion and wrong uses for the results. In my opinion this has been a major assessment problems.

A year worth of learning what it should be. I think the better question might be: a year of learning was what should have been? Evaluation can help us here.

The right evaluation, for the right reasons could help end the eternal discussion that Dominik spoke.

A fraternal embrace,

S.

There seems to me to be three assumptions behind Hattie's suggestion, that may be questionable  - I have not read him directly, so I am basing this on Mark's note, this discussion and what i have picked up about his ideas elsewhere, and so may be off the point. However, I hope these observations make some contribution.

1) That the curriculum and its teaching can be individually tailored to each student, so that they go through it at its own pace. Only if sufficient differentiation was in place would this be possible and, although teachers may work hard at differentiation, I doubt that this level of perfection could be reached. That is, at least, in the world of high stake assessments at fixed points in the progression through schooling that most countries seem to operate. We would need to abandon that for something else. That may be (In my blue sky moments would be) desirable, but what would that replacement be to make Hattie's suggestion work? 

2)That learning is always a linear progression of some sort, rather than one of qualitative shifts in understanding and or emergence of new skills or processes through reaching a 'tipping point' in which a number of sub-processes or skills are practised sufficiently to come together in a sum that is greater than the parts - for example, forms of disciplinary thinking. We can monitor progress/ qualitative shifts in understanding/ emergence of new skills or ways of thinking, but can we set a timetable in advance? Perhaps in some cases, such as language as suggested above, but in all areas?

3) That as students progress through the year, teachers are not creative enough to see new opportunities that emerge as the students learn, thus creating the possibility of taking them further than predicted. New learnings/ understandings/ skills/ ways of thinking open up new possibilities  for teaching that were not there before. In other words, setting targets too far in the future might be limiting rather than enhancing of learning. 

The one thing I may be able to add to your post Colin is that to do what is suggested, positions me to focus on low level learning, which I think is contained in your point 2. I am uncomfortable with a focus on low level learning, but if Hattie's suggestion is taken too literally by administrators, I could be forced that direction.

I like your 3rd point. Generally teachers are creative about those opportunities you mention IF they are given freedom to do so. The more pressure they feel, the worse they become in this arena.

Hello you all panellists!

All  Your points and views are interesting to read. I tend to agree with Dominik that the research society have  two epistemologic paradigm stands to choose between. How about combining them in mixed-methods design? In order to capture both rote and Deep Learning, we of course need to relate and adopt proper measures for the subject that is the particular  object of Learning. This would be the qualitative perspective. It appears to me that the qualitative perspective would be enabled by measuring performance, throughput or else. In this way, it would be theoretically possible to evaluate the ECTS-system. Perhaps it is already done by some researcher, NGO or GO in Europé or elsewhere? Grateful for any information, articles or links.

Yes Mark, I have inserted the word 'always' into 2, in response to your comment.  Some learning might be linear and rote (as Ani suggests) 

There is always a danger in well intentioned suggestions (which I assume Hattie's is, even if we do not see clearly how to implement it or have reservations about its effects on the sort of learning it encourages us to focus upon) that administrators take things in too narrow a way and (as you point out) restrict the freedom of teachers to actually respond to opportunities to support further learning by their students.

Ani, your suggestion might help to evaluate learning that has occurred/is occurring (certainly, there seems no need to adopt one paradigm at the exclusion of the other), but I can't see how it helps Mark's problem in responding to Hattie's suggestion to determine what learning he can expect for each student in one year and to make that expectation his benchmark for each of them. Or am I missing something?

On further reflection, I think also that this suggestion is leading us into the trap of seeing learning in individual terms - as solely an individual activity. Anyone who has tried various forms of group work and inquiry methods will, no doubt, have been surprised on occasion (when it goes well) at how advanced the learning has been and that students show reasoning, and other, abilities that they do not show in individual learning activities. How do we predict these effects?

Thank You for Your response Colin. I agree to the problems of perspective that You kindly point out, You certainly have not missed anything from reasonings of mine.

Back to the question of Marks´, I guess there exist differences between the levels of education concerning how to assess development in Learning. I also Think some kind of self-evaluation would be a necessary tool in the efforts. In this way, development or performance will become visible and agreeable to the student. She or he would then be able to include or exclude aspects that have not been valid to the particular student. I guess there are lots of instruments that already does that.   

It is an interesting question. How can we measure it? How much is enough? or, too much? Does personal content count?

Learning is an ongoing phenomena, we never stop

I think you are right Ani that self-evaluation by the students could be part of the process of agreeing what they will aim for in the coming year. it would need to involve agreed assessment of where they are at the moment and what is realistic to achieve.At the end of the year, they can compare what they hoped for with what they achieved. 

However, I think Mark's worry that one will focus on  lower learning objectives still applies as these are the ones that  can be clearly formulated and easily 'ticked off' as achieved. Objectives in terms of understanding sound easy to state. For example,

"At the end of the year, I will understand the theory of biological evolution by natural selection.".  However, to change Maritha's contribution slightly. understanding is an ongoing phenomena, we never stop."

This kind of questions are in the line of philosophical inquiring. Philosophy use this questions whose answers have not been able to develop. Who I am? What is man? in that sense we can cladificar your question. For the econometricians would love to have this data to submit to the whims educational process

Thank you Miguel. When we talk about assessment there are objective goals and subjective self feelings. It is difficult to avoid all biases.

 Thank you all for responding. While I like and agree with many of your comments, I find I am none the wiser, and I did not expect to be. It seems to me that defining 1 year's worth of learning is impossible until we define what learning is, and that is a whole other question.

I think that might be Miguel's point Mark. I suspect also that if you ask the question, "What is learning?" the result will be similar. There are some concepts that we think we know what they mean (they seem almost common sense) until we try to define them. There are definitions of learning around - usually involving some sort of personal change in thinking, knowledge and skills- but not one that seems to be universally adopted. Why some concepts - e.g. 'life' for biologists, 'learning' for educationists  - are so difficult to agree definitions for, is another interesting question that arises here. it is also interesting, however, that Biology makes great process without an agreed definition of a fundamental concept like life. Education seems to stutter along in comparison.

For me the lack of clarity leads to off the cuff statements like Hattie's being used as gospel by politicians and bureacrats and administrators in schools, with good intent admittedly, resulting in unforeseen outcomes. One such is the limiting of learning to 'that which can be quantified' whcih I fear will result in a move back to the privileging of factual knowlege over conceptual.

Dear Mark! In any case you brought up a real interesting question with many answers.

I would summarize two groups of colleagues answering here:

1) Folks to reclaiming the cultural and spiritual value of education to enrich society and to contribute to the self-fulfillment of the individual. 

2) Folks to regarding education as an Investment of society as well as of the individual, both in need of controlling and evaluation by return on Investment.

This is Kant vs. Smith. Philosophy vs. Economics. U.S. vs. Europe.

Alexander: would you elaborate on your last comment US vs Europe?

@Linda:In Scandinavia, Germany, Austria and Switzerland neither colleges nor universities charge a tuition. So enjoying education depends less on the income. And of course people study issues beyond the longing for prestige and income.

The result is a less competetive society providing more justice and peace.

So the excessive influence of a corporate model on formal education - both in policy and practice with an eye toward "reform" -  that we're experiencing in the US (preK-20) is not an issue in Scandinavia, Germany, Austria and Switzerland? What about other EU countries?

What reform do you mean?

Alexander, while we await Linda's answer, I think that your point 2 can be divided into two (not because of the discussion - it may well fit what has been said, but because it provokes further thought).

I am not against evaluation (and return on investment), though I hope I am in the point 1 camp, also. It is, to use Linda's word as an adjective, 'excessive' control by politicians using inappropriate models of evaluation derived from industry and I think  a too ready acceptance that we can do things like predict and measure a years worth of learning for each student that are the problems. I take the general direction of this thread to be concluding that that is a mirage.

So, to restate your points as principles and to expand point 2

1) Education can be built on cultural and spiritual values that enrich society and contribute to individual self-fulfilment. 

2) Through investing in an education that has cultural and spiritual value and contributes to the self-fulfilment of the individual, (democratic?) society reaps a return in this investment through having a greater proportion of its citizens contributing to the processes that help that society to develop economic and social institutions that work more harmoniously together for the welfare and well-being of its citizens. Evaluation methods will have to be developed to monitor and facilitate this process

3) There will be those in society who see education as a process of control (both of teachers and students) and investment in it in purely monetary terms (achieving value for money). In practice, this takes attention away from understandings, ways of thinking and conceptual knowledge, and encourages a focus on the more easily measured statements of facts by students.

I suppose 1 and 2 is philosophical position in  your terms Alexander, and 3 an economic position. At any rate, i am aware that it does not take us much further, as  it is also full of terms that would need some sort of agreed meanings. Even in 3. What would be meant by 'value for money', for example? I use this phrase, because a banker friend once used it when discussing the introduction of quality indicators into Scottish education- "We need to know that we are getting value for money."

It might be time to remind ourselves of Camille's words from her deservedly popular contribution.

Camille says:

"My belief is that you can not truly measure learning until long after a learner has left the institution.  Learning is a cumulative measure and as such I'm going to further elaborate on your questions and say

What are we measuring - just what occurs in a classroom or the entire experience?

Furthermore, when we say the entire experience are we discounting self-directed learning opportunities ?

What about informal learning activities that occur in the same classroom space?

Its an exciting question to ask...but boy is it complex..:-)"

Perhaps, until we accept the complexity of education, and therefore the difficulty in being certain that our evaluations really help, we might not make much genuine progress. 

Each year of study can be expensive if you take into account the importance of education for the future of the student. Take, for example, a cartoonist in Paris, who has not acquired the skills of compassion and love for suffering people. This cartoonist lost human quality for profit at any cost caricatures. In fact, he sold his soul to the Devil like Dorian Gray. So, very dear to every moment of learning for the future. Very dear...

Vladimir, are you talking about the Charlie Hebdo affair? If so, that was a complex social issue that cannot be discussed in simple terms. However your point about compassion is pertinent. As a very long time teacher, I worry that one of the outcomes of the changes taking place, because I see them occurring already, is the loss of pleasure in learning for the sake of utility in learning, the financial and social gain of learning taking precedence. I worry that as a result students see their interactions with others more in terms of transactions rather than interactions with a loss of humanity.

I think Vladimir talks on the French journal Charlie Hebdo. I don't think that the cartoonists there only did it for money. They are part of a widespread intellectual libetarian and cynical tradition in France since Voltaire yet.

It's a quite political statement and it shows the borders between an ethical-Christian-socialist compassion (Vladimir) and modern cynism.

But the word "cynical" roots from the "Cynicsts" in the antique Greece. The Cynicists pleaded for a simple life.

"By the 19th century, emphasis on the negative aspects of cynic philosophy led to the modern understanding of cynicism to mean a disposition of disbelief in the sincerity or goodness of human motives and actions."

In my opinion cartoonists and writers are allowed to have this disbelief, but not politicans and entrepreneurs.

So, to try to relate this to the question, We want education to be based on an 'ethical-christian socialist compassion' and not an 'intellectual  libertarian and cynical' tradition." And suggestions, such as Hattie's, along the lines of setting easily measurable targets unwittingly favour the latter. It is manipulative,, in that it does not trust the teacher to do the best for the student at the time (be educationally ethical) and to go in directions that emerge as the student learns in both the classroom and wider context (see Camille's point) and it does not trust he student to take some self-direction in their learning when given the opportunity. it, also, as Mark has suggested throughout, lowers the bar of learning.

Mark your question strikes at the heart of the neo-liberal, market-driven, commodification of education that is sweeping the world at the moment. When knowledge and skills are treated as 'objects' (commodities) this brings with it a discourse of standards, measurement (which usually means the standards have to be universal if they are to be universally applied), which leads to targets and a society that is in danger of only valuing what can be measured. Criteria / standards again which individuals and groups are then tested / measured can only ever be a blunt instrument because they are either based on previous tests which enable identification of average / mean (my maths is shaky here!) for a particular year group. But of course the test that created the average was a social construction based on assumptions about what pupils can achieve / should know and be able to do - very often drawing on work of researchers such as Piaget (stages / phases) and Bloom (his taxonomy of cognitive domain).  In other words, this is a minefield and one I am struggling with in my own context (UK University where metrics rule for both teaching and research). My own approach is to be aware of metrics and their criteria (but these are always someone else's idea of what success looks like), to plan and do what I believe is ethical and appropriate in terms of my teaching and research, and then to map against the criteria in retrospect. It is one way of trying to stick to my participatory, collaborative, relational, enquiry-based philosophy while not compromising my job by not being cognisant of the need to meet targets.

In any case education should be a public and not a private good. The fashions in education change almost annual. Today "gender" and "climate change" are obligatory. Before it was "democracy", "history", "freedom" and "sexuality".

Teachers always did their best in all these changing issues. If you don't have to pay for the education you don't have to estimate and justify it's value.

Education should be a common good such as security and health.

 Thank you Fran and Alexander. I can but agree with your sentiments. Like Fran, to maintain my sanity, I need to do what I can to prevent the thoughtless transition to what I regard as unethical, inequitable and ill considered systemic changes.

Probably most people would agree. Each time training is important for the future of the student.

Returning back to original question. Because education is so important for the future of young people, it should be measured as exactly as possible. As literacy and numeracy are the true foundation of most education, it is not impossible to measure the (pre-requisites / antecendents of) education. Ideological talk does not help students. Measurement of educational achievemenet does.

Two things occur to me Dominik.

1, The idea that exact measurement is necessary because education is iportnt is not a given. Measurement of some kind is needed - to help design the next piece of learning and at some point to indicate future potentil (but not too early)

2. You have described measurement of WHAT has been learned. It still seems imossible to say HOW MUCH learning is a correct amount for any one student.

This is a great conversation, I have enjoyed reading and contemplating and learning, thanks Mark and all those who have responded.  Can I just comment, slightly off topic, to say there is an emerging, or shall I say embryonic, yet global, move to recognise rather than reduce the complexities of learning. I for one am very happy with this growing movement and I believe it has to have started with the thoughts and comments and research referenced in threads like this.  Keep contributing, commenting and critiquing. Its not just me who is learning.

Steve 

Steve - I am aware of that and am putting it into practice as a result of my involvement in a research project for which I am a partner, 'Ethical Internationalism in Higher Education". Although the research itself is not specifically about practice, it provides a really helpful set of tools/lenses for bring both clarity and complexity to the ways in which ideologies influence policies and practices. Despite what has been said in some comments, ideology affects everything we do whether we are aware of it or not.

http://eihe.blogspot.co.uk

Honestly, my last post was a little test. I expressed a strong oppinion. And quickly, it was anonymously marked as a "poor content". During the history of education, paradigms always competed. The very danger for education is that we will mark one of them as "the right one" and the other as "poor" or "ethically inferior" or so.

 Dominik, There is a whole interesting thread on RG discussing the pros nd cons of downvotes. Not many people use it, preferring to simply consider disagreement as a natural part of the conversation. I had my first downvote on another thread and for the life of me can't figure out what was so remarkble in what I said.

OK. My intention was to insult a bit. So I was ready to accept some injury. I do not care about being loved by everyone here. The real problem would be something else, i.e. too perfect agreement within the community. Without dissent and discussion, the danger of becoming blinded by ideology is too high.

We should indeed be careful about blind agreement, but we should be equally careful about blind disagreement. It is best to raise points of disagreement that we truly feel are of valid or even possible concern without implying that the basic premise is invalid (unless that is what you truly believe of course). My experience in RG so far is that to be appreciated by the community, simply requires honest thoughtfulness, not blind agreement.

OK. I just wonder whether some positions are represented in academia (in the area of social sciences and education) more than others. Anyway, thanks for starting the discussion. DD

I believe the amount of time spend as well as the amount of learning can not be regarded as measures for success in higher education. Therefore, I underscore responses that questions the applicability of what the students have learned - in real or superficial settings. I do believe that, especially in teacher training and accountant training, we do not prepare the students for real life working situations. I struggled to disguise my frustrated this year when students who enrolled for a module in higher education, provided excuses such as I am not involved in higher education when they were required to apply their new knowledge, skills and techniques in using technology to support teaching and learning. How difficult could it be to plan and prepare a lesson for any group of friends, execute it and reflect on the efficiency of their lesson presentations? If they are not prepared to apply the newly acquired knowledge in practice under supervision of a lecturer, they are certainly not equipped to walk into a lecturing post since they will not be confident in using technology in their class rooms as well.

Learning is a process should not be measured by any stick or any time or any such other measurement . Learning is a systematic approach related to the mind is has an sustainable energy force.

We all human beings have certain weaknesses very often during the part with conscious mind & whatever the learning he has to achieve may not make a reasonable result.

One year worth of learning depends on the respective individual who has energy force of mind with the retention, memory ,sharp intelligent achieve remarkable progress.

For every individual memory ,intelligent ,sharpness of the mind are not going to the same as such it is not possible to draw  a line of demarcation of one year -worth learning .

This is my personal Opinion. 

I think that a target of doing better than what the minimum standards are ([Level N+ 1T]- Level N ) would require is the easiest way to function.  

This needs to be the case for all students.  

How you define the expectations will not be as important at focusing daily or weekly on

incremental  growth n+1.

NOTES 

N+1  or n+1 refer to idealized maximum tolerated comprehensible input. 

An allusion Maximum Comprehensible input is  demonstrated by Krashen in this video on language acquisition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K11o19YNvk

Comprehensible input focuses on how its said, not what is said.  This approach to language learning for example, pushed language teachers to think constantly about what is comprehensible input through a lesson, activity, etc. How do we build on this by scaffolding and other means. 

An aside-->Even protons communicate with each other in an n+1 rule.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86iNZaZ0S84

In short, it is a "matter of signalling" that communicates change (and communicates change potential )

In many classes, teachers are focusing on offering a comprehensible input, (n+1), but  what has been determined by the syllabus (or the teacher themselves based upon their educational experience) is often actually either greater than or less than (n+1).

Optimization of teachers expectations and student expectations is the only way to optimize comprehensible input on a daily basis.

The difference between the idealized n+1 and the actual N+1 for each individual student is a gap that any daily planner can improve on in order to see optimal growth in terms of acquisition of anything (including communication signals or experiential acquisition). 

T usually refers to time.

When I indicated that: "a target of doing better than what the minimum standards are ([Level N+ 1T]- Level N )", I meant that I believe or posit that in most corners of the globe, teachers shoot for a very low level of comprehensible input in the classroom and through homework or experience.  I suggest in most cases shooting at a point slightly higher than the standardized target will get you closer to your maximum  comprehensible output.

Again, I explain "Why this is the case" has to do with the what's in our students heads and what is in our (the teachers) heads.  Pressure to enable our students to succeed has often been pushed downward in the testing-geared-society to minimums or functional steps or are abstract features of acquisition.  We need to see that always something is scaffold-ed beyond the level expected so that lifelong learning is promoted and enabled. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1LRoKQzb9U

Input is discussed well in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbyJ8iOtO6I

Kevin, Can you elaborate on your post please?