Leren kan je niet meten How to measure learning? #etmooc

evelienMijn kleinkind Evelien ( 2 maandenoud) heeft een nieuwe baby gym,  Ik haalde hem uit de verpakking zette het ding in de box en na drie seconden was ze er helemaal gek mee. Ze gaat er druk mee aan de gang. Slaan en vastpakken, het rinkelt en piept.
Heeft ze iets geleerd in die eerste paar minuten van de kennisnmaking?
Ja, ze heeft geleerd, maar wat? en Hoeveel?
Leren is geen deterministische activiteit, [Cormier]  het is geen oorzaak en gevolg proces. Wat Evelien geleerd heeft kan heel iets anders zijn dan wat die andere baby leert van haar baby gym.
Je kunt van Evelien niet zeggen hoeveel ze heeft geleerd. Je kunt achteraf (na jaren misschien) wel met haar praten over haar leren.
Maar de vraag is, weet je altijd precies wat en hoeveel je geleerd hebt? Kun je dat weten?

My (2 months old) grandchild Evelien has a new baby gym, I gave her the thing, and after three seconds she was totally crazy with it. Hitting and grabbing the rings and beeps. Has she learned anything in those first few minutes? Yes, she has learned things, but what? and How? Learning is not a deterministic activity [Cormier] it is not a cause and effect process. What Evelien has learned, can be very different from what the other baby learns with the same baby gym. You can not tell how much they have learned. You could talk to her about her learning when is has learned to talk. But the question is, can you know exactly what and how much you have learned? Can you tell?

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Leren kan je niet meten How to measure learning? #etmooc

  1. So much of what we learn seems to be stored away to appear unexpectedly. Some things don’t even “exist” except as supports or accompaniments. Maybe they don’t have a use or function beyond the few moments of their existence. Evelien may eventually have many, many understandings of the toy you gave her. Some remembered and some forgotten–real at the time and then replaced all or in part as the context changes. At work we are trying to train mechanics to figure things out and reason beyond the first “recognition” of a solution. What they know from learning and experience feeds a process that each will construct in their own unique way. I think we are asking them to imagine things and how will we know they learned from what was presented if they created a solution from some unknown place in their mind?

    I suppose we could take a thought assembly apart (like a transmission) into as many pieces as could be found to have a source that can be confirmed and then look at the rest as connections. But what would we have? To my mind, connections appear as needed to keep things making sense and don’t necessarily exist beyond the moment of their need and may never repeat. Like energy flowing through a transmission? And if they don’t repeat or somehow “stick”, how can they be called “learned”? I think Dave Cormier is right in a sort of Zen way that’s hard to explain. Perhaps Evelien knows?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s