Measuring learning - and its results - are two different things.
Also registering, to recall a much earlier post, is prior to
measuring. To begin to measure something, where or how it will
register needs to be chosen first.
I don't know where learning appears as learning. Learning itself is
a non-material and, as far as I can see, non-measureable phenomenon -
except after the fact and by inference.
I think Margie's statement is an example of what gets us into trouble
in this area. That is:
>I am increasingly aware that it is not enough to say "I've changed
>{learned something new}" when what I've changed is an attitude,
>belief/opinion or value, but haven't DONE ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY
> or IMPROVED PERFORMANCE. That doesn't qualify as learning in
>my book.
Surely you are mispeaking when you say "That doesn't qualigy as
learning in my book." Aren't you saying that isn't learning THAT
COUNTS in my book? I've never seen or heard a definition of learning
that included only certain content or use or only that which "showed
up" in a particular place.
What is the source of "doing something differently or improved
performance"? It might of course be circumstance, context, or some
external change. If, however, it's from previous learning,
thinking and experience, then surely that is first manifest in
attitude, belief, opinion, value - or probably more importantly
implicit, tacit, unconscious knowledge or competence.
I am inclined towards Marilyn Darling's earlier post which suggests
that the register for learning be the intended results - although I
don't want to make that exclusive especially in the short term. But
there is an important distinction between which register will we
choose for learning and the fact of learning taking place.
I also think that what we are marking by attitude, for instance, can
be important and that there are registers for attitude that are very
effective. An atitude change is subtle and does not DIRECTLY result
in performance or DOING differently. I consider it to manifest in
BEING different - and the doing will come later and may not be
measureable.
What kinds of things are important but not (directly) measureable?
How about being a good team player? There are ways to measure if
this is occurring or improving but a reductionist list of "doings"
will not produce the result. If you tell me the list and I "do"
each one perfectly, I may have learned (ie. how to do) but I may not
be a better team player - and the team may be less effective because
of my "robotic" doing of the list.
Also, in any complex situation, there will be no direct measures of a
reduction sort. There will be indicators. Which indicators you use
depends on your theory and your intentions. You might use specific
results (a la Darling) or you may use behavioural cues or you may use
indicators that are far removed from either in reductionist logic but
which your theory says indicate that the desired capacity is present
and will be called forth as wanted and needed.
I may use a signal of relationship or relaxed and friendly manner as
an indicator that quality is present in an organisation. I may use a
register of expressiveness (ie. facial) to indicate that a way of
being appropriate to teamworking is occurring.
The way to find out if a plant is growing (or a person is learning)
is not to pull it out by the roots and examine it in detail - not
when you understand how growth takes place.
Michael McMaster : Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk
book cafe site : http://www.vision-nest.com/BTBookCafe
Intelligence is the underlying organisational principle
of the universe. Heraclitus
--Michael McMaster <Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>