learning@maricopa.edu / pubs / oct97 /
	Learning is Measurable
We learn 10% of what we read, 15 % of what we hear and 80% of what we experience. Anonymous, New Horizons in Learning, 1997 The ways in which students are assessed powerfully affects the ways in which they study and learn. Tom Angelo, Professor, University of California Berkeley The first responsibility of leadership is to define reality. Herman Miller, Max de Pree, Inc. At a concrete level, organizational culture is what people do every day within the time and space of their organizational life. Atlantic Rim Group The measuring of learning is a widely discussed and debated topic. On one end of the continuum there are forces pushing for rigid assessment and "accountability" for learning; at the other end there are those who insist that "true" learning simply cannot be measured. In the middle, of course, are those who maintain that some learning is measurable and some is not. In our minds, the discussion would benefit from a rethinking and reframing of the above issue. O'Banion (1997) posits two fundamental measurement criteria: What does this learner know? What can this learner do? Both questions serve as a starting point for student assessment. Measurement, as we view it, involves four additional questions: How do we measure? When do we measure? Who establishes what will be measured Who does the measuring? Our ability to effectively measure learning is central to learning itself. As such, we suggest extensive dialogue around each of the six questions above. As is the case with each of our learning characteristics, the policies, practices and procedures relating to measurement have extensive systemic implications for learning. Learning is greatly influenced by the organizational factors of leadership, culture and structure. Within the systems perspective of learning are three central considerations: leadership, culture and structure. The three are often viewed as independent. Within the context of a learner's personal experience with the organization, however, they are inseparable and have a far-reaching impact on both student and organizational learning. Moving student learning to the core of the Maricopa Community College District has significant implications for leaders, students and everyone else in, and connected to, the organization. The traditional roles of leaders as direction-setters, key decision makers and motivators are roles that are deeply rooted in a non-systemic, hierarchical viewpoint. With the goal of student learning at the core and organizational learning as a complementary value, the roles of leadership transform around three powerful metaphors (Senge 1990): Leaders as Stewards Leaders provide stewardship for the people by sharing and exemplifying the organization's mission. Leaders as Teachers Leaders focus on modeling the organization's values and helping others to develop a systemic view of the organization. Leaders as Designers Leaders help to establish the "social architecture" of the organization, its purpose, vision and values. By assuming these roles, leadership has the potential to transform the culture of the Maricopa Community College system to one in which learning is a vital core value for both students and colleagues. In order to begin assessing the culture of learning in your MCCD environment, reflect on the following questions: To what degree is learning: talked about? inquired into? reflected on? documented by self, by peers? reviewed by students and peers? valued by leadership, peers? recognized by peers and the community? rewarded? How would you assess the culture for learning in your department, your college, or in MCCD? Don't Ask ---------- Spotty ---------- Systemic While assessing the culture for learning at the individual level is quite easy, changing culture at the organizational level is another story. Central to such transformation is a broad-based recognition of the need for such change. Interestingly, it is most often external forces such as financial shortfalls, legislative mandates, or increased public scrutiny that provide the initial momentum for cultural change and the organizational transformation that follows. Faculty, students and others who support learning all function within the district's structural context of policies, procedures, practices, traditions, and arrangements that reflect existing organizational values. The congruency between Maricopa's mission and the structures that we have in place to advance the mission indicates the degree to which we have adopted a systems-based perspective of learning. We know a great deal about learning and creating environments that foster it, but our ability to act on what we know is deeply influenced by the prevailing organizational structures. The influence that leadership, culture, and structure have on learning cannot be overstated. Indeed, taken together, these three factors create an organizational ecology that either fosters learning at all levels or diminishes it.
	Table of Contents