When measurement interferes with performance...

School systems have many reasons to measure student performance, and the No Child Left Behind legislation of a couple of decades ago provided even more. Measuring is one of the basic requirements for improvement: if I don't know how I did, I can't say whether it was better, worse, or the same as in the past. There's no doubt that measurement serves a critical role.

The process of learning, though, requires more than just pre- and post- measures. By definition, it requires a process.  Regardless of the subject matter involved, this process must occur somewhere in the brain, or at least in the peripheral nervous system. The point of this post: change in neuronal activity or function, not measurement, is at the heart of learning.

Can measurement support learning?  Absolutely:  done appropriately and judiciously, measurement can provide the confirmation that the learner is heading in the right direction.  Measurement can provide a clue as to how close the learner is to the desired achievement.  These are good things; but they are not learning.

What else can measurement do?  Unfortunately, measuring excessively, or in a threatening manner, can get in the way of learning processes. For example, setting up a process in which learners are striving for the "right answer" can be detrimental to real learning. Excessive measures, or measurement done for high stakes, are two ways to create this excessive focus on the answer, often to the exclusion of the learning. This is not a new idea.  Is there anyone older than 12 in this society who has not experienced both excessive and threatening forms of measurement? And in this society, we do not limit the consequences to stars and pats on the back.  The consequences for measures of personal performance that fall short of expectations are anything but pleasant.

Unfortunately, these uses of measurement can inhibit learning, and as a result, limit the ability to improve performance.