Over the past three weeks, I explored various ways of data visualisation inspired by the Dear Data project (Lupi and Posavec, 2018). For me, this involving evaluating quantitative measurables and qualitative data in a meaningful way. Other than my own interest in mindfulness and the growing research of its use in education (Maynard et al., 2017), I chose to focus on mindfulness for the qualitative data it would provide. The examples in the Dear Data project are that of story-telling and learning of another’s life experience as opposed to quantitative data analysis for improved learning; the focus of the data visualisations produced, therefore, was less about statistical analysis and more about recording observations related to the block theme.
Eynon (2015) suggests having a solely quantitative approach to evaluating learning, can lead to datafication of learning by shifting the focus of attention away from learning to the quantitative measures itself. This essentially is a difference between qualitative themes such as ‘quality of writing, mathematical thinking or cognitive process’ to qualitative areas such as multiple-choice questions answered, words written, time spent revising. School performance in the UK being measured on progress-8, puts a focus on ‘the measures of learning’ as opposed to the learning itself, often leading to a culture based on rewards and punishments (Kohn, 2000). What is evident regarding measures of learning vs actual quality of learning, is that the data is a representation, often simplified or reduced, of the actual reality it is representing, much like the thought of an event isn’t the event itself yet our nervous system doesn’t differentiate between the two (Kabat-Zinn, 2011). I found this phenomenon in my visualisations too, as data captured, both qualitative and quantitative represented only certain elements of what was being observed and measured, and much of which had to be discarded for simplicity and meaningful understanding. As a learner in the process, the daily data lead to small corrective changes and offered a more meaningful analysis than the weekly overview.
Mindful learning suggests a more intrinsic definition of the term based on the original Latin educere – to bring forth (what is within), as compared to the conventional use of learning used in ‘learnification’ being based around the idea of ‘vessels being filled’ and hence commodified (Langer, 2016). Such intrinsic learning values creativity and discovering one’s element i.e. of systematically identifying one’s talents and passions and then allowing for the circumstances for it to develop (Robinson, 2011). One can argue such an approach allows for far more meaningful personalisation of learning and which isn’t necessarily technology centred based on ‘adaptive and algorithmic understanding of learning activity (Thompson and Cook, 2017) but a ‘long-established tent of good teaching’ (Bulger, 2016). Education technology now seems to be offering plausible solutions of personalisation and to the holy-grail of education: Blooms-2-sigma problem (Friesen, 2020) in which mastery-based learning produces 2-standard deviations better results than conventional classroom teaching of 30 students (Bloom, 1984). While there is increasing ‘datafication’ of education and growing use of learning analytics’ and ‘emotional learning analytics’, (Knox, Williamson and Bayne, 2020), such data is limited to binary digits and therefore even an AI machine-like Alpha-Go, as sophisticated as it may be, is a system limited to quantitative measures and therefore incomplete, and so wouldn’t be able to define and learn about a qualitative process such as mindfulness, unless imaginary numbers, asymptotes and undefined values begin to carry meaning. An area which I would be keen to explore in light of post-humanism and the observer-observed non-duality at the quantum level is the learning potential of quantum computing and human consciousness as an assemblage of distributed cognition (Yibin, 2019).
 Progress 8 is a measure of the progress children make between the end of primary school and the end of secondary school. See https://www.theschoolrun.com/secondary-school-performance-measures
 ‘feedback with corrective procedures and parallel formative tests’ with a good tutor produced 2-standard deviations better results than conventional classroom teaching of 30 students and a standard deviation better if mastery learning was used in a class size of 30 (Bloom, 1984).
Bloom, B. S. (1984) ‘The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring’, Educational Researcher, 13(6), pp. 4–16. doi: 10.2307/1175554.
Bulger, M. (2016) ‘Personalized Learning: The Conversations We’re Not Having’, p. 29.
Friesen, N. (2020) ‘The Technological Imaginary in Education:: Myth and Enlightenment in “Personalized Learning”’, in Stocchetti, M. (ed.) The Digital Age and Its Discontents. Helsinki University Press (Critical Reflections in Education), pp. 141–160. doi: 10.2307/j.ctv16c9hdw.12.
Frontiers | Mindfulness-based interventions in schools—a systematic review and meta-analysis | Psychology (no date). Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00603/full (Accessed: 2 February 2021).
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2011) ‘Some reflections on the origins of MBSR, skillful means, and the trouble with maps’, Contemporary Buddhism, 12(1), pp. 281–306. doi: 10.1080/14639947.2011.564844.
Knox, J., Williamson, B. and Bayne, S. (2020) ‘Machine behaviourism: future visions of “learnification” and “datafication” across humans and digital technologies’, Learning, Media and Technology, 45(1), pp. 31–45. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2019.1623251.
Kohn, A. (2000) ‘BURNT AT THE HIGH STAKES’, Journal of Teacher Education, 51(4), pp. 315–315.
Langer, E. J. (2016) The Power of Mindful Learning. Da Capo Lifelong Books.
Lupi, G. and Posavec, S. (2018) Observe, Collect, Draw! Journal. 1st edition. Princeton Architectural Press.
Maynard, B. R. et al. (2017) ‘Mindfulness-based interventions for improving cognition, academic achievement, behavior, and socioemotional functioning of primary and secondary school students’, Campbell Systematic Reviews, 13(1), pp. 1–144. doi: https://doi.org/10.4073/CSR.2017.5.
Robinson, K. (2011) Out of our minds: learning to be creative. Fully rev. and updated edition. Hoboken N.J.: Capstone.
Thompson, G. and Cook, I. (2017) ‘The logic of data-sense: thinking through Learning Personalisation’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 38(5), pp. 740–754. doi: 10.1080/01596306.2016.1148833.
Weare, K. (2016) ‘THE EVIDENCE FOR MINDFULNESS IN SCHOOLS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE’, p. 36.
Yibin, X. (2019) ‘Research on the interaction between quantum entanglement and thinking consciousness’, Cluster Computing, 22(3), pp. 6599–6607. doi: 10.1007/s10586-018-2354-1.