“How much do students here learn? How do you know?”

These questions posed by David Brooks in an article in the NY Times are symptomatic of the need to assess education, but Brooks is missing the point when tries to use some pseudo  quantitative information related to the "amounts" learned by students in college.
This misguided attempt to measure gain is skills using Arum and Roksa's study “Academically Adrift", where they "found that, on average, students experienced a pathetic seven percentile point gain in skills during their first two years in college and a marginal gain in the two years after that." But then Brooks mention that the numbers are "disputed" and continues by saying "but the study suggests that nearly half the students showed no significant gain in critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing skills during their first two years in college." So why use the suggestion of the study if the numbers are contested?
There are other ways of knowing how education is affecting one's life and ways to quantify the benefit of higher education for instance the average income of tax payers with or without a four-year college education. The percent of unemployed with or without a college degree and so on. So when Brooks ask parents to ask the question to college administrators "How much do students here learn?" is misguiding them as a more appropriate question would be: How do you assess the quality of the education provided here?
This question will make parents more involved in their children's education and will also help them to see the need of hard work and commitment when choosing a career more so today when STEM majors are lagging way behind other industrialized nations.    

Talent

What it takes to learn?
One of the most talked virtues in teaching is "making difficult concepts easy to understand". One can struggle with this idea for it not only requires engagement from the teacher but also from the student, and the objective (might be course content) not being easily accessible to a simple interpretation.
As a metaphor one can use the idea of a symphony: how can one understand even enjoy a piece by Stravinsky if one hasn't a basic knowledge of harmony, melody, or rhythm?
Stravinsky Conducts Firebird http://youtu.be/5tGA6bpscj8
You can teach making it fun and using games like this video can show http://youtu.be/FKg0Edb0LSI
but it will always be necessary for all to be engaged! Here is where "talent" becomes part of the learning "equation" as talent will be an individual attribute. Not everyone has "an ear" for music, or "a leg" for soccer! So how can we know what kind of talent is needed for a particular subject? And once we know what king of talent is required can we (teachers and councilors) help students develop such talent?
As we all we do in life everything is connected so one way to address this issue would be to find the links to the motivation needed for the development of such talent. Also we have to know the scope of the requirements in that particular field, for example a student seeking a degree that would allow him/her work as a pharmacist in retail might not need a course in quantum chemistry but one working in research might need. So can we know what the future will be for that student? Or by not teaching quantum chemistry to pharmacy students are we restricting the scope of the student's future?

Mrs. McVey's class

I got a very encouraging email today from Mrs. April McVey telling me that she has been using some environmental references from my website at Warner Pacific College. This is one of the wonders of the internet that you design your writings and postings targeting a narrow audience and you never know who else will be part of it. I want to openly thank Mrs. McVey for taking the time to let me know about this and also for letting me know of a broken link that I had there. It is through this kind of ineraction that we can improve continously our endevour in teaching and learning. Thanks so much Mrs. McVey!   

Video lecture

It is becoming indispensable in teaching science the use of video clips to make a point. More time should be used in class to solve problems and more time outside class should be used to read about the theories behind the concepts and to watch videos to enhance the interest of the student. The following video
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=EEu42L0ufBY
is a great example of what people can do.

Discovery and innovation have many avenues

This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usTpnCwN8cc&feature=player_embedded#! shows how a middle school science student playing with molecular models creates one that later on is subject to research. One never knows how a new idea is going to be developed, when is going to happen, or who is going to do it. Either by him/herself of as a group. But there are some critical keys for this to happen and they are around the fact that community support, and mentorship is always involved.

Teaching Metaphors

It is well known that metaphors are very useful when teaching, specially when teaching scientific concepts. One tries to simplify concepts by relating them to more familiar situations building bridges will be a good metaphor for these kind of explanations. Even to describe what teachers do has relied on metaphors, such a hicking/travel guide, sport coach in a reference to learning as a journey or a game. But this one is new for me: Professional Cook! This article by Natalie Houston in The Chronicle of Higher Education's blog "ProfHacker" http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/streamlining-teaching-prep/38237 really makes a point about this metaphor. Hope you enjoy reading it.

It Is About Relationships

Learning is not an isolated endeavor, nor is an individual event. Learning and thus teaching is a relational activity that has to be developed over time. How long it takes? is hard to answer and will be dependent on what the learner and teacher bring to the relationship. As with any relationship there are bidding actions as described by Gottman and DeClaire that produce counter-bidding. And the way we respond with the counter-bidding will determine the outcome of the relationship. There are -in general- three was we can reply: positively or turning toward, when with the reply there is an engaging counter-bidding; turning away, when the response denotes ignoring the effort done by the one engaging; and turning against, when the response implies some kind of offensive, dismissive, or in any way negative and in some cases contrarian to the interest of the relationship. Gottman and DeClaire argue that most of the way in which one responds to these bids comes from the ways we learned early in childhood and is difficult to change as they are so imbedded in the sub-conscience. 
In the classroom one can find these three was if turning to a lecture or learning activity. The student brings his/her preconceived idea of what s/he needs and how s/he is going to get it. But is science there is one advantage over other topics that do not have a hands-on laboratory experience. In these activities teachers can remove to a certain degree the student from his/her familiar attitudes as there activities do not replicate the realities of growing up. It seems that "lecturing" follows a parallel more attune to the traditional up-bringing that one is exposed.
More laboratory, and hands on experiences have to be included when teaching as the old idea of learning through doing appears to be well proven. 
Bibliography
John M. Gottman and Joan DeClaire. 2001. The Relationship Cure. Three Rivers Press, NY ISBN: 0-609-80953-9