Results and References

Competency Assessment Results

From a less favourable starting position to above the comparison values

The summary of competency assessment results from the University of Szeged places side by side, across four reading domains:

• the national average;
• the Budapest average;
• the result of a measured comparison class;
• the result of the Learning OS class.

At the entry assessment in grade 1, the Learning OS class started with lower scores in all four examined domains than the national average, the Budapest average and the comparison class.

By the end of grade 4, it had risen above all three comparison values in all four domains.

Results measured at the end of grade 4:

Compared with the comparison class at the end of grade 4, the Learning OS class achieved higher scores by:

• 26 points in reading comprehension;
• 50 points in reading application;
• 18 points in disciplinary reading;
• 10 points in reading-related thinking.

These results are also shown in the following diagrams:

Why is the starting position important?

The significance of the results is not defined only by the end point in grade 4.

At the grade 1 assessment, the Learning OS class was below the comparison values in every examined domain.

By the end of grade 4, in every examined domain, it:

• surpassed the national average;
• surpassed the Budapest average;
• surpassed the measured comparison class result.

This was not a group that merely maintained an already outstanding position. It was a class starting from a less favourable position that built strong output performance.

The largest score increases appeared in the reading application and disciplinary domains. In these domains, children must do more than recognise or repeat what they have read. They must also use it, organise it into relations, and make it function in a task situation.

This is especially close to the basic idea of Learning OS.

The result of learning is not simply that the child possesses some information. It is also that the child can access it, interpret it, and use it in a concrete world of tasks.

What do the results show?

The results show that over the four years of lower primary school, the performance of the Learning OS class improved across all four examined reading domains.

This developmental trajectory is in line with the core pedagogical assumption of Learning OS:

If, in the first school years, we do not only drill tasks but also consciously develop the general system of functioning that carries task performance, a stronger foundation is built for later achievement.

Reading performance rests on a complex inner functioning. The child must:

• perceive and notice accurately;
• maintain attention;
• form a multimodal image;
• organise the content through speech and concepts;
• retrieve prior memories and knowledge;
• recognise relations;
• hold on to the task goal;
• follow their own line of thought;
• notice deviations;
• and make corrections when needed.

The measurement result becomes visible in the TES — that is, in the concrete world of task performance.

Learning OS builds the Mind OS from which this performance can emerge.

Teacher Experience

Reading the functioning instead of the symptom

One important effect of Learning OS appears in teachers’ professional way of seeing.

On the classroom surface, the teacher often sees this:

• the child does not begin the task;
• leaves the sentence unfinished;
• gets the calculation wrong;
• drifts away;
• rushes;
• remains silent;
• resists;
• does not finish the work.

The teacher language of Learning OS opens a new question:

Which inner function was unable to support task completion strongly enough?

Was the child’s attention in place?

Did the child perceive and notice the instruction accurately?

Did the child have a usable multimodal image?

Could the child formulate what needed to be done?

Could the child retrieve the necessary prior memory?

Could the child bear the emotional load?

Did intention and goal form within the child?

Could the child plan and organise the action?

Did the child notice the deviation?

Did the child have a corrective tool?

The teacher’s attention thus extends from the finished answer to the functioning behind the answer.

Behind a wrong mathematics task there may be attentional noise.

Behind an unfinished sentence there may be weakness in inner speech.

Behind an empty notebook there may be inability to start.

Behind a hurried response there may be a breakdown in guiding thought.

Behind clowning around there may be escape from emotional overload.

Behind unfinished work there may be difficulty with planning, organisation or closure of action.

The functioning map shows more precise points for intervention.

The teacher can say more than:

“Pay better attention!”

The teacher can lead the child back to a concrete internal operation:

• “Show me where you lost the thread.”
• “Say out loud what you understand so far.”
• “Let’s form an image of the situation.”
• “What do you remember from a similar task earlier?”
• “What should the goal be?”
• “What should the first step be?”
• “What do you need to prepare?”
• “Where did the result diverge from your goal?”
• “What can you change right now?”

What do the teacher references highlight?

Teacher documents name several recurring experiences.

Work with Learning OS supports:

• recognition and management of emotions;
• acceptance of other people’s thoughts;
• verbal expressiveness;
• reading comprehension;
• creativity;
• problem-solving;
• independent project work;
• presentation and communication;
• social cooperation.

“The children really look forward to the lessons when we work with this program. They are enthusiastic, and they have good insights and comments on the different topics.”

From a fellow teacher’s recommendation

“Students create presentations and communicate about different topics with growing confidence. This knowledge continues to be useful for students who learned through the program even in the upper grades.”

From a primary teacher’s recommendation

The feedback does not merely signal satisfaction. It describes children’s engagement, their independent speaking-up, their expressive ability, and their communicative competence that remains usable in later school situations as well.

The references also document the development of teachers’ work through:

• the use of shared curricula and support materials;
• consultation with newly joining teachers;
• demonstration lessons;
• lesson observations;
• joint analysis of lessons;
• integration of experience;
• continuous development of methods.

Learning OS thus does not function as a closed recipe book.

It functions as a learning pedagogical system.

Upper-grade feedback

One real test of lower-grade development is the upper school.

There:

• more subjects appear;
• children must adapt to more teachers;
• they have to work with longer texts;
• the demand for independent learning increases;
• more complex projects and oral responses appear.

The experience of upper-grade teachers can be summarized in one short sentence:

“These are children you can really work with.”

They pay attention.

They think.

They initiate.

They have ideas.

They like to perform and present.

They are able to work in projects.

They do not simply wait for the next instruction; they participate in shaping and carrying out the task.

This sentence may sound simple, but in fact it indicates a complex pedagogical result.

It means that the child does not merely know something.

The child is functional in the learning situation.

Children’s Voices

When the child begins to speak about their own functioning

One of the deepest results of Learning OS appears when the child begins to speak more precisely about what is happening inside.

Young schoolchildren often can only say: “I don’t understand.” “I can’t do it.” “I forgot.” These are honest signals, but they reveal little about where the functioning got stuck.

The goal of Learning OS is not to teach a new technical jargon, but to support the child in recognizing and directing their own functioning with age-appropriate words ever more precisely.

The child does not formulate things in scientific language.

The child speaks from lived experience:

• “It got foggy.”
• “I lost the thread.”
• “I don’t have a picture of it yet.”
• “It became too much at once.”
• “I’m going back to where I still understood it.”
• “I’ll cover the rest.”
• “I’ll put it into words.”
• “I’ll make a statement.”
• “I’ll correct it.”
• “I’ll start again.”

These are not decorative expressions.

They are tools of functioning.

When inner functioning becomes nameable, the possibility of conscious change opens up.

Feedback from a fourth-grade child

In a handwritten student evaluation, one child wrote that their favourite topic was change:

“I really like this part because we learned how to handle changes.”

The child also highlighted that the lessons dealt with:

• the conscious mind;
• exclusion;
• the handling of emotions;
• accepting other people’s thoughts.

“I recommend spreading Mind Management to everyone, because it is useful for recognizing and managing our emotions, and also for getting to know and accepting other people.”

From a handwritten fourth-grade student comment

The child does not merely report that they liked the lesson. They name what they learned about dealing with change, recognizing emotions, and getting to know and accept other people.

Recognizing the fog

The first major step is when the child notices that the task is not accessible at the moment.

Earlier, the child may only have felt:

• it doesn’t work;
• it is too difficult;
• I need to escape;
• someone help me;
• I’d rather not do it.

Now the child can say:

“It’s foggy.”

The nameless blockage thus becomes a named state of functioning.

The child can already look at what is happening inside.

The possibility of change

The next step is that the child learns to change either their own functioning or the task situation:

• slows down;
• covers the distracting part;
• reads it again;
• says the step aloud;
• forms a mental image;
• draws;
• searches for an earlier memory;
• breaks it into smaller units;
• asks for help;
• chooses another method.

The child participates in restoring their own functioning.

The child does not merely wait for the next external instruction.

The new meaning of error

In Learning OS, error is functioning data. It is not a final judgment on the child, but information about where and how the outcome of action diverged from the intended goal. It helps reveal where the process needs to be revisited, what needs to be changed, and what can be corrected or further developed.

The child gradually learns to ask themselves:

• Where did I diverge from the goal?
• What did I misunderstand?
• Which step did I leave out?
• What do I need to change?
• What can I correct?
• What can I learn from this for the next time?

Error thus does not close learning down; it launches the next step of thinking and action.

The child does not become identified with the error. The child learns to work with it.

A Working Reality

The basic proposition of Learning OS is that visible student performance rests on an inner foundational system of functioning.

This foundational system can be built consciously.

If the child:

• pays attention and notices more accurately;
• holds themselves together better emotionally;
• forms a multimodal image;
• grasps and guides thought through speech;
• retrieves an earlier memory;
• chooses a goal;
• plans and organises;
• follows their own action;
• notices error;
• changes and corrects,

then the child increasingly begins to work from a more orderly inner functioning.

The value of Learning OS appears not only in correct answers or successfully solved tasks. It also becomes visible in those moments when, in a situation where the child previously got stuck, the child is now able to function differently:

stops;

looks again;

understands;

judges;

changes;

corrects;

and returns.

The deepest form of validation is when the child not only solves a task, but becomes increasingly able to guide the inner system from which the solution is born.