Skip to content

Learning Velocity (Concept)

The current UI counts recorded completion events, not mutable mastery update timestamps. The event can be a renewed completion on a later day, not necessarily the first-ever threshold crossing; the history boundary does not itself validate that every counted entry is an atomic plan-capable goal. The target model for dated curriculum planning, effective teaching weeks, buffers, baselines, target pace and forecasts is defined in Curriculum-Zeitachse, Pufferplanung und Soll-Ist-Lerntempo. Raw weekly velocity alone must not be presented as schedule adherence.

Purpose

Learning Velocity is a didactic metric that reflects a learner's consistency and momentum over time. It is designed to encourage steady practice ("don't break the chain") rather than short bursts.

Definition

Learning Velocity is the count of newly mastered atomic goals per time unit.

This is the conceptual subject-mastery metric. The present Cockpit chart is labelled recorded completions and uses the narrower evidence contract in Daily learning progress. It includes completion markers such as orientation, which do not certify subject-matter mastery. Legacy history remains visible but does not enter the chart. Weeks use the Europe/Berlin calendar; a same-goal completion is counted at most once per day, not necessarily once in a lifetime.

Default definition: - Atomic goals only: Only leaf nodes count (no containers), to avoid inflation. - Mastery threshold: A goal is counted when mastery reaches 0.9 or higher. - Time basis: Group by calendar week (ISO week).

Formally, for week w:

velocity(w) = | { g is atomic | mastery[g] >= 0.9 and achieved_at(g) in week w } |

Interpretation

  • A stable sequence of non-zero weeks indicates consistent learning habits.
  • Peaks can indicate sprint phases; gaps often signal interruptions or overload.
  • Velocity is not a grading metric; it is a behavioral and motivational indicator.
  • Weekly bar chart over a recent window (e.g., last 8–12 weeks).
  • Recent achievements list to reinforce tangible progress.

This is an example of presentation; UI specifics are intentionally flexible.

Design principles

  1. Fairness: Avoid counting container goals directly; only atomic goals count.
  2. Stability: Use fixed time buckets to make progress visible and comparable.
  3. Motivation: Keep the metric simple enough to be understood at a glance.

Caveats

  • Imports and old update timestamps must not create artificial completion spikes; the current event ledger deliberately excludes them and does not backfill history.
  • Learners with different time budgets are not directly comparable.
  • Context switches (new curriculum or new phase) may temporarily reduce velocity.
  • Mutable mastery timestamps are not sufficient evidence for a threshold crossing. The current transactional completion ledger addresses that boundary; broader pacing still needs stable assignment-specific achievement projections.
  • Calendar weeks do not represent teaching capacity: holidays, cancelled lessons and explicit buffers require an instructional calendar.

Optional extensions (future)

  • Moving average or trend line for smoothing.
  • Separate velocity per subject or phase.
  • Alerts for long inactivity gaps (opt-in).