Nine studies aimed to improve skills and accuracy in visual estimation through training, education and development of clinical assessment tools [ 34– 42], although none were able to show long term improvements or translation of skills into clinical practice.
In the field of higher education, estimation of a long-term student engagement in the learning process is needed in order to evaluate courses and improve learning results [6, 7].
Estimations of the education production functions suggest that both immigrant and native students do better in private schools and that the advantage of private schools cannot be explained by observable school characteristics, such as class size, teaching load, the quality of educational resources and others (columns 1 2 of Tables 11, 12, 13).
Thus, by adjusting the quality of immigrants' occupational matching, we can isolate the returns to education in estimation such that they reflect the true rewards to foreign credentials.
Since Moldovans have good access to modern communication technologies and media as well as free education, the estimation results are more likely to capture the before mentioned aspiration effect than a simple change in the information set of migrant households.
For instance, the estimation with the pre-war education levels suggests that returnees from the war and post-war cohorts are 25 percentage points more likely to have finished primary school than their non-returnee counterparts (panel A, column 2).
The derivative (tangent) to this hyperplane at each point allows estimation of the effect of education on cognitive aging.
Following this approach, we separately investigated the independent contribution of income and education to the estimation of LE in Germany.
In our estimation, these biologists-turned-biology-education-researchers are making rapid progress in establishing a scientific basis for teaching college biology.
Computation of LE based on separate analyses of income and education yielded similar estimations (79.06 vs. 79.71 and 81.83 vs. 81.96 for the men in the lower and higher groups, respectively, and 85.57 vs. 85.95 and 88.57 vs. 88.37 for the women).
