TED Conversations

John Choi

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

How does one measure the rate of self-learning? Learning fast at your own pace is great, but by what standard do we measure "fast"?

First of all, know that this is going to be about self-learning via books, talks and various other sources. I know that there are many out there who learn in this fashion, myself being one as well, so this should be a topic of interest for the self-learner.

There are studies and real-life examples of extremely successful self-learners and one cannot deny that being able to find information and solve problems on your own through analysis and self-education promotes intelligence. This following link from wikipedia can give some actual sources of studies done on self-regulated learning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-regulated_learning

However, under the "Four Phases of Self-Regulation," (task perception, goal-setting/planning, enacting, adaptation) it is curious that there is no outlined method of MEASURING the progress in which you are obtaining your academical goals. In other words, what should be the unit of measurement for assessing self-learning?

Educational institutes rely on periodical tests/exams (which is a horrid system, imo) yet the self-learner has no solid foundation in which to measure what they are learning in order to track the progress towards their goals. Should it be measured in hours spent making notes and reading? But then I find myself skeptical about implying a linear rate of learning, based on how much time we are spending studying... Then what about how many pages of notes we made? But does that really measure amount we "learnt", or does it just measure how much ink we used on some paper?

The second question is, even if we do somehow find a way to measure "progress of learning," how do we define if we are learning fast enough? One the big reasons I prefer self-learning over dropping loads of money into an educational institute is that I don't have to conform to their rate of teaching/learning. But then at what "speed" of learning, can we justify that what we are doing is better than learning at a university?

Thanks

+2
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Mar 27 2013: I believe Self Directed Learning (SDL) has a powerful intrinsic value. I benefit from a well rounded understanding of the subject, while seeking many "teachers" for that subject. Pace is important because at times I have to avoid overload, which is as detrimental as too little info. More than anything pace is usually faster than "normal" with SDL. I learned more about Locke than a college student, in the same amount of time as spring break. I believe I have the necessary knowledge to qualify for multiple degrees and minors and yet I do not posses a high school diploma. There is no quantification for this type of education and until our nonprofit universities figure out a way to profit from people like me, there will be no programs that would help to prove or disprove this "theory". I have created the Philosophy of Philosophy (PHoPH) that has the Principles: Conscious Conscience, Common Unity, and the Wisdom of Wisdom as the educational nexus. Science is the knowledge of Nature, Physics is the Nature of Nature. Philosophy is the love of Wisdom and PHoPH is Wisdom of Wisdom. First we must learn the Logic of Logic (learn how to learn), next the Wisdom of Wisdom, and then the Theory of Theory (Abstract). If you are taking Remedial English in college, you are, in all probability, stuck at the Perception level of learning. In order to tell if someone is "educated" we are just "judging the book by the cover". Speed is very subjective, with varying abilities for different subjects. Comprehension capabilities differ amongst students, making a consistent speed of learning difficult, except maybe the average students. We have the same education system for at least a century, but until we educate the educator to teach cognitive learning, we will continue to lose this battle, if we were ever winning to begin with. The ancients seemed to be very intelligent, but maybe the dumb ones outproduced the smart ones, for in that case, there is no hope. Revolution to Evolution in EDU.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.