TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

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:

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?



Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    Gail . 50+

    • +1
    Mar 25 2013: Learning isn't a contest. There is no "end". It's a journey.

    I justify my self education as being better than university because m self-education is extremely broad based, whereas those in universities are specialty based. I have also uncovered so many lies that were taught me in school because the Internet now makes documentary evidence I didn't know existed available. If I were to take a test in American history, for example, I would have to lie to pass the test. We weren't educated. We were indoctrinated. The fact that I know that and can prove it is evidence of successful education in American history.
    • Mar 27 2013: Bravo. I have learned to erase or see through myths from the Bible to Columbus to Washington to WMD, no offense to myths, which can be excellent learning tools if you consider the source. His Story means one man compiled a story. Man is flawed and errors. Misinterpretation, Manipulation, Posterity, and "Dogma" seep into the story, sometimes despite the best effort of the author. The fallibility of Oral History makes any story originating from this to be "taken with a grain of salt"-Jesus or to "separate the wheat from the chaff"-Jesus. Because I know this, I believe very little about the story of Jesus (or the book that tells his story). I believe a Hebrew existed, called Ieosus Khrystos by the Greeks, possibly baptized and likely executed. I believe this man was a Philosopher, no more or no less. Do I believe "Saint" Augustine got everything right 300 years later? Where there ulterior motives for making the story "fit" a certain theme? Did he have all the facts and if not, did he likely "guess"? There is little or no historical evidence to prove this account, especially because Jesus wrote nothing. Only 5 of the 12 apostles were used, with the other 7 having conflicting accounts to what is accepted in the Bible. I believe the Gospel of Thomas was ordered to be destroyed because it said Jesus used violence, likely even killing 2 people. Ironically, killing in the name of God has been prevalent since the day Augustine finished his Magnum Opus, including Columbus and the Conquistadors that followed. Whether taking slaves or eliminating tribes or invasion of Iraq, somehow all justified by God, or so we are told. By one Man. History is the cherry tree that gets chopped down, if only for "pragmatic" reasons of the author

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.