Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Learning Environments Autodidactic learning and strategies for it

I thought I'd start a new thread on this subject. I don't think we've ever really addressed it in depth, and we probably have a lot of kids and adults here who are autodidactic to varying degrees.

From the Geniuses Thread:


I'm also better at teaching myself than I was in my 20s. But I DON'T see my learning as perfect --- rather, I assume it's quite imperfect. Here's a system I've developed to address that fact. I'd be interested in learning about how other people approach self-teaching. I'll use self-teaching of first-year calculus as an example.

What I needed (in addition to a serious amount of self-discipline):

• Books. Lots of books.
• Internet access, including email.
• A lot of pens in different colors (YMMV on this one)
  

Books. I have three formal textbooks, including Early Transcendentals (Stewart), which is a fairly standard text. I have a solutions manual for Stewart. One of my textbooks is called "Brief Calculus with Applications" and has more conceptual and hands-on stuff than Stewart. A precalculus book was also important for reviewing stuff.

I also have 3 Dummies-type books: Calc and Calc 2 for Dummies and an Idiot's Guide. Different authors emphasize different ideas. These books are very important (for me at least) because they go over concepts that textbooks often assume you know.

I also have two other solutions manuals from random books (picked up super-cheap locally).

Finally, I bought Calculus for Cats, which is a delightful read.

Yes, I have used all of these books.

Internet and email. The internet is critical for me. Most importantly, I was able to find tests with solution keys on university websites. These tests allowed me to assess my progress according to someone else's standards and helped me identify gaps in my learning. I have also been known to send emails to authors asking questions (Most typically, "Is something wrong with the solution to problem 6 on page 184?" I write very politely. Most of them answer.

I rarely use videos, and only when I can't find any other means for acquiring knowledge. But they've been very valuable when I have used them. I usually have to screen a few to several on a subject before I find one that works for me.

Brightly colored pens. Don't know why, but changing ink color frequently makes the process more enjoyable for me. Something about it seems to subtly bump my imagination. I mention this here because I suspect that other people may have similarly quirky success strategies.

I didn't go to town as much on statistics. I think I only have 4 or 5 books. But the mix was the same: Textbook, 2 Dummies books, and a couple random books.

Anyone else?

HI Val! I'm glad you started this thread =]. I will have to try the brightly colored pens technique--that it brilliant!

I have to consolidate my methods on this because I don't even know where to start. I've done this approach forever and its better than a classroom for me. It's really fun too.

Calculus for cats sounds great as well btw =]

When learning something new, I try to start with the simplest stuff I can find, and then move to more complex materials. The idea is to understand the concepts as best I can initially, and move on to applying them in more difficult ways.

Dummies -type books are great for this because they explain everything and assume that you don't know things, when textbooks often do make that assumption.

I also backfill concepts as necessary.

Great topic.

Take a passion for learning that has some mix of curiosity tossed in, mix in a bit of aptitude for learning. Now toss that into an environment with the learning label that moves too slowly and out pops an autodidact.

For me, a big key is that I know what is my own thought and what came from somewhere else. I also have a strong internal sense of how strongly anything is supported. Combined with this, if I focus as I think about something, I do not forget my thinking.

Things start with a near-match model in my brain. Really depends on the subject, but a skim of Wikipedia can get those initial hypotheses in place. If it is a relatively fresh topic, then I find the absolute most readable book on the topic (readability is more crucial than content, breadth, or depth at this point,) yay Dummies.

As I read I am working on a model and creating mini-hypotheses as to how close or far anything is from other things. Always drawing analogies, I create little Socratics that get answered or penciled in for follow-up.

Ultimately I am fairly resource neutral, but when available, an expert (particularly one that is capable of listening outside their own thoughts) will often help bridging knowledge.

Pretty much exactly how I approach things. I learn as I apply things, once I've gotten the historical/developmental lay of the land, so to speak. I'm all about backfill, in other words, and it doesn't bother me. I've assumed that this is the result of my doctoral training (since that is how one approaches literature in a field, generally), but it may be a more general approach that many autodidacts follow.

I also tend not to view my autodidactic learning as-- well, certainly not perfect, and in many cases I'm a little insecure about it, certainly more than seems to be indicated by the impressions of others re: my evident proficiency in the domain.

I'm completely self-taught as a seamstress (and I'm a good one), knitter, and spinner. I'm mostly self-taught as a pattern designer and in several scientific disciplines, too, including some historically relevent things that are just weird and esoteric, like Dageurrotypy. I started with a pretty good musical background to begin with, but I have also managed to teach myself reasonable proficiency on guitar and violin as an adult, too. I did teach myself some advanced math topics using this same basic approach.

I am not much of a visually oriented learner-- more of a text-oriented one, generally. The exception is with handicrafts, where I definitely prefer pictures, diagrams and schematics which are well-labeled and clear.

I'm not a videophile. My DH is.

He uses Dummies books, other books (a lot of them-- and both of us approach book selection by asking experts what they like and WHY they like it) and YouTube (often as recommended by others or his sourcebooks).

My favorite tools-- snipping tool and bookmarking on the computer, Steno notebooks with books, post-it flags (I buy them by the gross, I swear), and highlighters for use in books that I own.

Like Val, I look for reasonably reliable/stable websites affiliated with trustworthy sources so that I can double check my understanding.

And then I try things.

If I get stuck, I seek out additional source material. If that doesn't help, I either try work-arounds or I find an expert who can give me some advice.

Taking violin as an example of this approach:

a) My spouse bought me a violin. Surprise! (It was a nice surprise, I must say, and I am elated that he remembered my involuntary longing for that particular violin.) I mention this as the initial step because autodidactic learning is a fully metacognitive process for me at this point in my life-- it's deliberate, but it can be sparked by any number of different triggering mechanisms.

b) I got the name of a teacher from my DD's piano teacher. I still have it, but haven't had a good chance to make use of it-- or need to-- yet.

c) Bought beginner books that are suitable for someone who already reads music well and doesn't need theory instruction. In doing so, I spent a lot of time considering different books and thumbing through them in person. While I love Amazon for a lot of things, I definitely like to have a clear vision of what I am getting when I use a book to support autodidactic learning. No preview = no sale, unless I have a VERY good feeling that it will be useful (from reading expert reviews or talking to an expert that recommends it for my learning needs, I mean).

d) Read everything I could lay my hands on about the development of the violin, its parts, caring for one, etc. etc. etc.

e) bought other items that seemed truly necessary-- case humidifier, a different bow that I like better, different rosin, a fingerboard map/tapes, etc. as I started playing and building technical skill and finding out what I do and do not like personally. When making purchases, I explore other items associated with my learning-- and I ask questions if I am buying from a B&M source.

f) watched my technique and ergonomics via a mirror, comparisons with violin tutorial vids, and checking my tone by recording myself playing, and by playing with an autotuner on my music stand and a metronome handy.

g) when I'm engaged in learning/playing/practicing, I am IMMERSED. I am not multitasking, and I prefer to do this without a fixed endpoint. I stop when my hands, joints, or fingertips tell me to, or when I can tell that I'm losing nice tone.


When I don't have time, I don't have time. I'm not going to make the learning less effective or enjoyable in order to wedge it in-- but that is because I don't NEED to learn the violin at any particularly fast rate. I have as much time as I want. I'm enjoying the process itself, and it doesn't feel acquisitive. Sometimes, my autodidactic learning does feel that way, though-- that's how I approached preparing fleece and spinning, and also fair-isle knitting, linear algebra, and neuroanatomy. It was GOAL-oriented. So it can work that way for me.


In contrast, my DH is a self-taught woodworker (and a good one, if I do say so myself). It has taken him a decade, but he is good enough now that he can (and does) design and sell what he makes. He has spent a lot of time trying different tools, spending time on specialist message boards, reading specialty periodicals, and buying books. And making a LOT of sawdust, or at least that is what I tease him.

He and I are really different as learners-- different in style, different in strengths. What we have in common as autodidacts is a willingness to critically evaluate ourselves in terms of performance and understanding and confidence of understanding. We also tend to build theory to hang pragmatic skills from.

DD recently taught herself beginning acoustics using an entirely web-based approach. She used the same method that her dad and I both use-- theory first, relying upon trustworthy source material (University websites, not random YouTube and .com websites), then trying some things herself using tools she already possessed.

One major difference is that at 13, she was sure she had "learned it all" as opposed to what her dad and I both know through life experience; there is proficiency at what I've seen, and then there is mastery in the zen sense-- mastery is not such an easy mark.

My personal hypothesis is that one requires a certain amount of maturity to develop the metacognitive skill set that allows one to be autodidactic and to recognize your own limitations or gaps-- and to address them somehow.

You do have to build feedback loops into your learning system to uncover those things.

I wasn't very good at that until I was about age 25 or so. There were two reasons for that: 1) I didn't really see any NEED for it-- I was either learning it or I wasn't, was how I looked at things, and if I was learning in a linear fashion (which I now realize is NOT how I learn things), then gaps shouldn't exist... and 2) I didn't see how to build those feedback loops into my learning the way that I instinctively did with experimental design (e.g. this is what a 'control' is for). It took me realizing that I could use that same approach to learning to manage it well by testing against a null hypothesis.

That requires switching the null hypothesis into a front and center position on some level, though. It's not "positive" in outlook from a metacognition standpoint. It is really uncomfortable until you've matured enough to be comfortable in your own skin, and comfortable recognizing that part of your self-image is always going to be "ignorant about many things." That was not a part of my identity that I made peace with until my 20's were over with. LOL. Until then, my learning using this mode was very much incidental and spotty-- not very deliberate.


It's fascinating to me that many of us strategize this kind of learning in many of the same ways. I'm very eager to learn how other people do this.

HK, you probably already know about this site, but in case you don't, I think you would love TECHknitting.

I DO love that site!!

I keep a handy list of my favorite links in a few of my favorites at Ravelry, too.

Actually, after I posted, I wondered briefly if you are TECHknitting.

As an auditory learner, I have to flesh out reliable high level audio and video files to build my initial groundwork. I will often read a light overview of the topic next; the more conversational the language, the better. I literally imagine (hear) the information as I process it.

Next, I map out the field of knowledge diagrammatically and as exhaustively as possible. I usually cross reference graduate-level course outlines from several universities to build my learning "masthead". Then, colour code the topics, and focus on mastery of individual sub-topics from most to least general. I choose a soundtrack to associate with each sub-topic, usually one song played on a loop while I process the information. To cement the new knowledge, I have to talk to myself as if I were giving a lecture, often while in motion, with the complete soundtrack on in the background. I also write out thematic points on index cards, shuffle them, and redo my auto-lecture to prove to myself that I understand the material in and out of context.

If it's a topic that I'm quite serious about, I'll usually follow up with a meeting with at least one field expert and discuss what I've learned to identify my weaknesses or gaps. If nobody is a available, I'll skim the most advanced texts I can find on the topic.

I've never formally considered this process before; I seem rather aurally fixated now that I read this! My preferred way to learn is Socratic; I'll interrogate the heck out of a field expert if given the opportunity.

Good thread idea, Val.