Swift as RTK may be for learning, Swift as some members may seek the effectiveness of stories, I would still like to propose a more practical way of helping this membership. That would be to determine the relative effectiveness of the ways of studying RTK from the hell-bent, do-or-die mastery in just one month to long-term schedules over a year or more.

Even though the hell-bent way might not be an option because of job and other conflicts, there still remains a range of options including time length, degree of mastery aimed for (passive vs. active), continuous or discontinuous pace (plateaus or halt of pace included for review and additional study of previous kanji), etc.

If the active membership were such that it included a large number of veteran users, a survey of them might reap much beneficial knowledge about the optimal study schedule.

How would you figure that out?

Sorry, but unsure of your question. Please be more specific.

[ファブリス]

The effectiveness of various study schedules is clearly interesting but I'm not sure how you would gather that data. Eventually I'd like to add more personal info in the profile so users could also tell abit about their study schedule for example, but that' not the same as doing a survey.

Kanji-san,

Everybody approaches RTK1 from such a different motivation. Their life outside of visiting RvTK is also so unique. How can you separate all of those variables out of whatever data collection you might invision? If I was starting RTK1 today, wouldn't I probably choose to go-my-own-way regardless of a study that suggested that it seems like <=13 kanji a day is optimum? I'm going to float to my personal comfort level and tempo, and maybe that's best.

But my real question was, how could you say that my taking 4 months to finish is "better" than another guy taking 2 months to finish? Or a 3rd guys' taking 12 months to finish? How can you figure that any pace is optimum?

KANJI Wrote:...determine the relative effectiveness of the ways of studying RTK from the hell-bent, do-or-die mastery in just one month to long-term schedules over a year or more.

Good question. Heisig says to do it as quickly as possible. But is that the best way? I'm sure it depends on the person, but if you have the ability to do it several ways, what is the best? Well, if you have specific survey questions to ask, I'll be glad to answer them.

I guess one could define "best" here as "fewest total hours spent to achieve a XX% recall rate". Although the actual such target rate will vary among people, as would the individual constraints (one person could perhaps easily maintain a rate of, say, 60 kanji per day, while another won't be able to do more than 10...), so any answer would be of limited practical value.
But there are really too many other variables involved for any meaningful analysis.

Thank you for your comments!! (To CharlieGarrett: you were the first responder whose comment particularly deserves attention. However, please let me right now respond generally to the membership. I will get back to your thoughtful concern raised previously.)

I am so taken by the common refrain on this website that goes by this: "That can't be done because the members are so individual in their own way." Ah, so desuka. So then, we are all castaways in the infinite abyss called life, whizzing by each other in indeterminate ways like pachinko balls cascading off bumpers without rhyme or reason? Hogwash. The total amount of individual study schedules or paths is not infinite but finite. Granted there may be a wide range of study schedules but still manageable by survey.

Another attitude that has impressed me since finding this site is the hyper-sensitivity about the way (i.e., RTK), as if its the golden truth. If one suggests that there may be some patches of bronze--uh, oh--doors slam, windows shut. Acceptance of RTK is on faith and faith alone. Yet, some members seem to follow it like a religious fervor, bristling at the thought of another way. (By the way, this second paragraph is not directed at any of you fine people who responded to this thread.)

Unless I am mistaken, RTK was not developed nor tested through empirical means. Intuitively it feels good; practically, it seems to work. But by no means did the creator of RTK learn his kanji through RTK in a couple months as I have seen it reported. He obviously had to have some prior knowledge of kanji to make the system. There was probably a lot of trial and error along the way. This image of him learning in a phenominally short time (a month and a half, Preface, 3rd Ed.), I don't buy. That does not include all of his previous effort of study and work at it (I am sure).

So if I am correct, there are various ways to skin a cat. Some ways are probably better than others. As I proceed, I have lots of questions about my study schedule. I assume some other people do too. Such questions could be answered by the collective genius of the veteran users here. They could shed light on potential pitfalls and commonly shared successes. This website, I believe, was founded with that idea--the sharing of such kind of information. I am only suggesting to go a step further by systemitizing it through survey of the veterans. Common patterns might be revealed despite the mantra heard about individual methods.

My only question now would be how many veterans have completed the RTK 2000 kanji course and are reachable through this website.

Anyway, thank you again to whoever responded to this thread.

CharleyGarrett Wrote:Kanji-san,

But my real question was, how could you say that my taking 4 months to finish is "better" than another guy taking 2 months to finish? Or a 3rd guys' taking 12 months to finish? How can you figure that any pace is optimum?

I am not saying that. Obviously short-term vs. long-term results are greatly dependent on intensity of study. However, you must agree that for the same amount of effort expended, different methods may yield different results. Ergo, you elected to go the RTK route because you believe it is relatively effective, perhaps the most effective of the options known.

But within the RTK method, there are different routes, routes we take without guidance. I am proposing that we identity those various routes and find out related experiences. If there were enough respondents, then some common patterns might emerge.

I agree with you that there are individual differences, which I probably voiced in a similar fashion somewhere in this forum. But there also must be shared commonalities, which if we look at, could tell us something meaningful.

In terms of "optimal," it probably would be conditional. For example, guidance could be offered in the following way: "a person expending x hours a week, doing such and such, and having goal Y, would likely benefit from the following plan, etc., etc."

????? Wrote:The effectiveness of various study schedules is clearly interesting but I'm not sure how you would gather that data. Eventually I'd like to add more personal info in the profile so users could also tell abit about their study schedule for example, but that' not the same as doing a survey.

About effectiveness, I have no intent or interest in collecting data of the actual use of the Review section on this site. Rather I would take at face value what members have found useful and not useful about study strategies using RTK. There is a range of different ways of using RTK. Some may be more effective than others, assuming other factors being equal. I believe you founded this site with this as one of the purposes--sharing experiences with the RTK method. I am merely suggesting that we take a systemitized approach through survey to uncover common patterns.