Hi, this is Ray.

I want to start with something I think is genuinely embarrassing about my younger self. For most of my twenties, I learned things in what I now realize was the cognitive equivalent of trying to play a campaign of Dungeons & Dragons without a character sheet, without a map, without any notes on what had happened in previous sessions, just showing up and improvising every time. I had goals (vague aspirations, mostly. I had effort… plenty of it. What I didn't have was any system for tracking what I was actually doing, what was working, where I currently was, or how my current state compared to where I'd been a month ago.

The consequences were predictable in retrospect. I'd start learning projects with enthusiasm, work on them inconsistently for some weeks, lose track of where I was, gradually drift away from the project, and then either quit officially or just stop thinking about it. When I'd circle back six months later, I'd often have no clear sense of what I'd already done or where I was on the journey. Each return felt like starting over. The progress that had actually happened was invisible to me because nothing was recording it.

What I didn't know at the time, but the research has been clear about for decades, is that the absence of tracking and planning wasn't a stylistic choice. It was the actual reason most of my learning projects underperformed. The variable that most reliably separates effective long-term learning from drifting effort isn't intelligence, time, or motivation. It's whether there's a system catching what's happening, where you are, and what to do next. The learner with a map and a compass goes further than the learner with twice the effort and no navigation tools. The numbers on this are striking. Today's newsletter is about that. Why tracking and planning matter so much for learning, what the research actually shows about the size of the effect, and how to build a tracking system that fits your actual life. Let's get into it.

If you’re a decision maker at your company, you need to be on the bleeding edge of, well, everything. But before you go signing up for seminars, conferences, lunch ‘n learns, and all that jazz, just know there’s a far better (and simpler) way: Subscribing to The Deep View.

This daily newsletter condenses everything you need to know about the latest and greatest AI developments into a 5-minute read. Squeeze it into your morning coffee break and before you know it, you’ll be an expert too.

Subscribe right here. It’s totally free, wildly informative, and trusted by 600,000+ readers at Google, Meta, Microsoft, and beyond.

Let me start with the data, because this is one of those areas where the effect sizes are large enough to take seriously.

According to research summarized by educational researcher Robert Marzano, the practice of having students track their own progress was associated with a 32 percentile point gain in their achievement on average. Let that sink in. A 32 percentile point gain. Just from having students track their own progress. This isn't from teaching them new content, or hiring better teachers, or buying better materials. It's from the simple addition of a tracking system to whatever learning was already happening. The effect is so large it's almost suspicious, but it's been replicated across enough studies that it's hard to dismiss.

A 2025 analysis of progress monitoring found a similarly striking pattern in adult goal achievement. According to the research, a study by Harvard Business School found that regular progress monitoring increased goal achievement rates by up to 70%, yet fewer than 30% of goal-setters implement consistent tracking systems. Two facts side by side. Tracking dramatically increases the odds you'll actually achieve what you set out to do. Most people don't track. The gap between what's possible and what most people do isn't subtle. It's enormous.

A meta-analysis on goal monitoring made the case more broadly. According to one summary, monitoring goal progress is an effective self-regulation strategy, and interventions that increase the frequency of monitoring are likely to promote behavior change and goal attainment. The monitoring isn't just a record-keeping activity. It's an active intervention that changes behavior in ways that produce better outcomes. The act of measuring something tends to make that thing get better, which has been called Hawthorne effects in some contexts but appears to be a much broader cognitive phenomenon when applied to your own behavior.

The mechanism is worth understanding. When you're not tracking, your perception of your own progress is unreliable. You overestimate how much you've been doing. You underestimate how slow your progress actually is. You forget about the days you missed. You inflate the days you showed up. The unreliable perception then feeds back into decisions… about whether to continue, whether to push harder, whether to change approach. Bad data produces bad decisions. Tracking provides accurate data, which produces better decisions, which produces better outcomes.

Tracking alone isn't enough. The full effect comes from combining tracking with planning… knowing what you're trying to do, why, and how, in enough detail that you can actually evaluate your tracking data against something meaningful.

A 2019 study published in the Journal of School Psychology examined exactly this combination. According to the researchers, the quality and quantity of goal strategies… including specificity and thoroughness of plans to overcome obstacles, achieve goals, and monitor goal progress… were associated with higher academic performance. The students who wrote out detailed plans, including how they'd handle obstacles and how they'd monitor their progress, performed measurably better than students who didn't, even when controlling for other variables. The planning wasn't extra. It was producing measurable academic improvement on its own.

Why does planning matter so much? Several mechanisms stack together.

Implementation intentions. When you've planned specifically what you'll do, when, and how, you don't have to make decisions in the moment. The decisions have already been made. This is the principle Star Wars fans might recognize from Jedi training… the lightsaber doesn't get used through conscious deliberation in combat, because that's too slow. The training has internalized the responses. Planning your learning produces something similar for your study sessions. Pre-decided behaviors don't have to be willed in the moment. They just happen.

Surface area for course correction. A specific plan gives you something to compare reality against. If you planned to study for 45 minutes five times this week and only did three sessions of 30 minutes, the gap is visible. You can ask why. You can adjust. Without the plan, the gap is invisible. The absence of comparison data makes adjustment impossible.

Identification of obstacles in advance. Good planning includes anticipating what might go wrong. The student who thinks through "if I miss a session, what will I do" has a different relationship with missed sessions than the student who just gets surprised by them every time. The Star Trek principle applies here… you don't go into the unknown without contingency procedures. The contingencies don't always get used, but their existence changes how you handle things when they do go wrong.

Cognitive resource conservation. Each decision uses willpower. Pre-made decisions don't. The planner who has decided when they study, what they study, how they study, and how they'll track it has conserved mental energy for the actual learning rather than spending it on logistics. This compounds over weeks and months into substantial differences in sustained output.

Okay, the practical part. If you've decided to actually track your learning, what should you measure? Here's where it gets interesting, because not all tracking is equal.

Leading indicators vs. lagging indicators. This is the most important distinction. According to the tracking research, tracking only end results without monitoring the behaviors that drive those results provides limited insight for course correction and can be demotivating during periods of slow visible progress. The fix is to track BOTH the behaviors (leading indicators) and the outcomes (lagging indicators). Leading indicators are things like study minutes, sessions completed, problems attempted, pages read. Lagging indicators are things like test scores, project completions, demonstrable skill improvements. The leading indicators tell you whether you're doing the work. The lagging indicators tell you whether the work is producing results. You need both.

Process metrics. Track what you're actually doing. Hours studied. Sessions completed. Specific exercises done. Number of flashcards reviewed. Whatever the relevant behaviors are for what you're trying to learn. These are the inputs that produce learning. Without measuring them, you can convince yourself you're putting in effort that you're not actually putting in.

Outcome metrics. Track what's actually getting better. Performance on practice tests. Speed at completing previously-difficult tasks. Number of vocabulary words you can produce. Quality of work products. These are the outputs that confirm the inputs are working. Without measuring them, you can put in effort that's producing nothing and not know it.

Honest difficulty assessment. Note what's hard, what's easy, and what's in your learning zone. This produces useful data over time about what to focus on next. The skills that were hard a month ago and are now easy are evidence of progress. The skills that have stayed hard for two months are signals that your approach to them isn't working and needs to change.

Patterns over time. This is what tracking enables that nothing else can. After a few months of data, you can see patterns… what time of day you do your best work, what kinds of sessions produce the most progress, what conditions correlate with breakthrough moments. The patterns are invisible without the data. With the data, they emerge and become actionable.

The classic failure mode with tracking is starting elaborately and then quitting after a week. The system has to fit your actual life, or it won't survive. Here's what works.

Start ridiculously simple. Don't build a 47-tab spreadsheet on day one. Start with one or two metrics, tracked in the easiest way you can manage. A notebook. A simple app. A column in a spreadsheet. The barrier to entry has to be near zero, or you won't sustain the tracking. Elaboration can come later, once the basic habit is established.

Track daily, not weekly. The tracking habit is much easier to maintain when it's part of every day's routine than when it's a weekly task you might forget. Daily tracking takes 30 seconds… write down what you did, how it went, what's next. Weekly tracking gets postponed and abandoned.

Use a format you'll actually use. The fancy productivity systems people set up often fail because they're more elaborate than the user's actual willingness to maintain them. If you'll only use paper, use paper. If you need an app to make it stick, use an app. The format that works is the one you'll actually use, not the one that looks impressive.

Build in regular review. Tracking without review is just data accumulation. Schedule a weekly review (15 minutes is plenty) where you look at what you tracked, identify patterns, and adjust your plan for the coming week. The review is where the tracking actually produces value. Without it, you have data but no insights.

Track the plan against reality. Your plan was what you intended to do. The tracking shows what you actually did. The gap between them is the most important information your system produces. Why didn't you do what you planned? What does that tell you about your plan, your circumstances, or your motivation? The gap analysis is where adjustments come from.

Don't track everything. Tracking too many things produces overwhelm and abandonment. Pick the few things that actually matter… the leading indicators of behavior and the lagging indicators of outcome that fit your specific learning project… and ignore the rest. The Pokemon principle: you don't need to catch them all. You need to catch the few that actually matter.

Make tracking visible. Hidden tracking in some app you rarely open is much weaker than tracking that's visible in your daily environment. A whiteboard, a wall calendar, a paper journal that lives on your desk… the visibility makes the tracking part of your environment, which sustains the habit better than digital-only systems do for most people.

Let me name the patterns that kill tracking systems, because avoiding them is half the battle.

Over-engineering at the start. The elaborate system that gets built in week one and abandoned by week three is one of the most common patterns. Start simple. Add complexity only when you've sustained the simple version for a couple of months.

Tracking that becomes its own activity. When tracking takes longer than the work itself, you've gone wrong. Tracking should be a small overhead on top of the actual learning, not a substitute for it. Some people use elaborate tracking systems as a procrastination strategy… they feel productive while not actually learning. Watch for this pattern.

Comparing yourself to others. Your tracking is for you. The person who's grinding through the same material faster than you is on a different journey with different constraints. Comparison to others tends to demotivate rather than inform. Compare yourself to your own past data instead. The version of you a month ago is the only meaningful reference point for your own tracking.

Punishing yourself for missed entries. If you miss tracking for a few days, the temptation is to feel guilty about it, which often triggers abandonment of the whole system. The better move is to just restart. The tracking system isn't a test of your discipline. It's a tool that helps when you use it. Missed days don't invalidate the tool. Just pick it back up.

Tracking activity instead of progress. Filling in your tracker every day with "studied for 45 minutes" without any sense of whether the studying produced anything is tracking activity, not learning. Make sure your tracking includes some signal about effectiveness, not just effort. The activity-only learner can study for hundreds of hours and not improve. The progress-tracking learner notices when activity isn't producing results and adjusts.

Here's what I want you to take from all this. The cultural script around learning emphasizes effort. Work hard. Put in the hours. Show up consistently. This script is partly right but dangerously incomplete. Effort without measurement is effort that often produces less than you think and that you can't reliably improve. The variable that distinguishes learners who actually achieve their goals from learners who don't isn't usually effort or talent. It's whether there's a system catching what's happening, where they are, and what to adjust.

The research on this is more striking than most people realize. A 32 percentile point gain just from tracking progress. A 70% increase in goal achievement from regular monitoring. These aren't subtle effects. They're enormous. And they're available essentially for free… the cost of tracking is small and the benefit is large.

If you've been working hard on learning projects without much sense of whether they're producing results, please consider that the missing variable isn't more effort. It's measurement and planning. The same effort, applied to a tracked plan, produces dramatically different outcomes than the same effort applied without one. The same brain. The same time. Different outcomes, because one version of you can see what's happening and adjust, and the other can't.

The skill isn't dramatic. It's just installing a small overhead of tracking on top of the learning you're already doing. The overhead pays back many times in better outcomes. Future-you, looking back in a year, will have substantially more progress to show if the tracking is in place than if it isn't. The compounding starts small but builds across months and years into the difference between learners who get where they're trying to go and learners who don't.

In Mass Effect, Commander Shepard didn't just charge through the galaxy hoping for the best. There was a system. There were quest logs. There were levels and tracked stats. The Normandy had instruments showing where they were and where they were going. The structure was part of what made the mission possible. Your learning works the same way. The structure isn't separate from the learning. It's what makes the learning navigable across the long arc.

Build the system. Track the data. Plan the route. Adjust when reality differs from intention. The map and the compass aren't decoration. They're what gets you to the destination.

Keep learning (and keep tracking),

Ray