Learning pyramid: Difference between revisions
Architect21c (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Architect21c (talk | contribs) →Description: image added |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| 5% || Listening to a '''lecture'''. |
| 5% || Listening to a '''lecture'''. |
||
|} |
|} |
||
[[File:Edgar Dale's cone of learning.png|thumb|left|400px|Edgar Dale's Cone of Learning]] |
|||
== Criticisms == |
== Criticisms == |
||
Revision as of 15:45, 21 October 2019
The learning pyramid (also known as “the cone of learning”, “the cone of experience”, “the learning cone”, “the cone of retention”, “the pyramid of learning”, or “the pyramid of retention”[1]) is a group of popular learning models and representations relating different degrees of retention induced from various type of learning. The representations is generally via percentages and discrete layers within a "pyramid of learning". The divide is generally 10, 20, 30, 50 and 90 percent.[1][2][3][4]
Description
The earliest such representation is believed to originate in a 1954 book called Audio-Visual Methods in Teaching, p. 43, published by the Edgar Dale Dryden Press in New York (Letrud 2012:118). A pyramid model was developed by the National Training Laboratories Institute in early 1960s, on its main campus in Bethel, Maine, for which the original, internal research has been lost (Letrud 2012:118). This NTL's learning pyramid model still became a central representation of this concept with a large number of models drawing from it (Letrud 2012:118). This NTL's model generally displays the following representation (Letrud 2012:118) :
| Retention rate | Learning activity before test of knowledge |
|---|---|
| 90% | Teach someone else/use immediately. |
| 75% | Practice what one learned. |
| 50% | Engaged in a group discussion. |
| 30% | Watch a demonstration. |
| 20% | Watch audiovisual. |
| 10% | Reading. |
| 5% | Listening to a lecture. |
Criticisms
Criticism emerged on early version of the model such as Dale’s Cone of experience, criticized by Subramony (2003), Molenda (2004).[1] Lalley & Miller (2007) reported inconsistencies between the pyramid of learning and actual state of the art in retention researches.[1] The former NLT learning pyramid study being lost, the field largely stands on an unknown methodology of unknown quality, with unknown mitigation of influencial parameters such time, population tested, etc, making the original study's results untrustworthy (Letrud 2012:119).
References
- ^ a b c d Letrud, Kåre (2012), "A rebuttal of NTL Institute's learning pyramid", Education (133): 117–124
- ^ Subramony, D.P. (2003). “Dale’s Cone revisited: Critically examining the misapplication of a nebulous theory to guide practice”. Educational technology, 7-8, (25-30).
- ^ Molenda, M. (2004). “Cone of experience. In A. Kovalchik & K. Dawson (Eds.), Education and Technology (161-165). California: ABCCLIO.
- ^ Lalley, J. P. & Miller, R.H. (2007): “The learning pyramid: Does it point teachers in the right direction?” Education 128(1):64-79.
| |||||||||||||
