Tag: Debunker Club
Does tailoring your content for different learning styles really work? Maybe there’s a better use of your time and resources.
View the presentation for more. (If you’re reading this in email or a feed reader and don’t see anything below, you may have to click through to view the presentation.)
Ready to learn more?
A new group called The Debunker Club is working to dispel myths and misinformation in the learning field. From their website:
The Debunker Club is an experiment in professional responsibility. Anyone who’s interested may join as long as they agree to the following:
- I would like to see less misinformation in the learning field.
- I will invest some of my time in learning and seeking the truth, from sources like peer-reviewed scientific research or translations of that research.
- I will politely, but actively, provide feedback to those who transmit misinformation.
- At least once a year, I will seek out providers of misinformation and provide them with polite feedback, asking them to stop transmitting their misinformation.
- I will be open to counter feedback, listening to understand opposing viewpoints. I will provide counter-evidence and argument when warranted.
This year, coinciding with April Fool’s Day 2015, the Debunker Club is running an experiment. We’re making a concerted effort to contact people who have shared the Cone of Experience (also known as the Cone of Learning or the Pyramid of Learning).
Many iterations of this cone exist. A Google image search for “cone of learning” returns dozens of results, most of which are false. If you’ve seen something like this that said, “People remember 10% of what they read, 20% of what they hear, 30% of what they see” etc., you’ve seen a variation on this theme.
The original cone was developed by Edgar Dale and didn’t include any numbers. The later versions are the “corrupted cone” with fictitious statistics added. Will Thalheimer’s post from 2009 debunking these claims is where I learned it was incorrect. Common sense might give you a hint that these numbers aren’t really based in research though. Think about it–how many times have you see research where all the categories broke into even 10% segments?
As part of the Debunker Club’s efforts, I discovered a post on Dane’s Education Blog called A Hierarchy of Learning. Although this post cites a great debunking article (Tales of the Undead…Learning Theories: The Learning Pyramid), the blog author only says that he “appreciate what it conveys.”
I left the following comment on his Learning Pyramid post.
Thanks for collecting so many resources on your blog. I can see that you’ve worked really hard to share many links and ideas with your readers.
However, the information above, though it may appear to have scientific support, has been exhaustively researched and found to have no basis in science. In fact, the “Tales of the Undead” link you cite debunks it.
An article from the scientific journal Educational Technology shows no research backing for the information. (Subramony, D., Molenda, M., Betrus, A., and Thalheimer, W. (2014). The Mythical Retention Chart and the Corruption of Dale’s Cone of Experience. Educational Technology, Nov/Dec 2014, 54(6), 6-16.)
The information presented is likely to produce more harm than good, promoting poor learning designs and hurting learners.
While we might abstract some beneficial notions from the percentages portrayed in the misleading information — namely that encouraging realistic practice has benefits — there are numerous faulty concepts within the bogus percentages that can do real harm. For example, by having people think that there are benefits to seeing over hearing, or hearing over reading, we are sending completely wrong messages about how learning works.
Most importantly, recent advances in learning science have really come together over the last two decades. The misleading information was first reported in 1914, with no research backing. It’s better to follow more recent findings than information that has no scientific basis. See, for example, the book Make it Stick by Brown, Roediger, and McDaniel. Julie Dirksen’s Design for How People Learn is another great selection.
I’m part of a larger community of folks called the Debunker Club who are attempting to encourage the use of proven, scientifically-based learning factors in the learning field.
I’m going to be posting about this misleading information on my blog. I hope you’ll comment and respond to my post if you wish. I (and the debunker community in general) want to learn how other people feel about the issues and ideas surrounding the original information and our approach to debunking myths and sharing evidence.
If you’re interested in dispelling misinformation and improving the learning field, please join the Debunker Club and participate in the conversation.