How many people remember after their training? The student memorizes on average 10% of what he read, 20% of what he heard, 30% of what he saw ... 90% of what he did himself. Many have come across these numbers. They are given separately or often combined with the so-called learning pyramid or cone of experience. And everything would be fine and good if the whole Internet were not filled with these numbers, and they themselves were not a hoax and a hoax.




The cone of experience, the cone of learning, or the pyramid of learning are very popular. They are often referred to in various articles, books, scientific papers and presentations. On the Internet, it is easy to find a multitude of pictures with the image of a triangle, in which teaching methods are consistently entered. It is stated that at the apex of the triangle are indicated less effective ways of learning, and more effective at the bottom. The effectiveness of each method is confirmed by numbers indicating what percentage of data the student is able to remember.
')


The authors of the articles very often use this data as a basis for building their “correct” conclusions.

A quote from the book by Robert Kiyosaki and Donald Trump “Why we want you to be rich”:

“In 1969, a study was conducted under the education system that demonstrated the effectiveness of various types of training. On the basis of the research materials was created "Cone learning." It shows that the least productive learning tool is reading and lectures, and the most effective is practical work. Between them position methods imitating real experience. Do you find it paradoxical that our educational system still uses mainly reading and lectures in the learning process? And this is despite the fact that the “learning cone” has been known since 1969! ”

The problem is that the foundation of their conclusions is built on quicksand and can collapse at any time. Actually, now we will arrange this catastrophe.

I am plagued by vague doubts

1. Doubts arise already when trying to compare with each other the variants of cones and pyramids walking on the Internet.
   Find as many differences as possible.
   
   
   
   Figure 1: It looks relatively normal, we will consider it a benchmark.
   
   Figure 2: Reading - 10%, and listening? 0% or also 10%? 20% heard refers to looking at the picture?
   There is a clear out of sync with the data in Figure No. 1.
   
   Figure # 3: Reading and listening - both at 10%, instead of 10% and 20% in figure # 1. A look at the figure of 20% instead of 30%, as in Figure No. 1.
   
   Figure 4: Also a very interesting option. Lecture (listening) - 5%, and reading - 10%? The order changed, the hearing turned out to be at the top of the pyramid and only 5% instead of 20%, as in Figure 1 (the level of memorization decreased 4 times).
   
   It does not make sense to continue, there are many other examples on the Internet that you can practice on your own.
   
   
2. Very strange research results. All percentages are divided by 10. How realistic is it to get such results under normal conditions?
   
   
3. Who exactly was investigated and, most importantly, how? Why was reading suddenly the most ineffective learning method? Even in comparison with listening (lectures), reading has a clear advantage; you can always go back to misunderstood material and repeat it.
   
   
4. Which learner can memorize 90%?
   
   

Bitter truth

The search for truth about the pyramids and cones in the Russian-language Internet did not give positive results. Everywhere, as in the mantra, repeats about the same thing:

“Edgar Dale in 1969 revealed the most effective ways to learn. Edgar Dale concluded that:
- listen to lectures on the topic or read materials on the subject - this is the least effective way to learn something;
- to teach others and use the material under study in their own lives - this is the most effective way to learn something.
The results of the research he presented in the form of the “Cone of learning” scheme. Edgar Dale taught students the same teaching material, but in different ways. And then he analyzed their ability to recall the studied information after graduation. Although the cone is actually based on the results of Dale's research, the percentage data was calculated not by Dale, but by his followers as a result of their own research. ”

I came to the conclusion that teaching others and using the material under study in their own lives is the most effective way to learn something? That is, following this principle, we skip lectures and reading and immediately begin to teach others? I would not want to get to such a teacher.

Answers to all questions were found only in the English part of the Internet. And they were discouraging.

Let's start dancing from the stove.

Back in 1946, Edgar Dale's book Audiovisual Methods in Teaching was published. It was in her that the author first presented the cone of experience (Cone of Experience). Illustrations of the cone from the first, second and third editions of the book (1946, 1954, 1969):



It is interesting, but from the text of the book it follows that the scheme created by the author does not in any way relate to the ability to learn or memorize. In essence, a cone is a descriptive model, a classification system, and not a prescription on how to plan training correctly.
The scheme consistently indicates the various levels of abstraction: the words, the most abstract, at the top of the cone and the experience gained from real life, the most specific, is at the bottom.

Unfortunately, since the first edition, Dale’s theoretical model has begun to live its own life. Too great was the temptation to put it into practice. Therefore, the third edition of Dale’s book was specifically added with the section “Some Possible Misconceptions”, which specifically warned against trying to think that learning from real experience is better than methods that are at a level with greater abstraction.

By the way, we see that there are no figures in the figure, because the author did not conduct any practical research, and any statements to the contrary are false:

“Edgar Dale taught students the same teaching material, but in different ways. And then I analyzed their abilities to recall the studied information after graduation. ”

The questions remain, how and where did the numbers associated with memorization come from?

Mystical figures were born earlier or simultaneously with the cone itself. And for some time existed separately, lived their own lives. However, around 1970, someone came up with a “wonderful” idea to combine a cone and numbers. Doubtful data imposed on top of the experience cone Dale. Then the so-called learning pyramid came into being.

Denials and revelations of scientists have been undertaken since 1971. In 2002, a second wave of criticism appeared, apparently related to the development of the Internet, when people began to share more and more false information.

Researchers with persistence, worthy of respect, spent years to find the source and understand who and how received experimental data on memorization. This was not so easy - all the chains of links pointed to eight different sources:

• Edgar dale
• Wiman & Meierhenry
• Bruce nyland
• Various oil companies (Mobil, Standard Oil, Socony-Vacuum Oil)
• NTL Institute
• William Glasser
• British Audio-Visual Society
• Chi, Bassok, Lewis, Reimann, & Glaser (1989)

Detailed study of each of the sources did not allow them to confirm! As an example of an investigation, a small illustration from Keith E. Holbert and George G. Karady Removing an Unsupported

P.S

To be honest, the article is not about the pyramid of learning, and not even about the cone of Dale. This is a small illustration of a big problem. It is indicative of how people massively believe in information of dubious nature. In the information in which there are experts with the results of the allegedly conducted research. Although, of course, too difficult to resist the flow of false data. Especially when they fall on you from everywhere: from books, reports, articles of respected people or even scientists.

I hope that the article will make you think for at least a second and take a little more critical look at the world around us.

Related Links:

wiki edgar dale
The Corrupted Cone of Experience
People remember 10%, 20% ... Oh Really?
Tales of the Undead ... Learning Theories: The Learning Pyramid
Dale - Cone of Experience or Learning Pyramid Theory - Misleading Quotes
Forget What You've Heard About Remembering
The Cone of Experience Myth and Promise of Multimodal Learning
Cone of learning or cone of shame?
The learning pyramid: true, false, hoax or myth?