Friday, February 13, 2015

A Hierarchy of Learning



Originated by Edgar Dale in 1946, his Cone of Experience has taken on many iterations over the years. Nevertheless, I appreciate what it conveys. Read more — "Tales of the Undead . . . Learning Theories: The Learning Pyramid," which is found on the Association of College & Research Libraries' (ACRL) blog.

7 comments:

Anna D said...

I agree with this. I think lectures can be immensely engaging, however, if done properly. Anecdotes and teaching through emotion, being sincere, telling jokes, are wonderful tools when delivering a lecture. Students have various learning styles, too--some students learn wonderfully through listening to a lecture and taking notes.

Nice education blog. I have my own! I am just looking around the blogger community picking out people with my interests.

Anjali Joshi said...

totally agree with it, its very important to retain the knowledge that we give, this should be followed right from Montessori school

essay writing service reviews said...

It is a good education blog, completely education related posts. Nowadays need this type of blogs.

Justin Kemp said...

I would be supportive on all your articles and blogs as a result of they are simply up to the mark.Term paper writing help for attempting learners

christytucker said...

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.

martion said...

Interesting post. A basic analysis on any topic would be always a good thing. Admission essay writing service

Habib Malik said...

Gujarat TET Application Form 2018
Bihar TET Application Form 2018
West Bengal TET Application Form 2018
Odisha TET Application Form 2018
UP TET Application Form 2018