The Learning Pyramid
by Lynne Shandley
Don’t we just love pretty diagrams to make complicated theories look fabulous? Here we can see that lecturing at people doesn’t work as a way to teach them, whilst making them do hands on work teaches them what they need to know and teaching others is even more effective for retaining learning. This learning pyramid illustrates how well people retain information two weeks after teaching
Or does it? Where did the numbers, the percentages of retention of learning, come from?
In 1946, Edgar Dale developed a list of different ways to present information to learners. His Cone of Experience looks rather similar to the pyramid presented above.
But there are no numbers! No numbers showing how effective the different methods of instruction are. So where did the percentages come from?
A number of researchers have tried to find where the numbers come from. Some of the diagrams found on the web attribute the learning pyramid to “National Training Laboratories, Bethel, Maine.”
Even the NTL is happy to admit they cannot find any data to back up the claims:
“Yes, we believe it to be accurate - but no, we no any longer have - nor can we find - the original research that supports the numbers. We get many inquiries every month about this - and many, many people have searched for the original research and have come up empty handed.” (eg Thallheimer 2006.)
Others searching for the origins of the retention percentages attribute the learning pyramid to training at the Sacony-Vacuum Oil Company dating back to the 1940s, but again all report there is no data to back up the numbers found in the learning pyramid (Molenda 2003, Subramony 2003, Holbert & Karady 2008, Holbert 2009, Genovese 2010).
So do we believe the learning pyramid or not?
The evidence says no. The learning pyramid does not exist. Edgar Dale’s cone is not the learning pyramid. It does not have any figures. Dale explicitly stated that he developed a list of ways material can be presented. There is no hierarchy to his presentation (p47, Dale 1946), it is just a list presented in a more catchy way (possibly to help illustrate different modalities of presentation). He did not have any evidence or numbers for how effective these different presentation methods are.
As with all theories, the evidence should be gathered to confirm or disprove the theory. When the research is done, then we can start taking numbers seriously. Some studies have examined retention of information but none of them back up numbers in the learning pyramid, and few cite percentages in retention of knowledge (eg van de Sande 2009; Kim and Gilman 2008).
What should we use in teaching instead? A range of modalities. Different people respond best to different techniques (though interestingly using an unfavoured learning method does not prevent learning, just makes it less enjoyable - we explode another sacred cow HERE).
For a fantastic review of how people learn and the learning pyramid furphy, we recommend reading cisco’s Multimodal Learning Through Media: What the Research Says (2008).
References and further reading:
Atherton, JS (2010) Learning and Teaching; Misrepresentation, myths and misleading ideas Available: http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/myths.htm last accessed 11 January 2011
http://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/docs/education/Multimodal-Learning-Through-Media.pdf last accessed 6 January 2011
Genovese, JEC (2010) The Ten Percent Solution. Anatomy of an Education Myth. Accessed at http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-03-24/#feature
Holbert, KE (2009) Toward Eliminating an Unsupported Statement in Engineering Education Research and Literature. Accessed at: http://soa.asee.org/paper/conference/paper-view.cfm?id=10106
Holbert, KE and Karady, GG (2008) Removing an Unsupported Statement in Engineering Education Literature http://www.asee.org/documents/sections/pacific-southwest/2008/Holbert_Keith_et_al%20Unsupoprted%20Statement%20in%20Engineering%20Education.pdf
Kim, D, & Gilman, DA (2008) Effects of Text, Audio, and Graphic Aids in Multimedia Instruction for Vocabulary Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 11 (3), 114-126. Available at: http://www.ifets.info/journals/11_3/9.pdf
Molenda, M (2003) Cone of Experience in Kovalchick, A & Dawson, K (eds) Educational Technology: An Encyclopedia. ABC-Clio, Santa Barbara, CA. http://www.indiana.edu/~molpage/Cone of Experience_text.pdf last accessed 5 January 2011
Molenda, M (2004) Reader Comment: On the Origins of the “Retention Chart.” An addendum to Subramony www.indiana.edu/~molpage/Reader%20Comment_retention.pdf last accessed 11 January 2011
Thalheimer, W (2006a) http://www.willatworklearning.com/2006/10/people_remember.html People remember 10%, 20%...Oh Really? last accessed 5 January 2011
Thalheimer, W (2006b) http://www.willatworklearning.com/2006/11/ntl_continues_i.html , NTL continues its delusions last accessed 5 January 2011
van de Sande, R (2009) People remember 10% of what they read...? The validity of the ‘learning pyramid’. Available at: http://knol.google.com/k/people-remember-10-of-what-they-read, last accessed 5 January 2011
http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/july98.asp summarises The Effect of Multimedia Components on Learning, Lee, A.Y. and Bowers, A.N., Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 41st Annual Meeting, 340-344 (1997)