I
found the 3rd article, People remember 10%, 20%... Oh really, to be the most
surprising. I don’t recall being told those specifics numbers or shown those graphs,
but I have heard of the concept they display. I don’t doubt that I would have
taken this information and graph at face value and believed it to be research
supported. It is surprising how much “research” can be passed off or twisted to
support what people want them to. I recently read an article about a man who
created research that “proved” chocolate aids in weight loss. Once it was past
the first approval, nobody thought to check again, which is the same thing that
happened with Dale’s Cone.
I
agree with what the article found. It made many great points about what was
wrong with the data, and where it may have come from. It also pointed out that
deception may have been the goal in many cases. I don’t recall having anyone
present Dale’s Cone to be as fact, but I have heard generally statements about
how much you remember, along with the classic idea that you only use 10% of
your brain.
In
the future I may show this article to my colleagues or administers to help
explain why the concept of Dale’s Cone is not appropriate to base lessons or
teaching strategies on. We could also discuss how it is not supported by
research, or attributed to the person who created it. I also think discussing
the articles point about how you can’t separate things into those categories
neatly is a strong point. How can you read without seeing, doesn't reading
require seeing? Discussing this could help show up the idea is not well thought
out.
References
Thalheimer, W. (2006). People remember 10%, 20%...Oh really? Retrieved from http://www.willatworklearning.com/2006/05/people_remember.html
