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
I agree with what you said about the categories not separating neatly. Putting numbers on each category does not make sense because the percentages are so exact. How can EVERY person learn exactly the same way? In reality, they can't and they don't. To get the most out of learning I think there needs to be a combination of teaching methods which follow the ideas in the Dale's Cone, but not necessarily the same way each time.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about students being individuals and not learning exactly the same way.
DeleteI think the future of education is going to depend on teachers and researching teachers will have to have an open dialogue about what works and what doesn't using data that support their claims. It is important for educators to help get teaching methods based on myths out of the classroom. Unsupported teaching methods are harmful to students and teachers alike.
Melissa, the other variable that we all need to consider is money. I can take any data and make it compelling, then turn around and sell something. This 'noise' is currently greater than all of the academics shouting, "THIS IS NOT EFFECTIVE!!!!" While I don't discourage capitalistic endeavors, I do take issue with shoddy research backing a shoddy product (a book, a speaker, a set of lesson plans, a 'research-based' curriculum pushed in for-profit schools or charters managed by for-profit companies, etc.)
ReplyDelete