Remember Anything

Since the late 1940’s, via the Cone of Learning authored by Edgar Dale, the pyramid of learning retention has been looked at by a lot of people as a fact. Take, for instance, a revised form of the cone of learning, called the Learning Retention Pyramid, by D. G Treichler- which not only took Dale’s Cone literally, but also took it a leap further.

Dale, in all clarity, did advise his readers not to take the cone as is, since his studies on it were preliminary and might have been more aptly called a “hypothesis.” However, some took it as a new theory, mistakenly passing it on as a researched idea. The problems that Treichler brought with his publication, though, became too widespread and became harder and harder to check.

Building the Pyramid

What exactly did Treichler do? He came out with an article that added numbers to the Cone and people suddenly started taking it seriously. The fact of the matter is that even Treichler seems to have copied the figures he inputted to the graph from another unknown source. Additionally, there seems to be no plausible reason, as some debunkers claim, that could so creatively rationalize the “perfect” percentages in the graph.

The pyramid indicated exact percentages to the method of learning to the following effect:

* Lecture – 5%

* Reading -10%

* Audio Visual – 20%

* Demonstration – 30%

* Discussion Group – 50%

* Practice by Doing – 75%

* Teach Others – 80%

It is quite dubious, admittedly, that an experiment would come up with exactly 5, 10- and 20-percent increments to a graph that starts at precisely 10%.

Still Debatable

Nevertheless, there are claims that the pyramid has been researched and has been found to be very near true averages. Yet the figures that come out in the studies seem to have averaged and estimated too much, comfortably replacing the percentages into the following, again, “perfect” figures of the pyramid.

When we try to study and understand the pyramid, it seems to make sense. It is understandable, then, why it was so easily accepted and has been one of the bases of learning programs in both education and business sectors.

Take it with a grain of salt

From many psychologists’ and researchers’ points of view though, the learning retention pyramid has long been discredited and should not carry any weight in the drafting of curricula and learning programs anywhere. What is unbelievable is the tenacity of unknown authors to present the model as a verified study. For example, one modified graph, a bar graph instead of a pyramid that shows the same information, was cited as research output of Chi, Lewis, Reimann, and Gasser.

But one researcher’s foray on the subject revealed a very odd situation: it seems that one of the authors cited, Dr. Michelene Chi, does not even recognize the graph. Even more disturbing is the knowledge that this pyramid has been in a lot of books and materials that easily find their way to numerous institutions.

This could mean that some of the models these institutions have created are backed by information that was not properly gathered.

Other Items You May Be Interested In:

Functional Fitness Brain Power

Peripheral PESWIX Universal IR Learning Steering Wheel Retention InterfaceThe PESWIX allows the customer to retain the use of their steering wheel or rear seat radio controls when replacing the factory head unit. Learns IR c... Read More >

Retention Strap for Full Support Swing SeatsClips onto the swing seat and the frame to hold the seat steady making it easier to help someone in and out of the seat.

Knowledge Retention: Strategies and SolutionsAs baby boomers approach retirement age and the work patterns of younger workers constantly change, many organizations worldwide are experiencing a fa... Read More >

Retention