Conclusion: - The Learning Pyramid is not supported by solid evidence and doesn’t match what cognitive psychology tells us about how memory and learning actually work. - It’s considered a myth, and continuing to use it in education without questioning it is seen as poor scholarship. it’s better to focus on deliberate practice. Deliberate practice involves actively engaging with the material, challenging yourself, and continuously refining your skills through focused effort and feedback. So, rather than relying on simplistic models like the Learning Pyramid, aim for active learning strategies that encourage critical thinking, problem-solving, and hands-on practice.
Thanks for this great video Paul! I really appreciate that you have put the references in and included timestamps. On your final point - if learning is more a product of the quality and quantity of thought a learner puts into an experience does that mean that some experiences are better at promoting thought than others (e.g. questioning content whilst reading vs simply reading). If we took away the numbers from Dale's Cone - could we look at it as a useful rule of thumb?
Hi Dan, You're welcome. Glad you found it useful. Learning pyramids are sometimes misattributed to Dale or confused with his cone of experience . Dale's cone of experience, by his own admission, was not intended to be taken literally and IIRC just described different learning experiences and crudely illustrated how sensory information is lost as one moves from the concrete to the more abstract experiences. It did not attach any figures about "retention" or "learning" to any level of classification. Good blog on this here: learningspy.co.uk/myths/the-learning-pyramid/ I don't believe it's especially helpful to think in terms of how amenable each of the activities are to thinking, but rather ask what is being done to promote thinking in each instance. The example of reading illustrates the difference between an activity (reading) and the learning strategy that one uses to engage with that activity (elaborative interrogation). Best wishes, Paul
Conclusion:
- The Learning Pyramid is not supported by solid evidence and doesn’t match what cognitive psychology tells us about how memory and learning actually work.
- It’s considered a myth, and continuing to use it in education without questioning it is seen as poor scholarship.
it’s better to focus on deliberate practice.
Deliberate practice involves actively engaging with the material, challenging yourself, and continuously refining your skills through focused effort and feedback.
So, rather than relying on simplistic models like the Learning Pyramid, aim for active learning strategies that encourage critical thinking, problem-solving, and hands-on practice.
One hopes that those responsible for Learning & Teaching in HEI’s will watch this video.
Thanks for this great video Paul! I really appreciate that you have put the references in and included timestamps. On your final point - if learning is more a product of the quality and quantity of thought a learner puts into an experience does that mean that some experiences are better at promoting thought than others (e.g. questioning content whilst reading vs simply reading). If we took away the numbers from Dale's Cone - could we look at it as a useful rule of thumb?
Hi Dan,
You're welcome. Glad you found it useful. Learning pyramids are sometimes misattributed to Dale or confused with his cone of experience . Dale's cone of experience, by his own admission, was not intended to be taken literally and IIRC just described different learning experiences and crudely illustrated how sensory information is lost as one moves from the concrete to the more abstract experiences. It did not attach any figures about "retention" or "learning" to any level of classification. Good blog on this here: learningspy.co.uk/myths/the-learning-pyramid/
I don't believe it's especially helpful to think in terms of how amenable each of the activities are to thinking, but rather ask what is being done to promote thinking in each instance. The example of reading illustrates the difference between an activity (reading) and the learning strategy that one uses to engage with that activity (elaborative interrogation).
Best wishes,
Paul
Great video, Paul! Thanks for this.
You're welcome. Glad you found it useful.
This is really deep and helpful 👍👍
Glad it was helpful!
Great quality video 👍👍
Thanks 👍
This is quality content
You got a sub
Many thanks for the support and kind words.
👍 nice video
Thank you! 🙂