The Learning Pyramid: Does It Point Teachers in the Right Direction?.

Abstract

The Learning Pyramid (see Figure 2) is an often-cited guide for teachers to use for designing effective instruction. It can be found in books (Sousa, 2001; Danielson, 2002; Drewes & Milligan, 2003), articles in refereed journals (Wood, 2004; Brueckner & MacPherson, 2004; Darmer et al., 2004; DeKanter, 2005) and in teacher resources (Boulmetis, 2003; Hershman & McDonald, 2003). Further, a recent internet search using Google[R] returned 12,200 hits, of which 452 were from cites with the generic top level domain .org, 313 from .edu, and 30 from .gov. While it appears an intuitive model and an implied comprehensive research summary, the logic of the model, as well as its research base, have been questioned (Thalheimer, 2005). Therefore, it is our intention to examine the following: the source of the general structure of the pyramid, Dale's Cone of Experience; available research on retention from the methods identified by the pyramid; and consider the relationship(s) among the methods. Dale's Cone of Experience Edgar Dale was a prominent educator and nationally known scholar regarding the use of media in instruction. He had a laudable career at the Ohio State University and its media center is named in his honor. In 1946 Dale published the first of three editions of his influential text Audio-Visual Methods in Teaching. The purpose of the text was to delineate: the use of audio-visual materials in teaching--materials that do not depend primarily upon reading to convey their meaning. It is based upon the principle that all teaching can be greatly improved by the use of such materials because they can help make the learning experience memorable ... this central idea has, of course, certain limits. We do not mean that sensory materials must be introduced into every teaching situation. Nor do we suggest that teachers scrap all procedures that do not involve a variety of audio-visual methods (Dale, 1954, p. 3, italics in original) [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] The 1946 edition included the debut of his Cone of Experience (See Figure 1). The cone was Dale's attempt to organize various types of experience according to their levels of abstractness, with Direct, Purposeful Experiences being the at least abstract (or most concrete) end of the continuum, and Verbal Symbols, the most abstract, at the other. However, he notes that there will clearly be overlap among the levels. Before proceeding, we should note that that there were modifications to the cone to accommodate emerging technologies (e.g., television was added in 1954) in the three editions of his text (Dale, 1946; 1954; 1969)). However, the general construct of the cone, progressing from the concrete to the abstract, remained intact. Dale describes Direct, Purposeful Experiences as those in which you have direct participation, with responsibility in the outcome (1954, p. 42, italics in original). He asserts that our most vivid memories are often the result of direct experiences. As an example, Dale offers performing a laboratory experiment as direct experience. However, he goes on to note that: Life cannot, of course, be lived exclusively on this direct, concrete, sensory level. Whenever we remember something we have experienced, we have begun to abstract. Even our earliest experiences involve some degree of abstraction. As very young children we learn to talk about the doll or the cat or the man that is not physically present, and thus our direct, concrete experience becomes associated with abstractions. (1954, p. 44, italics in original) Dale prefaced his presentation of the cone with the reminder that the gap between the least and the most abstract is often quite narrow, noting that even the words of small children, for whom we often advocate concrete learning experiences, are abstractions. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 202 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.