We’ve all heard what I learned as “Dale Cone’s Pyramid” (people remember 10% of what they read, 20% of what they hear, etc). Apparently it has been pretty thoroughly debunked.

I’m not convinced that there isn’t some truth to the general idea in many circumstances. Will Thalheimer’s reaction is composed of more than a little straw:

If we look at the numbers a little more closely, they are highly unconvincing. How did someone compare “reading” and “seeing?” Don’t you have to “see” to “read?” What does “collaboration” mean anyway? Were two people talking about the information they were learning? If so, weren’t they “hearing” what the other person had to say? What does “doing” mean? How much were they “doing” it? Were they “doing” it correctly, or did they get feedback? If they were getting feedback, how do we know the learning didn’t come from the feedback—not the “doing?” Do we really believe that people learn more “hearing” a lecture, than “reading” the same material? Don’t people who “read” have an advantage in being able to pace themselves and revisit material they don’t understand? And how did the research produce numbers that are all factors of ten? Doesn’t this suggest some sort of review of the literature? If so, shouldn’t we know how the research review was conducted? Shouldn’t we get a clear and traceable citation for such a review?

Yes, one has to see to read, but it should be pretty obvious that the comparison being made is to, for example, reading instructions on how to use a torque wrench to fasten a bolt to 180 ft/lbs and seeing that action performed. Similarly, “doing” would be actually using a torque wrench to perform the action with instructional guidance, “hearing and reading” in this model refer to hearing the methods told to you once as opposed to reading them once, etc.

The pyramid resonates with people because it parallels a kind of common sense which reflects the educational experience: learners tend to remember (or learn) more from doings something themselves than seeing it done, and seeing something done is often more memorable than hearing it described, etc. Which, in the absence of other clearer guiding principles isn’t necessarily a bad rule of thumb. When I have a choice in the matter, I would rather have students performing activities instead of just watching them be performed, or watching them in some visual manner rather than just hearing or reading about them.

This isn’t a universal rule, but neither is it something to get too hysterical about. And while it is fine to ding Wikipedia for perpetuating the myth, it’s far from a damning indictment of Wikipedia’s bogosity given that this myth has been well and oft repeated since long before Wikipedia (or any other digital media) was around.