Retention is claimed to rise from a tenth of what is read to nine-tenths of what is taught to others.
Dale's Cone of Experience, to which the pyramid is routinely credited, contained no percentages in its 1946, 1954 or 1969 versions, and Dale stated it was not a ranking of effectiveness. Letrud traces the pyramid to a synthesis of the cone with a separate and equally unsourced retention chart. The numbers are all multiples of five and sum with a neatness real retention data never shows.
In practice
- A training budget is allocated on the strength of a diagram whose owner has said it cannot produce the study behind it.
- A department drops lectures for group work citing 5% against 50%, and the two figures were never measured.
- Possible explanations
- One explanation for its spread is that the ranking matches teachers' intuitions and gives a simple rule. Another is authority, since the numbers travelled attached to a respected institute's name.
- In its favour
- The general point, that active practice and explaining to others beat passive reading, is supported by research on retrieval practice and on learning by teaching.
- Against it
- The figures have no traceable source, the institute could not produce the research when asked, and the cone of experience it is credited to contained no percentages and was never a ranking of effectiveness.
- Standing
- The figures have no traceable source. NTL, asked for the study, said it believed the numbers accurate but could no longer find the research, and later dropped the pyramid for having no scientific foundation.
- Further reading
- Wikipedia
- Subject
- Learning & Education
- Essay
- What works in learning, and what schools can and cannot change