Even after more than a decade, this blog post still provides valuable information explaining the issues — and the ramifications for learning. However, further research has uncovered additional information and has been published in a scientific journal in You can read a review of that research here. That information, and similar pronouncements are fraudulent. Moreover, general statements on the effectiveness of learning methods are not credible—learning results depend on too many variables to enable such precision.
The rest of this article offers more detail. After reading the cited article several times and not seeing the graph—nor the numbers on the graph—I got suspicious and got in touch with the first author of the cited study, Dr. She said this about the graph:. What makes this particularly disturbing is that this graph has popped up all over our industry, and many instructional-design decisions have been based on the information contained in the graph.
I often begin my workshops on instructional design and e-learning and my conference presentations with this graph as a warning and wake up call. Later I often hear audible gasps and nervous giggles as the information is debunked. Clearly, lots of experienced professionals in our field know this graph and have used it to guide their decision making. The graph is representative of a larger problem. JC Kinnamon of Midi, Inc. The bogus percentages were first published by an employee of Mobil Oil Company in , writing in the magazine Film and Audio-Visual Communications.
NTL Institute still claims that they did the research that derived the numbers. See my response to NTL. Michael Molenda, a professor at Indiana University, is currently working to track down the origination of the bogus numbers. It provided an intuitive model of the concreteness of various audio-visual media. Dale included no numbers in his model and there was no research used to generate it.
In fact, Dale warned his readers not to take the model too literally. You can see that Dale used no numbers with his cone.
- Pirates Hell (Ed Thornton series Book 1).
- Don T Smile December Myths.
- Free personal hygiene kits for students.
One common example is represented below. The source cited in the diagram above by Wiman and Meierhenry is a book of edited chapters. In other words, the diagram above is citing a book that does not include the diagram and does not include the percentages indicated in the diagram. The percentages, and the graph in particular, have been passed around in our field from reputable person to reputable person.
The people who originally created the fabrications are to blame for getting this started, but there are clearly many people willing to bend the information to their own devices. Some people have changed the relative percentages. Some have added categories to make their point. It seems clear from some of the fraudulent citations that deception was intended. The creator of Wiman and Meierhenry diagram did four things that make it difficult to track down the original source: 1 the book they cited is fairly obscure, 2 one of the authors names is spelled wrong, 3 the year of publication is incorrect, 4 and the name Charles Merrill, which was actually a publishing house, was ambiguously presented so that it might have referred to an author or editor.
If we look at the numbers a little more closely, they are highly unconvincing. Were two people talking about the information they were learning? And how did the research produce numbers that are all factors of ten? Even the idea that you can compare these types of learning methods is ridiculous. As any good research psychologist knows, the measurement situation affects the learning outcome.
The opposite is also nonsensical. People who learn vocabulary by seeing it on the written page cannot be fairly evaluated by asking them to say the words aloud.
What is Kobo Super Points?
Can you imagine comparing the best boxer with the best golfer by having the boxer punch a heavy bag and having the golfer hit for distance? Would Muhammad Ali punching with pounds of pressure beat Tiger Woods hitting his drives yards off the tee? Even if the numbers presented on the graph had been published in a refereed journal—research we were reasonably sure we could trust—it would still be dangerous not to know where they came from. Research conclusions have a way of morphing over time. Newer research has revealed that monounsaturated oils like olive oil might actually be good for us.
Conversely, we may also lose access to good sources of information. Suppose Teichler had really discovered a valid source of information? The context of research makes a great deal of difference. For example, an article by Kulik and Kulik concluded that immediate feedback was better than delayed feedback.
Most people in the field now accept their conclusions. Their sources enabled us to examine their evidence and find it faulty.
Lynette nussbaum historian
Positive Discipline Tools for Teachers. Fostering Resilient Learners. Kristin Souers. Brain-Based Practices for Leaders. Mark Milotich. State of Mind in the Classroom.
Ami Chen Mills-Naim. Hal Movius. Better Conversations.https://geschdegareac.tk
Career Myths | MapMyTalent
Jim Knight. Getting the Buggers to Behave. Sue Cowley. The Joy of Leadership.
- Deine Geschichte (Band 1) - Sommer (German Edition)!
- Reward Yourself.
- Colón und die Indianer: Die Entdeckung des Anderen (German Edition).
- The shortage of computer science teachers!
- Are you a human?!
- About This Item;
- Passar bra ihop.
Tal Ben-Shahar. Toxic Friendships. Suzanne Degges-White. Helping Boys Succeed in School. Rich Weinfeld.
Mathematical Knowledge for Primary Teachers. Andrew Davis. William Allen. The Grit Guide for Teens. Caren Baruch-Feldman. Parenting Gifted Kids. James Delisle. Harvard Business Review. Eileen T.
Related Dont Smile Until December, and Other Myths About Classroom Teaching
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved