Interesting Educational Study

[Mark Jones]

I came across this interesting graphic on the internet, from the National Training Laboratories Institute for Applied Behavioral Science (300 N. Lee Street, Suite 300, Alexandria, VA 22314. 1-800-777-5227):

According to the NTL, this pyramid was developed as part of a study during the 1960's. It amazed me that I never saw this ``pyramid'' during my own educational philosophy classes. Of course, I saw the one contrasting the different sensory modes (listening, reading, doing), but was never shown anything as directly critical of lecture as this.

[NPNW]

Mark,

Isn't that how it goes? I like to read up on things first and make sure I have an idea before I do something. Then I like to actually try what I have read about. I've always felt the best way to learn is to do.


I agree with the graphic.

[IAO]

Hi to all:

Posted by: NPNW
The best way to learn is to do.

I agree with the graphic.

Me too.

[PBrennick]

I agree with the graphic, also.  I learned somewhere that the essense of learning is in the relationship between the hand and the eye, which is what 'do' is.

Paul

[NPNW]

Paul,

What is latin for do ?  Never mind looked it up. There is no do. However Create is creo.

I agree with the graphic, also.  I learned somewhere that the essense of learning is in the relationship between the hand and the eye, which is what 'do' is.

Nice saying. Its intersting how certain sayings bring things into focus.

[IAO]

Hi to all:
If I mistake, excuse me.

I think:
Create is "Crear"
     Do is "Hacer"
Make is   "Hacer"

I Create = "Creo"
Don't make. "No hacer"
Creo could be believe

Bye('_')

[drhowarddrfine]

Paul,

What is latin for do ?  Never mind looked it up. There is no do.

So Yoda was wrong?!

Do, or do not. There is no 'try.'

[Tedd]

What is latin for do ?  Never mind looked it up. There is no do. However Create is creo.

"do" is an auxilliary verb in English - it has no direct translation in many other langauges. It's used when you don't want/need to specify an exact verb. The same utility is usually provided by "make". So for most purposes "make" = "do"


As for learning - the "hands-on" approach works best because it creates (action) associations in memory. Memory works by association, so the more there is to associate with an activity, the easier it is to remember. Simply reading/listening/watching have less effect because they have little basis to 'attach' the knowledge to. The more involved you become in an activity, the easier it becomes to remember.
Actions aren't the only kind of association, and simply working through a problem in your mind and trying to understand it will have a similar effect. Apparently, smell is the strongest trigger - since it's wired directly into the brain - however, I don't think we can manage to learn by smelling :lol

[Randall Hyde]

I came across this interesting graphic on the internet, from the National Training Laboratories Institute for Applied Behavioral Science (300 N. Lee Street, Suite 300, Alexandria, VA 22314. 1-800-777-5227):

Though the figures are probably a bit skewed to benefit NTL, the *raw* results aren't that surprising or interesting, for that matter.

The main thing that is missing from this pyramid diagram is the fact that it's stacked against the stuff at the top. For example, if you go to a lecture *unprepared*, sit an listen in a non-interactive manner *without even taking notes*, I can easily believe the retention is about 5%.  But a good student wouldn't work this way. A good student *reads* the material ahead of time and uses the lecture (with questions) to fill in the gaps that were missing from the reading experience. A lecture also exists to emphasize the things that are important to learn and to show (perhaps by ignoring them) the things that are less important.

The 75% number for "practice by doing" can probably be justified, but the real question is "after how *much* practice?" There's a bit of a difference between a student who spends 3-6 hours/week in a lab practicing programming and someone who spends 40 hours/week on the stuff. Clearly, the amount of educational benefit achieved by these two examples would vary.

Also, the figures for "learn by doing" are a bit inflated, particularly with respect to activities such as programming. Nobody learns programming "just by doing it". Some reading is going to be necessary to get to that point.  And keep in mind that most lectures I've given involve A/V and demonstrations. As best I can tell, what this pyramid is calling a "lecture" could be something that is delivered on a tape that has not interactive qualities whatsoever at all, so I'd take care believing the 5% number.

I certainly believe the bottom of the pyramid though. Once you've studied a subject well enough to teach it to others, you probably know the material *really* well.

Cheers,
Randy Hyde

[Sevag.K]

I find the best way to learn (for me) tends to be a cumulative method.  Sort of starting at the top of the pyramid and work your way down.

Discover the correct order of steps involved in learning the material -- "lecture" phase
Research what is involved in each step -- "reading" -> "discussion" phases
Practice the material and try to teach others what you have learned -- "practice by doing" -> "teach others" phases

I've run into people who want to start near the bottom of the pyramid skipping steps along the way, having no measurable goal posts.   They tend to get frustrated by the overload of information and soon lose interest.