active learning triangle / how reliable are its predictions? : Sharing Nicely

I found a mention of the active learning triangle (in this slideshare presentation on education in Web 2.0, which references “Audio-Visual Methods in Teaching” by Holt Rinhart and Winston). It posits that the more we engage / internalise / transform what we learn (or act on what we learn) the more of it we remember after a period of time.

It seems like a useful model to think about rip-mix-learn practices, which are all further towards the “active” side of the triangle than the traditional lecture style of teaching and learning.

However, I am wondering to what extend the model has been tested and how much empirical evidence exists for the statements implicit in the triangle. It makes specific statements about a “2 week” timeframe, and assigns percentages (we remember x % of something) to different types of learning (reading, hearing about something, speaking about it, etc.). I wonder how reliable those percentages are, and how they were arrived at.

Raj

No name attributed to the research that produced the numbers. The numbers were cooked up to support a hypothesis that people intuitively feel is right.
Anonymous

While I am also skeptical of the research findings, I would not refer to the data as “cooked up” without knowing more about the study. Did you try to contact the authors? There are in fact names attributed to the research on the slide that I refer to:

“Adapted from: Edgar Dale Audio Visual Methods in Teaching, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.”

Sharing Nicely

active learning triangle / how reliable are its predictions?

by P

Elsewhere