The
article regarding Dale’s cone of experience was very eye opening to me. I have
heard a lot of debates about Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences in my
college courses and how it isn’t very credible, so I have already dismissed its
effectiveness. I haven’t spent a lot of time researching and studying Dale’s
cone of experience, but I have heard a bit about how we remember 10% of what we
read, 20% of what we see, etc. Truthfully, I have never questioned these
numbers, but after reading the article I definitely question them. Dr.
Thalheimer brings up an interesting point, that if these numbers were true, how
did they all come out to be multiples of ten?
I
agreed with all three articles. I think the research presented was valid and
provided a strong argument for why these are myths. As for learning about these
myths in my college courses, my professors have presented information that
aligns with these articles. In my psychology classes, my professors lectured
about how Howard Gardner’s intelligences are not justifiable. I haven’t really
covered Dale’s cone of experience in my recent courses, however, I remember
teachers talking about the percentages back in high school.
I
definitely think that in our future professions, we will be faced with arguing the
various myths we learned about in this course and our other courses. Especially
if you are dealing with a principal or teacher who has been in the field for a
long time, they might not be as familiar with the recent research findings as
we are. I think it is important to present colleagues with the information and
the research when arguing your point of view. If you can back up your stance
with research, your colleague might be more open to consider the opposing side.
I can remember back to high school and learning about the whole you remember 10% of this and 20% of that. I have always thought that it sounded truthful, meaning I believed it and many of my classmates did as well. I would like to see more information and research supporting both sides. I think my brain has trained itself to accept it for so long, so it won't reject it very fast.
ReplyDeleteI feel that way, too. But I do think that it is hard to truly say how much we remember of what we hear, see, etc. I don't think that this model can really generalize to all people due to the fact that some people learn best with visuals while some people learn best by listening. It just depends on the person. I think that educators need to be aware of this people they jump to conclusions because what works best for one student might not work best for another.
ReplyDeleteA former colleague at GVSU, Dr. Subramony (who used to teach EDT370) just published a series of articles that showed, over time, exactly when Dale's Cone of Experience was assigned numbers (that improperly cited other research - saying someone said it when they didn't).
DeleteIt's similar to how Gardner is mortified how his theory has been misused. People will say, "this way of teaching is supported by HARVARD PROFESSOR [note the emphasis] Howard Gardner..." when he does in no such way support most of how MI is used is schools.
I feel the exact same too! I have had so many different pysch professors talk about these being true that its hard for me to let the fact know that these are actually myths. I agree with you too Shelby, I think that educators do need to be aware of what type of articles are out there and if what they are reading is true or not.
ReplyDeleteI feel the exact same way! I have heard a lot about this as well. I think that it is really hard to measure how much people remember from what they heard and see. I agree with you Shelby, it is really hard to generalize this due to the fact that everyone learns differently, and many other factors come into play. I also agree that it is super important for educators to be aware of this. We need to address our students needs and how they learn best individually. What works for one student, may not work at all for another. I would also like to see more research done on this.
ReplyDeleteI think more research should be done as well. I just think this topic is hard to really reach an accurate conclusion. I think that teachers need to make sure they are staying up to date on the latest research and discoveries, and use what they think will work best for their students. I would like to learn more about Dale's Cone of Experience in my college courses. It would be interesting to hear some feedback from a few professors.
ReplyDeleteDale's cone is not common in most education professor's training; only those with background in Instructional Technology or Instructional Design, or even Media Literacy (~media specialists). Dale is often overshadowed by Bloom, Dewey, etc.
DeleteI would like to see more research done too before I start to believe its true. Each student is different and they all have different needs. Each student will have a different way they learn best, especially in special education. I have learned some about the Cone of Experience but it would be nice to learn more too
ReplyDeleteI think we all agree that more research needs to be done. Also, teachers need to be open and willing to try new things and adjust their ways of teaching to meet the needs of their students because not all students will have one set in stone way that makes their learning experience the best it can be.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, however, the most current research says it's garbage, so it should be discarded in favor of more effective ways of instruction. The purpose of research is to refine our ideas over time. Now, these things are garbage, but we should keep an open mind IF/WHEN new research directs us in another direction.
Delete