Ukens pyramide:

NL Wagner, PJ Wagner, og  Jayachandran P har publisert en artikkel i det fagfellevurderte tidsskrftet  Indian Journal of occupational and environmental medicin, kalt «Distance learning courses in occupational medicine – Methods and good practice«

«To help adults learn we can look to what we know about the process of learning itself. Which teaching method helps most to remember and apply new knowledge? Research has shown that immediate use, practice by doing and discussion groups are the most powerful tools in teaching [Figure - 1][11] Lecturing seems to be the weakest and most ineffective teaching method if we look at retention of content 24 hours after «being taught».»

Referansen er Sousas How the Brain Learns – A Classroom Teacher’s Guide. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks referring to research done by National Training Laboratories Bethel Maine. Corwin Press: CA USA; 2001. p. 95

Modellen er ikke utseendemessig, men i det minste  innholdsmessig identisk med Sousas. Med unntak av den øverste kategorien, som Sousa kaller  «teach others/immediate use of learning» (Amazon Look Inside).

Ukens pyramide:

Sidney Zisook, M.D., Sheldon Benjamin, M.D., Richard Balon, M.D., Ira Glick, M.D., Alan Louie, M.D., Christine Moutier, M.D., Trenton Moyer, M.D., Cynthia Santos, M.D. and Mark Servis, M.D. har publisert en artikkel kalt «Alternate Methods of teaching psychopharmacology» i det fagfellevurderte Open Access tidsskriftet «Academic Psychiatry»

Der skriver de: «Evaluating students’ retention of materials under a variety of teaching methods, Brookfield (11) enumerates the following: from traditional lectures 5%, from reading 10%, from lectures supplemented with audiovisual aids 20%, from demonstration 30%, from discussion 50%, from practice by doing 75%, and teaching others 90%.»

Referansen er «Brookfield (11)», men det virker som vi må gå til nestemann på listen:

«11. Stahl SM: The 7 habits of highly effective psychopharmacologists, part 3: Sharpen the saw with selective choices of continuing medical education programs. J Clin Psychiatry 2000; 61(6)

12. Brookfield SD: Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning. San Fransisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass Press, 1986.»

Brookfields bok fra 1986 ligger i Google Books, og det gjør det mulig å søke gjennom teksten med ulike nøkkelord. Påfallende er det da at uttrykk som «practice by doing» og «teaching others» ikke gir noen treff. Heller ikke Stahls tekst nevner pyramiden i noen form.

Ukens pyramide:

Jones og Borthick støtter seg til NTL i «The motivation for collaborative discovery learning online and its application in an information systems assurance course«:

«The more active one’s participation, the more one is presumed to learn. According to an NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Sciences study, average retention rates for different modes of engagement are: 5 percent, lecture; 10 percent, reading; 20 percent, audiovisual; 30 percent, demonstration; 50 percent, discussion group; 75 percent, practice by doing; 80 percent, teach
other/immediate use (Meister 1998).» (s. 190)

Tidsskriftet er det fagfellevurderte «Issues in Accounting Education».

Ukens pyramide:

I artikkelen «Interdisciplinary Project-Based Learning: An Experiment to Create Real World Products and Services with Clients Involving the Disciplines of Business Management, Multimedia, Distance Learning, Engineering Technology, and English» av Travis Begay, Melinda Bender, Michael J. Stemkoski, Davis Raines, og Tricia Walker står det blant annet:

«This interactive learning technique (PBL) supports the premise that students retain more of what they learn when they do the real thing. Doing the real thing means applying and experiencing what was learned through a real-world situation. The knowledge retention patterns in project-based learning seem to reflect “The Cone of Learning,” developed and revised by researchers Bruce Hyland and Edgar Dale (1969). The research demonstrates that students tend to remember:
10% of what they read (comprehension).
20% of what they hear (listening).
30% of what they see (charts, power points, videos, spreadsheets, and reports).
50% of what they hear and see (pictures and movies).
70% of what they demonstrate and write (oral presentations, explaining, teaching, instructing, and participation).
90% of what they do (real world practice-becoming aware of what they know, applying what they learn, and finding out what they do not know, creating and producing a finished product or service).
Reading and comprehension are vital to the learning process. It is well recognized throughout the literature that all aspects of the “Cone of Learning” are important when used appropriately by students and instructors in completing a successful project.» (s. 16)

Modellen kommer fra The journal of Learning in Higher Education (selvfølgelig fagfellevurdert). Et par ting er interessante. Forfatterne eksemplifiser tvetydigheten ved kategorien «demonstration» – her tolker de den som at man skal holde en demonstrasjon, ikke overvære en. De er også de første jeg har klart å finne som nevner skriving i sammenheng med læringspyramiden. Ingen av de bokstavelig talt tusen versjonene jeg tidligere har sett har nevnt denne måten å arbeide på, enda så mye man vektlegger skriveprosessen i høyere utdannelse.

Noen kløppere til å referere eller lese det de referer er de heller ikke. Dale er i deres oppfatning andreforfatter av sin egen bok. Bruce Hyland, derimot, står som hovedforfatter:

«Hyland, B. & Dale, E. (1969). Audio-visual methods in teaching. (3rd ed.). New York: Holt.»

Ukens pyramide:

Følgende variant er fra Australasian Journal of Peer Learning. Det er vanskelig å si om denne har vært gjennom fagfellevurdering – i følge redaktøren vil det påfølgende nummeret, vol. 2, underlegges dobbelt blindvurdering.

«Compatible with Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s constructivist theory base, Edgar Dale’s Cone of Experience (Dale, 1969) conveys similar ideas on learning in a graphic form. He proposed that learning is stimulated progressively from concrete to abstract. He believed that the foundation for instruction depended upon direct sensory experiences combined with purposeful interaction with stimuli sources (Martin, Arendale and Blanc, 1997). By directly involving students in constructing meaning, they can learn at a deeper level. Active learning therefore must be imbedded into SI Leader training. Leaders can practice and simulate learning experiences and receive feedback from staff and peers in a comfortable environment. Dale’s model diagrammed in Figure 1 shows ways we retain information by reading, listening to a lecture, viewing a chart or graph, observing a demonstration, participating in a discussion, presenting a simulation, or engaging in an activity. The idea is that the more involved one is in the process (students teaching and demonstrating to others in an SI session) the deeper the learning and the better the recall.» (s.8)

Man finner også en omfattende læringspyramide på samme side i denne teksten:

«How learning Theory Creates a Foundtation for SI Leader Training» G. Jacobs, M. Hurley, og  C. Unite, 2008.

Ukens pyramide:

Oxford University Press har også publisert et par variasjoner over læringspyramiden. Her i en versjon som likner mer på Treichlers liste:

«People remember: • 10% of what they read • 20% of what they hear• 30% of what they see, and • 70% of what they see and hear.»

Baker og Bowen: First Byte: Using information and communication technology. Oxford U.P.  2003.

Ukens pyramide:

Vi holder oss til fagfellevurderte tidsskrift, denne gangen Medical Teacher, hvor forfatterne Cate og Durning i «Dimensions and psychology of peer teaching in medical teaching in medical education» , blant annet skriver:

«An often cited, but not well founded hierarchy of teaching methods that leads to difference in recall of received information is the Bales’ Learning Pyramid. In this pyramid, listening to lectures would lead to 5% recall, whereas the bottom of the pyramid, teaching others, leads to 80% recall. We were not able to find the studies that have yielded these figures, but the comparison has some face validity, as many teachers confirm that their own teaching makes them understand and remember things much better than listening or reading.» (s549)

Forfatternes holdning til pyramiden er ganske typisk. De erkjenner at den ikke har noe videre godt grunnlag, men den virker sann, og de mener også at «mange lærere opplever det som riktig», uten at dette underbygges videre. I tillegg refererer de deretter til en undersøkelse som gir det hele et skinn av vitenskapelighet:

«In a pre-/post- test randomized study, paediatric residents who were asked to teach 30 minutes gained significantly more knowledge, measured 6 to 8 weeks later (effect size¼0.84), than controls who were asked to listen to a 30 minute lecture on the same topic (Weiss & Needlham 1998). Earlier controlled studies by Dunkin & Hook (1978) reported a similar effect in the field of anatomy teaching. How can we explain this benefit from teaching?»

Om de leste artikelen til Weiss og Needleham, ville de langt på vei fått spørsmålet sitt besvart. I diskusjonen av resultatene, skriver de :

«Why did teachers learn more? Being a teacher appeared to increase the residents’ motivation to read. Far more of the teachers reported that they read all of the assigned articles. They also spent a considerable amount of time, relative to their typical study time, working on their talks. However, the 3 residents in the listener group who read all of the supplied material scored no better than the other listeners, suggesting that the quantity of reading alone may not be a sufficient explanation. Residents faced with the prospect of standing up in front of their peers may well have read the material more thoroughly. Also, they interacted with the material actively, not only reading and listening to it, but writing and speaking it as well. Thus, formal teaching stimulates «active learning» in the andragogical sense. Future studies are needed to evaluate these possible explanations.»

En sentral årsak til forskjellen i læring  var motivasjon. Motivasjonen for å beherske materialet er en helt annen når man skal forelese om noe.

Vi kan for egen regning også føye til at de som visste at de også skulle få materialet forelest hadde mindre grunn til å arbeide med stoffet enn de som ikke fikk en forelesning.

Diskusjonen i sitatet ovenfor kan også langt på vei støtte følgende påstand – at å undervise andre ikke bør anses som en læringsform i det hele tatt. Det er i denne sammenhengen en motivasjonsfaktor.

National Training Laboratories

NTLs standardsvar til henvendelser om pyramiden er følgende:

«Thanks for your interest in NTL Institute. We are happy to respond to your inquiry about The Learning Pyramid. It was developed and used by NTL Institute at our Bethel, Maine campus in the early sixties when we were still a part of the National Education Association’s Adult Education Division.
While we believe it to be accurate, we no longer have- nor can we find- the original research that supports the numbers.
We get many inquiries every month about this- and many, many people have searched for the original research and have come up empty handed. We know that in 1954 a similar pyramid with slightly different numbers appeared on p. 43 of a book called Audio-Visual Methods in Teaching, published by the Edgar Dale Dryden Press in New York however the Learning Pyramid as such seems to have been modified and remains attributed to NTL Institute.

To summarize the numbers (which sometimes get cited differently) learners retain approximately:
90% of what they learn when they teach someone else/use immediately.
75% of what they learn when they practice what they learned.
50% of what they learn when engaged in a group discussion.
30% of what they learn when they see a demonstration.
20% of what they learn from audio-visual.
10% of what they learn when they’ve learned from reading.
5% of what they learn when they’ve learned from lecture.

Feel free to use the Learning Pyramid (below) as you wish without charge – and cite at the bottom – «NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science, 1901 South Bell Street #300 Arlington, VA 22202. 1-800-777-5227.»"

Will Thalheimer («NTL continues its delusions«) tåler godt å siteres i sammenheng med dette skrivet:

«Here are claims that NTL makes in its letter that are false:

NTL: We know that in 1954 a similar pyramid with slightly different numbers appeared on p. 43 of a book called Audio-Visual Methods in Teaching, published by the Edgar Dale Dryden Press in New York.

Why false? There are NO numbers on page 43 of Edgar Dale’s book.

NTL: We are happy to respond to your inquiry about The Learning Pyramid. Yes, it was developed and used by NTL Institute at our Bethel, Maine campus in the early sixties when we were still part of the National Education Association’s Adult Education Division.

Very Intriguing: How could NTL have developed the pyramid in the 1960′s, when a similar version was published by Edgar Dale in 1954? Professor Michael Molenda of Indiana University has found some evidence that the numbers first appeared in the 1940′s. Maybe NTL has a time machine.

NTL: Yet the Learning Pyramid as such seems to have been modified and always has been attributed to NTL Institute.

No. It wasn’t attributed to NTL by Dale. Dale thought it was his. And again, Dale did not use any numbers. Just a cone.»

La oss videre ta fatt i følgende formulering fra NTLs brev:

«While we believe it to be accurate, we no longer have- nor can we find- the original research that supports the numbers.
We get many inquiries every month about this- and many, many people have searched for the original research and have come up empty handed. We know that in 1954 a similar pyramid with slightly different numbers appeared on p. 43 of a book called Audio-Visual Methods in Teaching, published by the Edgar Dale Dryden Press in New York however the Learning Pyramid as such seems to have been modified and remains attributed to NTL Institute.»

Dette blir bare spekulasjoner, men ut fra sitatet ovenfor kan det se ut som at det er det faktum at modellen ofte refereres til NTL som gjør at NTL er overbevist om at det er de selv som opprinnelig står bak den. Om så er tilfellet, vil brevet ovenfor slutte en ond sirkel. Ved slik å gjenta påstanden vil de få flere brukere av pyramiden til å referere til NTL, og NTL vil i sin tur styrkes i sin tro om at dette er riktig.

Ukens pyramide:

Ukens pyramide er i tekstform, men er likevel lett gjenkjennelig. At det igjen er snakk om et biologisk orientert tidsskrift kan nok sies å være en tilfeldighet. Den runde formuleringen «developed by the National Training Laboratories for Applied Behavioral Sciences» sier ingenting om hva slags epistemologisk status modellen har. Vi får ikke vite om den er basert på en studie, eller om den i det hele tatt har empirisk bakgrunn. Forfatteren Marcy A. Peteroy-Kellys grunnlag for å bruke modellen er altså (foruten en eventuell intuitiv aksept av modellen) bare basert på hennes tillit til at NTL har gjort studien, og at de har gjort den skikkelig.

NTL-modellen er presentert i utvalg:

«The Learning Pyramid developed by the National Training Laboratories for Applied Behavioral Sciences (http://www. ntl.org) demonstrates that students only retain 5% of the materials presented to them in a traditional lecture setting. Retention rates go up to 50% upon addition of a discussion group component to a course, and they go up even further to 90% if the students are asked to teach others the materials that they have recently been taught. The National Training Laboratories assert that discussion group programs benefit students in different ways depending upon their ability levels. Weaker students receive additional inquiry-based problems to supplement the materials covered in lecture. Average students are exposed to different view points to aid them in problem solving. Stronger students are allowed to teach, which in turn, aids in the retention of the materials discussed.»

Fra http://www.microbelibrary.org/Edzine/Journal/2007/JMBEvol8_Print.pdf, i det fagfellevurderte tidsskriftet Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education.