Terry’s Blog

Yesterday I went to a very useful seminar/workshop on the topic of linking research (product and process) to teaching (content and process). This has become a big issue in HE internationally. However, one of the things that caught my attention particularly was the use of the Pyramid of Learning in the presentation on teaching strategies. The Pyramid of Learning comes in a variety of guises. Here is a common one:

And here is another:

The Pyramid of Learning is a stock-in-trade to many of us who are enthusiastic about e-learning, social constructivism, active learning, and so on. I have lost count of the number of presentations I have seen where it has been wheeled out and genuflected before. And I include presentations of my own in this. For myself and like minded colleagues who have been trying to persuade lecturers and teachers to consider innovative forms of teaching and assessment, the Pyramid of Learning has been a powerful weapon to call into question the efficacy of standard lectures and text based (or should I say ‘Canon based’) study methods. 

However, while looking for resources to put together a summary paper on e-learning research I discovered a talk given by  Professor Thomas Reeves, at the Educational Psychology & Instructional Technology College of Education, University of Georgia on January 25, 2006 Saving Instructional Technology from Irrelevance: The Promise of Design Research.

In his presentation he was, amongst other things, talking about the dubious provenance and doubtful results of the research into learning that is often used to underpin the design of e-learning processes and activities. His take on the research into different ‘learning styles’ is of interest for instance. He thinks its a mess. Referring to the Pyramid of Learning, he says that research into its origins finds that it is not the result of any documented research or hard empirical evidence. Its origin has been traced back to a couple of staff trainers working for a petroleum company in the 1960s who made it up in a coffee break, presumably on the basis of common sense notions and some of their training experience. Professor Reeves does names the researcher and his university where the research that produced this revelation was conducted but I couldn’t quite make it out from the recording. Perhaps someone with better hearing can let me know!

I, for one, believe that the pyramid of learning has some truth in it and I will not abandon it. I have lived with it for too long, my own experience and informal observations support it, and it is so useful for challenging a lot of entrenched commonsense and promote discussion. However, I have been a little worried for some time about how it is used occassionally to denigrate traditional teaching methods. My University years, UG and PG, were almost entirely spent on reading, making notes and writing. In addition I had excellant supervision and spent a lot of time in seminars and in discussion. And I would argue that my extensive reading and writing was what enabled me to get so much out of the seminars and discussions.

In this hierarchy of retention (or of the effectiveness of different learning activities) it seems to me that the more efficient ones to some extent rely on the prior use of the allegedly less efficient ones. Lectures are most useful when some reading has been done in preparation. If the reading is guided and focussed on preparation for the lecture topic, the reading is an activity, and the note taking in the lecture is an activity. All of these activities promote engagement and reflection on the content. And this is carried forward, tested and modified, in writing, feedback and discussion. We are not looking at a matrix of either/or options but a set of complementary activities that overlap and reinforce each other.

I have long believed that the best way to learn something is to teach it. I believe this because it is true for me and reflects my own experience. I was lucky enough to be a UG at at time when tutorial groups were small (2 or 3 students normally) and academic staff were accessible and had the time and energy, even desire, to meet with students and discuss their studies, their own research, what the conference they recently went to was all about, etc. etc. and it was easy for me to feel (particularly as a mature student in my 30s) that the academic staff were partners in my learning enterprise. How we reproduce this in today’s ‘industrialised’ mass higher education system coping with ‘battery’ students is a real challenge. And it saddens me, as an ex-free range student, to see how things have changed - but I digress (blame it on the Rioja; nostalgia used to be classified as a disease!).

To resume, teaching is the best way to learn. Communicating ideas to others and dealing with the ensuing questions and discussion - this may lead you to go back and do some more reading and writing of course - sharpens and clarifies your ideas, challenges them, and leads you into a virtuous spiral of broadening and deepening your knowledge, or at least it should. But you cannot really teach a subject you don’t already know something about and expect this to be a good way of learning about it.

Anyway, I want to hang on to 2 cheers for reading and going to lectures. Reading needs to be supported, focussed, guided by a framework, a scaffold of some sort. Listening needs to be informed, engaged, active. If this happens then it can be a very effective way of learning and feed into and enhances the effectiveness of writing, discussion, communication. End of ramble…….

Tags: No Comments