THE PYRAMID: DOES IT POINT TEACHERS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION?

JAMES P. LALLEY ROBERT H. MILLER Education Department D'Youville College

This paper raises serious questions about the reliability of the learning pyramid as a guide to retention among students. The pyramid suggests that certain teaching methods are connected with a corresponding hierarchy of student retention. No specific credible research was uncovered to support the pyramid, which is loosely associated with the theory proposed by the well- respected researcher, Edgar Dale. Dale is credited with creating the Cone of Experience in 1946. The Cone was designed to rep- resent the importance of altering teaching methods in relation to student background : it suggests a continuum of meth- ods not a hierarchy. While no credible research was uncovered to support the pyramid, clear research on retention was discovered regarding the importance of each of the pyramid levels: each of the methods identified by the pyramid re.sulted in retention, with none being consistently superior to the others and all being effec- tive in certain contexts. A key conclusion from the literature reviewed rests with the critical importance of the teacher as a knowledgeable decision maker for choosing instructional meth- ods.

The Learning Pyramid (see Figure 2) is been questioned (Thalheimer, 2005). an often-cited guide for teachers to use for Therefore, it is our to examine designing effective instruction. It can be the following: the source of the general found in books (Sousa, 2001; Danielson, structure of the pyratnid. Dale's Cone of 2002; Drewes & Milligan, 2003), articles Experience; available research on reten- in refereed journals {Wood. 2004; Brueck- tion from the methods identified by the ner & MacPherson, 2004; Darmer et al., pyramid; and consider the relationship(s) 2004; DeKanter. 2005) and in teacher among the methods. resources {Boulmetis, 2003; Hershman & McDonald, 2003). Further, a recent inter- Dale's Cone of Experience net search using Google® returned 12,200 Edgar Dale was a protninent educator hits, of which 452 were from cites with and nationally known scholar regarding the generic top level domain .org, 313 from the use of media in instruction. He had a .edu, and 30 from .gov. While it appears an laudable career at the Ohio State Univer- intuitive model and an implied compre- sity and its media center is named in his hensive research summary, the logic of the honor. In 1946 Dale published the first of model, as well as its research base, have three editions of his infiuential

64 Examining the Learning .../ 65

Visual Methods in Teaching. The puipose ation. Nor do we suggest that teach- of the text was to delineate: ers scrap all procedures that do not the use of audio-visual materials in involve a variety of audio-visual teaching - materials that do not methods (Dale, 1954, p. 3, italics in depend primarily upon reading to original) convey their meaning. It is based upon the principle that all teaching The 1946 edition included the debut of can he greatly improved by the use his Cone of Experience (See Figure 1). The of such materials because they can cone was Dale's attempt to organize vari- help make the learning experience ous types of experience according to their memorable...this central idea has, levels of abstractness, with Direct, Pur- of course, certain limits. We do not poseful Experiences being the at least mean that sensory materials must be abstract (or most concrete) end ofthe con- introduced into every teaching situ- tinuutn, and Verbal Symbols, the most

DALE'S CONE OF EXPERIENCE

^^^^^^^^^^^^^m RocordlnBt - Radio ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| ^^^^^^^^^^^V Still Plcturai ^^^^^^^^^^^H

^^^^^^^^^^^M Motion Picture! ^^^^^^^^^^^H

^^^^^^^^m TelevlalDn ^^^^^^^^H

^^^^^V Exhibits ^^^^^H

^^^V Fiold Trtp> ^^^^1

^^^V OBmonstraHons ^^^^|

^V Dramatized Experlencas ^^|

F Contrived Expenances V

i Direci • Purposeful Exp«rienc«s \

Figure I. Dale\s Cone of Experience, 1954 66 / Education Vol. 128No.1 abstract, at the other. However, he notes are . In Dale's words, the cone that there will clearly be overlap among serves as a "visual metaphor of learning the levels. Before proceeding, we should experiences" and that "you will make a note that that there were modifications to dangerous mistake, however, if you regard the cone to accommodate emerging tech- the bands on the cone as rigid, inflexible nologies (e.g.., television was added in divisions" (1954, p.42). Also, he notes that 1954) in the three editions of his text (Dale, "increasing abstractness does not mean 1946; 1954; 1969)). However, the gener- increasing difficulty" (1954, p.42). Final- al construct of the cone, progressing from ly, in presenting a notion that still applies the concrete to the abstract, remained to schools today, instruction would typi- intact. cally improve if it included opportunities Dale describes Direct, Purposeful Expe- for Direct Experience. To provide balance, riences as those in which "you have direct however, he goes on to cite Dewey (1916) participation, with responsibility in the who reminds us that while direct experi- outcome" {{954, p. 42, italics in original). ences are important to learning they are He asserts that our most vivid are also, by their very nature, limiting: learn- often the result of direct experiences. As ing about a geographic region in sensory an example. Dale offers performing a lab- stimulating manner (i.e., being there) oratory experiment as direct experience. would indeed be a valuable experience. However, he goes on to note that: However, that experience would be very restricted in terms of developing an under- Life cannot, of course, be lived standing of geography, its multiple exclusively on this direct, concrete, components, and numerous regions (bet- sensory level. Whenever we remem- ter learned from a map)—although it is ber something we have experienced, likely a good beginning. Clearly, Dale rec- we have begun to abstract. Even our ognized the importance of having a variety earliest experiences involve some of learning experiences and the comple- degree of . As very young mentary nature of those experiences. children we learn to talk about the doll or the cat or the man that is not The Learning Pyramid physically present, and thus our At some point. Dale's original cone of direct, concrete experience becomes experience was transformed into the ubiq- associated with abstractions. (1954, uitous Learning Pyramid (Figure 2). To be p. 44, italics in original) more accurate, we should say Learning Pyramids, given that it has taken on more Dale prefaced his presentation of the than one form over the years (it is also cone with the reminder that the gap common to find the pyramid labeled as between the least and the most abstract is Dale's Cone). The pyramid replaces levels often quite narrow, noting that even the of experience with instructional methods, words of small children, for whom we often with lecture occupying the peak of the advocate concrete learning experiences. pyramid, followed by reading, etc. with Examining the Learning .../ 67 the lowest level being teaching others, and ent methods, as well as different levels of indicates various levels of retention asso- retention ascribed to these methods. For ciated with each method. There are. example, the most common pyramid (e.g., however, more levels in the cone than are Sousa, 2001) identifies lecture at the top typically found in the pyramid (i.e., there of the pyramid and indicates that its cor- is not a one-to-one correspondence responding level of retention at five between the levels of the cone and the lev- percent, with reading falling below it with els of the pyramid). As noted, there are a retention level often percent. In contrast, variations of the pyramid that include a the National Training Laboratories, for- different hierarchy of methods or differ- merly of Bethel Maine and currently

Learning Pyramid

(Average Learning Retention Rates)

National Training Laboratories, Bethel Maine

Figure 2: A Typical Presentation of the Learning Pyramid 68 / Education VoL 128 No.l located in Alexandria Virginia, provides a sion. Yes, we believe it to be accu- pyramid that locates reading at the top with rate - but no, we no longer have - a retention level of ten percent, followed nor can we find - the original by hearing with a retention level of 20 per- research that supports the numbers. cent. We get many inquiries every month Additional information regarding the about this - and many, many people pyramid raises questions of credibility. The have searched for the original National Training Laboratories, in response research and have come up empty to an email request from a member of the handed. We know that in 1954 a sim- Academic Computing Department at the ilar pyramid with slightly different College of Charleston in South Carolina, numbers appeared on p. 43 of a book stated the following about the pyramid: called Audio-Visual Methods in Teaching, published by the Edgar It was developed and used by NTL Dale Dryden Press in New York. Yet Institute at our Bethel, Maine cam- the Learning Pyramid as sucb seems pus in the early sixties when we were to have been modified and always still part of the National Education has been attributed to NTL Institute. Association's Adult Education Divi-

PacifiCnrp CSS Train the Trainer PEOPLE GEISERALLY REMEMBER

An important teaming principle, supported by extensive research, is thatpeopte team best when they are activety involved in tht teaming process. The "iower down the cone' you go, the more you team and retain. 10% of what Read they read I

20H of what they hear / Hear a lecture

30% of what Looti at exhibits, mock-ups, they see i diagrams, displays

50% of what they / Watch live demonstrations, videos or HEAR Ai\D SBE I movie, go on a site visit

70% of what they SAY or WRITE Complete ivorksheets, manuals, discussion guides 9(1% of what they l~ Simulate a reai experience SAY AS THEY DO / (practice, with coaching) ANACTIVITY / Do the reai thing

Adapted from .iudio-Visual Methods in TeachingEdgar Dale DryJen Pre.is, N.Y., 1954 p. 43

Figure 3. Pyramid Provided hy the National Training Laboratories NTL Institute for Applied Behavitirai Science, iOO N. Lee Street, Suite 300, Aiexandria, VA 22314. 1-800-777-5227 Examining the Learning .../ 69

To summarize the numbers {which discrete. For example, one might encounter sometimes get cited differently) visual and verbal symbols when watching learners retain approximately: television, on a field trip, or observing a 90% of what they learn when demonstration. Thus, these numbers appear they teach someone else/use to be speculation. immediately. In addition to these inconsistencies from 75% of what they learn when publication to publication, the pyramid and they practice what they learned. its comparison of instructional methods 50% of what they learn when and respective levels of retention raise a engaged in a group discussion. number of empirical issues. There is an 30% of what they learn when implied assumption that tbese methods they see a demonstration. bave been compared to one another in a 20% of what they learn from systematic manner employing sound audio-visual. research methodologies. At a minimum, 10% of what they learn when these empirical issues would include: they've learned from reading. 5% of what they learn when • That each of the methods, employed as they've learned from lecture. an experimental treatment, was of the (February, 2003) same duration (e.g., a student's reading session would last as long as an indi- This same correspondence contained vidual teaching or discussion session). the pyramid shown in Figure 3, indicating • That each of the methods would have different levels of retention for different be conducted or supervised by the same activities. While this inconsistency may be teacher or that multiple teachers would the result of two separate models or sim- have been matched in terms of educa- ple typographical errors, the source ofthe tion, teaching experience and subject research raises serious questions regard- area (e.g., the lecture being given by ing the credibility of the pyramid. The the same teacher as the one leading the laboratories' statement that the pyramid discussion). Further, the teacher(s) might have "slightly different numbers" should have been well versed in both than Dale's original work is unfounded. content and method. An examination of all three editions of • That the content to be learned with each Dale's texts reveals that he never uses the method would be the same, regardless word retention to describe the outcome of ofthe method being employed. a particular learning experience and, more • That the outcome measure(s), or depen- importantly, he presents no numbers refer- dent variable(s), was one measuring ring to empirical research. His conclusions retention, the ability to or do were based on theory and personal obser- something after a time delay (e.g., days, vations, not on research. Further, he weeks or months), rather one tbat is cautioned that there is overlap among the completed immediately after treatment. levels and we should not treat them as being 70 / Education Vol. 128 No.1

To conduct research in this manner with for the various methods identified. In the seven equivalent treatment groups would next section we wiil present some of the be a daunting task indeed, and if such issues research results for these methods. How- were not addressed the assumptions regard- ever, we wiil not attempt to arrange these ing the relative effectiveness ofthe methods results in any type of a hierarchy, identi- are erroneous. This alone makes us skep- fying one as better than another, as is done tical that such research was done. Further, in the pyramid. To do this would be high- inconsistencies in referencing, as well as ly speculative based on the research variation in purported percentages, height- methodology issues raised earlier. en our skepticism. Finally, although Sousa (2001) reports that retention was measured Teaching Methods and Retention after a 24-hour period (for which Sousa The research presented here is not provides no reference), many who promote intended to be a comprehensive literature the value ofthe pyramid make no mention review for each method, as that would go ofthe time between leaming and measured beyond the scope and purpose of this dis- retention. cussion. Instead we wish to determine if the Beyond these inconsistencies, we are identified methods do result in retention concerned with the overlap among the of what was leamed after some period of approaches. Isn't reading typically done time. In some instances we will also report before one engages in an academic dis- effects on leaming to provide a more well- cussion? Are there many, if any, instances rounded discussion. There were two main where one is ready to teach about some- challenges in examining this literature. thing before leaming about it? Isn't prior First, many empirical studies focus on knowledge of the content necessary to leaming but do not examine retention, so understand what is observed during a available data are limited in some cases. demonstration? Aren't most audiovisual Second, it is difficult to determine per- presentations preceded by an introduction, centage of retention from a given treatment or an orienting lecture, and then followed because percentage of retention is not typ- by a discussion. In sum. the instructional ically reported: and, for us to calculate it, design process would be far more compli- the researchers must have reported pretest cated and thoughtful than simply relying and retention scores, as well as the total on the pyramid. number of items on the retention test. This Thus, it is our thesis that isolating the was also not typical. Further, as will be various methods is nearly impossible in seen, the length of treatment and the delays the process of good teaching: a balanced between treatment and retention vary from combination, based on content, teacher study to study which makes attributing background knowledge, resources, and stu- retention percentages to one method rela- dent characteristics, is likely to be most tive to others impracticable. Therefore, we effective. Further, we wish to go beyond will not attempt to ascribe percentages to questioning the validity of the learning given methods. period to examine the research on retention Examining the Learning .../ 71

Lecture or Direct Instruction grade two regular education teachers Direct instruction is a highly structured agreed to follow a structured of lesson teaching plan often associated with plans throughout a school year. These Hunter's Mastery Teaching model (1985). teachers explicitly aimed at increasing stu- It empbasizes teacher direction and stu- dent capacity to use analogies to help gain dent teacher interaction. Here, the teacher meaning of unknown words througb under- provides explicit experiences to assist stu- standing of known words. Results showed dent attainment of lesson objectives (Eby, significant positive relationship between Henell, & Jordan, 2006). Direct instruction the number of lessons the students partic- is the most researched teaching strategy ipated in and students' gains on and the one strategy, more than others, tbat standardized tests in reading comprehen- has improved student achievement (Kim sion. Results supported the use of specific & Axelrod. 2005: Stein, Carnine. & Dixon. comprehension strategy interventions as a 1998). Clearly, direct instruction relies on means of improving student understand- some form of teacher lecture. According to ing of text. the assertions of the learning pyramid, lec- Additionally. Van Keer and Verhaegje ture/direct instruction would be least likely (2005) also investigated specific strategy strategy to produce retention. interventions in their study of second and However, direct instruction is a useful fifth graders. However, in their study they teaching strategy for students throughout included two types of strategy practice: the grades, students with exceptionalities teacher directed whole class practice and (Eby et al., 2006; Rosenshine. 1976; peer assisted practice. Results for both Adams & Engelmann, 1996). and. chil- grade level groups indicated significant dren from low socio-economic achievement gains for both groups. In turn, backgrounds who typically come to school their findings supported a persistent line with less background knowledge than those of reading comprehension research from more affluent backgrounds (Kim & (McGill-Eranzen & Allington, 1999; Press- Axelrod, 2(X)5). Further, direct instruction ley & Allington, 1999; Snow. Burns, & has been shown to have a significant affect Griffin, 1999) that indicated that compre- on retention (Randier & Bogner, 2002). hension strategy practice is related to improved reading comprehension. The Reading mission and research initiatives have taken It is not new to assert that a primary on a new sense of urgency with the myri- mission of schools is to increase student ad of high-stakes tests relying on a reading comprehension. Eurther, a sub- student's ability to read and interpret infor- stantial number of studies have been mation in each of the content areas. In fact, test taking is increasingly being devoted to analyzing the impact various of as a new reading genre. learning to read strategies might have on increasing the chances students will remember what they bave read. Eor exam- ple, in a study by Wbite (2005) tifteen Audio-Visual 72 / Education Vol. 128No.1

Audio-Visual materials represent the ing of what was read. most ill-defined teaching methodology. In In research on other forms of visual some ways, they might not be considered instruction. Van Hell, Bosman and Bartel- a method of instruction but tools tbat can ings (2003) studied the use of visual be incorporated when using the methods materials by children with spelling prob- discussed here. Their many forms can lems. They found that "visual dictation" include videos, sound, pictures, and graphs. using cue cards improved their spelling They can be used individually or present- when it was measured one month after ed in various combinations. They can also instruction. In a study that used actual be presented using a variety of media. A video, Hodges. Chua. and Franks (2003), thorough examination of each of these is found that students who saw videotaped beyond the scope and purpose of this arti- feedback of their performances while learn- cle. Further, preliminary literature searches ing motor movements had better retention identified few, if any, empirical research following a four to seven day delay than that addressed retention. However, we will those who did not receive feedback. Also, examine some research that seems ger- when video feedback was provided dur- mane to this discussion. ing computer assisted instruction, it Increasing has been given to resulted in superior retention when com- the usefulness of a visual experience to pared to textual feedback (Lalley, 1998). enhance learning. A corresponding As technology continues to evolve, response to that interest has been the imple- teachers will have many options for includ- mentation of graphic organizers in lessons. ing audio-visual materials in instruction. A graphic organizer is a visual represen- These will include the use of computer tation of facts and concepts and the technology to allow students to engage in relationship between and among them (Eby simulations, a form of discovery learning, etal., 2006). which has shown some initial promise Kim et al. (2004) provide a synthesis of (Shaffer, Squire, Halverson, & Gee, 2005). research on the effect of graphic organiz- A similar but more immersive and inter- ers on the reading comprehension of active environment is virtual reality which students classified as learning disabled is predicted to come to the classroom with- across grade levels. These researchers in the next ten years. The integration of examined twenty one studies and deter- such technologies is sure to present chal- mined all but two yielded overall beneficial lenges while also offering great promise outcomes of graphic organizer use and stu- for both teachers and students. dent achievement. They reported significant effect sizes with mean posttest Demonstration scores ranging form 48 to 83% correct on Demonstration typically involves an posttests and follow-up. Although they did expert (i.e.. teacher) performing a learn- not find significant results related to trans- ing task while students observe. The intent fer, the researchers concluded that the use is to model the correct behavior in an of a visual enhanced student understand- attempt to minimize ambiguity in instruc- Examining the Learning .../ 73 tion, and therefore, limit the potential for This raises yet another issue regarding student errors and misconceptions. It is overlap and integration of the methods thought to be particularly useful when poor identified by the pyramid: in the classroom, of the task to be performed similar to the Pigford study, lecture and can lead to students experiencing physical demonstration are likely interwoven. This harm (e.g.. in industrial technology cours- would make determining the isolated effec- es) or where costly learning materials (e.g.. tiveness of the methods impractical and, dissection specimens) may be wasted. more importantly, would risk making Research on this method is relatively experimental treatments artificial. Thus, sparse, which may be directly related to teachers would be well advised to provide the safety and cost issues raised, where students with demonstrations when war- research on teaching without demonstra- ranted by safety concerns, effective use of tion would be neither practical nor materials, and/or need for clarity. informative. However, there has been some research on using demonstration in more Cooperative Learning and Discussion traditional content areas. One such study Groups was conducted by Polhemus. Dambe, Research support for cooperative learn- Moorad, and Dambe (1985) that examined ing and achievement has been outlined in students learning about the concept of Johnson, Johnson and Stane's (20(K)) meta length and how it is not dependent upon analysis. Their data indicate higher levels context (e.g.. spatial orientation). Students of student achievement with cooperative who were provided with demonstrations learning as a teaching strategy as compared using manipulatives showed significant to competitive and individualistic pretest (2.6) to retention test (12.2) gains approaches. The cooperative learning after a seven week delay following instruc- methods included studies comparing John- tion. However, these were essentially son and Johnson's Learning Together, identical to the gains made by students Slavin's (1997) Students-Teams-Achieve- who took turns observing each other doing tnent-Division (STAD) and the Team similar demonstrations and those who had Assisted Individualizcition method to indi- their own set of manipulatives to learn witb vidualistic methods. According to the data following teacher demonstrations. All from the meta analysis, each provided high- groups had greater change from pretest to er achievement than competitive and retention than the control group that individualistic methods. received no instruction (2.6 on the pretest and 2.1 on the retention test). Similarly, in Widespread agreement with the John- a study by Pigford (1974) in which pre- son, et al. meta analysis can be found in the service teachers were given instruction literature (Eby et al., 2006; Mayer, 2002; about the metric system, equivalent gains Omstein & Lasley, 2004). In a study of were made from pretest to retention by middle-class students. Yager, Johnson, doing hands-on learning in a laboratory Johnson, & Snider (1986) compared coop- and those receiving lecture/demonstration. erative learning with group processing (5 minutes of reflection and discussion at the 74 / Education Vol. 128 No.1 end of each session), cooperative learning favor of lecture discussion but no long- without planned group processing, and term benefit. In the third study, Riesenmy, individualistic learning where students Mitchell. Hudgins & Ebel (1991) fourth- used learning materials and only sought and fifth graders were taught critical think- assistance from the teacher (essentially a ing and problem-solving skills using the discovery method). Prior to instruction, discussion method. They retained these students in the sample were compared and skills after four and eight weeks while a identified as high, middle or low ability. control group that received no instruction Retention scores, regardless of ability level, did not. showed that cooperative learning with group processing was more effective than Practice by Doing cooperative learning without group pro- One of tbe most highly advocated types cessing and individualistic instruction, and of practice by doing is Discovery Learn- that cooperative learning without group ing. It is thought to be effective because it processing was more effective than indi- encourages students to work like a pro- vidualistic learning. fessional in the filed (e.g., a scientist). Discussion Groups are intended to stim- Students work on their own or in groups ulate student thinking and articulation of to discover principles and relationships in ideas related to a topic (Jacobsen, Eggen, a given content area to develop a person- & Kauchak, 2005). The teacher's role is al understanding of concepts and to set the conditions in the classroom to relationships that are more meaningful and increase the chances students will partic- better understood than if they were sim- ply told about them. It can be open-ended, ipate in the discussion. The teacher can such as taking students on a field trip to an serve as leader, equal participant, or as a aquarium to learn about marine life, or, monitor who doesn't directly participate can be structured (i.e., guided) in a way but acts to keep the group on task. that is intended to help students meet spe- Research on the impact of discussion is cific objectives. As early as 1960, Jerome often associated with descriptive studies Bruner advocated the use of discovery of strategies teachers believe have the most learning in math and the physical sciences, likelihood of creating an atmosphere to as well as in social sciences. produce student involvement in a discus- sion (Wilen, 2004). Three studies were Ivins (1985) found that eighth-grade found dealing with retention and discus- science students retained more informa- sion. In two of these (Drane, Smith, Light, tion when concepts were introduced in a Pinto, & Swarat, 2005; Morgan, Whorton, laboratory context followed by & Gunsalus, 2000), subjects were college lecture/reading, than when introduced students and a combination of lecture and through lecture/reading and followed up discussion was compared to students who by laboratory exercises. It should be noted, experienced lecture only or cooperative based on Ivins' description of the proce- learning only. The results indicated a slight dure, tbat this is not so much a matter of short-term retention benefit for students in comparing methods as it a comparison of Examining the Learning .,. / 75 sequencing. Further. Ivins describes the dler and Bogner (2002) found significant laboratory activities as "guided discovery". increases from pretest to retention after a Research has. at times, shown that dis- six-week delay for both direct instruction covery learning, when compared to direct and discovery but found no differences in instruction, results in superior learning. retention between the two groups. Hillocks" (1984) meta-analysis of teach- Given that discovery can be an effective ing composition found two main method but not always more effective than approaches. He compared "presentational", others, Bruner (1960) reminds us that dis- lecture and teacher-led discussion to "envi- covery would be too time-consuming for ronmental", which was guided discovery all teaching and that one determinant of with structured activities. It was found that its effectiveness is the teacher's familiari- environmental resulted in superior learn- ty with the content being taught. Thus, ing. However, retention was not examined. teachers must consider their own content In a study that did examine retention. knowledge, and their students' prior knowl- Bay et al. (1992) found that discovery was edge and abilities, to choose when more effective than direct instruction with discovery exercises will be effective. learning disabled and non-learning dis- abled science students. Students worked Teaching Others in triads in a one-to-two ratio, respective- The most common form of students ly. Using the same learning materials to teaching others is Peer Tutoring. In terms teach about displacement of water, a dis- of the effect of teaching on retention, peer covery group worked with materials to tutoring research (e.g., Fasko, 1994) often complete well-structured and specific provides little insight because it often goals, while the direct instruction group focuses on its impact on students being observed the teacher demonstrate concepts tutored (tutee) and not the impact on the and then completed worksheets to prac- tutor. However, in good teaching practice, tice the concepts. Retention was tested two peer tutoring should only be done when it weeks following treatment. Regarding the is in the best interest of the lutor because effectivenessof the discovery method, they it provides opportunities to overleam the conclude "whereas direct instruction is material and engage in higher levels of successful, particularly for basic skill thinking, and/or develop certain social instruction in reading and mathematics, skills. If the method only helps the tutee, such teaching may be less beneficial for an alternate method should be employed. science" (p. 567). While research has demonstrated that peer Thus, it may be the case that discovery tutoring improves achievement, it often learning is not appropriate for all circum- involves reciprocal peer tutoring (Heller stances. Recall that in the Pigford (1974) & Fantuzzo. 1993: Rekrut. 1994) where study cited earlier, the same retention students take turns being the tutor, so deter- results were achieved through hands-on mining the effects of teaching versus being laboratory learning as were achieved taught is not possible, but there is some through lecture/demonstration. Also. Ran- research that has examined its affect on 76 / Education Vol. 128 No.1 the tutor. Using a story telling strategy as the following skills: active listening, coach- the content to be learned. Reknit (1994) ing, mentoring, and facilitation. We found that students who were tutors did suggest, based on the literature reviewed, show superior retention following one that a capable teacher needs to be both month delay when compared to students "sage" and "guide", and all things in who did not tutor. However, it is paramount between. Thus, the skills identified can be to note that both groups of students were ascribed to no particular teaching method, given training on the strategy, so tutoring instead tbey are skills that will make teach- was not the initial learning experience for ers effective when using most any of the the tutors. Instead, it was an opportunity to methods discussed here. overlearn the strategy by teaching it. If we were to draw any conclusion based on the pyramid, it would be that the Summary methods be thought of as on a continuum The research reviewed here demon- as opposed to in a hierarchy. Therefore, strates that use of each of the methods the less prior knowledge students have the identified by the pyramid resulted in reten- more likely it is that effective methods tion, with none being consistently superior would be found toward the direct instruc- to the others and all being effective in cer- tain contexts. A paramount concern, given tion end of the continuum, and as students' conventional wisdom and the research knowledge increased, they would be more cited, is the effectiveness and importance capable of learning with methods involv- of reading and direct instruction, which in ing discussion and teaching. However, many ways are undermined by their posi- because learning is an ongoing process, tions on the pyramid. Reading is not only this will not preclude that further learning an effective teaching/learning method, it will take place with more direct methods. is also the main foundation for becoming Thus, even the most experienced learners, a "life-long learner". Its fundamental such as successful heart surgeons, could importance was noted early on by Dale learn from a more experienced learner, a who in 1946 stated he "would give much surgeon with a new technique, and the best more attention to effective reading in all initial methods would likely be curricula" ( p. 6). Further, direct instruc- lecture/demonstration which would lead tion has been shown to be effective, to practice by doing, and possibly teach- especially for children from low socio-eco- ing others. Not surprisingly, this retums nomic backgrounds. us to the assertions of Dale (1946) and It is widely accepted that teachers Dewey (1916) that for successful learning should facilitate active learning in their experiences, students need to experience a classrooms. According to Stinson and Mil- variety of instructional methods and that ter (1996). "there has been a paradigm shift direct instruction needs to be accompanied expressed as moving from being the 'Sage by methods that further student under- on the Stage" to serving as the 'Guide on standing and recognize why what they are the Side"" and teachers will need to have learning is useful. Examining the Learning ...ill

References Drane. D.. Smith, H.. Light. G., Pinto, L., & Adam.s, G. L.. & Engelmann. S. (1996). Research Swarat. S. (2005), The Gateway Science Work- on Direct Instruction: 25 Years beyond DIS- shop Program: Enhancing Student TAR. Seattle: Educational Achievement Performance and Retention in the Sciences Systems. Through Peer-Facilitated Discussion. Journal of Science Education & Technologv, 74(3), Bay. M.. & et al. (1992). Science Instruction for 337-352. the Mildly Handicapped: Direct Instruction versus Discovery Teaching. Journal of Drewes, F., & MilU^an, K. L. D. (2003). How To Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 555-57(). Study Science (4 ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Boulmetis, J. (2003). Learning Pyramid. Instruc- Eby, J., HerrelL A., & Jordan, M. (2006). Teach- tor, 113(3), 9. ing in K-12 Schools: A Reflective Action Approach. Columbus, Ohio: PearsoB-Merrill- Brueckner. J. K., & MacPherson, B. R. (2004). Benefits from peer teaching in the dental gross Prentice Hall. anatomy laboratory. European Journal of Den- Fasko, S. N. (1994). The Effects of a Peer Tutor- tal Education. 8{2\ 72-77. ing Program on Math Fact Recall and Brunei, J. S. (1960). Process of education. New Generalization. Paper presented at the Paper York: Vintage Books. presented at the Annual Meeting of the Amer- ican Psychological Association (1994). Los Dale, E. (1946). Audio-visual methods in teach- Angeles. CA. ing. New York: The Dryden Pres.s. Heller, L. K.. & Fantuzzo. J. W, (1993). Recipro- Dale, E. (1954). Audio-visual methods in teaching cal peer tutoring and parent partnership: Does (2 ed.). New York: The Dryden Press. parent involvement make a difference? School Dale. E. (1969). Audio-visual methods in teaching Psychology Review. 22(3), 517-534. (3 ed.). New York: The Dryden Press. Hershman, D. M., & McDonald, E. S. (2003). Sur- Danielson, C. (2002). Enhancing Studetit Achieve- vival Kit for New Secondary Teachers. ment: A Framework for School Improvement. Garland, TX: Inspiring Teachers Publishing, Alexndria. Virginia: Association for Supervi- Inc. sion and Curriculum Development. Hillocks, G. (1984). What works in teaching com- Darmer, M. R.. Ankersen. L.. Nielsen, B. G.. Land- position: A mcta-analysis of experimental berger. G., Lippert. E.. & Egerod. f. (2004). treatment studies. American Journal of Edu- The effect of a VIPS implementation pro- cation, 93. 133-170. gramme on nurses knowledge and attiludes towards documentation. Scandinavian Journal Hodges. N. J., Chua. R.. & Franks, I. M. (2003). of Caring Sciences, IHO). 325-332. The role of video in facilitating and action of a novel coordination movement. DeKanter, N. (2005). Gaming Redefines Interac- Journal of Motor Behavior, 35{3), 247-260. tivity for Learning. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, Hunter. M. (1985). Mastery Teaching. Thousand 49(3), 26-31. Oaks. California: Corwin Press, Dewey. J. (1916). Democracy and education: an Ivins, J. E, (1985). A Comparison ofthe Effects introduction to the philosophy of education. of Two Instructional Sequences Involving Sci- New York: The Macmillan Company. ence Laboratory Activities. The American Biology Teacher. ERIC Document Service (ED259953). Jacobsen, P A.. Eggen, P, & Kauchak, D, (2005). Methods for Teaching: Promoting Student Learning in K-12 Classrooms (7 ed.). Boston: Prentice Hall. 78 / Education Vol. 128 No.1

Johnson, D. W.. Johnson, R. T,. & Stanne. M. B. Rosenshine, B. (1976), Recent Research on Teach- (2000), Cooperative Learning Methods: A ing Behaviors and Student Achievement. Meta-Analysis. December 12. 2005. from Journal of Teacher Education, 27(1), 61-64. http://www.co-operation.org/pages/cl-meth- Shaffer, D. W., Squire. K. R,, Halverson, R., & ods.html Gee, J. P. (2005), Video Games and The Future Kim, T., & Axelrod, S. (2005), Direct instruction: of Leaming. (Cover story). Phi Delta Kappan, an educators' guide and a plea for action. 87(2). 105-111. Behavior Analyst Today. 6(2), 111-120. Snow. C. E.. Burns. M. S,. & Griffin, P. (1999). Lalley, J. P. (1998). A comparison of video and Preventing reading difficulties in young chil- text as forms of feedback during computer- dren. In Reading re.search: Anthology: The assisted instruction. Journal of Educational why? of reading instruction, (pp. 148-155). Computing Research. 75(4). 323-338. Novato. CA: Arena Press, McGill-Franzen. A,, & Allington. R. L. (1999). Sousa. D. A. (200\).How the brain learns: a class- Putting books in the classroom seems neces- room teacher's guide (2" ed.). Thousand Oaks, sary but not sufficient. Journal of Educational Calif: Corwin Press. Re.search. 93(2). 61-14. Slavin, R. E. (1997). Educational Psychology: Morgan, R, L.. Whorton, J. E.. & Gunsalus, C. Theory and Practice (5' ed.), Boston: Allyn (2000), A Comparison of Short Term and Long and Bacon: Term Retention: Lecture Combined with Dis- cussion Versus Cooperative Learning. Journal Stein. M.. Caniine. D.. & Dixon. R. (1998). Direct of instructional Psychology. 27(1). 53-57, instruction: integrating curriculum design and effective teaching practice. Intervention in Pigford. V. D. (1974). A Comparison of an Indi- School & Clinic, .•?.?(4). 227-234. vidual Laboratory Method with a Group Teacher -Demonstration Method in Teaching Stinson. J.. & Milter, R. (1996). Problem-based Measurement and Estimation in Metric Units Learning In Business Education: Curriculum to Preservice Elementary Teachers: The Flori- Design and Implementation Issues, In L. a. G. da State University. ERIC Document Service Wilkerson & Wim (Eds.). Bringing Problem- (ED 108928). Based Learning to Higher Education: Theory and Practice. San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass Polhemus, S., Dambe. M., Moorad. F.. & Dambe, Publishers. M. (1985). Group training of conservation skills with children from a non-technological. Thalheimer, W. (2005). Bogus Research Uncov- International Journal of Psychology. 2011), I. ered Work -Learning Research Somerville, Massachusetts, USA (617) 718-0067. Pressley, M.. & Allington, R. (1999), What should http://www.work-leaming.com/chigraph.htm reading instructional research be the research of? Issues in Education, 5(1). 1-35. Van Hell. J.G., Bosman.A. M,T., & Bartelings, M. C. G. (2003). Visual dictation improves the Randier. C, & Bogner, F. (2002). Comparing spelling performance of three groups of dutch methods of instruction using bird species iden- students with spelling disabilities. Learning tification skills as indicators. Journal of Disabiliry Quarterly. 26(4). 239-255. Biological Education, 36(4). 181-188. Van Keer. H.. & Verhaeghe, J, P. (2005). Effects Rekrut, M, D, (1994), Teaching to leam: Strategy of Explicit Reading Strategies Instruction and utilization through peer iiitoring. High School Peer Tutoring on Second and Fifth Graders' Journal, 77(4), 304-314. Reading Comprehension and Self-Efficacy Riesenmy. M. R,, Mitchell, S.. Hudgins, B. B,. & . Journal of Experimental Educa- Ebel. D. (1991). Retention and transfer of chil- tion. 7 3(4), 291-319. dren's self-directed and critical thinking skills. Journal of Educational Research, 85(1), 14- 25. Examining the Learning .../ 79

White. T. G. (2005). Effects of systematic and strategic analogy-based phonics on grade 2 stu- dents' word reading and reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarierlv, 400-), 234. Wilen. W. W. (2004). Refuting Misconceptions About Classroom Discussions. Social Studies, 95(1), 33-39. Wood. E. J. (2004). Problem-Based Learning: Exploiting Knowledge of how People Leam to Promote Effective Learning. Bioscience Edu- cation e-joiinmt(BEE-j) (Vol. 3, pp. 3-13): The Higher Education Academy. Yager. S.. Johnson. R. T, Johnson, D. W.. & Snider, B. (1986). The Impact of Group Pro- cessing on Achievement in Cooperative Learning Groups. Journal of Social Psvcholo- gy. 1260). 389-397.