Welcome back!
I was quite alarmed earlier this week when I read an article in a magazine published by the Australian Institute of Training & Development that referred to the dubious learning pyramid. The cause for my alarm was not the article itself but the stark reminder that our industry is awash with fads, and worse, that over time these fads become perceived as facts.
The learning pyramid has been around since the mid-twentieth century, yet even its origins are questionable. The NTL Institute claim to have developed the pyramid as the result of research they conducted in the 1960s. However, they reportedly cannot find that research, which is more than a bit strange. There were similar models developed much earlier, such as Edgar Dale’s Cone of Experience, although this model did not include percentages.
The Questionable Learning Pyramid
My point is not to criticize the NTL Institute, the Australian Institute of Training & Development, nor the author of the article in question. Rather, it is to highlight the need for HR and L&D professionals to be vigilant in checking the research behind any models before adopting them yourself or advocating them to others. There are many popular models around, such as Maslow’s Hierarchy and Situational Leadership, which have little if any empirical support.
So is the learning pyramid a true model of how people learn? Certainly, any model is an imperfect simplification of more complex realities. Allowing for this, it may be better to ask whether is is a) helpful and b) grounded in reality. I have found no research supporting the percentages shown in the leadership pyramid model. In fact, some available research shows very different percentages. Nor have I found any research that supports that the teaching approaches at the lower part of the pyramid result in greater retention than those at the top. Rather, I found research that shows direct instruction (such as seeing and hearing) is often a more effective method of teaching, particularly when the learners have little existing experience or expertise.
So the short answer is no, it is not a valid model. It may have helped highlight the limitations of the dominant academic model of learning, which I would agree is somewhat limited with regard to knowledge acquisition. It also drew attention to some very useful (and at the time, new) teaching techniques such as discussions, practise and learning through teaching others. There is indeed some research that these techniques can be quite effective. However, they are not universally superior to other forms of teaching as the learning pyramid implies. Rather, as I outline in my book, the Keys to Successful Leadership Development, different strategies are suited to different circumstances (e.g., the goals of the training, the prior experience of participants, etc.).
If anyone has or knows of any contrary, verifiable research, please let me know. Our community seeks to educate HR and L&D professionals with evidence-based advice, and I am happy to include any evidence-based support for alternative opinions.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Shaun, you raise an excellent point – not just about the learning pyramid, I too have seen several different percentages for each area.
I refer to these as ‘airport bookshop theory’ – the sort of thing that entertains, has some face validity and “seems to be right”, but like the food you eat on the flight – little substance and spiked with MSG to trick you into thinking it actually has flavour at 30,000 feet, but once back on the ground you regret eating it .
There’s many such theories and stories (the “Yale Study” on goal setting comes to mind) where the research data has mysteriously ‘disappeared’ – and these ideas are the ones most organizations apparently adhere to and watch fail in practice.
If it tastes good on the ground and you can check its provenance…