Stevie Wonder sang it and made it popular in a Rolling Stones tour in ‘72:
When you believe in things that you don’t understand,
Then you suffer,
Superstition ain’t the way, no, no, no
We’ve talked about myths before and this is a good time to recap one that just came up on another blog — the so-called “Learning Pyramid.” (See Joe’s post for the background*). I left a link to the refutation, explanation, and dangers in using the information. Please note that the “Learning Pyramid” is *not* “Dale’s Cone” and that, while the two have been conflated, they are not related.
Compare that to the discussion of Bloom’s Taxonomy.
What’s the difference between the Learning Pyramid or Learning Styles and Bloom’s Taxonomy?
None are predicated on any kind of valid scientific research. All three are organizational structures for thinking about how to arrange educational activities.
The difference lies in the “predictive” or “diagnostic” value of the various tools. Bloom’s Taxonomy only purports to be a way of organizing educational experiences without predicting or projecting any kind of causal relationship. Restated: Using Bloom won’t let you predict outcomes any better than not using Bloom. It *might* help you arrange for educational experiences that foster the kinds of content engagement you want but there is no causal relationship. With both the Learning Pyramid and Learning styles, the fundamental purpose alleges to relate activity to outcome — postulating causal relationship between the teacher/student relationship and the learning outcomes. Neither has any credible research to back up that claim of causal relationship.
Remember the Wizard’s First Rule
“People will believe a lie because they want to believe it’s true, or because they are afraid it might be true.”
If your practice is based on opinion unsupported by research, then it’s Art. Scientific inquiry into Art makes as much sense as teaching a dog to talk. Yes, you may succeed, but the dog still has nothing to say.
* Sorry, Joe. I’m not singling you out. This is a commonly held belief. And yes, Traci. If Morehead is teaching you this, it’s crap.
October 10th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Another famous musician once wrote in a song called “Kodachrome”…
“When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school (college), it’s a wonder I can think at all. And though my lack of education hasn’t hurt me none, I can read the writing on the wall.” Paul Simon
Thanks for pointing out the crap.
I’ve been led to believe that Bloom’s is THE standard especially when it comes to writing test questions.
I remember when I did my student teaching in 2000, the learning pyramid was on a laminated poster in every classroom. I read the link you gave me and see what you meant about the fallacy. However, while the pyramid doesn’t stand as credible, I would say, just from personal experience that
October 10th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Sorry….I must have have accidentally pushed “submit” in mid sentence. I was just saying that it seems to make sense that when you show someone else what you learned, it becomes more internalized. Teachers can certainly learn from their students and in turn teach others what they learned.
I suppose the lesson learned here is to make sure that there is credible research behind anything we espouse as educational doctrine. And then again, there is the question as to whether or not teaching is an art or a science?…….
October 10th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Wow…I feel like a child who finally realized that Santa Claus is in all reality your parents putting presents under the tree. Bloom’s Taxonomy was pounded in my head so much that I just accepted it. In the future, I need to be more critical of what I accept to be true. I wonder if some of the other things I learned about education are also myths.
October 10th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
There’s nothing wrong with Bloom’s Taxonomy. Or Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction.
They’re organizing principles, but they are not supported by the kind of research that NCLB *requires* of Educational professionals.
The “Learning Pyramid” is problematic because it makes claims regarding causality in a specific and unambiguous (numeric) manner. That’s the bogosity.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
[...] October 12th, 2007 Mass mis-communication are common in education Dr. Lowell has pointed some out here and here. So the big question is how do incorrect pieces of information get accepted as urban legend for teachers? Do teachers want to believe these ideas so bad that that they will use poorly researched information. [...]
October 13th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
I, as an undergrad, was also forced to incorporate Bloom’s into every lesson plan. But I never got the feeling we were being told that using these words was actually how a student learns. I thought the purpose of using the words and the different levels was to keep the teachers on their toes by challenging students to think deeper about topics by analyzing and synthesizing. I don’t know that any of the given word choices actually reaches these said ‘learning styles’. I always felt they just gave a different perspective on things.
October 13th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
I”m not following this conversation about Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Bloom’s Taxonomy is a really good organizational structure for thinking about various levels of learning outcomes. It’s not a theory. It’s not an explanation of “how a student learns.” The purpose of Bloom’s is to try to organize desired cognitive outcomes in a heirarchy of engagement.
I’m not following the “using the words” thing …