Edgar Dale's Pyramid of Learning in medical education

A literature review

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Edgar Dale's Pyramid of Learning and percentages of retained learning are cited in educational literature in a range of disciplines. The sources of the Pyramid, however, are misleading. Aims: To examine the evidence supporting the Pyramid and the extent to which it is cited in medical education literature. Methods: A review of literature (1946-2012) based on a search utilising Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, Medline and Google Scholar conducted from September to November 2012. Results: A total of 43 peer-reviewed medical education journal articles and conference papers were found. While some researchers had been misled by their sources, other authors' interpretations of the citations did not align with the content of those citations, had no such citations, had circular references, or consulted questionable sources. There was no agreement on the percentages of learning retention, in spite of many researchers' citing primary texts. Discussion and conclusion: The inappropriate citing of the Pyramid and its associated percentages in medical education literature is widespread and continuous. This citing undermines much of the published work, and impacts on research-based medical education literature. While the area of learning/teaching strategies and amount of retention from each is an area for future research, any reference to the Pyramid should be avoided.

Original languageEnglish
JournalMedical Teacher
Volume35
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2013

Fingerprint

Medical Education
Learning
learning
education
Research Personnel
Literature
teaching strategy
Teaching
search engine
literature
Research
interpretation
evidence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Education

Cite this

Edgar Dale's Pyramid of Learning in medical education : A literature review. / Masters, Ken.

In: Medical Teacher, Vol. 35, No. 11, 11.2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{bc95939eac844be594fc6029df3042a8,
title = "Edgar Dale's Pyramid of Learning in medical education: A literature review",
abstract = "Background: Edgar Dale's Pyramid of Learning and percentages of retained learning are cited in educational literature in a range of disciplines. The sources of the Pyramid, however, are misleading. Aims: To examine the evidence supporting the Pyramid and the extent to which it is cited in medical education literature. Methods: A review of literature (1946-2012) based on a search utilising Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, Medline and Google Scholar conducted from September to November 2012. Results: A total of 43 peer-reviewed medical education journal articles and conference papers were found. While some researchers had been misled by their sources, other authors' interpretations of the citations did not align with the content of those citations, had no such citations, had circular references, or consulted questionable sources. There was no agreement on the percentages of learning retention, in spite of many researchers' citing primary texts. Discussion and conclusion: The inappropriate citing of the Pyramid and its associated percentages in medical education literature is widespread and continuous. This citing undermines much of the published work, and impacts on research-based medical education literature. While the area of learning/teaching strategies and amount of retention from each is an area for future research, any reference to the Pyramid should be avoided.",
author = "Ken Masters",
year = "2013",
month = "11",
doi = "10.3109/0142159X.2013.800636",
language = "English",
volume = "35",
journal = "Medical Teacher",
issn = "0142-159X",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Edgar Dale's Pyramid of Learning in medical education

T2 - A literature review

AU - Masters, Ken

PY - 2013/11

Y1 - 2013/11

N2 - Background: Edgar Dale's Pyramid of Learning and percentages of retained learning are cited in educational literature in a range of disciplines. The sources of the Pyramid, however, are misleading. Aims: To examine the evidence supporting the Pyramid and the extent to which it is cited in medical education literature. Methods: A review of literature (1946-2012) based on a search utilising Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, Medline and Google Scholar conducted from September to November 2012. Results: A total of 43 peer-reviewed medical education journal articles and conference papers were found. While some researchers had been misled by their sources, other authors' interpretations of the citations did not align with the content of those citations, had no such citations, had circular references, or consulted questionable sources. There was no agreement on the percentages of learning retention, in spite of many researchers' citing primary texts. Discussion and conclusion: The inappropriate citing of the Pyramid and its associated percentages in medical education literature is widespread and continuous. This citing undermines much of the published work, and impacts on research-based medical education literature. While the area of learning/teaching strategies and amount of retention from each is an area for future research, any reference to the Pyramid should be avoided.

AB - Background: Edgar Dale's Pyramid of Learning and percentages of retained learning are cited in educational literature in a range of disciplines. The sources of the Pyramid, however, are misleading. Aims: To examine the evidence supporting the Pyramid and the extent to which it is cited in medical education literature. Methods: A review of literature (1946-2012) based on a search utilising Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, Medline and Google Scholar conducted from September to November 2012. Results: A total of 43 peer-reviewed medical education journal articles and conference papers were found. While some researchers had been misled by their sources, other authors' interpretations of the citations did not align with the content of those citations, had no such citations, had circular references, or consulted questionable sources. There was no agreement on the percentages of learning retention, in spite of many researchers' citing primary texts. Discussion and conclusion: The inappropriate citing of the Pyramid and its associated percentages in medical education literature is widespread and continuous. This citing undermines much of the published work, and impacts on research-based medical education literature. While the area of learning/teaching strategies and amount of retention from each is an area for future research, any reference to the Pyramid should be avoided.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84886921851&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84886921851&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3109/0142159X.2013.800636

DO - 10.3109/0142159X.2013.800636

M3 - Article

VL - 35

JO - Medical Teacher

JF - Medical Teacher

SN - 0142-159X

IS - 11

ER -