« Subramony Molenda et al 2014b » : différence entre les versions
Aucun résumé des modifications |
|||
| Ligne 54 : | Ligne 54 : | ||
<!-- Entrer ici un résumé personnel de l'article (facultatif) --> | <!-- Entrer ici un résumé personnel de l'article (facultatif) --> | ||
Le résumé infra est copié du blog de [[Will Thalheimer]], entrée "Mythical Retention Data & The Corrupted Cone", 5/1/2015 (https://www.worklearning.com/2015/01/05/mythical-retention-data-the-corrupted-cone/) | |||
"The authors point to earlier attempts to debunk the mythical retention data and the corrupted cone. “Critics have been attempting to debunk the mythical retention chart at least since 1971. The earliest critics, David Curl and Frank Dwyer, were addressing just the retention data. Beginning around 2002, a new generation of critics has taken on the illegitimate combination of the retention chart and Edgar Dale’s Cone of Experience – the corrupted cone.” (p. 17). | |||
Interestingly, we only found two people who attempted to debunk the retention “data” before 2000. This could be because we failed to find other examples that existed, or it might just be because there weren’t that many examples of people sharing the bad information. | |||
Starting in about 2002, we noticed many sources of refutation. I suspect this has to do with two things. First, it is easier to quickly search human activity in the internet age, giving an advantage in seeking examples. Second, the internet also makes it easier for people to post the erroneous information and share it to a universal audience. | |||
The bottom line is that there have been a handful of people—in addition to the four authors—who have attempted to debunk the bogus information." | |||
<br> | <br> | ||
== 6. Voir aussi == | == 6. Voir aussi == | ||
Dernière version du 14 avril 2018 à 16:15
Previous Attempts to Debunk the Mythical Retention Chart and Corrupted Dale’s Cone
1. Références
- Référence complète APA : Subramony, D., Molenda, M., Betrus, A., and Thalheimer, W. (2014b). Previous Attempts to Debunk the Mythical Retention Chart and Corrupted Dale’s Cone. Educational Technology, Nov/Dec 2014, 54(6), 17-21.
- Auteur(s) :
- Revue :
2. Copies
- Copie en ligne :
- Copie locale : voir Educational_Technology_54_6
- Copie physique :
3. Mots-clés
4. Abstract
5. Résumé (facultatif)
Le résumé infra est copié du blog de Will Thalheimer, entrée "Mythical Retention Data & The Corrupted Cone", 5/1/2015 (https://www.worklearning.com/2015/01/05/mythical-retention-data-the-corrupted-cone/)
"The authors point to earlier attempts to debunk the mythical retention data and the corrupted cone. “Critics have been attempting to debunk the mythical retention chart at least since 1971. The earliest critics, David Curl and Frank Dwyer, were addressing just the retention data. Beginning around 2002, a new generation of critics has taken on the illegitimate combination of the retention chart and Edgar Dale’s Cone of Experience – the corrupted cone.” (p. 17).
Interestingly, we only found two people who attempted to debunk the retention “data” before 2000. This could be because we failed to find other examples that existed, or it might just be because there weren’t that many examples of people sharing the bad information.
Starting in about 2002, we noticed many sources of refutation. I suspect this has to do with two things. First, it is easier to quickly search human activity in the internet age, giving an advantage in seeking examples. Second, the internet also makes it easier for people to post the erroneous information and share it to a universal audience.
The bottom line is that there have been a handful of people—in addition to the four authors—who have attempted to debunk the bogus information."