We all at some time have come across the statistics about how much you remember if you see it, hear and see it, hear see and do it etc. I have noticed that every time I see/hear someone use it they (a) change the numbers and (b) omit the source.
So who really did the research and what really were the numbers? No bluffing now – that’s what you do at thef ront of the room. We want evidence…
Clive Hook
So who really did the research and what really were the numbers? No bluffing now - that's what you do at thef ront of the room. We want evidence...
Clive Hook
4 Responses
The one I use
We remember 10% of what we read, 20% of what we hear, 30% of what we see, 50% of what we see and hear, 80% of what we say and 90% of what we say and do.
Unfortunately, I have no source on that.
Also, 35% of the population intake information visually, 25% of the population intake info through auditory (hearing) and 40% take in info through kinaesthetic (touchy feely), again no source.
Dale’s Cone of experience.
Dale’s cone of experience relates to how much people remember. The statistics are shown in a triangle broken into 6 levels.
The top level states people remember 10% of what they read.
The next level reports people remember 20% of what they hear.
Then it states people remember 30% of what they see,
then 50% of what they hear & see,
then 70% of what they say & write
and finaly, stating people remember 90% of what they do.
Hope this has been helpful
Peter Webb
research
Part of the original but questioned research comes from the following:-
A study conducted in 1967 by psychologist Albert Mehrabian attempted to distinguish the importance of verbal and nonverbal communication. The conclusion was the 7-38-55 formula. This has basically been interpreted to mean communication is 7% verbal, 38% vocal, and 55% facial.
Input channels
Good question – I had exactly the same question while preparing a Train the Trainer course and chose not to include these figures as I couldn’t reference them. To add to the last comment on input channels though, there’s loads of research on learning styles (Honey & Mumford; Kolb; Dunn, Dunn & Price etc.)with lots of questionnaires available on-line to establish preferred input channels. A good site is http://www.vark-learn.com with a questionnaire to establish whether you prefer visual/auditory/reading or kinesthetic input, and they’re gradually building up statistics based on on-line completions of the questionnaire. In particular they point out differences between teachers and students. Do the exact statistics matter though? Isn’t the point of this stuff to make trainers/presenters realise they must address more than one input channel in order to reach people? If this is what you want to get across, then I reccommend the VARK questionnaire. It doesn’t aim to be scientific, just practical (just like trainers!). I just used it in a Train the Trainer course – everyone completed it, they all came out different styles, I asked: Will your group be the same? (Yes), What should you do about it as a trainer? (not just lecture, use pictures, concrete examples, discussion etc. etc.). Point experienced and accepted in 20 minutes flat. That’s the kind of research I can make good use of as a trainer!