27 Feb 2012 ............... Length about 900 words (6000 bytes).
(Document started on 29 Jan 2012.)
This is a WWW document maintained by
Steve Draper, installed at http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/best/dalecone.html.
You may copy it.
How to refer to it.
Web site logical path:
Dale's cone, spontaneous misconceptions, fraud
The bogus "Dale's cone"
Department of Psychology,
University of Glasgow.
The issue or phenomenon
The issue or pheno
The false cone
The real cone exists
The false Confucius
Model 1: random mutation. Scholarship's reasoned rebuttal of the
Archiv ref: model of random meme.
Thalheimer etc. doing the scholarship => the attribution (authority) is wrong.
Model 2: Analogy to other pyramids.
Theory and experiment's reasoned rebuttal of the assertion
Bloom, xref my neoBloom.
Evidence against the presupposition behind the assertions:
DrFox (even if medium, then motivation X delivery skill)
NGray: more interesting points about medium use in teaching
Ls don't know how/where they learned (so feeling of recog on seeing the cone
may be a delusion even about the reader's own experience).
(DrFox showed) it all depends on whether trying to learn, or just to be
Model 3: Spontaneous misconceptions.
The educational theory of the unreasonable endurance of this error
Other cases: I hear, I see, I do. I have to create this: doesn't seem to be
on my joke/quotes page after all.
Huge false attribs.
Viennot, SponCons as the theory of why these recur (not random bad
scholarship, but an educational reason.)
They occur in every disc. E.g. plants feeding through their roots.
So model 1 establishing that there is no case to answer because therer never
has been any (published, peer reviewed) evidence, and the assertions of
authority are all false.
Model 2 establishes that if, nevertheless, we were to consider the bogus
cone as a hypothesis, then these are several lines of both data and theory
suggesting it is probably quite wrong and an unpromising hypothsis to
Model 3 tells us that nevertheless we are likely to see it perennially
asserted because it seems to trigger a powerful though spurious resonance with
our experience and attitudes.
Why is it attractive?
The truths it falsely seems to express?
Cone / see, hear, do
Falling asleep when forcing ourselves to read
Falling asleep over TV but not blaming ourselves
Falling asleep in conversation but not blaming ourselves
BUT cone has no "thinking" as a mode of learning
Will Thalheimer: top of website
Lalley, J. P. and Miller R. H. (2007) "The Learning Pyramid: Does It Point
Teachers in the Right Direction?" Education vol.128 no.1 pp.64-79
Web site logical path:
[Top of this page]