By: Adele Sommers

Imagine you’re attending an exciting, high-value conference on how to be a more effective communicator and leader. The many distinguished presenters tout impressive careers and credentials.

Each acclaimed speaker shares a compelling message illustrated by colorful charts, graphs, and figures.

Given this impressive backdrop, is there any reason to doubt a word the speakers are saying?

The trouble is, even in these settings, wise and learned people sometimes spread bogus, debunked, or dubious information. And when we hear something that sounds intriguing and plausible from someone we like and respect, we often can’t wait to share it with others!

Let’s examine two popular myths so you can recognize them the next time you see them — and avoid passing them along to other people as gospel.

Myth #1: The “7%-38%-55% rule”

Myth #2: The “10-20-30-50-70-90% theory”

Myth #1: The “7%-38%-55% rule”

This rule claims that when we listen to people speaking, we derive their meaning as follows:

• 7% from their spoken words
• 38% from their tone of voice, and
• 55% from their body language

In other words, the rule says we supposedly gain very little understanding (only 7%) from the verbal part of a message, which involves the words and phrases used. Instead, we gain most of the meaning (the remaining 93%) from the nonverbal cues given off by the speaker, such as his or her tone of voice and body language.

Why is that a myth?

Although this rule does have some validity, it has been incorrectly interpreted to apply to everything — including factual information. If the rule actually did apply to factual information, we’d have very little reason to listen to someone’s words to understand the meaning behind them, such as during a lecture. To make sense of the lecture — even if it were delivered in a foreign language — we could primarily focus on the speaker’s gestures and tone of voice, and mostly ignore the words themselves.

Therefore, the common belief that the “7%-38%-55% rule” applies to every type of information is false. It’s a gross mischaracterization of the research conducted by Dr. Albert Mehrabian in the 1960s. Dr. Mehrabian’s research was not about communicating ideas in general. As explained here, his findings pertained only when people were expressing their feelings and attitudes in an ambiguous way.

How so? When people say one thing about their emotions but convey something very different through their tone of voice and body language, it’s confusing and makes us wonder what’s really true. For example:

Verbal: Richard says, “I feel very relaxed and comfortable with you.”

Nonverbal: Richard looks anxious, stares downward, and appears withdrawn.

So, what should we believe in this case? Should we believe the verbal or the nonverbal aspects of Richard’s message?

If you said the nonverbal aspects, you were right. Whenever people express their emotions ambiguously, Mehrabian found that listeners focus on the nonverbal cues (tone of voice and body language) more than on the spoken words. That’s the correct interpretation of Mehrabian’s “7%-38%-55% rule”!

For an excellent illustration of this myth in action, watch this short video: Busting the Mehrabian Myth

Myth #2: The “10-20-30-50-70-90% theory”

This theory proposes that certain kinds of learning activities are more effective than others in helping us remember something new. For example, the theory suggests that we’ll remember:

• 10% of what we read
• 20% of what we see
• 30% of what we hear
• 50% of what we see and hear
• 70% of what we say and write, and
• 90% of what we say and do

Why is that a myth? Although the basic idea sounds fairly reasonable, there seems to be no scientific evidence to back it up. It also has some other glaring problems — here are just two of them…

First, the percentage figures are too neat and tidy to be scientific. Valid research studies are unlikely to produce results that are cleanly rounded to the nearest multiple of 10 (20%, 30%, 40%, and so on), as noted by Dr. Will Thalheimer, who has carefully critiqued this myth.

Further, presenters often tailor their numbers (as well as their categories) to mirror the subject they’re talking about, without citing any credible scientific data. In other words, they fabricate their figures to match their message!

Second, the model represents a gross generalization about learning. Learning depends on many factors. So, we need to be very careful about attributing learning to activities that aren’t clearly defined (and these activities aren’t clearly defined). Because the meanings aren’t clear, the related assumptions don’t hold water, either.
Once you start asking a few questions like these, the theory begins to fall apart:

1. What’s the difference between “seeing” and “reading”? Why would we remember more from seeing?
2. Do we really learn more from “hearing” something spoken than from “reading” the same material? Doesn’t reading allow us to go back several times to revisit and ponder an idea, unlike hearing?
3. What exactly does “saying and writing” refer to? Does it mean that we would write out a section of text while speaking it out loud? Wouldn’t that be distracting for some people?
4. When we learn something by “doing,” does that imply that we’re being given timely and meaningful feedback by an instructor or coach that would tell us whether we’re doing it correctly? We don’t know.

So, how did this theory originate?

The model itself has evolved over time, appearing in many different forms since the 1960s or earlier.

Many variations have surfaced as bar charts, circle diagrams, pyramids, and cones — and all contain invented numbers, categories, or both.

One example is the “Cone of Experience,” attributed to Edgar Dale, who wrote about audiovisual media in 1946.

Dale’s “cone,” however, did not include any percentages. So, like many examples attributed to Dale, the one pictured has totally made-up information.

In summary, it’s tempting to jump on the bandwagon and adopt new ideas from people you respect and admire. But some of what masquerades as wisdom is really misleading — or pure bunk — passed along by respectable people who never fully fact-checked their references. So, don’t be fooled! Keep an eye out for myths like these and be sure to dig deep into any sources of information that you pass along!

---

 

Adele Sommers has spent over two decades helping firms boost their profitability through improved human and business results. She designs award-winning e-learning, instructor-led courseware, and blended training for organizations in a variety of industries, including financial and insurance services, manufacturing, trust building, project management, leadership development, presentation design, process improvement, quality assurance, and various technology-related fields.

Adele holds a Doctorate in Education with a focus on Human Performance Technology, as well as a Certificate in Human Performance. She is the president of Business Performance Inc., a consultancy she launched in 2006. She has also served as president of the San Luis Obispo Technical & Business Communicators (formerly, the San Luis Obispo chapter of the Society for Technical Communication) since 2002. More information about her professional work resides at LearnShareProsper.com.

By: Jessica Rand

While the concept of the flipped classroom, and the very name itself, may seem backwards, in reality it is an innovative way of offering students and educators a more engaging, personalized learning experience. With the rapid growth of online and blended learning, and the proliferation of technology devices, educators have more opportunities than ever to provide personalized, meaningful learning experiences to their students. Using a flipped classroom model is one of the most effective strategies for achieving this.

What is a flipped classroom?

One of the biggest challenges that educators face is trying to meet curriculum or course outcomes within a short time period. As a result, many courses adopt a lecture format to instill as much knowledge as possible within the calendar constraints. While the majority of educators understand the benefits of collaboration and problem solving, they struggle to find the time. The flipped classroom model addresses this challenge by “flipping” the way courses are taught.

Flipped classrooms are not an entirely new practice. Many people have experienced some aspects of the flipped classroom model when their professors have asked them to pre-read course materials or watch a video online before coming to class. Anthony Bates explains that constructivist theories of education, argue that learners must construct personal meaning through experience and reflection. Flipped classrooms can be so much more than having students pre-read a chapter before attending a lecture. The Journal of Nutrition Education and Behaviour reports that over 20 years ago Alison King argued that educators should move from a “sage on the stage” way of teaching to being a “guide on the side”. She argued that many instructors try to impart the knowledge they have by lecturing to a room of students and would be more effective by guiding students through exploration of content. The goal of exploration and collaboration is at the center of flipped classrooms.

An instructor engaging in a flipped classroom will provide students with a means of learning course content outside of class time, followed by collaboration and learning activities in the class. For example, a student may learn course content for a science class by watching a short video and playing a relevant online educational game before each class. When the student comes to the following class, he is already familiar with the content and is able to engage in more meaningful learning through discussion, collaboration and experiential learning.

Benefits of flipping a classroom

Individual student needs are addressed more effectively in flipped classrooms. Content can be made available in different medium. For example, students who struggle with reading can listen to informational podcasts or watch videos. Rather than educators spending class time teaching content, they are able to meet with individual students, facilitate learning stations and engage in hands-on experiences with students. Students are also able to access content material at a time and place that is convenient to them. This allows students to learn in a way that meets their needs. Student autonomy over learning is critical, especially for struggling students. Learners that take ownership of their learning are more likely to engage in personalized learning.

Engagement is another advantage of flipped classrooms. Many students become bored or disengaged in traditional class settings. This occurs for two reasons. First, many students find lecture-style teaching dull and uninteresting. The Journal of Nutrition Education and Behaviour report that a student’s attention declines after just ten minutes of class lecture and that only about 20 percent of material is retained. Second, students who require accommodations or extensions will become disengaged as content material is presented in a way that is either too difficult or too easy for them. Flipped classroom educators have the opportunity to provide content in a more varied, personalized manner and provide truly meaningful, engaging experiences in the classroom.

The role of technology

As you can imagine, technology plays a vital role in flipped classrooms. An effective flipped classroom does not simply ask students to read chapters of a textbook prior to class and then expect them to have learned the content. Flipped classrooms use technology as a tool for facilitating and improving learning experiences. Great examples of technology being used effectively in flipped classrooms are podcasts, Smartboards, voice recorders, video logs, blogs, document cameras, robotics, and tablets.

Technology provides many opportunities to students learning in a flipped classroom, and the devices and programs available are becoming more exciting every day. There are, however, many terrific ways to offer students a flipped classroom learning experience without obtaining a Computer Science degree. Educators should use technology that they are familiar with and slowly expand their expertise to include more devices and programs that they feel would benefit their students.

Many post-secondary institutions are choosing to provide flipped classroom learning experiences to their students. The proven benefits to student engagement and personalization of learning indicate that students are seeing more success with this style of teaching. Educators from the University of Hong Kong provide several strategies for teachers inspired to start their own flipped classrooms. They recommend that instructors take the process one step at a time and keep technology simple (especially in the beginning), avoid providing too much information to students at once, find ways to engage students with material and reflect on practices to make changes as needed.

It is an exciting time to be in the education system. The increase of technology devices and programs has changed the way we learn and teach. As educators, we can harness the strengths of emerging technologies and practices such as the flipped classroom to engage each of our students like never before.

About the author

Jessica Rand teaches part-time in beautiful Prince George, British Columbia where her three sons keep her busy. She is currently working on an Online Learning and Teaching Diploma from Vancouver Island University and says that her hope as an educator is to use technology to engage students in their own learning journeys. When not teaching, Jessica spends time with her husband and boys, and also loves to read, run, volunteer and spend time with friends.