We remember 10 percent of what we read, 20 percent of what we hear and 30 percent of what we see.

Right? And … we remember 50 percent of what we see and hear, 70 percent of what we say and 90 percent of what we do and say.

Correct? Well, not necessarily, and the real answer may influence the methods you use to achieve effective training.

The Cone of Learning

The percentages above have been often cited as a guide for educators to incorporate the proper mix of text and visuals in order to create a learning environment that makes material memorable. It is often called the Cone of Learning. But according to a study commissioned by Cisco Systems, “Multimodal Learning Through Media: What the Research Says,” these percentages are unsubstantiated. They are actually additions to the Cone of Experience invented by researcher Edgar Dale in his book Audio-Visual Methods in Technology. His concept had no percentages.

The Cone of Experience is a graphic that outlines types of learning from the concrete at the bottom to the abstract at the top. Its list of audio-visual materials ranges from direct experiences, contrived experiences and dramatized experiences to motion pictures, visual symbols and verbal symbols. As the study states, “The shape of the cone is not related to retention, but rather to the degree of abstraction.” In an effort to simplify a complex concept, the cone accumulated percentages that have influenced educators in designing learning experiences.

“As it turns out, doing is not always more efficient than seeing, and seeing is not always more effective than reading,” the study says. “Informed educators understand that the optimum design depends on the content, context and the learner.” The percentages suggest that learners who engage in collaborative learning attain higher levels of learning than those who listen to narration or read text on a subject. But for basic skill building, individual learning through reading or simple drills may be the best learning environment, while collaborative learning through a simulation might be best for a different learning objective.

Multimodal vs. Unimodal

Research has shown a “dual coding system” in how we process information. Visuals and text/auditory information are processed in different channels, the recognition of which can augment learning. “The bottom line is that students using well-designed combinations of visuals and text learn more than students who only use text,” says the study.

Citing multiple sources of research, the study compared multimodal learning to traditional unimodal learning.

Noninteractive multimodal learning includes using text with illustrations, watching and listening to animations and listening to lectures that incorporate graphics. It is individualized learning, with little to no interaction with others.

Interactive multimodal learning includes simulations, modeling and real-world experiences, typically involving collaboration with peers.

For basic skills, noninteractive multimodal learning resulted in a 21 percent increase in students’ scores compared to unimodal learning, while interactive multimodal learning is not as high, at nine percent. For higher-order skills, the noninteractive learning resulted in a 20 percent increase, while the interactive came in at a 32 percent increase.

“In general, multimodal learning has been shown to be more effective than traditional, unimodal learning,” the study says. “Adding visuals to verbal (text and/or auditory) learning can result in significant gains in basic and higher-order learning.

Effective designs for learning include a variety of media and combinations of modalities. “This analysis provides a clear rationale for using multimedia in learning,” the study says.

So is a picture worth a thousand words? Yes, indeed, but effective training and learning incorporates a few of those words as well (and animations and graphics and more) for a multimedia approach that achieves the best results.

Multimodal Learning: How Many Words is a Picture Worth?