- Edgar Dale developed the Cone of Experience, a visual model that categorized learning experiences from most concrete (direct experiences) to most abstract (verbal symbols). - The Cone was introduced in Dale's 1946 textbook and became influential in conceptualizing how different media support learning. It suggested that more direct, hands-on experiences better support understanding than more abstract experiences. - While influential, the Cone was not intended as a prescriptive theory but a descriptive framework. However, others often interpreted it prescriptively by emphasizing its ranking of experience types rather than Dale's intention for it to explain relationships between experiences.

1. Tuesday, October 12, 2010
EDGAR DALE'S CONE OF EXPERIENCE
EDGAR DALE
Edgar Dale (April 27, 1900 – March 8, 1985) was a U.S. educationist who
developed the famous Cone of Experience. He made several contributions to audio
and visual instruction, including a methodology for analyzing the content of motion
pictures
Dale was a professor of education at Ohio State University. In 1933 Dale wrote a
paper on how to effectively create a High School film appreciation class. This paper
has been noted for having a very different view of adolescent interaction with films
than that taken by the Film Control Boards of the time.
CONE OF EXPERIENCE
Introduced by Edgar Dale (1946) in his textbook on audiovisual methods in
teaching, the Cone of Experience is a visual device meant to summarize Dale‘s
classification system for the varied types of mediated learning experiences. The
organizing principle of the Cone was a progression from most concrete experiences
(at the bottom of the cone) to most abstract (at the top).

2. The original labels for Dale‘s ten categories are: Direct, Purposeful
Experiences; Contrived Experiences; Dramatic Participation;
Demonstrations; Field Trips; Exhibits; Motion Pictures; Radio – Recordings
– Still Pictures; Visual Symbols; and Verbal Symbols.
When Dale researched learning and teaching methods he found that much of what
we found to be true of direct and indirect (and of concrete and abstract) experience
could be summarised in a pyramid or 'pictorial device' Dales called 'the Cone of
Experience'. In his book 'Audio visual methods in teaching' - 1957, he stated that
the cone was not offered as a perfect or mechanically flawless picture to be taken
absolutely literally. It was merely designed as a visual aid to help explain the
interrelationships of the various types of audio-visual materials, as well as their
individual 'positions' in the learning process.
Dale points out that it would be a dangerous mistake to regard the bands on the
cone as rigid, inflexible divisions. He said "The cone device is a visual metaphor of
learning experiences, in which the various types of audio-visual materials are

3. arranged in the order of increasing abstractness as one proceeds from direct
experiences."
Dale made minor modifications of the visual in the second edition (1954),
changing Dramatic Participation to Dramatized Experiences and
adding Television. By the third edition of the textbook, Dale (1969) acknowledged
the growing popularity of Jerome Bruner‘s (1966) cognitive psychology
concepts by overlaying Bruner‘s classification system for modes of learning—
enactive, iconic, and symbolic—on top of his own categories. This adaptation of
his own schema may have been portentous, perhaps giving implied license to
others to make other creative adaptations and interpretations, not always to the
credit of Dale‘s original notion.
Dale‘s textbook in its three editions remained popular for over a quarter
century. Inasmuch as the Cone provided the organizing principle for the book, it
became ingrained in the thinking of generations of educational technology students
and professors who used the textbook. It stimulated many efforts to extend the
original idea by developing its implications for elementary education, secondary
education, adult education, corporate training, and even
counseling.
AN EXAMPLE
Educational field trips are most of the common strategies used by educators to
enrich student learning. To see a sample video, please click this
link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6BiBwOvxxo
In summary, the Cone of Experience is essentially a visual metaphor for the idea
that learning activities can be placed in broad categories based on the extent to
which they convey the concrete referents of real-life experiences. Although it has
sometimes been interpreted as advocating the selection of certain media and
methods over others (favoring ―realism‖), such was not Dale‘s stated intent. It has
also been interpreted by many as a prescriptive formula for selecting instructional
media. Dale‘s own explanations are nebulous enough to enable a wide variety of
interpretations to find support. Finally, there is the contemporary problem of
the conflation of the Cone with the ―Socony-Vacuum percentages.‖ The fact that the
Cone has been taken seriously enough to be used in so many ways testifies to the
robustness and attractiveness of Dale‘s visual metaphor.
Cone of Experience
Michael Molenda
Indiana University

4. DRAFT
Submitted for publication in A. Kovalchick & K. Dawson, Ed's, Educational
Technology: An
Encyclopedia. Copyright ABC-Clio, Santa Barbara, CA, 2003.
This version includes only the text of the article. The figures are found in the
published version.
Introduced by Edgar Dale (1946) in his textbook on audiovisual methods in
teaching, the
Cone of Experience is a visual device meant to summarize Dale‘s classification
system for the
varied types of mediated learning experiences. The organizing principle of the Cone
was a
progression from most concrete experiences (at the bottom of the cone) to most
abstract (at the
top). The original labels for Dale‘s ten categories are: Direct, Purposeful
Experiences; Contrived
Experiences; Dramatic Participation; Demonstrations; Field Trips; Exhibits; Motion
Pictures;
Radio – Recordings – Still Pictures; Visual Symbols; and Verbal Symbols.
[Insert Figure 1 here.]
Dale made minor modifications of the visual in the second edition (1954), changing
Dramatic Participation to Dramatized Experiences and adding Television. By the
third edition of
the textbook, Dale (1969) acknowledged the growing popularity of Jerome Bruner‘s
(1966)
cognitive psychology concepts by overlaying Bruner‘s classification system for
modes of
learning—enactive, iconic, and symbolic—on top of his own categories. This
adaptation of his
own schema may have been portentous, perhaps giving implied license to others to
make other
creative adaptations and interpretations, not always to the credit of Dale‘s original
notion.
Application of the construct2
Dale‘s textbook in its three editions remained popular for over a quarter century.

5. Inasmuch as the Cone provided the organizing principle for the book, it became
ingrained in the
thinking of generations of educational technology students and professors who used
the
textbook. It stimulated many efforts to extend the original idea by developing its
implications
for elementary education, secondary education, adult education, corporate training,
and even
counseling.
As a visible leader in audiovisual education, Dale and his work had a great deal of
authority within the field. The Cone may be regarded as the earliest highly
influential conceptual
schema in the field. Dwyer (1978) in his landmark work on visual learning credits
Dale as one
of the thinkers who inspired the visual education movement:
An explanation for the current widespread use of visualization can be traced back
to the 1940s and 1950s when a number of theoretical orientations were
identified—specifically the iconicity theory identified by Morris (1946) [and]
Dale‘s (1946) cone of experience… (p. 6)
Dale‘s own claims for this classification system were modest and qualified. He
advised
against viewing the categories as ―rigid, inflexible divisions (p. 37).‖ He insisted
that the
classifications should not be regarded as any sort of ―hierarchy or rank order (p.
47).‖ This
addresses one of the most prevalent misconceptions of the Cone—that the
progression from
concrete to abstract represented a value judgment about concrete over abstract
learning activities.
Instead, Dale advocated the use of whatever methods or media were appropriate
for the learner
and the task, acknowledging that words can be a powerful and efficient means of
conveying
ideas even for the youngest children. If he had a bias regarding media it was
toward rich

6. combinations of concrete and abstract experiences: ―Abstractions must be
combined, if we are 3
to have rich, full, deep, and broad experience and understanding. In brief, we ought
to use all the
ways of experiencing that we can (p. 48).‖
Because many of those who referred to the Cone were advocates for specific media
or for
audiovisual media in general, they had a tendency to selectively emphasize those
parts of Dale‘s
work that supported their claims. Thus by the time of the third edition of
Audiovisual Methods in
Teaching (1969) Dale found it necessary to devote six pages of the chapter on the
Cone to
―Some Possible Misconceptions (pp. 128-134).‖ At the core of the misconceptions
are the
notions that the value of an activity increases with its realism and that the learner‘s
understanding grows by beginning with direct experience and progressing to
increasingly
abstract activities.
One explanation for the prevalence of other interpretations of the Cone is that Dale
did
not explicitly draw the distinction between a descriptive construct and a prescriptive
theory. He
surely intended the Cone to be descriptive—a classification system—and not
prescriptive—a
road map for lesson planning. He came close to drawing this distinction when he
stated in the
Summary of his chapter on the Cone: ―The cone, of course, is merely an aid to
understanding
this subject…something to help explain the relationship of the various types of
sensory
materials...(p. 52).‖ The key words are ―understand‖ and ―explain.‖ These words
indicate a
descriptive purpose, not a prescriptive one.
On the other hand, Dale himself sometimes fell prey to the urge to extend the
descriptive

7. construct to prescriptions, as pointed out by Subramony (in press). References to
―uses‖ or
―implications‖ of the Cone are scattered throughout the various editions of Dale‘s
textbook (Dale
1946, 1954, 1969). An example found in the third edition (1969) states ―When
properly
understood and used, however, the Cone can be a helpful and practical guide (p.
110).‖ With 4
this sort of ambiguity from the author, it is not surprising that many of his followers
attempted to
use the Cone as a prescriptive guide to lesson planning.
Origins of the Cone‘s concepts
Ideas parallel to those expressed by Dale in the Cone of Experience appeared in the
literature of education prior to 1946. Paul Saettler (1990), the historian of the field
of
instructional technology, points to Exposition and Illustration in Teaching, published
in 1910 by
John Adams ―which included the following ‗order of merit‘ concerning concreteness:
‗(1) the
real object, for which anything else is a more or less inefficient substitute; (2) a
model of the real
object; (3) a diagram dealing with some of the aspects of the object; and (4) a
mere verbal
description of the object.‘ (p. 140). However, a more direct ancestor of the Cone is
probably a
diagram presented by Hoban, Hoban, and Zisman (1937).
[Insert Figure 2 here.]
They made the conceptual breakthrough of constructing a graph in which visual
media
are arranged along the y axis while the learner‘s level of development—from the
concrete level
of thinking to the abstract level of thinking—is arrayed along the x axis. In applying
the graph to
a particular case, one would locate the learner‘s current level of conceptual
development

8. (concrete to abstract) then trace up to the slope line and then horizontally over to
the visual
medium that intersects at the same point. For example, an experienced learner
with a highly
developed (abstract) knowledge of ―jet propulsion‖ would be expected to be able to
learn more
about jet propulsion effectively with diagrams and verbal texts.
Hoban, Hoban, and Zisman‘s categories were: total situation, objects, models,
films,
stereographs, slides, flat pictures, maps, diagrams, and words. Dale‘s schema
differs mainly in
the addition of several classes of media and active learning experiences and the
simplification of 5
the schema by showing only y axis—the media, indicating the other dimension
(concreteabstract) by the pyramidal shape of the cone. Although Dale‘s schema
appears to be quite
derivative of Hoban, Hoban, and Zisman‘s graph, he does not explicitly
acknowledge this
source, although he makes several references to their book elsewhere in his
textbook.
Misappropriation of the Cone
It is important to discuss what the Cone is not as well as what it is because of a
widespread misrepresentation that has become ubiquitous in recent years. At some
point
someone conflated Dale‘s Cone with a spurious chart that purports to show what
percentage of
information people remember under different learning conditions. The original
version of this
chart, shown in Figure 3, has been traced to the Socony-Vacuum Oil Company,
according to
Dwyer (1978), who cites Treichler (1967).
[Insert Figure 3 here.]
As Dwyer points out, the reported percentages are impossible to interpret or verify
without specifying at least the method of measurement, the age of the learners, the
type of

9. learning task, and the content being remembered (p. 10). Despite the lack of
credibility, this
formulation is widely quoted, usually without attribution, and in recent years has
become
repeatedly conflated with Dale‘s Cone, with the percentage statements
superimposed on the
cone, replacing or supplementing Dale‘s original categories. The examples are too
numerous to
document here, but are discussed in detail and with citations in Subramony (in
press). A rather
sophisticated example of this conflation is shown as Figure 4.
[Insert Figure 4 here.]
In summary, the Cone of Experience is essentially a visual metaphor for the idea
that
learning activities can be placed in broad categories based on the extent to which
they convey the 6
concrete referents of real-life experiences. Although it has sometimes been
interpreted as
advocating the selection of certain media and methods over others (favoring
―realism‖), such was
not Dale‘s stated intent.
How Can Instructors Use the Cone of Experience?
According to Dale’s research, the least effective method at the top, involves learning from information
presented through verbal symbols, i.e., listening to spoken words. The most effective methods at the
bottom,
involves direct, purposeful learning experiences, such as hands-on or field experience. Direct purposeful
experiences represents reality or the closet things to real, everyday life.
The cone charts the average retention rate for various methods of teaching. The further you progress
down

10. the cone, the greater the learning and the more information is likely to be retained. It also suggests that
when
choosing an instructional method it is important to remember that involving students in the process
strengthens
knowledge retention.
It reveals that “action-learning” techniques result in up to 90% retention. People learn best when they
use
perceptual learning styles. Perceptual learning styles are sensory based. The more sensory channels
possible in
interacting with a resource, the better chance that many students can learn from it. According to Dale,
instructors
should design instructional activities that build upon more real-life experiences.
Dales’ cone of experience is a tool to help instructors make decisions about resources and
activities. The instructor can ask the following:
• Where will the student’s experience with this instructional resource fit on the cone? How far is it
removed from real-life?
• What kind of learning experience do you want to provide in the classroom?
• How does this instructional resource augment the information supplied by the textbook?
• What and how many senses can students use to learn this instructional material?
• Does the instructional material enhance learning?
What is Dale’s Cone of Experience?
The Cone was originally developed by Edgar Dale in 1946 and was intended as a way to
describe various learning experiences. The diagram presented to the right (Raymond S. Pastore,
Ph.D) is a modification of Dale’s original Cone; the percentages given relate to how much
people remember and is a recent modification. Essentially, the Cone shows the progression of
experiences from the most concrete (at the bottom of the cone) to the most abstract (at the
top of the cone). It is important to note that Dale never intended the Cone to depict a value
judgment of experiences; in other words, his argument was not that more concrete experiences
were better than more abstract ones. Dale believed that any and all of the approaches could

11. and should be used, depending on the needs of the
learner.
How should the Cone be interpreted?
The figure above shows what students will be able to do at each level of the Cone (the learning
outcomes they will be able to achieve) relative to the type of activity they are doing (reading,
hearing, viewing images, etc.). The numerical figures on the left side of the image, what people
will generally remember, indicate that practical, hands-on experience in a real-life context will
allow students to remember best what they do. Again, it is important to remember that this
doesn’t mean reading and listening are not valuable learning experiences, simply that “doing
the real thing” can lead to the retention of the largest amount of information. This is in part
because those experiences near the bottom of the Cone, closer to and including real-world
experiences, make use of more of our senses; it is believed that the more senses that are used,
the greater our ability to learn from and remember an event or experience.
back to top
How can Dale’s Cone be used to enhance SL
learning?

12. As stated above, the
Cone should not be
interpreted as indicating
that teachers shouldn’t
make use of reading,
listening, viewing
experiences and the like.
These are all valuable and
important parts of learning
a second language and
all have a place in the B-
SLIM model. What should
be taken from reviewing
Dale’s Cone of Experience
is that experiences at ALL
of the levels described
should be used in the
second language
classroom. Just as
Gardner describes the
Multiple Intelligences and
appealing to them all,
Dale’s Cone emphasizes
learning experiences that
appeal to the different
senses and the different
ways in which we learn.
Direct parallels can be
drawn between the different levels of experience depicted in the Cone and the stages of the B-
SLIM model. When looking at Figure 2 (fromAlabama Professional Development Modules) to the
right, the first 6 types of experience (from the top of the cone downward) are all part of the
Getting It and Using It stages of B-SLIM. The real-world experiences at the bottom of the Cone
relate directly to the Proving It stage; it is at this stage of the model that students are
encouraged to use what they have learned in new, real-life contexts.