Information Transfer and Teaching- The 70% Theory

[MBuzzy]

Today I was introduced to a theory known within certain educational circles as the 70% theory. First off, if we have any educators or instructors who have heard of this or know more about it, please chime in as the only knowledge I have was a 5 minute lecture and some theory and thinking of my own.

So the assumption of this theory, and the one upon which the rest hinges is that the instructor at the time knows 100% of the material that they intend to teach. This is not to say that the instructor knows all that there is to know, but that they know the material that they will be covering in some detail. This could also be extended to simply be the body of knowledge that the instructor possesses, no matter how large or small it may be.

The theory states that any instructor will generally only be able to transfer about 70% of their knowledge to any given student. The reason for this is the idea of tacit knowledge. Basically there are things that simply CAN'T be taught. It is the body of experience that the instructor has. The more abstract things that they may not be able to explicitly express.

So where does the other 30% come from? This is the area of knowledge creation. Basically a student must create knowledge on their own. They take what they have been taught and build on it. Through their own intellect and experience, they begin to make their own tacit knowledge.

Now, the problem becomes when a student doesn't extend what they have learned. The theory goes on to state that if Student 1 only learns 70% of what the instructor knows, then they themselves will only pass on 49% of the initial total knowledge to those who they teach. In turn, the next generation will only pass 34.3% and so on. Student #1's instruction ability hinges on their own knowledge creation and experience.

So what I would like to discuss is:

Do you agree or disagree and why?

Can any instructor truly pass along 100% of what they know?

How does one create their own knowledge and how can you artificially (in a classroom setting) encourage a student's knowledge creation?

At what point can a student really begin to teach?

Again....I only had a very short exposure to this, but it struck me as a very interesting theory which addresses tacit knowledge and the value of experience and internal extension of learned material.

 

[FieldDiscipline]

It sounds reasonable to me.

Practical skills and applications cant be taught 100% as there will be an experience element.

I heard a similar statistic once about the amount a student will actually remember of what they are taught.

 

[MBuzzy]

I heard a similar statistic once about the amount a student will actually remember of what they are taught.

This may even be what the original theory was referring to - it was presented to me as the amount possible to be taught, but this seems a bit more believable.

 

[terryl965]

It sounds reasonable to me.

Practical skills and applications cant be taught 100% as there will be an experience element.

I heard a similar statistic once about the amount a student will actually remember of what they are taught.

I have heard the same FD, the experience element and the second one would be practice elements, just because you have been shown does not mean you will remember without practice.

 

[tellner]

I'm a little skeptical as to how widely applicable this is. For some fields which require difficult-to-transmit skills it might be an overestimate. For ones which are mostly rote memorization it could be an underestimate. It also depends on how good the teacher is at information and knowledge transfer, how much time is available to pass on a given unit of instruction, the ability of the students to fill in or do independent work and so on.

Just as a first impression I'd be willing to bet that the evidence - if there is anything concrete and quantifiable - covered a fairly limited scope.

 

[Steel Tiger]

The theory seems reasonable to me but I have to agree with Tellner that some fields this percentage will be higher, mathematics and its related disciplines spring to mind.

There are definitely things that cannot be taught, especially in physical fields like martial arts, that's why we have to practice, to develop our own understanding of how something works.

 

[thardey]

I've certainly found that while teaching, I have to know much more than what I am trying to teach.

That is, if I want to teach, I have to study and understand much more than what is in the curriculum. For instance, as a first degree Black Belt, I am not qualified to teach others to be a first-degree black belt. However, I can teach them to be advanced students. To teach a first-degree, you should be at least a second, maybe a third degree Black. (That's not to say I can't help, but I couldn't do it on my own.)

I couldn't image ever being able to transfer 100% of my knowledge to anybody, even in a specific subject.

However, I think that while this is true in principle, it's not something that should be taken as a Maxim. 70% seems like a made-up percentage based on perception.

 

[bluekey88]

I'm not familiar with this theory, but it makes sense to a point. I would say in one educational exchange (teaching sessions), that 70% transmission figure might be a good estimate.

The other 30% however doesn't have to hold true. That's where practice and repeated sessions come into play.

For instance, I learn a particular SD technique for the first time from my instructor. I'll probably get 70% of it. Enough to make it work in a non-resistance situation. Then as I practice, and the resistance is increased, I refine the technique (thus filling in that 30%). In later classes, I'm taught the technique agauin and am able to grasp subtle nuances of the technique that IO missed before because I have a better foundation to do so (thus filling in more of that knowledge gap). Over time, I will hopefully understand that technique as well as my instructor.

I think this speaks more to people who get exposed to learning in a one-off fashion (such as at seminars). They are only likely to walk away with 70% of what was taught (if that). If they are then certified to be instructors because of that seminar, this oculd be a problem.

Peace,
Erik

 

[still learning]

Hello, If this was true....All the Professioal coachs for Pro-football and basket ball would have many problems.

If 70% work....will you learn swimming from the third generation swimming coach?

All Teachers for education? ....will students learn just 70%? or less because you teacher learn from someone else?

Do not learn a theory...become FACTS ...untill proven by many others!

Like old wives tales....can be true...can be nonsense too!

80/20 rule....FACT....the top twenty percent of product sold will equal 80 percent of the rest of the items in store.

Do the top 20% of things to be done...will equal the 80% of unimportant things to be done.

The top 20% of martial art techniques will be just as effective as the 80% below...

Will two Sensi in one school equal 140% learning (70% + 70%)

IF you belive? ...it maybe true for you.....funny how beliefs real or not..can effect anyone mind!

Aloha ( I have been 70% right or wrong..depends who is judgeing?)

PS: Land in Hawaii is so expense...yet on the Big Island 70% of the land is unoppied....

 

[kidswarrior]

Depends on the age of students, amount of info involved, time alloted to transmit it (and whether processing time is accounted for), and maybe most importantly, whether the listener/observer/student learns well through a transmission-type of knowledge exchange. In my experience, it's about 50/50.

Another thought is how good the transmitter/teacher is: Richard Feynman became famous for making the near-impossible-to-understand accessible to the masses, demonstrating that the best teachers can make it simple (and conversely, the more difficult-to-understand the material presented, the less able the teacher).

Anyway, just some stuff off the top of my head. Take it for what it's worth.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Today I was introduced to a theory known within certain educational circles as the 70% theory. First off, if we have any educators or instructors who have heard of this or know more about it, please chime in as the only knowledge I have was a 5 minute lecture and some theory and thinking of my own.

So the assumption of this theory, and the one upon which the rest hinges is that the instructor at the time knows 100% of the material that they intend to teach. This is not to say that the instructor knows all that there is to know, but that they know the material that they will be covering in some detail. This could also be extended to simply be the body of knowledge that the instructor possesses, no matter how large or small it may be.

The theory states that any instructor will generally only be able to transfer about 70% of their knowledge to any given student. The reason for this is the idea of tacit knowledge. Basically there are things that simply CAN'T be taught. It is the body of experience that the instructor has. The more abstract things that they may not be able to explicitly express.

So where does the other 30% come from? This is the area of knowledge creation. Basically a student must create knowledge on their own. They take what they have been taught and build on it. Through their own intellect and experience, they begin to make their own tacit knowledge.

Now, the problem becomes when a student doesn't extend what they have learned. The theory goes on to state that if Student 1 only learns 70% of what the instructor knows, then they themselves will only pass on 49% of the initial total knowledge to those who they teach. In turn, the next generation will only pass 34.3% and so on. Student #1's instruction ability hinges on their own knowledge creation and experience.

So what I would like to discuss is:

Do you agree or disagree and why?

Can any instructor truly pass along 100% of what they know?

How does one create their own knowledge and how can you artificially (in a classroom setting) encourage a student's knowledge creation?

At what point can a student really begin to teach?

Again....I only had a very short exposure to this, but it struck me as a very interesting theory which addresses tacit knowledge and the value of experience and internal extension of learned material.

I wrote an Essay about this subject in Philosphy 101. The instructor disagreed that there was a degradation inherent in the system. But this theory fits with what I was trying to say. I had martial arts in mind when I wrote it; incidently.
Sean

 

[still learning]

Hello, To teach someone to punch or block? ....will each teacher be able to teach just 70% of how too's?

At the same time? ...can a student under 100% that is being told?

IF you believe this 70% rule? ....than NO one will be able to change your mind.

Anyone can be taught 100%...not ever teacher knows `100% and how to teach it 100% too.....

70% teaching style or a 25% teaching style will yield 70% learning or 25% learning...

NO people will grasp the same knowledge either...each brain...or person will see the explantions in there own way too!

Aloha, (Teaching...is skill on its own......if you believe people only learn 70%...than teach them twice)

 

[MBuzzy]

Still learning - I must admit that I don't understand exactly what you are trying to say, but it seems that you are missing an important part of the idea.

The idea here is that students have to CREATE knowledge for themselves. You can't teach someone everything. Even if a teacher tells someone everything they know, it is still only 70% of what there is, because without your own discovery and learning, you will never know everything. That part of your own journey is the last 30%. You can take everything that someone has to offer, but if you're just repeating it and not thinking for yourself then you will never learn it all....or even close.

Touch of Death - do you still have the essay?? I'd love to read it.

 

[jks9199]

I think there is a definite limit to the amount of knowledge that can be simply transferred through teaching/training. At some point, to really be learning, the student has to be able to move beyond simply being fed material; they have to learn how things apply to them in their unique approach. But that individualization or internalization and creation must be built on sound principles. A very tiny percentage of people will be able to discover solid principles for themselves... just like if I sent 100 people off into the woods without maps or tools, and told them to reach a cabin at a certain location, a handful would either through skill or luck. Most? They'd be wandering in the woods without a guide of some sort. Same thing with martial arts... But once you've been given the guidance, you have to make the trip yourself. And in the trip, you'll learn things that can't be taught directly.