Hi everyone,

DeakenPrime at Deaken Univerisity recently released a white paper discussing the origins of the 70:20:10 learning model and explored some ways that organisations have adapted the model for their use.

http://www.deakinprime.com/deakinprime/content/news/70-20-10-white-paper.aspx Megan

Hi Megan and Jeevan,

The 70:20:10 model seems to be a huge topic of conversation at the moment - it is popping up everywhere I look these days! Of course, it has made appearances in many organisations I have worked for over the years, but I have to admit that it has not always rung true for me. I think it is very dependent upon the individual business. There is also the issue of convincing the everyday employee that they are receiving that level of training. Their perception of what is training is usually very different. I think this is the main issue with the 70:20:10 model. Besides, if we  (L&D professionals) generally are only seen as being 10% involved in the learning process, a lot of organisations will be wondering what we are really good for...

Leisa.

The Deakin paper is most interesting.....on how we turn basic observations into rules and laws. 

If you studied marketing and learned of the 4Ps (product, price, place and promotion) you have a similar example of a model that was taught religiously without much evidence that it is anything more than a simple framework. 

My favourite training story is that on goal setting which was based on the class of Yale MBA graduates who were asked if they set goals or not. Those 3% who set goals for their lives were far more successful. That is, until Fast Company tired to find the source of the research. It discovered that there was no research and no evidence that any of this even happened. The motivational speakers who quoted this story read it in each other's books.

 http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/06/cdu.html 

I would recommend checking out Charles Jennings and the 70 20 10 Forum - some great resources on offer.

http://www.702010forum.com/

I have two issues with the model:

a.  First up the notion of 70:20:10 being a ratio denoting where/how learning occurs is too neat. To follow it one has to be very Kantian-oriented - that is, 60:25:15 doesn't exist, nor does 55:25:20, or 90:7:3. The ratio is 70:20:10 and that is it. Hmm.

b. The only truth about learning is that there are no truths. Learning is entirely context specific and the context is either in the workplace (self learning through distance or eLearning), in the training room/lecture hall (direct face-to-face) or a combination of the two. And it changes between people, between subjects, and points along the learning continuum.

To add to the mix there are times when we have to just accept knowledge (Kantian learning) and others when we have to figure it out for ourselves in conditions and environments that are important only to us (Hegelian learning). And this could occur simultaneously with other aspects of what we're learning (eg, how to apply in context certain learned skills/knowledge), in parallel to what we're learning (eg, learning both the 'what' and the 'where'), or in situations totally divorced from each other.

It appears some are still on the hunt for the simplest answer for what really is a complex question. And, in all honestly, I'm not sure trainers/teachers are the best ones to answer questions of learning. Training/teaching - yes. Learning, mmmm.

Phil
Phil Rutherford Ph.D Web: www.3gpm.com/drphilrutherford Blog: http://theotherdrphil.typepad.com/phils_weblog/