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