Name of the training consultant (If known)
Industry specialisation
Area of expertise
  1. Recommendations for Training Materials Developers? Duncan Cutler 23-Jan-2014 04:52 PM
  2. Recommendations for Training Materials Developers? Catherine 23-Jan-2014 03:05 PM
  3. Recommendations for Training Materials Developers? Duncan Cutler 20-Jan-2014 02:16 PM
  4. Suggestion for software for online courses? Bronte Moran 18-Jan-2014 10:26 AM
  5. Can anyone recommend a great LMS provider? Bronte Moran 18-Jan-2014 10:19 AM

  • Home|Membership|Professional Development & Events|Member Access|About the AITD|Training Resources
    Join online now!
    Why join?
    Membership types
    Renew your membership
    Request a sample magazine
    Snippets eNewsletter
    Upcoming events
    AITD National Training Excellence Awards
    AITD National Conference
    Professional recognition
    Networking speakers required
    Member access home
    Articles & reports
    Member discussion forum
    Job notices
    Training assignments
    AITD logos
    Tender information
    Training tools
    AITD Find-a-Trainer profile
    2011 National Learning & Development Index report
    About the AITD
    Board of Directors
    Divisional Councils
    Constitution and By-Laws
    Submissions and Reports
    Contact Us
    Find a training consultant
    Post a job
    Articles and information
    Post a training assignment
    Training & Development magazine
    Read online copies of Training & Development
    2012 AITD Training & Development Directory
    2011 National Learning & Development Index report
You are here: AITD member discussion area : 70:20:10 learning model. No one logged in.
Subscribe to Topic | New Post
Author Post
Posts: 22

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. Megan

Posted: 02-Mar-2012 05:13 PM | Reply
Jeevan Joshi
Posts: 9
Jeevan Joshi
Hi Megan

 We used your report in our webinar on "70-20-10 where did those numbers come from ? ". We were quite startled to find that there wasn't much evidence to back up that ratio. However if was generally agreed that it should be used as a guideline. Recording of webinar here
Posted: 29-May-2012 10:07 AM | Reply
Posts: 4

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...


Posted: 17-Jul-2012 12:16 PM | Reply
Posts: 22
An issue identified by our director with the 70:20:10 model is it gives our business owners/stakeholders who come to use to request new learning the impression that they and not the L&D professional is responsible for the outcome of the learning. If adopting this model we need to ensure that we are not "pushing back" when business owners request new learning.

Posted: 26-Jul-2012 01:48 PM | Reply
ed bernacki
Posts: 8
ed bernacki

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. 

Posted: 30-Jul-2012 11:41 AM | Reply
Posts: 2

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

Posted: 30-Nov-2012 11:03 AM | Reply
Posts: 2
Apologies - resources "to come", but you can register.

Regards, Nicole
Posted: 30-Nov-2012 11:04 AM | Reply
Dr Phil Rutherford
Posts: 132
Dr Phil Rutherford

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: Blog:

Posted: 04-Dec-2012 08:11 PM | Reply
Subscribe to Topic | New Post