Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Labeling 70:20:10

7 April 2015 by Clark 7 Comments

In the Debunker Club, a couple of folks went off on the 70:20:10 model, and it prompted some thoughts.  I thought I’d share them.

If you’re not familiar with 70:20:10, it’s a framework for thinking about workplace learning that suggests we need to recognize that the opportunity  is about much more than courses. If you ask people how they learned the things they know to do in the workplace, the  responses suggest that somewhere around 10% came from formal learning, 20% from informal coaching and such, and about 70% from trial and error.  Note the emphasis on the fact that these numbers aren’t exact, it’s just an indication (though considerable evidence suggests that the contribution  of formal learning is somewhere between 5 and 20%, with evidence from a variety of sources).

Now, some people complain that the numbers can’t be right, no one gets perfect 10 measurements. To be fair, they’ve been fighting against the perversion of Dale’s Cone, where someone added numbers on that were bogus but have permeated learning for decades and can’t seem to be exterminated. It’s like zombies!  So I suspect they’re overly sensitive to whole  numbers.

And I like the model!  I’ve used it to frame some of my work, using it as a framework to think about what  else we can do to support performance. Coaching and mentoring, facilitating social interaction, providing challenge goals, supporting reflection, etc.  And again to justify accelerated organizational outcomes.

The retort I hear is that “it’s not about the numbers”, and I agree.  It’s just  a  tool to help shake people out of the thought that a course is the only solution to all needs.  And, outside the learning community, people  get it.  I have heard that, over presentations to hundreds of audiences of executives and managers, they all recognize that the contributions to their success came largely from sources other than courses.

However, if it’s not about the numbers, maybe calling it the 70:20:10 model may be a problem.  I really like Jane Hart’s diagram about Modern Workplace Learning as another way to look at it, though I really want to go beyond learning  too.  Performance support may achieve outcomes in ways that don’t require or deliver any learning,  and that’s okay. There’re times when it’s better to have knowledge in the head than in the world.

So, I like the 70:20:10 framework, but recognize that the label may be a barrier. I’m just looking for any tools I can use to help people start thinking ‘outside the course’.  I welcome suggestions!

Comments

  1. Clark says

    7 April 2015 at 10:41 AM

    I note that Charles Jennings has written quite a bit about his take on the model, and here’s a good post about what’s important in the 70:20:10 framework (disclaimer: Charles is a colleague in the ITA): http://charles-jennings.blogspot.nl/2015/01/702010-above-all-else-its-change-agent.html

  2. Mark Sheppard says

    7 April 2015 at 12:12 PM

    I think 70:20:10 is suffering the same malaise as Bloom’s Taxonomy. Bloom himself is reputed to have said that his book was one of the most referenced and least read texts in Education. It’s a symptom of our rapid-in-your-face-information-age that we tend to glom onto something at a superficial level without taking the time to engage in critical thinking about whether or not it’s even right for what you need. Then, of course, people are “surprised” that it doesn’t work or look like the whole numbers in its title.

    Perhaps you’re right and it shouldn’t be called a model after all. Of course, we have been saying that about ADDIE and it’s as zombie-like as Dale’s Cone.

  3. Marty King says

    13 April 2015 at 11:45 AM

    I like it too. I’ve used it to help managers and employees understand the role of the training department. 70:20:10 kind of reminds me of the 80/20 Rule.

  4. Chris Rogers says

    13 April 2015 at 1:20 PM

    It would be interesting to see polls on the formal/informal/trial-and-error question taken under different methods: face-to-face interviews; anonymous surveys; and observations. To the point: These methods have been shown to net disparate results because of their varying levels of objectivity, personal bias, and pride, and this could be the case whether you’re asking them for their political voting records or their favorite soft drink. If someone is interviewing me personally, I may be inclined to tell them what I *want* them to hear from me and think about me as opposed to what my true answer might be. It’s deep in the American cowboy spirit (and yes, I’m an American, I love America, and I love cowboys) to make a stand on “I did it myself,” or in this case, “I learned it myself, not from some class my boss made me attend.”

    So … Might the survey methods have some influence on the numbers?

  5. Clark says

    14 April 2015 at 9:34 AM

    Mark, I think the pushback is different than with Bloom’s. Bloom’s has been discredited (see Brenda Sugrue’s evisceration). The attacks on 70:20:10 are more about the numbers than the substance. They like the concept, hate the labeling (as I understand it).

    Chris, yes, self-report is dodgy, but there’re a variety of converging studies that show roughly the same thing (Jay Cross documented a number in his book Informal Learning). But the numbers are the wrong focus! The point is that formal learning is valuable (when done right, ahem) *in the right place*: novices who don’t know what’s important or why. But L&D could and should also look at facilitating social interaction, performance support, coaching/mentoring, etc, and many don’t (see Towards Maturity’s latest report). So the source and accuracy of the numbers aren’t as important as the perspective to go beyond the course. And the fact that the scope is big, regardless of accuracy, is what we should be paying attention to, for the sake of our organizations.

  6. Amir Elion says

    20 April 2015 at 8:42 PM

    Hi Clark,
    I understand what you’re saying about the numbers maybe causing uncomfort for people.
    However, I actually think it’s good to use that title to get people’s attention. Otherwise they may dismiss the main assertion behind the model that we’re barking up just one tree when there’s a whole wood out there…
    I am running a special session on 70-20-10 next month in a learning conference, trying to make it less of a 10% experience as of itself and waiting to see the reactions and understanding of participants who are less familiar with it.
    Amir

Trackbacks

  1. The Institute for Performance and Learning | The 70/20/10 Model on our monthly Twitter Chat says:
    23 February 2016 at 11:36 AM

    […] Clark Quinn […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Clark Quinn

The Company

Search

Feedblitz (email) signup

Never miss a post
Your email address:*
Please wait...
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

Pages

  • About Learnlets and Quinnovation

The Serious eLearning Manifesto

Manifesto badge

Categories

  • design
  • games
  • meta-learning
  • mindmap
  • mobile
  • social
  • strategy
  • technology
  • Uncategorized
  • virtual worlds

Blogroll

  • Charles Jennings
  • Christy Tucker
  • Connie Malamed
  • Dave's Whiteboard
  • Donald Clark's Plan B
  • Donald Taylor
  • Harold Jarche
  • Julie Dirksen
  • Kevin Thorn
  • Mark Britz
  • Mirjam Neelen & Paul Kirschner
  • Stephen Downes' Half an Hour

License

Previous Posts

  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006

Amazon Affiliate

Required to announce that, as an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Mostly book links. Full disclosure.