70:20:10 – is it a concept or a framework?
In last week's webinar I found myself getting tongue tied about whether 70:20:10 is a framework, a model or a concept. Should I really have been worried about the difference? Maybe I'm just being too academic. This post is me sorting out my own thinking about this.
There are not many learning theories that focus on workplace learning. One of the most powerful things about 70:20:10 is that compared with a learning theory like social constructivism it's easy to explain. But for learning and development people it doesn't give much guidance about how it works in practice. What it does give is a strong indication that we should be focusing more on experiential and blended learning and less on formal learning programs.
At the beginning of our webinars we ask people what their motivations for attending are. The most common is to hear about examples of 70:20:10 in practice. The problem is that application is contextual – what works in one organisation may not work in another. It’s clear, however, that people are looking for effective ways to translate 70:20:10 into practice.
I’m comfortable saying that 70:20:10 explains how we learn at work. Maybe it's nothing more than that. It’s a concept for how learning at work happens. On the other hand, a framework needs to have a process and often requires considerable guidance.
What’s powerful about the 70:20:10 concept is that it's flexible. Keeping on with this thinking, the programs that are designed and built around the concept can be labelled as 70:20:10 learning models.
I've realised that a lot of what I talk about in our webinars is the ‘process’ for designing 70:20:10-based learning experiences because I'm attempting to translate the broad concept into something that is concrete. I feel like more work needs to be done in the area of providing a process for designing innovative practical 70:20:10 learning models.
For now I’ll continue to talk about the ‘70:20:10 concept’, and learning programs based upon it as ‘learning models’.
