70/20/10 model (learning and development): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:01, 30 December 2022

Latest revision as of 16:19, 25 May 2025

(7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Learning and development model}}

The '''70:20:10 Modelmodel for Learninglearning and Developmentdevelopment''' (also written as 70-20-10 or 70/20/10) is a [[Training and development|learning and development]] [[Conceptual model|model]] that suggests a proportional breakdown of how people learn effectively. It is based on a survey conducted in 1996 asking nearly 200 executives to self-report how they believed they learned.<ref name="Lombardo">{{Cite book|last1= Lombardo|first1= Michael M|last2= Eichinger|first2= Robert W|title= The Career Architect Development Planner|year= 1996|edition= 1st|___location= Minneapolis|publisher= Lominger|page= iv

|isbn= 0-9655712-1-1}}</ref>

Line 7 ⟶ 8:

* 20% from developmental relationships

* 10% from coursework and training

This Model was created by [[Morgan McCall]], [[Michael M. Lombardo]], and [[Robert A. Eichinger]] expressedby expressing their rationale behind the 70:20:10 model in the following way in ''The Career Architect Development Planner'':<ref name=Lombardo />

<blockquote>Development generally begins with a realization of current or future need and the motivation to do something about it. This might come from feedback, a mistake, watching other people’s reactions, failing or not being up to a task – in other words, from experience. The odds are that development will be about 70% from on-the-job experiences - working on tasks and problems; about 20% from feedback and working around good and bad examples of the need; and 10% from courses and reading.</blockquote>

Line 14 ⟶ 15:

Criticisms of the hypothesis include:

* A lack of supporting [[empirical evidence]]. <ref>{{cite journal|last1=Clardy|first1=Alan|title=70-20-10 and the Dominance of Informal Learning: A Fact in Search of Evidence|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1534484318759399|journal=Human Resource Development Review|year=2018 |volume=17 |issue=2 |pages=153–178 |doi=10.1177/1534484318759399 |s2cid=148964020 |url-access=subscription }}</ref>

*The use of perfectly even numbers. <ref>{{cite web|last1=Thalheimer|first1=Will|title=People remember 10%, 20%...Oh Really?|url=https://www.worklearning.com/2006/05/01/people_remember/|website=Work-Learning Research|date=May 2006 |access-date=28 October 2019}}</ref>

* The nature of the [[Survey_(human_research)|survey]] (i.e. Asking already successful managers to reflect on their experiences.) <ref name=Jefferson>{{cite web|last1=Jefferson|first1=Andrew|last2=Roy|first2=Pollock|title=70:20:10: Where Is the Evidence?|url=https://www.td.org/Publications/Blogs/Science-of-Learning-Blog/2014/07/70-20-10-Where-Is-the-Evidence|website=Association for Talent Development|access-date=20 May 2016}}</ref>

* The model may not reflect the changes in the market instigated by online technologies. For example, it does not reflect the recent focus on [[informal learning]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.trainingindustry.com/wiki/entries/the-702010-model-for-learning-and-development.aspx|title=The 70:20:10 Model for Learning and Development {{!}} Training Industry|date=2017-09-28|website=www.trainingindustry.com|language=en|access-date=2017-09-28}}</ref>

* The 70:20:10 model is not [[prescriptive]]. Author and learning &and development professional Andy Jefferson asserts it "is neither a scientific fact nor a recipe for how best to develop people.".<ref name=Jefferson />

* Every business has its own optimizationoptimisation levers, and it will be imprudent to apply the 70:20:10 model to all businesses.

* The method being too old and deprecated.

==See also==

* [[20% Project]]