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

Revision as of 09:36, 19 December 2019

Revision as of 15:27, 7 January 2020

Line 16:

Criticisms of the hypothesis include:

* A lack of supporting [[Empirical_evidenceempirical evidence]]. <ref>{{Citation needed|date=February 2019}}</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|accessdate=28 October 2019}}</ref>

* The nature of the [[Survey_(human_research)|Surveysurvey]] (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|accessdate=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 & development professional Andy Jefferson asserts it "is neither a scientific fact nor a recipe for how best to develop people." <ref name=Jefferson />