tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-537267519793805240.post3195301878316487143..comments2024-03-13T07:17:54.620+00:00Comments on Charles Jennings | Workplace Performance: It’s Only 65% !Charles Jenningshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10220891611333165590noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-537267519793805240.post-36855825820363882482014-10-02T16:41:19.021+01:002014-10-02T16:41:19.021+01:00Charles:
I couldn't agree with you more. What...Charles:<br /><br />I couldn't agree with you more. What's even more frustrating is to see organizations adopting this as a rule (instead of guideline) within business decisions. For example, "We only have 10% of the budget that can be allocated for formal training"... crazy.<br /><br />Learning is not an event, it's a process.<br /><br />In the same spirit, I dropped your name in this TEDx Talk:<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L9qU7Y-oaA<br /><br />Great stuff as usual, thanks for posting!Sean Bengryhttp://seanbengry.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-537267519793805240.post-33838362787426276752014-08-31T21:54:42.173+01:002014-08-31T21:54:42.173+01:00Hi Charles,
I do shudder when I hear people talk...Hi Charles, <br /><br />I do shudder when I hear people talking about the 'most effective blend' for learning, or any words to that effect. But then, people like certainty and numbers, so perhaps this is the attraction. <br /><br />In my recent book on 'Informal learning at Work', I mentioned 70:20:10 and said "Of course it must be remembered that 70:20:10 is not a recipe or a ratio to aspire to. It is a lens through which we can look at organizational learning in a different way. It helps us focus on the huge proportion of learning that happens informally. In reality, the ratio will vary, depending on industry and on the experience of the learner."<br /><br />The main problem with the numbers is that is so difficult to actually label a lot of the learning as 70, or 20 or 10. There is always a messy mix of learning, and that is OK. For example, on a training course, there is certainly some 10 stuff if the trainer is doing their job, but also there is 20 stuff and 70 stuff going on at the same time. <br /><br />Did you learn something from this excellent blog post by Charles? If so, is it 20, or 10, or 70? If you then discuss this blog with a colleague, what then? If you discuss this in a classroom training about learning design, what then?<br /><br />I also often challenge people about when they are learning. A huge amount of informal learning happens outside of conscious awareness. It is a side effect of activity. That is we are unaware that we just learnt something, so when asked in a survey where we learn stuff, we cannot possible give 'correct' answers.<br /><br />Here's a challenge for you... For a 30 minute period, write a note of everything you learn. And I mean everything. I bet you can't do it. I bet your list is not complete.<br />Have fun trying though, because in trying this experiment you will learn lots about learning :-)<br /><br />Cheers, Paul Matthews<br />Paul Matthewshttp://www.peoplealchemy.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-537267519793805240.post-90158381250147278312014-08-22T10:47:19.477+01:002014-08-22T10:47:19.477+01:00Nice article.
Good of you to point out the confus...Nice article.<br /><br />Good of you to point out the confusion in industries between 'training' and 'learning', and the fact that the term 'on the job training' is used here. It would be interesting to know if really, that's the bit where people are just left to it, particularly if organisations see formal learning as something other to 'on the job' and informal learning as 'coaching, asking peers questions, etc', and also different to pure 'on the job' (whatever that means). <br /><br />I think the 70:20:10 is a useful matrix to encourage blends and moves away from death by courses, but really, as L&D professionals, we know that separating out 'informal'; 'formal' and 'on the job' is a bit of misleading and potentially unhelpful design-tack, as it can prevent a more holistic and realistic view of how learning happens.Kirstie Greanyhttp://www.kineo.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-537267519793805240.post-26925493853851865552014-08-21T17:46:15.108+01:002014-08-21T17:46:15.108+01:00Thank you, Leo. The references make good reading....Thank you, Leo. The references make good reading. I have re-formatted them below:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124" rel="nofollow">Dr. Ioannidis' study </a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off" rel="nofollow">The New Yorker article regarding his study</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/%22" rel="nofollow">The Atlantic article regarding his study</a><br />Charles Jenningshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10220891611333165590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-537267519793805240.post-16866985964824660782014-08-21T15:45:01.695+01:002014-08-21T15:45:01.695+01:00Well stated, Charles. Whenever I read the conclusi...Well stated, Charles. Whenever I read the conclusions of just about any survey, I'm reminded of the landmark study that Dr. John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford University, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2005 regarding published medical research, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False." The title is self-explanatory, and we're talking well-funded, ostensibly carefully constructed research here. If you extend Dr. Ioannidis' conclusions to a self-styled, uncontrolled, voluntary online survey . . . well, let's just say I wouldn't take the "50:26:24" results too seriously. <br />Dr. Ioannidis' study: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124<br />The New Yorker article regarding his study: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off<br />The Atlantic article regarding his study: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/<br />All make for enlightening reading. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15139160762464995931noreply@blogger.com