The Ubiquity of Informal Learning: Beyond the 70/20/10 Model

So I’ve had a bit of a bugbearfor a while and I’m starting to feel that I’m not alone. It’s70/20/10, the oft-quoted model from which we derive that the majorityof learning happens from on the job experience, as opposed tolearning from peers or in a formal learning environment. That’s notto say that I think the importance we give to informal learning iswrong, far from it. It is more that I think we’ve got the wrongmodel at the heart of the movement.

Where’s the research?

I’ve heard plenty of people like DougLynch tell us there is no peer-reviewed basis for the model. I’vesearched for peer-reviewed journal literature to corroborate themodel but I can’t find any, despite there being much suggestion asto a solid research basis. I’ve had conversations with a number ofcolleagues in academia who are generally of the same opinion —70/20/10 is a model based on what “seems” to fit.

Unfortunately, “seems to fit” is atrend that we don’t need any more of in workplace learning.Learning Styles “seemed to fit.” There is plenty of “seems tofit” evidence for 70/20/10, ranging in quality from anecdotal blogposts to studies like the one conducted by the Education DevelopmentCenter (EDC), often quoted as the basis of most “70%” work. TheEDC research is often cited as providing the corroborating evidencefor suggesting that 70% of workplace learning is informal in nature,but it makes no reference to the 20% or 10% part of the model. Thisdistinction is made by Lombardo and Eichinger as a part of their“Career Architect” process; a proprietary approach to assessingand developing leadership. Here the waters muddy further asoverlapping definitions kick in. What the EDC research might callinformal, Lombardo and Eichinger would call “learning from others,”and the definition often changes dependent on who you speak to. It isall rather confusing and is certainly far from a concrete foundationto effect grand change.

Digging into the references a littlefurther, many articles which put forth the 70/20/10 model cite KevinDobbs’ article “SimpleMoments of Learning” which appeared in Training Magazine,January, 2000. This article only mentions 70% in passing, referencinganother project which found this figure: the EDC study.Fortunately, the findings from the EDC study can be found in the book“The Teaching Firm,” which can be read in full online.

The Teaching Firm includes a range ofcase studies that attempt to verbalize the impact and intensity ofInformal Learning in the workplace. While the results tend to showthat informal learning does indeed happen, and it does have directbenefits to performance, the authors make no judgement as to theintensity or percentage of total learning which was informal innature. 70% as a figure isn’t a part of the case study results orconclusions.

At this point I’m reminded of an oldadage from a Professor of mine who used to remind me on a regularbasis that “not all models are right, but some are useful.”Unfortunately, I’m not convinced that 70/20/10 is actually usefuleither.

To quote EDC’s informal learningthesis, “informal learning is ubiquitous” (p. 178). In work, asin life, informal learning has always been present. It isn’t a newidea and it certainly isn’t powered by the internet. To generalizeon how much of our learning is sourced from informal happenstance issomewhat missing the point in my mind. Measuring how much of yourlearning is informal sounds a lot like asking for an ROI on yourSocial Media initiative; nice landing, wrong airport.

Allow me to indulge myself in a storyto illustrate my point. My first proper job was working in the bakerydepartment at a large supermarket chain in the U.K. Following aformal induction, I was sent out into the big wide world to learn asI went. One of my earliest pieces of informal learning came inweighing the freshly baked loaves of bread. We had to check that thebatch matched the marketed weight. It became apparent that a lot ofbatches failed the test and when this occurred the whole lot had togo in the trash.

Upon seeing me in action a wise oldcolleague pulled me to one side and offered me a tip. I was doing itwrong. If the batch was underweight you took your bakers hat off andput it on top of the loaf. That brought up the average weightslightly and allowed you to print out a label to keep the batch. Ofcourse this led to mis-selling and, potentially, a law suit. But itdidn’t matter, because it made our jobs easier.

Back to today … what I believe isreally important is that we maximize the effectiveness of informallearning and make sure the right habits get taught. And for that weneed our good friend, formal learning.

A different model perhaps?

An oft overlooked but potentially morerelevant model to illustrate the informal learning concept is that ofEbbinghaus’ Learning Curve.

Herman Ebbinghaus was a prettyremarkable chap, especially for a man working in psychology in the1800’s. His work on memory forms the basis for much of what wepractice today, and his experiments are among a few to have beenreliably replicated in scientific circumstances since his firstpublications. Perhaps Ebbinghaus’ most-cited work in learningcircles is the Forgetting Curve. However, for me, perhaps his mostinteresting work came in the articulation of the Learning Curve; therate at which a person learns information.

The learning curve as a concept hasbeen built upon at regular intervals since Ebbinghaus. Unlike manymodels within the field of education, the learning curve has a rootin mathematics and, as its name suggests, is measurable. As such itbecame popular in manufacturing as a means to demonstrate how onecould produce efficiencies over time.

To over-simplify things, let me suggestthat the shape of the learning curve is dependent on two variables;the Learning Coefficient and the number of repetitions. Your abilityto perform an action grows as you double the number of repetitions ofthat action at the rate specified by your Learning Coefficient. Quiteliterally, practice makes perfect.

The theory suggests that if you doanything enough you will get better at it. Some of that will be thetips, tricks, and techniques you pick up yourself. Some of this willcome through observation of others. Some will be the product of whatothers tell you. We’re all wired for this informal learning processand you have a natural knack for it which varies from task to task.What formal learning can do for you is to accelerate this process bymanipulating the Learning Coefficient and giving you better practice.

For instance, let me suggest you have aLearning Coefficient of 5% for picking up Microsoft Word. You startusing Word to write letters for the first time and you use it once aday for 30 days. Let me suggest that your first letter took you 100units of “effort” to complete. By the end of that first month youwould have expended 2,332 units of “effort” writing letters. Ifyou never got any better at it, it would have taken 3,000 units ofeffort, so your natural 5% learning curve has been of good benefit.

Now let’s say that instead of goingit alone you attended a number of training sessions to help you alongthe way. The intervention had the slight effect of giving you abetter understanding of the core concepts of the application, makingyour subsequent learning more effective; it moved your LearningCoefficient to 10%. By the end of the month you would have expended1,788 units of effort. That’s nearly 25% less effort with just a 5%improvement in the effectiveness of your learning.

So what’s my point?

Working out where to put your resourceswhen faced with a model like 70/20/10 seems to be easy; go where thebiggest number is, the 70%. I’m suggesting the opposite is true,certainly in the beginning. More learning does occur informally thanit does formally, I don’t question that. How effective thatlearning is, is dependent on three things:

1. The Learning Coefficient,

2. How good your people are at learning how to learn, and

3. How much practice they get.

Those three points are what workplaceformal learning should be about, giving you the ability to do yourjob more effectively. This gets to the heart of why I’m not a fanof the 70/20/10 model; it devalues this important part of theprocess.

People will learn on the job whateveryour efforts are in enabling informal learning. The quality of thatlearning and the intensity with which they get good practice will bedown to the formal learning which comes first. If you really want tomake informal learning fly, I’m suggesting that you need toremember the Learning Curve and get the formal learning right first.

References

Using the Career Architect to Assess and Develop LeadershipCompetencies: https://bit.ly/nSYMUC

The Teaching Firm: https://bit.ly/ozkfxk

David Cofer, Informal Workplace Learning:https://www.calpro-online.org/ERIC/docs/pab00019.pdf(Text version here.)

Kevin Dobbs, Simple Moments of Learning:https://www.allbusiness.com/services/educational-services/4278331-1.html

David Stamps, Learning Ecologies: https://bit.ly/ouqdOG(requires ATHENS login)

NASA’s Learning Curve Calculator: https://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/learn.html

Jay Cross on Informal Learning: https://www.informl.com/where-did-the-80-come-from/

Conference paper on Informal Learning: https://bit.ly/oC34Cm

The cost of Informal vs Formal Learning:https://www.knowledgejump.com/learning/cost.html