Would You Really Put “70” First When the Stakes Are High?

Welcome To The Very First Episode of My Debunked Series...

And on this one, it was a response to a post i saw on linkedin which iv'e embedded in this article. This was regarding the 70-20-10 Model.

linkedin.com#learninganddevelopment #lnd #instructionaldesign #talentdevelopment #workplacelearning #learningculture #traininganddevelopment #employeedevelopment #performanceimprovement #corporatetraining… | Priyatno . | 13 comments

Learning doesn't happen only in the classroom. The most impactful growth comes from applying knowledge, learning from others, and continuously improving through experience. One of the most widely recognized frameworks in Learning & Development is the 70-20-10 Learning Model, which explains where professional learning truly comes from: 📌 70%: Experiential Learning The greatest development happens through hands-on experience. Challenging assignments, problem-solving, stretching beyond your comfort zone, and reflecting on daily work are where real capability is built. 📌 20%: Social Learning Growth accelerates through collaboration with others. Constructive feedback, coaching, mentoring, and knowledge sharing with peers and leaders help transform experiences into practical insights and better decision-making. 📌 10%: Formal Learning Structured learning, such as classroom training, e-learning, workshops, and professional certifications, provides the essential foundation. However, knowledge only becomes valuable when it is applied in real-world situations and reinforced through continuous practice. As a Learning & Development, I don't see the 70-20-10 model as just another learning theory. It serves as a practical framework that guides how I design training, facilitate learning experiences, coach learners, and support long-term performance improvement. I've also shared the key principles behind each stage, along with practical examples of how I apply the 70-20-10 approach in my own training programs to create learning experiences that extend well beyond the classroom. How do you ensure learning continues after formal training ends? I'd love to hear your perspective and experiences. #LearningAndDevelopment #LnD #InstructionalDesign #TalentDevelopment #WorkplaceLearning #LearningCulture #TrainingAndDevelopment #EmployeeDevelopment #PerformanceImprovement #CorporateTraining #ContinuousLearning #LeadershipDevelopment #LearningExperience #ProfessionalDevelopment #Trainer #LearningStrategy | 13 comments on LinkedIn

And in response i said

I think Guy W Wallace‘s most recent post prepared me to respond to this and I’m grateful it’ll come in handy here.

Sadly, based of my understanding from Guy W Wallace, I won’t like to also use numbers but if I were to use numbers

I’d completely inverse the 70-20-10 model to 10-20-70 Model

Why because , a very important question isn’t being put on the table by sadly, many instructional designers, and that one question is :

At what cost ? 🤷🏼

Now I’m not saying I’m totally against learning by doing…

But I say it’s needed due to the fact that most “10’s” are in adequate and don’t address the actual problem through the formal training which is :

Designing the learning experience and assessments in a way that mirrors real world performance

And only when this is executed properly, will the learner experience a lesser expensive and risky transition to a competent job performance because…

The closer the learning and assessment resemble real performance, the less expensive and risky the transition to competent job performance becomes.

On my most recent post I used a military war zone analogy but here, I’d like to tap into another high stake environment because this is usually where things could go sideways and get dirty.

💭Imagine you’re designing training for air traffic controllers.

According to Guy W Wallace’s thinking…

Would you rely mostly on trial and error?

If Yes, Why ? 🤷🏼

If No, Why not?🤷🏼

For me, I would definitely not rely on trial and error, because I’d simply be looking at the cost that’ll come with plane crashes or accidents due to unsupported novices being put into the field to learn through hands on experience …”

Would you risk using “70” for an adequate “10” in such situations where the Stakes (Risk and Reward) are HIGH?

If no then “70” isn’t the first option to paint on the canvas.

Secondly as for the “20”

Guy W Wallace mentioned it being problematic as it’s hard to translate an automated knowledge or skill from an expert that they non-consciously use or perform, to a rookie at zero ❌.

And it takes an appropriate extraction strategy using 5-6 experts, and has to be via a valid approach to CTA (Cognitive Task Analysis)

Where even as an instructional designer, you’d have to follow the expert in contextual situations following through on how their thought process was, when performing that task Because…

“Behaviour isn’t enough, because behind every behaviour is a thought process.”

Like Guy W Wallace mentioned and teaches in his book “The 3D’s of Thoughtflow Analysis”

Please check it out for more Gems 💎(i’d leave a link in the comment section )

I hope this helps someone out here too.

I’m only 20 days into Instructional Design and I love the way thinking and approaching things through the lens of Predator Translators like Clark Quinn, Guy W Wallace etc is doing to me.

Here’s a link to follow them up

https://lnkd.in/eX86PKNb

Much Love 🙏🏼🤍