What If the 70-20-10 Model Is Making Learners Pay for Inadequate Training?

This completely changed how I think about the 70-20-10 model.

Speaking as someone who’s only about 20 days into Instructional Design, this was completely new to me. I’m glad I took the time to sit with it and reflect on it.

Before reading Guy W Wallace post, I would’ve simply accepted that:

*“People learn by doing.”*

But his perspective made me ask a different question:

At what cost?

His point that an inadequate “10” (formal learning) pushes learners into unnecessary trial-and-error really stood out to me.

And it made me wonder…

What if we invested more effort into designing an adequate “10”?

Perhaps fewer learners would have to pay for competence through avoidable mistakes, frustration, wasted time, and costly errors on the job.

As Guy W Wallace said:

“I dislike using the numbers but if you must I recommend flipping them to: Most 10 Before Most 20 Before Most 70.”

And:

“Get ahead of the Informal Learning Curve when the Stakes (Risks and Rewards) are HIGH.”

To me, this reflects a value every instructional designer should strive to cultivate:

A genuine responsibility to both the organization and the learner.

For the organization, it means designing learning that reduces avoidable errors, improves performance, and protects quality, cost, and productivity.

For the learner, it means respecting their time, reducing unnecessary trial and error, and giving them the confidence and preparation to perform successfully from the start.

That’s the kind of instructional designer I aspire to become one who doesn’t simply create courses, but thoughtfully designs learning that helps people succeed while protecting both the people doing the work and the organizations they serve.

To make the idea stick, I pictured it through a 🪖 military analogy.

Imagine sending someone who’s never handled a rifle or explosives into an active war zone for the very first time.

Instead of preparing them through realistic practice, varied scenarios, coaching, and feedback, you hand them a manual that explains the knowledge, skills, behaviors, and competencies required to use the equipment but all out of context.

Then you tell them:

“You’ll figure it out.”

Will they eventually learn?

Probably.

But not before putting themselves, their teammates, and the mission at risk.

Now imagine another version of the same training.

This time, they’re taught the procedures exactly as written but every exercise is identical. There are no changing conditions, no unexpected situations, no environmental variations. They’re trained to repeat steps by rote, not to think through the realities they’ll face.

When they finally arrive in the war zone, the real learning still begins there when they’re forced into trial and error because the formal learning never truly prepared them for performance.

Sadly, that’s what many inadequate “10s” look like.

Thank you Guy W Wallace , for challenging my thinking and helping me see the 70-20-10 model through a different lens.

The same principle applies in other high-stakes environments such as healthcare, aviation, military and defense, emergency services, law enforcement, nuclear energy, and transportation.

A well-designed formal learning experience isn’t there to replace experience.

It’s there to make the experience safer, smarter, and more effective.

I’m looking forward to reflecting on the “20” next, especially after reading your thoughts on why social learning isn’t always as straightforward as we often assume.

What an industry to be in.❤️

#InstructionalDesign#InstructionalDesigner#LearningAndDevelopment#LearningDesign#LearningExperienceDesign#LXD#Elearning#ELearningDesign#LearningJourney#LearningInPublic#BuildInPublic#SenseMakingNotes#MentalModel