The 70-20-10 Framework has been all the rage for the last five or ten years in the workplace learning field. Indeed, I organized a great debate about 70-20-10 through The Debunker Club (you can see the tweet stream here). I have gone on record saying that the numbers don’t have a sound research backing, but that the concept is a good one—particularly the idea that we as learning professionals ought to leverage on-the-job learning where we can.
What is 70-20-10?
The 70-20-10 framework is built on the belief that 10% of workplace learning is, or should be, propelled by formal training; that 20% is, or should be, enabled by learning directly from others; and that 70% of workplace learning is, or should, come from employee’s learning through workplace experiences.
Supported by Research?
Given all the energy around 70-20-10, you might think that lots of rigorous scientific research has been done on the framework. Well, you would be wrong!
In fact, up until today (April 19, 2019), only one study has been published in a scientific journal (my search of PsycINFO only reveals one study). In this post, I will review that one study, published last year:
Johnson, S. J., Blackman, D. A., & Buick, F. (2018). The 70:20:10 framework and the transfer of learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly. Advance online publication.
All research has strengths, weaknesses, and limitations—and it’s helpful to acknowledge these so we can think clearly. First, one study cannot be definitive, and this is just one study. Also, this study is qualitative and relies on subjective inputs to draw its conclusions. Ideally, we’d like to have more objective measures utilized. It is also gathering data from a small sample of public sector workers, where ideally we want a wider range of diverse participants.
The researchers found a group of organizations who had been bombarded with messages and training to encourage the use of the 70-20-10 model. Specifically, the APSC (The Australian Public Sector Commission), starting in 2011, encouraged the Australian public sector to embrace 70-20-10.
The specific study “draws from the experiences of two groups of Australian public sector managers: senior managers responsible for implementing the 70:20:10 framework within their organization; and middle managers who have undergone management capability development aligned to the 70:20:10 framework. All managers were drawn from the Commonwealth, Victorian, Queensland, and Northern Territory governments.”
A qualitative approach was chosen according to the researchers “given the atheoretical nature of the 70:20:10 framework and the lack of theory or evidence to provide a research framework.”
The qualitative approaches used by the researchers were individual structured interviews and group structured interviews.
The researchers chose people to interview based on their experience using the 70-20-10 framework to develop middle managers. “A purposive sampling technique was adopted, selecting participants who had specific knowledge of, and experience with, middle management capability development in line with the 70:20:10 framework.”
The researchers used a text-processing program (NVivo) to help them organize and make sense of the qualitative data (the words collected in the interviews). According to Wikipedia, “NVivo is intended to help users organize and analyze non-numerical or unstructured data. The software allows users to classify, sort and arrange information; examine relationships in the data; and combine analysis with linking, shaping, searching and modeling.”
The authors conclude the following:
“In terms of implications for practice, the 70:20:10 framework has the potential to better guide the achievement of capability development through improved learning transfer in the public sector. However, this will only occur if future implementation guidelines focus on both the types of learning required and how to integrate them in a meaningful way. Actively addressing the impact that senior managers and peers have in how learning is integrated into the workplace through both social modeling and organizational support… will also need to become a core part of any effective implementation.”
“Using a large qualitative data set that enabled the exploration of participant perspectives and experiences of using the 70:20:10 framework in situ, we found that, despite many Australian public sector organizations implementing the framework, to date it is failing to deliver desired learning transfer results. This failure can be attributed to four misconceptions in the framework’s implementation: (a) an overconfident assumption that unstructured experiential learning will automatically result in capability development; (b) a narrow interpretation of social learning and a failure to recognize the role social learning has in integrating experiential, social and formal learning; (c) the expectation that managerial behavior would automatically change following formal training and development activities without the need to actively support the process; and (d) a lack of recognition of the requirement of a planned and integrated relationship between the elements of the 70:20:10 framework.”
With Experiential Learning
“Senior managers indicated that one reason for adopting the 70:20:10 framework was that the dominant element of 70% development achieved through experiential learning reflected their expectation that employees should learn on the job. However, when talking to the middle managers themselves, it was not clear how such learning was being supported. Participants suggested that one problem was a leadership perception across senior managers that middle managers could automatically transition into middle management roles without a great deal of support or development.”
“The most common concern, however, was that experiential learning efficacy was challenged because managers were acquiring inappropriate behaviors on the job based on what they saw around them every day.”
“We found that experiential learning, as it is currently being implemented, is predominantly unstructured and unmanaged, that is, systems are not put in place in the work environment to support learning. It was anticipated that managers would learn on the job, without adequate preparation, additional support, or resourcing to facilitate effective learning.”
With Social Learning
“Overall, participants welcomed the potential of social learning, which could help them make sense of their con-text, enabling both sense making of new knowledge acquired and reinforcing what was appropriate both in, and for, their organization. However, they made it clear that, despite apparent organizational awareness of the value of social learning, it was predominantly dependent upon the preferences and working styles of individual managers, rather than being supported systematically through organizationally designed learning programs. Consequently, it was apparent that social learning was not being utilized in the way intended in the 70:20:10 framework in that it was not usually integrated with formal or experiential learning.”
“Mentoring was consistently highlighted by middle and senior managers as being important for both supporting a middle manager’s current job and for building future capacity.”
“Despite mentoring being consistently raised as the most favored form of development, it was not always formally supported by the organization, meaning that, in many instances, mentoring was lacking for middle managers.”
“A lack of systemic approaches to mentoring meant it was fragile and often temporary.”
“Peer support and networking encouraged middle managers to adopt a broader perspective and engage in a community of practice to develop ideas regarding implementing new skills.”
“However, despite managers agreeing that networks and peer support would assist them to build capability and transfer learning to the workplace, there appeared to be few organizationally supported peer learning opportunities. It was largely up to individuals to actively seek out and join their own networks.”
With Formal Learning
“Formal learning programs were recognized by middle and senior managers as important forms of capability development. Attendance was often encouraged for new middle managers.”
“However, not all experiences with formal training programs were positive, with both senior and middle managers reflecting on their ineffectiveness.”
“For the most part, participants reported finishing formal development programs with little to no follow up.”
“There was a lack of both social and experiential support for embedding this learning. The lack of social learning support partly revolved around the high workloads of managers and the lack of time devoted to development activities.”
“The lack of experiential support and senior management feedback meant that many middle managers did not have the opportunity to practice and further develop their new skills, despite their initial enthusiasm.”
“A key issue with this was the lack of direct and clear guidance provided by their line managers.”
“A further issue with formal learning was that it was often designed generically for groups of participants… The need for specificity also related to the lack of explicit, individualized feedback provided by their line manager to reinforce and embed learning.”
What Should We Make of This Preliminary Research?
Again, with only one study—and a qualitative one conducted on a narrow type of participant—we should be very careful in drawing conclusions.
Still, the study can be helpful in helping us develop hypotheses for further testing—both by researchers and by us as learning professionals.
We also ought to be careful in casting doubt on the 70-20-10 framework itself. Indeed, the research seems to suggest that the framework was not always implemented as intended. On the other hand, when it is demonstrated that a model tends to be used poorly in its routine use, then we should become skeptical that it will produce reliable benefits.
Here are a list of reflections generated in me by the research:
- Why so much excitement for 70-20-10 with so little research backing?
- Formal training was found to have all the problems normally associated with it, especially the lack of follow-through and after-training support—so we still need to work to improve it!
- Who will provide continuous support for experiential and social learning? In the research case, the responsibility for implementing on-the-job learning experiences was not clear, and so the implementation was not done or was poorly done.
- What does it take in terms of resources, responsibility, and tasking to make experiential and social learning useful? Or, is this just a bridge too far?
- The most likely leverage point for on-the-job learning still seems, to me, to be managers. If this is a correct assumption—and really it should be tested—how can we in Learning & Development encourage, support, and resource managers for this role?
Happened to notice these two statements printed in vendor literature at a recent conference. I’ve obscured their names just enough so I’m not obviously picking on them but they will know who they are.
Statement #1 from vendor named “C*g*i*o”
- “We all know that up to 80% of what learners are taught in training will be lost in 30 days if there is no practice or reinforcement.”
Statement #2: from vendor named “A*ea*”
- “We have known for more than 150 years that humans forget up to 70% of what they learn within 24 hours!”
These statements are false and misleading. To get a more accurate view of human forgetting, check out this well-researched document.
The Sad Reality of Faux or Misleading Research Citations in Vendor Literature
Buyer beware! Vendors are now utilizing confirmatory-bias methodologies to sprinkle their verbal and visual communications with research-sounding sound bites. Because we are human, this persuasion technique is likely to snare us.
We may even buy a product or service that doesn’t work.
My recommendation: Spend $500 on a research-to-practice expert to save yourself tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, euros, pounds, etc.
This is NOT a post about Bob Mager. It is something else entirely.
In probably the best video I will ever create, I made the case that learning professionals and learners should NOT receive the same set of learning objectives.
The rationale is this: Because objectives are designed to guide behavior, how could one statement possibly guide the behaviors of two separate audiences? Sometimes maybe! But not always!
Arguments for the Infallibility of an Instructional-Design Hero
Recently, I’ve heard it argued that Bob Mager, in his classic text, “Preparing Instructional Objectives,” urged us to create instructional objectives only for us as learning professionals, that he never intended that instructional objectives be presented to learners. This is a testable assertion, which is great! We can agree that Mager gave us some good advice on how to craft objectives for ourselves as learning professionals. But did Mager also, perhaps, suggest that objectives could be presented to learners?
Here are several word-for-word quotes from Mager’s book:
Page 16: Heading: “Goal Posts for Students”
Page 16: “Clearly defined objectives also can be used to provide students with the means to organize their own time and efforts toward accomplishment of those objectives.”
Page 17: “With clear objectives, it is possible to organize the instruction itself so that instructors and students alike can focus their efforts on bridging the gap…”
Page 19: Chapter Summary. “Objectives are useful for providing: … Tools for guiding student efforts…”
Page 43: “Objectives in the hands of students prevent the students from having to guess at how they might best organize their time and effort.”
So Mager clearly started the confusion! But Mager wrote at a time before research on cognition enabled greater insight.
Forget Mager’s contribution. The big problem is that the most common practice seems to still be efforts to create a set of learning objectives to use for both learners and learning practitioners.
I was even scolded for not knowing the difference between an instructional objective (for learning professionals) and a learning objective (for learners). Of course, these revisionist definitions are not true and are not helpful. They are fake news, concocted perhaps by a person who thinks or was taught that our instructional-design heroes are perfect and their work is sacrosanct. The truth is that these terms have been used interchangeably. For example, in a research study by my mentor and academic advisor, Ernie Rothkopf, he and his research partner used the term instructional objectives to refer to objectives presented to learners.
Rothkopf, E. Z., & Kaplan, R. (1972). An exploration of the effect of density and specificity of instructional objectives on learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 6, 295-302.
My Main Points
- We need at least two types of objectives (although I’ve argued for more)—one to guide the design, development, and evaluation of learning; one to guide learners as they are learning. I’ve called these “focusing objectives,” because the research shows that they guide attention toward objective-relevant content.
- When we make arguments, we ought to at least skim the sources to see if we know what we’re talking about.
- We ought to stop with hero worship. All of us do some good things and some bad things. Even the best of us.
- Hero worship in the learning field is particularly problematic because learning is so complex and we all still have so much to learn. All of us attempting to make recommendations are likely to be wrong some of the time.
- It is ironic that our schools of instructional design teach graduate students to memorize facts and hold up heroes as infallible immortals—when instead they ought to be educating these future citizens how progress gets made over long periods of time by a large collective of people. They also ought to be teaching students to understand at a deeper level, not just a knowledge level. But truly, we can’t blame the schools of instructional design. After all, they started with canonically-correct instructional objectives (focused on low-level knowledge because they are easier to create).
Finally, let me say that in the video I praise Bob Mager’s work on learning objectives for us learning professionals. This post is not about Mager.
The Debunker Club — where I am an organizer — is sponsoring a members-only Book Group Discussion of The Knowledge Illusion — by Steven Sloman & Philip Fernbach.
This book is fascinating, laying out the argument that human cognition, because it is so resource intensive, is something that we humans tend to offload to others. That is, we have a tendency to avoid the hard work of learning when we can rely on simple heuristics or objects in our environment to inform our actions or other people who have more knowledge.
The book’s discussions are focused on knowledge, and have great relevance to those of us in the learning field.
If you’re a Debunker Club member, please join the community book discussion group starting tomorrow January 11th. You can join the discussion by clicking here.
Note: The Discussion will unfold over several months asynchronously and chapter by chapter so people from around the world can easily join. Don’t worry if you haven’t read the book yet. Grab it and join us.
If you’re not a member, it’s easy to join The Debunker Club. You can join by clicking here.
More information about The Debunker Club can be found by clicking here. We have over 800 members from around the world dedicated to eliminating learning myths and sharing evidence-based practices.
15th December 2018
Neon Elephant Award Announcement
Dr. Will Thalheimer, President of Work-Learning Research, Inc., announces the winner of the 2018 Neon Elephant Award, given to Clark Quinn for writing the book Millennials, Goldfish & Other Training Misconceptions: Debunking Learning Myths and Superstitions, and for his many years advocating for research-based practices in the workplace learning field.
2018 Award Winner – Clark Quinn, PhD
Clark Quinn, PhD, is an internationally-recognized consultant and thought-leader in learning technology and organizational learning. Dr. Quinn holds a doctorate in Cognitive Psychology from the University of California at San Diego. Since 2001, Clark has been consulting, researching, writing, and speaking through his consulting practice, Quinnovation (website). Clark has been at the forefront of some of the most important trends in workplace learning, including his early advocacy for mobile learning, his work with the Internet Time Group advocating for a greater emphasis on workplace learning, and his collaboration on the Serious eLearning Manifesto to bring research-based wisdom to elearning design. With the publication of his new book, Clark again shows leadership—now in the cause of debunking learning myths and misconceptions.
Clark is the author of numerous books, focusing not only on debunking learning myths, but also on the practice of learning and development and mobile learning. The following are representative:
- Millennials, Goldfish & Other Training Misconceptions: Debunking Learning Myths and Superstitions (2018)
- Revolutionize Learning & Development: Performance and Innovation Strategy for the Information Age (2014)
- Designing mLearning: Tapping into the Mobile Revolution for Organizational Performance (2011).
In addition to his lifetime of work, Clark is honored for his new book on debunking the learning myths, Millennials, Goldfish & Other Training Misconceptions: Debunking Learning Myths and Superstitions.
Millennials, Goldfish & Other Training Misconceptions provides a quick overview of some of the most popular learning myths, misconceptions, and mistakes. The book is designed as a quick reference for practitioners—to help trainers, instructional designers, and elearning developers avoid wasting their efforts and their organizations’ resources in using faulty concepts. As I wrote in the book’s preface, “Clark Quinn has compiled, for the first time, the myths, misconceptions, and confusions that imbue the workplace learning field with faulty decision making and ineffective learning practices.”
When we think about how much time and money has been wasted by learning myths, when we consider the damage done to learners and organizations, when we acknowledge the harm done to the reputation of the learning profession, we can see how important it is to have a quick reference like Clark has provided.
Clark’s passion for good learning is always evident. From his strategic work with clients, to his practical recommendations around learning technology, to his polemic hyperbole in the revolution book, to his longstanding energy in critiquing industry frailties and praising great work, to his eLearning Guild participatory leadership, to his editorial board contributions at eLearn Magazine, and to his excellent new book; Clark is a kinetic force in the workplace learning field. For his research-inspired recommendations, his tenacity in persevering as a thought-leader consultant, and for his ability to collaborate and share his wisdom, we in the learning field owe Clark Quinn our grateful thanks!
You won’t believe what a vendor said about a speaker at a conference—when that speaker spoke the truth.
Conferences are big business in the workplace learning field.
Conferences make organizers a ton of money. That’s great because pulling off a good conference is not as easy as it looks. In addition to finding a venue and attracting people to come to your event, you also have to find speakers. Some speakers are well-known quantities, but others are unknown.
In the learning field, where we are inundated with fads, myths, and misconceptions; finding speakers who will convey the most helpful messages, and avoid harmful messages, is particularly difficult. Ideally, as attendees, we’d like to hear truth from our speakers rather than fluff and falsehoods.
On the other hand, vendors pay big money to exhibit their products and services at a conference. Their goal is connecting with attendees who are buyers or who can influence buyers. Even conferences that don’t have exhibit halls usually get money from vendors in one way or another.
So, conference owners have two groups of customers to keep happy: attendees and vendors. In an ideal world, both groups would want the most helpful messages to be conveyed. Truth would be a common goal. So for example, let’s say new research is done that shows that freep learning is better than traditional elearning. A speaker at a conference shares the news that freep learning is great. Vendors in the audience hear the news. What will they do?
- Vendor A hires a handsome and brilliant research practitioner to verify the power of freep learning with the idea of moving forward quickly and providing this powerful new tool to their customers.
- Vendor B jumps right in and starts building freep learning to ensure their customers get the benefits of this powerful new learning method.
- Vendor C pulls the conference organizers aside and tells them, “If you ever use that speaker again, we will not be back; you will not get our money any more.”
Impossible you say!
Would never happen you think!
You’re right. Not enough vendors are hiring fadingly-good-lookingly brilliant research-to-practice experts!
Here’s a true story from a conference that took place within the last year or so.
Clark Quinn spoke about learning myths and misconceptions during his session, describing the findings from his wonderful book. Later when he read his conference evaluations he found the following comment among the more admiring testimonials:
“Not cool to debunk some tools that exhibitors pay a lot of money to sell at [this conference] only to hear from a presenter at the conference that in his opinion should be debunked. Why would I want to be an exhibitor at a conference that debunks my products? I will not exhibit again if this speaker speaks at [conference name]” (emphasis added).
This story was recounted by Clark and captured by Jane Bozarth in an article on the myth of learning styles she wrote as the head of research for the eLearning Guild. Note that the conference in question was NOT an eLearning Guild conference.
What can we do?
Corruption is everywhere. Buyer beware! As adults, we know this! We know politicians lie (some more than others!!). We know that we have to take steps not to be ripped off. We get three estimates when we need a new roof. We ask for personal references. We look at the video replay. We read TripAdvisor reviews. We look for iron-clad guarantees that we can return products we purchased.
We don’t get flustered or worried, we take precautions. In the learning field, you can do the following:
- Look for conference organizers who regularly include research-based sessions (scientific research NOT opinion research).
- Look for the conferences that host the great research-to-practice gurus. People like Patti Shank, Julie Dirksen, Clark Quinn, Mirjam Neelen, Ruth Clark, Karl Kapp, Jane Bozarth, Dick Clark, Paul Kirschner, and others.
- Look for conferences that do NOT have sessions—or have fewer sessions—that propagate common myths and misinformation (learning styles, the learning pyramid, MBTI, DISC, millennials learn differently, people only use 10% of their brains, only 10% of learning transfers, neuroscience as a panacea, people have the attention span of a goldfish, etc.).
- If you want to look into Will’s Forbidden Future, you might look for the following:
- conferences and/or trade organizations that have hired a content trustee, someone with a research background to promote valid information and cull bad information.
- conferences that point speakers to a list of learning myths to avoid.
- conferences that evaluate sessions based on the quality of the content.
Being exposed to false information isn’t just bad for us as professionals. It’s also bad for our organizations. Think of all the wasted effort—the toil, the time, the money—that was flushed down the toilet trying to redesign all our learning to meet the so-called learning-styles approach. Egads! If you need to persuade your management about the danger of learning myths you might try this.
In a previous blog post, I talked about what we can do as attendees of conferences to avoid learning bad information. That’s good reading as well. Check it out here.
Who Will Rule Our Conferences? Truth or Bad-Faith Vendors?
That’s a damn good question!
This is my preface to Clark Quinn’s book on debunking the myths in the learning field, Millennials, Goldfish & Other Training Misconceptions: Debunking Learning Myths and Superstitions. (available from Amazon here).
Clark Stanley worked as cowboy and later as a very successful entrepreneur, selling medicine in the United States that he made based on secrets he learned from an Arizona Hopi Indian medicine man. His elixir was made from rattlesnake oil, and was marketed in the 1890’s through public events in which Stanley killed live rattlesnakes and squeezed out their oil in front of admiring crowds. After his medicine gained a wide popularity, Stanley was able to set up production facilities in Massachusetts and Rhode Island with the help of a pharmacist. Stanley made himself a rich man.
You may not know his name, but you’ve certainly heard of his time and place. It was the era of patent medicines—false and sometimes dangerous elixirs sold to men and women of all stripes. Dr. Kilmer’s Swamp Root. Oxien. Kickapoo Indian Sagwa. Dr. Morse’s Indian Root Pills. Enzyte. Bonnore’s Electro Magnetic Bathing Fluid. Radithor. Liquozone. And of course, Clark Stanley’s Snake Oil Liniment.
These medicines were bought by the millions. Fortunes were made. Millions of people were bamboozled, made sick, killed or murdered depending on how you see it. It turns out that, upon being tested, Stanley’s elixir was found to be made mostly from mineral oil, a worthless potion sold by a charlatan. His story of the medicine man and the rattlesnake juice was a more potent concoction than his famous elixir, which when tested was found to have no snake oil anyway.
What causes men and women to miss the truth, to fail to see, to continue happily in harming themselves and those around them? This, unfortunately, is not a question just for the era of patent medicines. It is eternal. It goes back to the dawn of humanity and continues today as well. I have no answer except to assume that our credulity is part of our humanity—and should guide us to be on guard at all times.
What stopped the patent-medicine pandemic of poison, persuasion, and placebo? Did we the people rise up on our own and throw out the scoundrels, the money-grubbers, the snake-oil salesmen? Did we see that we were deceived, or too hopeful, or too blind? Did we as a community heed our senses and find a way to overcome the dangers hidden from us?
No! We did not!
It was not a mass movement back to rationality and truth that saved us. It was the work of a few intrepid agitators who made all the difference. Journalists began reporting on deaths, sicknesses, and addictions resulting from the use of patent medicines. In 1905, Collier’s Weekly published a cover story that exploded the industry. Written by Samuel Hopkins Adams a former crime reporter, with the title, “The Great American Fraud: The Patent Medicine Evil,” the long expose contained sections with headings like, “Medicine or Liquor?”, “The Men Who Back the Fake,” “Absolutely False Claims,” “Drugs that Deprave,” “Prescribing Without Authority,” and “Where the Money Goes.”
The article—or series of articles that today we would call investigative journalism—opened the floodgates and led directly to the Pure Food and Drug Act in 1906, followed later by additional regulations and requirements that continue to this day, with some success, protecting our health and safety.
The ugly truth is that we need help in seeing what we don’t see. This is true too in the learning industry and has been true since at least the early 1900’s when thought leaders in our industry floated bogus claims that people remember 10% of what they read, 20% of what they hear, 30% of what they see, et cetera. Indeed, it was partly the bogus claims floating around the learning industry in the late 1990’s that made me optimistic that starting a research-based consulting practice would find an audience, that perhaps the learning field could be protected from snake oil charlatans.
Bogus claims are not merely inert flotsam to be navigated around. At a minimum, they take attention away from learning practices that are more fundamental and effective, pushing us to waste time and resources. More insidious is that they proactively cause harm, hurting learners and weakening our learning outcomes.
I wish I could report that starting Work-Learning Research twenty years ago has had the influence that Samuel Hopkins Adams had in his journalism. Alas, I am a faint voice in the howling wind of our industry. Fortunately, there are many muckraking research-to-practice practitioners today, including folks like Paul Kirschner, Patti Shank, Guy Wallace, Pedro De Bruyckere, Julie Dirksen, Donald Clark, Ruth Clark, Mirjam Neelen, Jane Bozarth, and more. There are also legions of academic researchers who do the science necessary to enable research-to-practice wisdom to be compiled and conveyed to trainers, instructional designers, elearning developers and learning executives.
I am especially optimistic now that Clark Quinn has compiled, for the first time, the myths, misconceptions, and confusions that imbue the workplace learning field with faulty decision making and ineffective learning practices. As Clark rightly advises, don’t read the book in one sitting. You will find it too much—too many misconceptions and malingering falsehoods, and too much heartache to think that our field could tolerate so much snake oil.
Here’s what we don’t realize. Today’s workplace-learning snake oil is costing us billions of dollars in wasted effort, misspent resources, ill-advised decisions, and distraction from the science-of-learning fundamentals that have proven to be effective! Every time a trainer reads an article on learning styles and adjusts his or her training to make it suitable for visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and olfactory learners; time is wasted, money is spent, and learning is hurt. Every time an instructional designer goes to a conference and hears that neuroscience should guide learning design, he or she takes this faulty meme back to colleagues and infects them with false hope and ineffective learning strategies. Every time a Chief Learning Officer hears that learning events should be shrunk to 4-minute microlearning videos, that storytelling is everything, that all learning is social, that virtual reality is the future of learning—every time our learning executives jump on a bandwagon and send us to training or conferences or hire experts in these multitudinous fascinations—we are diverted from the veritable essence of learning. We waste our own developmental budgets with snake-oil rostrums. We waste time organizing ourselves around wrong-headed initiatives. We ignore what really works, all the while costing our organizations billions of dollars in waste and ineffective learning practices.
Let us start anew today. We can begin with Clark’s book. It is a veritable treasure chest of wisdom. But let’s keep going. Let’s stay skeptical. Let’s look to the scientific research for knowledge. Let’s become more demanding and knowledgeable ourselves, knowing that we all have more to learn. Let’s look to the research translators who know the work that we do as instructional designers, trainers, and developers. Let’s do our own testing. Let’s improve our evaluation systems so that we get better feedback day by day. Let’s pilot, rework, improve, and continue to learn!
As the history of patent medicine shows, we must be forever vigilant against our own blindness and against those who will sell us the miraculous hope of snake-oil cure-alls.
The Debunker Club, with over 600 members devoted to squashing the myths in the learning field, is offering a FREE webinar with noted author and learning guru Dr. Clark Quinn on myths and misconceptions in the learning field, based on his new book, just released last month, Millennials, Goldfish & Other Training Misconceptions: Debunking Learning Myths and Superstitions. (available from Amazon here).
- June 6th
- 10AM (San Francisco, USA)
- 1PM (New York, USA)
- 6PM (London, UK)
- 10:30PM (Mumbai, India)
- 3AM June 7th (Sydney, Australia)