"Learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to mention hazardous, if people rely sole on the effects of their own actions to inform them what to do. Fortunately, most human behaviour is learned observationally through modelling: from observing one forms an idea of how new behaviours are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action."
-Albert Bandura, Social Learning Theory, 1977
So an interesting debate sparked up in the office around 70:20:10. The mix of understanding and relevance of everyone's point of view merely strengthens my resolve that as a theory, guideline or framework in principle, it places too much emphasis on it's existence as a solid model.
Now I am not disputing anything here but interpreting my own interpretation of an interpretation that has been interpreted by someone else based on their interpretation of what someone observed........and perhaps said or done. Ergo today's blog is of course open to interpretation.
If you look at what Albert Bandura proposed in 1977 he spoke about the danger of learning in isolation and being left alone to come to your own conclusion, he highlights the importance of modelling through observation and how you form your own version of how a behaviour is performed and then goes on to speak of how that information you have taken on board has been coded by your brain and will then at a later date be put in to practice.
So his Social Learning theory is very much steeped in the 70:20.......so what about the 10, well perhaps it's just 100....yep that's what I will call it the 100 or will I?.......You see he didn't need to add numbers, and yet surely as a Professor at Stanford there should have been numbers.?
My point is it doesn't have to have a number to mean something but we are a quantifying bunch, feeling the need to add numbers and create a sense of value, but the value is not for us to add as part of Banduras theory points out just because someone learns something does not mean that it will result in a change of behaviour. Okay so what else happened? Well, his observational model had three parts (See I knew he would have numbers somewhere)
ANYWAY !!! Where was I going with this? Ah yes, the existence / non existence of 70:20:10. So the reason the debate was set off is that the business is on a journey of learning that requires a change in approach and one of the ways it has been communicated is by telling them about our 70:20:10 learning philosophy however seek first to understand then be understood is the order of the day and perhaps the sticking block is that each of us has our own view of what it actually is but it relies heavily on everyone having a structured approach to learning, a regiment that has the time to create new ideas and innovate thinking. After that of course we all settle down for some reflective moments and then strike a balance between experimentation and the day job.
That's a lot of assumptions........so let's think of what is true.....human nature is inquisitive and wants us to learn but it has to have the freedom and fluidity to learn how it wants and when it wants. Our job as learning professionals is not to give them models, theories, behaviours, coffee and cake........(okay maybe cake)....but our job is provide tools to help them choose their own journey. Classic lead the horse to water scenario but you, them and me alone can choose to drink. Another classic assumption is that learning happens in silo's or separate parts i.e the split between formal and informal but to me it's one in the same. Formal may be the setting but the informal is the environment for learning you create be it offline, online, mobile or classroom etc etc etc.
So there you go, that's my view, it doesn't exist and does at the same time but we don't have to make a song and dance about it we just have to do it.
P.S.........You're doing it now
Follow@thatlearningXDude
No comments:
Post a Comment