Just about every day I find myself embroiled in discussions about fundamentals of learning, the nature of knowledge and the processes of education. It comes with the territory of working as an academic in a university, and I expect to do it much of the time. When I'm not talking about learning, I'm reading about it, researching it, thinking about it, and writing about it. Today was particularly interesting because I had a conversation on this blog with ePortfolio Keith (Keith Brennan aka @wiltwhatman), who was commenting on my Three Things post. In the post I made the remark that today's learning needs to be personal, social and global, all of which can be mediated through technology. Keith asked me 'Does learning always need to be social?' This of course is a profound question, and one which demands some good theory and reflection. I told Keith that his question deserved a more protracted and considered response than I could provide within the constraints of a blog comment box. I said I would write a full blog post and I therefore present my response here:

Just about everything we learn is situated within a social context. We learn during our early years by observing and mimicking others. No first language is learnt in isolation. Much of an individual's sense of conscience, social justice and even compliance to authority are thought to derive from social modelling processes in early life (see Bandura 1977). We also learn through experimentation, but even though some of this is conducted in a solitary context, our thinking is still shaped by previous social encounters and conversations.  Much of our thinking about learning over the past few decades has been influenced significantly by the writings of Russian psychologist Lev Vygotskii, who proposed the theory of social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978).  In essence, Vygotskii's argument is that all humans learn within rich social and cultural situations, and that children and novices learn better when they are in the presence of knowledgeable or more experienced others than they do when they are on their own. This is known as the zone of proximal development (ZPD). This does not preclude good learning in isolated settings, but ZPD does hold that learning is strengthened and extended through the presence of others.

Tools also play a part in what we learn. One theory that has emerged from the social constructivist school, Activity Theory, suggests that all learning is shaped and motivated by social influences (Engeström et al, 1999). We act upon our environment and with the use of tools, mediate our understanding through them and use them as mind tools to construct, negotiate and develop our learning. The manipulation of tools, a very specific human activity, carries with them an accumulation of cultural and social knowledge. They are infused with social meaning. Even a tool such as a book, when read by a solo reader, socially mediates learning. The reader in effect has an internal conversation with himself (thinking) which is shaped through reading text that has been written by a knowledgeable other person - the author. Even consciousness is social. It is not seen as 'a series of disembodied cognitive acts', but rather is located in the everyday practice of social interactions (see Nardi, 1995).

Another theory derived from social constructivism has been proposed by Lave and Wenger (1991) who argue that the formation of communities of practice can explain much of the informal learning that occurs for example in the workplace. Development of this theory placed emphasis on the sharing of knowledge within the community of practice, enabling members to situate their learning within their community. Further development in the digital age has led to such theories as connectivism (Siemens, 2004) which suggests that knowledge is not exclusively something we internalise, but can now also reside outside the individual within the social context he inhabits and the tools he employs. Anyone who maintains a personal learning network will clearly recognise this phenomenon.

I trust that in this brief essay I have been able to outline and highlight some of the key arguments for learning as a predominantly social process. I will not have convinced everyone that all learning is social, indeed I have some minor doubts myself. But I intentionally leave plenty of space for discussion. There is a great deal more that can be said about the social nature of learning, but that will need to wait for the next blog post.

References
Bandura, A. (1977) Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice Hall.
Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R. and Punamäki, R-L (1999) Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nardi, B. (1995) Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Siemens, G. (2004) Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Available online at http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm (Retrieved 19 February, 2013).
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Steve Wheeler is Associate Professor of Learning Technologies at Plymouth University, in South West England. Originally trained as a psychologist, he has spent his entire career working in media, technology and learning, predominantly in nurse education (NHS 1981-1995) and teacher education and training (1976-1981 and 1995-present). He is now in the School of Education, at the Faculty of Health, Education and Society. A qualified educator, he teaches on a number of undergraduate and post-graduate teacher education programmes in the UK and overseas. He researches into e-learning and distance education, with particular emphasis on the pedagogy underlying the use of social media and Web 2.0 tools, and he also has research interests in mobile learning and cyber-cultures. Steve is regularly invited to speak about his work and has given keynotes and invited lectures to audiences in 30 countries across 5 continents. He is currently involved in several research programmes related to e-learning, social media and handheld technologies. Steve is the author of more than 150 scholarly articles, with over 2000 academic citations and is an active and prolific edublogger. His blog Learning with ‘e’s is a regular online commentary on the social and cultural impact of disruptive technologies, and the application of digital media in education and training. It currently attracts in excess of 150,000 views each month. Steve is chair of the Plymouth e-Learning Conference, and between 2008-2011 was also co-editor of the journalInteractive Learning Environments. He serves on the editorial boards of a number of learning technology and education related open access academic journals including Research in Learning Technology (formerly ALT-J), the International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL), the European Journal of Open, Distance and eLearning (EURODL) andDigital Culture and Education. He has served on the organising and executive committees of a number of international academic conferences, including ALT-C, ICL, EDEN, IFIP and AICT. In 2008 Steve was awarded a Fellowship by the European Distance and E-learning Network (EDEN), and in 2011 he was elected to serve as a member of the Steering group of EDEN’s Network of Academics and Professionals (NAP). He is also chair of the influential worldwide research group IFIP Technical Committee Working Group 3.6 (distance education) and is author of several books including The Digital Classroom (Routledge: 2008) and Connected Minds, Emerging Cultures (Information Age: 2009). He lives in Plymouth, on the South West coast of England.

During the past 6 weeks I’ve had the pleasure of working with representatives from more than 60 organisations in a series of master classes identifying ‘quick wins’ and developing action plans for implementing the 70:20:10 framework.

In fact, over the past few years I’ve had the opportunity to work with many other organisations – from huge multinationals with hundreds of thousands of employees across the world, to small and medium-sized enterprises and regional government departments – all organisations that are exploring the best ways to deploy the 70:20:10 framework, or are actively making it work.

This work has provided me with a number of insights which I think the FIVE below are worth sharing:

• it’s not about the numbers, it’s about change
• top-down thinking and bottom-up action are both essential
• a new understanding of ‘learning’ is needed by everyone
• learning professionals have to step up and let go
• manager engagement and capability are both critical

[1] It’s not about the Numbers, it’s all about Change 

70:20:10 is not about a fixed ratio. It’s a simple and extremely helpful framework for changing focus and aligning resources to support workforce development and learning with where most of it already happens – in the workplace.

So, why use ‘70:20:10’ at all?

The numbers are a useful reminder that most learning occurs in the context of the workplace rather than in formal learning situations and that learning is highly context dependent. The numbers provide a framework to support learning as it happens through challenging experiences, plenty of practice, rich conversations and the opportunity to reflect on what worked well and what didn’t.

It’s also useful to keep the ratios in the back of our minds to remind ourselves that learning naturally occurs this way. They’re not some tight formula that organisations should be targeting.

It’s well worth reading my Internet Time Alliance colleague Jay Cross’s article about formal/informal learning ratios on his Informal Learning blog. Jay makes clear something we all know deep down - that learning is not a binary process – it usually doesn’t happen exclusively formally or exclusively informally, but mostly part-formally and part-informally. The mix varies depending on the situation.

I’ve also stressed this point in my ‘70:20:10 Learning Approaches’presentation on SlideShare.

The KPMG work with the global food manufacturer, Sara Lee, cited on the Informal Learning blog, provides a good example of the fact that the ratios will vary with specific situations and therefore shouldn’t be taken as a mantra.

One thing I do know from working with many organisations using the model is that The 70:20:10 framework is an extremely helpfulchange agent.

One of its most powerful uses is to provide a structure for de-focusing time and effort on sub-optimal away-from-workplace training and re-focusing on more efficient and effective types of development. Almost without exception in my experience organisations that have adopted 70:20:10 have achieved greater impact on performance at organisational and individual level at lower cost than was being achieved beforehand.

Recently I’ve seen variations on the numbers being put forward. Some of these ideas are the result of thoughtful and useful analysis. Others are ‘angels dancing on heads of pins’. It would be an exercise in futility to re-define the Sara Lee data above as the 45:30:10:8:3:2:2 model.

My own view is that as social media comes into more ubiquitous use in workforce development – from executive and leadership development to individual contributor functional development - the ‘20’ will strengthen at the expense of the ‘10’, so we may get to a time when the ‘70:20:10’ just doesn’t make sense anymore and we’ll need to find some new way to express the need for change.  However, I think that we’ve some way to go before that point is reached.

[2] Top-Down and Bottom-Up 

Organisations that succeed in deploying the framework are those that understand the need for adopting a clear strategy, but then focus on practical ‘low-hanging fruit’.

This top-down and bottom-up approach is essential. Clear direction plus senior stakeholders who are engaged, enrolled and prepared to act as ‘champions’ will get the change process underway and keep it on track, but then HR and learning professionals who can identify the quick wins and achieve them are also critical to ensure that change happens on the ground.

Simple things such as embedding 70:20:10 concepts into annual development planning and templates, educating workers and their managers that ‘development’ does not equal attendance on programmes and courses, ensuring that social learning and reflection is embedded into work practices, all contribute to the change process.

[3] Re-thinking ‘Learning’ 

The thinking that hard-wires ‘knowing’ to ‘learning’ has set our efforts to build high-performing organisations back many years.

Learning and knowing sometimes coincide, but they are different beasts.

There is still a huge focus on ‘knowing’ in organisational learning. We build formal classroom courses and eLearning programmes that consist of pre-tests and post-tests. We then assume that if we gain a higher score after some formal learning process (almost invariably assessed through a test/examination/certification based on knowledge recall) than we did before, then learning has occurred.

Most of us know deep down that this is bunk.

Passing knowledge tests immediately following a course tells us little about real learning. It may tell us something about short-term memory recall, but real learning can only be determined by observable long-term changes in behaviour.

The 70:20:10 framework, with it's emphasis on learning through experience (the ‘70’ and ‘20’ bits, especially), helps push the understanding of what learning means towards ‘know-how’ from ‘know-what’. Towards demonstrating learning through action – behaving differently when confronted with specific circumstances. Morgan McCall, one of the researchers who carried out the Centre for Creative Leadership survey of managers that led to the 70:20:10 framework becoming more widely known and adopted, explains the power of experiential learning here.

Organisations that effectively incorporate the 70:20:10 framework into their workforce development strategies invariably build a wider understanding of what ‘learning’ means – and follow that up with empowering many people to think of learning opportunities outside the class/curriculum mind-set.

[4] Learning Professionals: Stepping Up and Letting Go 

70:20:10 implementation challenges entrenched learning and development practices and, in so doing, puts pressure on quite a number of learning professionals.

It does this because one of the underpinnings of the framework is the acceptance that only a small percentage of organisational learning (the ‘10’) can be managed by the HR and L&D departments. The vast majority occurs outside their bailiwick. 

The categorisation below, developed with my Internet Time Alliance colleagues Jane Hart and Harold Jarche, shows clearly that most ‘informal’ elements of learning can’t be managed, but can only be supported by HR/L&D. Others can only serve as lessons themselves.

So, a precursor for effective implementation of the framework is for learning professionals in the organisation to let go trying to control everything and look instead to support, encourage and learn from the learning that is happening all around them.

This is not to say learning professionals are necessarily redundant.  However it does mean that they need to step up to challenges that they probably haven’t faced before and change their modus operandifrom simply designing, developing and delivering formal learning activities and programmes.

Effective deployment of 70:20:10 usually requires significant support for line managers – as they’re the people who have the most influence over effective implementation of the ‘70’ and ‘20’ (and the most influence over learning and performance improvement generally). The L&D staff can play an important role in supporting line managers to identify, enable and encourage social learning, information sharing, collaborative knowledge building and other workplace development activities. But the skills they need to do this may differ from the skills that the learning professional role previously required.

[5] Managers: It can’t Happen without them

Every time I work on the 70:20:10 framework with an organisation I’m reminded of the fundamental role that manager/line leader engagement and capability play in overall success.

We know from the Corporate Leadership Council’s Employee Development Survey research into Driving Results Through Employee Development that line leaders who are focused and effective at developing their reports achieve around 25% better performance from their teams than line leaders who are not effective at developing their people.

It is essential that senior leadership and line leaders fully understand the implications of this research – that the greatest levers for learning and performance improvement are in the hands of people managers.

There is a large number of tools and techniques that are available to make this job easier for managers. These need to be an integral part of any 70:20:10 rollout - from simple techniques to help reflective learning as part of regular manager-report meetings, to guides, templates, tools and tips to support experiential learning and learning through people networks. I wrote about this in my previous blog post (below) ‘Managers and Mad Hatters: Work That Stretches’.

Charles Jennings is managing director of Duntroon Associates. He is considered a thought-leader in the world of corporate learning and performance. He works with companies across the globe helping improve workforce performance. In a career spanning more than 30 years in learning technology he has worked in Higher Education (where he was a professor and head of the UK national centre network-based learning) and, for the past 18 years, in the Corporate world (where his most recent role was Chief Learning Officer at Reuters and Thomson Reuters, the world's largest information company)."When working is learning, then learning is working" Charles is also a Principal of The Internet Time Alliance, a think-tank of leading learning and business performance practitioners helping organisations exploit emerging practice to "work smarter".

This article was originally published in eskokilpi.blogging.fi

All of us have at some point in our lives experienced performance appraisals where we as individuals were evaluated. This approach to judgment was the same in school and at work: individuals separated from other individuals.

As a result of recent developments in psychology and sociology, we are now leaving behind the preoccupation with the autonomous individual and beginning to appreciate the importance of relational processes and interdependence. The way we perceive organizations is changing accordingly. Rather than an organization being though of as an imposed structure of separate, autonomous functions, today’s organization arises from the interactions of individuals who need to come together. An organization is a continuous process of organizing.

This shift in the way we see organizations changes the way we perceive competitive advantages. The new competitive edge comes from openness and interactive capacity: the ability to participate and connect, as and when needed.

Live organizations and open, live information

Similarly produced products with the same product features are used by different customers in different ways. Just because a product is a commodity doesn’t mean that customers can’t be diverse in their needs and the way they use the product.

Companies used to have no mechanisms for connecting with the end users in order to understand and influence this. Social media and mobile technologies are now changing this.

Organizations are creative, responsive processes of communication. All creative, responsive processes have the capacity to constantly self-organize and re-organize. Change is not a problem or anomaly. Solutions are always temporary and contextual.

In this view, it is information that is the energy of organizing. Or, as Gregory Bateson wrote, “information is a difference, which makes a difference”. When we see information as a power plant that has the ability to organize and change the organization, we realize the power of openness. When information is transparent to everybody, people can organize effectively around changes and differences, around customers, products and new technologies.

When information is transparent, different people see different things and new interdependencies are created, thus changing the organization.  The easier the access that people have to one another and to (different) information is, the more possibilities there are.  What we have still not understood is that people need to have access to information streams that no one could predict they would want to know about. Even they themselves did not know they needed it – before they needed it. Thus information architectures can never be fully planned in advance.

Engagement and participation

No one person or function can meet today’s challenges alone. We need a community of people who willingly participate and provide their insights to address increasingly interdependent issues. Collaboration is necessary because one person no longer has the answer. Answers reside in the interaction, between all of us.

Therefore the challenges of today are engagement and reducing the transaction costs of participation. Widening the circle of involvement means expanding who gets to participate, comment and contribute. It is about inviting and including relevant, new and different voices.

The unfortunate misunderstanding is that engaging people requires managers to let go. As managers contemplate widening the circle of involvement they sometimes believe that it means to have less ability to provide input based on their knowledge and experience. Paradoxically, engaging more people requires more from managers than the current management paradigm.

Instead of being responsible for identifying both the problem and the solution, they are now responsible for identifying the problem and identifying the other people whose voices need to be heard. Who else needs to be here? How do I invite people who do not report to me? How do I invite customers and other people from outside our organization?

Success today is increasingly the result of skilful management of participation: who is included and who is not. Who is needlessly excluded from the information streams and the subsequent interaction?

A common misunderstanding is that productivity will suffer if larger numbers of people are involved. The new social platforms and interaction technologies have dramatically reduced the cost of communication and participation. Temporary, flash communities can be formed to solve a problem or to tackle an opportunity more easily, more cheaply and faster than ever before – if there is openness and people are invited and if people want to engage. It is about distributing the intellectual tasks at hand and integrating the contributions of many resulting in creative learning.

Creative learning is the new productivity. In creative, interactive work, productivity cannot be measured in quantitative terms or as a difference between input and output, but as the speed and quality of learning.

The management task is not to understand people better, but to understand better what happens, and can happen between people. Our world is co-created in relations.

This article was originally published in eskokilpi.blogging.fi