About me

I'm a geek working as a distance learning specialist for a large corporation.

My Pandora "radio station" profile
This is my favorite way to listen to music now.

My Yahoo "radio station"
(Unfortunately, only works in IE.)

Shopping

Looking to purchase something online? Support Caddickisms by going through one of these links:

Caddickisms Store

Amazon.com

Calendar

December 2005
S M T W T F S
    Jan »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Topics

Posts by month

Around the site

My kids have been watching Signing Time on our local PBS station here for over a year now. They love the show so much that we got them one ofTuesday TubeWatch: Signing Time

Bryce Zabel's FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH: Santa's 2007 Movie Smackdown! Bryce has put together a fun poll on which Christmas/holiday movies make the cut for annual viewing. Which ones can youThe Santa Smackdown!

Slice of Scifi - Science Fiction TV / Movie, News, Interviews & more - Jay's Doctor Who Update Well, Doctor Who's second season will air on Sci-Fi in October, as previouslyFuture Imperfect: Doctor Who on Sci-Fi

I have two girls. They're 6 (almost 7) and 8 years old now. They're still at the ages when it's cool to hang with Dad. I like that. At the beginningDaddy-Daughter Dates, and Bonding

Today I left my house. No, really, it's true. There wasn't a computer monitor anywhere near me for hours. Well, okay, except for when we stopped at Best Buy, but other thanGeek field maneuvers (without the proper tech)

Yep. This is exactly how Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back would have gone if I was in it. Autographs are $2. I gotta cover my costs. Hearing the words "That's howFINALLY, I get to wield a real lightsaber!

Stay on target. Some guys got together and built a scale model of an X-Wing fighter from Star Wars, complete with an Artoo unit. Then they strapped 4 rockets to it. Lock S-Foils in attack positions

In the 7 day challenge, today’s topic is: Embed a legal youtube clip that I either found today or created myself. Then tell everyone about the clip and related information. I consideredTelling Time - 7 day challenge

Last night, my wife and I watched Star Trek: Nemesis on Syfy (I can't type that without thinking "dumbest name ever"). For those who are a bit forgetful, I'll remind youMy marriage's "Nemesis"

CommonCraft videos make me want to hurt myself. I can't help but think "why didn't I think of doing this?" Lee and Sachi have done a great job creating a successfulTuesday TubeWatch: CommonCraft

We've all wanted to take part in a big-budget movie, right? Sure we have. And now you have the opportunity to do just that! Sort of. The movie is Star Wars.Grab your 15 seconds of fame!

I'm a bit behind in putting up my movie list for this year. Last year's list was full of promise, but I only got to see 4 of the 21 listed2011 Movies to Drool Over

I managed to see a limited release of ABC's new show "No Ordinary Family" online yesterday. Not sure if it's still available, but if it is these instructions will getReview: No Ordinary Family - Pilot

Okay, what can I say... I didn't get to spend any time this week combing the Tubes. I actually have something lined up, but I didn't get a chance toTuesday TubeWatch: Woman+hot water bottle+weird contest

SCI FI Wire | The News Service of the SCI FI Channel Warner Brothers announced that its upcoming sequel to 2005's hit Batman Begins will be called The Dark Knight andThe Dark Knight - Batman sequel

Training vs. Learning

Is it the “training industry” or the “learning industry”? (Yeah, I know there are plenty of alternates to make this even more confusing, but let’s stick to these two for now.)

I’ve seen arguments about this on discussion boards and had lengthy conversations in meetings about it. Some people can’t even figure out why the topic comes up. I grant it’s mostly a semantic issue (though not entirely, and I’ll get to that), but I think it’s an important one. Certainly not THE answer to training’s woes (not even close), but a contributor.

Here’s the main argument that I’ve heard from the “training” camp: everyone already calls it training and knows what we do, so don’t mess with it.

(Let me quickly make a pre-argument argument here: if what we do is as essential as we know it is, and yet we are at the top of the “cut” list when money gets tight, obviously there’s a perception discrepancy and we need to change the perception of what it is we do, so yeah, let’s mess with it.)

Here’s my argument for “learning”:

  • “Training” puts the emphasis on the event. It is something that you experience where information is imparted to you (i.e., you are a passive recipient of the information). It focuses on what the trainer does to you.
  • “Learning” puts the emphasis on the learner – it’s what you do (hopefully) when presented with new information. The responsibility is on the individual to be an active participant in the learning process. It focuses on what you have to do with the trainer’s help.

Some people see that shift in emphasis as a minor squabble. “Who cares what you call it? A rose by any other name, etc., etc.”

I don’t think it’s quite that simple.

It’s about setting expectations in order to influence motivation, one of the most important parts of a successful transfer of knowledge. If you aren’t motivated when you go to a session (live, online, or whatever), you’re not going to care what’s being said and could miss vital information. So anything that can help improve your motivation to learn, however subtle, is important.

Somebody’s going to say to me, “wait, you’re saying that just calling an event a learning opportunity instead of training is going to improve the event? That’s stupid.” Yes, you’re right. That is stupid. And it’s not what I’m saying.

What I am saying is that it sets the learner’s start point a little higher on the motivation continuum. That means that the trainer might not have to try quite so hard to convince the learner to be an active participant (an essential component of useful learning). Especially in an online situation, anything that helps the user engage is vital.

I’m not saying it’ll be a huge effect, but I am saying that whatever effect there is is helpful.

Now, let’s look at another aspect of the problem. I’ll restate my definitions:

  • “Training” puts the emphasis on the event. It is something that you experience where information is imparted to you (i.e., you are a passive recipient of the information). It focuses on what the trainer does to you.
  • “Learning” puts the emphasis on the learner – it’s what you do (hopefully) when presented with new information. The responsibility is on the individual to be an active participant in the learning process. It focuses on what you have to do with the trainer’s help.

Look at the terms from the perspective of the training professional. “Training” is very inward focused: what am I creating for you; what do I provide to you? (Could be that there are egos involved in continuing to use the term “training.”) “Learning” is externally focused: what do you need to do to be successful; what do you need me to do to help you get there?

Look at where the accountability is: with training, the success or failure is all on the trainer (a heavy weight to bear); with learning it’s more of a partnership, where the learner bears at least some of the responsibility for the outcome.

Within the industry, there has been a lot of talk about making training more “learner-centric.” Great! Why not start at the beginning? Set the expectation that your participants might be called on to think. Call it learning.

Tags: , , ,

3 comments to Training vs. Learning

  • Anon

    Giving a pre-test is all the motivation the trainee needs. When they find out how little they know about the topic, their motivation level will be just fine. It will also overcome the issue you spoke of with the trainer “bearing the heavy weight” of responsibility for the trainees. Any trainer worth their salt would be able to show that they did their job (difference between pre-test and post test results) and that there are other causes that there was not a change in behavior on the job.

    Learning is something that necessarily transfers to on the job performance as a relatively permanent change in behavior…there is no guarantee that a trainee will change that behavior if there are other environmental(cultural) issues in the workplace. Trainers need to know their craft and be able to communicate the issues to management, supervisors, etc. to give them an understanding of the issues. The problem is that there are too many trainers that *think* they know their job, but do not have the profound knowledge that Deming spoke of. There is one hell of a lot more to training than designing and delivering training. Those who do not understand this are the only ones in danger of being terminated, downsized, etc. Management knows the value of a good trainer because a good trainer is able to show evidence, by using Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation, of training’s impact on organizational performance.

    Reply to this comment

    Jeff says:

    I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying. I don’t see that any of it negates what I’m saying, either, but you’re saying some good stuff. Thanks.

    Reply to this comment

  • Anon

    Jeff:

    Thanks for the kind words. The only issue I would take with calling it “learning” is that what happens may very well NOT create a relatively permanent change in behavior. I certainly understand where you are coming from, but there is no way to say whether any “learning” takes place until what they have been taught is demonstrated on the job. Essentially, what I am saying is that it makes no difference if they can regurgitate material from the session in a post test…that is not a sign that learning has taken place, it is a sign that the trainer has done his job, at least in the classroom. IMO, learning has not occurred until the trainer has observed a relatively permanent change in behavior, (after the fact) which should have a positive impact on the organization. From that perspective, calling it training is more appropriate because there is no evidence that learning has taken place until level 3 evaluations have been performed well down the road. Although Kirkpatrick’s model is, in principle, something many trainers would do good to follow, I even take issue with HIS definitions of learning and behavior. However, he is essentially saying the same thing, but using different labels. I was taught by an old school technical trainer whom I think can walk on water. Therefore, I adhere strictly to the definition he taught me of learning. Personally, I cannot call anything learning until, well after the fact, we have observed a relatively permanent change in behavior. IMO, calling training “learning” takes away from the trainer’s responsibility for knowing whether or not training is the appropriate intervention and the trainee’s responsibility to demonstrate that he has actually learned something by demonstrating the same by based on future observation.

    For the record, I take the same issue with college education. Many people supposedly “learn” lots of things in college. Can they apply what they learned in real life situations? Sometimes, sometimes not. I am college educated (Said just so it is evident that I am not bashing college education, not to toot my own horn.), but I know many who are college educated who I could not even trust to go buy me a 69 cent loaf of bread at Aldi. :-)

    Reply to this comment

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

CommentLuv badge