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.

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.