Simple question goes viral (relatively speaking anyway)
What happens when you ask a simple question about learning and training....
First - Happy New year!
I mean all I did, over on LinkedIn, was ask, what people thought the difference between learning and training is. After letting that roll for about a week, that post now has 129 comments, 5 reposts, and 22, 827 impressions! For me, that’s viral.
I have been watching all those comments roll in (thanks all for sharing) and wondering what observations I could draw from this impassioned outpouring of commentary. I’ve come up with a few. I hope they make sense to you, please comment away if you disagree or if I missed something (both likely potentials).
Observation #1: People have seemingly deeply held opinions about this. There were short and direct answers, “Training is an input. Learning is an output” (via Gareth Heryng but echoed by many). There were lengthier answers, “I guess for me learning is something we do every day, all the time and sometimes with more intent than others. Training is more intentional and specific to knowledge/skill development. Depending on the topic, I think both can be on a continuum of unstructured to structured” (via Brian Stowe). Donald Clark went meta on the industry side with “Training folk don't know enough about learning.... and learning folk don't know enough about training.” What was super interesting to watch was the speed that these comments came in with. People in this space have clearly been thinking about this and had answers in hand.
Observation #2: There was almost no mention of technology. Nope. Not an LMS or authoring tool to be found. As someone deeply interested in how technology (as defined loosely by software and hardware), can enable, empower, and extend both our training and learning capabilities, I find this observation challenging and heartening at the same time. It’s challenging in the sense (and maybe its how the question was formed), that if people don’t see tech as necessary or required, then those of us on the tech side, need to be sure and make our value prop clear - even if that value prop may be becoming an invisible but present part of the environment. I find it heartening that the group answering this question firmly understands that both training and learning can and do occur without tech - maybe that’s the follow up questions…hmmm…
Observation #3: Training is external and learning is internal. Time and again the commenters made this point - training is constructed, structured, and aimed at a particular skill or challenge. Learning is an internal process and can be supported and encouraged but ultimately is an individual dynamic. This was also echoed in comments that described training as being time bound (it ends) but hopefully, learning doesn’t. Training has structure and learning has agency.
Observation #4: There is a difference but we muddy the waters. This one I maybe gravitate toward because it echoes feelings I have (confirmation bias is so warm and cuddly). Regardless of the commenters’ exact description of the difference, people clearly saw differences as being present. I think only maybe 2 folks out of the whole body, said there was no difference. It was much cleaner when this industry (and here I’ll echo some of Brent Schlenker’s post), was the “training” industry. That’s a clear product and deliverable. Contact hours (butts in seats if you will), number of courses, completions, assessments all can enumerated and prices affixed. When we became the “Learning and Development” industry, things got less clear. Were we promising now to deliver learning? We certainly have learning management systems but the people putting content into those systems tend to be instructional designers (of late we see the growth of titles like learning experience designers). So now, we have training mixed with learning mixed with instructional design and overlaid with LMSs. I think that all of that was done with good intentions (and a healthy dose of marketing, learning does sound cooler than training), but I think that profusion of terms has created confusion both inside our industry and with our clients, customers, and end users. How can we as an industry, as a profession, as a practice, define ourselves to the rest of world and in doing so, draw really bright lines back to the value we provide without a common lexicon even among ourselves? I want this industry to succeed in what I see is the greatest potential disruption (AI and associated developments) it has ever faced. I think coming to agreement on what we mean we say things like learning and training would be huge, positive step. I wish us well.