More on Distinction between training and learning
I’m not downgrading what you are suggesting, but I don’t want my surgeon to have “learned ONLY by doing”
Go figure. Here’s another exchange between myself and John Howe about the relationships between training and learning.
John Howe wrote:
> “Learning” is (solely) an activity of learners. It does not require
> “training” for it to occur. In fact, there is likely a less than positive
> correlation between “training” and desired “learning.” Trainers in my
> experience almost invariably get in the way of learning.
I think that it’s necessary to make the distinction between good, effective training, and poor training, and it doesn’t sound to me like you are doing so. Clearly, bad training is bad training, and if that’s all you are familiar with, then it’s easy to conclude (falsely and sadly, illogically) that all training is ineffective.
>
> “Training” on the other hand is something done by “trainers.” As you can
> see from my claim above there is no necessary relationship between
> “training” and “learning.” At least in the sense of “desired, predictable
> learning.” The things learned in many training sessions are likely not
> related to the objectives the trainers are claiming to achieve.
Again, when training design and delivery is lousy, the results will reflect that.
>
> The usual reason for making this distinction is that it has implications for
> instructional design.
>
> By far most instructional designs are “trainer-centered,” that is they
> devote most of their attention to what the instructors will be doing while
> learning is ostensibly occurring, but little about what the purported
> learners will be doing (accept sitting as passive listeners or recipients of
> knowledge).
Then it’s bad instructional design that is done incompetently and by people who don’t know what they are doing. Effective instructional designs are BASED on an understanding of how people learn, and involve specifying learning and training activites to reflect that.
Again, if someone doesn’t know much about instructional design, it may appear that it is as you describe. Good design and delivery works. Bad doesn’t.
>
> If you did a frequency distribution on the concerns most visible on trdev
> you would find that the first letter of its acrynym is well-earned. There
> is little interest here in “learner-centered” instructional design.
Depends what you mean. For many learner-centered means a lot of things that are simply not consistent with how people really learn. It’s become an “ideology” much like a religion. The result is that a
good number of training and learning approaches get thrown out in knee-jerk reactions, despite the fact that they are all around us, have decades or more of successful use, but simply don’t fit a
laissez-faire “learner knows best” religious belief.
>
> But it is possible to “arrange for learning to occur” without engaging in
> much “training.” It is very possible to build experiential sequences that
> simulate the feature(s) of the job it is desirable for the learner to learn
> and then ask the learners to use them in interative practice and critique
> modes until they can perform as desired.
By themselves (if these are the only learning experiences provided) they make learning extremely inefficient. We currently live in a society that believes that expertise is unimportant, and that everyone can learn anything on their own.
I keep thinking about who I’d want to do open heart surgery on me — someone who has been taught through a systematic disciplined process by people who have huge experience and expertise (yes, even if that involves sitting in lectures), OR do I want people who ONLY learned through what you call experiential experiences.
I’m not downgrading what you are suggesting, but I don’t want my surgeon to have “learned ONLY by doing”. I value expertise, book learning, theory, and a lot of things that simply aren’t part of “experiential learning”.