You’d be surprised how many trainers believe that training and learning mean the same thing, which is one of the scariest indictments of at least some trainers one can imagine. It’s like not understanding the difference between driving a car or riding in a car. Or listening and speaking. Or being sick and doctoring the sick.
I’ve seen literally dozens of people who actually train people blatantly suggest they are the same. Here’s additional comment.
Someone said:
> So what make you believe that there is a difference? This is your
> problem Robert, you want everyone else to elaborate definitions, yet you
> will make none yourself. If someone’s definition does not suit you, then
> you belittle or argue. The reason that there is “no grounds for
> discussion” is NOT my definition, it is your refusal to communicate.
I’m sorry.. The only explanation I can offer for your equating thewords learning and training is some kind of language problem, and Itook for granted that the differences are so obvious that anyone would realize them, semantically. Regardless…
There are obviously dozens of possible definitions for both, so I’d suggest hitting a dictionary, but learning is a process that occurs inside the person, while training (the noun) is a process that occurs in the environment with an intent to create learning.
…it’s as basic as the difference between reading and writing. I’m sorry if this sounds snotty, but I’d expect such a simple distinction to be obvious.
PS.
“…learning is a process that occurs inside the person…”
Would you say that includes or excludes the conscious activities that the learner undertakes? Me, I’d separate those out as “studying”, but that may just be my own take.
If we aren’t too concerned that we have formal definitions, I guess I’d say that studying involves certain activities with the intention of learning (or with the intended result being learning).
Studying seems to me to be a “thing” like reading, or listening or watching.
There are a number of different learning definitions, but one thing is sure, training and learning mean different things no matter what def. of learning you choose.
(One could argue that learning is as ongoing and fundamental to living things that it “goes without saying” that it is like breathing. One only stops when when is dead.)
…but that brings up the question of why we define learning as something that happens here and there, when it, in fact happens continuously, every minute of the day. Sorta.
Hi, Why is it so important to find the difference. Whether internal or external, long time or short time, every learning needs to find itself a form to be expressed. Training is a proces where we try to put to use that we have learnt in a practise environment. One cannnot be trained if one has not learnt what one should be doing and at the same time when one is underdoing training job, one comes across new situations and tends to learn. So in my opinion training is the practical side of learning and not time bound or environment based.
I think it’s important for those who purport to deliver content, deliver experiences, and deliver packaged solutions to understand the difference. The failure to recognize the difference indicates that the transmitter of the message doesn’t have the right world view to be making that transmission.
We can’t package learning. To me, it’s simple. The outcome is a change in the learner’s ability to perform a task, or their ability to deal with a contextual problem. If I focus on me, I’m not servicing that outcome. This can result in other problems, like the inappropriate application of ‘solution’ where training might not be the right thing to close the gap.
Training and learning are not the same. One results in the other if we’ve done everything right.
And I’m a prior vocational trainer:) So all trainers aren’t confused about the distinction!