Replying to LO29411 --
Dick,
You suggested that...
"Training" is almost always, in almost all situations: "telling," i.e. the
company does some manner of "needs assessment," seeking to determine who
needs to know what, and then, with almost no exceptions, TELLS people
where to go for training in what topics--as designed by those with
"training" in ISD and delivered by those with "training" in presentation
skills.
This "training" situation VS.
"Learning: asking work groups what information and knowledge THEY want to
deal with real and pressing business problems chosen by those doing the
work, and then providing "performance improvement consulting--PIC" etc.
People can (and surely do) write books about a new approach to theory, to
philosophy, to a single word. I notice that in the first paragraph I quote
above, you describe "training" as a noun over and over, and leave aside
the act of training.
Is "training" a higher level abstraction of learning? May or may not
learning occur in the act of training?
Can one also propose that although one learns, and can recount a learning,
there is a practical, manifested component to certain learnings wherein
the learning's APPLICATION occupies a foremost position?
All this by way of saying that there may spill into our list a series of
observations and reactions concerning learning and training, each with
merits, each with a defined field of comprehension, leading us round and
round.
For one, I deem training a positive opportunity; learning may or may not
be a tacit part of it, depending on means and ends.
For what it's worth,
Barry
-- Barry Mallis The Organizational Trainer 110 Arch St., #27 Keene, NH 03431-2167 USA voice: 603 352-5289 FAX: 603 357-2157 cell: 603 313-3636 email: theorgtrainer@earthlink.netLearning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.