Replying to LO13913 --
On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Slamet Hendry wrote
> "The false correlation of learning with training or education is one of
> the most common and costly errors in corporation management today."
> - (John Seely Brown, Xerox Research Center)
...snip...
> My question is, how would you explain it to your colleagues of differing
> backgrounds?
Slamet, while I don't disagree with your characterization of the "loss of
content" inherent in much training, it seems to me that the difference
between training and learning is more complex than this. To name a few
points for discussion,
1. "Training," as you present it, suggests the delivery of discrete
quanta of information in a more-or-less one-way direction. Leaving aside
the question of whether this is so or not, the "taking in and applying"
process on the part of the recipient is dependent on a huge set of
variables (e.g., practice and reflection opportunities; individual and
corporate culture supportive of learning applications, etc.) On this
point, one might say to a colleague that learning and application doesn't
begin until _after_ the "training event," and is highly dependent on the
reinforcement (or not) fostered by the company's subsequent actions.
2. Another way to present this might be to invite your colleague to
reflect on his/her own learning experiences, and think about some of the
conditions that were necessary and sufficient for him to "translate"
training into embedded knowledge available for application.
I think there's lots more that could be said, and expect that others will
want to add their thoughts. Hope this is useful.
Malcolm Burson
--"Malcolm Burson" <mooney@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>