Vana Prewitt wrote:
> Well, IMHO, the biggest difference is understanding some basics about
> cognitive psychology, learning theory, organizational communications &
> effectiveness, and instructional design. Although none of these
> disciplines, in particular, help a person function as a performance
> technologist, they help build a foundation for doing so.
>
> Training is, for me, about "the show."
> Performance improvement is, for me, "the result."
>
> If I stand up and yak at you for 4 hours, you are trained.
>
> If you demonstrate the ability to perform as intended, following a
> performance-based intervention (which may or may not have anything to do
> with training) we have engaged in performance improvement.
Vana--it's probably just syntax, but I have a problem with your example.
In 'performance-oriented training' environments, training wasn't yakking
so much as it was doing, albeit under controlled circumstances.
Frequently it was done over and over again under various conditions to
ensure that the function or task could be performed "real-time" under
almost any condition. This kind of training was used for initial
skills-building and for continued performance maintenance. Remedial
training was more of the same, but under slightly different conditions.
Remedial training was the term we used for 'performance-based
intervention.'
By varying conditions, we were attempting to get people to reason, think,
learn how to adapt. The task or function usually needed to happen
"automatically" under those varying conditions.
My question is, isn't this similar stuff with different names?
thanks for responding.
Doc
-- Richard C. "Doc" Holloway Thresholds--Human Development and Networking for Learning Organizations Visit my website at <http://www.thresholds.com/> Please note my new e-mail address--<mailto:learnshops@thresholds.com>"One thought fills immensity."
William Blake
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>