Diane & Other LO Colleagues -
>It is interesting that you pick up on my usage of "learning" as opposed to
>"skill". My language belies a problem I struggle with that is deeper that
>semantics. I take your point that what I am talking about may well be
>skills instead of learning. However I was trying to get away from using
>the word 'training' and so substituted the word" learning". I tried to
>avoid using the word "training" for a couple of reasons. The first being
>because "training" has been used to describe the process that white
>bushmen in Australia subjected the aboriginal women to after they abducted
>them, earlier in our history. I find it hard not to think of this
>repulsive conotation when I use the word "training".
With tongue only slightly in cheek: I agree, and believe that many
"trainees" have come from their "training" experience with the same sorts
of feelings, if somewhat less intense and justified.
-snip-
>By using the word "learning" in this context, I am trying to indicate that
>learining happens in students heads and is someway owned and of benefit to
>the individual as well as industry. "Training" by contrast, seems to be
>something that is done to you, perhaps for the good of someone else.
Once again I agree with your position. Let me propose an actionable and
operational difference between "training" (and instruction and teaching)
and "learning:" Learning is each person's responsibility and opportunity,
a key element of being in charge of one's own self-development,
employability and career. The enterprise (company or other organization,
and all of its members, i.e. "the employer" and "the company of players")
have the obligation to support and encourage each member's learning -- for
their mutual benefit. If this concept seems not to be understood, a key
question is: <fontfamily><param>Times</param><bigger>"What do you want to
learn to improve your job performance and effectiveness, your current and
future employability?"
In contrast: "training" (and instruction and teaching) are corporate
(organizational) responsibilities and activities. The enterprise decides
who is to have what kind - type - extent of "training" -- or instruction
or teaching. The persons involved are often told, rarely asked or even
consulted.
If this key point is not understood, a key question is: "Who do you want
controlling your learning, knowledge resources, employability and career
progress?" Few choose the company or another company member!
If an organization wants authentic involvement they do well to adopt a
learning policy, to replace their training policy: more ask, less tell;
more consultation by each member with her or his work group leader ("the
boss") and a performance consultant to be sure that learning priorities
get set and a learning plan is completed by each member (in consultation
with the work group leader and the performance consultant) and kept on
track and on time as a development priority for each member of the
company.
When the company is really serious about continual improvement, a
low-cost, hi-impact strategy (when the culture is right to support REAL
involvement by all members choosing to participate) is (a) learning
planning, (b) process improvement training and (c) a creative ideas
program to fuel the fires of continual improvement with a never-ending
stream of creative ideas.
>In short I suppose that I am trying to indicate my philosophical leanings
>to being student centred and my underlying motive to be emancipatory or
>humanistic in my approach.
In addition to your motive consider the need for authentic involvement of
company members if competitive demands are to be met, e.g. effective
knowledge work, performance and results, in the information society,
global competition, demanding customers, rapid change with rampant
technology.
Trust this makes sense and welcome others' comments and questions and
reports of experience with this thread.
Dick Webster
Richard S. Webster, Ph.D. - President
Personal Resources Management Institute
709 Wesley Court - Worthington OH 43085-3558
e-mail <<webster.1@osu.edu>, fax 614-433-71-88, tel 614-433-7144
***
The Institute's R&D projects address the paradigm shift from "training,
instruction and teaching" to "learning" -- a key change for continual
improvement of the enterprise (company or other organization),
including: "better" leadership, systems, processes, ideas and quality;
more effective use of information and knowledge; higher involvement,
improved performance and productivity of company members and their
teams; with increased profits and other desired results. PRMI is a
501(c)3 non-profit research, development and consulting company founded
in 1978.
***
Thought: "Things are getting better and better and worse and worse
faster and faster" says Tom Atlee. Challenge: Finding and building the
"betters," in time. Idea: Try learning -- each person's responsibility
and opportunity.
--"Richard S. Webster" <webster.1@osu.edu>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>