What's in a name?

It has annoyed me for some time now how the word 'Learning' is used with frequent regularity as if it is something which is provided, i.e. an input, instead of an outcome as a result of what has been provided.  Only the other day someone asked me about what had happened to the term 'Training and Development' and I found myself answering that 'Learning and Development' is a modern substitution for Training and Development, where the word 'training' has been dropped in favour of 'learning' so as to stress the outcome as well as the means.  But has it?  I'm not so sure now and here's why ...

If learning is an outcome and development (e.g. training, tutoring, coaching, mentoring) is an input then why are the two so often referred to in the same breath as if they are both inputs?  OK just think about this, if I were being extremely pedantic (if such a thing's possible) then the term learning and development is an oxymoron!  Back in 2005 I wrote an article entitled 'Training Fads and Fancies' and in it I stated the following ...

"One of the latest fads to hit training is to avoid any reference to it wherever possible.  For many, the term training is now a definite ‘no-no’.  Use the term and you risk a response of almost non-politically correct proportions in some quarters.  Now I know I might be treading on dangerous ground here, but it has to be faced that ‘learning’ is the new fad term.  As a result its unquestioned use has given rise to such contradictory terms as ‘learning and development’, ‘learning and resources’, ‘learning and development departments’, ‘learning managers’, and ‘learning consultants’.  I know I am not alone in thinking that training is an outward process, whereas learning is an inward one.  Whilst people in a department, or an association come to that, might be concerned with how and what people learn, they do not and cannot learn on behalf of others.  I don’t have a problem with terms like learning materials, learning workbooks, open learning, distance learning, e-Learning, The British Learning Association (now the British Institute for Learning and Development), or those who set out to provide effective learning solutions (well, I wouldn’t would I?), as all these use the word ‘learning’ in its proper context, but I do have a problem when it is used to replace ‘training’, especially when the latter describes perfectly adequately where a person’s or a department’s responsibilities lie.  I am sure that it won’t come as any surprise to know that I regard this latest development as faddism in the extreme."

... and, what's more, four years later I still do!

As long as we are clear about what we mean by 'Learning and Development' then no problem.  For example, I am passionately interested in how people learn and throughout my entire career I have sought to help people of all ages by providing solutions and inputs designed to aid their development, be these through teaching, training, coaching, consultancy, blended learning programmes, and so on.  I provide what I hope are quality development opportunities and advice but only the person at the receiving end can do the learning - I can't do it for them.  However, I am becoming increasingly worried about the growing trend to avoid any reference to or use of the word 'Training' as, in the end, I believe this to be extremely short-sighted and counter-productive.

Perhaps, if there are other like-minded souls out there, we should start a campaign to put the word TRAINING back on the map!

Horses for courses

I've just spent an enjoyable 45 minutes talking to a very nice lady who was researching the current state and future of e-Learning for the organisers of Learning Technologies following the mind-boggling article by Rob Chapman on Training Zone a few days ago:  in which he denounced e-Learning as a passing fad without one piece of factual evidence!

"So, is e-Learning the best delivery method then?" she asked me.  To which I replied "No, it's just one of many delivery methods available to us."  I then went on to explain that, whatever delivery method or methods is or are chosen, this decision should always depend on a number of factors.  First there is why people need to learn and what they need to learn, for example, for a qualification, for workplace performance, for their own needs/satisfaction.  Identifying the need then enables us to see whether the learning needs to be achieved through a training course, a development programme or an educational course.

Having decided the nature of the beast, it is then possible to produce a learning or instructional design for it.  This involves structuring and sequencing the content in relation to previously identified learning objectives and a detailed profile of the target audience, and deciding on the most cost-effective means of delivery.  The latter decision requires an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of all delivery methods as well as those which are available to both the organisation and to the end users, i.e. the learners.  Yes, it's horses for courses and in my view for the true training and development professional it has always been thus! 

Where people adopt this systematic approach, a 'blended solution' is often the end result as there is no one perfect delivery method.  For sure, sometimes e-Learning, particularly of the 'Rapid' kind, might form the total solution and that's not a problem when a proper needs analysis and instructional design has been undertaken.  However, far too often these essential steps or stages are ignored on the basis that "we don't have the time for all that" and this is where the rot sets in and does so very quickly.  I'm not a betting person but if I were I'd bet you a penny to a pound that the really bad examples of e-Learning which exist today were produced in the absence of any needs analysis and instructional design.

So, as far as I am concerned, e-Learning in all its many guises is definitely here to stay and will continue to grow in its use across the board.  However, the demands which this means of delivery places on those involved in its design, development and production is another matter altogether and definitely the subject of another blog!

Little Boxes

For those of you who know me well, you will know that for years I have had a complete abhorrence of putting people, their attributes, their personalities, etc. into little boxes (and have you noticed how often there are just 4 boxes into which one of which we all amazingly fit?).

Now, whilst professionalism at long last seems to be improving in the L&D world (thank goodness, as it's about time - a subject for another blog I think) the act of stereotyping, for that's what it is, still seems to abound.  Every day I come across some statement which goes along the following lines .... "and we need to take into account those who belong to (put in the name of your own favourite box here) because their requirements might be different to those in (and now enter the name of another favourite box here) ...".  What a complete load of old tosh me thinks and I have always thought so, and will continue to do so until someone proves me wrong - but that hasn't happened yet!

My ire was first aroused when I came across a very popular 'Learning Styles' inventory back in the late 1980s.  I simple couldn't believe that people were so gullible as to think for one moment that human beings displayed preferences for learning which neatly fitted into one of four boxes (or none, as some, like yours truly, has shown) using a tool which had no validity (since proved by independent research) or reliability.  But people did think so and, amazingly, they still continue to do so.  "We must take into account their learning styles" is a phrase that I still see and yet no one has told me how I am supposed to do this, irrespective of the means of delivery used in an educational, training or development programme!

Today there is another box system into which we are all supposed to fit depending on our age!!  This 'classification' system is being used to 'tell' others how people will react to using Web 2.0 tools and applications.  Again, I keep on coming across totally unproven statements, such as "Generation Y will want and expect ..... because they are ..... " whilst the poor 'old' baby boomer generation (that's supposedly me folks, based on my age) are simply a lost cause when it comes to using Web 2.0.  Well, have I got news for those who perpetrate such nonsense this baby bloomer is blogging - so there!!

Oh please, let's get real and stop trying to categorise people into nice, neat, simple boxes because it just doesn't work, it's an insult to the complexity which is humanity, and it makes our profession look completely idiotic - even though it has earned some people a nice little sum over the years.

OK, rant over, that is until the next time.

The place of design in learning

I have dithered for a while about doing this but I can't put if off any longer, even if my main reason is that everyone else I know is already doing it - blogging I mean.

There is so much going on at the moment in the L&D world about which I feel strongly and with which I am actively involved, that I am now humbled into thinking why should I keep it all to myself?

On Tuesday, at a British Institute for Learning and Development Connect meeting, I decided that the time had come to 'publish'. The meeting was concerned with Learning Design ( a subject about which I am immensely passionate) and Web 2.0 applications. Whilst I write articles regularly for a well-known publisher, these are only read by those who subscribe to the publication. One of the strengths of blogging is to publish your views for anyone to read and, more importantly, to comment on.

The use of blogs, wikis and social networking were all covered in the meeting from both technological and learning perspectives. As one of the speakers, I did my best to look at these applications from a learning perspective, as I have never liked seeing the technology tail wagging the learning dog and there was certainly a lot of wagging going on I can tell you!

I've now got to get to grips with this blogging technology, so my apologies if my early posts are somewhat on the basic side but I will try to improve in this regard. I am also aware that, in the fullness of time, I might decide that the decision I took on Tuesday was the equivalent of some glorified ego trip, in which case my blogging days will be over - I really hope that it doesn't come to this though.

Judith