Education, Training, and Learning

Are you educated?
Have you been trained?
Have you learned?

How would you answer the above questions?
I think that you will have a clear, unequivocal “Yes” for an answer, in the first case. Before you answer the other two questions, you will probably ask for some specifics. You would like to know:

• Trained on what?
• Learned what?

It’s clear that education has a much wider scope and it helps us develop our personality as well as our abilities so that we may function smoothly in our profession and also in the society. Thus a lathe operator, who has been trained on how to operate a lathe machine may or may not be “educated.” On the other hand, the lathe operator may have “learned” about the theory of machines on which he may not have been “trained.”

Education is generally understood to be formative in terms of cognitive abilities, building of character, and attitude determination. Thus, when we went to school and college, we were educated. Then when we joined our first job in our first organization, we were trained on the role-specific skills. When we became proficient in our roles, we grew in the organization, and then we turned to honing our skills and knowledge through learning. We learned, not through pre-structured training programs, but through self-paced exploration. So, let us restructure this term as self-learning.

As instructional designers we need to be conscious of this distinction. Creating content for education is different from creating content for training, which is again different from creating content for learning. The question is – what exactly brings about these differences.

Let us see.

Objective:

Education:
The primary purpose of education is to build the capability to do any thing… to perform any role (not yet defined) in the machinery of the world.
Training:
Against this lofty purpose, the objective of any training program is quite small, focused, and application-oriented.
Self-Learning:
Learning, which when understood semantically is present in all the three processes, has the objective of assimilating relevant information and categorizing it for easy retrieval later.

Term:

Education:
Education has a long-term perspective. It is about personality development, attitude formation, capability development, and so on.
Training:
Training is quite the opposite. It is short-term…in fact; it is micro-term when compared to education.
Self-Learning:
Learning is slightly different; it is an ongoing process, which is usually driven by the learner.

Process:

Education:
Education is usually institutionalized. Some part of it is compulsory. Education assumes assessment and certification.
Training:
Training is need-based. It may or may not be compulsory, and depending upon the content assessment may or may not be mandatory. For example, in a training program that trains nurses to apply injections correctly, assessment may be mandatory.
Self-Learning:
Well!

Thus, the distinction has its reasons to be. Instructional designers are called upon to create content for different uses. If you are an instructional designer, you could find yourself creating content for K-12, higher education, vocational courses, product and process trainings, and so on.

My experience tells me that if an instructional designer continues to create one kind of content for a long-long time, he or she begins to assume that the ID guidelines and the templates used for that specific type of content, are the best; and would work for all the other types of content too. Thus, an ID who has earlier worked only on IT training courses, assumes that the same direct, instructive, and procedural manner of imparting learning would work for a college-going audience too.

Remembering that the college students are in for education, and not for training; would help this instructional designer. These students want to enlarge their mind space. They want to “learn to learn.” They would like to enhance their capabilities – and in fact, the only thing that they are spending time on, is learning. They don’t want content in form of quick pills. (In fact, this is also true for those who take programs for learningJ) They all want to enhance their capability through learning, and they don’t mind spending the extra time getting their bearings in the content.

On the other hand, training programs and so the content for the training programs, needs to be focused. For organizational training programs, “need” is the supreme driver. A training program is born to satisfy and organizational need. This need has to be fulfilled in a given time period (which is usually a very short one,) and it has to ensure that the new skill/behavior has been assimilated by the end of the training program. The fulfillment of the need has to be then assessed too.

We know all this don’t we? I guess most trainers know all this very well. Most of the training programs are created keeping all these in mind. Yet, many training programs leave the audience high and dry. Why so? Well, because we cling to training without giving attention to learning. Here too, somewhere inside, the audience wishes to learn. Remember Tom Hanks in Castaway? Though he was stranded on the island with little hope of escape, he wanted to make use of his time in the best possible way. People want to make use of their time in the “best possible way.” Create training programs – follow all other rules that define trainings, but in the process, don’t forget the audience!

And then when we create content for learning (rather self-learning,) the characteristics of the learner, come in handy. Content creation for learning isn’t that easy. In fact, it requires that we remember the mercurial disposition of this learner all the time. If you don’t hold this learner’s attention, he or she moves on. This learner is continuously evaluating the ROI of the time spent on this content.

Education gives us the toolbox that contains all the tools that we need for functioning smoothly through our lives; training sharpens our tools for our immediate requirements; and learning helps us keep our toolbox up-to-date! A good designer doesn’t force them to swap their functions.

Author: Shafali R. Anand