In the thread "Leaving out the "I" factor" KaliKo expressed that it is sometimes necessary to train individuals to perform tasks in a standardized way "You're trying to prevent having people doing the same tasks in different ways. A major goal is standardization of task accomplishment and also training consistency."

I generally offer classes where teaching different approaches to problems is part of the goal of the event. So what is the difference?

In my opinion there are two types of events often grouped under the heading of "training": those where the participants learn do do something in a standardized way and those where people learn concepts. Some examples of the first type:

• Soldering components onto a circiut board
  
• Making fancy flowers for wedding cakes
  
• What to do in case of a fire in an office building
  
• How to fill out health insurance forms
  

Some examples of the second type:

• Writing software in e.g. C#
  
• Configuring network security systems
  
• Making presentations
  
• Writing business documents
  

I'm sure all of us can think of tasks in each of these categories. To be fair, there are some topics inbetween. Using MS Word is a good example. When I teach people to use Word, I generally teach one way to open an existing file. Shortly after they master that one, I mention that there are three commmon ways to open files: keyboard shortcut, icon, menu item.

At a seminar on "training" I heard interesting definitions of training and teaching: if the participants are encouraged to think, its education, if they aren't is training. This is pretty much aligned with the two llists above.

It turns out that by the definition above, whether you agree or disagree with the actual words used, many of us do primarily "education" while others do primarily "training". I tend to do a lot of education and less training. How about you?

This is one of those discussion like when guys sit around a bar and argue about what's a sport and what isn't.

In the dictionary and in practice, these words are synonyms and used interchangably.

The big difference between your two lists is that one has simple items and the other complex. I don't see anything in the definitions that training is simple and education complex.

But let me toss in this idea, would you rather go to a doctor who is well educated or well trained? Who do you want to land the plane, someone who is well educated or well trained?

What do you think most companies would want, a sales force with the best education or a sales force that's had the best training?

Learning is an interest substitute word becuase it is more student focuses and relates to what students get out of education and training.

This is sort of the T&D equivalent of theologians discussing how many angels fit on the head of a pin.

I agree with Learning Paths.

Learning is a continuum, IMHO. Bloom frames it in a taxonomy going from knowledge to evaluation-- what you have listed are some tasks that require only the bottom levels of the taxonomy while others require going to the top level.

In corporate America most courses have a learning outcome aimed at a business objective. Where that falls on the continuum of skills, knowledge, and abilities will be tailored to suit the need.

In a university setting there is more room for knowledge-for-the-sake-of-knowledge approach.

LPC,

To me, this is not a bar-type discussion. it is important for professionals to be able to distinguish what they do. My focus is to try to focus this discussion on what we expect of the "learners" or "participants" in our "events: do we want them to respond in a particular way or do we wand them to be able to reason and think?

We want solderers to act in a standard way. We want programmers to develop innovative solutions (or maybe we want software designers to do that -- it depends on the size and type of the organization, for example). The point is we want two distinct results for our learners.

I do not think the difference in the two areas is just "simplicity". If so, I need to choose better examples. I think the jet pilot needs to be educated about how to fly, and trained how to respond to emergencies, etc.

Your question about the sales force illustrates my point to some extent. Shoe salespeople, if my understanding is correct, probably need good training. Sellers of training programs probably need good education: they need to be able to discover what the customer needs and how to deliver/provide it.

If you'd prefer, the question could be rephrased, "What do you want your participants/learners to do: act or think?" I want my learners to think in a particular way. I suspect there are others who want their learners/participants to behave/act in a particular way.

So, Amy_L, are you saying that one uses the same techniques to teach how to find a particular size and style of shoes in a storeroom as one uses to teach how to decide on what technique to use to sort shoe sizes in a C# program? Not me. Teaching those two techniques are different.

If you prefer to look at this in the light of Bloom (and I'm not sure that is appropriate), it seems clear that one teaches the different levels differently, right? Would the floor salesperson ever need to understand the box numbering system? Wouldn't she just need to know how the system works?