quote:

This is perhaps a matter of terminology, so without becoming too academic about this, lets say that I consider "facilitation" as a helping activity which may not require transfer of skills and training as an activity that involves the transfer.

SC, I agree with you and your definition. Using that definition, "facilitators" should not come across in any way as "trainers." Or even say they "facilitate" learning. If there is no transfer of anything, what would you call that activity? Perhaps, having a good time? I agree with what you're saying. It's the ridiculous notion that one does not need to know anything about the subject matter. Again, one of my questions to LL, "what if they make the wrong cognitive connection?? Cognitve connections surely imply learning - else it should not be done under the guise of WPL. The whole concept is ludicrous - of course, I could be totally misinterpreting the post, but with no discussion, there is no way to tell.

But there is a real need for training professionals to understand what the difference between training and facilitating is - so that we stop hiding behind the term "facilitating" and claiming that we are contributing to corporate learning.

It's fine to facilitate a meeting, as one example - but the participants are not engaged in a "learning" activity. To facilitate a meeting, one need not know anything about a subject. Learning is not the objective. Getting something accomplished and agreed to is the purpose of facilitating a meeting. And one can, if qualified, facilitate a therapy or counseling session. People there make their OWN cognitive connections. In that case there is no right or wrong. When learning occurs in a corporate environment, I would hope that there are some "cognitive connections" that are better than others and that it is important to learn the ones that are better. Otherwise, you have a free-for-all - and that does not belong in any learning department.

But alas, I don't think there is any interest in this forum in discussing the difference between training and facilitating. I wonder why? Perhaps the reason is that it would reveal a lot that is wrong with what we are selling companies as learning? And maybe it would signal that we really do need to have some sort of qualifications required to be in this field?

And most importantly for this forum, the original poster here is asking for feedback on what trainers do - what qualities and duties they have. Isn't it therefore important to at least have a discussion on the most basic of terms!

Can't agree more Kaliko.

In my experience, when it comes to discussing terminology, people fall to two camps. One believe that it's pointless and the other think that it is necessary. I think either way its the bottom line that matters, such as "what are the qualities of a good trainer". What should they know, which is the main topic of this thread. A discussion based on terminology sheds light on where we need to focus on so, hopefully, help us and new comers to understand where we are heading.

Like you, I would be interested to know what other users views are on this and of course on the original question ask in this thread.

There are some presentations at the TWI Summit websites that may be of use for you. Perhaps your presentation date has already passed, but I suspect you may find materails here that can enhance your learning experience.

Link to TWI Service Resources page - TWI Summit presentations