Training and Education1

Training and Education:
Dr. Parveen Agaz

Senior Mangment Councellor
Bangladesh Instutte of Management (BIM)
Although training and education are often used

interchangeably, there are some important
differences between them. Let us look at the
following statements of some renewed authorities
illustrating these differences:
(1) Those of us who know where they are going,

and can define the path that leads there, are in the
business of training, where as those who neither
know their destination nor the means of getting
there are in education (skinner, 1965).

(2) On a continuum that has personal maturation and
growth at one and improvement in the performance of
predetermined tasks at the other, education would be
near the former and training near the latter. (Lynton and
Pareak, 1967)
(3) Where exactly to draw the line between training and

education in this continuum is not clear, But perhaps it is
also not important. Perhaps it is more important to
realize that must teaching/ learning situations contain
something of each(ROmiszowski, 1961)
It is revealed that training and education are on
a continuum and each of them contains
something of the others. Both concern with
knowledge, understanding and skills. In both
cases learning acts as the central process. In
fact, they complement to help learners/ trainees
to improve their knowledge, understanding and
skills.
The objective of training is specific, well-defined
and measurable. (Perry and Rabinson, 1979). These
are set by the training by analyzing both the required
competencies in the job of the trainees and their
present level of mastery. Although, both job and
person analysis are involved in establishing these
objectives, the greater emphasis is given on the job
and that is why training is considered job-oriented.
Moreover, training objectives are usually set in
behavioral terms.
On the contrary to this, education does not have any
such sell-defined, specific objectives. Although the
educators claim that they have some idea about their
ends, these are implicit and expressed in abstract terms.
The educators believe that education aims at opening up
the world to the learners and then they will establish
their individual aims and strive to achieve those with the
resource of the educational institute and their teachers.
“Free-discovery|” and not guided learning is the oft-
quoted emphasis in education is the personal
development.
Education and training also differs in terms of their duration.
Education Objectives take longer time and in education it is often
quoted. That “we are students throughout our lives”. But in training,
the objectives are very precise and the duration of training program to
achieve these are also much to short. Of course, there are some skills
(e.g. flying a fighter plane) which involve longer time. So, this
difference of duration should not involve longer time, So, this
difference of duration should not be treated as a rigid criterion to
differentiate between training and education. Tannehill (1970)
considers that training deals with mechanistic white education
concerns with organic learning. Mechanistic learning is achieved as a
result of stimuli and responses and is reinforced by practice while
organic learning leads to a change in the individual instead of his /
her skills. Moreover, in organic learning the results are unpredictable
and the influence of external factors very great.
In terms of its contents, education differs
considerably from training. Education courses
provide a wide variety of conceptual and theoretical
materials to the students with a view to developing
their, ‘analytical and critical faculties’. But in the
case of training, the materials are chosen very
carefully depending wholly on the deficiencies of
the trainees to perform their jobs. Thus, the contents
of training are job-oriented while those of education
are subject-oriented.
Training and Learning :
Learning is defined as a relatively permanent change in behavior that
occurs as a result of practice or experience. (Bass and Vaughan, 1966).
Training involves learning process in bringing about change in the
Learner’s behavior. Thus, these two terms are very closely related.
McGehee and Thayer (1964) consider the central process of training is
learning. Both Training and Learning have the same aim i.e change in
behavior. That is why those two items are often used interchangeably.
But despite all these similarities, there are some obvious difference.
They are s follows:
(1) Training is, in fact, the cause and learning the effect and not vice
versa. The immediate objective of training is to impart learning. Thus,
training and learning, although have the same aim, are different terms.
(2)Training Prepares the ground so that learning process
takes place. Kink (1964) considers “training surely amounts
to providing the conditions in which people can learn
effectively”. In fact, people learn from various sources and
even in the absence of training. But training creates favorable
condition to expedite learning.

(3)All types of learning are not desirable in training. Thus, a
weaver’s poor job performance does not imply that learning
has not taken place. Rather, it indicates the effect of learning
an inefficient performance. But this type of learning is
undesirable in training. Training aims at only that learning
which contributes to the improvement of job performance
Thus learning and training, although, very close, are in
fact, different processes. Training to be effective, just
facilitators the learning process to occur and guide
them to result in the desired on-the-job behavior
required of the trainees. Lynton and pareek
(1967)express the role of a trainer in connection with
learning process with the help of an excellent example:
“He (trainer) is like a farmer who prepares the soil,
plants good and tends and nurtures the new growth. He
does not harbor the illusion that he makes things grow
or determines their ultimate size and shape”.
Training and Management Development:
Management Development and Training are often used synonymously
and in some instances very vaguely. But recently , serious attention
has been given by some authors to highlight the differences between
them. (Drucker, 1979); Taylor and Lippitt, 1975; Digman, 1980,
Atawood, 1979). Management Development is defined as “an
activity directed at identifying managerial talent, developing it as a
resource and deploying it within the enterprise” (Lawrence, 1977).
Pater Drucker (1974) differentiates between the ask of developing
management (concerned with the health, survival and growth of the
organizational and the task of developing managers (concerned with
health, growth and achievement of the individual). Both
management and manager development deal with the skills people
need, structure of jobs management relations and the aspirations
comes to be a buffer between the enterprise with its organizational
demands and the individual with career aspirations”. (Lawrence,
1977).
With this brief outline about management
development it is possible to attempt to differentiate
it from training. They differ usually on the
following aspects:
(1) Training leads to improve the specific knowledge,
skills and attitudes of an employee which are needed
by his/ her job, white management development
leads to prepare the employees to meet company
goals in specific positions or functions, Thus,
training is job-oriented while management
development is person-oriented (Warren, 1979).
(2) Training is one of the many ways or means to the end management
development and not vice versa. The other means and reorganization or
managerial functions. education, assessment center, promotion job
relation, career planning and career progression, guided experience and
so on. “Course (training are a tool of management development. But they
are not management development, (Drucker, 1974).
(3) Training deals with the needs of the present job and the objectives of
training is to meet the short requirements of the job in terms of required
behaviour. But management development deals with long-term objectives
of the organization, It prepares the managers to cope with future change.
“Management Development is outside focused rather than inside –
focused .... Management Development, seen this way is an innovator, a
disorganizer, a critic. Its function is to ask with respect to the company’s
human organization, “What is our business, and what should it be?”
(Drucker, 1974).
Training and Management Development
(4) Contents of training are well-defined and expressed in
specific behavioral terms emanating from particular job/
task requirement. Whereas the contents of management
development are wide, complex and not specifically
expressed in terms of actual behavior. It leads to improve
the existing behavior of the employee so that when
necessary, the can change and modify the position,
structures, relations and even the organization itself.
“Training needs are based on present and anticipated task
requirements, whereas management development needs
are based on planned human resource requirements to
meet organizational goals (Warren, 1979).
Training and Management Development
Thus, although both training and management
development have the same aim-development of
human resources, they differ in their emphasis,
content and process. While management
development deals with development function,
training concerns with maintenance and
replacement function. (Morris, 1978). The
organization requires for its proper development a
harmonious link between tehm.
THE END

Training and Education1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Training and Education1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Training and Education1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Training and Education:

Dr. Parveen Agaz

Although training and education are often used

(1) Those of us who know where they are going,

(3) Where exactly to draw the line between training and

You might also like