I was speaking with a group of people recently and we were discussing the ongoing semantics of the language we use in learning.

My interpretation of the words we use is something like this:

Learning is the title of what we do. Under it are various subtitles, e.g. training, coaching, elearning. Each of those will have further subtitles as we move through the professional and technical elements of each part of the ‘job’.

What’s given me pause is the idea that training has now become learning. People are using the words interchangeably when they mean different things. I see lots of roles advertised as learning which are fundamentally training. I see people designing learning which are fundamentally training design. It’s almost as if training has become a dirty word and we are using learning to make it sound more elevated.

This creates a number of problems. Firstly, just changing the packaging doesn’t change the product; the phrase old wine in new bottles springs to mind. We see it with the phrase LMS – it’s a record of training, not learning.

Secondly (and perhaps more importantly), it creates reputational issues for the learning profession. If you’re branded as something new and innovative and that innovation is simply a new channel, a smart animation, or a change in someone’s job title, you’ll be creating a highly false perception of what your function offers.

The smart people recognise this and are re-branding as development. Development encompasses more skills – talent, recruitment, capacity building, etc – as well as a VERY specific skill/mindset/approach.

How nuanced are you in your approach, language and capability? I’d love to hear people’s thoughts on this.