Within the training industry there has always been a philosophical debate about which trainer is more effective, the one that has a teaching background that has learned the subject matter, or a subject matter expert who has learned to teach. Often this debate leads to another philosophical debate on which business we are in, Education or Training? And what is the difference one might ask?
Wikipedia defines ‘Education’ thus: Education in the largest sense is any act or experience that has a formative effect on the mind, character or physical ability of an individual. In its technical sense, education is the process by which society deliberately transmits its accumulated knowledge, skills and values from one generation to another.
Wikipedia defines ‘Training’ to mean: the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and competencies as a result of the teaching of vocational or practical skills and knowledge that relate to specific useful competencies. It forms the core of apprenticeships and provides the backbone of content at institutes of technology (also known as technical colleges or polytechnics).
We Are Trainers
Accepting these definitions, one would have to agree that those of us who are in the training industry are most often engaged in the teaching of vocational or practical skills and knowledge that relate to specific useful competencies, i.e. Java programming skills, or Project Management training, which means we are in the training business and not the education business. Though there are educational aspects to what we do, training is the business we are in.
Professional Teacher or SME?
Accepting that we are in the training business brings us back to the question posed by the title of this article. Which talent set is most effective in the classroom, a professional teacher who has learned the subject matter, or a subject matter expert who has learned to teach? I have heard so very many eloquent arguments supporting both sides, but my answer is: “It all depends.”
Effective Trainers Must Have a Broad Range of Skills
To be successful, you must have teaching skills and you must also be a subject matter expert. To train adults in a professional classroom setting you must possess the presentation, classroom management, and leadership skills necessary to manage the learning process. You must also have an appreciation for different learning styles and how to monitor and evaluate understanding.
In addition, you must have an understanding of the subject matter that extends beyond the intended boundaries of the course objectives allowing you to answer questions and present examples that allow students to meet or exceed the learning goals. And this is where I differentiate between teachers who have learned the subject matter through study and practicing subject matter experts who have learned to teach.
In some environments Trainers must also function as the Instructional Systems Designers which incorporates its own set of knowledge and skills that require a much more comprehensive understanding of the learning process. For the purposes of this article I am focusing only on classroom effectiveness and ignoring this additional skills requirement.
Who Are You Training?
Depending on our target audiences, we may need both skill sets in our pool of delivery resources. Individuals with educational backgrounds are more responsive to and more effective in teaching entry-level students. People who are experiencing their first exposure to the topic may have no foundation upon which to build which requires more of an educational approach to allow them to put the new knowledge and skills into perspective. Students who are new to the topic are sometimes embarrassed and hide their lack of understanding. Advanced practitioners are often too far removed from the neophytes to have the empathy required to see the lack of understanding and or the patience to work with students to help them gain the knowledge they need.
On the other hand, advanced students may have several years of exposure to the topic or to a related topic, and they have little tolerance for instructors who are not experienced or not able to cite practical examples from experience. Advanced students come to class with an expectation of leveraging the instructor’s experience to reduce their own learning curve. They easily detect experiential weakness and will quickly lose interest in listening to someone they do not feel is up to their expectations. Many of these students are silent and do no reflect their displeasure until after the fact resulting in poor satisfaction reports. Others are more verbal about their concerns and a few can be disruptive.
Good instructors can use various classroom management techniques to maintain control of the learning environment, but I have to ask, is it our job to manage the students to what we want to accomplish or is it our job to help them achieve what they came to learn? Do we want to rely on classroom management skills to compensate for experiential weakness?
Expectations Management
It is all about managing expectations. Entry-level courses should be presented by those who have the appropriate student empathy and the teaching skills to create the foundations for future learning. Advanced topics should be presented by experienced professionals who can help the students to put the knowledge and skills into practice solving real-world problems.
In a perfect world our instructors would have professional teaching backgrounds and real-world experience and have the ability to help all learners, neophytes and experts alike to achieve their learning goals. Given the rarity of these resources it is up to those of us who manage the delivery of training to match the appropriate delivery resource to the audience needs and expectations.
What do you think? Which background do you think is most effective?
Posted by Gordon R. Clogston on January 10th 2011 09:10 am
