I think training is geared toward a specific job task but education goes a step further and prepares students to know how to respond when the unpredictable happens, and there are no steps to follow in the job task to solve the problem. Here's what is available in RG that may be helpful for you:

https://www.researchgate.net/search.Search.html?type=publication&query=education%20versus%20training&tabViewId=57d803cadc332d785c59b2a4&previous=researcher

Best regards,

Debra

I think training is geared toward a specific job task but education goes a step further and prepares students to know how to respond when the unpredictable happens, and there are no steps to follow in the job task to solve the problem. Here's what is available in RG that may be helpful for you:

https://www.researchgate.net/search.Search.html?type=publication&query=education%20versus%20training&tabViewId=57d803cadc332d785c59b2a4&previous=researcher

Best regards,

Debra

At a very basic level I believe the word education has the connotation of academic skills whereas training tends to bring to mind vocational or daily living skills.

There are different approaches to the meaning of Education. Some researchers think that Education and instruction are equivalent, and that means obtaining academics skills, scientific knowledge. Others think that Education is a process (and the result) pursuing a more wide aim, including not only factual, scientific knowledge, but ethical, moral values too.

In any case, neither Education nor training are asociated with an unique conceptual system, as it frequently happens in Educational theories (one of the main problems in educational research and application). Then, I see only too alternatives: constructing a conceptual system, where both terms were well defined, or understanding both terms intuitively, and this is very language/cultural depending... or use both approaches, infering the first from the second.

Hi Don,

Training can be considered a subset of Education.

Training is the teaching and developing of skills and abilities, while Education commences with Training but extends into thinking and problem solving.

Example: During Early years of schooling, you will train a student in handwriting, sentence structure etc.  However, as students progress, they will utilise these skills to analyse, report, enquire. The ability to construct opinion, new and unique to them, is beyond training, but within education.

For vocational studies, Training can be considered what you are taught, Education is the work experience that you develop over time that allows you to work independently and instruct others.

One more analogy: Training can be considered your hands-on tool kit. Education is how and when you use it.

Warm regards

Frank 

Training is about doing the thing right whereas education is about doing the right thing. For me  that is the difference in a nutshell. Education should contain critical awareness and concerns asking the right questions about why things are as they are whereas as training is enacting a behaviour as efficiently as possible. Dave

 Hi Dave,

I very much liked your response. My only concern is the scenario of a well trained individual being uneducated. It is a very interesting distinction in terminology  that Don has asked for comment on. If education is a two sided coin with training on one side, perhaps the other side is humanity.

Frank

My five penny contribution is about the difference in the essence of the relationship.

In training good rapport in terms of affinity, sympathy, click is needed.

In education this has to go deeper into trust, mutual understanding and long term commitment.

It's just a question of definition. You can define these terms as you like. But I tend to say that training is rather a subset of education. 

In the DoD we deal with large training and large education enterprises. We tend to see education and training as heading toward different ends of the same continuum, maybe called instruction or learning or some better term.  We rarely find pure education or pure training.  All training has elements of education in it – if we want transfer and retention of knowledge and skill, learners need to get beyond just doing tasks and understand why they do them.  Our electrical technicians must understand Ohm’s law.  Information systems technologists must understand the basic differences between a router, a hub, and a modem.  Even cookbook statisticians such as myself must be able to understand some basic math. On the other hand, all education seems to have elements of training in it. If you want to do lab work and research, you need to become proficient at some lab techniques – if you want to do military tactics, operations, and even strategy well, you must know how to use and maintain whatever weapons you have at hand.

A big difference, say I, between education and training is their approach to objectives.  In training the basic, sine qua non, need is for learners to do specific, identifiable tasks and jobs well.  The objectives are not negotiable.  Education is different.  Its etymological roots point more to a process of bringing out than laying on.  Hence, the objectives of education seem more malleable and adjustable than those of training. They help a learner (echoes of Socrates, Lin Yutang, and others) to “learn thyself” as well as some skills and subject matter.  Again, these are matters of degree, but objectives are, or should be, more malleable in education than in training. In Peter Drucker’s terms, the focus in training is on doing things right, in education it is on doing the right things.

In PPT talk the difference seems to be something like this:

Education vrs Training

Life Objectives vrs Job Objectives

Negotiable Objectives vrs Non-Negotiable Objectives

Cost-Effectiveness vrs Return on Investment

An End in Itself vrs Means to an End

Includes Some Training vrs Includes Some Education

For those of us in the business of assessment/evaluation, this points to the relative ease of assessing training (can the learner now do the task/job?) – compared to assessing education (did the learner live a full life?). You may have to wait to the end of a learner’s life to determine the value of whatever education you provided.  Longitudinal studies are expensive and, well, time-consuming.

DF

Christopher Winch is very interesting on the positive view of training as enabling people to use abilities within a system rather than a limiting version of schooling that restricts potential.  He's writing from a Philosophy of Education background but writes in a practical way about vocational education as well.  A lot of the negative view of training comes from the associations with training dogs to sit etc, but Winch proposes a view of training as enabling rather than limiting.  In discussion with my undergrads they thought we need a different word for training which empowers people to use specific abilities in the best way (training nurses, doctors, pilots, engineers) and training people or animals to follow orders (a dog to sit, etc).

Hello Don

You ask the following: From a pedagogical perspective, what do you see as the most salient distinctions between education versus training?

Let me start by saying that, at first glance, it may be difficult to distinguish between training and education, mainly because they are both different aspects of learning. In this vein, training and education are not necessarily two opposite phenomena. Suffice it to say that the more one is cultivated in educational terms, the more one is in a good position to be trained in the acquisition of certain skills, such as those involved in being a lawyer, an electronic engineer, or even a carpenter. In the same vein, the more one is trained to be, for example, a good lawyer, the more one comes to know and understand, for instance, national or international legal codes and norms. That is, there is no training program which is conducted without education. Of course, education is more important for the employees working on a higher level (e.g., a physician or medical doctor ), as compared to the low-level workers (e.g., a baker) .However, there are major differences between training and education, for example, in terms of their purpose, history, and methodology.

In terms of purpose or goals, training is undertaken in the hope of gaining specific skills or jobs, such as to be a surgeon, lawyer, carpenter, and so forth.  These skills make one more employable, and they can be manual, such as plumbing, carpentry, weaving, and the like, or mental, such as computer programming, accounting, and marketing. On the contrary, education is undertaken in the hope of fostering one’s knowledge and development, say, of one’s cognitive, emotional, social, moral or aesthetical intelligence, just to mention five types of one’s intelligence. Although a highly educated person is often more employable, education is not about getting a job in a near future. In a nutshell, education is to knowing and theoretical intelligence such as training is to doing and, as it were, practical intelligence. In other words, when we think of education we often think of teachers/professors and pupils/students. In contradistinction, when we think of training we often think of trainers/trainees, employers and employees, and the like.

In terms of history, training was originally practiced through guilds. For example, youngsters would be apprenticed to a master baker or carpenter and work under him in order to learn his job or profession. This was considered the proper method of learning for the lower and middle classes. Education has its origins mainly in the ancient Greek schools and the medieval universities system. Young men from wealthy families would complete a course in philosophy, for example, before studying his chosen profession.

In terms of methodology, training is usually done through specialized courses and prescriptive textbooks. Independent thinking at a micro level is encouraged. Revolutionary innovation, however, is often looked down on. Training generally comes in a course. When the course is completed, the training is done. In contrast to this, education is a lifelong and multifaceted process. Most educational learning is done through comprehensive handbooks, rather than strict textbooks. The learner is encouraged to think and write about what s/he is reading. Any point is open to discussion, this not being generally the case of training.

In today’s school systems, the distinction between education and training can be very fine. Especially at the collegiate level, many areas of mental training are being passed off as education. Programming, for instance, requires a difficult and specialized skills set and needs years of training. However, its end result is employment rather than self-improvement and search, for instance, for the unknown and the truth.

In a nutshell, education’s purpose is to create lifelong independent thinkers, creators and innovators, whereas training focuses on skills looked for employers. Training has its roots or origins in a guided system, whereas education’s roots lie in schools and universities, although education outside schools and universities is also possible. Note that no specific skill can be acquired without practice. How can one thinks of a driver who only hears of, or reads about, driving? 

I think that many theorists and researchers would agree on the following: (a) Training is focused on acts of inculcating specific skills in a person, whereas education refers to gain theoretical knowledge, generally in the classroom or any educational institution; (b) Education is a typical system of learning, whereas training is a way to acquire specific skills; (c) Training is mainly based on practical application, whereas education involves a theoretical tone or orientation; (d) The concept of education is wide, while the concept of training is comparatively narrower; (e) Training has to do with hands-on experiences regarding a particular job or skill, while education appeals to learning in the classroom; (f) The duration of education is generally longer than the duration of training; (j) Training prepares an individual for the present job. In contradistinction, education prepares an individual for future jobs and challenges; (i) Such as mentioned earlier, the purpose of training is to improve the performance and productivity of employees. The main purpose of education is to develop one’s intellectual, moral, emotional or aesthetical intelligence; (g) While training, a person learns how to do well a specific task – to do the thing right -- as noted by David. Unlike training, education teaches us general concepts, norms, principles, and so forth, and to raise problems and generate solutions for them.

A way of understanding the main differences between training and learning may be to think about the what, the why, the how, and the when of both training and education.

The what of training and education has to do with what training and education are about. In this vein, we can say that training is nothing but learning by doing, and that it involves the acquisition of specific manual or mental skills. In contradistinction, the what of education has a broader scope and it involves the acquisition and development of several competencies -- rather than skills – mainly related to the understanding and the knowledge of the true, the good, and the beautiful. In other words, the what of training has more to do with doing, performing certain tasks and (practical) success, whereas the what of education has more to do with knowing, solving problems of any type, and (theoretical) knowledge and understanding.

The why of education and training has to do with the factors, variables, and the like that bring about, condition or cause training and education. As I see it, although education does not equal to schooling in that we are greatly responsible for our education and development (see, for this respect, Piaget’s theory), one’s education greatly depends upon what an individual learns in terms of knowledge and understanding when s/he is in school, college or university. In contradistinction, note, for example, that the traditional professions like accountancy, law and medicine require a period of further practical training after academic studies are complete. In a nutshell, the why of education lies mainly in schools of any type, this not being generally the case of training, which requires specific courses and programs that normally take place outside schools, colleges or universities. These programs are specially designed and promoted by the focal organizations, firms, enterprises, and the like.

The how of education and training has to do with the mechanisms and processes (e.g, neural, psychological, social) at work, when one acquires a given set of skills, such as happens in training, or a given set of intellectual, moral, social, moral or aesthetic competencies or abilities such as happens when education is the case. Given that training is, so to speak, more concerned with practical success than theoretical understanding, it makes sense to think of internal psychological processes, such as intending, pretending, believing, faking, and so on, when education is the case, and of external mechanisms, such as to consult a textbook or follow certain guidelines, rules of thumb, and the like when training is the case. In a nutshell, external mechanisms are to training such as internal processes are to education. In terms of neural processes there is mounting evidence that shows that the more an activity is complex, for example, in cognitive terms, the more certain regions of one’s brain, namely its prefrontal cortex, are activated in terms of electrical firings and connections among neurons.

The when of training and education has to do with the suitable time for one to be trained to acquire certain skills, do a certain job, and perform a given profession or an appropriate time to acquire and develop competencies of several types .As there are jobs and jobs and professions and professions, there is a time for certain jobs and professions and a time for other ones. It would be untenable to argue for a medical doctor at the age of 19 years, whereas it makes sense, for instance, to think of a 19-year- old- craftsman. In the same vein, it would be impossible to teach to a 4-year-old boy/girl the proportionality concept because such concept is only at the reach of, say, a Piagetian formal operational individual. This means that although there exists a due time for a specific training and  be trained or educated, most of the time it makes more sense to speak of due time in the education process than in the training process. In other words, it makes more sense to think of a developmental or ontogenetic time in the field of education than in the field of training. In this respect, it is worth mentioning that the psychologist Jean Piaget, a psychologist interested in development and education, not training, accepted that, to an extent, it is possible, to accelerate and train the subject’s operational competencies, such as class inclusion, conservation, or transitivity, Piaget [See  Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education.  New York: Grossman Publishers] had the following to ask:

(1) Is such training beneficial or rather detrimental to the child’s development and education?  For Piaget, whenever one prematurely teaches a given child something that s/ he could have discovered by himself that child remains deprived of complete understating.

(2)  Is this learning through training lasting?

(3)  How much generalization is possible?

(4)  What was the subject’s operational level or stage of development before a given training  experience, and what more complex structures has this training succeeded in achievement?

 I think that these Piagetian wise questions shows us that, although related to each other, training and education are to two different and distinct phenomena. In short, training helps in imparting job-related skills in the employees such that they can do the job efficiently and effectively. Education means learning in the classroom to acquire certain types of knowledge. Even though education does not equal to schooling, it refers mainly to what a person gains while s/he is in school, college or university. It is aimed to deliver knowledge about facts, events, values, beliefs, general concepts, principles, and so forth to the students. This helps in developing a sense of reasoning, understanding, ad judgment and  in an individual.

I hope that this helps,

 Best regards,