This thread starts with a presentation by Clark Quinn, which includes an examination of what he calls ePerformance tools. I think Clark’s work adds some clarification to the field and i agree with the intent to move away from the all-encompassing “learning” word, which is overused and misused.

Tony Karrer picks up on th ePerformance theme and notes:

I like the way he [Clark] stepped through the transition from thinking in terms of courses to thinking about broader uses of technology to support performance. His terminology around elements of what goes into ePerformance is a bit different than what I discussed in the learning circuits articles. The concepts are fairly similar.

This is followed by Stephen Downes take on the subject:

The main benefit of a term like ‘ePerformance’ for employers, I would say, is that there is no chance that learners will think that there is any intrinsic value to themselves in the transaction. Because if they did, then they would want to own the process, which is totally not what corporate e-learning is about.

I disagree with Stephen because a move toward performance and away from learning as the main objective of organisational interventions is much clearer. The intervention is focused on some type of desired performance that is made clear to both the organisation and the worker. The organisation wants stuff done and wants to be able to measure it. The worker wants to be able to show that it has been done and in return there is a financial transaction.  This does not preclude organisation-sponsored learning activities that are not directly equated to performance, and these should be encouraged in the modern workplace where much knowledge work can not be finitely described in performance terms.  A focus on performance would have the advantage of avoiding “fire and forget” training events that waste everyone’s time.

My own working definitions of these terms [these are not robust, dictionary definitions, but just my own way of putting each term], which I often discuss here and with clients are:

Performance - something measurable and observable to achieve an agreed-upon objective.

Performance Support - tools and processes that support the worker in the desired performance, including, but not limited to,  job aids.

Training - an external intervention, designed only to address a lack of skills and/or knowledge.

Education - a process with its main aims of socialization, a search for truth and/or the realisation of individual potential.

Learning - an individual activity, though often within a social context, of making sense of our experiences.

This means that doing training does not directly equate to performance improvement. Well-designed and conducted training can increase skills and knowledge if the individual is motivated and has the requisite abilities.  So I would say that performance can be defined at the organisational level and training can be conducted by organisations. Education is a social activity, usually run by the state or a non-for-profit institution. learning remains an individual activity, with all of the variables of the human experience and much less clearly defined or controlled.

Organisations should get out of the learning business and focus on performance. Organisations can direct performance but they should only support learning. Individuals should be directing their own learning.