Two years ago I wrote the following blog post.
“Training” should be a four-letter word
“We need to train more teachers.”
“Teachers need more training in order to be successful at teaching computer science.”
“More teacher training programs are needed.”
Statements like these are common and reading a recent post on another blog reminded me of just how much I hate the word “training” when it is used in reference to teachers and teaching. (I even had a professional title once that included the word training and I fought against it then.) Not that I believe that those who use the word intend to be mean-spirited or do harm; it has just become part of the language we use when we talk about the various needs surrounding teacher education.
I’d like to challenge our community to make a conscious effort to remove training from our vocabulary and replace it with words like education, preparation, and professional development.
Is anyone else bothered by this? Will you accept the challenge?
With all of the attention being focused on professional development right now, I hope everyone will accept the challenge.
Gail Chapman
Director of National Outreach
Exploring Computer Science
What is wrong with the word “training”? You’re arguing semantics without giving an explanation for why the word has a bad connotation. Personally, I see no difference between “training” and “professional development,” so I have little reason to support your argument. Can you say more?
Hi Gail
There are extreme thoughts one possess for the word training. For some it might be like belittling them and for others it might sound to be more of a motivating term. However, terms like professional development sounds in good spirit.
i agree with alex, training and professional development? hmm
i don’t find any thing wrong in word training. i frequently use this word as am working in a training institute. so its okay there are no reasons to change it.
For every learning medium we called it training.. it all about training from our childhood till we end learning
I suspect that the original author was bothered by the connotations associated with the word “training.” In many contexts, “training” implies (1) instrumental understanding of a phenomenon as opposed to conceptual understanding; (2) a model of education in which the ‘teacher’ dispenses discrete packages of knowledge to the ‘leaner’ in much the same manner as a banker distributes loans (Friere’s critique of traditional pedagogy); and (3) the implication that the ‘profession’ of teaching could (and therefore will) eventually suffer the fate of all labor in a profit-driven environment … it, too, will vanish.
Thought: at this particular moment in history we see very few computer scientists actually teaching computer science in public schools. Now, suppose that computer science became relevant to public schools—in a manner no different than mathematics or english. I wonder if we wouldn’t see the emergence of the “computer science teacher” as a distinct entity in the same way that we see the ‘school math teacher’ as an entity that bears no relation whatsoever to a working mathematician. I propose that any authentic discipline, i.e., mathematics, computer science, art, music, etc., undergoes a kind of alchemy when installed in the public education system. Moreover, this happens for a variety of reasons … equity, utilitarian concerns, and the de facto emergence of the ‘ public school teacher.’
YRMV
Tom R
I think the term ‘training’ has its place and you should not feel offended by the word. IMHO, I think that it should be used in the instances of short term, and hands-on. On the other hand, I see education as longer term, and more conceptual. Training brings to light education, in a useful and practical way. For instance, we can be educated in the field of chemistry from a textbook over a semester or even longer period of time, but we get trained on how to do titration in a lab in 1 hour with hands-on practice that reinforces the chemistry education. They go hand in hand and add value to each other.