Marc My Words: Don’t Call Them Learners!

First, we called them “students.” That’s what we were called (never“pupils”) when we were in school, so it sounded right. But, over time, itsmacked a little too much of “education,” and, after all, we were in“training.” But we really didn’t like “trainees,” so we tried “participants.” Feelsbetter—more of an action word (participate).We went from student guides to participant guides. But still, it didn’t seemjust right.

Somewhere along the way, we didn’t want to be called training anymore,and we rejected our own title of “trainer.” We eschewed training for“learning,” so it was natural that we would call them—the participants—“learners.”

Everyone’s a learner. Nothing really wrong with that; all of us learn. Ourobjectives begin with “The learnerwill…” and most of us use learning managementsystems. And those people, the ones who take our courses—in class or online—well,it’s a no-brainer.

Not so fast

What’s wrong with calling them learners? Because that’s not who theyreally are! CEOs don’t refer to their employees as learners. Customers don’t calltheir sales reps learners (and sales reps don’t call their customers learners).Front-line supervisors don’t gather their people together and begin meetingswith “I want to thank all you learners for coming.”

Referring to people in training as learners, rather than who theyreally are—workers or employees, managers or executives, customers orsuppliers, or any other role that is a more accurate description of what thesepeople really do—tends to encourage a perspective that often fails to getbeyond traditional training thinking. If we think of them only as learners, wemight offer up only training solutions, even if we know better. Furthermore, whenwe only think of the people we work with as learners, we can lose sight oftheir real value to the organization. Nurses are learners, but they are, firstand foremost, nurses. Same for engineers, salespeople, programmers, call centerreps, marketing managers, shop supervisors and more.

Think differently

OK, when they’re with us, they arelearners. And that’s important to us from an instructional design andevaluation standpoint. We want to know if they are learning, but our clientswant to know if they can perform. In fact, performance (the result) is moreimportant than learning (the enabler). So, should we call them “performers?”

No. Just call them what they are: scientists, soldiers, firefighters,teachers, designers, technicians, and pilots—you get the idea. When we do this,or at least when we think this way, it becomes easier to relate to them, tounderstand where they are coming from and where they’re going. Stop talking toSMEs about the learners and start talking about the network managers, or thecarpenters, or the police officers, or the cafeteria workers. Your relationshipswith SMEs will improve almost immediately.

I admit I use the term “learners” all the time. It’s easy. Everyoneknows what you’re talking about. What’s the problem; there are more importantthings to focus on, right?

Sure, but this is more vital than we think. When we focus like a laseron jobs and job functions, we work better. This distinction between student,participant, learner, and other terms we give those who use our services (someof us also call them “customers”) can be seen as just a silly semanticargument. But it’s not. It is a reflection of how we see the world and how theworld sees us. And we all could use more of an advantage here. Labels matter.

Anddon’t try using a thesaurus to come up with a better term than “learner.” Itried, and what’s left is even worse. “Greenhorn,” anyone?