# Teaching vs Training in Higher Education: Implications for Teaching Fellow Development

**Abstract:**
The terms *teaching* and *training* are often used interchangeably in educational contexts, yet they carry distinct meanings and connotations. In the realm of higher education – particularly in preparing and supporting graduate Teaching Fellows (TFs) – understanding the distinction between teaching and training is crucial. This article examines the conceptual and practical differences between *teaching* and *training*, drawing on pedagogical research and historical perspectives. We discuss how these differences inform the design of professional development programs for TFs, and we highlight examples from universities that consciously distinguish between the two terms in practice. The analysis reveals that while *training* tends to emphasize skills, procedures, and immediate performance, *teaching* (or *education*) encompasses broader development of knowledge, critical thinking, and professional identity. Recognizing these distinctions can lead to more effective TF preparation programs that balance practical skill-building with reflective, theory-informed teaching development.

## Teaching vs. Training: Conceptual Distinctions

One university teaching director famously remarked that “*‘Train’ is a four-letter word*” in his institution’s culture. This quip captures a common sentiment: *training* is sometimes viewed as a narrow, mechanistic endeavor, in contrast to the more expansive, humanistic process of *teaching* or *education*. Conceptually, **teaching** is often defined as the imparting of knowledge and fostering of understanding, whereas **training** is associated with the practice and mastery of specific skills. For example, one explanation notes that *“teaching is the process of sharing knowledge and experience, which focuses more on theories, whereas training is the process of acquiring and learning skills, which focuses more on hands-on experience.”* In other words, teaching tends to address the **why** and **what** (theoretical foundations, principles, big-picture thinking), while training emphasizes the **how** (practical techniques, procedures, and performance of tasks).

From a learning perspective, the difference between educating someone and merely training them can be seen in terms of *transferable understanding versus task-specific performance*. An educator aims to enable learners to apply knowledge in new contexts, encouraging deep comprehension that can be extended beyond rote routines. In contrast, training often drills learners to perform particular tasks or behaviors through repetition and practice. As one commentator puts it, *teaching learners how to convey their learning from one context to another is the difference between educating someone and simply training them to perform a task repeatedly*. In this sense, training without broader teaching may produce proficiency in a procedure but not necessarily understanding or innovation. Education philosopher Gert Biesta has argued that true education involves not just **qualification** (acquisition of skills/knowledge) but also **socialization** and **subjectification** – the development of individuals as independent thinkers and creators of new knowledge. Training, when narrowly defined, tends to focus on qualification (skill mastery), whereas teaching and education engage the whole person, including values, critical thinking, and the capacity to generate new ideas.

An oft-cited adage captures the humanistic bias implicit in these concepts: *“You train animals; you educate people.”*. While perhaps an oversimplification, this saying reflects a historical aversion among educators to describing teacher preparation as mere “training.” **Training** can imply a one-way imposition of techniques or behaviors – akin to conditioning – whereas **teaching** (and its cognates like *education*, *instruction*, or *development*) implies nurturing understanding, adaptability, and intellectual growth in learners who are treated as active participants. This distinction is especially salient in graduate education: Are new Teaching Fellows being *trained* to perform preset teaching tasks, or are they being *taught* (or guided) to become reflective educators? The answer has practical implications for how universities design Teaching Fellow programs, as we explore below.

## Perspectives from Pedagogical Research

Educational research and theory further illuminate the training–teaching dichotomy, particularly in the context of teacher preparation and professional learning. In the literature on teacher education, a contrast is often drawn between **“teacher training”** and **“teacher development”** (or **teacher education**). Early models of teacher learning, such as those described by Wallace (1991) and Ur (1997), characterize *training* as a more transmission-oriented or apprenticeship model, whereas *development* involves reflective practice and ongoing growth. According to these models, *teacher training* typically aligns with what Wallace called the *applied science* or *craft* models of learning: the novice teacher is shown expert techniques or taught researched theories, and is expected to implement them in a prescribed manner. In such training models, the teacher-learner plays a relatively passive role – *“essentially receptive, being taught by the master teacher’s model or by the trainer’s input... \[with] very little place for his or her own initiative”*. By contrast, *teacher development* aligns with a *reflective model*: the educator learns through a cycle of experience, reflection, conceptualization, and experimentation (as in Kolb’s experiential learning framework). Here, the teacher-learner is an active agent who critically reflects on classroom experiences, derives lessons, and adapts practice accordingly, with external input serving more as a resource than a strict blueprint.

Research on professional development highlights several **practical differences** in how training versus development sessions are conducted. A synthesis by teacher educators Bolitho, Edge, Freeman, Underhill and others (as summarized by Ur, 1997) contrasted typical features of “training” workshops with those of “development” workshops. In their comparison, training sessions are often **imposed from above** with a *pre-determined syllabus and objectives* set by experts, whereas development sessions are frequently **self-initiated** with content and goals emerging from the participants’ own experiences and questions. Training tends to be **non-negotiable and uniform** (a standardized curriculum for all trainees), while development is **adaptive and personalized**, allowing for participants’ input to shape the process. Likewise, training may prioritize **external evaluation** and meeting fixed performance criteria, whereas a development approach encourages **self-evaluation** and peer feedback in a non-judgmental setting. Perhaps most importantly, a training paradigm often stresses **technical skills and competencies** in isolation (sometimes leading to *“unthinking acceptance of information”* by trainees), whereas a development paradigm addresses the **whole person**, integrating cognitive and affective domains and empowering teachers to construct their own pedagogical knowledge. In short, training can inadvertently *“disempower”* teachers by treating them as technicians following directives, while development *“empowers”* them as autonomous professionals capable of growth and creative decision-making. This empowerment is a key goal in modern conceptions of teaching as a profession.

Notably, these distinctions do not imply that practical skill-building (training) is unimportant – rather, research suggests that skill acquisition is most effective when situated within a broader educational framework. For instance, new instructors benefit from learning concrete teaching techniques **and** understanding the pedagogical principles behind them. In a study of university pedagogical courses, Hirsto et al. (2013) found that instructors reported greater confidence and sense of empowerment when their training was part of an ongoing, *process-oriented* development program rather than a one-off event. The continuation of *“training during and beyond… initial teaching experiences”* led to higher self-efficacy in the classroom. Similarly, program evaluations indicate that effective teacher development for graduate Teaching Assistants or Fellows combines *hands-on practice* with *reflection and discussion*. The most successful programs incorporate collaboration and peer learning, allowing novice instructors to actively shape their learning process instead of passively absorbing content. In sum, the literature suggests that an optimal approach to preparing educators blends the best of both worlds: the structured guidance and *skill mastery* that come with training, and the critical thinking, *adaptive expertise*, and lifelong growth associated with education and development.

## Historical and Institutional Perspectives

Debates over “training” versus “education” in preparing teachers have a long history. During the 19th and 20th centuries, many countries established *teacher training* colleges (or “normal schools”) focused on practical techniques for classroom management and lesson delivery. Over time, however, educators began advocating for a broader conception of teacher preparation – one that merited the term *teacher education*. The distinction was more than semantic. For example, a UNESCO report notes that in some contexts the narrower concept of *“teacher training”* came to dominate at the expense of *“teacher education”*, often resulting in a watered-down curriculum that emphasized routine skills over holistic teacher development. Especially in the mid-20th century (e.g., in parts of the British Commonwealth), teacher training was critiqued for focusing on drill and immediate classroom needs, without sufficiently addressing the intellectual and professional growth of teachers. This historical tension has led to a general trend in educational discourse: today, many scholars and institutions prefer the term *“teacher preparation”* or *“teacher development”* to imply a comprehensive educational process, reserving *“training”* for more technical or short-term skill instruction.

In the context of **higher education**, the issue has its own nuances. Traditionally, university faculty (including graduate Teaching Fellows or Assistants) received little formal training in teaching – a Ph.D. program was largely an apprenticeship in research, with the assumption that content expertise would translate into teaching ability. By the late 20th century, this began to change. In the United States, for instance, the **Preparing Future Faculty (PFF)** initiative was launched in 1993 as a partnership between major educational organizations to address the need for pedagogical development of graduate students. The PFF movement stemmed from the realization that aspiring academics *“must be prepared for all aspects of a faculty member’s role: teaching, research, and service.”* In practice, this meant creating programs to supplement traditional graduate studies with opportunities to learn about teaching methods, course design, and the scholarship of teaching and learning. The rise of campus teaching centers and graduate teaching certificate programs in the 1990s and 2000s reflects an institutional shift from viewing teaching preparation as a minimal orientation (or *sink-or-swim* on-the-job learning) to treating it as an important educational endeavor in its own right. Nonetheless, the extent and framing of such preparation vary widely across institutions – some still speak of “TA training” in a fairly limited sense, while others speak of “teaching development” as an ongoing, integral part of graduate education.

Institutional culture often dictates the preferred terminology. At some universities, the word **“training”** carries a stigma of implying a rote or industrial process. For example, at Syracuse University’s online programs, support staff deliberately avoid the term training: *“We coach and advise,”* says one director, emphasizing a more collegial model of faculty development. This reflects a conscious effort to position teaching support as mentorship rather than top-down training. Similarly, many teaching and learning centers have adopted titles like *Center for Teaching and Learning*, *Center for Teaching Excellence*, or *Educational Development Office* – implicitly aligning with the language of *teaching/learning* and *development* instead of *training*. By contrast, other institutions use the term **“training”** in a neutral or positive sense to denote any form of instructional preparation. For instance, Harvard University refers to its graduate student instructors as *Teaching Fellows* and provides a required *Teaching Fellow Training* orientation at the start of the year. The **Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning** at Harvard offers “teaching fellow training” workshops and seminars aimed at equipping new TFs with practical skills (e.g. lesson planning, grading techniques), while also encouraging reflective practice through its *Pedagogy Fellows* program. In Harvard’s case, the distinction between training and teaching is recognized in practice: introductory **training** sessions cover core teaching tasks and university policies, but there is also an infrastructure for ongoing **teaching development** – experienced graduate students serve as *Pedagogy Fellows* who consult with novice TFs, lead seminars on pedagogy, and develop resources to enhance teaching across departments. These Pedagogy Fellows, notably, are themselves given advanced pedagogical *training* (or more appropriately, education) to fulfill their roles, and in doing so they *“become more reflective about their disciplinary values and communication”*, exemplifying the shift from simple skill training to deeper professional growth.

Another example of institutional terminology can be found at Columbia University. Columbia’s Center for Teaching and Learning offers a **Teaching Development Program (TDP)** for graduate students rather than calling it a TA training program. This program allows participants to *“cultivate, document, and articulate \[their] teaching development across the arc of \[their] graduate school career.”* The language here – *development across the arc of a career* – underscores a longitudinal, holistic approach. Graduate students in Columbia’s TDP progress through foundational and advanced *tracks* that involve workshops, teaching practicums, and reflective teaching portfolios. Completion is even noted on their transcripts, emphasizing that this is part of their educational credentials, not a one-time HR requirement. By structuring the experience as a continued development process, Columbia signals that learning to teach is akin to other scholarly growth: it requires time, practice, feedback, and reflection, not just an introductory crash course.

These institutional perspectives demonstrate that **how we label and structure Teaching Fellow preparation sends a message**. Calling it *“training”* may imply a focus on competency and compliance – *learn the rules, master the tasks, and you’re set*. Referring to it as *“teaching development”* or *“instructional development”* suggests an evolving journey, where a new instructor grows into the role of an educator over time. Historically, the trend has been to move away from the narrow notion of training toward a richer concept of developing teaching as a scholarly and reflective practice. However, it is important to note that the mere choice of words does not automatically improve outcomes; what truly matters is that programs incorporate the principles of sound pedagogy that we turn to next.

## Implications for Designing Teaching Fellow Development Programs

Understanding the distinctions between teaching and training is not a purely academic exercise – it carries concrete implications for how universities design professional development programs for Teaching Fellows and other novice instructors. If we conceive of our role as simply *“training TFs”*, we might be inclined to offer a short orientation with a checklist of teaching dos and don’ts, focused on immediate survival skills in the classroom. Such an approach, while addressing basic competencies, may fall short in nurturing excellent educators. On the other hand, if we approach it as *“teaching the teachers”* or *mentoring new educators*, we are likely to invest in a more comprehensive program that combines initial preparation with ongoing support, blending skill acquisition with opportunities for reflection and growth.

**Key principles for effective TF development** emerge from research and successful case studies:

* **Move beyond one-off orientations:** One common pitfall is to treat Teaching Fellow preparation as a single event (e.g. a day-long orientation before classes start). Studies consistently show that a *one-shot training* is insufficient to change teaching practice long-term. Instead, programs should adopt a multi-stage or continuous model. For example, Stanford University’s teaching center recommends a *multi-level curriculum* that *“builds from foundational to more focused, strategic sessions”* throughout a TF’s graduate career. Initial workshops might cover basic classroom skills, while later sessions address advanced pedagogy or discipline-specific teaching strategies once the TF has some experience to reflect upon. Research supports adding *“additional, more focused training once \[TFs] already have some classroom experience,”* rather than front-loading everything at the start. In practical terms, universities can offer refresher workshops, advanced seminars, or specialized training (e.g. how to teach upper-level courses or how to mentor junior TAs) in the semesters following the initial appointment.

* **Integrate theory with practice:** Effective programs interweave theoretical understanding of learning and pedagogy with practical teaching techniques. This means that sessions on *“how to grade effectively”* or *“leading discussions”* should not only provide tips and scripts, but also connect to underlying principles of assessment or student engagement. As one survey of TA training in higher ed notes, many orientations now include introductions to *“the principles and practices of effective teaching”*, not just administrative duties. Embedding concepts like constructive alignment (connecting learning objectives with activities and assessment) or inclusive teaching practices ensures that TFs understand *why* certain approaches work, making them more adaptable and intentional in their teaching. Such an integration answers the call to educate, not just train: TFs learn to *think like teachers*, not merely perform routines.

* **Emphasize active learning and reflection:** A developmentally oriented program will treat new instructors as adult learners themselves – following the same best practices that we encourage them to use with students. This means making the TF workshops interactive, problem-based, and reflective. Rather than only lecturing at TFs about pedagogy, facilitators can engage them in micro-teaching exercises, case discussions, and reflective journaling on teaching experiences. Studies in faculty development have found that instructors internalize pedagogical skills more effectively when they actively reflect on their teaching and receive feedback in a cycle of improvement. For instance, many programs use **microteaching** sessions (where TFs teach a short lesson to peers and get feedback) to allow hands-on practice in a low-stakes setting. Coupling these exercises with guided reflection (e.g., “What went well in your teaching simulation? What might you change and why?”) fosters the reflective mindset characteristic of teacher development models.

* **Foster a community of practice:** Viewing TF support as teaching (in the sense of enculturation into a profession) implies the importance of community and mentorship. Unlike a simple training session where each individual is treated separately, a robust development program creates networks among new instructors and experienced educators. This can be done by organizing learning communities, peer observation partnerships, or mentorship pairings. Harvard’s Pedagogy Fellows program, for example, creates a community where experienced graduate instructors mentor newer TFs and facilitate discussion groups on teaching challenges. Such peer-led communities make teaching a shared endeavor and signal that improving one’s teaching is a collaborative, ongoing project. Participants in these communities often report feeling more supported and less isolated in their teaching role, which can translate to greater confidence and willingness to adopt innovative practices.

* **Include TFs in program design and feedback:** In line with the difference between training imposed from above versus development arising from participant needs, successful programs often solicit input from the TFs themselves. Stanford’s teaching center advises getting *“feedback from current and recent graduate TAs on \[the] program’s existing pedagogical training”* and even involving them in co-designing the curriculum. By treating TFs not just as trainees but as stakeholders, program designers can ensure the content is relevant and address the real challenges TFs face. Moreover, involving TFs in planning or facilitating sessions (e.g., inviting seasoned TFs to lead a panel discussion) exemplifies a developmental philosophy – it empowers TFs and validates their growing expertise. Research has noted that *“instructor training is more effective when graduate students are allowed to participate in building the curriculum”*, likely because it increases buy-in and tailors the experience to their contexts.

* **Recognize and reward development:** Finally, an implication of treating Teaching Fellow preparation as education (not just training) is that institutions should recognize it as a significant professional achievement. Some universities, as noted, document completion of teaching development programs on transcripts or issue certificates in college teaching. This not only motivates participation but also reinforces the idea that learning to teach is part of becoming a well-rounded scholar. When TFs see that pedagogical development is valued – for example, through awards, letters, or even opportunities to advance to roles like lead TF or Pedagogy Fellow – they are more likely to invest effort in it, rather than viewing training sessions as a box to check. In the long run, this can elevate the culture of teaching within departments, as new Ph.D. graduates carry forward a professional commitment to teaching excellence into faculty positions.

In implementing these principles, universities often find themselves balancing the *practical constraints* (time, resources, varying levels of TF prior experience) with the *aspirational goals* of teacher education. There may always be a need for some “training” in the sense of quick, efficient transmission of needed skills or information (for example, how to use the course management system, or policies on lab safety). However, the core of a strong TF development program will treat those elements as the foundation, not the entirety. Building on that foundation with continued mentorship, advanced pedagogy seminars, and opportunities for reflection transforms a basic training regime into a full-fledged *teaching development* experience.

## Case Examples of Distinct Approaches

To illustrate how the teaching vs. training distinction manifests in practice, we highlight two examples from university programs:

* **Syracuse University (Online Programs – Coaching Model):** As mentioned earlier, Syracuse’s College of Engineering and Computer Science reframes “training” as *coaching*. When helping faculty and TFs learn to teach online or on camera, the staff deliberately avoid the word training due to its connotations. *“‘Train’ is a four-letter word,”* quips Michael Frasciello, the director of online learning, *“We coach and advise.”*. In practice, this means that rather than mandating a rigid training course, Syracuse embeds support within the course design process. New online instructors collaborate with instructional designers and experienced faculty in a coaching relationship: they receive advice, model effective techniques, and iterate on their course plans with feedback. The focus is on *guiding* instructors to improve, not just *instructing* them to follow preset rules. This approach corresponds to the teaching/mentoring end of the spectrum – it acknowledges the individuality of each instructor and treats the development of teaching skill as an ongoing, collegial process. The result is a culture where instructors are more receptive to development (since it’s not framed as corrective “training”) and are encouraged to become reflective practitioners who continually refine their teaching.

* **Columbia University (Teaching Development Program – Structured Development):** Columbia’s **Teaching Development Program (TDP)** for graduate students exemplifies an integrated approach that clearly distinguishes itself from a one-time training workshop. The TDP is a structured multi-semester sequence where participants choose either a foundational or advanced track to work on their teaching skills and knowledge over time. Graduate students in the program attend workshops on pedagogy, engage in teaching observations, and compile a teaching portfolio, all while documenting their growth. The language of the program highlights *development*: participants *“cultivate… \[their] teaching development across the arc of \[their] graduate school career,”* and completion of a track earns a letter and transcript notation attesting to their teaching competencies. This stands in contrast to merely “training” TAs for immediate duties. The Columbia TDP treats learning to teach as a longitudinal process akin to mastering a research specialty – one builds incrementally, reflects on feedback, and achieves milestones. By providing a formal framework and recognition for teaching development, the program underlines the institution’s view that teaching expertise is an evolving professional pursuit, not a simple onboarding task.

* **Harvard University (Teaching Fellow Training + Pedagogy Fellows – Hybrid model):** Harvard’s case is interesting because it uses the term *“training”* for certain activities but embeds them in a broader developmental ecosystem. All new Teaching Fellows at Harvard College attend a beginning-of-term **Teaching Fellow Training** program run by the Bok Center, which covers essentials like section leading techniques, grading standards, and university teaching policies. This could be seen as a classic training: standardized content delivered to all new TFs. However, Harvard doesn’t stop at training. Through the **Pedagogy Fellows Program**, the Bok Center engages experienced graduate student teachers to support their peers throughout the year. These Pedagogy Fellows host departmental teaching workshops, offer one-on-one consultations, and facilitate reflective discussions on pedagogy. The Bok Center explicitly notes that the Pedagogy Fellows *“enhance training and support for teaching fellows”* in departments and that the Fellows themselves are *trained* and coached to fulfill this role. In effect, Harvard has a **two-tier approach**: baseline *training* for all TFs, and continuing *teaching development* opportunities via peer mentorship and advanced seminars. The terminology signals this balance – they acknowledge the need for training (in the limited sense) but also invest in cultivating a culture of ongoing learning about teaching. A recent initiative at Harvard even piloted a **“new teaching fellow training focused on diversity, inclusion, and belonging”** in specific courses, showing an awareness that training content must evolve (in this case, to encompass inclusive pedagogy). By combining immediate skills training with deeper engagement through programs like Pedagogy Fellows, this model demonstrates how an institution can bridge the gap between training and teaching in practice.

Each of these examples shows a different way of treating the terminology and substance of preparing instructors. The common thread is that the most forward-thinking programs do not limit themselves to *training-as-drill*. Whether they call it coaching, development, or training, they incorporate elements that encourage reflection, adaptability, and growth – hallmarks of a teaching-oriented philosophy. Meanwhile, they still acknowledge that certain concrete skills and knowledge must be transmitted efficiently. In sum, the optimal practice seems to be a **hybrid approach**: use *training* for foundational competencies and *teaching/development* for higher-order growth. Institutions that explicitly recognize the distinction are better positioned to design interventions that address both aspects.

## Conclusion

In the landscape of higher education, preparing graduate Teaching Fellows requires more than a utilitarian transfer of tips and tricks; it calls for an educational approach that treats TFs as emerging educators. The distinction between *teaching* and *training* clarifies this imperative. **Training**, with its focus on skills and immediate performance, is a necessary component – TFs do need to learn how to grade papers, run lab sessions, use technology, and manage classroom challenges. However, if we stop at training, we risk producing competent yet unreflective instructors who may lack the ability to adapt and improve beyond the routines they’ve been shown. **Teaching**, in the sense of educating and developing TFs, goes a step further by fostering critical thinking about pedagogy, encouraging the exploration of *why* certain methods work, and instilling a mindset of continuous improvement. As the literature and examples illustrate, the most effective Teaching Fellow support programs are those that blend the two: they offer *practical training anchored in solid pedagogical theory*, and they create pathways for ongoing *professional development as teachers*.

The implications for program design are significant. Universities should strive to design TF preparation initiatives that are iterative and sustained, not a one-time fix. Incorporating mentorship, reflection, and active learning into these programs transforms the experience from a training session into a true educational journey for the TFs. Historical debates have shown that narrowing teacher preparation to “training” can undermine the broader mission of education; conversely, broadening our approach to encompass the full richness of “teaching” can produce educators who are not only skilled in the mechanics of instruction but also adaptive, thoughtful, and innovative in their practice.

In conclusion, recognizing the difference between teaching and training is more than semantics – it reminds us that in shaping the teachers of tomorrow, we must practice what we preach. Just as we urge our Teaching Fellows to go beyond drilling their students for tests and instead ignite genuine understanding, so too must we go beyond training our Teaching Fellows and instead **teach** them in the fullest sense. By doing so, we empower a new generation of instructors who are prepared to both perform and transform – equipped with skills, guided by theory, and inspired to keep learning how to teach for a lifetime.

**Sources:**

1. Ur, P. (1997). *Teacher Training and Teacher Development: A Useful Dichotomy?* **The Language Teacher, 21**(10). – (Distinguishes between preservice “training” and in-service “development”; discusses Wallace’s models and emphasizes reflective practice over top-down training).

2. IICBA/UNESCO (2023). *Fundamentals of Teacher Education Development*. – (Highlights the difference between *teacher education* and *teacher training*, noting the broader aims of education vs. the narrow, skills-focused nature of training).

3. Hirsto, L. *et al.* (2013). “Learning Outcomes of University Lecturers from a Process-Oriented University Pedagogical Course.” **Trames, 17**(4), 347–365. – (Finds that ongoing pedagogical development programs increase instructors’ confidence and empowerment in teaching).

4. Stanford University Center for Teaching and Learning (2021). *Develop a Multi-Year TA Development Curriculum*. – (Recommends multi-stage TA training, collaboration, and skills-based programming; cites research on effective graduate instructor development).

5. Bromley Education (2023). “What is the purpose of education?” – (Discusses difference between educating and training, drawing on Biesta’s theory; argues education creates new knowledge and independent thinkers, whereas training tends to transmit existing knowledge).

6. Columbia University Center for Teaching and Learning (2025). *Teaching Development Program (TDP)* – (Program description emphasizing long-term development of teaching skills for graduate students, with transcript recognition).

7. Harvard Derek Bok Center (2024). *Pedagogy Fellows Program* – (Describes a peer mentorship program where experienced grad students support TFs; underlines enhancing training and fostering reflection among teachers).

8. University Business (2019). “Making instructors comfortable with on-camera roles.” – (Quoting Michael Frasciello of Syracuse University on avoiding the term “training” and using a coaching model for faculty development).

9. Pediaa Education (2022). “Difference Between Teaching and Training.” – (Defines teaching as theory-focused knowledge sharing and training as practical skill learning).

10. Carolinas Communication Annual (2017). *Tribute to David Berlo*. – (Attributes the quote *“You train animals; you educate people”* to communication educator David Berlo, exemplifying the ethos that human learning is education rather than training).