WHY I DON’T MIND USING ‘LEARNER’ UNTIL A BETTER WORD COMES ALONG

L&D has long had a history of coming up with solutions that fall woefully short of achieving our goals. But changing a word in order to make up for a shortcoming in the way we do our work is not the answer. Instead, I strongly suggest that we focus on improving our solutions by using thoughtful strategies and approaches. Here are some counter arguments for the proposal to stop using the word ‘learner’.

Share This Post

Share on facebook
Share on linkedin
Share on twitter
Share on email

We all have a pedant inside of us. While we ourselves may not find the most suitable words to use on every occasion, we take pleasure in pointing out the nitty-gritty of mistakes made by someone else.

At least, that’s very true of me. And as I’m writing this, I can almost hear the collective groan from my family as I pointed out the 23 mistakes in a written recipe that was shared in our WhatsApp group.

What I am trying to say is that when someone questions a word or phrase that’s been in common use, I tend to jump right in and join the questioning brigade.

But, not so in this case.

A recent topic that has come up on social media – LinkedIn, primarily – is that we shouldn’t refer to our audience (the recipients of our content) as learners. Here are the arguments for changing it:

  • They are humans, or just people, not learners.
  • Learning is not something that you can do to someone. It’s something that they need to take upon, and do for, themselves.
  • We’re assuming active participation on the part of the audience where none probably exists.
  • They are learning all the time, not just when they are participating in your solution.
  • The term is used only in L&D; not anywhere else.

And here are some alternatives suggested for the word learner:

  • Audience
  • Participant
  • Trainee  
  • Consumer
  • Employee

While the sentiments listed above are all valid, I would argue that none of the suggested alternatives capture the essence of what we’re trying to do. Here are my counter arguments:

They are humans, or just people, and not learners.

If this thought is coming from a place of saying that we are catering to real humans, and not just a cohort of nameless creatures called ‘learners’, I completely agree.

Like everyone else, they have their motivations and challenges, and we absolutely need to take them into account while designing solutions. That’s our job.

But then, every profession uses a word to describe the recipient of their services. There are readers for newspapers, guests in hotels, patients in the medical field, passengers in travel, and so on. So why shouldn’t we use a special term (a really appropriate one) to refer to the beneficiaries of our work?

Learning is not something that you can do to someone. It’s something that they need to take upon, and do for, themselves.

Once again, I agree. However, isn’t that what we’re aspiring for?

We’re not aiming for a simple transfer of information. Instead, we are putting our heart and soul into shifting perspectives, leading to an improvement in skill, or a change in behaviors and attitudes. Why, then, shouldn’t we deny ourselves the pleasure of calling learners by the name they truly deserve to be addressed by?

We’re assuming active participation on the part of the audience where none probably exists.

My answer here is the same as above. We WANT learners to actively participate in the learning process. The fact that they aren’t currently doing so points to a shortcoming in the solution, not that the name learner has to be changed.

They are learning all the time, not just when they are participating in your solution.

Absolutely! All the more reason to call them learners. Isn’t it?

The term is used only in L&D; not anywhere else.

For the fifth time, I agree.

Nearly every profession has terms that are not necessarily used with the customers of that profession. Or even those that are on the periphery of that profession.

For instance, the terms used by two doctors to discuss a patient’s condition may not be used while communicating with the patient or their relatives. Or even with non-medical staff in the hospital.

Similarly, while we need to be aware that this word is neither used nor recognized outside L&D, I don’t see why it should be changed internally, within the context of L&D.

Now let’s look at the alternatives proposed:

  • Audience, participant, trainee and consumer are too passive. We want people to engage with the learning, partake in it, benefit from it, and see a positive change because of it. None of these terms do justice to such an involved pursuit of learning.
  • Employee is too generic. It’s something similar to human, or just person or people. Yes, they are employees and they are humans, but they have a specific role to play in this context, which is to learn. So why not use that?

I agree that sometimes our solutions fall woefully short of achieving our goals. But changing a word in order to make up for a shortcoming in the way we do our work is not the answer! Instead, I strongly suggest that we focus on improving our solutions by using thoughtful strategies and approaches.

Unless of course, a better word comes along.

In which case I’ll be very happy to shift.


Written by Srividya Kumar, Co-Founder @ Learnnovators

(Visited 413 times, 1 visits today)

More To Explore

The Power of a Good Start - Why Onboarding Matters - Learnnovators
E-Learning

The Power of a Good Start: Why Onboarding Matters

The first few days in a new role can set the tone for everything that follows. This article explores why onboarding is more than just paperwork and process—it’s about helping people feel grounded, supported, and ready to contribute. When onboarding is thoughtful and human, it gives new joiners the clarity and confidence they need to hit the ground running. Because a good start doesn’t just ease the transition – it lays the foundation for long-term engagement and growth.

Upskilling and Reskilling - Thumbnail
E-Learning

Navigating Change: Upskill or Reskill?

As technology continues to reshape industries, organisations face a critical question: should they upskill their teams – or reskill them entirely? This article breaks down the difference between the two, explores when and why each approach makes sense, and highlights how aligning employee growth with business goals can lead to long-term success. Whether it’s helping people sharpen existing skills or preparing them for entirely new roles, the key lies in building a culture of continuous learning that’s ready for whatever comes next.

Learning Culture vs. Training Culture - Thumbnail - Learnnovators
E-Learning

Learning Culture vs Training Culture

Many workplaces still treat learning as a one-off task—something to tick off after a course or compliance module. But real growth doesn’t happen in isolated sessions. This article unpacks the key difference between a training culture and a learning culture—and why it matters. While one ends with the session, the other is woven into everyday work, conversations, and challenges. The piece offers a clear perspective on how organisations can move beyond checklists and create an environment where learning is ongoing, meaningful, and part of the culture.

Corporate Culture - Learnnovators
E-Learning

Corporate Culture vs. Company Values

It’s easy to print your values on posters. It’s much harder to live by them every day. This article unpacks the growing disconnect between company values and actual workplace culture – and why that gap matters. It explores how culture isn’t built on buzzwords but on behaviours, decisions, and what leaders choose to reward. When values are lived, they create trust and meaning. When they aren’t backed by action, people notice. The piece offers practical ways to close the gap and build a culture that not only says the right things, but does them too.

Micromanaging - Blog - Learnnovators
E-Learning

Stop Micromanaging. Start Trusting.

Micromanaging rarely starts with bad intentions—but it can quietly erode trust, stifle creativity, and drain ownership from even the most capable teams. In remote settings, where reassurance can’t come from a smile or a quick hallway chat, the impact runs deeper. This piece unpacks how micromanagement shows up, why it’s often invisible to the manager, and what it really takes to build a culture of trust. Because real support isn’t about control—it’s about creating space for people to take the lead, make mistakes, and grow.

How to Develop and Retain a Highly Engaged Workforce - Learnnovators
E-Learning

How to Develop and Retain a Highly Engaged Workforce

Engagement isn’t about grand gestures—it’s about getting the everyday things right. This article breaks down what it really takes to build and keep a workforce that’s motivated, committed, and ready to grow with the company. From meaningful onboarding and recognition to encouraging autonomy and psychological safety, it’s a practical look at how small, thoughtful efforts can add up to a culture people want to be part of—not just today, but for the long haul.

REQUEST DEMO