As one of the worst years on record for training and development slogs on, one would hardly notice the gasps of starving training professionals in the midst of the trumpeting about the "changing learning environment." O.K., I get it. Technology wins.

How depressing - and just plain wrong it all is. Maybe I feel that way because I'm old enough to remember the "teaching machines" of the 1960's, the "touch screen" trainers of the 1980's, the "CBT's, the plethora of "authoring systems," and the myriad of other technology learning solutions of more recent vintage that were poised to change the way everyone learns. Where are they all today? Some are just gone; others have morphed into a yet more "advanced" technology marvel.

And who wouldn't want to have podcasts at their fingertips right next to the app for fart noises on their iPhones? I'm reminded of the millions and millions of dollars invested in teleconferencing systems over the past thirty years. When they are used (which is infrequently), they present the CEO or another executive imparting information that could have been provided in several other more cost effective and efficient ways. But, hey, in case we miss it "live," we can download the presentation to our PDA, thereby achieving the technological marvel of shrinking the "talking head" so that it will fit in our pocket. Incidentally, we are encouraged to watch it on our own time - when we're not getting paid.

Here's the thing. Technology is a good thing. Technology is not really the problem; it exacerbates the problem. We lost touch with our mission to educate when we started to call our endeavor "learning" instead of "teaching." Since the machine is unable to take responsibility, the “learners” must assume the burden of their own education. Brilliant! If we’re afraid or unwilling to invest in teaching people, simply make it their responsibility to acquire their own learning. If they fail, it’s their fault not ours. After all, the learning material has been provided by technology. In order to accommodate the limitations of technology, materials must be mechanized. They need to be broken down into programmable parts: cells, “learning objects,” templates. Since we don’t really teach anymore we don’t need teachers. In fact, as many decision-makers believe, anyone with appropriate experience can “facilitate” learning – make training part of the manager’s job, or a salesman with product knowledge who isn’t getting it done in the field anymore.

And yet I can’t help but believe that even among today’s youthful technological elite there are those who can recall moments of inspiration, the glow of special attention afforded by someone truly interested in their welfare, the elevating sensation of experiencing discovery in close proximity with others in a group, the creativity of the environment, the modeling, analogies and individuation that can only be developed thorough great teaching in an “actual” not a “virtual” space. Based on those moments, life choices are made, careers are begun, and friendships formed.

I have to believe there still remains a herding instinct within people that will drive us to seek proximity when we can. Why attend sporting events or concerts when we can watch them on our screens. Maybe when we learn that technology is a servant and not a master, we can strike a balance in our workplaces that is both effective and humanistic. Marshall McLuhan theorized that every technological extension resulted in a corresponding “amputation” of something else that was once valued. I hope he’s wrong in this case.