Download
Intigam Jabrailov,
Professor,
Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences,
Institute of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan,
Head of the Department of Theory and History of Education,
Azerbaijan, Baku
ORCID: 0000-0003-2437-5926
Nurlan Mammadov,
Senior Lecturer,
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Pedagogy,
Baku Slavic University,
Department of Pedagogy,
Azerbaijan, Baku
ORCID: 0000-0002-9673-0862
https://10.5281/zenodo.18115356
Keywords: training, seminar, competency, didactics, small-group learning, constructive alignment, assessment, learning transfer, continuing education
Abstract. In contemporary educational and professional development contexts, the concepts of training and seminar are frequently used interchangeably in practice, leading to methodological inconsistencies in the design and implementation of instructional processes. However, these two formats are grounded in distinct theoretical foundations with regard to their objectives, didactic logic, level of participant engagement, assessment mechanisms, and the transferability of learning outcomes to real-life professional activities. This article argues that training is primarily oriented toward the development of practical skills and competencies, relying on structured practice, systematic feedback, and measurable performance outcomes, whereas the seminar format provides a more suitable environment for deepening conceptual understanding, fostering a culture of academic discussion, and developing critical and analytical thinking skills. The study critically examines the frequent loss of the original essence of these formats in practice, where seminars are reduced to passive lecture-based sessions and trainings are transformed into mere information delivery. Within the context of higher education and organizational learning, the article proposes methodological approaches for the purposeful selection, coherent integration, and effective application of training and seminar formats in order to enhance the quality and impact of educational outcomes.
Introduction
In educational institutions and professional development programs, the terms seminar and training are sometimes treated merely as labels for events rather than as conceptually grounded instructional formats. While this lexical flexibility may appear harmless at first glance, it in fact leads to serious shortcomings in pedagogical literature and in formal administrative practice. Inappropriate formats are selected, expected learning outcomes fail to materialize, assessment tools are misaligned, and participant satisfaction is reduced to a formal indicator rather than a meaningful measure of educational impact. This issue is particularly evident in contexts such as continuing education for university instructors, skill-oriented courses for students, programs offered by career centers, and in-service professional development initiatives within public institutions.
The core of the problem lies in the fact that training and seminar should not be understood merely as “forms of instruction,” but rather as two distinct pedagogical approaches grounded in different epistemological assumptions, didactic frameworks, and assessment logics. Depending on their objectives and content, some scholars have examined both training and seminar formats as organizational models of continuing education [Mamamdov, 2022]. For this reason, the present article seeks to systematically address the following research questions:
- What are the scientific boundaries and definitional distinctions between training and seminar formats?
- Which types of learning outcomes are most effectively achieved through each format?
- How and why are these formats frequently distorted in practice?
- How can universities and organizations provide a sound rationale for selecting appropriate instructional formats?
Main part. The motivation and learning styles of adult learners — including master’s and doctoral students, university instructors, and pedagogical professionals — differ fundamentally from those characteristic of the traditional school model. Adult learning is largely shaped by pragmatic questions such as: Does this address my real needs?, How does this contribute to my professional practice?, and Can I apply it immediately? These considerations determine both engagement and perceived value in educational activities. For example, Knowles and his colleagues emphasize the core principles of adult learning (andragogy), including learner autonomy, the use of prior experience as a learning resource, problem-centered orientation, and predominantly intrinsic motivation. These principles function as direct design criteria for both training formats — which are typically practice-intensive — and seminar formats, which are primarily discussion-oriented [Exley & Dennick, 2004].
Kolb’s theory of experiential learning further demonstrates that effective learning unfolds as a cyclical process. This process progresses from concrete experience to reflective observation, from reflection to abstract conceptualization, and finally from conceptualization to active experimentation. Within this cycle, the “active experimentation” component is most effectively supported through training formats that incorporate structured exercises and performance-based tasks. Seminars, by contrast, are better suited to fostering reflection and conceptual understanding but, when used in isolation, are generally insufficient for the systematic development of practical skills [Kolb, 1984].
The concept of “constructive alignment” proposed by Biggs and Tang offers a methodological framework that clarifies the training–seminar distinction. According to this approach, intended learning outcomes (ILOs) should be defined first, followed by the selection of learning and teaching activities (LTAs) that enable these outcomes, and finally by the design of appropriate assessment tasks (ATs). When the intended outcomes emphasize skill acquisition and observable performance, training mechanisms are more appropriate than seminar-based formats. Conversely, when the goal is conceptual depth, theoretical understanding, and critical discourse, the seminar format represents a more natural and pedagogically coherent choice [Biggs & Tang, 2011]
The English-language scholarly literature conceptualizes training as a planned and systematic instructional process designed to facilitate the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSA), with the explicit purpose of preparing participants for practical performance. Contemporary organizational psychology and training science define training as a structured process through which targeted KSAs are developed via instruction, demonstration, guided practice, and diagnostic feedback [Salas, E. And others, 2012].
Synthesizing the perspectives of various scholars, it can be concluded that the value of training does not lie in the mere organization of an event, but rather in its capacity to produce measurable changes in participants’ behavior and performance. From this standpoint, training effectiveness is determined by observable outcomes rather than formal participation. Consequently, sound training design typically requires the inclusion of the following core components:
- Needs analysis (What competencies or capabilities are lacking?)
- Formulation of learning outcomes (What should participants be able to do?)
- Instructional sequence (explanation – demonstration – practice – feedback)
- Assessment (appropriate measurement tools and criteria)
- Transfer support (mechanisms that facilitate application in the workplace)
In traditional university didactics, the seminar has evolved as a discussion-based instructional format conducted in small-group settings, grounded in assigned readings, guiding questions, and problem-based situations. Within contemporary higher education, the effectiveness of the seminar lies in its capacity to generate a student-centered discourse that fosters analytical questioning, reasoned justification, and a culture of argumentation. In the seminar model, participants (students) engage in prior preparation and subsequently deepen their understanding through facilitated discussion under the guidance of a facilitator (instructor). Empirical and methodological studies provide detailed accounts of seminar-based instruction as a pedagogical model rooted in small-group interaction [Zeng, H. L., et al. 2020].
Accordingly, the purpose of training may be defined as the execution of specific skills — for example, conducting rubric-based assessment, designing a course within a learning management system (LMS), or applying principles of constructive alignment in lesson planning. By contrast, the primary objective of a seminar is the deepening of conceptual understanding and the development of critical perspectives on a given topic — such as ethical dilemmas in inclusive education or issues of fairness in assessment practices.
A critical and recurrent error in institutional practice arises when organizations seek skill development but implement seminar formats instead. In such cases, participants may become informed yet remain unable to perform, highlighting a fundamental mismatch between intended learning outcomes and instructional design.
This distinction can be illustrated more clearly in the following table:
| Criterion | Training | Seminar |
| Primary objective | Skill development | Knowledge and conceptual understanding |
| Focus | Practice-oriented learning | Theoretical exploration |
| Participant role | Active performer | Relatively passive discussant |
| Methods | Exercises, role-play, performance tasks | Lectures, guided discussion |
| Outcome | “Can do” | “Knows” |
The core of training lies in practice and feedback, whereas the foundation of the seminar format is discussion and reflection. This distinction can be explained on solid scientific grounds: training is primarily associated with procedural knowledge and application-oriented learning (how-to), while seminars are more closely linked to conceptual knowledge, argumentation, and interpretation (why and what). The revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy provides a practical analytical framework in this regard. Learning objectives at the levels of application and creation are more effectively achieved through training-oriented activities, whereas the levels of understanding, analysis, and evaluation are more deeply developed within seminar-based discourse. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Complete Edition. New York: Longman. When discussing these instructional formats, it is also necessary to address the issue of assessment. Researcher I. H. Jabrailov defines assessment as follows: “Assessment is the determination of the value of information or the possibilities of its effective use on the basis of relevant criteria and standards” [Jabrailov, 2011].
This definition reinforces the argument that assessment practices must be aligned with the nature of the instructional format. In training contexts, assessment should focus on observable performance and demonstrable competence, whereas in seminar settings it should prioritize conceptual understanding, reasoning quality, and reflective judgment.
In training contexts, assessment should not be limited to post-event satisfaction surveys alone. Kirkpatrick’s four-level model — reaction, learning, behavior, and results — remains one of the most widely applied frameworks for evaluating training effectiveness. Its practical application underscores the notion that training is not merely an event, but rather a mechanism for generating outcomes. By extending evaluation beyond immediate participant reactions to include learning gains, behavioral change, and organizational impact, this model reinforces an outcome-oriented understanding of training.
In seminar-based instruction, assessment practices tend to differ substantially and are more commonly focused on qualitative and process-oriented indicators, such as:
a) the quality of participation in discussion,
b) depth of text analysis,
c) reflective essays,
d) presentations and debates,
e) the quality of arguments articulated in response to a problem.
These forms of assessment function less as measures of skill execution and more as indicators of critical thinking, analytical reasoning, and reflective judgment, aligning closely with the epistemological aims of the seminar format. Research in higher education indicates that the seminar teaching method is fundamentally grounded in small-group discussion and sustained through active student participation. For instance, comparative studies contrasting seminar-based instruction with lecture-based approaches emphasize that seminars significantly strengthen the active learning component of the educational process [Zeng, H. L., et al, 2020].
However, one of the most frequently observed problems in university practice is the transformation of the seminar into a de facto lecture: the facilitator speaks at length, while participants remain passive listeners. In such cases, the core strength of the seminar — the socialization of thinking through discussion — is effectively lost. Methodological literature on small-group teaching explicitly highlights these risks, noting that factors such as group dynamics, the dominance of outspoken participants, the invisibility of quieter students, time management, and the creation of an inclusive learning environment play a decisive role in determining seminar quality. From this perspective, a seminar cannot be considered “active” by default. Activity is contingent upon the structure of the discussion, the cognitive level of the guiding questions, and the professional competence of facilitation. Otherwise, the seminar risks becoming an intellectual façade: a format in name only, devoid of substantive pedagogical value.
In training contexts, the most common problem is that activities labeled as training are, in practice, reduced to information delivery. Participants view slides and listen to explanations, yet engage in little or no hands-on practice. Under such conditions, the central challenge of training — transfer — becomes even more pronounced, as participants are unable to apply what they have learned in their actual work environments. Training transfer was classically systematized by Baldwin and Ford, who demonstrated that transfer depends on training design, learner characteristics, and the degree of support provided by the work environment. Building on this foundation, Burke and Hutchins synthesize an extensive body of literature to show that, in the absence of organizational support — including leadership encouragement, opportunities for application, motivation, and follow-up mechanisms — training risks degenerating into a mere event effect [Burke & Hutchins, 2007].
In our view, weak training outcomes are often simplistically attributed to the presumed inadequacy of the trainer. In reality, however, the problem is frequently systemic: the workplace does not provide conditions for application, managerial expectations are unclear, monitoring mechanisms are absent, and outcomes are not measured. When referencing the Kirkpatrick model, it is common to observe a particularly widespread misinterpretation in practice, whereby only Level 1 (reaction, i.e., Did you like it?) is assessed. This approach creates an illusion of success, especially in training initiatives. Without evaluating Level 2 (learning), Level 3 (behavior), and Level 4 (results), it is difficult to make credible claims about real impact and effectiveness [14]. Based on this approach, it can be argued that when the intended outcome is a procedural skill (e.g., prepares an assessment rubric, manages conflict using mediation techniques), the appropriate instructional format is training. Conversely, when the intended outcome involves conceptual understanding and critical thinking (e.g., constructs arguments around a controversial issue, evaluates the credibility of sources), the seminar format is more suitable.
When learning outcomes are hybrid in nature, meaning that a seminar–training sequence is required — in other words, when conceptual understanding precedes skill development — instructional design can be grounded in the principle of constructive alignment, following Biggs’s approach. According to this framework, participants should ultimately achieve outcomes that provide clear answers to the following questions:
- What should the learner be able to do or understand?
- Which learning activities lead to this outcome?
- Which assessment tasks validly measure this outcome? [Biggs, 2014].
Universities — particularly at the master’s and doctoral levels — frequently employ the seminar as the core mechanism of the “academic school” tradition. However, as contemporary higher education increasingly demands labor-market-relevant competencies, the optimal strategy is not to position seminars and trainings in opposition, but rather to integrate them into a coherent, sequential system. Such integration may be operationalized as follows:
- Seminar phase (conceptual foundation): theoretical frameworks, critical discourse, analysis of dilemmas;
- Training phase (performance skills): tools, protocols, simulations, feedback;
- Transfer phase (real-world application): projects, portfolios, workplace-based tasks;
- Reflective seminar phase (re-conceptualization): analysis of experience and scientific interpretation of errors.
As noted by researcher I. H. Jabrailov, grounding this process in systematic inquiry and research-based practice yields more effective outcomes. Knowledge acquired in this manner becomes more robust and well substantiated, rather than remaining purely theoretical. Learners — whether pupils or students — develop the capacity to apply acquired knowledge, to utilize it in the investigation of problems related to other phenomena and processes, and to justify their reasoning on its basis. Consequently, alongside logical and critical thinking, creative thinking is also fostered [Jabrailov, 2018].
This model is also consistent with Kolb’s experiential learning cycle, which was referenced earlier. Specifically, the seminar phase — focused on the formation of knowledge and conceptual understanding — corresponds to abstract conceptualization. The training phase, in which skills are acquired through practice and simulation, aligns with active experimentation and concrete experience. The transfer phase, involving application within real professional contexts, reflects the extension and consolidation of experience. Finally, the reflective seminar phase, where outcomes are analyzed and theoretically justified, corresponds to reflective observation. Such an approach preserves the conceptual integrity of each format, enables the clear planning of learning outcomes, and ensures that the instructional process is structured not as a series of isolated events, but as a coherent pedagogical mechanism. From this perspective, the integrative application of seminars and trainings may be regarded as an optimal pathway that ensures both academic depth and practical effectiveness, thereby necessitating a systematic synthesis of the final outcomes in the concluding section.
Conclusion
Synthesizing the arguments presented above, it can be concluded that the distinction between training and seminar is neither formal nor merely terminological; rather, it is deeply didactic, functional, and methodological in nature. Failure to properly understand this distinction has a direct and adverse impact on the quality of educational processes. Training, by its very essence, is a competency- and performance-oriented format. It is built upon planned practice, sequenced tasks, continuous feedback, and mechanisms for measuring outcomes, all of which aim to enable participants to perform concrete actions. From this perspective, training should be understood not as a vehicle for information transmission, but as an instructional technology designed to generate observable behavioral and skill-based change.
By contrast, the seminar format primarily provides an optimal environment for conceptual depth, academic-theoretical discourse, text-based discussion, and the development of critical thinking skills. Here, the central objective is not so much what participants can do in procedural terms, but rather how well they understand why certain approaches are adopted and what alternative perspectives may exist. Within the context of the Azerbaijani education system, the relevance of this distinction becomes particularly pronounced.
For instance, selecting a seminar format when learning outcomes are skill-oriented — or, conversely, applying training technologies when conceptual-critical outcomes are targeted — creates a fundamental misalignment between means and ends. According to the principle of constructive alignment (Biggs & Tang), intended learning outcomes should be defined first, followed by the selection of learning activities that produce these outcomes, and finally by the choice of assessment mechanisms that validly measure them. However, this approach has yet to be implemented systematically within Azerbaijani higher education institutions and professional development programs.
At the same time, significant gaps persist in the evaluation of training effectiveness. In many cases, the “success” of training is measured solely through participant satisfaction surveys, corresponding only to the first level of Donald Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation model. Genuine training impact, however, can only be determined by whether participants apply what they have learned in their professional environments and by how such application influences organizational outcomes. This, in turn, is impossible without post-training monitoring, managerial support, and institutional follow-up mechanisms. Another critical issue concerns the transfer of training outcomes into practice. The transfer model proposed by Timothy T. Baldwin and J. Kevin Ford, as well as the research of Lisa A. Burke and Holly M. Hutchins, demonstrates that training outcomes depend not only on training quality but also on workplace support, managerial expectations, and the conditions created for application.
In higher and secondary specialized education, as well as in teacher professional development and retraining programs, the terms training and seminar are frequently used interchangeably, resulting in persistent mismatches between format and purpose. For example, in areas that require practical outcomes — such as curriculum reform, formative assessment, inclusive education, or digital skills — reliance on seminar formats weakens the development of teachers’ actual performance capabilities. Conversely, in concept-oriented domains such as pedagogical philosophy, learning theories, education policy, and ethical issues, mechanically applied “training” exercises conducted under the guise of training do little to deepen scientific thinking or reflective capacity.
One of the most frequently observed practical problems is the distortion of format integrity: seminars often devolve into lecture-based monologues, while trainings are reduced to slide presentations and general information sessions. This fosters a sense of formal participation rather than genuine learning or behavioral change. The widespread culture of certificate-oriented participation within the Azerbaijani education context further exacerbates this issue, as attention is directed more toward the occurrence of the event and the acquisition of documentation than toward process quality and outcomes. At this juncture, research-based instructional design approaches acquire particular significance. The principle of constructive alignment — ensuring coherence between outcomes, activities, and assessment — clarifies when and for what purposes training or seminar formats should be selected. Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model enables educational practice to move beyond satisfaction-based assessment toward monitoring learning at behavioral and results levels. Transfer frameworks developed by Baldwin and Ford, as well as by Burke and Hutchins, further emphasize that the true value of training lies in its application within classrooms, institutions, and workplaces; otherwise, even the most carefully designed training remains short-lived in its impact. Finally, Knowles’s principles of adult learning underscore the importance of recognizing learners’ prior experience, autonomy, and real needs — particularly within Azerbaijani higher education and teacher training contexts.
In sum, the scientifically grounded differentiation and purposeful application of training and seminar formats within the Azerbaijani education system carry strategic importance for enhancing pedagogical quality and ensuring that reforms yield tangible results. This approach represents not merely a matter of methodological choice, but a broader transformation of educational culture — a shift from delivering information to facilitating learning, and from conducting events to producing meaningful outcomes.
References
- Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Complete ed.). Longman.
- Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 1, 5–22.
- Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Open University Press / McGraw-Hill Education.
- Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 63–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00632.x
- Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2007). Training transfer: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 6(3), 263–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484307303035
- Exley, K., & Dennick, R. (2004). Small group teaching: Tutorials, seminars and workshops. Routledge.
- Jabrailov, I. H. (2011). Learner-centered education and civil society. Mutarjim.
- Jabrailov, I. H. (2018). Current problems in shaping the content of modern education. Azerbaijan School Journal, (3), p. 112–118. (Cəbrayılov, İ.H., Müasir təhsilin məzmununun formalaşdırılmasının aktual problem-ləri. Azərbaycan məktəbi jurnalı. 2018-ci il. №3, s.117)
https://www.anl.az/down/meqale/az_mektebi/2018/03/829598(meqale).pdf - Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.
- Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2015). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (8th ed.). Routledge.
- Mamamdov, N. R. (2022). Models of additional education based on distance learning technologies. In Innovative trends of science and practice, tasks and ways to solve them (pp. 301–306). Proceedings of the XXV International Scientific and Practical Conference, Athens, Greece.
- Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2012). The science of training and development in organizations: What matters in practice. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(2), 74–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612436661
- Zeng, H. L., Chen, D. X., Li, Q., & Wang, X. Y. (2020). Effects of seminar teaching method versus lecture-based learning in medical education. Medical Teacher, 42(11), 1345–1352. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1805100
- https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/CTDN/ttt14m5handouts2pdf.pdf