If T&D is replaced by L&D, how can we apply Training Measurement Parameters to the Learning Objectives as what is trained need not be what is learned?

Excellent question and one that gave me pause for reflection!  Allow me to introduce a few points here:

~We are seeing a major shift in terminology within many organizations from training to learning.  Does this mean that the functions are changing?  Not necessarily.  Training is sometimes viewed as narrow, technical knowledge while learning is more broad-based. 

~We might learn less from training that other methods.  This isn't to diminish the value of training, but we actually gain more knowledge through other learning methods than just training.  One director once said that we gain10% of ability from training,20% from coaching, and70% from on the job training/experience. 

~Training offers limits to a department.  Training departments can often be a one stop shop, which can be terribly limiting and undermine the value of an otherwise valuable group.  Some organizations put fast-track, rotation, and other development programs in L&D.  Others host conferences for members of an organization to get together and share ideas with one another. 

The point I am trying to get at here is that titles do not often reveal the true nature of what is going on.  Whether you are "training" or "aiding in learning", the way you measure can still be the same.  A good measurement of training should not only occur once, similar to a good measurement of learning.  Pre, post, and long-term surveys should be taken to measure what was gained. 

Education if progress becomes training

thank your polite request..

 so in my opinion, we can apply our educational training information  on career's objectives by practicing more about what we learned and use many tools to apply it in our work,and so give our experiences to other as courses or continuous lessons for trainers or students.

that's what i have for this question

thank you 

It would be how much knowledge actually transfer to the trainees.

This question is a brilliant one.

True that learning is vast, but,  that is a proactive step beyond training( a must for process).

As far as I understand, it does not matter if you are good or have learned something more, but it is the impact you can make to the job as well as bring a positive change to the company.  Someone of such stature will truly stand out.

Training is manageable application with the parameters through the impact of training on the parameter and when the student information advantage

As for the coaches should have a general culture and skills to help in the delivery of information to trainees

I think we define new learning process for feedback from the learners.

don no

In accounting, debit of one person is credit of other. Same is the case here. What is trained must be at least the concern to e learned.

Everything is measurable. For example, some training institutions use progress results from our English assessment tool for companies as one of the bonus modifiers for their coaches.