5.1 Introduction
This chapter examined the model of motivation to learn proposed in this thesis with three qualitatively different training cohorts in law enforcement organisations. This training environment is markedly different from studies carried out thus far in the field of motivation to learn. More specifically, apart from one recent study with a Police Service in Australia (Machin & Fogarty, 2004), previous research has been carried out with administrative (Facteau et al., 1995; Major et al., 2006; Martocchio & Webster, 1992; Mathieu et al., 1992; Smith et al., 2008; Switzer et al., 2005; Thamoue, 2001; Tracey et al., 2001; Warr & Bunce, 1995; Webster & Martocchio, 1993), military organisations (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989; Ford et al., 1992; Tannenbaum et al., 1991) or student populations (Baldwin et al., 1991; Chuang et al., 2005; Colquitt & Simmering, 1998; LePine et al., 2004; Mathieu et al., 1993; Quinones, 1995).
The chapter consists of three studies that were conducted with two law
enforcement organisations in the UK. Although the samples were similar with respect to the organisational context (i.e., employees of law enforcement organisations), they differed considerably in terms of characteristics as well as the objectives, nature and methods of training. The first two studies were conducted in a single law enforcement organisation in Wales. The first study included a sample of newly recruited Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) on an initial training programme. Trainees were at
the start of their career with the organisation and the training was largely classroom based with a focus on learning organisational policies and procedures. The second study was conducted two years later and included a sample of police officers on various driving courses. Trainees were at a more advanced stage of their career with the organisation and the training was skill based with a focus on the practice of driving. The third study differed from the previous two not only because it was conducted in a different organisation altogether, but also because trainees were uniformed and non-uniformed employees on a wide range of initial and further development training courses. Trainees were at various stages of their career with the organisation and similarly to the first study, the courses were mainly classroom based and were undertaken at the organisation’s training college. Thus, it was reasonable to suggest that these three samples of trainees had different experiences and expectations and were therefore deemed suitable for a comparison of the study model.
Like the previous chapter, the model in the current chapter was based on the literature reviewed in Chapter 2. Thus, the studies presented here were designed to address the thesis’ hypotheses. These were: (a) the relationship of the predicting variables (learning anxiety and achievement motivation) with general and specific motivation to learn was proposed to be partially mediated by attitudinal variables (valence,
instrumentality, and / or learning self-efficacy), (b) specific motivation to learn and general motivation to learn were proposed to be predictive of training outcomes, and (c) it was proposed that trainer and peer support will explain additional variance in training outcomes, above and beyond motivation to learn, pre-training attitudes, and individual characteristics.
Unfortunately, although consent was given to access trainees’ performance on various achievement tests, in reality, such data were not available. There were two main reasons for this shortfall. First, some trainers chose not to administer the tests altogether so a substantial number of trainees did not take the tests at all, and second, folders containing results were often impossible to locate. Therefore, unlike the studies in the educational domain, learning was not included as an outcome variable in the current chapter and the focus instead was on the strength of the variables to predict post-training self-efficacy and affective reactions to training. Research consistently shows the
importance of these variables for subsequent behavioural outcomes such as transfer of training and job performance (Colquitt et al., 2000; Tracey et al., 2001; Sitzmann et al., 2008). For example, Colquitt et al. (2000) found that post-training self-efficacy is predictive of transfer, which in turn was predictive of job performance, and Tracey et al. (2001) found that affective reaction significantly impacts upon utility reactions, which in turn is predictive of declarative and application based knowledge.
Utilising reaction measures as a training outcome variable is a common practice in research (Sitzmann et al., 2008). Trainees’ reactions refer to subjective evaluations learners make about their training experiences and are typically measured with post training surveys (Kirkpatrick, 1996). Most researchers would agree that reaction is a multi-dimensional construct. For example, Alliger et al. (1997) distinguished between affective and utility reactions, and Warr & Bunce (1995) provided support for a tri dimensional model, including reported enjoyment of training, perceived usefulness, and perceived difficulty. Adding a fourth dimension to Warr & Bunce (1995) model, Warr et al. (1999) proposed that motivation to transfer is also a dimension of post-training
reaction to training. Common to these models is the recognition that satisfaction or enjoyment with the training course is a unique dimension of reaction to the training course. Thus, in this thesis, affective reactions to training are concerned with trainees’ satisfaction with the manner in which the training course was organised and delivered. This reflects trainees’ reported satisfaction with the quality of the materials and
assignments, the daily schedules, and communications regarding activities during training (Noe & Schmitt, 1986).
Figure 5.1 depicts the research framework that was addressed in the chapter. The model was examined and compared between the three studies to ascertain its relevance and applicability across contexts.
Time 1 1 1 Time 2