Resultados numéricos

Motivation has often been assumed to be trait-like and has accordingly been measured in terms of dispositional characteristics. The aim of trait theories is to explain consistencies in behaviour, and previous research suggests that they partly explain learning outcomes (Entwistle & Wilson, 1977). Prior to Colquitt et al.’s (2000) meta­ analysis, research linking personality to training motivation and learning has examined

locus of control (Noe & Schmitt, 1986), goal orientation (Colquitt & Simmering, 1998), learning anxiety (Martocchio, 1994), achievement motivation (Mathieu et al., 1993) and conscientiousness (Colquitt & Simmering, 1998). However, since Colquitt et al.’s

publication most of the research attention has been directed towards goal orientation (Bell & Ford, 2007; Chiaburu & Tekleab, 2005; Smith et al., 2008), and the Big Five

personality factors (LePine, LePine & Jackson, 2004; Major et al., 2006; Naquin & Holton, 2002; Rowold, 2007a). Two variables that have received very little systematic empirical investigation with respect to their relationship with motivation to learn are learning anxiety and achievement motivation.

2.3.1 Learning anxiety

Learning anxiety is widely believed to be linked with training effectiveness. Practitioners using an American Society of Training and Development survey that assessed trainees’ anxiety and performance, found that 80% of 529 respondents reported having greater than normal pre-training anxiety. When trainers were asked about their opinions on anxiety’s impact on the trainees, 90% believed anxiety significantly interfered with trainees’ ability to learn (Fisher, 1998). Indeed, learning anxiety in the training situation is expected to have a direct effect on learning. This may be due to individual’s previous negative experiences in similar contexts, which creates a state of anxiety that affects cognitive processing and memory capacities, particularly when the training involves relatively difficult tasks (Warr & Bunce, 1995). However, research findings on the relationship between learning anxiety and training effectiveness are thus far inconsistent (Fisk & Warr, 1996; Martocchio, 1992; Warr & Bunce, 1995; Warr &

Downing, 2000). Martocchio (1992) completed a study with 87 non-academic full-time employees on a microcomputer training course, and found that post-training computer anxiety was significantly and negatively related with learning (p = -.28). In contrast, no relationship has been reported between learning anxiety and (a) performance on a computer-based associative learning task (Fisk & Warr, 1996), (b) post-training assessment of trainees completing an open learning programme of learning by tutors (Warr & Bunce, 1995), and (c) post-training self-efficacy as well as participation in development activities (Maurer et al., 2003).

The inconsistency in results may be attributed to contextual differences and disparity in conceptualisation of learning anxiety. Specifically, in Martocchio’s (1992) study participants took part in an in-situ training programme, whereas participants in Fisk and Warr’s (1996) study took part in an experimental setting. For some populations attending a course in a computer environment is likely to raise anxiety, thus the situation is likely to be more anxiety provoking. Though participants in Warr and Bunce’s (1995) study also took part in a ‘real’ training programme, the training was very different in nature, being an open learning programme that is likely to be less anxiety provoking as it allows individuals more control over training activities. Whereas Martocchio (1992) measured anxiety towards a specific activity within the training (i.e., computer learning anxiety), Warr and Bunce (1995) measured learning anxiety towards the training

programme but not to specific elements or activities within the course, and Fisk and Warr (1996) measured state anxiety, designed to tap into participants’ feelings at the

experimental setting (i.e., tense, uneasy, worried, calm etc). Thus, further research is needed that investigates whether learning anxiety is an important predictor of training

effectiveness in some contexts and not others, and this research should be consistent in its definition of learning anxiety in order to reach valid conclusions.

Colquitt et al. (2000) proposed that the relationship of learning anxiety with training effectiveness is not straightforward and argued that the mechanism through which learning anxiety affects learning is through motivation to learn. Incorporating studies that have looked at the relationship between learning anxiety and motivation to learn (e.g., Martocchio & Webster, 1992; Webster & Martocchio, 1993) they found that of all the dispositional variables included in their model, anxiety was negatively related to all training variables (post-training self-efficacy, declarative knowledge, skill acquisition, and reaction to training) and exhibited its strongest relationship with motivation to learn.

Despite these findings and given the importance placed upon learning anxiety, it is surprising that very little research since Colquitt et al.’s publication has attempted to further explore the link between learning anxiety and motivation to learn (Machin & Fogarty, 2004; Warr & Downing, 2000). As suggested by Birdi et al. (1997), learning anxiety (which was part of a learning confidence scale) may work to influence the level of a person’s motivation. The present thesis sets out to investigate the mechanisms by which learning anxiety impacts general and specific motivation to learn and learning outcomes in different training contexts. It is anticipated that:

Hypothesis 1: Learning anxiety will be a significant predictor o f general and specific motivation to learn, with the relationship being anticipated to be in the opposite direction. That is, lower levels o f learning anxiety would be related to higher levels o f motivation, and vice versa.

2.3.2 Achievement motivation

Achievement motivation is a relatively stable individual attribute that predisposes individuals to approach situations in a particular manner and is reported to be among the strongest predictors of academic achievement (Robbins, Lauver, Le, Davis, Langley, & Carlstrom, 2004). High achievement motivated individuals generally prefer challenging tasks than do less achievement motivated individuals (Weiner, 1984).

Although scholars have called for investigation of the relationship of the construct in training motivation research (Ford & Noe, 1987; Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992),

achievement motivation has attracted even less research attention than that of learning anxiety. In fact, although Colquitt et al. (2000) showed a moderate relationship between achievement motivation and motivation to learn (rc= .35) and a moderate relationship with reactions to training (rc=.20) and post-training self-efficacy (rc=.22), the item was eliminated from the path analysis because only one study was found to meet the criteria for inclusion (Mathieu et al., 1993). Indeed, in a study that was published at the same year as Colquitt et al.’s review, Carlson et al. (2000) did find support for this relationship, reporting a correlation of .66 between achievement motivation and motivation to learn in a study with 158 warehousers and supervisors in the manufacturing industry who were about to embark on on-the-job training. This suggests that achievement motivation might be one of the personality variables that would benefit from further investigation in order to progress towards a more complete theory of motivation to learn (Carlson et al., 2000). The present study further examines this relationship and proposes that:

Hypothesis 2: Achievement motivation will be a significant predictor o f both general and specific motivation to learn, with the relationship being anticipated to be in

the same directions. That is, high scores o f achievement motivation would be related to high scores o f motivation to learn, and vice versa.

The problem 'syith the research thus far on the effect of learning anxiety and achievement motivation on motivation to learn is linked to issues surrounding conceptualisation and definitions of the construct. For example, Carlson et al. (2000) proposed that the relationship between achievement motivation and motivation to learn is partially mediated by attitudes towards training. In their study they measured motivation to learn through Noe and Wilk’s (1993) scale that defines the construct within an

expectancy theory framework. Thus, it is unclear what it is exactly that achievement motivation predicts, is it valence, instrumentality, or expectancy? Indeed, the same question can be asked for the research findings with respect to learning anxiety, as in fact all three studies cited above (Martocchio & Webster, 1992; Warr & Bunce, 1995;

Webster & Martocchio, 1993) measured motivation to learn through items that tapped into all three expectancy components of Vroom’s (1964) model in one respect or another. This issue will be addressed in the following section and throughout the thesis.