Differential Effects of Learner Effort and Goal Orientation on Two Learning Outcomes

Abstract

Training research is beginning to examine the trainee as an active participant in the learning process. One component of this process involves the choices learners make about the effort they will apply to the learning task. Learner effort was examined in two ways: amount of effort and type of effort. Both amount and type of effort were measured in multiple ways. The results indicated that mastery orientation and time on task were the strongest predictors of performance on the knowledge learning outcome, while perceived mental workload and the use of an example during learning predicted performance on the application learning outcome. Implications for training practice and research are discussed.

Observational learning from animated models: effects of studying–practicing alternation and illusion of control on transfer

“…As a consequence the pattern of extraneous and germane cognitive load is rather determined. However, as Fisher and Ford (1998) have argued, the allocation of effort toward learning activities is also driven by individual motivational processes, such as personal goals and interests. For this reason, Gerjets and Scheiter (2003) have proposed an augmented model of cognitive load theory in which learner goals and processing strategies moderate between the instructional design and the pattern of cognitive load.…”

Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader–follower outcomes

“…Furthermore, those with an incremental theory of the self typically approach performance situations with mastery, or learning goal orientation (characterized by the desire to increase one's competence on the task) which is thought to be beneficial to learning (Dweck, 2000;Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Mastery oriented individuals have been characterized as being self-directed and selfregulated learners, they believe that ability is malleable and effort leads to success, prefer challenges, and engage in more complex learning strategies (Dweck, 2000;Dweck & Leggett, 1988;Fisher & Ford, 1998).…”

Employees' Goal Orientations, the Quality of Leader-Member Exchange, and the Outcomes of Job Performance and Job Satisfaction.

“…Early research relying on a dichotomous conceptualization of goal orientation repeatedly showed a mastery orientation to be more beneficial for a wide range of task performances than a performance orientation (e.g., Button et al, 1996;Farr et al, 1993;Ford et al, 1998;Phillips & Gully, 1997;VandeWalle, Brown, Cron, & Slocum, 1999). However, recent achievement goal research suggests that a performance orientation may also have beneficial effects, particularly with regard to actual performance.…”

“…Moreover, innovative job performance concerns the development and application of something new for which the requisite knowledge and strategies have yet to be learned. Research has shown that a mastery goal focuses an individual's attention on the elaboration and development of new knowledge and deep processing strategies leading to effectiveness in complex and unfamiliar tasks (Elliot & McGregor, 2001;Fisher & Ford, 1998;Steele-Johnson et al, 2000;Winters & Latham, 1996). Second, mastery-oriented employees have personal and intrinsic interest in the tasks they perform (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2000;Elliot, 1999;Pintrich, 2000;Van Yperen, 2003a).…”

“…Fisher and Ford (1998) found that performance orientations cause individuals to rehearse task strategies and familiar task components until they become rapid and automatic. Such a focus on practicing job components can interfere with innovation and learning as individuals possess a fixed number of attentional resources that can be allocated to a variety of job components (e.g., Steele-Johnson et al, 2000).…”