astd, MGMT 6860, Needs Assessment, Training, UGST1000

Learning Goal Orientation & Motivation with Course Delivery Modes

Determining the course delivery mode for learners is important. Learning goal orientation (LGO) delivery modes can either enable or create barriers to motivation to learn and course/training outcomes. Have you thought about how the technology-enhanced instruction is supporting or challenging your learners? I have been thinking about this a great deal this semester as I weave face-to-face meetings in my seminar session with online/blended/connected projects and assignments.

Klein, Noe, and Wang (2006) conducted a quasi-experiment with 600 undergraduate students to compare blended learning and classroom delivery in three consecutive, ten week terms over the course of a full academic year. Unlike other blended learning or classroom comparison studies, the authors aim was to understand why or under what conditions one method may be more effective than the other and identify variables based on motivation theory to investigate how and why blended learning may be more effective than classroom instruction.

A Conceptual Model: Motivation for Learning Goal Orientation (Klein, Noe & Wang, 2006)

This model integrates training motivation theory, which is based on the Colquitt, LePine, and Noe (2000) meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of training research and Brown and Ford’s (2002) input-process-output (IPO) model of learning.

Klein, Noe, and Wang (2006) tested the following hypothesis in their study:

1)      Motivation to learn – predictor of course outcomes and is influenced by both individual and situational characteristics (Colquitt et al., 2000; Noe, 1986; Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992).

2)      Instructional characteristics – reduced motivation in distance learning courses include distractions and interruptions; level of interaction among the learners and between the instructor and learners, and increased learner control over the pace of instruction based on self-determination theory (Gange & Deci, 2005).

3)      Learner characteristics – LGO chosen can have a strong effect on learning and the allocation of effort during learning (Fisher & Ford, 1998); interest in the strongest and most consistent relationship with motivation to learn and course outcomes; challenges may encourage some learners to persist while be a barrier for other learners

4)      Perceived barriers and enablers – can impact motivation to learn and influence transfer of learning; attitudes examines towards use of new technology and availability of personal/technical support

5)      Course outcomes – goal to have robust positive relationships between motivation to learn and course outcomes that impact the cognitive learning (Kraiger,  Ford & Salas, 1993) and effective learning goal orientation (LGO)

6)      Mediating role of motivation to learn – expected relationships between the IV (delivery mode, LGO, and perceived barriers and enables) and the DV (course outcomes); specifically Sitzmann et al. (2006) found that blended learning was 13% more effective than classroom knowledge for teaching declarative knowledge, whereas White (1997) found distance learners engaged in greater metacognition than classroom learners; Other mediators: constraints, lack of choices, self-regulated learning, varied learner motivation

While reading this article for the training and development section of my HRD seminar, there are some limitations to comparing undergraduate learning to training – but this piece did present some interesting findings and suggested research for the future. Here are the results shared by Klein, Noe, and Wang (2006) from this study:

  • Learners in the blended learning condition, learners high in domain-specific LGO, and learners who perceived external features as enablers rather than barriers had higher motivation to learn
  • Barriers/enablers partially mediated the effects on LGO on motivation to learn
  • Motivation to learn was significantly related to course satisfaction, metacognition, and course grades
  • Motivation to learn mediated the relationships between the delivery mode, metacognition, relationship between LGO and course grades, and perceived barriers/enablers and course satisfaction



Brown K.G. & Ford J.K. (2002). Using computer technology in training. In Kraiger, K. (Ed.).Creating, implementing, and managing effective training and development (pp. 192–233). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Colquitt J.A., LePine J.A., &Noe R.A. (2000).Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology85, 678–707.

Gagne, M.& Deci, E.L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 26, 331–362.

Klein, H.J., Noe, R.A. & Wang, C. (2006). Motivation to learn and course outcomes: The impact of delivery mode, learning goal orientation, and perceived barriers and enablers. Personnel Psychology, 59, 665-702.

Kraiger, K., Ford, J.K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 311–328.

Sitzmann, T.M., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D.W., & Wisher, R.A. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59, 623–664.

Tannenbaum, S.I. & Yukl, G. (1992). Training and development in work organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 399–441.

White, C.J. (1997). Effects of mode of study on foreign language learning. Distance Education18, 178–196.

astd, ATPI, Learning Technologies, LPQ, Open Education

Introducing the NEW Learning and Performance Quarterly (LPQ) Journal


The Center for Knowledge Solutions at the Department of Learning Technologies, University of North Texas is proud to announce the first Call for Papers for the inaugural issue of the Learning and Performance Quarterly (LPQ) journal.

The Learning and Performance Quarterly (LPQ) is currently accepting submissions for the inaugural issue. We are welcoming any article submissions that detail the definition, history and evolution of learning and performance in its broadly conceived terms including instructional design, performance improvement, learning innovations, training and development and educational technology for both public and private sectors: 

The deadline for submissions is Friday, February 10, 2012.

For detailed submission guidelines and instructions on how to make a submission, please visit Author Guidelines. Editors, Laura Pasquini and Dr. Jeff Allen, will gladly answer any questions or concerns regarding submissions via e-mail: We look forward to receiving your submissions.

Please share this announcement with other colleagues and researchers who might be interested in publishing for the Learning and Performance Quarterly. Thanks!

astd, Learning Technologies, PLN, Professional Development, Social Media, Training

How Does Your Social Learning Garden Grow?

It is important to consider how your organization uses the social web for learning professionals. The American Society for Training & Development (ASTD) recently published INFOLINE: Social Learning for Learning Professionals initiated a review of social media engagement beyond knowledge workers (educators). Social learning is not competing with formal education, training, or employee development; instead it is a space to connect professionals and share ideas. Although social media learning is often compared to informal or e-learning, it distinguishes itself as learners search content, develop interpersonal engagements, and form shared communities of practice. 

The key Social Learning Technologies include:

  • Online Communities – personal learning networks & virtual learning environments
  • Media Sharing – sharing & tagging videos, images, photos and more!
  • Microsharing – 140 characters to highlight news, share trends, ask questions & link URLs
  • Collaboration Tools – wikis, shared documents & cloud computing platforms
  • Immersive Environments – virtual worlds, gaming, augmented reality & simulations
  • Social Learning at Events – IRL meetings to connect offline for shared interests & goals

More professionals value social media tools to enhance communication, improve knowledge sharing, find resources and connect to a broader learning network. Many social resources create a space to solve problems, mentor employees, scaffold training initiatives and support effective decision-making. Organizations that support social learning may not see traditional return-on-investment (ROI); however they do have the potential to enhance the following items in its organizational culture:

  • retaining institutional knowledge
  • attracting and retaining professionals
  • succession planning
  • connecting dispersed employees
  • collaboration to solve problems
  • integrated & holistic approach for staff development
Social learning groups are sometimes organic, and others are intentionally created with specific learning goals. Any organization interested utilizing social media in a training and development program might want to consider a few guidelines before proposing to the idea the senior leaders:
  1. Establish a purpose.
  2. Encourage participation.
  3. Encourage respectful communication.
  4. Identify a gardener.
  5. Outline limitations.
  6. Include troubleshooting information.
Bingham, T. (2011, January). INFOLINE: Social Learning for Learning Professionals. ASTD Press, 1101, 1-16.
astd, ATPI, Reflections, Training

Talkin’ ‘Bout My Generation…

So I was talkin’ ’bout my generation (and other generations) in the workplace for this week’s ATTD 6210 trend report, and it had me thinking about the generation gap. There are now four different generations working side-by-side in the workforce – which has not happened before. This means it’s probably a good idea for organizations to take a look at who is actually sitting around the board room table and better understand how to manage this group effectively.

I am a Generation X kid. After reading the ASTD article, Guiding Generation X to Lead, I very much identified with all these Gen X perspectives:

  • resourceful and hardworking
  • meet commitments and take employability seriously
  • value self-reliance.
  • well-honed survival skills and nurtured networks prepare them to handle whatever happens
  • are comfortable in a global and digital world
  • adopted the collaborative technology to reshape how we work and live
  • has an unconscious acceptance of diversity
  • uncanny ability to redefine issues and question reality
  • skeptical and innovative
  • look for different ways to move forward
  • prepared to serve as pragmatic managers
  • options thinkers – like choices
  • like to develop multiple skills because that provides them with the opportunity to move in various directions

Although I identify with the Gen X’ers I still test high in the next generation with my “How Millennial Are You?” survey results sitting at 93%. I suppose I have worked and studied amongst Generation Y for sometime, and it is quite possible that I may have picked up on a habits or two.

There may be some differences between generations, however it is critical to find suitable practices, structures and methods for management that meet the needs of the entire team. This just means good management practices can help support generational differences, communication, group dynamics, staff training and retention of employees. The competition for talent will be initially addressed in the array of benefits to attract the top talent from across the generations (Rowe, 2010). It is also costly to replace experienced and skilled labor, so organizations should consider the creation of programs to encourage workers to stay or partially retire to help employee retention.

(Erickson, 2010)

Engagement, communication and inclusion of all employees across the generational groups is the key to long-term success. The following approaches to dealing with multigenerational workplaces was suggested from the the 2004 Society of Human Resources Management Generational Differences Survey that still hold true today:

  • communicating information in multiple ways
  • promoting collaborative discussion, decision making or problem solving
  • using team-building activities
  • offering different types of training to accommodate different generations
  • creating mentoring program between generations
  • training managers on dealing with generational differences


Coupland, D. (1991). Generation X: Tales of an Accelerated Culture. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Erickson, T.G. (2010, August). Guiding Generation X to Lead. Training + Development Magazine, 16.

Rossi, J. (2007, November). What Generation Gap?: Are generational difference in the workplace a myth? ASTD Training + Development Magazine, 10-11.

Rowe, K.A. (2010, March). Managing Across Generations. Infoline: Tips, Tools, and Intelligence for Trainers. Volume 27, Issue 1003.