Melbourne Business School - Theses
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 1 of 1
-
ItemTesting motivational interventions on transfer of training on complex tasks: how and when does it work?( 2012)The characteristics of complex tasks make them difficult to learn without effective strategies for managing their cognitive and emotional demands. Training does not guarantee that trainees will retain and transfer skills to tasks or situations outside the training setting. Various studies have shown that self-regulation predicts learning (Sitzmann & Ely, 2011), and that more successful learners have better cognitive and emotional self-regulation strategies than poorer learners (e.g., Keith & Frese, 2005). The crucial question is whether these strategies can be learnt. Existing research has examined the effectiveness of different motivational interventions, each within its own silo. This dissertation investigates the effects of metacognitive training, combined with feedback, error management and goal-setting on transfer of training in a series of three experiments. Experiment 1 manipulated metacognitive training and feedback specificity. Experiment 2 compared metacognitive training with error management training. Experiment 3 manipulated metacognitive training and goal type (performance vs. learning goal vs. do-your-best goal). Participants in all studies (n = 360) learnt to perform a complex computer simulation task, which included an initial training phase and a transfer phase conducted 2 to 5 days later. Across all studies, those who received metacognitive training exhibited better transfer outcomes than those who did not receive metacognitive training. Moreover, metacognitive training lead to higher levels of metacognitive activity which, in turn, enhanced subsequent transfer performance. The findings of Experiment 1, as hypothesized, found that this relationship was stronger when learners received high feedback specificity. Interestingly, in Experiment 2, there was no significant benefit in combining metacognitive training and error management training; metacognitive training and error management training appeared to be equally effective but enhanced transfer through different cognitive and affective routes. In Experiment 3, assigning trainees a specific, challenging goal (either learning or performance) led to better training performance, and improved both analogical and adaptive transfer performance compared to a do-your-best goal. Trainees’ levels of metacognitive strategies, self-efficacy and self-set goals mediated the positive effects of metacognitive training on transfer. The paths between metacognitive training and mediators were moderated by goal type. The results of the three experiments show that metacognitive training in combination with motivational interventions prompt better cognitive and emotional self-regulation, which in turn, improves transfer on dynamic, complex tasks. The findings present evidence for trainers and organizations to incorporate metacognitive training into their training repertoire. That is, to repeatedly prompt trainees to monitor their own performance, self-reflect, make diagnosis judgment and plan ahead during task engagement, and give trainees a chance to quietly record their own thoughts. The current findings suggest that it is important to supplement this training with highly specific feedback. Optimal learning outcomes could also be achieved when trainers provide metacognitive training with explicit instructions to achieve a specific, challenging performance or learning goal. Since complex tasks subject trainees to experience errors and recurrent setbacks, optimal transfer outcomes also depend on one’s ability to self-regulate negative emotions. The current findings suggest prompting trainees to see errors positively during task engagement could also boost transfer outcomes.