High AGO trainees made less efficient progress in training.

1. Developing the Unemployed: The Role of Trainee Goal Orientation Mary Jane Potocnik, Kimberly A. Smith-Jentsch, Carollaine M. Garcia • Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida • Charyl S. Yarbrough • Heldrich Center for Workforce Development, Rutgers University • Recent initiatives to assist the hardcore unemployed have included Work Readiness training programs which attempt to improve basic work competencies. Trainees approach this training with differing goal orientations. This study investigated the role of trainee goal orientation in predicting outcomes of Work Readiness training using 107 unemployed adults. Trainees higher on avoid goal orientation made less efficient progress, whereas those higher on prove goal orientation achieved higher post-training scores on basic competencies and those higher on learning goal orientation showed greater improvement on a complex work simulation. • Goal Orientation • Goal orientation (GO) has been defined as an individual’s motivational response to achievement situations (Dweck, 1986). • VandeWalle (1997) identified three types of GO. • Learning goal orientation (LGO) involves desire to develop competence, acquire new skills, and master new situations. • Prove goal orientation (PGO) involves desire to demonstrate competence and elicit favorable judgments from others. • Avoid goal orientation (AGO) involves desire to avoid disproving competence or eliciting others’ negative judgments. • Work Readiness Training • Voluntary government-funded Work Readiness training programs provide unemployed adults with basic work competencies needed to become reemployed. • Individuals may have different motivations for participating in such training and these motivations likely affect their learning outcomes. • To avoid or delay their job search (Avoid Goal Orientation) – should predict slow progress through training. • To prove their competence to prospective employers (Prove Goal Orientation) – should predict acquisition of declarative knowledge and speed of completion. • To master necessary work competencies (Learning Goal Orientation) – should predict mastery of complex skills. • High AGO trainees made less efficient progress in training. • High PGO trainees scored higher on the declarative knowledge certification test and completed training in fewer hours. • High LGO trainees showed greater post-training mastery during the work simulation. • Pre-training individual differences in goal orientation influence Work Readiness training outcomes for the unemployed. • Screening of candidates for limited training opportunities based on trait goal orientation may improve the return on investment of Work Readiness Training. • Program policies and procedures should be designed so as to foster appropriate goal orientation “states.” • Interventions designed to improve training motivation could be tailored based on initial screening of trainee goal orientation. H1: After accounting for pre-training competency levels, Work-Readiness trainees who are (a) higher in trait LGO, (b) higher in trait PGO, and (c) lower in trait AGO will have to repeat a lesser number of online modules during the course of training than will trainees who are lower in trait LGO, lower in trait PGO, and higher in trait AGO. H2: After accounting for pre-training competency levels, Work-Readiness trainees who are (a) higher in trait LGO, (b) higher in trait PGO, and (c) lower in trait AGO will receive higher post-training scores than will trainees who are lower in trait LGO and trait PGO, and higher in trait AGO. H3: After accounting for pre-training performance in a complex work simulation, Work-Readiness trainees who participate in a self-reflection exercise will demonstrate greater post-training performance in the same simulation if they are (a) higher in trait LGO, (b) lower in trait PGO, and (c) lower in trait AGO than they will if they are lower in trait LGO, and higher in trait PGO and AGO. Participants Participants were 107 unemployed adults enrolled in a Work Readiness training program; 101 females and 6 males ranging in age from 18 to 52 (M=29.38, SD=7.37). Of the participants, 83 reported that they had earned at least a high school diploma or its equivalent while 18 indicated that they had not. The participants were racially diverse; 16 were White, 64 Black, 22 Hispanic, and 5 of unknown or mixed race. In order to qualify for this training program, participants had to be receiving financial assistance from the government and to have at least one dependent under the age of 18. Work Readiness Training Program Trainees who participated in the training program received instruction in 5 basic work competencies (Math, Reading, Locating Information, Listening Actively, and Observation) using the KeyTrain web-based job skills training system (Think Media, 2007). Trainees also participated in a work simulation which required them to demonstrate these five competencies at the start and at the end of training. The number of days participants spent in training ranged from 4 to 23 (M=11.23 , SD=4.88 ) given the self-paced nature of the course. Measures Goal Orientation: Trait goal orientation was assessed using a 13-item scale developed by VandeWalle and Cummings (1997). 5 items assessed LGO, 4 items assessed PGO, and 4 items assessed AGO. Training Efficiency: Trainees were required to repeat a module as many times as needed in order to pass the quiz associated with it. Training efficiency was measured as the mean number of times a participant needed to repeat modules across the 5 competencies. Basic Competency Scores: Prior to and after training, trainees’ competencies were assessed through computer-based declarative knowledge tests using the KeyTrain system (Think Media, 2007). Mean pre- and post- training scores were computed across the 5 competency areas. Performance in Work Simulation: Trainees engaged in a 40-minute work simulation both prior to and after training. Trainees’ audio-recorded responses to situations presented in the simulation were scored by condition-blind raters using checklists of desired behaviors. Abstract1 Results5 Hypotheses3 Introduction2 Method4 Discussion6