Measures o f motivation to learn

As was demonstrated in Chapter 1, examination of the literature quickly reveals the wide range of scales used by researchers, making it all the more difficult for one to replicate and examine previous models. Following Mathieu and Martineau’s (1997) advice that...”'perhaps the clearest lessons to be learned, are that (a) researchers should choose an approach based on the criteria they are most interested in predicting, and (b) the simultaneous use o f multiple approaches should prove fruitful fo r both research and practice ” (p. 198), the measures of motivation to learn in this thesis were designed to

have relevance to the research context.

Given that the thesis conceptualises motivation to learn separately from the closely related constructs of valence and instrumentality, similar to Colquitt & Simmering’s (1998) study, a short scale that includes three items was used for each measure, i.e., three items were designed to tap into general motivation to learn and three items were designed to tap into specific motivation to learn. In contrast to Warr and Bunce’s (1995) study where general and specific motivation to learn were assessed through a different set of items, in the present thesis the measures differed simply by re­ wording the items to reflect either general enthusiasm to learn or eagerness to learn the material that is going to be taught on a forthcoming course. This approach was taken because Warr & Bunce’s measure of specific motivation to learn was deemed inappropriate as it contained items related to perceived personal gains and intrinsic interest in the training programme, which are closely related to instrumentality and valence.

The distinction between the measures can be seen in the items below: General motivation to learn

1 .1 am always keen to make use of the learning and development opportunities available to me.

2 . 1 am always motivated to learn new things. 3 . 1 always try to learn as much as I can. Specific motivation to learn

1 .1 am keen to make use of the learning and development opportunities during (name of a specific course) training

2 . 1 am motivated to learn the material during (name of a specific course) training

3 . 1 will try to learn as much as I can during (name of a specific course)

3.3.4 Measures o f training support variables

Given that the thesis’ model is based on the organisational literature, the majority of studies that were initially reviewed defined training support within the framework of the work environment. In such cases, trainer support is usually examined through the extent to which supervisors: (1) provide opportunities for participants to utilize trained skills; (2) are supportive of their efforts to apply trained skills back on the job; and (3) reinforce efforts to transfer skills to their own situation (Ford et al., 1992). Similarly, peer support has been studied within the context of coworker support for attending training and applying the newly acquired knowledge and skills to the job (Birdi et al., 1997; Facteu et al., 1995; Maurer & Tarulli, 1994; Noe & Wilks, 1993). The problem with this

approach is that these definitions of supervisor and peer support do not translate well into the educational context. Nevertheless, the availability of such support remains important, though in a different framework (Berger & Milem, 1999; Solberg et al., 1998).

Supervisor/Trainer support

In order to develop a measure of trainer support that could translate well between the organisational and educational domains, it was necessary to examine the educational literature. On the basis of this review a list of items was extracted and was discussed with the course co-ordinator where the pilot study took place. It was established that two possible supervisors existed, one was an academic member of staff whom the students have contact with throughout their studies (personal tutor), and the other was the consultant who supervised their work during a specific clinical attachment. The course co-ordinator asked for both to be included in the study as she wanted to examine the possibility that each has a unique role in influencing students’ academic achievement.

The duties and students’ expectations from these supervisors are very different. To begin with, students do not expect to have much contact with their personal tutor and they understand that the primary role of the personal tutor is pastoral care rather than training. On the other hand, students expect a great deal of contact time and interaction with the consultant during a clinical attachment. These consultants are perceived as experts in their subject area and their role is to train and create learning opportunities in hands on, rather than a lecturing, learning environment.

Two scales were therefore included, one measured personal tutor support and the other measured trainer support. The personal tutor scale asked respondents how often

their personal tutor could be 'relied on', 'would listen to problems' and 'can be counted on when the situation gets tough'. For example, “How much can your personal tutor be relied on fo r support during your studies? ” All responses were made on a 5-point scale ranging from ’never' to 'always'. This scale was adapted from a measure of General Level of Support (Dressier, 1991). Items were scored from 1 to 5 where a higher score

represented higher levels of supervisor support.

Support from the consultant during the period of training itself (clinical attachment) was measured via a 7-item scale which was adapted from Kidd and

Smewing’s (2001) measure of supervisor support. This scale focuses on evaluation of the extent to which the consultant provided an environment that encouraged learning

opportunities, availability of guidance and feedback, availability of the consultant for learning time, and how comfortable they felt asking the consultant questions related to learning. Example items included “the consultant gave me specific guidance as to how I could improve ” and “I felt comfortable asking the consultant/lecturer questions related to my learning”.

Peer support

Through examination of the educational literature and discussions with the course co-ordinator, a list was extracted of the components of peer support relevant to the context. As a result, two possible sources of peer support were identified, one from other medical students generally, and the other from the students they attend the attachment with. Therefore, two measures of peer support were designed. To measure support from other students throughout their study of medicine a scale was adapted from Dressier’s

(1991) measure of General Level of Support. The scale was designed to tap into how often their peers during their years of studying could be 'relied on', 'would listen to problems' and 'can be counted on when the situation gets tough'. Scores ranged from 1 to

5, with 1 = never, and 5 = always.

With regard to support from their peers during the clinical attachment, a 5-items measure adapted from Ladd and Henry’s (2000) measure of co-workers support was included in the questionnaire that was administered upon their return from the

attachment. This measure focuses on participants’ rating of the extent to which their peers (with whom they have attended the clinical attachment) were available to help, were willing to offer assistance, showed concern if they struggled with their studies, and whether their peers took notice of any suggestions they made. It also included a measure that tapped into whether they tended to work together as a group (Ford et al., 1992). Example items include “as a group o f students attending the obstetrics & Gynaecology clinical attachment we tended to study together and support each other” and “help was available from other students when I had a problem related to the studies

3.4 Results