Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T08:37:13.633Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Third-Generation Instructional Models: More About Guiding Development and Design Than Selecting Training Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Kurt Kraiger
Kurt Kraiger*
Affiliation:
Colorado State University
*
E-mail: kurt.kraiger@colostate.edu, Address: Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1876
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

In this article, I summarize and respond to key comments and criticisms offered in commentaries on Kraiger (2008). At issue is whether the proposed third-generation instructional model is fundamentally sound, represents a new or better approach, overemphasizes the importance of learner–learner interaction, and underemphasizes the role of the instructor. Responses to these concerns are offered, along with clarification that the major contribution of the third-generation model is at the point of training design.

Information

Type
Response
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , December 2008, pp. 501 - 507
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2008 

Footnotes

*

Department of Psychology, Colorado State University

References

Ackerman, P. L. (1988). Determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition: Cognitive abilities and information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 288–318.Google Scholar
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (in press). Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60.Google Scholar
Anderson, T. Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W., Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2),1–17.Google Scholar
Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Instructors as facilitators of learner–learner interaction in third-generation learning environments. Industrial and Organizational Perspectives: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 487–490.Google Scholar
Bedwell, W. L., & Salas, E. (2008). If you build it, will they interact? The importance of the instructor. Industrial and Organizational Perspectives: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 491–493.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00093.xGoogle Scholar
Bickmore, T., & Picard, R. (2005). Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 12, 293–327.Google Scholar
Brown, K. G., & Klein, H. J. (2008). Third-generation instruction: “Tools in the toolbox” rather than the “latest and greatest.” Industrial and Organizational Perspectives: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 472–476.Google Scholar
Brown, K. G., & Van Buren, M. E. (2007). Applying a social capital perspective to the evaluation of distance training. In Fiore, S. M. & Salas, E. (Eds.), Towards a science of distributed learning (pp. 41–63). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Crook, A. E., & Beier, M. E. (2008). Two heads are not always better than one: Defining parameters for collaboration in training. Industrial and Organizational Perspectives: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 484–486.Google Scholar
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness, and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554–571.Google Scholar
Ford, J. K. (2008). Transforming our models of learning and development: How far do we go? Industrial and Organizational Perspectives: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 468–471.Google Scholar
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 2, 87–105.Google Scholar
Golembiewski, R. T., Billingsley, K., & Yeager, S. (1976). Measuring change and persistence in human affairs: Types of change generated by OD designs. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 12, 133–157.Google Scholar
Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2005). Illusions of competence in monitoring one’s knowledge during study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 187–194.Google Scholar
Kraiger, K. (1999). Employee performance and learning in today’s organization. In Ilgen, D. R. & Pulakos, E. D. (Eds.), The changing nature of work performance: Implications for staffing, personnel actions and development (pp. 366–396). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Kraiger, K. (2008). Transforming our models of learning and development: Web-based instruction as an enabler of third-generation instruction. Industrial and Organizational Perspectives: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 454–467.Google Scholar
Kraiger, K., & Ford, J. K. (2006). The expanding role of workplace training: Themes and trends influencing training research and practice. In Koppes, L. L. (Ed.), Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 281–309). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kraiger, K., & Jerden, E. (2007). A new look at learner control: Meta-analytic results and directions for future research. In Fiore, S. M. & Salas, E. (Eds.), Towards a science of distributed learning (pp. 65–90). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.10.1037/11582-004Google Scholar
Landers, R. N. (2008). Online social context does not imply social constructivism: A case for clear operationalization. Industrial and Organizational Perspectives: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 477–479.Google Scholar
Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1999). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Revans, R. (1982). The origins and growth of action learning. Bromly, England: Chartwell Bratt.Google Scholar
Rocco, E. (1998). Trust breaks down in electronic contexts but can be repaired by some initial face-to-face contact. In Karat, C. M., Lund, A., Coutaz, J., & Karat, J. (Eds.), CHI 1998 conference proceedings (pp. 496–502). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
Rupp, D. E., Gibbons, A. M., Snyder, L. A. (2008). The role of technology in enabling third-generation training and development. Industrial and Organizational Perspectives: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 496–500.Google Scholar
Saks, A. M., & Haccoun, R. R. (2008). Is the “third-generation model” new and is it the holy grail of adaptive learning? Industrial and Organizational Perspectives: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 480–483.Google Scholar
Sfrad, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27, 4–13.Google Scholar
Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2008). Do second-generation models have more to offer? Industrial and Organizational Perspectives: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 494–495.Google Scholar
Smith, E. M., Ford, J. K., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1997). Building adaptive expertise: Implications for training design. In Quiñones, M. A. & Ehrenstein, A. (Eds.), Training for a rapidly changing workplace: Applications of psychological research (pp. 89–118). Washington, DC: APA Books.10.1037/10260-004Google Scholar
Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 78, 139–145.Google Scholar