Intrinsic and extrinsic intentional learning: The difference made by self-determination

Abstract

Intentional learning occurs in formal and informal settings throughout an individual’s life time. Intentional learning can be deemed as an ideal learning process where all the necessary elements for achieving a goal of effective learning are in place and in order. Intentional learners take an active role in and responsibility for their own learning, and they self-plan, execute, monitor and regulate their learning processes as well as learning strategies. Most importantly, intentional learners are willing and committed to reaching the learning goal. At its occurrence, intentional learning could be triggered by an external suggestion or guidance (e.g. teacher’s explanation of the importance of the subject), or internal factors (e.g. intrinsic interests or personal needs through self-evaluation and self-determination). Thus, intentional learning could be further differentiated into intrinsic or extrinsic. While both intrinsic and extrinsic intentional learning are likely to result in similar learning outcomes, cultivating students’ disposition of intrinsic intentional learning may have more beneficial long term effects than extrinsic intentional learning as it is one of the keys that sustain an individual’s lifelong learning. Also, the technology that could facilitate intrinsic intentional learning will be discussed.

Keywords

Intentional learning self-determination educational technology problem solving self-evaluation scaffolding

Introduction

Learning occurs throughout an individual’s life span. It starts at the moment of birth and continues on until he or she is no longer cognitively functioning. The occurrence of a given learning event could be conscious or unconscious. Infants and toddlers learn about their surroundings, care givers, motor skills, and cognitive skills by interacting with their environments without being consciously aware of the occurrence of learning. The majority of biologically primary abilities (Geary, 2002, 2005) such as language (especially first language), social skills, and reasoning skills are mostly learned and developed unconsciously and over a long period of time. When individuals engage in this type of learning, there is no pre-set goal that triggers and consequently guides the learning. Therefore, this type of learning is, unplanned, unintentional, or incidental. On the other hand, there are situations where learning is initiated, planned, maintained, and completed for the purpose of fulfilling a specific goal. In this case, according to Bereiter and Scardamalia (1989) the individual is consciously aware of the occurrence of the learning. More importantly, he or she is the one who initiates the process with a goal in mind to acquire specific sets of knowledge and/or skills. During the process, the actions that the individual takes are directed by the goal, which is successful learning. This type of learning is intentional.

Intentional learning

Intentional learning can be deemed as an ideal learning process where all the necessary elements for achieving a goal of effective learning are in place and order. As Scardamalia and Bereiter (2010) and Sinatra and Pintrich (2003) suggested, intentional learners take an active role in and responsibility for their own learning, and they self-plan, execute, monitor, and regulate their learning processes as well as learning strategies. Most importantly, intentional learners are willing and commit to reach the learning goal. Also, though intentional learning is highly self-initiated and self-regulated, the initiation of intentional learning does not necessarily have to occur internally within the learner. It can be triggered by external factors (e.g. schooling, problem solving, or decision making), as Bereiter and Scardamalia (1989) argued. Students’ intentional learning could be triggered by their teachers’ explanation of the importance of learning the subject, or the consequence of failing to master the subject. The intentional learning could also be triggered by social factors, for example, conformity effects (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Thus, the possibility that intentional learning could be suggested by external sources opens a door for instructional intervention for facilitating students to engage in such a powerful learning process.

The effects of intentional learning

Research in the areas of learning sciences and instruction has suggested several effects of intentional learning in affecting the success of students’ school achievement. First of all, intentional learning entails a systematic inquiry process of the subject area in order for the learner to acquire the required knowledge and skills for the learning goal. Bereiter and Scardamalia’s (1989) analogy of intentional learning as a problem solving process well illustrates this attribute. To accomplish a learning goal, the learner has to identify what needs to be learned, which is the gap (problem space) between what he/she already knows and the learning goal. This cognitive process activates the learner’s prior knowledge and schema (Rumelhart & Norman, 1988) as the starting point of the learning process. During the inquiry and learning processes, the learner acquires newly learned knowledge, elaborates, and integrates it with the existing knowledge and schema in order to improve and enrich the knowledge base. This systematic inquiry and learning process enables the learner to construct a deeper understanding of the subject as well as an integrated knowledge base.

Secondly, conceptual change is one of the important learning constructs and processes that has long been researched. However, the early research on conceptual change mainly focused on the cognitive aspects of the construct. More recently, conceptual change researchers have explored the affective aspects of the construct, one of which is intention (Sinatra & Pintrich, 2003). Conceptual change could happen through intentional learning or unintentional learning. Learning that requires the learner to go through a conceptual change process entails more cognitive processes than the learning that does not require such a “paradigm shift” process (Kuhn, 1970), ontological re-categorization (Chi, Slotta, & Leeuw, 1994), or a change cognitive ecology (diSessa, 2002; Posner, Strike, & Hewson, 1982). Even more so, sometimes emotional or cultural factors could impede the learner’s conceptual change learning due to unwillingness to make the shift or a strong emotional attachment to the alternative concept or misconception. Therefore, intention and willingness to replace the alternative concept with a scientifically sound or contemporarily accepted concept plays a key role in the occurrence of the conceptual change learning process as well as fighting the resilience of misconceptions. Thirdly, as Bereiter and Scardamalia (1989, p. 363) argued, all life experiences have an outcome of incidental learning. However, some incidental learning experiences are remembered, some are forgotten, and some are unnoticed by the individual. With an understanding and mindset of intentional learning, an individual could turn seemingly trivial life experiences into useful life lessons or skills. And more importantly, the mindset of intentional learning could sustain an individual as a lifelong learner.

The characteristics of intentional learning

Bereiter and Scardamalia’s (2002) description of “the active pursuit of a mental life” (p. 246) gives a rather broad yet elegant definition of intentional learning. A number of researchers have also conceptualized and described the characteristics or processes of intentional learning (see, for example, Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1989, 2002; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002; Scardamalia and Bereiter, 2010; Sinatra, 2000; Sinatra & Pintrich, 2003). The characteristics of intentional learning could be summarized as follows.

In intentional learning,

learning is the goal, rather than an incidental outcome;

the learning process is internally self-initiated;

the decision to learn is a conscious, voluntary choice;

learners are aware of the purpose of the process;

learners engage in goal-directed cognitive processes and actions; and

it is a self-controlled, self-monitored, and self-regulated process.

At first glance, it seems that most students’ learning in formal education settings would fall into the category of intentional learning. Students come to school for education. They are fully aware that they are to acquire a certain amount, type, and proficiency level of knowledge, skills, and abilities. Every course or curriculum is designed for the students to acquire some specific knowledge and skills for various educational goals. Yet, though there is no scientific data about the ratio of intentional and unintentional learners in school settings, we know, anecdotally, the number of intentional learners is low.

Why is intentional learning not a common practice among students? One possibility is the unintended obstacles for intentional learning imposed by the learning environments. Scardamalia and Bereiter (1996, 2010) pointed out that the classroom environments and teachers’ instructional practices in most schools do not provide opportunities for students to engage in such a learning process. For example, in contemporary instructional practice, it is not uncommon to see teachers employing inquiry activities or projects for students to engage in independent learning. However, in many cases of inquiry learning, students are in fact engaging in a process that if learning does happen, it is unintentional. This is because in these inquiry projects, in the students’ mind, the goal is to solve the problem or complete a specific task. In this process, learning is implied or suggested. Learning is initiated and directed by the teacher, not the students. The teacher is the one who possesses all the elements and characteristics of intentional learning and is aware of the processes and the actions to be taken, but unfortunately, not the students. Also, though the students will still acquire some knowledge and experiences as learning outcomes, they do not have a holistic idea about their own entire learning process and experience. More importantly, they miss the chance to practice the intentional learning skills, such as self-regulated and metacognitive learning, since they may not be aware that they are in a learning process. Thus, this type of independent inquiry may trigger students’ interest in the subject and maintain their participation during the process. However, if learning does occur, it is incidental.

This is not to say that independent inquiry is not effective for student learning. Rather, it is an effective instructional approach that provides opportunities for students to develop their scientific inquiry skills as well as acquire content knowledge. However, how can students be guided to engage in intentional learning rather than incidental learning in this type of learning environment? The key may lie in the composition of students’ motivation to learn. Bereiter and Sacrdamalia’s (1989) well illustrated analogy between the intentional learning process and problem solving process gives an excellent conceptual framework for this discussion. For an intentional learning to occur, the learner has to be aware of and acknowledge that there is a need for learning a particular subject (understand the problem and know the goal state of the problem). In order to acknowledge the need to learn, the learner must be again aware of and acknowledge a deficiency in his or her existing knowledge base (identify the gap between the current state and goal state of the problem and construct the problem space). This acknowledgment of deficiency is the key element that generates motivation to learn necessary knowledge and skills in order to close the gap (work through the problem space).

According to Deci and Ryan (1991), motivation is not a single construct but comprised of the constructs of different intrinsic and extrinsic factors. In analyzing the essence of intrinsic motivation and continuing motivation, Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, and Ryan (1991) explained that basic psychological needs, which included competence, relatedness, and autonomy, are one of the components of motivation. However, self-determination (the self-determination theory, SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985) is the mechanism for the initial motivation generation and the maintenance of motivation. In educational settings, providing support for fulfilling their basic psychological needs for competence, relatedness, and autonomy is a key to promoting students’ motivation in learning. Deci and Ryan (1991) further elaborated that competence involves a desire of possessing necessary knowledge and skills that enable an individual to engage in the activities that he or she wishes to accomplish. Relatedness refers to the social needs of humans to connect with others. Lastly, autonomy may be the core of the SDT that a motivated action or behavior is self-initiated and self-regulated, rather than controlled. Deci and Ryan’s SDT not only echoes intentional learning researchers’ assertion about self-regulated and metacognitive actions being one of the characteristics in intentional learning, but also elaborates on the initial state of intentional learning, and that is, self-determination.

Intentional learning could occur through an external suggestion or guidance. For example, the teacher explains the importance of a particular subject and the students initiate their learning process and engage in self-regulated learning. However, since motivation is a key component that initiates an intentional learning process. Self-determined intentional learning resulting from a self-evaluation process may be a stronger and more sustainable form of intentional learning than the ones that are externally suggested or initiated. In this self-determination process, students will have to first evaluate their own competence (current knowledge/skill) level and compare it against the desire level that will enable them to fulfill something (e.g. passing a test, complete a project, or solving a problem). Secondly, the students will evaluate the social aspect of the learning. When the majority of their peers are actively engaged or inclined to participate in the learning, the desire to be part of the group or the culture could increase the student’s motivation to learn and lead to the decision to initiate an intentional learning process. In addition, the relevance component in the Keller’s ARCS motivation model (1987) could also strengthen the relatedness element of motivation. Relevance of the content to the students’ personal or professional lives is a critical component in the level of their motivation to learn. Understanding the relevance of the content and what and how they can be used plays an important role in students’ motivation to learn and consequently affects their decision of initiating an intentional learning process. Thirdly, students will have to evaluate whether they are able to autonomously conduct an intentional learning process or whether they are able to successfully learn the subject with teacher’s facilitation (Keller, 1987). Students will have to believe that they are able to learn the subject in order for them to commit to an intentional learning process (Sinatra, 2000). Therefore, self-determination is a key to the motivation component of intentional learning. It is also an important process equivalent to the initial stage of a problem solving process, which is understanding the problem and constructing the problem space. Most importantly, self-determination is the component in intentional learning that separates extrinsic intentional learning from intrinsic intentional learning. The former is suggested by an external source (e.g. teacher) and the need and goal of the learning is evaluated by that external source. On the other hand, the key for intrinsic intentional learning is that the evaluation of the need and goal for learning is conducted and determined by the learner him or herself. The students’ engagement and commitment to reach the learning goal in extrinsic intentional learning may be similar or the same as intrinsic intentional learning. However, extrinsic intentional learning may be more easily affected by external factors (e.g. teacher’s guidance, distraction) than intrinsic intentional learning because the latter is self-determined, which is more stable and long lasting.

Facilitating intentional learning

How can we facilitate students to engage in intentional learning? Based on the discussion above, it could be addressed in two levels: motivation and cognitive levels.

Motivation level

As discussed earlier, self-determination is the key to students’ intrinsic motivation to learn. Intrinsic motivation to learn is what initiates true internally initiated intentional learning. Therefore, a successful self-evaluation and self-determination process is not only necessary for a successful initiation of intentional learning, but more importantly, sustains the process. From an instructional design perspective, providing opportunities for the students to go through this self-evaluation and determination process is a critical step toward a successful completion of an internally initiated intentional learning process. This is not to say that there is no place for teachers or external facilitation in this process. Quite the contrary, when needed, the instruction or teacher should guide students to go through this self-evaluation process to examine, determine, and acknowledge the deficiency in their knowledge and skills and then proceed to set their goal for learning. Through this process, the students determine for themselves and come to a conclusion and belief that the content knowledge needs to be learned and they are capable of completing the learning process. This conclusion and belief would serve as a drive that internally and intrinsically initiates an intentional learning process.

Technology for facilitating motivation level of intentional learning process

Intrinsic intentional learning is a result of self-evaluation and self-determination, which inevitably require a reflective process from the students. To facilitate students going through this process, electronic reflective journals may afford an effective platform not only for the students to engage in such process, but also to provide teachers with a channel to facilitate the process. By keeping journals about their self-evaluation on their own interests and desire to achieve something, as well as what their current knowledge and skills state, students would be able to recognize the gap between the desire state and current state. With this realization, students are likely to internally determine for themselves that there is a need for learning. During this reflective process, with the electronic reflective journal, the teacher could effectively monitor students’ reflection process, prompt with appropriate questions that direct students’ self-evaluation on examining and identifying the gap, and eventually students determine and initiate their own intentional learning process. The electronic reflective journal is only a tool for facilitating students’ reflection processes. The key in facilitating an intrinsic intentional learning initiation process still lies on the teacher’s guidance to help student realize their role and responsibilities in the self-evaluation and self-determination process, eventually arriving at their own decisions.

Cognitive level

Once the students intrinsically initiate their intentional learning process, they will have to engage in a self-regulated, self-monitored, and self-reflected learning process (metacognitive learning). Students who self-determine and self-initiate intentional learning do not necessarily or automatically possess these self-regulated or metacognitive learning skills. However, an intentional learning process requires these highly self-directed learning skills and processes. Therefore, it is necessary to give appropriate scaffolding to facilitate students in engaging in the necessary self-directed learning actions in the beginning of the process. Students’ learning process as well as their employment of self-regulated learning strategies should be monitored and they should be given appropriate assistance when needed, for example, prompting or encouraging them to consider alternative learning strategies when they seem to be stuck in using an ineffective learning strategy without knowing it or lacking the knowledge of effective learning strategies. This scaffolding will have to fade out as the students’ learning progresses in order for them to develop their own self-regulated learning skills.

Technology for facilitating cognitive level of intentional learning process

The cognitive level involves more of a self-monitoring and self-regulated learning process. Therefore, providing opportunities for students to acquire and practice the skills for engaging in these self-regulated learning processes may be the key to facilitating this level of intentional learning. Self-monitoring and self-regulated learning skills are soft skills where formal instruction may not be effective in teaching them. Rather, these types of skills might be categorized as biologically primary abilities (Geary, 2002, 2005), which are acquired through a long period of time of reciprocal interaction between the learner and counterparts (e.g. first language, social skills, etc.). Individuals acquire these abilities by observing others practicing them (modeling), and then they apply them with others. These abilities will be formed through engaging in the practice-feedback-refine process over time. In this case, social media may provide an effective means for the students to learn from each other on the cognitive level of intentional learning process. Social media technology (e.g. blog, wiki, facebook) could provide a platform for students to record their own learning process, not only for their own monitoring purposes, but also for sharing their experience with others. By posting their own learning process, students can monitor and reflect on their own learning process and make adjustments accordingly. On the other hand, this also provides an opportunity for students who possess a higher level of self-regulated learning skills to model how they practice these skills in their learning process. Students who are less competent in self-regulated learning can also learn from their higher ability peers by observing them on these social media platforms. This way, the students with lower self-regulated skills can learn and practice these skills in a voluntary manner, which could help promote their sense of autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 1991), and in turn, strengthen their motivation in engaging in these processes. Also, these social media platforms enable teachers to monitor the students’ progress and provide appropriate scaffolding accordingly.

Conclusion

The maintenance and continuous improvement of students’ self-regulated and metacognitive learning processes is fueled by the self-determination of the learning. Therefore, intentional learning can be seen as a function of self-determination to learn a particular subject as a conclusion of self-evaluation of a learning situation. This conclusion in turn triggers a conscious, explicit motivation that drives an individual to embark upon a learning process to reach the goal of acquisition of desire or necessary knowledge and skills. This intentional learning process is operationalized by a consciously planned, monitored, regulated learning process and applications of appropriate learning strategies that enable the individual to reach the learning goal. Intentional learning is a powerful learning function. When a learner engages in intentional learning, the learning outcomes are likely to be highly desirable. However, intentional learning comes more naturally for some students than others. And unfortunately, the students of the latter type seem to be the majority. Helping students successfully go through the self-determination stage of intentional learning is the first step and foremost effort in which teachers will need to invest in order to encourage more intrinsic intentional learners in school settings.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declares no conflict of interest with this research.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Bereiter

Scardamalia

(1989) Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In: Resnick

L. B.

(ed) Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 361–392.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2002). Schooling and the growth of intentional cognition: Helping children take charge of their own minds. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 245–277). Chicago: Open Court.

Chi

M. T. H.

Slotta

J. D.

Leeuw

(1994) From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction 4: 27–43.

Cialdini

R. B.

Goldstein

N. J.

(2004) Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology 55: 591–621.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1985) Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior, New York, NY: Plenum.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1991) A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In: Dienstbier

(ed) Nebraska symposium on motivation: Perspectives on motivation, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 237–288.

Deci

E. L.

Vallerand

R. J.

Pelletier

L. G.

Ryan

R. M.

(1991) Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. The Educational Psychologist 26: 325–346.

diSessa

A. A.

(2002) Why conceptual ecology is a good idea. In: Limon

Mason

(eds) Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice, New York, NY: Springer, pp. 28–60.

Geary

D. C.

(2002) Principles of evolutionary educational psychology. Learning and Individual Differences 12: 317–345.

10.

Geary

D. C.

(2005) The origin of mind: Evolution of brain, cognition, and general intelligence, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

11.

Keller

J. M.

(1987) The systematic process of motivational design. Performance & Instruction 26: 1–8.

12.

Kuhn

(1970) The structure of scientific evolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

13.

Linnenbrink

E. A.

Pintrich

P. R.

(2002) The role of motivational beliefs in conceptual change. In: Limon

Mason

(eds) Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 115–135.

14.

Posner

G. J.

Strike

K. A.

Hewson

P. W.

(1982) Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education 66: 211–227.

15.

Rumelhart

D. E.

Norman

D. A.

(1988) Representation in memory. In: Atkinson

R. C.

Herrnstein

R. J.

Lindzey

Luce

R. D.

(eds) Steven’s handbook of experimental psychology: Learning and cognition, 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 511–587.

16.

Sinatra

G. M.

(April 2000) From passive to active to intentional: Changing conception of the learner. In: Sinatra (Chair)

G. M.

(ed) What does it mean to be an intentional learning? Alternative perspective, Symposium presented at the American educational Research Association annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA.

17.

Sinatra, G. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of intentions in conceptual learning. In G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 1–18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

18.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Adaptation and understanding: A case for new cultures of schooling. In S. Vosniadou, E. DeCorte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology -- supported learning environments (pp. 149–163). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

19.

Scardamalia

Bereiter

(2010) Brief history of knowledge building. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 36.