Margaret Martinez
ABSTRACT
How do we support successful, lifelong learners and performers and help them competently respond to rapidly changing opportunities in the 21st century. The answer to this challenging question lies in how well we consider diverse sources for successful learning and explain audiences differentiated by individual learning differences. After years of primarily cognitive traditions, lack of strong theoretical foundations, and imperfect one-size-fits-all designs, our cognitive-rich explanations are missing the significant, higher-order impact of affective, conative, and other factors on learning. In this study the investigator introduces learning orientation (learner-difference profiles) to examine the fundamental sources for individual learning differences from an entirely new perspective. This perspective highlights the importance of intentions and emotions and describes how these dominant factors guide, manage, and sometimes override cognitive (thinking) processes. Using multiple repeated measures univariate ANOVAs, this study exhibits how learning orientation, time, and environments account for significant variance, effects, and interactions. The results demonstrate useful ways to analyze and differentiate the audience before designing solutions and environments for more successful performance.
- 1.Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. Surpassing ourselves: Inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court, 1993.Google Scholar
- 2.Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (1989, pp. 36 I-392) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- 3.Bundemon, C. V. TICCIT learner control language. Paper presented at the IEEE, Region 6 conference, 1975.Google Scholar
- 4.Como, L. The best laid plans: Modem conceptions of volition and educational research. Educational Researcher, 22(3), (1993), 14-22.Google Scholar
- 5.Como, L. Self-regulated learning: A volitional analysis. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Self regulated learning and academic achievement ( 1989, pp. lll- 142). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- 6.Deci, E., Vallerand, R., Pelletier, L., and Ryan, R. Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. New York: Plenum Press, 199 1.Google Scholar
- 7.Dweck, C. S. Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 4 1, (1986), 1040-48.Google Scholar
- 8.Flavell, J. Cognitive development: Past, present, and future. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), (1992), 998-1005.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 9.Flavell, J. H. Metacognition. American Psychologist, 34, (1979), 906-911.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 10.Glaser, R. Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, 39, (1984), 93- 104.Google Scholar
- 11.Glaser, R. Individuals and learning: The new aptitudes. Educational Researcher, l(6), (1972), 5-l 3.Google Scholar
- 12.Goleman, D. Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam, 1995.Google Scholar
- 13.Kuhl, J., and Atkinson, W. Motivation, thought, and action. New York: Praeger, 1986.Google Scholar
- 14.Ledoux, J. The emotional brain The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York: Touchstone Books, 1998.Google Scholar
- 15.Littell, R., Freund, R., & Spector, P. SAS systems for linear models, (3rd Ed.). North Carolina: SAS Institute, 199 1.Google Scholar
- 16.Littell, R., Miliken, G., Stroup, W., & Wolfinger, R. SAS systems for mixed models. North Carolina: SAS Institute, 1996.Google Scholar
- 17.McCombs. B. Alternative perspectives for motivation. In L. Baker, P. Afflerbach, & D. Reinking (Eds.), Developing engaged readers in school and home communities, (1996, pp. 67-87). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associate.Google Scholar
- 18.McCombs, B. Strategies for assessing and enhancing motivation: Keys to promoting self-regulated learning and performance. In H. F. ONNeil, Jr., & M. DrillingsGoogle Scholar
Index Terms
- Intentional learning in an intentional world: new perspectives on audience analysis and instructional system design for successful learning and performance
Recommendations
Does Intentional Psychology Need Vindicating by Cognitive Science?
I argue that intentional psychology does not stand in need of vindication by a lower-level implementation theory from cognitive science, in particular the representational theory of mind (RTM), as most famously Jerry Fodor has argued. The stance of the ...
Is Design Relative or Real? Dennett on Intentional Relativism and Physical Realism
Dennett's intended rapprochement between physical realism and intentional relativism fails because it is premised upon conflicting arguments governing the status of design. Indeed, Dennett's remarks on design serve to highlight tensions buried deep ...
Norms, Rewards, and the Intentional Stance: Comparing Machine Learning Approaches to Ethical Training
AIES '18: Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and SocietyThe challenge of training AI systems to perform responsibly and beneficially has inspired different approaches for teaching a system what people want and how it is acceptable to attain that in the world. In this paper we compare work in reinforcement ...
Comments