[quoting Grabrowski, 19 Oct 94] I believe it is the instructor HAS intentionality, and this is important, AND I believe it is important to transfer that intentionality to the learner. What happens when there is a mismatch in intentionality?
My guess is that some learning still takes place (everything causes SOME learning), but it degrades substantially in quality and predictability. That's true regardless of the type of instruction. In tutorials, a mismatch usually leads to the learner getting extremely annoyed with the instruction, and exiting it if possible. In more constructivist transactions styles, e.g., simulations, there's some research evidence that the learner simply fails to engage in higher order (or deep) processing, and "plays" the simulation like an arcade game.
I would be inclined, based on current evidence, to suggest that the issue of intentionality match is really another way of stating the need to (in Gagné terms) establish motivation and state the objective. Regardless of the type of instructional transaction in use, at least an approximate match of intentionality is needed for predictable high-quality learning to occur.