“Why do I have to read this book?” The relationship between knowledge orientation and motivation among journalism and communication students

Abstract

With rising enrollment in Western higher education institutions (HEIs), studies show that fewer students are motivated by the intrinsic enjoyment of learning and increasingly express extrinsic motivations, such as the desire to qualify for high-income jobs. This paper examines the study motivations, knowledge orientations, and learning strategies of Norwegian journalism and communication students at one private and one public HEI. Through a mixed-methods approach combining survey data (N = 337) and in-depth interviews (N = 16), it finds that the students are intrinsically motivated and employ deep learning strategies for the practical aspects of their studies. Conversely, they are extrinsically motivated and apply surface learning strategies towards the theoretical aspects. This indicates that existing theories on student motivation, linking deep learning strategies to a preference for theoretical knowledge, and surface learning strategies to a preference for practical knowledge, need nuance: Students appear to employ different learning strategies depending on the perceived necessity of different types of knowledge. With rising enrollment levels in Western HEIs, resulting in a more heterogeneous student body, this insight is crucial to ensure an appropriate learning environment for all student groups.

Keywords

Journalism students communication students extrinsic motivation intrinsic motivation deep learning strategies surface learning strategies practical knowledge theoretical knowledge

Introduction

In recent decades, the number of students and higher education institutions (HEIs) in Western countries has increased considerably, resulting in a more heterogeneous student body (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2024). Correspondingly, the students’ study motivations have changed. Studies show that consumerist discourses are increasingly framing students’ relationship to higher education due to increased competition between HEIs and the high enrollment levels (Tomlinson, 2017: 464). This has led to the rise of more extrinsic and instrumental value orientations, often at the expense of intrinsic educational orientations (Tomlinson, 2017: 453). Simply put, the proportion of students attending higher education because they enjoy learning (intrinsic motivation) is decreasing. Instead, more students are entering higher education to achieve a pre-defined outcome, such as qualifying for a high-income job (extrinsic motivation) (Ryan and Deci, 2000). To illustrate, Biggs et al. (2022) present two student archetypes within Western higher education: “Susan,” the “traditional,” academically committed, and intrinsically motivated student type, and the more extrinsically motivated and instrumentally oriented “Robert.” Whereas Susan’s main motivation for studying is curiosity about a particular subject or a burning ambition to excel in a specific profession, Robert is primarily seeking a qualification for a decent job. If it were not for the massification of higher education, Robert “would never have considered going to university,” argue Biggs and Tang (2011: 5). Due to the changing nature of higher education, the Roberts are gradually becoming more dominant within the student body (Biggs and Tang, 2011: 5).

As student motivation is a critical prerequisite for effective learning (e.g., Zhang, 2000), monitoring and understanding the motivational drivers of diverse student groups across various contexts is vital. Drawing from Ryan and Deci’s (2000) distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, this article investigates the study motivations of Norwegian communication and journalism students enrolled at two vocationally oriented HEIs. While a relatively large branch of research has explored journalism students’ motivations (e.g., Becker and Vlad, 2018; Carpenter et al., 2016), significantly fewer studies have examined the motivations and values of communication students. Studies on the motivations of media students (often encompassing communication, marketing, and journalism students) are also scarce (for exceptions, see Becker and Vlad, 2018; Crawford et al., 2013). Hence, the present study offers new knowledge of the motivations of these student groups.

The literature links intrinsic motivation to a preference for theoretical knowledge and deep learning strategies, and extrinsic motivation to a preference for practical knowledge and surface learning strategies (e.g., Biggs et al., 2022; Bunce et al., 2017: 1958; Senko et al., 2011). To our knowledge, however, these interrelations have not been explored empirically. Instead, most empirical studies on student motivation have focused on the relationship between motivation, learning strategies, and academic outcomes (e.g., Entwistle and McCune, 2004). Additionally, most research on student motivation has relied on surveys (Jackson et al., 2020: 108). By examining the relationship between dominant motivations, learning strategies, and knowledge orientations through a mixed-methods approach, this article provides a new perspective on students’ motivational drivers. The research questions are as follows:

RQ1

What are the dominant study motivations, knowledge orientations, and learning strategies among communication and journalism students enrolled in private and public higher education institutions?

RQ2

How are the study motivations, knowledge orientations, and learning strategies interrelated among these groups of students?

The empirical data consists of a survey (N = 337) and 16 in-depth interviews with students (N = 12) and study program managers (N = 4). In the following, theories on motivation, knowledge orientation, and learning strategies are described before the methodology is outlined and the findings are presented and discussed.

Motivations for studying

Students’ motivations to engage and learn have been explored in several research fields, including psychology, pedagogy, sociology, economics, and neuroscience. The concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, which are central to this study, stem from classic pedagogical motivation theory, which sees students as either engaging in an activity for enjoyment (intrinsic motivation) or to achieve an outcome (extrinsic motivation) (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Rather than representing two extremes on a continuum, both motivational types can occur simultaneously (Lepper et al., 2005).

Employing qualitative data from seven UK HEIs, Tomlinson (2017) finds that the structural changes within the Western education system relating to increased competition and marketization have made extrinsic motivation more dominant. As the emphasis on rights and entitlements grows, traditional educational values and purposes are marginalized (Tomlinson, 2017: 455). Consequently, students are becoming less involved in their education, showing reduced responsibility for learning and little interest in what is taught. Instead, they tend to view themselves as entitled to receiving positive academic outcomes (Bunce et al., 2017: 1959, 1970), which may result in a surface approach to learning and lower academic performance (1958). HEIs in social democratic welfare states, such as Norway, are known to be less marketized than those within liberal welfare states (like Ireland and the UK); nevertheless, a change in motivation has also been detected in the former contexts (Tomlinson, 2017; Willemse and De Beer, 2012).

The impacts of study discipline, context, and gender

Student motivation is known to be influenced by norms specific to the academic discipline (Amabile et al., 1994; Skatova and Ferguson, 2014; Smyth et al., 2015; Wilkesmann et al., 2012). Typically, students within marked-oriented fields, with clear career pathways and an emphasis on practical skills, tend to be extrinsically motivated (Smyth et al., 2015; Wilkesmann et al., 2012). Economics and engineering students, for instance, tend to be more extrinsically motivated than social science students (Wilkesmann et al., 2012), while students in arts and humanities are more interest-driven and less concerned about future career prospects than the average student (Amabile et al., 1994; Skatova and Ferguson, 2014). Studies on journalism and communication students have mostly found significant motivational overlaps. Some nuanced differences are that journalism students value learning and altruistic purposes more than communication students, as the former have a strong sense of duty to inform the public and derive high personal satisfaction from uncovering the truth. In contrast, communication students place greater emphasis on extrinsic motivations, such as job stability, earning potential, and career advancement (e.g., Becker and Vlad, 2018; Carpenter et al., 2016; Crawford et al., 2013). A study on Norwegian communication students has similarly reported job security, high salary, and engagement with interesting material and people as primary motivational factors (Emanuelsen et al., 2024).

Besides the academic discipline, cultural, social, and educational contexts are known to affect student motivation (Hanusch and Mellado, 2014). A survey of Nordic journalism students revealed a comparatively higher level of interest in public service ideals than students from other educational contexts (Hanusch and Mellado, 2014; Hovden et al., 2016). In comparison, extrinsic motivations, like personal motives and salaries, hardly arose within the group (Hovden et al., 2016). Regarding other influential factors, students paying tuition fees tend to be more extrinsically motivated than students not paying tuition fees, likely due to a stronger consumer orientation (Bunce et al., 2017; Tomlinson, 2017). Moreover, some studies indicate that female students are generally more intrinsically motivated than males (e.g., Iyengar et al., 1999). According to social role theory, this is caused by societal gender roles, where women tend to be more communal and men more agentic (e.g., Kidder, 2002). However, other studies find that motivation differences are more influenced by cultural and educational contexts than by inherent gender traits (e.g., Zhang, 2000).

Knowledge orientations and learning strategies

In terms of types of knowledge, the most common distinction is between theoretical knowledge (“knowing that”) and practical knowledge (“knowing how”) (e.g., Freidson, 2007). In the sociology of professions, theoretical knowledge is described as bodies of information and ideas organized by theories and abstract concepts, while practical knowledge is the bodily knowledge addressed exclusively to accomplishing work (Freidson, 2007: 31–34). Within professional knowledge, however, there is no clear and fundamental distinction between these knowledge types; they exist on a continuum (Grimen, 2008). Moreover, both knowledge types are perceived as important as they have different functions. While theoretical knowledge is central to knowledge development (research) and instruction, practical knowledge is necessary to complete practical tasks (Grimen, 2008). Yet there has long been disagreement about which knowledge type is most important. While a theoretically oriented knowledge view considers practical knowledge as the application of theory, a practice-oriented knowledge view sees theoretical knowledge as an offshoot/articulation of practical knowledge. Hence, there is a difference regarding which knowledge type is seen as the primary one (Grimen, 2008: 74–75).

As noted, literature links extrinsic motivation to practical knowledge and surface learning strategies, and intrinsic motivation to theoretical knowledge and deep learning strategies (Biggs et al., 2022; Bunce et al., 2017; Senko et al., 2011). Similarly, the achievement goal theory (AGT) suggests that students pursuing mastery goals (similar to intrinsic motivation) are likely to employ deep learning strategies, while the pursuit of performance goals (similar to extrinsic motivation) is associated with surface learning strategies (e.g., Chazan et al., 2022; Senko et al., 2011). Deep learning typically involves striving to interpret underlying meanings and themes and connect disparate insights to gain new knowledge and understanding. In contrast, surface learning strategies focus on memorizing and reproducing facts and details within study materials, adhering closely to the syllabus, and minimizing scholarly effort (Biggs et al., 2022).

Based on the above, we construct two student archetypes: the learning-oriented student and the outcomes-oriented student (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Two student archetypes.

	The learning-oriented student	The outcomes-oriented student
Motivational factors	• Intrinsic motivation • Educational value orientations and pedagogic-related field rules	• Extrinsic motivation • Instrumental value orientations and outcomes-related field rules
Learning strategies	• Mastery goals (developing competence) • Deep learning strategies	• Performance goals (demonstrating competence) • Surface learning strategies
Knowledge orientation	• Preference for theoretical knowledge (knowing that)	• Preference for practical knowledge (knowing how)

In the following, which archetype dominates among journalism and communication students, and whether the motivations of students in private vs. public institutions differ are investigated.

Research design and methods

As noted, this study’s mixed-methods approach involved gathering data from semi-structured, in-depth interviews and a survey. While the interviews were conducted from June to August 2023, the survey was conducted from September 2023 to February 2024. This interview-first approach enabled us to apply the information gathered from the interviews to generate, refine, and validate the content and structure of the survey (Østbye et al., 2013). This was useful as we were not relying on pre-existing survey instruments but needed to construct a new inventory (see details below).

Selection and context

In line with the social democratic higher education welfare state model (Willemse and De Beer, 2012), the Norwegian higher education system features high government spending, low tuition fees at public HEIs, and high enrollment. Five public and two private Norwegian HEIs offer journalism degrees, while four public and one private HEI offer media and communication degrees (Utdanning, n.d). Despite the general division between institutions offering vocational and academic courses, the system is integrated, with degrees from university colleges generally being accepted by universities (Willemse and De Beer, 2012). Moreover, Norway’s standing as one of the world’s most gender-equal countries (Pal et al., 2024) also applies to the education sector, where the proportion of women with long-term higher education (more than four years) for the first time exceeded that of men in 2022 (Nygård, 2023).

This study includes two Norwegian HEIs: the public Oslo Metropolitan University (OsloMet) and the private Kristiania University College (Kristiania). The selection was based on three central criteria. First, one private and one public HEI were included to explore differences in student motivations related to tuition fees (e.g., Bunce et al., 2017). Second, to investigate the students’ motivations regarding their knowledge orientation, the HEIs needed to be vocationally oriented, offering a mix of practical and theoretical knowledge. Third, both HEIs had to offer on-campus bachelor’s degrees in journalism and communication. Kristiania was the only private HEI meeting all criteria, while OsloMet was the only public HEI in Oslo with relevant programs, ensuring consistency in geographical location.

OsloMet has been a university since 2018, while Kristiania is a university college. The two institutions also differ in their application numbers and costs. While tuition costs at OsloMet are negligible, Kristiania charges substantially higher fees (see Table 2). Regarding the bachelor’s programs of the study, both journalism programs prepare students for careers in news media, while the two communication programs hold a broader perspective on communication processes (Kristiania University College, n.d; Oslo Metropolitan University, n.d). This is reflected in alumni surveys, showing that the communication graduates find employment across a diverse array of fields, including journalism, while a larger proportion of journalism graduates tend to work in traditional news media. (Seksjon for analyse og kvalitetsutvikling, 2022; Kristiania University College, n.d).

Table 2.

Characteristics of the four study programs.

Study program	Communication, public HEI	Journalism, public HEI	Communication, private HEI	Journalism, private HEI
Total tuition fee	6000 NOK	6000 NOK	232,800 NOK	340,800 NOK
Applicants	1188	1812	72	179
Admitted	40	70	26	55
Min. grade requirement	53	56.7	-	-

In-depth interviews

The data collection process began with in-depth interviews involving the four study program managers and three students from each of the four study programs (N = 16). While the managers were asked about the characteristics of their study programs, the questions for students revolved around the themes of study motivation, knowledge orientation, and strategies for learning. Following two pilot interviews (not included in the empirical material), interviewees were recruited through the study program managers. To ensure a variety of perspectives, we interviewed one student from each year within each study program. The interviews lasted between 30 and 90 minutes, most were conducted in-person, while two were conducted online via Teams. All interviews were audio-recorded and stored using the encrypted software app Diktafon. Transcripts were generated using artificial intelligence, checked manually, and coded in NVivo using a coding scheme developed for the study. The analysis was abductive as the coding scheme was based on theoretical categories and inductive insights from initial, close readings of the interviews. In the Findings section, quotes are marked by study program (J for journalism and C for communication), student number, and institution type (Priv for private and Pub for public). C4-Pub, for instance, means communication student 4 at the public HEI, while J2-Priv means journalism student 2 at the private HEI. Data collection was approved by the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research (SIKT), and informed consent (written and/or verbal) was obtained from all participants in accordance with the Norwegian National Research Ethics Committee’s guidelines. The study program managers also consented to the risk of being indirectly identified by their positions. Since the interviews were conducted in Norwegian, all direct quotes have been translated into English by the authors.

Because the recruitment process was conducted through study program managers, the students contributing to this study are likely to be high achievers. Moreover, both researchers are employed at the private HEI under study (Kristiania). Despite the advantages of easier access and knowledge of the context, this affiliation can have disadvantages, such as a lack of analytical distance and interviewees giving favorable descriptions and/or withholding information (Bryman, 2008). To minimize negative effects, the strategy was to be open and conscious and to make implicit normative stances explicit. Furthermore, the researchers refrained from conducting interviews or distributing surveys within study programs where they had previously taught.

Survey

The survey was conducted within the four study programs using the anonymous online platform Nettskjema. To facilitate participation, the researchers distributed the survey during in-class lectures. Students who were interviewed also participated in the survey if present at the lectures. To ensure that first-year students had sufficient experience, most responses within this group were collected in November. In total, 337 students responded, representing 57% of the total student population (N = 598). In instances of low class attendance, the study program manager was asked to distribute the survey digitally. This, however, did not increase the response rate. Hence, as none of the visited lectures were mandatory, the in-class implementation may, like the recruitment process for interviewees, have yielded predominantly high-achieving students among the respondents.

The respondents’ median age was 22.7 years, and there was a relative gender imbalance with 71% female and 28% male respondents. However, according to the interviews with the four study program managers, this mirrors the relative gender distribution within the study programs. For more sample characteristics, see Table 3.

Table 3.

Survey sample characteristics.

Gender	Percentage and number of respondents
Male	28% (95)
Female	71% (238)
Other	1% (4)
Field of study
Journalism	54% (183)
Communication	46% (154)
Institution
Private	36% (120)
Public	64% (217)
Individual study program
Private, journalism	22% (74)
Private, communication	14% (46)
Public, journalism	32% (109)
Public, communication	32% (108)
Total	100% (337)

Variables

The survey included 23 questions, mostly multiple choice. It covered three broad themes: study motivation, views on learning, and study methods. Here, we include questions concerning study motivation, knowledge orientation, and strategies for learning. Respondents replied using a five-point Likert scale: 1: “completely agree,” 2: “somewhat agree,” 3: “neither agree nor disagree,” 4:“ somewhat disagree,” and 5: “completely disagree.” It should be noted that survey respondents were not required to rank their responses, and they could, in practice, rate all response categories as “high.”

Several student learning instruments exist in the field of educational psychology (see Entwistle and McCune, 2004, for an overview). Despite drawing from existing inventories, this study explores different aspects of motivation and learning strategies than the above-mentioned tradition. Hence, most survey questions were based on the theoretical framework of the study, including the concepts of motivation, knowledge orientation, and learning strategies, and some were based on the Norwegian national survey Studiebarometeret (The Norwegian Study Barometer).

Analysis

Survey results were analyzed in SPSS. Missing cases for individual questions ranged from 12 (3.6%) to 1 (0.3%, N = 337). First, an initial descriptive analysis was conducted to get an overview of the overall distribution of responses by the total survey population. To reduce analytic complexity in the representation by percentages, the response categories were condensed from five to three. Consequently, “agree” refers to “completely agree” + “somewhat agree”; “disagree” to “completely disagree” + “somewhat disagree”; and ”neutral” to “neither agree nor disagree”. To maintain precision, we also include mean and standard deviation (SD). Mean refers to the average response to the five-point Likert scale presented above. Note that this means that a lower numerical value indicates stronger agreement with the statement (1= “completely agree”). Furthermore, results for three subpopulations are presented: institution type (private and public), discipline (journalism and communication), and gender (women and men). For all three subpopulations, results are presented in terms of mean, standard deviation (SD), standard error (SE), t-test and p-value.

In addition to the descriptive analysis, the theoretically related survey variables were grouped and measured for reliability using Cronbach’s alpha. For factors exceeding 0.6, which is seen as a low but acceptable level of reliability (Janssens et al., 2008), new variables were computed in SPSS (see Table 4). Means, t-tests (independent samples t-test with equal variances), and p-value (equal variances assumed) were analyzed for each computed variable. Surprisingly, and as discussed later in more detail, the variable “surface learning strategies” only obtained Cronbach’s alpha of 0.346 and was therefore excluded.

Table 4.

Computed variables.

Name of computed variable	Cronbach’s alpha	Survey variables included in the new variable
Intrinsic motivation for studying	0.710	1. I’m interested in the study subject 2. It is a good educational institution/good lecturers 3. I study because I like to learn 4. I study out of pure interest in the subject matter 5. I want to prove to myself that I can complete higher education studies 6. I primarily seek an occupation in which I can help others 7. I primarily seek an occupation that provides opportunities for personal development 8. I primarily seek an occupation where I can contribute to the improvement of society
Extrinsic motivation for studying	0.723	1. The education provides good job opportunities 2. It is an education I feel I can master 3. It’s an education with close associations to the industry 4. I aim for high results in the subjects I take 5. I want to prove to others that I can complete higher education studies with good results 6. I primarily seek an occupation in which I can earn a lot 7. I primarily seek an occupation that provides recognition 8. I primarily seek an occupation that provides security 9. I primarily seek an occupation that provides good career opportunities
Theoretical knowledge orientation	0.646	1. It is important that the course teaches me to think critically 2. I prefer courses that focus on theory 3. I prefer courses with equal foci on theory and practice 4. I prefer courses that focus on critical thinking
Practical knowledge orientation¹	0.614	1. I devote extra attention to course elements that have practical use 2. I prefer courses that focus on practical abilities 3. I prefer courses that include industry practice
Deep learning strategies	0.607	1. When we get assignments during lectures, I do my best to complete them 2. I always check with other students whether I have understood the course material 3. If something is hard to understand in the syllabus, I spend extra time trying to understand it 4. If I have trouble understanding something, I take the initiative to explore other sources of information 5. I seek to see the relationship between different subjects in the syllabus 6. I believe that I should not limit my study efforts to the syllabus but seek other sources of information

Findings

High intrinsic but higher extrinsic motivation

Intrinsic motivation: A strong interest in the subject discipline

When asked why they had applied for their subject of study, most students scored high on intrinsic motivation. For example, 88% of respondents agreed that they study due to an interest in the study subject (M = 1.73, SD = 0.707), whereas 92% agreed that they primarily want a job where they can develop personally (M = 1.57, SD = 0.665). Moreover, 73% agreed that they primarily want a job where they can improve society (M = 2.01, SD = 0.866), and 67% stated that they primarily want a job where they can help other people (M = 2.15, SD = 0.852). The only significant difference found within the three subpopulations was between genders. As Table 5 shows, female students have a statistically significant lower mean than men, which means that they are more intrinsically motivated than men. No significant differences emerged between students at public vs. private HEIs or between journalism and communication students.

Table 5.

Intrinsic motivation for studying divided by subgroups. Note that a low numerical mean indicates higher intrinsic motivation.

Group	Number	Mean	Standard deviation	Standard error	T-test	p-value
Whole sample	337	1.98	.050	.027	-	-
Women	238	1.90	.439	.028	-	-
Men	95	2.19	.594	.060	−4.821	<.001
Public	217	2.00	.493	.033	-	-
Private	120	1.95	.524	.047	.903	.367
Journalism	183	1.99	.545	.040	-	-
Communication	154	1.98	.452	.036	.222	.824

Several responses from the interviews regarding why students had started studying reflected intrinsic motivation. One student, for instance, said, “I find it very difficult every time someone in the family asks what I study, what I will become, and what I want to become. I have no idea. I just think it’s fun” (C3-Priv). A journalism student responded similarly, stating that despite the challenging job market, they had chosen the study program because “deep down, I really was interested in it and wanted to do it” (J5-Pub). Despite expectations of a concrete outcome and uncertain job prospects, these students maintained that their primary motivation for studying was genuine interest in the discipline. Other students listed specific elements within the discipline that interested them. For example, a journalism student expressed a desire to learn more about social studies and “how the world is connected” (J4-Pub), whereas a communication student aimed to gain knowledge in media production (C1-Pub). In line with previous studies (e.g., Becker and Vlad, 2018), the journalism students notably had an idealistic approach to their choice of discipline. One student, for instance, said, “Perhaps most important of all is being able to write and report on things that can make society a better place in the long run” (J6-Pub).

Extrinsic motivation: Higher scores for students at private institutions and women

Although they scored high on intrinsic motivation, students scored even higher on extrinsic motivation. For example, 89% primarily wanted a job that offers good career opportunities (M = 1.66, SD = 0.811). Most students, 64%, also primarily wanted a job that provides recognition (M = 2.23, SD = 0.935), while 62% of respondents primarily sought a well-paid job. As shown in Table 6, there was a significant difference between students enrolled at the public and private HEIs, where students at the public HEI were more extrinsically motivated than students at the private HEI. There was also a statistically significant difference between the genders, as women were more extrinsically motivated than men. There was no significant difference between journalism and communication students.

Table 6.

Extrinsic motivation for studying divided by subgroups. Note that a low numerical mean indicates higher extrinsic motivation.

Group	Number	Mean	Standard deviation	Standard error	T-test	p-value
Whole sample	337	1.93	.489	.026
Women	238	1.88	.445	.029
Men	95	2.03	.557	.057	−2.62	.009
Public	217	2.00	.468	.031
Private	120	1.79	.501	.045	3.723	<.001
Journalism	183	1.95	.526	.038
Communication	154	1.89	.440	.035	1.120	.263

Several students’ answers from the interviews about why they had started studying represented distinctive extrinsic motivational factors. For instance, common motives were obtaining an academic degree or landing a decent and relevant job. One student stated: “I have mostly worked as a freelancer and a temporary employee. And it’s not that sustainable. At least it hasn’t been for me. So, I’ve been thinking that I want to be working a bit more under orderly conditions. Earn a little more and get a little more predictable work schedule” (C1-Priv).

With practical experience viewed as the key to landing a relevant job, another motivational factor mentioned was the opportunity to build a portfolio and gain more practical experience, for instance, through the study programs’ internship arrangements. Some students also stated that they would quit studying upon landing a job. A communication student, for instance, said, “There is no formal arrangement saying, ‘Oh, you have a bachelor’s degree; then you will come in and work for us at the NRK [the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation]’” (C3-Pub). Relatedly, the two HEIs’ vocational orientation was emphasized. A journalism student stated, “I had the impression that the study program was very much connected to the industry, which means that I would get to be very close to my future workplaces. And that it was very practically oriented. I think both aspects appealed to me” (J6-Priv).

The findings on study motivation align with the theory stating that intrinsic and extrinsic motivations can occur simultaneously (Lepper et al., 2005). Extrinsic motivation, such as the goal of securing a decent and relevant job, however, seemed somewhat more significant to the students than intrinsic motivations, such as an interest in the subject matter. This particularly applied to students at the private HEI and women (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation by group (with SD), based on Tables 5 and 6. Note that the scale has been reversed for better visualization.

Figure 2.

Theoretical and practical knowledge orientation by group (with SD), based on Tables 7 and 8. Note that the scale has been reversed for better visualization.

Practically oriented, but interested in theory

Theoretical knowledge orientation: Highest score among journalism students

All students scored relatively high on survey indicators for theoretical knowledge orientation. For instance, 86% of respondents agreed that it is important to learn to think critically (M = 1.69, SD = 0.777). However, only 31% of respondents agreed that they prefer subjects that focus mostly on theory (M = 3.15, SD = 1.110).

Factors related to theoretical orientation were analyzed both conjointly and for the three sub-groups of the population. As shown in Table 7, there was a statistically significant difference between communication and journalism students, where communication students were more theoretically oriented than journalism students. Furthermore, women were significantly more theoretically oriented than men. No significant difference was found between students at the public and private HEIs.

Table 7.

Theoretical knowledge orientation divided by subgroups. Note that a low numerical mean indicates higher theoretical knowledge orientation.

Group	Number	Mean	Standard deviation	Standard error	T-test	p-value
Whole sample	337	2.25	.064	.035
Women	238	2.18	.608	.039
Men	95	2.43	.700	.071	−3.224	.001
Public	217	2.29	.624	.042
Private	120	2.19	.675	.061	1.427	.155
Journalism	183	2.16	.652	.048
Communication	154	2.37	.617	.049	−2.984	.003

During the interviews, most students demonstrated a practical knowledge orientation when asked about the content of their favorite courses. Some, however, argued that theoretical knowledge would make them better practitioners, as theory is necessary to see connections. A journalism student stated, “Theoretical knowledge makes it easier to get an overview of how different institutions work together, both in society and journalistically” (J4-Pub). Another emphasized that what one needs to know is highly context-dependent and that much of the theory students learn can feel irrelevant but be indirectly applicable: “Suddenly, you are in a situation, and then, oops, maybe it was a bit important to learn after all. So, it can be a bit silly for a 21-year-old, who has not been part of the professional life of a journalist, to say what is not important” (J6-Pub). Another stated a preference for the theoretical parts of the study program due to the clearer course structure and less need to be creative (C3-Priv).

Practical knowledge orientation: Highest scores among communication students

Despite scoring relatively high on indicators for theoretical orientation, students scored higher on practical knowledge orientation. For example, 91% of respondents agreed that they prefer subjects that include industry practice (M = 1.51, SD = 0.752). Moreover, 87% agreed that they prefer courses focused on practical skills (M = 1.68, SD = 0.797), and 81% agreed that the things they learn must be useful for solving practical problems (M = 1.90, SD = 0.766).

As shown in Table 8, there was a significant difference between communication students and journalism students, where communication students were more practically oriented than journalism students. There was no significant difference between genders or between students at the public and private HEIs.

Table 8.

Practical knowledge orientation divided by subgroups. Note that a low numerical mean indicates higher practical knowledge orientation.

Group	Number	Mean	Standard deviation	Standard error	T-test	p-value
Whole sample	337	1.69	.580	.031
Women	238	1.71	.588	.038
Men	95	1.65	.562	.057	.835	.404
Public	217	1.69	.593	.040
Private	120	1.67	.558	.050	−.067	.946
Journalism	183	1.77	.597	.044
Communication	154	1.60	.545	.043	2.714	.007

The computed “practical knowledge orientation” variable initially included the variable “what I learn must be useful for solving practical problems,” but this variable was excluded for correlating with the other variables to a surprisingly low degree (Cronbach’s alpha of .544). This may be due to the wording “practical problems” being interpreted more broadly than practical knowledge. A higher correlation would likely have been observed if the variable had been phrased as “what I learn must be useful for solving practical, professional tasks.”

Students’ practical orientation was also prominent in the interviews. A typical statement was “I often ask myself, ‘Why do I have to read this book to be able to work as a journalist?’ I have a feeling that these things are somewhat connected to the fact that OsloMet [the public HEI] has gone from being a university college to a university” (J5-Pub). Another student said, “Some of the basic media theories feel a bit unnecessary to me because there is a lot about the history of the media. And those things, I think they are important, but some of it felt like it would fit better in a history course” (C3-Pub). Describing their student group as “a bunch of practical people,” one journalism student stated, “So, there’s a clinch there when some of these students who chose journalism because they are not so fond of theory, meet theory” (J6-Priv). Others found theoretically oriented subjects too demanding. One student even considered dropping out when introduced to a strongly theoretically oriented course (C3-Pub).

Students’ attitudes toward grades were another indicator of their practical orientation. They argued that high grades are not a prerequisite for landing a job and are therefore not important. One student stated: “I think employers look at your personality rather than your grade card, and that they do not care that much about your grades if you otherwise have what they are looking for” (C2-Priv). Instead, these students saw the various practical assignments as important, as these could be included in a portfolio to enhance job applications. Some also described their focus as learning and becoming a better practitioner, not grades.

The combined data from the survey and interviews show that although the journalism and communication students appreciated both theoretical and practical knowledge, they (especially the communication students) were more practically than theoretically oriented (see Figure 2).

Applying deep learning strategies to practical tasks

Deep learning strategies: High score despite little time spent on self-studies

For the last theme, learning strategies, the survey results showed a dedication and willingness to invest extra effort into learning, with 78% of respondents agreeing that they do their best to accomplish tasks assigned in class (M = 1.99, SD = 0.835) and 72% of respondents agreeing that they actively seek other information sources if they have trouble understanding something (M = 2.10, SD = 0.897). As shown in Table 9, the results yielded no statistically significant difference across gender, institution type, or study subject.

Table 9.

Deep learning strategies divided by subgroups. Note that a low numerical mean indicates deeper learning strategies.

Group	Number	Mean	Standard deviation	Standard error	T-test	p-value
Whole sample	337	2.21	.542	.029
Women	218	2.19	.532	.036
Men	87	2.21	.465	.049	−.290	.772
Public	189	2.23	.531	.038
Private	120	2.15	.479	.043	1.336	.183
Journalism	155	2.14	.528	.042
Communication	154	2.25	.492	.039	−1.934	.054

The same high levels of deep learning strategies, however, were not reflected in the section of the survey where students reported how much time they devoted to self-studies. Only 3% of respondents reported spending more than 20 hours on independent self-studies in a regular week (M = 1.87); 79% reported spending 10 hours or less, and 46% five hours or less.

The interviews suggested that the discrepancy relates to diverging attitudes toward practical and theoretical learning outcomes. Concerning theoretical aspects, students reported performing as expected, without exceeding expectations. As one student said: “I go to every single lecture. I try not to miss anything and be there. And I’m not a world champion at reading the syllabus, but I’m not the worst either” (C1-Priv). Some students also stated that due to the practical orientation of many courses, they did not see a need to read the entire syllabus. Others explained that they had initially intended to read everything but eventually gave up because it was too tiring or they could not find the time. However, interviewees reported dedicating a significant amount of time to acquiring practical, professional skills, such as film production, photography, and podcast production. “I think it is about practicing and then practicing some more”, one student said (C1-Pub). Students also actively pursued essential practical knowledge not covered in their study program. For instance, one journalism student used YouTube tutorials to master the layout software InDesign (J4-Priv), while another volunteered at the student radio station to compensate for the study program’s lack of formal training in radio and television (J6-Priv). Likely, such practical activities were not reported as time spent on “self-studies” in the survey.

Surface learning strategies: Mixed results

As there was a surprisingly low correlation between the five survey response variables associated with surface learning (a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.346), a conjoint “surface learning strategies” variable was not computed. The variables were: “lecturers should tell me exactly what is important and less important to master” (79% agree, M= 1.87, SD = 0.882); “I prefer that lecturers tell me exactly what I need to know for the exams” (89% agree, M= 1.56, SD =.800); “I study primarily to pass the exam” (30% agree M= 3.09, SD = 1.089); “I have little faith in my ability to study” (16% agree, M= 3.69, SD = 1.011 ), and “I primarily seek to remember the course syllabus” (57% agree, M= 2.46, SD =.889). The low correlation can potentially be explained by considering the empirical insights on knowledge orientations. Given that most students in this study aim to enhance their practical professional skills, it is understandable that they do not primarily study to pass exams. However, as passing exams is a prerequisite for completing the study, most agree that lecturers should tell them what they need to know. Furthermore, since not exceeding expectations regarding the appropriation of theoretical knowledge, it is also understandable that a majority agree that they primarily focus on memorizing the content of the syllabus. Hence, the low correlation may be attributed to the theory underlying the survey questions, which predominantly links deep learning strategies to theoretical knowledge, without sufficiently accounting for the specifics of practical knowledge and its application.

Students at private institutions and males more outcomes-oriented

Looking more closely at the subpopulations, we can, in line with previous research (e.g., Bunce et al., 2017), conclude that the private HEI students were more extrinsically motivated than the public HEI students. However, we found no difference in knowledge orientation or learning strategies, indicating that the students at private HEIs were only marginally more outcomes-oriented than their public HEI counterparts. Furthermore, journalism and communication students had the same motivation for studying. Journalism students are somewhat more theoretically oriented than communication students, but there were no differences in learning strategies. Hence, no group emerged as more outcomes-oriented than the other. Regarding gender, female students were more intrinsically, extrinsically, and theoretically oriented than males. The high score in extrinsic motivation differs from previous studies (e.g., Iyengar et al., 1999) and can be explained by the national context. In one of the world’s most gender-equal countries (Pal et al., 2024), it is more likely that women embrace agentic characteristics traditionally associated with men (e.g., Kidder, 2002). Overall, the findings imply that the female students are more learning-oriented than their male counterparts, although the differences are modest.

Concluding discussion

This study examines the study motivations, knowledge orientations, and learning strategies of journalism and communication students in Norway. It identifies both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, with a slight tendency toward the latter. The students are also highly practically oriented, with less than one-third favoring theoretical knowledge. Notably, the students employ different learning strategies for different knowledge types: a deep learning approach for practical knowledge and a surface learning approach for theoretical knowledge. While theoretical knowledge is only viewed as necessary for exams, practical knowledge is deemed essential for future careers. These findings suggest that Norwegian journalism and communication students are learning-oriented when it comes to practical knowledge and outcomes-oriented regarding theoretical knowledge. In other words, they apply deep learning strategies to develop practical, professional skills. As discussed, existing theories link intrinsic motivation and deep learning strategies to a preference for theoretical knowledge, and extrinsic motivation and surface learning strategies to a preference for practical knowledge (e.g., Biggs et al., 2022; Bunce et al., 2017: 1958; Senko et al., 2011). The empirical insights of this article suggest a more nuanced understanding: In higher education, students employ different learning strategies depending on the perceived necessity of different types of knowledge.

As theoretical and practical knowledge are equally important for developing professional knowledge (Grimen, 2008), the above insight does not imply that study programs should be primarily practical. However, as motivation is critical for effective learning (e.g., Zhang, 2000), the findings can help educators leverage students’ aspirations when designing courses. In theoretically oriented courses, it would, for instance, be important to demonstrate why the presented knowledge is relevant for future professional work. In practically oriented courses, it would be vital to show how theory can help students become better practitioners.

Due to the study’s focus on Norwegian students enrolled at two vocationally oriented HEIs with similar fields of study, generalizability is limited. Future studies should expand the population in terms of context, subject area, and type of HEI. The wording of some survey variables could also be adjusted to see if this improves the computed variables’ correlations with low reliability scores. However, by offering insights into Norwegian journalism and communication students’ study motivations, knowledge orientations, and learning strategies, and the interrelations between these dispositions, this article provides an improved and nuanced understanding of the connection between motivation and the theoretical and practical components of a study program. Besides assisting educators, this can assist HEIs beyond Norway in developing strategies to enhance their educational quality for an increasingly diverse student population.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Audun Beyer and Anders Olof Larsson at Kristiania University College for their constructive contributions to this article.

Declaration of conflicting interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical statement

Gunhild Ring Olsen

Nanna Alida Grit Fredheim

Note

Author biographies

Gunhild Ring Olsen is an Associate Professor of Journalism at Kristiania University College. She holds a Ph.D. in journalism from the University of Bergen, where she researched how US university nonprofits attempted to preserve investigative reporting by pairing students with professional reporters. Her research interests include journalism education, digital journalism practices, the norms and values of the journalism profession, investigative journalism, and the sociology of professions.

Nanna Fredheim is an Associate Professor of Communication at Kristiania University College. In her Ph.D. in media and communication from the University of Oslo she focused on strategic political communication by interest group on the health field. Her research interests include digital media, journalism, interest groups, strategic communication, and the health field. She is furthermore interested in teaching and student learning more generally.

References

Amabile

Hill

Hennessey

, et al. (1994) The work preference inventory: assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66(5): 950.

Becker

Vlad

(2018) The Changing Education for Journalism and the Communication Occupations. New York: Peter Lang Verlag. DOI: 10.3726/b13132.

Biggs

Tang

(2011) The changing scene in university teaching. In: Biggs

Tang

(eds) Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does. 4th edition. Open University Press, 3–15.

Biggs

Tang

Kennedy

(2022) Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does. 5th edition. Open University Press.

Bryman

(2008) Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bunce

Baird

Jones

(2017) The student-as-consumer approach in higher education and its effects on academic performance. Studies in Higher Education 42(11): 1958–1978. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1127908.

Carpenter

Grant

Hoag

(2016) Journalism degree motivations: the development of a scale. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator 71(1): 5–27. DOI: 10.1177/1077695814551835.

Chazan

Pelletier

Daniels

(2022) Achievement goal theory review: an application to school psychology. Canadian Journal of School Psychology 37(1): 40–56. DOI: 10.1177/08295735211058319.

Crawford

Fudge

Hubbard

, et al. (2013) The mass comm type: student personality traits, motivations, and the choice between news and strategic communication majors. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator 68(2): 104–118. DOI: 10.1177/1077695813478180.

10.

Emanuelsen

Hodøl

H-O

Johannessen

(2024) Kommunikasjonsstudenter i Norge: Hvem er de, og hva vil de? [Communication students in Norway: Who are they and what do they want?]. Uniped 47(1): 46–59. DOI: 10.18261/uniped.47.1.5.

11.

Entwistle

McCune

(2004) The conceptual bases of study strategy inventories. Educational Psychology Review 16(4): 325–345. DOI: 10.1007/s10648-004-0003-0.

12.

Freidson

(2007) Professionalism: The Third Logic. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

13.

Grimen

(2008) Profesjon og kunnskap [Professions and knowledge]. In: Terum

AMLI

(ed) Profesjonsstudier [The Study of Professions]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 71–86.

14.

Hanusch

Mellado

(2014) Journalism students’ professional views in eight countries: the role of motivations, education, and gender. International Journal of Communication 8(1): 1156–1173.

15.

Hovden

Nygren

Zilliacus-Tikkanen

(2016) Becoming a Journalist: Journalism Education in the Nordic Countries. Göteborg: Nordicom.

16.

Iyengar

Lepper

Kruglanski

(1999) Rethinking the value of choice: a cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76(3): 349–366. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.3.349.

17.

Jackson

Thorsen

Reardon

(2020) Fantasy, pragmatism, and journalistic socialisation: UK journalism students’ aspirations and motivations. Journalism Practice 14(1): 104–124. DOI: 10.1080/17512786.2019.1591929.

18.

Janssens

Wijnen

De Pelsmacker

, et al. (2008) Marketing Research with SPSS. New Jersey: Pearson Education.

19.

Kidder

(2002) The influence of gender on the performance of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management 28(5): 629–648.

20.

Kristiania University College (n.d.) Kvalitetsrapport 2023 [Quality Report 2023]. Report. Kristiania University College, Norway.

21.

Lepper

Corpus

Iyengar

(2005) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the classroom: age differences and academic correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology 97(2): 184–196. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.184.

22.

Nygård

(2023) Det er nå vanligere for kvinner enn menn å ha lang utdanning [It is now more common for women than men to have a long education]. Available at: https://www.ssb.no/utdanning/utdanningsniva/statistikk/befolkningens-utdanningsniva/artikler/det-er-na-vanligere-for-kvinner-enn-menn-a-ha-lang-utdanning (accessed 20 May 2025).

23.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2024) Number of students (indicator). Available at: https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/number-of-students.html (accessed 23 January 2025).

24.

Oslo Meteropolitan University (n.d.) Institutt for journalistikk og mediefag. [Department of Journalism and Media Studies]. Available at: https://www.oslomet.no/om/sam/jm (accessed 23 May 2025).

25.

Østbye

Helland

Knapskog

, et al. (2013) Metodebok for Mediefag [Methods for Media Studies]. Bergen. Fagbokforlaget.

26.

Pal

Piaget

Zahidi

, et al. (2024) Global Gender Gap Report 2024. Report, World Economic Forum.

27.

Ryan

Deci

(2000) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25(1): 54–67. DOI: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.

28.

Seksjon for analyse og kvalitetsutvikling (2022) Kandidatundersøkelsen 2022 [Alumni Survey 2022]. Report, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway.

29.

Senko

Hulleman

Harackiewicz

(2011) Achievement goal theory at the crossroads: old controversies, current challenges, and new directions. Educational Psychologist 46(1): 26–47. DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2011.538646.

30.

Skatova

Ferguson

(2014) Why do different people choose different university degrees? Motivation and the choice of degree. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 1244.

31.

Smyth

Mavor

Platow

, et al. (2015) Discipline social identification, study norms and learning approach in university students. Educational Psychology 35(1): 53–72. DOI: 10.1080/01443410.2013.822962.

32.

Tomlinson

(2017) Student perceptions of themselves as ‘consumers’ of higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education 38(4): 450–467. DOI: 10.1080/01425692.2015.1113856.

33.

Utdanning (n.d.) Universitet og høgskole [university and university college]. Utdanning.no. Available at: https://utdanning.no/tema/utdanning/universitet_og_hogskole (accessed 13 January 2025).

34.

Wilkesmann

Fischer

Virgillito

(2012) Academic Motivation of Students – the German Case. Zentrums für HochschulBildung, 2–20. Discussion paper Nr.

35.

Willemse

de Beer

(2012) Three worlds of educational welfare states? A comparative study of higher education systems across welfare states. Journal of European Social Policy 22(2): 105–117. DOI: 10.1177/0958928711433656.

36.

Zhang

L-F

(2000) University students’ learning approaches in three cultures: an investigation of Biggs’s 3P model. The Journal of Psychology 134(1): 37–55. DOI: 10.1080/00223980009600847.