Interiorization and exteriorization: conceptual understanding

Ufimtsev Aleksandr Evgenevich ORCID: 0009-0004-9788-5550 independent researcher 48 Transit Street, Krasnoyarsk, 660122, Russia, Krasnoyarsk Territory ufimtzev@inbox.ru Other publications by this author

Dedicated to Natalia Alexandrovna Fritzler, a college lecturer in Krasnoyarsk, whose lectures on psychology laid the foundation for this work.

Introduction

The subject of the article can be described as a comparative analysis of interiorization and exteriorization. A conceptual understanding of the essence of these fundamental concepts will allow us to get into the essence of these concepts, which are of fundamental importance in modern pedagogy.

The relevance of the research is due to the need to comprehend interiorization and exteriorization. It is logical that interiorization and exteriorization were compared at the very beginning of the introduction of these concepts, but the rapidly changing world encourages us to look at it in a new way; new information appears, bringing a fresh stream and allowing us to comprehend what was described earlier from a new perspective. New theories are emerging, through which it is possible to comprehend already known teachings – and see the previously hidden facets of meanings.

In addition, the more fundamental a concept is, the more analysis it needs; for example, in mathematics, the revision of Euclid's axioms underlying this science allowed us to build new theories: Lobachevsky geometry, Minkowski geometry, and other theoretical models, and thereby advance science far ahead and lay the foundations of scientific and technical revolutions of the XX century. Thus, understanding the axioms of pedagogy will allow, at a minimum, to penetrate deeper into the essence of the learning process, and, as a maximum, to assist in the development of fundamentally new approaches to learning.

The problematic field of research is to understand the essence of interiorization and exteriorization. Thus, the doctrine of interiorization by L. S. Vygotsky is the basis of the developmental training of D. B. Elkonin and V. V. Davydov, and the ideas of exteriorization form the basis of the heuristic training of A. V. Khutorsky. At the same time, both developmental learning and heuristic learning are pedagogical systems that take into account the natural capabilities of a person. But if both of these systems are related by conformity to human nature, then how do the ideas underlying them differ – that is, interiorization or exteriorization? For this purpose, interiorization and exteriorization are compared in this study; the comparison of the developmental learning of D. B. Elkonin and V. V. Davydov and the heuristic learning of A. V. Khutorsky is seen as a prospect for further research.

The scientific novelty lies in the conceptual comparison of interiorization and exteriorization. It should be noted that research on the comparison of interiorization and exteriorization is underway, and they are presented in the text of the article. In this regard, scientific novelty can be formulated more narrowly: a conceptual comparison of interiorization and exteriorization from fundamentally new positions. In addition, the scientific novelty lies in the comparative consideration of interiorization and exteriorization through analysis from the standpoint of the mental scheme of transfer-receipt-possession and through the prism of the theory of meta-paradigms. A comprehensive understanding of interiorization and exteriorization has made it possible to more clearly identify their essential characteristics.

The research methodology includes a number of methods, both theoretical and applied: the method of analyzing scientific literature, the comparative method, semantic analysis, the method of abstraction, the method of reflexive comprehension. The combination of theoretical and applied methods allowed us to draw conclusions based on both abstract conclusions and factual data.

The complex nature of the methodology has determined both the scientific significance and the applied value of the research.

The theoretical significance of the research lies in the continuation of the discourse set by L. S. Vygotsky, which is still relevant today. The theoretical foundations of pedagogy are constantly being refined in accordance with changing realities and demands of society, and they also determine the nature of changing realities and shape society's expectations, thereby deductively guiding the development of the world as a whole.

The practical value lies in creating new approaches to learning and rethinking existing ones: developmental learning, based on interiorization; the pedagogical system of A.V. Khutorsky, based on exteriorization. The world is constantly changing, and approaches to learning are constantly being improved. We dare to hope that our research will be useful as one of the building blocks of the scientific and practical foundation of pedagogy of the future.

Interiorization

L. S. Vygotsky's teaching on interiorization is the basis for the developmental learning of D. B. Elkonin and V. V. Davydov, which involves the creation by the teacher of certain situations on the path of cognition by students that improve cognition and correspond to their capabilities (a situation of success, a problem situation, etc.). The system of developmental learning conceptually opposes the system of so-called traditional learning, the foundations of which were laid J. A. Komensky in the 17th century.

Let's consider the current points of view on interiorization in the scientific community.

A. A. Fasolya notes: interiorization is one of the fundamental concepts of the world psychological and pedagogical science, which has always been widely discussed ^{[1, p. 115]}. The researcher briefly describes the various approaches to the study of interiorization implemented by a number of scientists: P. Janet; L. S. Vygotsky, A. N. Leontiev, P. Ya. Galperin – and opposing them S. L. Rubinstein, B. F. Lomov, A. V. Brushlinsky; S. P. Senyushenkov; T. S. Akhutin ^{[1, p. 116]}. Summarizing the various points of view, A. A. Fasolya compares the interpretations of the concept of interiorization in various sections of psychology.:

• The operational theory of intelligence development considers interiorization as a phenomenon secondary to the logical development of thinking and signifying the creation of a plan of ideal, proper logical constructions;
• The sociological school of psychology understands interiorization as a process when a child borrows concepts, ideas, and categories from the public consciousness, which later form the structure of his personal views.;
• age and educational psychology, as well as instrumental psychology, define interiorization as "bullying";
• pedagogical psychology interprets interiorization as one of the separate mechanisms of knowledge acquisition and presents interiorization as a unity of three processes: external-internal, social-individual, material-ideal;
• Social psychology describes interiorization as a mechanism for transforming the structure of personality, while interiorization is seen as one of the main forms of personality socialization.;
• Objective psychology understands interiorization as a principle that influences the development of thinking, self-awareness, and motivation.;
• The psychology of behavior considers interiorization as a mental phenomenon that requires an explanation of the existence of "internal" processes.;
• The psychology of personality formation and development interprets interiorization as the main process of the psychology of cognition ^{[1, p. 117]}.

T. V. Pushkareva analyzes interiorization consistently and systematically ^{[2] [3]}; in addition, T. V. Pushkareva's dissertation research for the degree of Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences (Pushkareva, 2012) is devoted to the study of interiorization. The scientist reviews how interiorization has been comprehensively studied by various researchers: A.V. Petrovsky and M. G. Yaroshevsky; E. Durkheim, P. Janet, J. Piaget; L. S. Vygotsky, A. N. Leontiev, P. Ya. Galperin, who were opposed by S. L. Rubinstein, B. F. Lomov, A.V. Brushlinsky; A. N. Mushkirova; I. F. Klimenko; K. V. Rubchevsky; R. M. Nureyev; V. S. Lyubchenko; P. Berger; V. P. Belyanin; B. G. Ananyev; and others ^[3]; the scientific and research background of the concept of interiorization is really impressive. T. V. Pushkareva sums up the analytical research: "analysis of various scientific approaches to the definition of the term "interiorization", showed that the result of this process is not just the acquisition of new knowledge, but the transformation of the personality structure" ^[3].

A. V. Rukin also writes about the transformation of personality in the process of interiorization: "information internalized in the process of human existence forms him" ^{[4, p. 154]}, while the researcher emphasizes the active role of a person in the course of interiorization ^{[4, p. 154]}; information interiorized by a person also plays an active role, forming an "intrapersonal information reality which is the result of creative self-creation of oneself" ^{[4, p. 156]}. A.V. Rukin notes: Both the person and the interiorized information are active in the course of interiorization ^{[5, p. 72]}.

Analyzing the issues of studying interiorization, T. V. Pushkareva notes: there are different approaches to understanding interiorization, however, there are not so much contradictions as differences between them, and all of them do not meaningfully oppose each other, but consider interiorization in many ways. T. V. Pushkareva concludes: despite the terminological complexity, various studies are conducted based on the mechanisms of interiorization ^{[2, p. 104]}. T. V. Pushkareva concludes: the main mechanism of interiorization is the understanding and appropriation of the external, turning it into a personal, internal ^{[2, p. 105]}. T. V. Pushkareva describes this process as follows: a person first appropriates social values, "and then in the process of his own creative activity he multiplies them" ^[3].

A. A. Tyukov notes: the dispute between B. M. Teplov and A. N. Leontiev about the essence of human abilities is resolved provided that the law of interiorization according to L. S. Vygotsky and the systemic structure of P. Ya. Galperin's theory are correctly understood. A. A. Tyukov concludes: "modern developmental psychology has every reason to turn the idea of L. S. Vygotsky's interiorization into a law of social learning" ^{[6, p. 10]}.

We will cite studies of interiorization in other fields of scientific knowledge.

Thus, in psycholinguistics, T. V. Kruzhilina interprets interiorization in the context of the development of internal speech from the standpoint of psycholinguistics ^[7]. The scientist writes: "the mechanism of VR (internal speech – approx. ours) is characterized by latent verbalization, which is the result of the entire ontogenetic development of an individual language system with the interiorization of both language and other sign systems" ^{[7, p. 104]} – that is, during the development of internal speech, the interiorization of language and sign systems as a whole occurs.

Thus, in the philosophy of language, N. S. Rozov writes about the importance of interiorization in the development of abilities, including the ability of language and consciousness ^{[8, p. 113]}. The researcher emphasizes: "it is extremely important that over time, standard sound signals that meant disapproval or approval received their own force regulating individual behavior through interiorization" (emphasis added) ^{[8, pp. 115-116]}. Thus, interiorization as a mechanism underlies the regulation of behavior.

In addition, various aspects of interiorization are studied in a variety of dissertation studies in various scientific disciplines. Let's limit ourselves to listing some:

• thus, in pedagogy, there is the dissertation of L. N. Slyadneva "Motor and plastic training of a teacher–educator based on the interiorization of elementary biomechanics of motor action" (Slyadneva, 2002), the dissertation of T. V. Pushkareva "Interiorization of professionally oriented knowledge by social educators in the process of studying at a university" (Pushkareva, 2012);
• in psychology, D. B. Kazantseva's dissertation "Psychological conditions for the interiorization of the multiplication action" (Kazantseva, 1999), dissertation by A. K. Brovchenko "The dependence of the formation of personality orientation in the process of internalizing moral values on the characteristics of upbringing in adolescence" (Brovchenko, 2004);
• in philosophy – dissertations of A. Yu. Ogorodnikova "The interiorization of values in the context of the transformation of modern Russian society (socio-philosophical analysis)" (Ogorodnikov, 2008) and "The interiorization of the personal value system in the formation of the institutional order of Russian society: a socio-philosophical analysis" (Ogorodnikov, 2018), thesis by A. I. Matveeva "Spiritual socialization as a problem of social philosophy" (Matveeva, 2011);
• in sociology– T. K. Fomina's dissertation "Foreign students at a medical university in Russia: Interiorization of professional values" (Fomina, 2004), dissertation of A.D. Donika "Interiorization of the professional role of a doctor: social, psychological and somatic determinants" (Donika, 2010);
• in philology and linguistics – thesis by T. I. Skorobogatova "Phraseology and historical memory: the interiorization of new knowledge in linguistics based on the French language" (Skorobogatova, 2013), Yu.V. Pogrebnyak's dissertation "Characteristics of interiorized discourse" for the degree of Doctor of Philology (Pogrebnyak, 2012), S. V. Arkhipova's dissertation "Vocabulary of the Bologna Process (a psycholinguistic approach to detecting the degree of interiorization)" (Arkhipova, 2013).

Dissertation studies of various aspects of interiorization are diverse, and their analysis requires separate reflection.

Let us comprehend the representation of the concept of interiorization in foreign studies. For example, J. M. Steves, F. K. Petterini, and G. V. Mura write about the internalization of violence in Brazil ^[9]. H. M. Vargas writes about the interiorization of higher education in Brazil ^[10]. R. L. Correa and D. E. Nascimento write about the interiorization of universities and the regional labor market using the example of the Federal University of the Brazilian State of Paraná ^[11]. Note that these researchers write about internalization in a broad sense, i.e., in fact, about internalization. It can be said that the specific use of the term interiorization by foreign (at least Brazilian) researchers lies in a broader meaning; in fact, a number of researchers use the term interiorization in the sense of internalization. Interiorization describes the formation of mental functions, and internalization describes the adoption of social norms; interiorization is primary in relation to internalization.

Internalization is also widely represented in dissertation research in various scientific disciplines.:

• in psychology, S. I. Matafanova's dissertation "Perception of child-parent interaction as a condition for internalizing a mother's coping behavior" (Matafanova, 2016);
• in philosophy– the dissertation of E. S. Pankov's "Internalization as a postmodern type of correlation between social practices and the subject" (Pankova, 2017);
• in economics – N. V. Ovchinnikova's dissertation "Economic foundations of internalization of externalities in environmental management" (Ovchinnikova, 2007), I. Y. Khovavko's dissertation "Internalization of externalities from environmental pollution in the Russian Federation" (Khovavko, 2012);
• in biology– the dissertation of S. V. Trusova, "The mechanism of internalization of apoptotic protease in plants" (Trusova, 2019).

Thus, one of the further research prospects may be a comparative analysis of the understanding of the term interiorization in domestic and foreign discourses.

We also note the research of D. R. Ossi, I. Sharif and R. Riyadi, which differentiates the concepts of interiorization and internalization in the context of the development of abstraction skills in mathematics ^[12]. Internalization and interiorization are described as stages of the development of a deep conceptual understanding of abstract ideas ^{[12, pp. 103-105]}.

So, interiorization is one of the key concepts of world and domestic pedagogy and science in general, significant and relevant, determining the development of theoretical thought and implemented in an applied aspect. Interiorization has traditionally attracted the attention of researchers, and the fundamental nature of this concept makes it particularly relevant to rethink it from a fundamentally different perspective.

Exteriorization

The concept of exteriorization is used by A.V. Khutorsky as the basis of the scientist's pedagogical system ^{[13] [14] [15]}. In addition, A.V. Khutorsky's dissertation research "Didactic foundations of heuristic learning" for the degree of Doctor of Philology (Khutorskoy, 1998) is devoted to exteriorization ^[16].

Exteriorization is the process of a person realizing his knowledge in the outside world, which was previously located in the inner plane. The doctrine of exteriorization is the basis of the pedagogical system of A. V. Khutorsky, conceptually opposed to the system of traditional education.

A. I. Dontsov and D. A. Dontsov writes about exteriorization: "exteriorization is understood as a kind of subjectification by a person of the social experience acquired by him in the process of life, and at the same time as a certain return of this social experience to society in an internally transformed, intrapersonally transformed and creatively processed form by a person" ^{[17, p. 14]}. A. I. Dontsov and D. A. Dontsov points out that a number of scientists believe that it is through exteriorization that the socio-cultural development of mankind takes place ^{[17, p. 14]}.

Exteriorization is also understood by other researchers.

Thus, A.V. Rukin writes: exteriorization is based on a fundamental human trait in the form of a disposition to internalize information from the outside world, which allows not only to assimilate, but also to produce streams of new information ^{[4, pp. 155-156]}. Thus, the researcher defines exteriorization as genetically related to internalization.

A. K. Tutunjian, A. A. Tutunjian, and V. V. Grigorieva write about exteriorization in a comparative analysis with interiorization ^[18]; the results of this study are presented below.

Various aspects of exteriorization are presented in dissertation research. Let's list some:

• thus, in pedagogy, there is the dissertation of T. V. Rimkuvene "Pedagogical foundations of the exteriorization of students as means and conditions of their cultural and personal growth" (Rimkuvene, 1999), the dissertation of V. M. Kazakevich "Theoretical and methodological foundations of information technology modeling of the process of teaching students to work" (Kazakevich, 1997), the dissertation of S. N. Gorbushina "Ideological determinants of the formation of a future teacher's health culture" (Gorbushina, 2005);
• in psychology – the dissertation of G. P. Pozdnyakova, "Motor activity as a condition and factor in the development of subjectivity in preschool children" (Pozdnyakova, 2006);
• in philology and linguistics – M. V. Arkhipova's dissertation "Replication as a means of exteriorizing inner speech in artistic discourse" (Arkhipova, 2003), S. P. Stepanov's dissertation "Subjectivation of narration and ways of organizing text: based on the material of Chekhov's narrative prose", T. V. Kirillova's dissertation "Inner Speech in the aspect of intrapersonal communication (based on the material of English-language fiction)" (Kirillova, 2011);

A cursory review of the dissertations led to the conclusion that exteriorization is often studied in conjunction with interiorization, whereas interiorization is more often studied independently of exteriorization (among the dissertation studies reviewed).

Let us analyze the representation of the concept of exteriorization in the publications of foreign researchers. For example, M. Makiewicz (Poland) writes about the use of photography in teaching mathematics based on interiorization and exteriorization as complementary processes ^[19]. The researcher notes: photography combines interiorization and exteriorization – or movement from the visible to the conceivable and from the conceivable to the seen, respectively ^{[19, p. 61]}. M. Makevich justifies the unification of the processes of interiorization and exteriorization by ensuring the harmonious functioning of both hemispheres of the brain ^{[19, p. 71]}.

Exteriorization in various contexts is widely studied in biomedical research. For example, a group of researchers led by Yu. O. Ranne (Finland) writes about exteriorization as the removal of an organ in surgery ^[20]. So, M. Bumendzhel et al. (Algeria) write about the exteriorization of a polyp through the mouth ^[21]. A group of researchers (Ethiopia) uses the term exteriorization when describing uterine extraction in gynecological operations ^[22]. W. B. Miller Jr. and J. S. Torday (USA) writes about the exteriorization of testicles in mammals during evolution ^[23]. A group of researchers from China describes cases from clinical practice when conservative methods were ineffective, and the removal of the cervical esophagus to the outside turned out to be effective ^[24].

The following observation is noteworthy: if in a number of studies internalization is actually understood as internalization, then there is no confusion with externalization in research on exteriorization. A more in-depth analysis can be understood as a prospect for further research.

So, based on the analysis of publications in periodicals and a brief overview of dissertations on this topic, we can conclude that exteriorization is one of the relevant and significant concepts of modern pedagogy.

Interiorization and exteriorization: comparative understanding

Let's consider interiorization and exteriorization in their juxtaposition.

Thus, defending the priority of exteriorization in education, A.V. Khutorskoy compares the processes of interiorization and exteriorization according to a number of parameters. For example, A.V. Khutorskoy considers the translation of the "generational experience" to be the goal of learning in interiorization, and the researcher calls the realization of the human mission as the goal of exteriorization. The scientist defines the task of interiorization as "giving" knowledge, the basics of science, "instilling" values, and in exteriorization – to identify and realize the educational potential of a person. Interiorization is based on the principles of science, accessibility, systematicity, consistency, etc., exteriorization is based on the principles of humanitarianism, productivity, personal goal–setting, reflection. Interiorization is carried out through reproductive and control methods, exteriorization is carried out through heuristic, research and competence-based methods. The vector of development in interiorization is directed from the outside inwards (the "cultivation" of external content into a person according to L. S. Vygotsky), in exteriorization it is directed from the inside out (the "cultivation" of a person in relation to himself and the world around him according to L. N. Tolstoy). Interiorization is based on the external – what is written in standards and textbooks, while exteriorization is based on the external (environment) and internal (personal qualities), micro- and macrocosm. Interiorization involves the transfer of a given "material" to the student, known information, as well as its assimilation; exteriorization involves the generation of personal knowledge by the student, their comparison with cultural and historical analogues. In interiorization, education is considered as the transfer of knowledge to the student, and in exteriorization, education is considered as the student's self-realization. According to A.V. Khutorsky, interiorization presupposes a single and common educational program, exteriorization – an individual educational program and trajectory. The representation of the educational content in interiorization is represented by information about "other people's" knowledge, in exteriorization – by real educational objects. The educational process in interiorization is carried out through the presentation, consolidation, assimilation, reproduction of information, in exteriorization – through cognition of reality, "obtaining" knowledge, product presentation, communication. During interiorization, the assessment criterion is the degree of conformity of the material reproduced by the student to the given one; during exteriorization, this is the degree of conformity of the created product to the student's personal goals, the level of increment of internal qualities. A.V. Khutorskoy notes: the result of interiorization is the assimilation and reproduction of external information, exteriorization is the creation of educational products, the possibility of "different" results. The advantage of interiorization is a high level of reproduction of what is given to a person from the outside, the advantage of exteriorization is the creative competence of a person, the uniqueness of his life. A.V. Khutorskoy points out that with interiorization there is a risk of conservation, stagnation of humanity, with exteriorization there is an unpredictability of results for educational organizers ^{[15, pp. 7-9]}.

As can be seen from the comparative description, interiorization and exteriorization seem to be diametrically opposed processes. However, it is easy to see that both processes are fundamentally related – both interiorization and exteriorization describe the interaction of a person and the outside world: interiorization refers to the direction of knowledge from the world to the person, and exteriorization refers to the direction of knowledge from the person to the world. Interiorization is the process of a person's assimilation of knowledge about the world; a person makes his own external knowledge. Exteriorization is the process of manifesting human knowledge into the world; a person makes his inner knowledge public.

A. V. Khutorskoy describes interiorization as "external management of the inner essence of the student" ^{[14, p. 150]}. Developing the thought of A.V. Khutorsky, one can define exteriorization as the student's own control of the external manifestation of his inner essence.

We suggest paying attention to other comparisons of interiorization and exteriorization, including objective ones.

One of these is the study conducted by A. K. Tutunjian, A. A. Tutunjian and V. V. Grigorieva. Researchers understand interiorization as the process of cognition of the world, its theoretical understanding and the formation of an internal semantic space, and exteriorization as the process of world transformation and practical activity ^{[18, p. 68]}. Developing this idea further, let's add: exteriorization is the formation of an external semantic space. And if exteriorization is an outward action, then interiorization is an inward action, or an activity of comprehension; if interiorization is a process of cognition of the external world, transforming the inner world, then exteriorization is a process of transformation of the external world in the likeness of the inner world – or the process of expansion of the inner world into the outer. Thus, both interiorization and exteriorization are actions that differ in focus. Simplifying things as much as possible, we can say: interiorization is exteriorization, just the opposite; exteriorization is internalization, just the opposite.

Let's continue thinking: theoretical understanding is an implication of practical activity, and practical activity is an explication of theoretical understanding. Thus, interiorization is the embedding of the world into oneself, and exteriorization is the embedding of oneself into the world: oneself as actions, oneself as an approach, oneself as a program.

A. K. Tutunjian, A. A. Tutunjian, and V. V. Grigorieva compare interiorization and exteriorization at the systemic levels of the psyche-body and consciousness-brain; at the same time, researchers identify and describe, in addition to interiorization and exteriorization, the process of transformation (processing) ^{[18, p. 68]}.

A. K. Tutunjian, A. A. Tutunjian and V. V. Grigorieva compare the processes of interiorization, transformation and exteriorization with the main issues of philosophy according to I. Kant:

• "What can I know?" – reflects the vector of interiorization;
• "What can I hope for?" reflects the vector of transformation;
• "What should I do?" – reflects the vector of exteriorization ^{[18, pp. 61-62]}.

Reflecting on the essence of interiorization, transformation and exteriorization, A. K. Tutunjian, A. A. Tutunjian and V. V. Grigorieva draw parallels with the stages of information processing in information and communication technologies:

• the stage of information preparation (selection of information sources, data collection, rationing, preprocessing and storage) is interiorization;
• the stage of processing the information received (comprehension and analysis, knowledge extraction and modeling, obtaining new knowledge, making necessary decisions) is transformation;
• The stage of knowledge representation (visualization, implementation and interpretation of solutions) is exteriorization ^{[18, p. 70]}.

Thus, simplifying as much as possible, it can be noted that both interiorization and exteriorization are vectors of interaction: from the world to the person or from the person to the world. The world gives to a person, and a person takes, a person must take – this is internalization; a person gives to the world, and the world takes, the world can take – this is exteriorization.

Yu.V. Pogrebnyak provides the basic characteristics of interiorized and exteriorized discourses ^[25]. Thus, interiorized discourse is characterized by deep interaction with the world, while exteriorized discourse is characterized by surface interaction; interiorized discourse is characterized by a creative, abstract, individual, egocentric, unconscious type of consciousness, while exteriorized discourse is characterized by a routine, concrete, social, eccentric, conscious type of consciousness; the type of meaning in interiorized discourse is associative, ambiguous, and emotional, and in exteriorized – consistent, definite and rational; the type of expression of interiorized discourse is characterized by non-verbal, monologue, chaotic and spontaneous, and exteriorized – verbal, dialogical, ordered and planned, etc. ^{[25, p. 1]}. In general, the characteristics of interiorization and exteriorization in the understanding of Y. V. Pogrebnyak require separate reflection.

Yu.V. Pogrebnyak characterizes interiorization as "a complex synthetic phenomenon that reflects the specifics of the innermost speech and thought processes – their fragmentary, illogical, clipped, heuristic, etc. – and the specifics of their artistic imitation, their artistic reflection" ^{[26, p. 99]}. In addition, it should be noted that the dissertation study of Yu.V. Pogrebnyak for the degree of Doctor of Philology (Pogrebnyak, 2012) is devoted to the study of interiorization as a discourse.

A.V. Khutorskoy notes: interiorization and exteriorization as approaches to education have a long history ^{[15, p. 4],[15, p. 6-7]}; the dispute between these two approaches to education has been going on for thousands of years, sometimes very dramatically ^{[15, p. 12-13]}. We can conclude that interiorization and exteriorization are in dialectical unity, and they manifest themselves in different ways in different learning theories.

A number of researchers write about the close connection between interiorization and exteriorization: A. I. Dontsov and D. A. Dontsov ^[17], M. Makevich ^[19], A. V. Rukin ^[4].

A.V. Rukin, who studies the information approach in pedagogy, emphasizes: all the variety of interrelations and interactions of a student can be considered in the form of emerging information flows – interiorization and exteriorization, collectively constituting the educational process ^{[4, p. 156]}.

In their pure form, neither interiorization nor exteriorization are realized separately from each other, although the focus of attention of individual researchers may be on interiorization (L. S. Vygotsky) or exteriorization (A.V. Khutorskoy). A. K. Tutunjian, A. A. Tutunjian and V. V. Grigorieva emphasize: "the process of interiorization is useless and meaningless without the process of exteriorization, and considering these processes separately from each other is a mistake leading to false interpretations" ^{[18, p. 61]}. So, interiorization and exteriorization are dialectically interrelated.

Interiorization can be understood as follows: a lower–order system comprehends a higher-order system, and a higher-order system integrates itself into a lower-order system. Exteriorization can be understood in a mirror way to interiorization: a lower–order system projects itself into a higher-order system, and a higher-order system absorbs a lower-order system. Obviously, in the case of interiorization, the lower–order system grows qualitatively, while the higher-order system does not lose in quality, whereas in the case of exteriorization, the lower-order system lowers the quality of the higher-order system without increasing its own quality.

Interiorization and exteriorization through the prism of the mental scheme of transfer – receiving – possession

So, interiorization is the embedding of the world into oneself, and exteriorization is the embedding of oneself into the world. Then, to a first approximation, embedding the world into oneself, or appropriating the world, "embedding" the world into oneself, is the realization of the mental scheme of taking, and embedding oneself into the world, projecting oneself into the world, is the realization of the mental scheme of giving.

Developing these thoughts further, we can come to the following: from the point of view of an individual, interiorization is the realization of a mental scheme to take, exteriorization is the realization of a mental scheme to give: a person takes from the world, a person gives to the world. At the same time, from the point of view of the world, interiorization is the realization of the mental scheme of giving, and exteriorization is the realization of the mental scheme of taking: the world gives to a person, the world takes from a person. In the course of both interiorization and exteriorization, both mental schemes – both to take and to give – are realized simultaneously.

Consequently, the basis of both processes – interiorization and exteriorization – is the mental scheme of give and take. N. V. Pyataeva consistently and systematically analyzes this mental scheme based on the material of East Slavic languages (and Indo-European languages in general). ^{[27] [28] [29] [30]}; N. V. Pyataeva's dissertation "The Genetic paradigm" is devoted to the study of the mental scheme of transmission – receiving – possession.//to give > to take > to take > to have > to carry > to give "in the history of the Russian language" for the degree of Doctor of Philology (Pyataeva, 2007). The scientist concludes that historically, the concepts of give and take are related to each other ^{[28, p. 90]}. Developing these ideas further, N. V. Pyataeva, E. V. Bulina and E. A. Ibatullina note: the meanings of give and take are combined by one verbal form – the Indo-European root *dō- ^{[30, p. 108]}. In addition, since they take in order to possess, to carry, and give what they possess, what they carry, then in a more complete form this mental scheme looks like this: give – take – carry ^{[29, p. 91]}.

N. V. Pyataeva writes about the give–take–carry mental scheme. The researcher suggests that there is a mental transmission–receiving–possession scheme based on the lexico-semantic paradigm of giving.//give – take – take – have – carry – give //give is a semantic universal ^{[29, p. 94]}. N. V. Pyataeva notes: historically, the primary name is not objects, but systemic connections, relationships ^{[27, p. 142]}. N. V. Pyataeva emphasizes: "in vocabulary, thus Thus, the cognitive aspect of language comes to the fore, vocabulary is a being that has passed through the public consciousness" ^{[27, p. 142]}. Thus, this mental scheme seems to be stitched into the minds of speakers of East Slavic languages and Indo-European languages in general.

Thus, the mental scheme of transfer – receiving – possession, or give–take –carry, is implemented in the processes of interiorization and exteriorization. Considering the conclusions drawn by A. K. Tutunjian, A. A. Tutunjian and V. V. Grigorieva, it is possible to supplement the mental scheme described by T.V. Pyataeva, transfer – receive – possess, or give – take – carry, with the element processing (transformation, transformation) or processing (transform, transform). In addition, A. K. Tutunjian, A. A. Tutunjian, and V. V. Grigorieva understand interiorization, transformation, and exteriorization as processes related to receiving input information, processing it, and outputting it, respectively, i.e. ideal; based on this, the researchers propose to "neglect the "signaling" component of the nervous system and consider the psyche an ideal entity." ^{[18, p. 80]}. In fact, A. K. Tutunjian, A. A. Tutunjian, and V. V. Grigorieva understand consciousness and the psyche as a program code that implements a mental scheme of transmission, reception, and possession.

Let's draw parallels with the data of other researchers. Thus, M. Makevich writes: photography conveys visual representations and images created and available in our imagination – and movement occurs "from the visible to the conceivable (interiorization) and from the conceivable to the seen (exteriorization)" ^{[19, p. 61]}; visual images are taken from the outside inside and given from the inside outside.

Thus, A.V. Rukin writes about the importance of information exchange processes: "the world cannot exist outside the processes of information exchange and transmission in a sequential series of the appearance of objects of reality" ^{[5, p. 72]}. Exchange processes are the basis of life, and exchange can be carried out not only from the standpoint of material, but also ideal – that is, information.

In the context of this, G. M. Shaverdyan's point of view is noteworthy. The scientist writes: the motive of cannibalism is at the heart of the unconscious mechanism of interiorization ^[31]. Thus, the opinions of researchers regarding interiorization vary.: This is the assimilation of information, language, and sign systems in general, and social values, and cannibalism – either from extreme idealism to extreme materialism; but they all have one thing in common: to consume, to take in information, social values, sign systems, or representatives of their own species. Thus, interiorization is based on the mental scheme of taking; similarly, it can be argued that exteriorization is based on the mental scheme of giving, and both of these processes are dialectically interrelated and controlled by one mental scheme – the mental scheme of transfer – receiving – possession.

So, the mental scheme of transfer – receiving – possession, or give–take –carry, is refracted in two ways in the processes of interiorization and exteriorization.

Interiorization and exteriorization through the lens of meta-paradigm theory

Before continuing our discussion of interiorization and exteriorization, let us briefly explain what the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms are.

Earlier, on the basis of a variety of factual material, we identified and characterized two main trends in the development of scientific knowledge:

• the system-structural meta-paradigm is a system–structural paradigm in linguistics; a set of bodily causal theories of voice formation in phonopedia; normal science according to T. S. Kuhn; culture 2 according to V. Z. Paperny; restoration cycle according to P. B. Bogdanova;
• bioessential deterministic meta-paradigm is an anthropocentric paradigm in linguistics; a set of psychologically conditioned theories of voice formation in phonopedia; scientific revolution according to T. S. Kuhn; culture 1 according to V. Z. Paperny; cycle of destruction according to P. B. Bogdanova.

The analysis of the obtained data allowed us to give a more detailed description of the common characteristics of both meta-paradigms.:

• general characteristics of the system-structural meta-paradigm: linear world, statics, logic, reliance on the conscious, orderliness, rigor, rational, Rational, conscious, objectivity, definite, language, evolution, tradition to preserve traditions, The Path of Knowledge, the path of quantitative change; narrow specialization, deep development, a specific scientific discipline as a closed system; formally oriented approach;
• general characteristics of the bioessential deterministic meta-paradigm: chaotic world, dynamics, intuition, reliance on the unconscious, chaos, arbitrariness, irrational, irrational, unconscious, subjectivity, amorphous, speech, revolution, revolutionary striving for revolutionary changes, The path of Faith, the path of qualitative change; broad interdisciplinarity, broad development, a specific scientific discipline as an open system; essence-oriented approach.

In addition, the systemic-structural meta-paradigm is the dogma of necessity, the bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigm is the primacy of desire.

So, the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms are dialectically interrelated conceptually generalized sets of knowledge that guide the development of scientific knowledge in various scientific disciplines at the transdisciplinary level. We described the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms in more detail in the journal Philosophical Thought (Nos. 9 and 10 for 2024, No. 1 for 2025).

Let us now apply these characteristics of the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms to the interiorization and exteriorization under consideration.

Yu. V. Pogrebnyak provides characteristics of interiorization and exteriorization ^[25]. It can be noted that there are some similarities with the characteristics of the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms.:

• both interiorization and bioessentially deterministic meta-paradigm are characterized by separate manifestations – creativity, unconsciousness, emotionality, randomness, spontaneity;
• Both exteriorization and the system-structural meta-paradigm are characterized by separate manifestations – routine, awareness, rationality, orderliness, and planning.

However, we note that certain characteristics of interiorization and exteriorization as types of discourses in the understanding of Y. V. Pogrebnyak require a more in-depth understanding.

In general, summarizing the research of Yu.V. Pogrebnyak, we can say that interiorization is more human-like, more bioessential. A.V. Khutorskoy holds the opposite opinion, considering exteriorization to be human-like.

Let us consider the comparison of interiorization and exteriorization through the theory of meta-paradigms from the perspective of A.V. Khutorsky. Thus, the scientist writes: traditional education presupposes a formal approach – "to memorize ready–made information, solve artificial tasks, answer tests" - in which children are taught "the formal reproduction of someone else's, or even unreliable information." At the same time, as A.V. Khutorskoy notes, life "imposes completely different requirements on a person: to be able to do his own thing, benefit others, receive remuneration for what he has created, support a family, and be successful" ^{[15, p. 17]}. The system-structural meta-paradigm assumes a formal approach; the matrix of system structuralism is filled with content based on formal requirements. So, we can say that traditional learning is a manifestation of systemic structuralism, while the developmental learning of D. B. Elkonin and V. V. Davydov and the heuristic learning of A. V. Khutorsky are more a manifestation of bioessential determinism, since they take into account human nature.

In addition, the opposite of traditional learning is called developmental learning. In fact, based on the description, exteriorization differs little from developmental learning; the principles described by A.V. Khutorsky in relation to exteriorization are also characteristic of developmental learning. It should be noted that it is the doctrine of interiorization that forms the basis of developing learning.

Analyzing the history of the development of didactic thought, A.V. Khutorskoy notes: we can say that there are at least two approaches to teaching that differ in understanding the role of the student and the teacher in teaching: authoritarian didactics, which focuses on the teacher's activities to transfer systematized knowledge to students who are required to assimilate and apply the knowledge they have acquired, and a nature-based personaloriented didactics, highlighting the student's activity, the development of his natural essence and the development of methods of activity in the studied areas ^{[13, p. 158]}. We can conclude that authoritarian didactics is a manifestation of a systemic-structural meta-paradigm, while naturalistic personality-oriented didactics is a manifestation of a bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigm. Accordingly, both the theory of developmental learning by D. B. Elkonin and V. V. Davydov, and the theory of human-like heuristic learning by A. V. Khutorsky, in the first approximation, can be considered didactic concepts created in line with bioessential determinism.

In general, the comparison of interiorization and exteriorization is reflected in many ways through the prism of the theory of systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms. It can be assumed that this is due to a combination of many factors: the versatility of the pedagogical process and the personal preferences of researchers – and this is not about the bias of individual scientists, but about the inherently subjective nature of any research in which the role of the human factor is significant – recall M. Polanyi's concept of personal knowledge, which speaks about the importance of the human factor in education and science; Let us recall the theory of scientific revolutions by T. S. Kuhn: science is carried out not abstractly, but in the scientific community, and it is people who determine the development of science.

Let us interpret the research of interiorization and exteriorization in this way: for example, Yu. V. Pogrebnyak and T. V. Pushkareva obviously prefer interiorization, and A.V. Khutorskoy – exteriorization. Reflecting in various ways in the research of various scientists, interiorization and exteriorization play with new colors, allowing a more complete and comprehensive understanding of the essence of the pedagogical process.

Conclusion

The analysis showed the following.

The semantic analysis of the concepts of interiorization and exteriorization led to the following conclusions. Interiorization is the transfer of the external into the internal plan. In fact, interiorization is the realization of a mental scheme "from the outside in". Interiorization is an implication: an inside view of the outside world. Exteriorization is the transfer of the inner to the outer plane. Essentially, exteriorization is the realization of a mental schema "from the outside in." Exteriorization is an explication: the externalization of the inner world. Interiorization and exteriorization are dialectically interrelated.

An analogy can be drawn with the speaker/listener dichotomy in linguistics: exteriorization directed outward is semantically similar to the speaker, and interiorization directed inward is semantically similar to the listener; and both the speaker and the listener are participants in the dialogue, and exteriorization and interiorization are integral parts of learning.

Understanding of interiorization and exteriorization from the standpoint of the mental scheme of transfer – receiving – possession allowed us to discover the following patterns. Interiorization and exteriorization describe the directions of the learning process: interiorization – from the world to the student, exteriorization – from the student to the world. Both processes are based on the same mental scheme: transfer–receive–possess, or give–take–carry. Conceptually, interiorization and exteriorization differ only in the direction of knowledge and interaction with the world as a whole.

A look at interiorization and exteriorization from the standpoint of the theory of meta-paradigms allowed us to draw the following conclusions. Traditional learning is a manifestation of systemic structuralism, and the exteriorization described by A.V. Khutorsky and the developmental learning of D. B. Elkonin and V. V. Davydov, which is based on L. S. Vygotsky's teaching on interiorization, is more a manifestation of bioessential determinism. We can conclude that the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms manifest themselves in pedagogy in a variety of ways. We have the right to talk about expanding our understanding of systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms based on the material of pedagogy.

Metaphorically, interiorization and exteriorization can be described as follows: infinity tending to a point and a point tending to infinity; both processes are dialectically related.

The theoretical significance of the conclusions drawn lies in a deeper understanding of the essence of interiorization and exteriorization. Since the very fact of understanding reality changes reality, directing the attention of researchers, this is the applied significance of the conclusions drawn.

The article is published in its final version as approved following the last positive peer review recommending acceptance for publication. It incorporates revisions made by the author in response to prior negative peer review reports that did not recommend publication. All peer review reports, including initial negative reviews, are published in open access alongside the article. All versions of the author’s revisions are archived in the publisher’s repository and may be made available upon reasonable request in accordance with Elsevier’s editorial policies and applicable data availability requirements.
Read all reviews on this article