Education responsibilities. Responsible self-motivated learning

Education is the system. The act of learning is a student-based, self-directed, self-managing and self-motivated behaviour

“While there is no doubt that some teachers are more skilful at motivating than others, there is no teacher, no matter how skilled, who can teach a student who does not want to learn” (Glasser, 1986 p.13).

Rewards, punishments, learning

When any student refuses to engage in their learning (which is their responsibility); when this takes place, the teacher will, of course, self-evidently, continue to support, encourage and offer advice. During the course of this process, it is important not to present ultimatums; which are either reward based or punitive in nature. The research in this area of school based learning (dealing with rewards and/or punishments), has found that neither of these strategies lead to any long-term cognitive, behavioural, social or academic learning engagement changes taking place.

Woolfolk (1998, p. 237) points out that “rewarding students for learning” may in fact lead to the situation where students in fact begin to lose that all important positive affective desire, and its associated intellectually self-motivating and self-directed action of wanting to engage in the process and the action of “learning for its own sake.” According to Woolfolk, that is because once the external rewarding support has been removed, students generally revert to their previous non-engagement and unmotivated desire of not wanting and/or even refusing to engage in any form of learning behaviour. Citing Kohn (1993), Woolfolk (1993, p. 238) stated that “rewards are ineffective” when one is dealing with student behaviors and student academic engagement “because when the praise and prizes stop, the behaviors stop too.”

Where is the long-term learning or social benefit?

Woolfolk (1998) referring to the research of Kohn (1993, p. 784), found that “[r]ewards (like punishments) can get people to do what we want: … share a toy, read a book…But they rarely produce effects that survive the rewards themselves.” Neither rewards and/or punishments “create an enduring commitment to a set of values or to learning; they merely and temporarily, change what we do.” The problem with extrinsic rewards is that “rewarding students for learning actually makes them less interested in the material” (Woolfolk, 1998, p. 238, citing Kohn, 1993). If children begin to think about learning as a way of getting a sticker, a stamp, a certificate a gold star, this will “turn learning from an end to a means” (Woolfolk, 1998, p. 238). From a cognitive, behavioural and learning perspective, what will happen is that this will tend to lead children to think of learning as being “something that must be gotten through to receive [a] reward” (p. 238) rather than thinking of learning as being an end-in-itself.”

Learning is its exceeding great reward

The thought and assertion that “learning is its exceeding great reward” was strongly and assertively voiced centuries ago by William Hazlitt (1778-1830). Hazlitt, an English essayist, literary critic, grammarian and philosopher, offered insights and directives on what should be considered when one is educating children. For Hazlitt, the education process needs to have, as one of its central aims, the goal of creating the next generation of well-educated and reasonable thinking adults, who would be able to influence society in a positive and all-encompassing manner for the benefit of everyone.

It’s not easy, anyone who says it is, has never understood teaching

If, despite your ongoing and continuing support and encouragement, a student continues to refuse to engage, try to avoid pursuing the issue (whatever it may be) which leads to conflict. It’s not easy, trying to avoid conflict at all cost. That is because conflict has a cost. Trying to force an action of learning engagement, or a positive social response, from a student (whom is steadfastly refusing to engage in any form of constructive behaviour), will usually lead to a confrontation and an associated power struggle.

Confrontation and power struggles

Power struggles only lead to a negative outcome. If a teacher wins the power struggle, this outcome will still lead to a negative outcome. That is because the student will not only have negative cognitive and affective response, this situation (what is usually a classroom-based), and this social loss in front of their peers, will also lead to feeling of resentment, towards the teacher and the school itself.

This conflicted based win by the teacher and associated loss by the student, is not – self-evidently – a win-win outcome. If, however, on the other hand, the student wins the confrontation, the teacher loses personal and professional status This, again, is not a win-win outcome. Any confrontation, that leads to conflict, between a teacher and student, will, as noted, only lead to a win-lose outcome, if the conflict is pursued to its “bitter end.” And any outcome such as this does not lead to positive feelings on the part of the loser. Therefore, as strongly suggested here, a win-lose outcome is not one which can be considered as having a positive partnering (teacher and student) outcome.

The voice of Glasser

At this juncture, it is well worth considering the voice of Glasser (1986).

• We can force students “to do what we want [however] the evidence is quite clear that punishment is not a good long-term motivator for anyone and it is long-term, and not short term, motivation that is needed in school … (pp. 12-13).
• Social research indicates that in many schools and classrooms there will be students who refuse to engage in their learning, and along with this they will also present negative acting out social behaviours. Threats of punishment do not lead to long positive changes. That is because there will be students who may have already “suffered through so many threats and punishments (and often been bribed at home…) that they have become immune,” to threats and punishments. And very few, if any, in fact, “will make any long-term change no matter what we do…to or for them (p. 13).
• What about the positive minded and inspiring teacher? “While there is no doubt that some teachers are more skilful at motivating than others, there is no teacher, no matter how skilled, who can teach a student who does not want to learn” (p.13).

Learning is a self-motivated action

What all of this is clearly point to, when it comes to teaching and advancing the condition and prospect of learning, the learning process will only take place when the student takes responsibility for the behaviour, the presentation and the required constructive self-motivated action of learning. Learning is an action, an action undertaken by the student.

This point of view is supported by a significant meta-analysis study reported by Hattie (2009). Hattie, under the heading of: Variance of Student Achievement, found that when it came to the action of students and their learning, the research found that when it came to the condition of learning

• 10% of a student’s learning was influenced by their peers
• 10% of a student’s learning was influenced by the school environment
• 30% of a student’s learning was influenced by their teacher
• 50% of a student’s learning was influenced and determined by their own actions.

Students are responsible for their learning and behaviour

This research signifies that the behaviour of the student is the one which has the greatest effect on their learning. As noted, this is supported by the evidence of this meta-analysis, 15 years study, which as noted, reported that, in terms of student learning, teachers have a 30% influence on the learning of the student; the school 10%, peers 10%; and, in terms of the student, it is the self-motivated and self-directed action-based learning behaviour of the student, which, at 50%, has the most influence and greatest impact on the learning of the student. As Professor Ken Purnell, at CQUniversity, in the School of Education and the Arts points out: “What a teacher does matters, however, what the student chooses to do is even more significant.

No one can actually learn for someone else

Then there is the research undertaken by Woolfolk (1998). Woolfolk citing studies undertaken by Zimmerman and Schunk (1989), Zimmerman (1990), Winne (1995), and Manning and Payne (1996), Woolfolk (1998) came to the conclusion that the “responsibility and the ability to learn [remains] within the student.” No one can actually “learn for someone else” (p. 231). The intention, the action and the engagement in learning is the responsibility of the self, by the self, for the self (Purje, 2014). The others in the life of students, such as their family, their significant others, their teachers, their mentors, their peers, and their friends can offer advice, provide information; they can all offer ‘inspiring’ ‘shouting from the roof tops’ encouragement. However, as the research undertaken by Glasser (1986); Manning and Payne (1996); Purje (2014); Winne (1995); Woolfolk (1998); Zimmerman and Schunk (1989); and Zimmerman (1990) all point out, students are not only responsible for their own learning; students are also the masters of their own educational and personal destiny.

Don’t blame teachers. The student is one who responsible for their learning

The teacher can support, encourage and advise; however, it is the student who is responsible for what he or she thinks, does, says, chooses and learns. The “responsibility and the ability to learn [remains] within the student.” To reiterate, no one can actually “learn for someone else” (Woolfolk, 1998, p. 231). The intention, the action and the engagement in learning is the responsibility of the self, by the self, for the self (Purje, 2014).

References

Coyle, D. (2009). The Talent Code. Greatness isn’t born, it’s grown. Arrow Books, Random House.

Glasser, W. (1986). Control Theory in the Classroom. Perennial Library, Harper & Row Publishers.

Hattie, J.A.C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.

Kohn, A. (1996). By all available means: Cameron and Pierce’s defence of extrinsic motivators. Review of Educational Research, 66, 1-4. In A.E. Woolfolk. (1998). Educational Psychology (7th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.

Manning, B.H. (1991). Cognitive self-instruction of classroom processes. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive behavior modification: An integrative approach, New York: Plenum.

Winne, P.H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 173-188. In Woolfolk, A.E. (1998). Educational Psychology, Seventh Edition. Allyn and Bacon.

Purje, R. (2014). Responsibility Theory (Who’s got the power?). Purje Publications.

Woolfolk, A.E. (1998). Educational Psychology (7th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.

Zimmerman, B.J. & Schunk, D.H. (Eds.). (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Springer-Verlag. In Woolfolk, A.E. (1998). Educational Psychology, Seventh Edition. Allyn and Bacon.

Zimmerman, B.J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 21, 3-18. In Woolfolk, A.E. (1998). Educational Psychology, Seventh Edition. Allyn and Bacon.

About the Author

Dr Ragnar Purje holds the position of Adjunct Lecturer and Research Higher Degree Student Supervisor, at CQUniversity Australia. Ragnar completed his PhD thesis in cognitive neuroscience, under the supervision of Professor Ken Purnell at CQUniversity. Ragnar’s thesis focussed on researching the success of his new and pioneering form of acquired brain injury complex movement therapy.

This new form of therapy was first applied in 1993 to an individual who received an acquired brain injury, as a result of being hit by a car; causing in an incapacitated condition. This incapacitation remained in place for 28 months. During this 28-month time period medical care and medically directed physiotherapy and hydrotherapy was applied, however the incapacitated condition did not change.

When Ragnar introduced his new therapy, despite having been incapacitated for nearly two-and-a-half years, the patient began to walk 10-12 weeks later; four weeks after that the patient ran 10 metres into the arms of his fiancée (and later wife). The basis of Ragnar’s doctoral research was to try to discover what had taken place to create this cognitive, physical and behavioural change from incapacitated to ongoing ambulatory recovery, which continues to this day.

Ragnar’s thesis led to his therapy being classified as Complex Brain Based Multi-Movement Therapy (CBBMMT).

In addition to this Ragnar’s thesis added two new descriptors into the lexicon of human biology; these are neurofluidity and hólos. Neurofluidity are the neurological processes that lead to the condition of brain plasticity. The hólos is a term which, for the first time in history (to the best of Ragnar’s research and understanding), provides a descriptor which unifies the brain and the body, with one word.

Prior to this the brain and the body had always been referred to as two separate entities, i.e. the brain and the body. Hólos derives from the Greek: όλος ‎ ̶ ólos. The English word holistic is derived from hólos. Holistic and hólos offer the same classification. Holistic and hólos incorporate the concept of holism.

Ragnar is the author of Responsibility Theory®. He is the initiator of NeuroNumeracy®, an intensive self-motivating neuroscience brain based numeracy learning program for children, the purpose of which is to enhance their skills, knowledge and understanding of the four operations in mathematics.

Ragnar has also completed three Master of Education degrees (one in education; one in guidance and counselling; and one in leadership and management). He has two Bachelor degrees (Physical Education and Psychology). He has also completed five Post-Graduate awards (education; sports science; exercise and the sports sciences; health counselling; and communication studies). Ragnar is a former Australian karate champion.

Ragnar bases his achievements as a result of him undertaking and passionately persevering with the traditional martial art of Goju Karate that began in January of 1970. Ragnar continues his practice of Goju Karate on a daily basis. “Every day one kata.”

Responsibility Theory® is available online from Amazon/Kindle. The book can also be obtained from the CQUniversity Book Store. au   Phone: + 61 7 4930 9421. Website: bookshop.cqu.edu.