This article (2 of 14) is part of our continuing series on the dimensions of educational transformation. These are the ways in which education has and is changing from the tradition-based approaches to what Process Education™ has to offer.

The idea of "ownership of learning" is a thorny one and it is critical that we examine the model are we using when we talk about ownership. If learning is a ‘thing’ that can be given to someone else, then it is a commodity that can be assigned a value and transferred from one individual to another. And indeed, this is the way we often talk about learning — we charge for an education (a ‘thing’ of value that can be bought and sold), we talk about people who ‘have/do not have’ an education (a thing which can be separated from the ‘owner’), and perhaps most telling, we even ask, "Where did you get your education?" (as if this thing is kept only in certain places). In this roughly capitalistic model, students are consumers who, after deciding where to buy their education, show up to receive it. They have willingly accepted that they are empty vessels, waiting to have their education poured into them by an educator. And once they’ve received that education, they are given a piece of paper certifying that it is now theirs. This educational process — their learning — was necessarily directed by educators. As empty vessels, students cannot possibly have the knowledge necessary to direct any part of the ‘pouring process’.

This model is also attractive because it fits into traditional practices and economic theories. It supports the cultural notion of a hierarchy of experts to whom students should come to receive wisdom and also streamlines education into a one-size-fits-most process that allows for the filling of a great number of empty vessels by far fewer educators, making a kind of economic sense.

Logical verification of this model would then come from examining students to ascertain if they had indeed taken demonstrable ownership of educational content. But as has been shown repeatedly, students who are certified to have obtained ownership of an education can’t seem to demonstrate that ownership in practical fashion. What happened? Did they lose it? (Did the vessel perhaps leak, even as it was being filled?) Maybe it never really was theirs (pouring went on, but filling did not).

A Different Option

An alternative model, which not only explains the failures of the traditional model but also proposes a path to greater learner success through increased ownership of learning, has been proposed by both John Dewey and Paolo Freire, among others. For both, learner experience is the foundation of any meaning constructed in a learning situation. That is, students are not empty vessels; they enter a learning environment with a history, experiences, preconceptions and values. The goal of learning is then not to strip away a student’s previous experience but rather to teach students to monitor, mentor, facilitate, and ultimately be responsible for their own learning. Students are then partners in the enterprise of education, actively engaged and pursuing, rather than passively observing and accepting. If students can be freed from the model of directed learning, their ability to perform as learners is no longer limited to what their instructor says, plans, or assigns. The participatory nature of self-directed learning not only allows a student to take ownership of their learning, but requires that they do so.

Affective Reactions

Students who have had much exposure to the traditional model often react negatively to an environment where they are given even partial ownership of their learning. Common affective responses run the gamut from negative judgment of a facilitator ("Why aren’t you doing your job?"), to fear of responsibility ("It shouldn’t be up to me to decide what I should do or learn"), to sheer exasperation ("How am I supposed to know what to do or learn if you won’t tell me?!"). These types of responses are not limited to undergraduates, but are also often experienced by adult learners and even educators, sometimes even more strongly, as there has been longer term exposure to the traditional model.

The change from directed to self-directed learning is a radical shift; possibly even a paradigmatic shift. But if the goal is to foster learners who self-mentor, self-assess, self-validate, and make the most of both their potential and the learning situations in which they are involved, it is also a shift well-worth making.