Stop blaming teachers. Students are responsible for their learning

William Glasser (1986, P. 13) acknowledges that “there [are] no doubt…some teachers who are more skilful at motivating than [others; however,] there is no teacher, no matter how skilled, who can teach a student who does not want to learn.” Glasser further contends that there is no point in trying to force a student (or anyone else) to behave or learn.

Instead, one has to accept the premise that it is the student who is accountable for his or her own actions, and, ultimately it is the student who decides how he or she chooses to behave. Purje (2014), referring to the research points out that, ultimately, students are accountable for their own attitudes, actions, behaviour, choices and learning.

Fundamental Learning Characteristics

Michael Bernard (2011, P. 1) points out that student characteristics that are fundamental for academic achievement are known by a variety of terms: they include: the “learning-to-learn” theory of Barnett, Bauer, Ehrhardt, Lentz and Stollar; the (1996); the “keystones for classroom learning” of Stott (1981), the “academic self-regulation skills” of Zimmerman (1989); the “learning behaviours” of McDermott (1999); the “academic enablers” of DiPerna and Elliott (1999); and the “approaches to learning” of Rock and Pollack (2002).

All of these terms explore ways in which students can become independent and self-managing learners. who are, according to Bernard (2011) actively “engaged in [their] classroom learning activities” (p. 1) on a daily basis. The key words here are self-managing learners. Teachers, coaches, instructors, tutors etc., present information, provide feedback, offer directions. It is the receiver of this information and knowledge that is responsible for the engagement that leads to learning gains.

Pursuant to this concept, Bernard (2011) points out that researchers have also “identified a range of attitudes and behaviours for learning that students [need] to possess to be classified as learners and ‘achievers.’”

According to Bernard (2011), if these attitudes and behaviours were not present, they would not be achieving as well as they could. To become a competent learner, Bernard proposed that students needed to constantly apply the following self-directed and self-managing competencies:

• time planning
• goal-setting
• self-monitoring of work undertaken and results achieved
• having and presenting positive broad-based social skills
• having and presenting positive communication skills

Self-motivation

This is very much about self-motivation. Self-motivation includes the action of engaging in the presentation of positive communication skills, this includes having good body posture; not interrupting the speaker; not being defensive when direction, advice of feedback is offered; not blaming others for what you are doing (or not doing); using a positive tone of voice; and exercising active listening skills.

Active listening

Active listening skills requires the listener to interpret; understand and evaluate what they hear, without interruption and without immediately putting forward a contrary point of view. Other specific self-directed positive learning behaviours identified by Bernard include the following:

• being respectful
• having the ability to seek help as required
• having confidence
• being persistent
• being willing to engage
• being flexible

Three major theoretical behaviour and learning frameworks

Bernard (2011, p. 3) points out that there are three major theoretical behaviour and learning frameworks which have been “developed for describing positive attitudes and behaviours for learning.” These three theoretical frameworks are (1) behaviours for learning; (2) academic self-regulation; and (3) academic enablers.

Behaviours for learning

Citing McDermott (1999) Bernard (2011, p. 3) notes that “behaviours for learning refers to a range of skills that students use during instruction that help them to maintain focus and to be engaged in the learning activities set out for them by their teachers.”

These “behaviours for learning” are behaviours that one can see. Added to this there usually also presentations of behavioural patterns that students exhibit as they move toward and commence their self-motivated “classroom-learning tasks. Specific learning behaviours include initiative, cooperativeness, engagement, confidence and persistence”.

Academic self-regulation

According to Bernard (2011), citing Zimmerman (1989), academic self-regulation is: “[s]elf-regulated functioning, [that] involves self-generated thoughts, feelings, and behaviours that are planned and cyclically adapted [that are] based on performance feedback in order to attain self-test goals.”

The opinion is that this is the process where the students are provided with “self-generated feedback, such as receiving a test grade from a teacher or developing self-quizzes to monitor learning during studying and to evaluate and adjust their methods of learning.”

Interestingly, in terms of the association between learning and behaviour, Bernard (2011, p. 4) reported that the research undertaken by Cleary and Zimmerman (2002); and Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1988), “discovered that a major cause of academic under-achievement [was] the inability of students to control their own learning behaviour.”

This statement, that academic under-achievement occurs because students are not able to “control their own learning behaviour” (Bernard, 2011, p. 4), is contentious to say the least, considering the ideas and research presented in Responsibility Theory? by Ragnar Purje, Purje contends in Responsibility Theory? the student is responsible for his or her thinking, behaviour, choices and learning.

The literature in this area signifies that changing a negative behaviour to a positive behaviour is not an inability on the part of the student; it is a conscious and deliberate choice. In Choice Theory Glasser (1986) affirms the following:

• The only person whose behaviour we can control is our own.
• All we do is behave.
• All living creatures, from simple to complex, control themselves.

Anita Woolfolk 1989) also confirms this point of view by noting that it is the student who must engage in the learning process to benefit from the information that is being presented. This means students are not only responsible for their own learning, but they are also the masters of their own educational and personal destiny, which means 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 a self-directed and self-motivated journey of the self, by the self, for the self.

This is supported by Cathleen Stasz (1994) who made it known that when it came to work-related attitudes, the classrooms where effective learning was taking place were classrooms in which the students were presenting positive attitudes and displayed self-motivated academic engagement, and in which teachers “stressed the importance of students taking responsibility for their own learning” (p. 2).

This was further supported and endorsed by Michael Edelstein (1997) who drew on the value of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy of Albert Ellis. Edelstein maintained that Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy is all about the individual being able to identify and to accept the following two personal and life affirming assertions:

1. That every person is responsible for their own emotions and their own actions.
2. That any harmful emotions and/or dysfunctional behaviours are generally the product of the irrational thinking and irrational beliefs of the individual in question.

Adding to this, specific in relation to the principles and practice of academic self-regulation, Bernard (2011, pp. 3-4), citing Zimmerman (1989), Bernard is of the opinion that academic self-regulation “involves self-generated thoughts, feelings, and behaviours that are planned and cyclically adapted based on performance feedback in order to attain self-test goals.” This is very much about a student taking responsibility for one’s learning and behaviour.

The contention here is that the practice and application of academic self-regulation provides the cognitive means that helps students to consciously evaluate their thoughts, feelings, and behaviours, and to then consciously adjust and regulate their thoughts and behaviours accordingly. One could argue here that what this is all about is self-responsibility and personal choices.

These decisions and choices is also about harnessing what Bernard (2011) citing Zimmerman and others (1988, 1989, 1994, 1995), and also Myron Dembo and Martin Eaton (2000) refer to as the six intrinsic dimensions of academic self-regulation, which lead to and ultimately “contribute to academic success” (p. 4). According to Bernard (2011, p. 4) the six academic self-regulation dimensions are: “(a) motivation, (b) methods for learning, (c) use of time, (d) control of social environment, (e) control of physical environment, and (f) performance (monitoring and self-correction).” All of which, it seems, has the potential to advancing students to becoming academic enablers.

Academic enablers

Academic enablers, according to Bernard (2011, p. 4), citing James DiPerna and Stephen Elliott (1999, 2002), “attitudes and behaviours that allow a student to participate in, and ultimately benefit from academic instruction in the classroom.” In this Bernard identifies four academic enablers that have been found to contribute to “academic skills, development and achievement” (p. 4). These four academic enablers are: “(1) motivation (intrinsic; self-efficacy), (2) social skills, (3) engagement and (4) study skills.”

Bernard (2011) also claims there is “an expanding evidence base [that] suggests that these enablers may exert a causal influence in promoting higher levels of academic achievement.” Citing DiPerna and Elliott (1999, 2002) Bernard wanted to discover which four academic enablers (intrinsic motivation; social skills; engagement; or study skills) exerted the most influence on student behaviour and academic performance. 

In this research, Bernard (2011, p. 4) found that intrinsic motivation overall was the “most influential of the four enablers.” In terms of making comparisons between older students and younger students, Bernard discovered that for “younger students, engagement was the next most influential” enabler, “while for older students the next most influential” (p. 4) enabler was “study skills.” Study skills is a self-applied and self-directing intrinsic behaviour.

Further to this power of intrinsic motivation, Glasser (1986) argues that it is an individual’s intrinsic motivation and personal attitude that has the most influence over what the individual will do, say, choose, learn and achieve. By examining and reporting on student behaviour and student attitudes in relation to their learning outcomes, Glasser found that unless a student was personally motivated to behave and learn, there really was very little anyone else could do except offer advice, but inevitably it was the student who was responsible for their behaviour and learning.

As Glasser (1986, p. 13), unambiguously, universally and powerfully points out: “We can force…students to stay in school…but we can no more make those students work than we can make the proverbial horse drink even though we tether him to the water trough.”

There is a universal principle in place here, society needs to stop blaming teachers if students are not achieving their grades, the responsibility of learning rests with the personal motivation and the self-directed, self-regulated and self-management application of the student.

ABOUT Dr RAGNAR PURJE

Cognitive Neuroscientist Dr Ragnar Purje is an Adjunct Lecturer in the School of Education and the Arts at Central Queensland University. He is the author and creator of Responsibility Theory?.

Dr Purje’s doctoral thesis, under the supervision of Professor Ken Purnell, focussed on the success of his pioneering form of acquired brain injury rehabilitation therapy. The therapy is now referred to as CBBMMT (Complex Brain-Based Multi-Movement Therapy).

Dr Purje’s thesis added two new descriptors into the lexicon of human biology; these are neurofluidity and hólos. Neurofluidity is the neurological processes that leads to the condition of brain plasticity. Hólos is a descriptor which unifies the brain and the body, with this single word.

Dr Purje is the developer author and presenter of his self-talk, sequence learning classroom behaviour management, teaching and learning program known as Responsibility Theory?.

Through the application of Responsibility Theory? Dr Purje presents a new approach (a new paradigm if you will) in education, teaching, learning and in classroom behaviour management.

The aim of Responsibility Theory? is also empower teachers and students. With the purpose of helping students to develop and higher-order thinking, advance creativity and insights; the purpose of which is to further develop and enhance personal and social capacities, so that the best decisions, and outcomes, for all those involved (such as the teacher, student, parents and significant others) will be achieved.

The empirical evidence, pertaining to the application of Responsibility Theory? has found that self-talk and sequence learning process of Responsibility Theory? does help to influence thinking, which informs the individual that their thoughts, choices, behaviours and associated actions does, and will lead to consequences.

These consequences (for which the individual is now knows they are responsible) will be either positive or negative, depending on the choices made by the individual. Dr Purje informs that all of this is about developing insight into one’s own personal power. And, as history informs, as with any level of power; this immense power also brings with it, great responsibility.

Dr Purje is an experienced speaker who is passionate about enhancing the way we can change our thinking and behaviours: “If I can change my thinking, I can change my behaviour and my life.” Ragnar has presented at international conferences, which includes Hawaii, Sydney and Melbourne as well as being invited to present in London, Paris, Tokyo and Dubai.

In terms of presentation topics, they include:

• Introducing the ‘Responsibility Theory?’ to schools and teachers.
• Increasing student self-directed learning.
• Advancing academic, personal and social potential.
• Dealing with bullying and cyber bullying.
• Dealing with negative life choices.

Dr Purje acknowledges that theories, ‘are all well and good,’ because theories do bring with it the academic promise to advance learning and knowledge potential. However, in terms of practical application, what is of most interest to Dr Purje, is to ask the two most important questions of all; the how and the what?

• How do I develop and enhance self-esteem, self-belief, self-confidence, self-motivation and student self-responsibility?
• How do I develop and the capacity of discipline, dedication and determination?
• How do I develop and apply perseverance?
• How do I deal with success and disappointments with the potential to advance resilience?
• How do I develop and advance the all-important constructs in Self-determination theory, that of student autonomy, student competence and the all-important construct referred to as relatedness?
• How do I develop and understand the value of compassion and, as such, advance emotional intelligence, with its association with theory of mind?
• How do I understand and apply the essence of internal locus of control?
• How do I advance student negotiation skills?
• How do I advance student initiated restorative justice and associated conciliation skills? 
• How do I develop and enhance student self-directed learning; self-regulation capacity; self-management skills.
• How do I advance student academic and social potential?
• How do I deal with bullying?
• How do I manage what cannot be controlled? And what cannot be controlled is the internet and cyber bullying.
• How do I deal with and overpower negative influences, such as smoking, alcohol and drug use?
• How do I inspire, fire and rewire the brain?
• What do I have to do to achieve these goals?
• What do students have to do?

Dr Purje informs that the applied empirical evidence informs that these questions is what Responsibility Theory? helps to answer.

In addition to his cognitive neuroscience PhD, Dr Purje has completed three Master of Education degrees (Education, Guidance and Counselling, Leadership and Management); two Bachelor degrees (Physical Education, Psychology); and six post-graduate awards (Education, Sports Science, Exercise and Sports Sciences, Health Counselling, Communication studies, the Social Brain).

Dr Purje is a traditional Goju Karate martial artist. He is also a former sports karate Australian Champion and a former international world karate federation official.

RESPONSIBILITY THEORY? is available by appointment. Responsibility Theory? can be offered as a presentation, workshop or it can be extended to daily mentoring.