Student responsibility for learning

Adolescence, Spring, 1993 by Charles S. Bacon

Many teachers complain about the problem of getting students to be responsible for their own learning. If word of mouth is an indicator, this problem is serious and becoming more so. This paper presents the results of a study utilizing Morris's (1961) philosophical notion that a person may "be responsible" or "be held responsible." Students who are being responsible will do the work without constant reminders or prodding. Students who are being held responsible will do the work only when someone is somehow forcing them to do so. This distinction is discussed in more detail in Bacon (1991).

Others have described various aspects of "being responsible." Maslow (1976), for example, states that the self-actualized individual will take responsibility. He further states, "Each time one takes responsibility, this is an actualizing of the self". Rogers (1983) discusses results from his study of 75 juvenile delinquents (Rogers et al., 1948) in which he says, "I began to see the significance of inner autonomy. The individual who sees himself and his situation clearly and who freely takes responsibility for that self and for that situation is a very different person from the one who is simply in the grip of outside circumstances. This difference shows up clearly in important aspects of his behavior". Brown (1975) explains that, in confluent education, "What is sought here is a more intelligent use of mind so that individuals will not avoid taking responsibility for that large portion of their existence wherein potentially they could take responsibility.... As the student becomes more in touch with his interior and exterior reality, he can also take more and more responsibility for his own learning".

The present study was an effort to better understand student perspectives on responsibility for learning as suggested by the distinction between being responsible and being held responsible. Following Anderson and Prawat (1983), responsibility is viewed here as "... a complex concept involving a number of related issues, such as accountability and control.... Perception of control is an important factor in responding to one's own behavior as well. Individuals who feel in control are much more willing to accept responsibility for their own behavior. In the classroom, responsible behavior involves self-regulation and self-control by students". It is further contended that responsible persons are not satisfied following the path of least resistance. They will seek out challenges or, at the very least, will not back away from such challenges as they are presented.

The kinds of parameters applied in definitions of responsibility are discussed in the research on intrinsic motivation (e.g., Anderson & Prawat, 1983). For example, Lepper and Malone (1986) offer a way of organizing the various approaches to intrinsic motivation that seems heuristically useful for the present study. They discuss four theoretical orientations for looking at the concept of individual intrinsic motivation. Each represents the work of a number of scholars who have studied intrinsic motivation. These orientations are: humans as problem solvers, humans as information-processors, humans as voluntary actors, and the concept of fantasy. The notions of control and challenge are central to the first and third orientations. Working from an intrinsic motivation perspective, therefore, will enable us to study such central parameters of responsibility as control and challenge (for discussions of challenge, see Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1990; Deci, 1975, 1980; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Harter, 1978; Lepper & Greene, 1978; Weiner, 1980; White, 1959; for effort as an element of challenge, see Anderson & Prawat, 1983; Covington, 1984a, 1984b; Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1990; Harter, 1974; for control, see Condry, 1977; DeCharms, 1968; Deci, 1975, 1980; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Nuttin, 1973).

In this paper, an intrinsic motivation view of student responsibility for learning is used. Additionally, the following definition of intrinsic motivation is utilized: "... the innate, natural propensity to engage one's interests and exercise one's capacities, and in so doing, to seek and conquer optimal challenges. Such motivation emerges spontaneously from internal tendencies and can motivate behavior even without the aid of extrinsic rewards or environmental controls" (Deci & Ryan, 1985, p. 43). Both responsibility and intrinsic motivation emphasize personal control. Likewise, both suggest that responsible persons take on challenges. They take on tasks that require greater personal involvement.

To define responsibility from an intrinsic motivation perspective means we must recognize, as have Anderson and Prawat (1983), that, "Responsibility has both visible components (behavior) and invisible components (cognition, affect, and attitude)". The present research uses a methodology that brings out the "invisible" components.

Traditionally, most of the research on responsibility has been conducted from an outsider perspective (such as the "time on task" research; see Rossmiller, 1983; Strother, 1984; Wyne & Stuck, 1982). An outsider observes what students are doing and infers whether or not they are responsible. However, fully understanding students' conceptions of responsibility requires research from an insider perspective, wherein the students are able to describe exactly what their experiences in school and sense of responsibility are like. This means responsibility for learning must be investigated from the students' perspective in order to discover what they see as relevant or meaningful.