We tend to think of young children as “empty glasses” when it comes to what they need to know. Our primary school curriculum is intent on filling that glass with the building blocks of learning. It does so with a pre-determined mix of memorization and processes required to read, write, and perform increasingly complex calculations. With these tools, children explore a whole world of ideas. They both discover and generate data that is useful to them. These tools help them engage in real world functions, solve problems, and address genuine challenges.
However, as children grow into adults, there is a subtle but evident shift in how they learn. They begin relying less on “teachers” and more on their own individual experience and learning styles. Much of this has to do with their own successes with informal learning, but also with aptitudes, and gifting. While some learn to play the academic game according to the rules, others manage it successfully in their own unique way. Others struggle and drop out of school.
Part of this problem may lie in the traditional approach to “filling the glass” that focuses on “teaching” fixed content and using extrinsic motivation such as attendance and grades. In the competitive environment of schools, these criteria discriminate against those with less academic ability and those who are motivated to pursue other legitimate interests.
Filling the Glass
Young adults bring a lot of experience to the table along with unique interests, learning needs, and styles. Conquering the standardized curricula developed for higher education programs rewards those who can play the game well. Their prize is the status of having “earned” a high school or college degree. At some point in our educational system, there seems to be a shift from individual development and competence to education for its own sake. This shift is suspect if our goal is to develop competent people.
There is a movement, even in elementary education, to allowing students to take greater control in their learning. Yet many adult education programs continue to provide set curricula rather than allow students to choose the courses they need and want in the pursuit of their own calling. Programs change little in their approach from education of children to education of adults despite their significant cognitive, psychological, and social differences. Programs use “bundled” sets of courses determined by faculty, that lead to the coveted degree. Whether the coursework is relevant to the student and their vocational development seems to be of little concern.
In the guide we’ve published under the title of The Self-Directed Student, we have presented a brief review of sociologists, psychologists and educators who have helped us understand the dimensions and processes involved in adult learning. Adult learning theory has taken great strides during the past hundred years. But many of our programs are still based on an outdated understanding. Attempts to modify programs in the light of these discoveries often look like efforts to shore-up traditional approaches, rather than the paradigm shift in programing they suggest; from school directed to self-directed studies. The focus needs to shift from the goal of earning degrees to genuine personal and vocational development. These can be mutually compatible goals.
Student Controlled Studies
One of the first principles of adult education is that of self-direction. Adults want to be in control of their learning because that is the way they can keep it relevant to what they need. Meeting felt needs and the curriculum must coincide. These two perspectives—the student’s and what an academic program offers—must match for significant learning and growth to occur.
Reflecting on my own experience as a college student, there were very few courses that impacted my life. I do remember professors who made us read the text but spent most of their lectures talking about oblique nuances of their graduate work. When I became a professor, I wanted to be different—to generate “significant learning” in my students. I had been hired to teach a seminary course on the topic of “Contextualization.” A sample syllabus was provided but there was no textbook (nor could I find one).
I remember the desperate efforts I made to give lectures that sounded knowledgeable and insightful. I believed I had to meet expectations as the “sage on the stage.” I sometimes reflect on what a disappointment my classes must have been. How much better for all of us if I had focused on what my students really needed to learn and let them take the lead in that process. It would have been much better than trying to generate good lectures from the set curriculum.
The Shift to Self-Directed Learning
Towards the end of my short career as a seminary professor, I was assigned a course on “Cross-cultural Leadership.” The idea occurred to me of letting my students—most of them mid-career missionaries—take control of their learning. My first statement to them after introducing myself was: “What is your problem!?” After their initial surprise, they caught on and started working on defining their most immediate leadership challenges, proposing goals for their learning, and outlining what they were going to do in a learning contract.
When this world of possibilities opened to them, some were initially flummoxed, expecting me to tell them what to learn. Others got very excited and over ambitious. Yet I was able to work with each one in shaping and resourcing their learning project. They learned more about their own ability to learn in their context, than they would have through a hundred lectures. Through that experience, I rediscovered the motivational power of self-directed studies and regained a sense of personal purpose in teaching. I went from being the “sage on the stage” to the “guide on the side.” It was the redemptive moment of my five-year stint at that seminary.
As adult educators, we need to encourage students to understand what they need and determine their learning path. We must identify with their real-life challenges and aspirations, and not carry on with our unfounded assumptions that they don’t know what they need to know. When we take the time to understand their individual challenges, we can help them address them. As they work on solutions, they grow and become better leaders.
Since that seminary course, I have continued to find that allowing students envision their goals, and then helping them choose the paths they take (through learning maps and contracts), is profoundly empowering. Their intrinsic motivation carries them through the process. The student takes leadership, while the teacher works as guide and facilitator. This is a deeply rewarding relationship.
Dr. Jonathan Lewis (Ph.D. Human Resource Development)