I struggle with the term “self-directed learning.”
On the surface, it sounds ideal—empowering, liberating, and progressive. But when I really think about it, I feel the term says too much (it’s all on you, friend) and not nearly enough (this is solely about how you do academics) at the same time.
It’s a phrase that carries a promise of autonomy, yet it doesn’t fully capture the heart of what this approach really entails. It feels insufficient for communicating the layers of intentionality, support, and care that true self-directed learning requires. At the same time, it risks suggesting that it is devoid of all forms of guidance or collaboration. Unsatisfying at best, confusing and unclear at worst.
Often, when someone hears “self-directed learning,” they assume it means the student is left to completely fend for themselves. The image that springs to mind for many is one of a child adrift, aimlessly navigating their education without guidance or structure, needing to teach themselves everything. This misunderstanding couldn’t be further from the truth. True self-directed learning involves a nuanced balance—it’s not about abandoning students to figure everything out on their own. Instead, it’s about creating an environment where they can explore, make choices, and learn from both their successes and their mistakes. It is about centering the child as an individual worthy of making their own choices. It’s about being a partner in their growth, not an absent bystander. It’s about letting them BE, but staying close by to react when they pop up with a new curiosity, a question, or need for resources. Unfortunately, the term doesn’t always communicate this partnership, leading to confusion or skepticism about its value. People assume it’s a hands-off approach when, in reality, it requires a level of engagement and attention that is anything but passive.
More importantly, though, we need to understand that self-directed learning isn’t just about academics—it’s so much more than that. It’s not merely a way to check off educational milestones or meet standardized benchmarks. It’s a holistic experience that sets the foundation for a person to develop a deep knowledge of themselves. At its core, it’s about giving individuals the space to discover who they are and what truly matters to them. It’s about showing them that they matter—their ideas, their interests, their goals. It’s about reinforcing the belief that how they choose to spend their time and energy is significant and worth honoring. This is a life skill, not just an academic strategy. When done well, it communicates a profound message: that they are valued and capable, not just as students but as human beings.
What we are striving for with this approach is so much bigger than simply creating an alternative to traditional education.This is not about rebelling against schools or rejecting structure for the sake of it, or even rejecting structure at all. It’s about something far deeper: the chance to help young people see themselves as the writers of their own stories. In a world that so often offers a narrow path for success, we are revealing to them a message that their path is theirs to create. This isn’t just about checking academic boxes or preparing for the next test. It’s about fostering a mindset where they can dream, explore, and own their lives in a way that feels authentic to them. That’s the kind of empowerment that lasts far beyond any classroom.
Of course, this doesn’t mean abandoning the idea of developmental appropriateness or ignoring individual abilities. Those considerations are critical, and we need to stay attuned to them at every step. But what if we pushed ourselves to embrace the possibility that young people are often far more capable than we give them credit for? What if, given the right space, messaging, and support, they could surprise us—and themselves—with their ability to rise to the occasion? We can’t know what they’re truly capable of unless we’re willing to trust them and give them room to grow. That’s what self-directed learning, at its best, is really about: trusting the process, trusting the child, and creating the conditions for something remarkable to unfold.
Then there is the matter of time. We, as the adult guides and partners, do young people a disservice by imposing our conditioned ideas around timeline on them. This runs counter to the approach as a whole. If we are committing to respecting and valuing them through this approach, then that extends to when they do what they do. If they spend a year, or two, or more, doing things that our conditioning says are “nothing”, or “not productive”, then it is the same as saying the approach as a whole is a sham. The whole is undermined by picking and choosing the parts. It is not helpful to say, sure, choose what you want to do, but you can’t be trusted to choose when to do it or how quickly.
So, what is a better term than self-directed? Sometimes I will use “interest-led”, referring to the fact that the participant learns according to their interests, but that also falls a bit flat. Neither of these address the holistic, individual boosting aspect of the experience. They don’t get at the core of the encompassing philosophy of young people as individuals worthy of ownership over their lives, including the choices they make and how they spend their time. These terms are too small to convey the packaged message of “you matter, you are worthy, you own your life” that this approach embraces.
Individual-boosted? Choice-affirming? Worth-approved? Are any of these better? I don’t know, but I do know that the self-directed path is so much more than letting a kid choose to learn budgeting instead of algebra, or hands-on experiences versus workbooks. It is an overarching message to them about their power and worth, and I find that so much more valuable than academics. The “academic” learning can come so easily. Understanding your power as a person is much harder, but that is the foundation that, if fostered early on, any person can build a truly weighty and fulfilling life.