“The oppressed,” “the victim,” “the weakest link” are phrases used with too much frequency to refer to the student. They reflect, once more, consequences of the behaviorist ideology. With such concepts, education is reduced to a series of impositions to elicit in the student a chain of responses. This process, in turn, is labeled learning. In this manner, as long as students faithfully repeat the information given, they obtain the “grades” that allow them to move on until graduation. 

Since this system is easy to corroborate anytime and anywhere, academic achievement is often deficient in a significant percentage. The most evident conclusion one can observe is that something is failing. Ordinarily, those held responsible for such a failure are the students. Since they’re considered to be the weakest link, everything is conveniently left at that. However, it’s quite clear that this is unjust. Most likely it’s the other way around. The most elemental logic indicates that it would be imperative to examine the factors involved in order to determine exactly the causes of low academic achievement. If teacher attitudes, the methodology, the didactic material utilized, and the basic knowledge necessary were adequate, then, yes, indeed, it would be the students’ responsibility. But, oh the paradox, even if this were the case: Who is responsible for the development of a sense of responsibility in the student?

Responsibility and many other personality traits constitute elements of very complex processes such as: reflection, awareness and communication. In order for these traits to develop enough to reach acceptable levels, a set of favorable conditions that allows their manifestation is necessary.