MUCH of a nurse's education and experience is tied up intimately with the hospital. We're steeped in its tradition as a place where physical care is given and symptoms of illness are alleviated. We're well aware of its various services to the community. But do we think of the hospital as a place where our patients can and should be expected to learn? Learn how to solve all kinds of problems better? Learn about themselves and how to live more fully and deeply? Gradually, we're coming to accept our broadening nursing role as it encompasses more teaching responsibilities. But with the increased responsibilities, we're constantly plagued with the "hows" of rehabilitating others. Before we can identify methods, however, we need to reach some consensus on the goals of recovery and learning. In teaching, we sometimes unknowingly divorce our patient from his illness. We teach the diabetic patient how to administer his own insulin and the patient with cancer how to care for his colostomy. But does this kind of knowledge necessarily assist our patient to live more fully? What does recovery from illness mean? By what criteria are we to measure the results of our teaching efforts? How can we be reasonably sure our patients have learned? The literature is bursting with copious amounts of material on the meaning of learning, but often it confuses our thinking rather than clarifies it. Get any two educators together and they're sure to get into a heated discussion on the pros and cons of positive versus negative learning. It has become an academic quarrel with far-reaching conse-