I don't believe in failure, only relative degrees of success.
Despite what some may say, learning is defined in more than one context. The lessons
we learn come in many shapes and forms, and I'm not sure I understand
failing them. I suppose in a quantitative context, if we establish a benchmark standard, then technically everything that falls below this is a failure. Let's explore failure in the context of how it's typically defined in education...
failure [ˈfeɪljə]
| — n |
| 1. | the act or an instance of failing |
| 2. | a person or thing that is unsuccessful or disappointing |
| 3. | nonperformance of something required or expected |
| 4. | cessation of normal operation; breakdown |
| 5. | an insufficiency or shortage |
| 6. | a decline or loss, as in health or strength |
| 7. | the fact of not reaching the required standard in an examination, test, course, etc |
| 8. | the act or process of becoming bankrupt or the state of being bankrupt |
In education, failure is often defined by number seven above...
The fact of not reaching the required standard in an examination, test, course, etc... So we set standards for students to aspire to, and everything below that is a failure... but what if we defined failure in a system's context...
From
Wikipedia-
Systems thinking is the process of understanding how things, regarded as systems, influence one another within a whole... systems thinking has been defined as an approach to problem solving, by
viewing "problems" as parts of an overall system, rather than reacting
to specific part, outcomes or events and potentially contributing to
further development of unintended consequences. Systems thinking is not one thing but a set of habits or practices within a framework that is based on the belief that the component parts of a system
can best be understood in the context of relationships with each other
and with other systems, rather than in isolation. Systems thinking
focuses on cyclical rather than linear cause and effect.
I am so intrigued by this concept. What if we were to think of students as
systems unto themselves with many components (variables) who could
best be understood in the context of relationships with each other and with other systems, rather than in isolation? What if we just thought of failure in a system's context as
the act or an instance of failing; the first definition above? Could we then accept that failure doesn't have to have a negative connotation, nor does it have to be defended through some sort of rationalization... it would be just what it is- the act or instance of failing.
If we were to think of failure in this regard when a student fails it would be perceived as a breakdown somewhere in the system (student) that affected the students' overall ability to perform as expected. It would be assumed that some part of a relationship within the system (student) or in the way the student relates to another system (person, concept, teacher, content, schedule, organization, etc.) is malfunctioning, and as a result, support is required. Reflective analysis of how the system broke down would be the default reaction, then action could be taken to restore the system's interactions to purposeful and functional states designed to mitigate the failure.
