I was initially drawn towards the topic of failure not only as a graduate student, but also as a relatively new undergraduate teacher that frequently encounters failure in the classroom. Halfway through the article by Carr (In Support of Failure), I had an Ah-Ha moment. The author describes how we can re-conceptualize failure to include not only the personal realm, but also to consider the sociocultural context in which the failure occurs. Students may be either “held back” or placed in “remedial” classes to compensate for their lack of understanding of course material. The personal failures of the student are punished by segregating them into another classroom, distant from his/her peer group. I agree that we should consider the sociocultural context of the failure, but we should also seek to examine whether the nature of the undergraduate classroom (specifically) can transform how students and we (as educators) understand and communicate our failures.
I recently handed back graded papers, in which most of the class scored around the C-range. Immediately after handing back the paper one of my student’s hands shot up. She wondered what the class average was. When I answered her questions with, “a C average” I could sense the release of tension in a room. Students frequently use social comparisons to determine the “degree” of their failures within the classroom. It seems that the sense of shame that Carr later discusses can be transformed into a group-shame dynamic in college that often lightens the burden of experiencing this heavy emotion. As teachers, we may give students the class grade distributions and consequently, we may be encouraging students to accept their failures in relation to their peers. Will this transformation of shame and the subsequent movement towards students’ acceptance of their failures lead to a classroom full of unmotivated/lazy students? If we are to encourage students to accept failure (as Carr suggests), this paradigm shift must permeate beyond my classroom and into an entire campus for it to be effective. I also wondered whether there were differences in “failure acceptance” across the CUNY campuses. Are some of our campuses promoting the acceptance of failure? If so, how are they doing it effectively without creating an underachieving student body?
Turning more inward, Carr also talks about giving ourselves permission to experience failure “on its own terms,” and many of the articles in the Journal of IT & P illustrate personal reflections from educators on failures they’ve had within the classroom. We’ve been taught to feel shameful of our behaviors, but why don’t we as educators discuss our failures in an effort to learn from each other? I’ve noticed that student teachers do this frequently through informal conversations in the hallways, but we don’t publicly discuss these failures. I’m not advocating for teachers to publicize all of their classroom failures, but I’d love to learn from the successes and failures of other educators. How do we get far enough past the shame associated with failure to discuss our personal classroom failures with other teachers?
@Maura A. Smale – In reply to the question of how to encourage our students to embrace failure, I think one possibly way is to shift the systems of assessment in our classrooms. I see many of the grading, credentialing, and promotion systems that we’ve learned to navigate in life (especially in school and at work) to be based on outcomes. I’m sure we’ve all encountered students obsessed with the outcome of a class–the student that just wants to know what he/she needs to do to get an ‘A’–enough so that engaging in the process of learning becomes secondary to performing well on assessments. In a grading system where the final grade is calculated based on measures of what the student has learned (the outcome of learning), students will reject failure on any assessment because it will lessen their chances of getting that ‘A’. So, why don’t we just change our assessment systems to focus on the process of learning rather than the outcome?
This idea is present in some of Carr’s suggested activities. If we can base student assessment on the process each student goes through in engaging with the material, failing, and learning from failure we might remove this performance-driven extrinsic motivation. Of course, this is easier said than done. But, if we can find a way to do it, we (students and instructors) may also benefit from what comes with really spending time with some ideas and failing–innovation. Now, this is a hypothetical, but consider this possibility: If we base our assessment on the process students go through in grappling with the material, students will be (at least) extrinsically motivated to put in the time it takes to learn. By really spending time with the material (rather than pulling all nighters writing or cramming) students will be more likely to develop their own thinking on it and may perhaps have some innovative idea. In my experience, having an innovative idea provides motivation to learn more (the intrinsic kind), which may relieve the instructor of having to continually supply extrinsic motivation to get students to do the work.
Is this idea overly simplistic and perhaps too optimistic? Yes, probably.
Is it worth giving a shot and failing? Yes, I think so.