When asked about his struggles in creating a working light bulb, Thomas Edison reportedly said, "I have not failed 10,000 times. I have not failed once. I have succeeded in proving that those 10,000 ways will not work. When I have eliminated the ways that will not work, I will find the way that will work." I believe that Thomas Edison was stating a fact that has been re-enforced with recent cognitive research that failures can be the best teacher. Carol Dweck wrote in her book Mindset: "[I]n the growth mindset, failure can be a painful experience. But it doesn't define you. It's a problem to be faced, dealt with, and learned from."
So if failure and mistakes are such powerful tools, why do we avoid them, especially in classrooms? This is the question I asked myself this past year when examining my teaching practices. I noticed several students who work hard, but not quite understand some concepts by the time the first exam arrived. Thus their first exam score would be low, sometimes very low. Their hard work would eventually lead to "the light going on", after which point their performance on exams and other assessments would improve dramatically. I felt for these students since they put forth great effort, but their initial "failures" held back their overall grades, despite sometimes understanding more in the end than students with higher grades.
With all of this in mind, I decided to change to a mastery based grading system. First, I developed a set of objectives (or standards) for each class. These objectives came both from my experience with these courses and mandated objectives from the state of Texas. This list of objectives when they divided into those critical to subsequent courses and those of a more supplementary nature. During the semester, each lecture contained a short quiz on one or two these objectives. But each objective (which often had multiple problems) was graded with "Pass" or "Not Yet". Notice that a "failing" grade was "Not Yet". This designation was because students would get multiple attempts for each standards, with collective checkpoints every 3-4 weeks with all objectives to date not yet passed. Once a student earned a "Pass", they did not need to attempt it again, but it was common for those concepts to be utilized in later objectives.
After a couple of semester of using this system, I observed some interesting facts. First, I have noticed that most students are overwhelmed initially by the fact that they often did not pass the first couple of standards. But once students began to understand that they were focusing on understanding the objectives, rather than chasing points, the students started to focusing on single objectives and passing them off. Additionally, most students reported that they felt more confident in the material compared to other classes.
Another change I noticed in my class was the questions students asked. Questions like "What do I need to get a (fill in grade)?" and "How can I do better on the next exam?" changed to "How can I do this problem differently?" and "Where did I go wrong on this problem?" These new questions demonstrate to me a shift from "earning a grade" to understanding the material. In addition, students are developing the growth mindset mentioned by Carol Dweck earlier.
This embrace of "failure" and mistakes in my class has changed not only how my students see their learning, but also how I see them. More than ever before, I can truly see the potential of each of my students. I can see how much effort they are putting into learning. And I get to see them succeed more in the end. Indeed, I have found that failure leads to learning.
Dr. Sean Bailey is an assistant professor of mathematics at TAMU-T.