learning disabilities || failure and learning disability

Failure and Learning DisabilityAuthor(s): Benson E. GeverSource: The Reading Teacher, Vol. 23, No. 4, Learning Disabilities (Jan., 1970), pp. 311-317Published by: Wiley on behalf of the International Reading AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20196311 .

Accessed: 25/06/2014 02:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and International Reading Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Reading Teacher.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.85 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 02:07:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ira

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20196311?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Benson Gevsr is Assistant Director of the Institute for Learn

ing, and Assistant Instructor, Department of Psychiatry, Hah

nemann Medical College and Hospital, Philadelphia, Pa.

Failure and learning disability BENSON E. GEVER

there are many, many causes for learning disability. The only common thread which runs through the host of physical, psycho

logical, social, and educational factors which have been isolated

is the contribution that each makes to the child's total failure

experience. It is this failure experience which, perhaps para

doxically, will be weighed not as a result but as an etiological and sustaining agent of learning disorders.

SUCCESS?FAILURE RATIOS

The precise effect of failure on the learning process is still

unclear. Undoubtedly, being wrong produces a degree of frustra

tion, discomfort and tension which mounts in relation to the

frequency of incorrect responses. The effects of this disturbance are often evident in many students, particularly when the tendency to be "wrong" far outweighs the tendency to be "right." Hence,

good educational procedure often dictates a maximization of suc

cess, particularly when the student has experienced few such

rewards. Programmed learnings designs account for this factor by use of frequent and immediate positive reinforcement. Extremists

may argue that errors are to be avoided at all costs.

Removed from the controlled educational environment, the

child may find that rewards are not so frequently and immediately available. Sometimes he is right and that's good. Sometimes he

is wrong and that's not so bad since to borrow an old cliche, "We

learn by our mistakes." Not only must the child learn to tolerate

delay of reward but he must also learn to accept a certain degree of failure and frustration which is characteristic of every step in

his development. It is perhaps the ensuing disappointment with

his present level of performance which leads him to modify current

behavioral patterns in the direction of greater achievement and

adjustment. Holt's (1964) probing observations led him to a critical ap

praisal of the thwarting effect of the school climate. Children are afraid at school, and they are afraid because they are taught

311



312 THE READING TEACHER Volume 23, No. 4 January 1970

in an atmosphere where failure is defined as "dishonorable" and

"humiliating" rather than as an obstacle which generates con

structive questioning and learning. In such a system children be come motivated by a "success" which is primarily based upon adult, or more specifically, teacher approval, rather than self

accomplishment. To obtain this goal students employ strategies in a game of "winning," a game which may rob them of their basic

enthusiasm and curiosity. From an instructional standpoint it is often evident that a

student can be right too often, creating a rather sterile and boring

learning situation where no questions remain to be answered.

There is little intrinsic motivation without an appropriate degree of challenge. The psychological literature on the effect of anxiety and drive level on learning is relevant to this point (Taylor, 1956;

Sarason, I960; Spence, 1964). Studies have indicated that depend

ing upon the drive level of the subject and the nature and difficulty of the learning task, a certain level of task anxiety may serve as a

positively motivating force seen in the subject's increased perform ance level. The essential factor for practical teaching purposes is

the determination of a suitable ratio between success and failure

experiences which would create optimal challenge conditions for

the student. A ratio properly calibrated would maximize the in

trinsically motivating conditions.

To illustrate, one can apply the concept of success to failure

ratio to the pedagogical levels widely used in reading instruction

i.e., independent, instructional, and frustration levels. At the in

dependent level the success-failure ratio is at a maximum point in

that the student is virtually a trouble-free reader at this level. If

all reading activities are presented at the independent level, how

ever, one might expect students to rapidly lose interest, a problem which plagues the often neglected "gifted" students. As the student

begins to experience instructional needs there is a corresponding

drop in the success to failure ratio. However, if the independent criteria are meaningful, one would expect that the number of

difficulties which develop within the instructional range stimulate

and optimally motivate the child toward learning. As difficulties

mount to the point of frustration, there is a rapid decrement in

the ratio where excessive failure produces an unwholesome degree of anxiety and turmoil. Perhaps future quantification of these ratios

will aid educators in checking the validity of their criteria.

One area which needs further elaboration is the emotional

state of the student. His past history of failure experiences and

characteristic reactions is of vital concern. Poor achievers, all else

being equal, would clearly be unable to tolerate the same success

to failure ratios as the achieving student because of the discomfort

and apprehension aroused by their long standing educational dif



GEYER: Failure and learning disability 313

ficulties. The resultant frustration and coping mechanisms must

be taken into consideration. For one, the failing student's entire

concept of success and failure may be significantly altered. He may

dramatically lower his goals to insure success or set goals well

beyond his capabilities as the desperate gambler plays the long shot for all or nothing. These general effects have been noted in

research dealing with the effect of success and failure experience on level of aspiration particularly when the child is motivated by avoidance of failure rather than achievement of success, (Sears, 1940; Atkinson, et al., 1960).

FAILURE AND THE LEARNING DISORDER

To illuminate the influence of failure on the learning disorder, consider a pertinent analogy. Picture a junior high school physical educational class. A line of awkward adolescents stand listening to instructions. After a graceful demonstration, the order is given to climb the ropes. One poor fellow approaches, stretches, flails his

arms and legs and, after a comical struggle, drops to the floor.

His frustration, embarrassment, and shame become the object of

everyone's attention. After a few similar experiences, this defeated

young man withdraws?cuts class, forgets his gym suit, refuses

to try, to take the risk for fear of failing and further torment. Or

perhaps he consoles himself, much to the dismay of his teacher, with the fact that he is entertaining his classmates, focusing on the

attention-getting characteristics of his disability. It is easy to parallel this situation with the student who is

struggling with the mastery of reading skills. His failure, humilia

tion, and efforts to find relief and safety are much the same. In

time, it is the overwhelmingly uncomfortable affect which becomes

the core of the learning disability regardless of initial etiology. While poor vision, perceptual difficulties, language disorders, emo

tional problems, etc., may have initially played a primary role in

creating the child's inability to learn, the learning difficulties are

compounded and sustained, even in cases where the initial etio

logical agents have been alleviated, by the secondary influence of

failure. Unless the educator can penetrate the complex of compen

satory devices the disabled learner has erected, little progress can

be expected. Those interested in early detection of learning disorders have

been recently paying a great deal of attention to the question of

perceptual handicaps. Many schools are routinely evaluating all

preschoolers from this standpoint. In addition, packaged percep tual-motor materials are offered as preventive measures as part of the readiness program. While such programs seem to be rele vant to formal academic skill development and may be beneficial,




the direct relationship often assumed by adherents is questionable.

Frostig (1964), for example, points out how each of the five areas

of visual perception her program evaluates is directly related to

the acquisition of basic reading and writing abilities. Consequently, deficiencies in any of these areas would result in a corresponding reading or writing skill difficulty. In some extreme cases diagnostic labels such as "dyslexia" are even applied to children who manifest

deviations in the perceptual-motor sphere, sometimes prior to a

thorough assessment of the child's reading competency.

Again, the secondary influence of failure must be considered. That is, the child entering school with perceptual-motor deficien cies will encounter obstacles both in and out of the classroom. Clumsiness on the playground, in the cafeteria or gym adds to the total failure experience and may interfere with classroom perform ance as readily as a clumsy and awkward oral reading in front of teacher and classmates. The positive effect of the specific skill

training can then be seen as an opportunity to provide the student with a greater chance of achieving success and to this extent

enhances learning. The psychoanalyst would label this as develop ing or strengthening ego skills.

In the case of the organically impaired child, particularly when there is central nervous system involvement, a more serious

pattern develops. The child's multiple limitations in motor coordi

nation, perception, concept formation, language, and impulse con trol restrict his ability to achieve sufficient rewards and an ade

quate sense of mastery and accomplishment through each stage of his development. Negative parental reaction, often expressed on a subtle, unconscious level, is dramatically felt by the child as his sense of failure and frustration is magnified and com

pounded. His deepening sensitivity to his defects and poor self

image result in a more pervasive feeling of inadequacy and shame as compared to the child with a more specific or delimited disorder.

In this case the failure pattern is well established long before the

child enters his first formal learning situation and his firmly erected compensatory devices are ready for immediate transfer

and application in the classroom.

Increased diagnostic sophistication has led to the detection

of a borderline population of "high risk" students who display

symptomatology similar to the pattern which is characteristic of

the brain damaged child but in whose case there is no clear cut

physical evidence. A vast array of descriptive terminology has been

applied to this group including minimal cerebral dysfunction,

psychoneurological learning disorder, perceptually handicapped, maturational lag, ego impaired, among others. The most outstand

ing similarity to the brain damaged child, however, is the miserable

history of failure, apprehension, and discomfort with acute loss of



GEVER: Failure and learning disability 315

self-worth as a result of the struggle with learning.

REACTIONS TO FAILURE AND THE COMPENSATORY MECHANISMS

Any introductory text in psychology will describe the most

typical reactions to frustration. The intent here is to identify more

carefully the diversity of reactions stimulated by learning failure

and indicate how they subsequently affect academic achievement.

Even when the reactions are rooted in more basic emotional con

flicts, failure serves as a catalyst in the classroom.

School failure experiences often result in extreme feelings of

discomfort, tension, and anxiety. In some children the negative affect is clearly observable in their nervous, restless activity. In

other children the underlying discomfort is not nearly so apparent.

However, the hazing and dazing effects of anxiety quietly cloud

the intellect. Often a penetrating self-consciousness floods the child

so that he becomes too aware of the mechanics of his performance or the reactions of others. Illustrative of this experience is the child

who carefully decodes each word with perfection in his oral read

ing, yet has no recognition of the thoughts that were communicated

by the words. Perhaps a voice within blares, "You are making a

fool of yourself," hopelessly distracting him from the task at hand.

These reactions are of particular concern in the child who

enters the learning situation with previous difficulties in managing excessive emotional turmoil. Additional reactions may vary from

serious interferences with the child's capacity to attend and con

centrate on instructional materials to acute fear and panic reac

tions. The latter pattern has been described (rather inaccurately) as the "school phobia" and may result in a condition where the child

is unable to tolerate any stimuli which are even remotely related

to the school situation. Headaches and bellyaches on school morn

ings often are physical manifestations of the same reaction.

The anxiety may be focalized on a more specific situation

such as the inability to tolerate reading or math instruction. The

inability of some youngsters to function in the test situation is an

other relevant area of concern. In some cases, students work well

during instructional activities, indicating that they are acquiring

skills, yet completely fall apart prior to or during the achievement

test. A similar pattern has recently been observed in medical stu

dents who became extremely threatened and unnerved when con

fronted with objective, multiple-choice tests. These students were

referred to the Institute for Learning because of their consistent

failure to qualify on Medical Board Examinations. The test failure

persists despite above-average performance in other evaluative

settings, oral and essay examinations. The panic reactions are




often precipitated weeks before the examination date, reoccurring

periodically until the papers are finally handed in. The following

symptoms have been reported: diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, hyper ventilation, faintness, the shakes, inability to think clearly, loss

of concentration, and extreme self-doubt.

At times, failure itself may serve as a defense. Failing, to rid

oneself of the anticipation of failure, may be a motivating force

behind school dropouts and students who will not try. Even

before college midterms and finals, one may observe students

assuring each other that they did not study for the examination.

"How much easier it will be to accept a poor grade when the others

know I really didn't try." "I'm not really dumb you know, I just didn't study."

Repeated failure may result in excessive anger directed at

teacher, classmates, or self. Perhaps the anger is a more tolerable

feeling than the vulnerability of feeling dumb or stupid. The

student who is unable to contain these feelings strikes out at those

he feels are responsible for his misery. Physical damage to instruc

tional materials, classroom, or school building is rooted in this

same expression of hatred. A common bond of hatred may become

the basis for a close peer group, resulting in a dangerous rash of

delinquent behavior. It is understandable how, under these con

ditions, concern over classroom management and discipline usurps the attention necessary to the child's learning needs. Even when

unexpressed, the highly charged affect may completely distract

the student from learning. At the other extreme are those youngsters who are so fearful

of their aggressive feelings that they cannot express a natural

degree of assertion and competition. Even the act of learning itself

may become too dangerous. The true feelings, however, are ex

pressed through the child's passive, negative, and resistant stance.

The behavior expresses the attitude "I won't and you can't make

me." Lack of participation, tardiness, incomplete assignments, or

even a total abstinence from speech at school is symptomatic of

this orientation.

Masochistic trends can also appear in youngsters with severe

learning problems. All the hatred is turned in on the "dumb" and

"stupid" self. Teachers and parents complain of children pulling out

their hair or eyelashes. Often, there is a secondary gain in these

negative attention-seeking mechanisms. Apparently such young sters prefer negative attention to nothing. These children may become the object of ridicule or the butt of the class bully. Sym

pathetic feelings, however, should not blind one to the provocative nature of their behavior.

The defeated and dejected student is less noticeable because

his behavior is not so disturbing in the crowded classroom where



GEYER: Failure and learning disability 317

management of the "acting out" child takes precedence. Yet, this

reaction is no less serious. In severe cases the child erects a brittle

protective shield, drawing into himself for fear of further wounding of an already depleted sense of pride. This child is convinced

that he is unable to succeed and no longer will take the risk of

trying because of his excessive fear of failing. He may break up his world into small safe bits, pursuing only those activities which

guarantee success. There is often a perseverative quality to this

behavior as the child finds comfort in doing over and over again an activity which he is sure he can correctly perform.

Another escape from learning defeat may be managed through withdrawal into fantasy. How often does the teacher stare into the

blank eyes of their students hoping to learn the secret of their

silence? External events can no longer compete with the more

satisfying mental imagery, and the strained capacity for attention

and concentration is further incapacitated. The imagination makes

the classroom disappear and replaces it with scenes of heroes, actresses and lunar exploration. The compensatory nature of these

images is evident as the child wishes for the power, status, and

success which have long been overdue.

CONCLUSION

Excessive failure creates the conditions for more and more

failure. The student becomes filled with frustration, anger, disgust, and the emotional vulnerability which sustains the failure pattern.

While the protective shield which the child erects may temporarily sooth his wounded pride, he becomes less accessible to the edu

cational process. Thus, the pattern perpetuates itself, a vicious

cycle which runs on the steam of the child's despair.

REFERENCES

Atkinson, J. W., Bastian, J. R., Earl, R. W., and Litwin, G. H. The achievement

motive, goal setting, and probability preferences. Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 1960, 60, 27-36.

Frostig, M., and Home, D. The Frostig program for the development of visual

perception. Chicago: Follett, 1964.

Holt, J. How children fail. New York: Pitman Publishing Company, 1964.

Sarason, I. G. Empirical findings and theoretical problems in the use of anxiety scales. Psychological Bulletin, 1960, 57, 403-415.

Sears, P. S. Levels of aspiration in academically successful and unsuccessful

children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1940, 35, 498-536.

Spence, K. W. Anxiety, drive level, and performance in eyelid conditioning.

Psychological Bulletin, 1964, 61, 129-139.

Taylor, J. A. Drive theory and manifest anxiety. Psychological Bulletin, 1956,

53, 303-320.

The International Reading Association attempts, through its publications, to provide a forum for a wide spectrum of opinion on reading. This policy permits divergent viewpoints without assuming the endorsement of the Association or the Editors.



learning disabilities || failure and learning disability

Documents