Abstract

Modern education has primarily explained differences in learning outcomes through internal individual factors such as ability, motivation, and attitude. However, such explanations do not sufficiently capture nonlinear patterns in which the same learner performs differently depending on conditions, understanding and execution become separated, or sudden change occurs after a prolonged period of stagnation. In particular, situations in which “understanding has been formed, but execution does not occur” reveal the structural limits of existing output-centered educational models. To address these limits, this study redefines learning not as the accumulation of information, but as an operational structure based on state transition. Learning consists of standard formation, alignment, transition, and execution, and alignment is defined not as output but as a state of structural coherence. Alignment is divided into minimal alignment, functional alignment, and stable alignment, which are distinguished according to whether the structure is maintained under changing conditions. However, the formation of alignment does not automatically lead to execution. Accordingly, this study proposes transition failure as the core mechanism of learning failure. Transition is not a matter of understanding, but a stage that determines the possibility of execution. It is opened or blocked by a transition gating structure composed of transition cost, normative friction, and reward visibility. As a result, even after reaching an aligned state, learners may remain in a low-output state without executing. This is explained not as a lack of ability, but as the non-fulfillment of transition conditions. This study also extends learning failure to the problem of path misalignment. Learning has a multilayered structure composed of an input pathway, an alignment pathway, and a transition pathway. If misalignment occurs in one or more of these pathways, the entire operation may be blocked. Learning failure should therefore be understood not as a single defect, but as structural misalignment at the level of pathways. Based on this analysis, this study redefines education not as a system for transmitting knowledge, but as a system for designing transition conditions. It also proposes minimal structure, path flexibility, pressure minimization, transition condition design, and the separation of assessment structures as core principles. Through a structure that allows multiple pathways, this study presents an application model that accommodates individual differences and nonlinearity in learning. The contribution of this study lies in redefining learning failure not at the level of results, but at the level of operational structure. By reconstructing learning around state transition and transition design, this study provides a theoretical foundation for integratively explaining condition dependence, the gap between understanding and execution, and low-output states that existing educational theories have not sufficiently explained.