Elementary Teachers’ Reflections on Design Failures and Use of Fail Words after Teaching Engineering for Two Years

Abstract

This mixed-methods study examines how teachers who have taught one or two units of the Engineering is Elementary (EiE) curriculum for two years reported on: students' responses to design failure; the ways in which they, the teachers, supported these students and used fail words (e.g. fail, failure); and the teachers' broad perspectives and messages to students about failure. In addition, the study explores how strategies, perspectives, messages, and fail word use may change after two years of engineering instruction. This study builds on previous work about elementary teachers': perspectives on failure prior to teaching engineering, and responses to and perspectives on failure after teaching EiE unit(s) for one year. Data collected included 74 surveys, containing both quantitative and qualitative items, and ten in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data were analyzed via non-parametric methods, and qualitative analysis involved an iterative search for codes and themes. The convergent mixed-methods design enabled comparison across quantitative and qualitative findings. Findings included that the elementary engineering classroom is a complex space in which teams may or may not experience design failure; for those teams that do, they-and, in turn, their teachers-may respond to this experience in a wide range of ways. Also, after two years of teaching engineering, teachers felt more comfortable preparing students for design failure experiences, and responding when design failure occurred. Most also felt more comfortable using fail words, and when they used these words, learned to do so with context and care.

Elementary Teachers’ Positive and Practical Risk-Taking When Teaching Science Through Engineering Design

“…Students should work to provide solutions to design tasks by identifying problems and generating possible ideas, collaboratively planning and testing their solutions using existing scientific knowledge, evaluating and communicating their findings, and optimizing their original models (Brophy, Klein, Portsmore, & Rogers, 2008). Engineering design-based tasks differ from existing science curricular activities in that: (a) design problems require more complex, student decision-driven responses than typical teacher-guided scientific inquiries (Windschitl & Stroupe, 2017); (b) students must work collaboratively within constraints to develop testable and workable solutions (Johnson, Wendell, & Watkins, 2017;Lottero-Perdue & Parry, 2017;Van Haneghan, Pruet, Neal-Waltman, & Harlan, 2015); and (c) design problems lead to numerous possible solutions (Antink-Meyer & Meyer, 2016). We argue these divergences between design-and inquiry-based science instruction signify areas of risk for teachers learning to adopt engineering design to teach science.…”

Engineering mindsets and learning outcomes in elementary school

“…The adoption of a growth mindset is consistent with productive engagement in engineering design. Design failure (i.e., when a design fails to meet one or more criteria) is an expected event in iterative engineering design processes (Cunningham & Kelly, 2017; Lottero‐Perdue & Parry, 2017a). Experienced, informed designers “focus their attention on problematic areas of their potential solutions … while doing effective diagnostic troubleshooting” (Crismond & Adams, 2012, pp.…”

Impact of a prototyping intervention on middle school students' iterative practices and reactions to failure

“…Moreover, this study adds to the emerging body of work demonstrating that design-focused instruction can promote positive attitudes toward failure (Gerber & Carroll, 2012;Lottero-Perdue & Parry, 2017b;Royalty et al, 2012;Sadler et al, 2000). The idea of failure carries negative connotations in classroom contexts (Lottero-Perdue & Parry, 2017a) and can have debilitating effects on learners' emotions, expectancies of future success, and behaviors (Anderson & Jennings, 1980;Chase, 2011;Covington & Omelich, 1981;Ruble et al, 1976).…”

“…Likewise, a study exploring how adult students in design thinking classes apply design thinking in their work contexts found that one of the students' key take‐aways was comfort with failure and risk (Royalty, Oishi, & Roth, ). In another study, elementary school teachers who participated in a 2‐year engineering design curriculum became more comfortable using fail words during instruction and were more likely to apply the ideas of perseverance and learning from failure to domains outside of engineering (Lottero‐Perdue & Parry, ). A study of high school girls from marginalized communities found that fostering a safe and supportive maker environment enabled students to embrace a risk‐taking culture where failure was reframed as merely another iteration or draft (Ryoo et al, ).…”