Failure and Improvement in Elementary Engineering
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51355/jstem.2021.101Keywords:
engineering education, failure, elementaryAbstract
Recent science education reform documents in the United States have called for teachers to teach content related to engineering and science and to do so by engaging students in disciplinary practices. One important practice of engineering is improving from failure. Thus, students should experience productive failure as part of engineering design activities. However, engineering is a new subject for most elementary teachers. Historically failure has had negative connotations in elementary and precollege classrooms. To scaffold students through failure as they learn from and improve engineering designs, teachers will need to understand failure and pedagogical strategies for managing it. This study uses discourse analysis of video from eight elementary classes engaged in engineering to examine the nature of failure in engineering design projects. It also investigates how the collective actions of students and teachers support or constrain the process of improvement from engineering design failure. From these data, we propose a model of improvement through failure. This includes a classification of types and causes failure as well as facilitating conditions that must be present for improvement. We explore three features of engineering and three features of classroom cultures that contribute to learning to engage in productive failure.
References
Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., & Pasley, J. D. (2006). The status of K-12 science teaching in the United States. In D. W. Sunal & E. L. Wright (Eds.), The impact of state and national standards on K-12 science teaching (p. 440). IAP.
Bloome, D., Carter, S. P., Christian, B. M., Otto, S., & Shuart-Faris, N. (2005). A microethnographic approach to the discourse analysis of classroom language and literacy events. Discourse analysis & the study of classroom language and literacy events—A microethnographic perspective, 1-49. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410611215
Cajas, F. (2001). The science/technology interaction: Implications for science literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 715-729. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1028
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into practice. 39(3), 124-130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
Cunningham, C. M. (2017). Engineering in elementary STEM education: Curriculum design, instruction, learning, and assessment. Teachers College Press.
Cunningham, C. M., & Carlsen, W. S. (2014a). Precollege engineering education. In Handbook of Research on Science Education, Volume II (pp. 761-772). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203097267
Cunningham, C. M., & Carlsen, W. S. (2014b). Teaching engineering practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 197-210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9380-5
Cunningham, C. M., Kelly, G.J. (2018). Epistemic practices of engineering for education. Science Education. 101(3), 486-505. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21271
Cunningham, C. M., Lachapelle, C. P., & Davis, M. (2018). Engineering concepts, practices, and trajectories for early childhood education. In English, L. & Moore, T. (Eds.), Early engineering learning. New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8621-2
Cunningham, C. M, Lachapelle, C. P., Brennan, R. T., Kelly, G. J., Tunis, C. S. A., Gentry, C. A. (2020). The impact of engineering curriculum design principles on elementary students’ engineering and science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(3), 423–453. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21601
Cunningham, C. M., & Sneider, C. (in review). Precollege engineering education. In Lederman N., Zeidler, D., & Lederman, J. (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education vol III.
Del Frate, L., Franssen, M., & Vermaas, P. E. (2011). Towards a trans-disciplinary concept of failure for integrated product development. International Journal of Product Development, 14(1-4), 72-95. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPD.2011.042294
Gee, J. P. (2010). How to do discourse analysis: A toolkit. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203850992
Gee, J. P., & Green, J. L. (1998). Chapter 4: Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of research in education, 23(1), 119-169. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X023001119
Green, J., & Bloome, D. (2004). Ethnography and ethnographers of and in education: A situated perspective. Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (pp.181-202). New York: MacMillan. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410611161
Green, J. L., Camilli, G., & Elmore, P. B. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of complementary methods in education research. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203874769
Gumperz, J. J. (2001). Interactional sociolinguistics: A personal perspective. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis. Malden: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470753460
Jackson, A., Godwin, A., Bartholomew, S., & Mentzer, N. (2021). Learning from failure: A systematized review. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09661-x
Johnson, M. M. (2019). Learning through improvement from failure in elementary engineering design projects. In Kelly, G. J. & Green J. (eds), Theory and Methods for Sociocultural Research in Science and Engineering Education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351139922
Johri, A. (2011). The socio-materiality of learning practices and implications for the field of learning technology. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3). https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v19i3.17110
Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education. Committee on K-12 Engineering Education. National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council of the National Academies. https://doi.org/10.17226/12635
Kelly, G.J. (2004). Discourse, description, and science education. In Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410611734
Kelly, G.J. (2014). Analyzing classroom activities: Theoretical and methodological considerations. In Topics and Trends in Current Science Education. Springer Netherlands. https://10.1007/978-94-007-7281-6
Kelly, G.J., Green, J. (1998). The social nature of knowing: Toward a sociocultural perspective on conceptual change and knowledge construction. In B. Guzzetti & C. Hynd (Eds.), Perspectives on conceptual change: Multiple ways to understand knowing and learning in a complex world. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315045108
Kelly, G.J., Green, J.L. (2019). Theory and Methods for Sociocultural Research in Science and Engineering Research. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351139922
Kelly, G.J., Licona, P. (2018). Epistemic practices and science education. In M. Matthews (Ed.), History, philosophy and science teaching: New research perspectives (pp. 139-165). Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62616-1
Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Facilitating the learning of design practices: Lessons learned from an inquiry into science education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 9-40.
Kolodner, JK (2006). Case-based Reasoning, in Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (Vol. 2, No. 5). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526
Levy, S. T. (2013). Young children’s learning of water physics by constructing working systems. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(3), 537-566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9202-z
Lottero?Perdue, P. S., & Lachapelle, C. P. (2020). Engineering mindsets and learning outcomes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering Education, 109(4), 640-664. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20350
Lottero-Perdue, P. S., & Parry, E. A. (2017a). Elementary Teachers’ Reflections on Design Failures and Use of Fail Words after Teaching Engineering for Two Years. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 7(1), Article 1.
https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1160
Lottero-Perdue, P. S., & Parry, E. A. (2017b). Perspectives on Failure in the Classroom by Elementary Teachers New to Teaching Engineering. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 7(1), Article 4.
https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1158
Lottero-Perdue, P. S., & Parry, E. A. (2015, June). Elementary teachers’ reported responses to student design failures. In 2015 proceedings of ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (pp. 26-592). https://peer.asee.org/23930
Madhavan, G. (2015). Applied minds: How engineers think. W. W. Norton & Company. https://doi.org/ 10.1353/tech.2016.0059
Mariage, C.S. Englert, M. A. Garmon, T. (2000). The teacher as" more knowledgeable other" in assisting literacy learning with special needs students. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 16(4), 299-336. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560050129196
Marks, J., & Chase, C. C. (2019). Impact of a prototyping intervention on middle school students’ iterative practices and reactions to failure. Journal of Engineering Education, 108(4), 547–573. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20294
Matson, J. V. (1996). Innovate or die: A personal perspective on the art of innovation. Paradigm Press (Monroe, WI).
Mynar?ík, P. (2014). Measurement processes and destructive testing of fiber concrete foundation slab pattern. In Advanced Materials Research (Vol. 1020, pp. 221-226). Trans Tech Publications. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.1020.221
National Research Council (Ed.). (1996). National science education standards. National Academy Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/4962
National Research Council, Schweingruber, H., Keller, T., & Quinn, H. (Eds.). (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290
Norström, P. (2016). The nature of pre-university engineering education. In M. J. de Vries, L. Gumaelius, & I.-B. Skogh (Eds.), Pre-university engineering education (pp. 27–46). SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-621-7
Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 433-474. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520802211644
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Petroski, H. (1985). To engineer is human: The role of failure in successful design. Vintage books.
Petroski, H. (2018). Success through failure: The paradox of design (Vol. 92). Princeton University Press.
Petroski, H. (2003). Engineering: Early Education. American Scientist, 91(3), 206–209. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27858205
Prasad, D., McDermid, J., & Wand, I. (1996). Dependability terminology: similarities and differences. IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, 11(1), 14-21. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/62.484145
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications.
Stretch, E. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2021). Framing Failure: Leveraging Uncertainty to Launch Creativity in STEM Education. International Journal of Learning and Teaching. 7(2). 123-133. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijlt.7.2.123-133
Styhre, A., Wikmalm, L., Ollila, S., & Roth, J. (2012). Sociomaterial practices in engineering work: The backtalk of materials and the tinkering of resources. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 10(2), 151-167. https://doi.org/10.1108/17260531211241158
Watkins, J., Spencer, K., & Hammer, D. (2014). Examining young students’ problem scoping in engineering design. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 4(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1082
Wortham, S., & Reyes, A. (2020). Discourse analysis beyond the speech event. Routledge. http://doi.org/10.4324/9781315735207
Yanow, D., & Tsoukas, H. (2009). What is reflection?in?action? A phenomenological account. Journal of management studies, 46(8), 1339-1364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00859.x
Yarnold, P. R., & Brofft, G. C. (2013). ODA range test vs. one-way analysis of variance: Comparing strength of alternative line connections. Optimal Data Analysis, 2, 198-201.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Matthew Johnson, Gregory Kelly, Christine Cunningham
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
