Elementary Student Teams’ Design Failure Experiences and Factors that Affect their Opportunities to Learn from Failure (Fundamental)

Pamela S. Lottero-Perdue

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Portland, Oregon
Publication Date: June 23, 2024
Start Date: June 23, 2024
End Date: June 26, 2024
Conference Session: Marge's Mission: Empowering STEM Innovation
Tagged Division: Pre-College Engineering Education Division (PCEE)
Page Count: 33
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--47229
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/47229
Download Count: 1327

Paper Authors

biography

Pamela S. Lottero-Perdue Towson University orcid.org/0000-0003-2989-7969

visit author page

Pamela S. Lottero-Perdue, Ph.D., is Professor of Science and Engineering Education in the Department of Physics, Astronomy & Geosciences at Towson University. She has integrated engineering into courses for PreK-8 teacher candidates, developed and directed a graduate STEM program for PreK-6 teachers, and partnered with teachers to implement PreK-8 science-integrated engineering learning experiences. She has authored numerous engineering-focused teacher practitioner articles, chapters, and research articles, and presents her research regularly through the ASEE Pre-College Engineering Education Division, a division she has chaired. Her current research includes investigating how children plan, fail, and productively persist; how mixed-reality simulated classroom environments can be used to help pre-service and in-service teachers practice facilitating challenging discussions in science and engineering; and how undergraduate engineering design teaching assistants address (and may be able to practice addressing) team conflict within similar simulated environments.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

The research literature has established that (a) learning from design failure and engaging in diagnostic troubleshooting are fundamental epistemic practices of engineering education, and (b) the ways in which teachers and students prepare for and respond to design failure is varied and complex. There is ample space for additional contributions to this literature, particularly with respect to how teams of students in K–12 classrooms negotiate failure experiences. This qualitative study examines 21 design teams across 8 classrooms in 8 elementary schools in the eastern United States as they engage in two Engineering is Elementary (EiE) units. There were 53 students and 2 to 5 students per team. Unit 1 for all teams was about bridge design. Unit 2 focused on the design of an electrical circuit, package to contain a plant, oil spill clean–up process, or site preparation to support piers for a bridge–like system. Research questions were: (1) To what extent do teams perceive that they have experienced design failure? (2) How do teams respond to and make sense of design failure? and (3) What factors within the classroom environment might challenge or support teams’ opportunities to engage with design failure in meaningful ways? Data gathered included video footage of each team, student engineering journals, and post–unit video–recorded team interviews. One summary for each team and unit (42 summaries total) was generated using an analytic framework to distill data relevant to potential design failure experiences. Summaries included quotations, descriptions of team activity, and journal and interview excerpts, and were analyzed using collaborative, iterative analysis that involved defining and assigning a priori and emergent codes. Overall, 86% of Unit 1 teams and 90% of Unit 2 teams reported that at least one of their designs failed in full or part. Positive and productive responses to design failure included in that many teams engaged in diagnostic troubleshooting (62% Unit 1; 43% Unit 2) and some teams (fewer than 25% for each unit) persisted despite struggles. Negative or unproductive responses included that some teams made design decisions disconnected from testing evidence or design criteria (5% Unit 1; 14% Unit 2) or blamed other team members for design failures (19% Unit 1; 5% Unit 2). Students expressed emotions including satisfaction, joy, disappointment, and frustration as they responded to design failure experiences. Some teams determined success or failure based on competition or comparison with other teams. Factors that may have negatively affected some teams’ opportunities to learn from design failure included alterations to constraints or criteria by teachers; inconsistencies in how students scored their designs in engineering journals; and unclear, inconsistent, or inaccurate testing processes. Three other factors—mid-create testing, interventions by teachers or parents, and intra- and inter-team dynamics—had the potential to either support or inhibit student learning from design failure.

Citation
Format

Lottero-Perdue, P. S. (2024, June), Elementary Student Teams’ Design Failure Experiences and Factors that Affect their Opportunities to Learn from Failure (Fundamental) Paper presented at 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Portland, Oregon. 10.18260/1-2--47229

TY - CPAPER
AB - The research literature has established that (a) learning from design failure and engaging in diagnostic troubleshooting are fundamental epistemic practices of engineering education, and (b) the ways in which teachers and students prepare for and respond to design failure is varied and complex. There is ample space for additional contributions to this literature, particularly with respect to how teams of students in K–12 classrooms negotiate failure experiences. This qualitative study examines 21 design teams across 8 classrooms in 8 elementary schools in the eastern United States as they engage in two Engineering is Elementary (EiE) units. There were 53 students and 2 to 5 students per team. Unit 1 for all teams was about bridge design. Unit 2 focused on the design of an electrical circuit, package to contain a plant, oil spill clean–up process, or site preparation to support piers for a bridge–like system. Research questions were: (1) To what extent do teams perceive that they have experienced design failure? (2) How do teams respond to and make sense of design failure? and (3) What factors within the classroom environment might challenge or support teams’ opportunities to engage with design failure in meaningful ways? Data gathered included video footage of each team, student engineering journals, and post–unit video–recorded team interviews. One summary for each team and unit (42 summaries total) was generated using an analytic framework to distill data relevant to potential design failure experiences. Summaries included quotations, descriptions of team activity, and journal and interview excerpts, and were analyzed using collaborative, iterative analysis that involved defining and assigning a priori and emergent codes. Overall, 86% of Unit 1 teams and 90% of Unit 2 teams reported that at least one of their designs failed in full or part. Positive and productive responses to design failure included in that many teams engaged in diagnostic troubleshooting (62% Unit 1; 43% Unit 2) and some teams (fewer than 25% for each unit) persisted despite struggles. Negative or unproductive responses included that some teams made design decisions disconnected from testing evidence or design criteria (5% Unit 1; 14% Unit 2) or blamed other team members for design failures (19% Unit 1; 5% Unit 2). Students expressed emotions including satisfaction, joy, disappointment, and frustration as they responded to design failure experiences. Some teams determined success or failure based on competition or comparison with other teams. Factors that may have negatively affected some teams’ opportunities to learn from design failure included alterations to constraints or criteria by teachers; inconsistencies in how students scored their designs in engineering journals; and unclear, inconsistent, or inaccurate testing processes. Three other factors—mid-create testing, interventions by teachers or parents, and intra- and inter-team dynamics—had the potential to either support or inhibit student learning from design failure.
AU - Pamela S. Lottero-Perdue
CY - Portland, Oregon
DA - 2024/06/23
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - Elementary Student Teams’ Design Failure Experiences and Factors that Affect their Opportunities to Learn from Failure (Fundamental)
UR - https://peer.asee.org/47229
DO - 10.18260/1-2--47229
ER -