2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

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.