Reframing “Failure” in Making: The Value of Play, Social Relationships, and Ownership

Authors

  • Jean J. Ryoo University of California, Los Angeles
  • Linda Kekelis STEM Next Opportunity Fund

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2018.624

Keywords:

making, failure, persistence, play, sociocultural theories of learning, collaborative learning, project ownership

Abstract

Building on grit and growth mindset literature, the “maker mindset” celebrates persistence through failure as key to inspiring creativity in making education. Yet, moving beyond examinations of individual persistence and assumptions that all people have the same wealth of resources to persevere, when is it worthwhile to work through challenging projects? What supports are necessary for youth to feel safe working through challenges in science, technology, engineering, math, and computing (STEM+C) activities? Using sociocultural theory as a lens, this ethnographic study analyzed observation field notes, videos, photos, student work, and interviews from an after-school making program for high school girls during the 2014-15 school year. Through a comparison of 2 groups—one that persisted through challenging moments and one that did not—this paper reveals the centrality of playfulness, teamwork, and ownership of projects in order to persist through challenges that arise in inquiry-based projects.

Author Biographies

Jean J. Ryoo, University of California, Los Angeles

Jean Ryoo, PhD, is the Director of Research and Co-PI of the REAL-CS/Exploring Computer Science project at UCLA's Graduate School of Education & Information Studies. Jean's work focuses on equity issues related to STEM and computer science education, seeking ways to support efforts that value the perspectives and cultural practices that non-dominant youth bring to learning environments.  

Linda Kekelis, STEM Next Opportunity Fund

Linda Kekelis, PhD, was the founder and CEO of Techbridge Girls. Currently, she is a consultant for the STEM Next Opportunity Fund, with a longstanding commitment for ensuring that all youth, particularly girls and youth of color, have access to STEM opportunities. Family engagement has been at the center of the research and programs Linda has led.

References

Babineaux, R., & Krumboltz, J. (2013). Fail fast, fail often: How losing can help you win. New York: Penguin Group.

Basulto, D. (2012, May 30). The new #Fail: Fail fast, fail early and fail often. The Washington Post. Retrieved July 10, 2015 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/post/the-new-fail-fail-fast-fail-early-and-fail-often/2012/05/30/gJQAKA891U_blog.html?utm_term=.46920004a9ba

Bevan, B., Ryoo, J. J., & Shea, M. (2017). What if? Building creative cultures for STEM making and learning. After School Matters, 25, 1-8.

Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: The democratization of invention. In J. Walter-Herrmann, & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLabs: Of Machines, Makers and Inventors (pp 1-21). Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript Publishers.

Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., & Greenberg, D. (2017). The makerspace movement: Sites of possibilities for equitable opportunities to engage underrepresented youth in STEM. Teachers College Record, 119(6), 1-44.

Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., & Geil, K. E. (2013). Research-practice partnerships: A strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement in school districts. New York: William T. Grant Foundation. Retrieved from InformalScience.org/sites/default/ files/Research-Practice-Partnerships-at-the-District-Level.pdf

Cole, M. & Engestrom, Y. (2007). Cultural-historical approaches to designing for development. In J. Valsiner & A. Rosa (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology (pp. 484-506). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Credé, M., Tynan, M. C., & Harms, P. D. (2016). Much ado about grit : A meta-analytic synthesis of the grit literature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000102

Dougherty, D. (2013). The maker mindset. In M. Honey, & D.E. Kanter, (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 7-11). New York, NY: Routledge.

Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087-1101.

Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Dweck, C., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2): 256-273.

Erickson, F. (1998). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. J. Fraser, & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1155-1173). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Jovanovic, J. & King, S.S. (1998). Boys and girls in the performance-based science classroom: Who’s doing the performing? American Educational Research Journal, 35(3), 477-496.

Kafai, Y. B. Fields, D. A., & Searle, K. A. (2014). Electronic textiles as disruptive designs in schools: Supporting and challenging maker activities for learning. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 532-556.

Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424. doi: 10.1080/07370000802212669

Kapur, M. (2014). Productive failure in learning math. Cognitive Science, 38, 1008-1022.

Kekelis, L. S., Ancheta, R. W., Heber, E., & Countryman, J. (2005) Bridging differences: How social relationships and racial diversity matter in a girls’ technology program. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 11(3), 231-246. doi: 10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v11.i3.20

Kekelis, L. & Ryoo, J. J. (April 22, 2015). The other F word: Making sense of failure and nurturing resilience. Retrieved from Corwin Connect website: http://corwin-connect.com/2015/04/the-other-f-word-making-sense-of-failure-and-nurturing-resilience/

Kenney, L., McGee, P., & Bhatnagar, K. (2012). Different, not deficient: The challenges women face in STEM fields. Journal of Technology, Management & Applied Engineering, 28(2), 2-9.

Kohn, A. (April 8, 2014). Ten concerns about the ‘let’s teach them grit’ fad. Washington Post; Answer Sheet. Retrieved August 31, 2015 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer- sheet/wp/2014/04/08/ten-concerns-about-the-lets-teach- them-grit-fad/

Kohn, A. (August 16, 2015). The perils of “Growth Mindset” education: Why we’re trying to fix our kids when we should be fixing the system. Salon.com. Retrieved from http://wws.salon.com/2015/08/16/the_education_fad_thats_hurting_our_kids_what_you_need_to_know_about_growth_mindset_theory_and_the_harmful_lessons_it_imparts/

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Li, Y., & Bates, T. C. (2017). Does mindset affect children’s ability, school achievement, or response to challenge? Three failures to replicate. Retrieved from https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/tsdwy

Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 5(1), 30–39.

Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Torrance: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.

Mitchell, J. C. (1984). Typicality and the case study. In R. Ellen (Ed.). Ethnographic research: A guide to general conduct (pp. 237–241). New York, NY: Academic Press.

McNeill, K. L., Katsh-Singer, R., & Pelletier, P. (2015). Assessing science practices: Moving your class along a continuum. Science Scope, 39(4), 21–28.

Pollack, E. (2015). The only woman in the room. Why science is still a boys’ club. Boston: Beacon Press.

Rienzo, C., Rolfe, H., & Wilkinson, D. (2014). Changing mindsets: Evaluation report and executive summary. Report to the Education Endowment Foundation, London: EEF.

Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind, Culture, & Activity, 1(4): 209-229.

Rose, M. (May 14, 2015). Why teaching kids to have ‘grit’ isn’t always a good thing. Washington Post; Answer Sheet. Retrieved July 1, 2015 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer- sheet/wp/2015/05/14/why-teaching-kids-to-have-grit-isnt- always-a-good-thing/

Rustin, S. (May 10, 2016). New test for ‘growth mindset,’ the theory that anyone who tries can succeed. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/may/10/growth-mindset-research-uk-schools-sats

Ryoo, J. J., Bulalacao, N., Kekelis, L., McLeod, E., Henriquez, B. (2015, September). Tinkering with “failure”: Equity, learning, and the iterative design process. Paper presented at FabLearn Conference, Stanford, CA.

Ryoo, J. J. & Kekelis, L. (2016). STEM-rich and equitable making: Lessons from a museum-based research-practice partnership. ASTC Dimensions, 45-51.

Shapiro, J.R. & Williams, A.M. (2012). The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls’ and someone’s performance and interest in STEM fields. Sex Roles, 66(3-4), 175-183.

Sheridan, K., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84, 505-531.

Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook and resources (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Vossoughi, S., & Bevan, B. (October, 2014). Making and Tinkering: A Review of the Literature. National Research Council Committee on Out of School Time STEM: 1-55. Retrieved from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_089888.pdf

Vossoughi, S., Escudé, M., Kong, F., & Hooper, P. (2013, October). Tinkering, learning & equity in the after-school setting. Paper presented at FabLearn, Stanford, CA. Retrieved August 24, 2014 from http://fablearn.stanford.edu/2013/papers/

Vossoughi, S., Hooper, P. K., & Escudé, M. (2016). Making through the lens of culture and power: Toward transformative visions for educational equity. Harvard Educational Review, 86(2), 206-232.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Wertsch, J. V., del Rio, P., & Alvarez, A. (1995). Sociocultural studies of mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Downloads

Published

2018-12-14

Issue

Vol. 13 No. 4 (2018)

Section

Feature Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link.