Examining High School Students' Moments of Failure Using Construction Kits With Varying Degrees of Flexibility

• In Event: 35.028 - Failure in the Learning Process: How Learners Experience and Overcome Obstacles Through Resources and Supports

Abstract

Many efforts to support educational making have focused on the design of construction kits “that engage kids in designing and creating things” (Resnick and Silverman, 2005). While some kits are more flexible, allowing endless tinkering using modular parts (Lego, Scratch), others are more fixed since they use difficult-to-disconnect pieces, thus emphasizing creation of final products (3-D printers, knitting) (Lui, Anderson, Jayathirtha, and Anderson, 2017). Across all kits, learners inevitably face moments of failure—instances where executed solutions do not fulfill hypothesized outcomes (Zeller, 2009). Acknowledging the centrality of failure within the process of creative production (Martin, 2015; Stager & Martinez, 2013), we ask: how does the level of tinkerability afforded by fixed versus flex-state construction kits shape the users’ experience of failure and the learning that follows?

To answer this, we focus on students’ experiences of learning through failure using e-textiles— fabric-based construction kits with programmable circuits (Buechley, Eisenberg, Catchen, & Crockett 2008). E-textiles are typically more fixed, relying upon sewn connections often tedious and time-consuming for beginners to debug. Prior research has illustrated how this complex, interdisciplinary nature of e-textiles can provide rich opportunities for learning through productive failure, especially over extended periods of time (Kapur, 2008; Litts, Kafai, Searle, and Dieckmeyer, 2016). The constrained physical tinkerability of these materials, however, seemingly limits opportunities practice problem-solving skills through rapid prototyping, something more possible with flex-state kits (Resnick and Rosenbaum, 2013).

In this study, we modified an existing e-textile kit to make it more flexible by creating hooked rather than sewn connections. We video recorded four 45-minute problem-solving sessions (two using fixed/regular kits; two using flexible/modified kits) where high school pairs were given ‘buggy’ projects with predesigned coding/circuitry mistakes to fix. We then compared how students worked through moments of failure while using the different kits. Students’ experience diagnosing and debugging digital, coding issues were similar across the two kits. However, differences arose when looking at how students’ dealt with physical, circuitry issues. While the ‘fixed’ kit groups required more time and effort to debug and implement solutions (ripping/resewing connections), the ‘flex’ kit groups were able to accomplish this more quickly through continual experimentation with multiple solutions (unhooking/hooking connections). As such, the latter group ended up solving more circuitry issues within the single session (8) than the former (3). However, students using the fixed-state kits demonstrated a greater sense of accomplishment and satisfaction after solving these physical circuit issues than the other group, who instead seemingly approached these moments of failure with a greater sense of playfulness and experimentation.

We illustrate the affordances and constraints of using fixed and flex-state construction kits to promote student learning through moments of failure. Future work should consider how to integrate the advantages of both types of kits within maker activities, considering the increased popularity of construction kits in the classroom. In this way, we can provide avenues where youth are not only free to create a wide range of projects, but also tinker and learn through a wide range of mistakes.

Authors

• Debora Lui, University of Pennsylvania

• Gayithri Jayathirtha, University of Pennsylvania

• Yasmin B. Kafai, University of Pennsylvania