View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Caught on Camera: Youth and Educators' Noticing of and Responding to Failure within Making Contexts

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Caught on Camera: Youth and Educators' Noticing of and Responding to Failure within Making Contexts
Language: English
Authors: Simpson, Amber, Anderson, Alice, Maltese, Adam V.
Source: Journal of Science Education and Technology. Oct 2019 28(5):480-492.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2019
Sponsoring Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF)
Contract Number: 1623452
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Youth, Science Teachers, Academic Failure, Correlation, Teacher Student Relationship, Data Collection, Schools, Museums, After School Programs, Science Instruction
DOI: 10.1007/s10956-019-09780-0
ISSN: 1059-0145
Abstract: A lot of attention has been given to the role failure plays in learning and innovation. Yet, we know little about the conditions necessary for the experience to result in positive outcomes. In this study, we sought to answer three research questions: (1) What is the relationship among attend, interpret, and respond when experiencing failures within making-related activities? (2) How does youths' and educators' noticing of failure within making-related activities differ by tasks? (3) How does youths' and educators' noticing of failures within making-related activities differ by context? To address these questions, we used data collected from youths participating in making experiences in three different contexts: schools, a science museum, and an afterschool program run by science museum educators. Analysis of approximately 90 h of video revealed differences in how youths and educators attended, interpreted and responded to failures that suggest differences in the sophistication of their response. Educational implications from these findings support less direct oversight by educators and increased use of techniques to have the youth demonstrate positive troubleshooting behaviors.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2019
Accession Number: EJ1227885
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGe5DvrtzqY7wESIq07bNIoAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDNT2_EL3o5Ft3UyyKAIBEICBmwhgZ93gOYm_ocSTfOtXAiwK2CqYHs2VKCM0a4A9gk7zDLEX_0I4rpbN-h0n7BKfFzY1Iol3LMYXmyuWCNwGzCnr9TFcQ8MFLdYxyx72F5rOc4ukVsqeso1ymvQOTm0iIfhuuKbiV0nrjJyYsElo_J6cI11ts3VaM7qOtuTa4hkB1Ni1YE6tswIYyFV2fwSg3uY6VnPYN8OWZonR
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0138477923;4n601oct.19;2019Sep09.02:06;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0138477923-1">Caught on Camera: Youth and Educators' Noticing of and Responding to Failure Within Making Contexts </title> <p>A lot of attention has been given to the role failure plays in learning and innovation. Yet, we know little about the conditions necessary for the experience to result in positive outcomes. In this study, we sought to answer three research questions: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) What is the relationship among attend, interpret, and respond when experiencing failures within making-related activities? (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) How does youths' and educators' noticing of failure within making-related activities differ by tasks? (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) How does youths' and educators' noticing of failures within making-related activities differ by context? To address these questions, we used data collected from youths participating in making experiences in three different contexts: schools, a science museum, and an afterschool program run by science museum educators. Analysis of approximately 90 h of video revealed differences in how youths and educators attended, interpreted and responded to failures that suggest differences in the sophistication of their response. Educational implications from these findings support less direct oversight by educators and increased use of techniques to have the youth demonstrate positive troubleshooting behaviors.</p> <p>Keywords: Failure; Making contexts; STEM; Video analysis</p> <p>Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s10956-019-09780-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.</p> <p>Current rhetoric about the role that failure plays in learning (Kapur [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref4">32</reflink>]), fine arts (Egılmez and Engur [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref5">20</reflink>]), and human development (Lahey [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref6">35</reflink>]) tends not to debate the merits of failure, but rather its inevitability. How one responds to failure, what supports are available, and what impact it has on future action are questions ripe for exploring in multiple fields. Learning is commonly suggested as one outcome of failure, but this raises many questions such as the following: In what contexts, and with what supports does this occur? In what activities, subjects, or problems is failure best positioned to support learning?</p> <p>Our study is situated within <emph>making</emph> contexts—experiences and places that invoke the creation of a tangible (e.g., robot) or digital object (e.g., computer program) for purposeful means (e.g., to solve a problem) or for play. This paper is from a larger study where we are exploring how failure can be a critical step in the process toward deeper learning and engagement with STEM. As such, we define failure broadly as an experience where the result does not match the outcome expected by the maker or the maker's interpretation of the outcomes expected by the designer of the activity/project. We acknowledge that expected outcomes may change through the process of making and through interactions with peers and adults, and that failures can range from minuscule or microfailures (e.g., iterations in Scratch) to global or macrofailures (e.g., robot does not work in presentation). While some would push back on our use of the word failure based on its historic negative connotation, we are exploring the potential for altering the conception that, for adults and youth alike, failure in designing and making is a negative experience (e.g., Lottero-Perdue and Parry [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref7">39</reflink>]). Recent research on making contexts is questioning the role of "failure" for its positive and/or negative potential (e.g., Ryoo and Kekelis [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref8">46</reflink>]) and as an inherent part of making (Maltese et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref9">41</reflink>]; Martin [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref10">40</reflink>]). Similarly, researchers across a variety of disciplines and contexts consider failure as a learning opportunity and often define as a deviation from some norm or standard, as well as a deviation from a personal goal or expectation (Simpson et al. [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref11">51</reflink>]). Hence, in using another term, we dodge shifting the view of failure as paralyzing, stigmatizing, and something to fear, but as something to embrace within design iterations while working toward a final object and broadly within the context of making.</p> <p>This study contributes to this conversation and adds to the sparse scholarship specific to failure in making contexts. To date, the majority of studies on failure with adolescents are situated within academic (Cornell et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref12">15</reflink>]) or sporting contexts (Sagar and Lavallee [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref13">47</reflink>]). In addition, the results of failure studies to date are typically based on quantitative measures of performance (e.g., reading comprehension; Law [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref14">36</reflink>]) or problem scenarios (e.g., Kapur [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref15">31</reflink>]) as opposed to observational and/or interview data from students themselves. Utilizing the noticing framework with roots in mathematics education (Jacobs et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref16">30</reflink>]), we begin to address these gaps in the literature by posing the following research question: What is the relationship among <emph>attend</emph>, <emph>interpret</emph>, and <emph>respond</emph> when experiencing failures within making-related activities? We subsequently addressed the following two research questions: How does youths' and educators' noticing of failure within making-related activities differ by tasks? How does youths' and educators' noticing of failures within making-related activities differ by context? Contextual factors such as characteristics of the task and the learning context has been noted for facilitating or impeding experiences with errors and failure (Tulis et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref17">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>We believe that understanding and establishing a baseline understanding of how youth notice and experience failure within making contexts will be critical in increasing their resilience and persistence in these experiences and possibly more broadly in STEM, with possible positive effects on long-range goals toward developing an innovative and diverse workforce. Moreover, understanding how educators notice and respond to youths' failures within making context, we can detect moves that may hinder and/or support youths through the iterative design process. Not uncovering and highlighting experiences with failure may be harmful to the learning process (Bishop [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref18">8</reflink>]; Blikstein and Worsley [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref19">9</reflink>]; Kulič [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref20">34</reflink>], as cited in Antlová and Chudý [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref21">3</reflink>]) and youths' views of failure as detrimental and final as opposed to offering opportunities for creativity and innovation (Maltese et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref22">41</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0138477923-2">Perspective</hd> <p>Our analysis is guided by the recent research on professional noticing of children's mathematical thinking (Jacobs et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref23">30</reflink>]), which is typically grounded in research specific to practicing and prospective teachers (e.g., Amador [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref24">2</reflink>]; Authors [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref25">50</reflink>]) and not of youths' noticing of their own thinking, actions, and experiences. Professional noticing of children's thinking is composed of three inter-related actions—attend, interpret, and respond. We have adapted this three-part framework to focus on both educators' <emph>and</emph> youths' noticing of failure within making. <emph>Attend</emph>, within this study, refers to verbally identified moments of failure by either youth or educator; instances that identify or describe the failure. The use of GoPro cameras worn by youth that provided point of view perspective did not allow us to capture facial expressions which could indicate points of frustration for example (e.g., Grafsgaard et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref26">28</reflink>]). <emph>Interpret</emph> refers to moments when youth or an educator explain why the failure occurred. Interpretations may be informed or uninformed statements. <emph>Respond</emph> refers to verbal and/or non-verbal actions taken in response to failure. In using the GoPro cameras, non-verbal actions were limited to hand gestures (e.g., pointing) or interactions with the object (e.g., reposition the arm of the robot) as opposed to facial expressions and body positioning. Consider the following scenario in which two sixth grade students are creating an electronic cardboard piano using a Makey-Makey, which is a small microcontroller. At one point, one of the "keys" played more than one note, which is a failure in the sense that the key is meant to play only one note.</p> <p>Penny: Why is it playing more than one note?</p> <p>Kat: Because they're touching. Hang on, I'm touching them, that's why.</p> <p>Kat moves some of the wires around so they are not touching.</p> <p>In this scenario, Penny <emph>attended</emph> to the failure and through her question, described the failure. In addition, Kat <emph>interpreted</emph> the reason for why the key was playing more than one note and proceeded to <emph>respond</emph> to the failure through making an informed change to the design. We contend that all three components are present and interrelated in each case of failure, which is evident in the above example. On balance, the three components may not always be observable. For instance, we realize that the acts of attending and interpreting are often not verbally articulated, but instead are cognitive actions. However, similar to observing thinking and understanding, we believe utilizing this framework affords us an opportunity to understand more about a process that is a black box. It provides a way to "unpack the in-the-moment decision making that is often hidden, but foundational to the complex and challenging view of [making]" (Jacobs et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref27">30</reflink>], p. 173).</p> <p>Noticing moments of failure through the lens of attend, interpret, and respond is similar to Kulič's ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref28">34</reflink>]; as cited in Antlová and Chudý [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref29">3</reflink>]) work on learning from erroneous acts in that certain conditions should be met for learning to occur: detection of the error (attend), identifying the type of error and distance from the expected goal, interpreting and understanding the contradiction between the error and the expected goal (interpret), and correction or improvement based on the contradiction (respond). Kulič ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref30">34</reflink>]) further contended that errors either provide information that will lead toward a correction or will not provide the information needed to lead toward a correction. Related to our study on failure, this may be referred to as productive or unproductive failure or success; opportunities to learn through a problem-solving task versus opportunities to not learn from a problem-solving task, respectively (Kapur [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref31">32</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0138477923-3">Methods</hd> <p>Data for this study were collected from three locations that implement maker programming for youth, an informal educational setting, a formal educational setting, and a hybrid setting (i.e., informal learning center running after-school programming in a formal setting). The informal educational setting was a science museum located in the Midwestern region of the USA. The museum offered free making activities on the museum floor every Saturday from 12:00 to 4:00. Between six and eight tables were set up around the museum with different activities, and two facilitators were stationed at each table. Tables could accommodate up to six youth and their adult companions. Visitation to the tables ranged from a few minutes to over 60 min. The formal educational setting was a public-school setting located in the mid-Atlantic region of the USA and included one elementary and one middle school. Data from this setting were collected during a 1-week period in spring and within an afterschool program and eight classrooms with the latter being a part of youths' daily school activity. The afterschool program was facilitated by a teacher at the school and ran for 1.5 h, 4 days of the 1-week period and there was typically 5 youth in attendance each day. The classes were between 45 min to 1 h and 20 min. In this setting, the youth to educator ratio averaged 20:1. Finally, the hybrid setting, in the Midwestern USA, was an afterschool program at a Title 1 elementary school conducted by two educators from a local science center as opposed to educators from a school setting. After introducing the task for the day, the two museum educators, as well as staff from the afterschool program, would often spend one-on-one time with individual students. The average youth to educator ratio was 4:1. Data from this setting was collected 2 days a week for 45 min each day over a 6-week period.</p> <p>The settings for data collection in this study were all facilitated learning contexts. Therefore, pedagogical strategies and supports were not necessarily consistent across the three settings, although the learning practices and general approach to facilitation was similar in some respects. Informal learning spaces (e.g., museums, makerspaces) tend to employ staff or volunteers to facilitate visitors' experiences, sometimes in highly structured programs (e.g., a stage show or guided tour) but also in more unstructured interactions as visitors explore activities and objects in the museum. Facilitated experiences in informal learning settings are often guided by the values of providing a visitor-centered experience (i.e., personally meaningful, inspired by one's own interests or experiences) that deepen or extend learning (Falk and Dierking [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref32">26</reflink>]). Training for facilitators varies by institution, but best practices often include inquiry-based questioning techniques, support, and guidance through suggestions or additional information and emotional attunement with learners (for a review, see Pattison and Dierking [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref33">44</reflink>]). Formal education spaces where maker education occurs often draw on project-based learning and constructionist approaches (Wardrip and Brahms [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref34">56</reflink>]). While there are some learning frameworks to inform facilitation in maker education (Wardrip and Brahms [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref35">55</reflink>]; Petrich et al. [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref36">45</reflink>]), the field is still in the early stages of development. In addition, we also did not provide any professional development or pedagogical strategies specific to youths' failure experiences in making tasks as our exploratory study was focused on what was happening within the natural learning environment.</p> <hd id="AN0138477923-4">Participants and Data Source</hd> <p>Youth in grades 4–8 (ages 9–14) volunteered to wear a GoPro Camera mounted on a chest harness while engaged in making activities. As a research team, we utilized these cameras in previous studies as the use of GoPro cameras supply the research team with a 170° view of youths' verbal and non-verbal communication from their point of view (Burris [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref37">11</reflink>]). When we were recording with cameras, youths and instructors were asked to engage in the activities as they normally would. To be clear—this data collection was not part of any type of intervention study—all of the maker programming was offered as it would be if our research team was not there. In total, we collected 49 videos averaging 15–20 min in length in the museum setting, 223 videos averaging 45–50 min in length in the public-school setting, and 54 videos averaging 30–35 min in length in the hybrid setting. As such, more videos were collected in the school setting as we collected data in several classes during any time period throughout a school day. For this study, we analyzed the 49 videos from 49 youth participants (15 females, 34 males) in the museum setting (average of 10 per activity), 82 videos from 65 youth participants (32 females, 32 males, 1 agender) in the school setting (approximately 5 per activity), and 31 randomly selected videos (approximately 3 per activity) from 11 youth participants (4 female, 7 male) in the hybrid setting. As implied, a few youths in the formal school setting and hybrid setting wore the GoPro camera for more than a single activity. After we analyzed a subset of the corpus of video data (50%), we did not see a need to analyze additional videos as we reached saturation and were not observing anything new in terms of coding scheme detailed below (Fusch and Ness [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref38">27</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0138477923-5">Data Analysis</hd> <p>Prior to analyzing the data from this study, the research team analyzed pilot data on making activities from the same hybrid setting collected the previous year (Simpson et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref39">50</reflink>]). From the pilot data and keeping the framework in mind, we developed and refined a codebook, and continued to refine it during initial analysis of the video data. Based on our framework, we developed and coded for instances of <emph>attend</emph>, <emph>interpret</emph>, and <emph>respond</emph>. For instance, the following failure occurred while Wilson was constructing a 3D model of a fidget spinner in 123Design. At one point, Wilson was attempting to shrink the object in the software when he stated, "How do I shrink this down, I can't shrink it. It won't work." He continued trying to get the object to shrink for about a minute, but then turned the computer to the educator and asked, "Can you help to shrink this down, make it shorter?" In this instance, we coded the first statement as <emph>attend</emph> as Wilson articulated a struggle with the design. We did not code for <emph>interpret</emph> as there was no verbal indication of Wilson considering why the object would not shrink. We coded Wilson's non-verbal and verbal actions in the second half of the example as <emph>respond.</emph></p> <p>From our initial codes, we added the code <emph>failure avoidance</emph> to note instances when youth asked for help prior to engaging in any making activity. Additionally, through our continual conversations while coding, we discussed the difference between a researcher-observed failure, coded as <emph>[failure]</emph>, and a participant-observed failure, coded as <emph>failure</emph>. While instances of <emph>[failure]</emph> are more than likely not viewed as failures by youth participants, we included them within this analysis as these were typically "small" failures, or micro-failures that happened within the process of making and not necessarily attended to by participants. For example, we noted instances of failures due to youths' choice of or knowledge of material and/or tools such as using a boxcutter as opposed to scissors to cut through thick cardboard. Refer to Online Resource 1 for the codebook.</p> <p>Two individuals not a part of the research team, but familiar with making and tinkering, were trained to code the videos as well. Each external member and the first author coded videos until 85% agreement of failure instances and transcribed moments for codes was met; therefore, establishing interrater agreement using another statistic such as Cohen's weighted kappa was difficult. Cohen's weighted kappa is a useful measure of reliability between coders, considering both agreement by chance and disagreement (Craighead and Weiner [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref40">16</reflink>]). For videos in which agreement was less than 85%, the first author met with the respective coder to answer questions and discuss disagreements. All videos were coded by the two external members and Author 1 using VideoAnt, a free online video annotation tool developed by the University of Minnesota ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref41">54</reflink>]). Next, all codes were transferred to Excel for further analysis.</p> <p>To address Research Questions 1–3, we conducted a second round of coding to note youths' and educators' sophistication levels in terms of attending, interpreting, and responding to failures (see Online Resource 2). As noted by Barnhart and van Es ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref42">5</reflink>]), this allowed us to explore the relationship among the three components. In other words, how is attending in a particular manner impacting how youth and educators respond to a failure. Initially, levels were created through holistically examining the way participants were attending and interpreting to failures (Saldaña [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref43">48</reflink>]). Moreover, for responding, we created a list of observable verbal and non-verbal actions such as: <emph>tries same approach</emph>, <emph>asks for help</emph>, <emph>stops</emph>, <emph>starts anew</emph>, <emph>troubleshooting</emph>, <emph>tries something new/design change</emph>, <emph>provides directions</emph>, <emph>provides several suggestions</emph>, and so forth<emph>.</emph> As a team, we coded 104 randomly selected instances of failure across the three settings, noting areas of strengths and weaknesses in our coding scheme. Through this discussion, several issues were raised and discussed, refining the sophistication levels accordingly. For example, we noted that facilitators frequently responded with a comment that was irrelevant to the failure. This was added as a level 0 sophistication level for respond. Additionally, we changed level 1 sophistication level for interpret from "Any evidence provided is irrelevant" to "Statement of noticing/acknowledging. Claim allows others to know person is paying attention." This change came about through discussions around the notion of irrelevant interpretations in the context of failures. We then recoded these same 104 instances of failure; utilizing Cohen's weighted kappa (Cohen [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref44">12</reflink>]) to establish agreement at.90. Once we ensured that we viewed the codes similarly, the first author coded the remaining failure episodes. As an example of the second phase of coding, consider the following scenario from above</p> <p>Penny: Why is it playing more than one note? (<emph>Attend)</emph></p> <p>Kat: Because they're touching. Hang on, I'm touching them, that's why. (<emph>Interpret)</emph></p> <p>Kat moves some of the wires around so they are not touching. <emph>(Respond)</emph></p> <p>Here we coded the attending statement by Penny as a high level of sophistication as the statement is specific to this instance of failure and not vague such as "The piano's not working." We are aware of why it is not working. The next statement by Kat was coded as a high level of sophistication for interpreting as Kat used relevant evidence to support claim of why failure occurred; namely, the keyboard is playing more than one note because the wires are touching. Lastly, Kat's non-verbal response was coded as high level of sophistication as she made a change to the design relevant to the failure and based on her interpretation. As another example of this coding process, we next present a failure during a making task where the goal was to create a robot with an adjustable pen attachment to create a drawing. The youth, Mary, turns on the robot and the arm swings violently before falling off the robot. Mary stated, "Oh crap" and proceeded to re-attach the arm in the same position with no apparent change. We have some indication of the failure through Mary's verbal reaction and coded as a moderately low level of sophistication as Mary does not describe the failure on any level. Interpretation was coded as low sophistication as it was not verbally observable. We coded the respond as moderately low level of sophistication as there was no change to the design based on the failure.</p> <p>Specifically, to answer Research Question 1 regarding the relationship among attend, interpret, and respond when youth experience failures within making-related activities, we began with descriptive statistics to get an overview of the data. Next, Kendall's tau (<emph>τ</emph><subs><emph>B</emph></subs>) was calculated across the noticing components (attend × interpret; attend × respond; interpret × respond), which measures the strength of dependence between two ordinal variables. A positive tau value indicates the two variables increase or decrease with one another while a negative tau value indicates an inverse relationship between variables. For example, if the relationship between attending and interpreting was <emph>τ</emph><subs><emph>B</emph></subs> =.604 (<emph>p</emph> <.01), this would indicate a significant and positive relationship. High sophistication in attending would more than likely co-occur with high sophistication in interpreting and low sophistication in attending with low sophistication in interpreting. These analyses are similar to that of Barnhart and van Es ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref45">5</reflink>]) in examining prospective teachers' ability to attend, interpret, and respond to students' thinking.</p> <p>Next, we conducted a Kruskal–Wallis test to examine if significant differences existed in how youth and educators attended, interpreted, and responded by task (i.e., Research Question 2) and by context (i.e., Research Question 3). The Kruskal–Wallis test, a non-parametric counterpart to the ANOVA, is used to evaluate differences across three or more groups on a single, continuous variable when normality cannot be assumed (Craighead and Weiner [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref46">17</reflink>]). For this analysis, we combined sophistication levels by youth and educators as a few of the sophistication levels were low in number. For instance, moderately high sophistication level of respond for youths was combined with moderately high sophistication level of respond for educators, indicated as R2 and P2 in Fig. 1, respectively. In addition, we reduced the number of potential combinations or patterns from 502 to 64 to afford us the opportunity to identify differences. If differences existed, we followed with a post hoc Mann–Whitney <emph>U</emph> test to evaluate pairwise differences. The Mann–Whitney <emph>U</emph> test is used when there is no expectation about the normality of the distribution and to compare groups on a single variable, basically a nonparametric version of <emph>t</emph> test (Weiner and Craighead [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref47">57</reflink>]). Since follow-up tests consisted of three separate pairwise tests, we controlled for type I error by utilizing a Bonferroni correction (<emph>a</emph> = 3/.05 =.017). A Bonferroni, or similar statistical correction, is used to minimize the chances of making a type I error by creating a more conservative alpha value to use when determining significance of individual tests (Abdi [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref48">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>To address the second research question where we are interested in how youths' noticing of failure during making may differ by tasks, we categorized the multitude of making tasks within this dataset into three categories utilizing the maker activities noted by Bevan ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref49">7</reflink>]). The first category was <emph>tinkering</emph>, which included tasks considered student-centered; tasks that provided little instruction and constraints, and allowed youth to explore. Examples from the data included: create something using LEGOs and littleBits (small, magnetic, and pre-assembled circuit boards; littleBits Electronics Inc. 2018); build a 3D structure using small wooden dowels and rubber bands; and make anything using any available material and tools that are of interest to you. The second category was <emph>assembly</emph>. Tasks here included step-by-step procedures and limited youths' opportunities to explore and tinker freely. Examples included: sewing an LED operated bookmark, engineering (or taking apart) a tennis shoe, and making a LEDcopter. The third category was <emph>creative construction</emph>, which included tasks comprised of some procedures, but also provided youth choices and opportunities to explore. Examples of this category included: an art project using circuitry to illuminate their drawing and a "robotic" arm made from cardboard.</p> <hd id="AN0138477923-6">Results</hd> <p>We begin with general information regarding the instances of failure before discussing our results for each research question. Within the 223 videos, we coded 545 instances of failure across making contexts and making tasks (see Fig. 1). To read the figure, consider tinkering tasks in the museum setting. Of the 49 videos coded, 51% included tasks that allowed for exploration (i.e., tinkering). The 77% indicates the percentage of failure instances from the museum setting.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1Column 1 is the cumulative percentage frequency for the number of videos analyzed by context and task (n = 162). Column 2 is the cumulative percentage frequency of failure instances by context and task (n = 545)</p> <p>As indicated in the figure, it was less likely in the museum and hybrid settings that we noted instances of failures in assembly tasks or tasks that are highly structured versus tinkering tasks. This is not surprising because assembly tasks provide procedural steps with few or no opportunities to fail while tinkering tasks allow for student-driven play and personal investigation. In the school setting, instances of failure were more often noted in creative construction tasks or tasks that begin with instruction, but then allowed for student choice and creativity.</p> <hd id="AN0138477923-7">Research Question 1</hd> <p>The first research question examined the relationship among the three noticing components of failure, Fig. 2 illustrates the flow patterns from attend to interpret to respond with the noticing components being the most common at the top of the figure to the least common at the bottom of the figure.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2Sankey diagram illustrating youths and educators' patterns of failure noticing (i.e., attend to interpret to respond). 0 = low sophistication, 1 = moderately low sophistication, 2 = moderately high sophistication, 3 = high sophistication</p> <p>The figure highlights several aspects of how youths and educators attend, interpret, and respond to experiences of failure in making contexts. Generally, educators were more likely not to attend, interpret, and respond to youths' experiences with failure while engaged in making. This may be dependent on the youth to educator ratio or on educator's decision not to engage with youth upon witnessing a failure. In terms of attending, youth were more likely not to verbally attend to the failure (A0; 35%) or provide a vague statement describing the failure (A2; 29%) such as "This is not staying together." Following attending to a failure, youth typically did not verbally interpret the reason for the failure (N0; 75%). When responding, youth often asked for help before trying a strategy or not making a change to their design (R1; 39%). This followed most often after not vocalizing why the failure occurred. On the other hand, stopping or quitting the making activity, or freely handing their object to another, were the least common responses from youths (R0; 6%). Educators were likely not to respond to youths' failures in a manner that provided opportunities for exploration of different strategies as they tended to take ownership of the object and fix issues without dialog (P0) or provide direct instructions or a single suggestion in how best to proceed (P1). Table 1 highlights the eight most common patterns. Taken together, Fig. 2 and Table 1 illustrate "mixed" noticing in the sense of higher levels of sophistication in one or two components and low levels of sophistication in other components (Barnhart and van Es [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref50">5</reflink>]; van Es [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref51">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>Most common noticing patterns (n = 545)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"><p>Pattern</p></th><th colspan="3"><p>Levels of sophistication</p></th><th rowspan="2"><p>Percentage</p></th></tr><tr><th><p>Attend</p></th><th><p>Interpret</p></th><th><p>Respond</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>A0-N0-R1</p></td><td><p>Low</p></td><td><p>Low</p></td><td><p>Moderately low</p></td><td><p>13%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>A2-N0-R1</p></td><td><p>Moderately high</p></td><td><p>Low</p></td><td><p>Moderately low</p></td><td><p>10%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>A0-N0-R3</p></td><td><p>Low</p></td><td><p>Low</p></td><td><p>High</p></td><td><p>7%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>A1-N0-R1</p></td><td><p>Moderately low</p></td><td><p>Low</p></td><td><p>Moderately low</p></td><td><p>6%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>A1-N0-R3</p></td><td><p>Moderately low</p></td><td><p>Low</p></td><td><p>High</p></td><td><p>5%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>A3-N0-R1</p></td><td><p>High</p></td><td><p>Low</p></td><td><p>Moderately low</p></td><td><p>4%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>A2-N0-R3</p></td><td><p>Moderately high</p></td><td><p>Low</p></td><td><p>High</p></td><td><p>4%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>A0-N0-P1</p></td><td><p>Low</p></td><td><p>Low</p></td><td><p>Moderately low</p></td><td><p>3%</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The analysis thus far does not highlight the iterative process inherent in making as these patterns were not singular instances. As such, it was typical for youth in this study to experience multiple failure patterns or iterations within one making task (i.e., micro-failures), which built upon and informed one another (or not) to the desired outcome. We provide one such example here from a tinkering task in the museum setting; namely, create a simple LEGO robot "doodler" with adjustable pen/pencil attachment to create unique drawings. We start this scenario at a point when the LEGO doodler is working appropriately but is not drawing on the paper spread across a table. Joan attended and interpreted this failure as "Oh, I think I need to lower this a bit" (A1 and N2, respectively) and continued by lowering the marker so it touches the paper (R3). In this instance, Joan responded in a relevant manner to the observed failure. Once the marker was lowered, pieces of the LEGO doodler flew off. "Well that thing flew off" (A2). Joan placed the piece that flew off back on the end of the motor; thus, not making an informed change to the design (R1). Then, 17 s later, the same piece flew off the doodler. Joan attended, "No. Something's gotta fly off" (A2). Joan proceeded again by placing the piece back on the end of the motor (R3), stating "Stay in there." Twelve seconds later, the motor came off the LEGO doodler. The educator at the table attended to this failure. "It comes back to that motor coming off" (T3). Joan took time to examine another doodler sitting on the table and stated, "That's good. I'm going to try that" and proceeded to make changes (R3) for approximately 3 min when pieces of the doodler flew off again once turned on. Joan stated, "Now that thing flies off" (A2) and placed the piece back on in its previous position (R1); hence, not using the previous outcomes to make an informed change. Such rapid iterations from one experience of failure to another were common across our dataset.</p> <p>Next, we analyzed the relationship among the sophistication levels of each pair of noticing components, namely, attend × interpret, attend × respond, and interpret × respond. Our intent is to determine if one noticing component is dependent on another; and if so, how strong the relationship is. For example, does the manner in which youths and educators respond depend on how they interpret an experience with failure? We did not anticipate that low or moderately-low sophistication levels in some components would inhibit youth from exhibiting high or moderately-high sophistication levels in other components since the process of coding for attending and interpreting was dependent on verbal articulation. For instance, as Fig. 2 illustrates, there are instances where youth did not verbally attend (A0) or interpret (N0) an instance of failure yet made a relevant design change or took time to troubleshoot the failure (R3).</p> <p>The first pair of noticing components analyzed was <emph>attending</emph> and <emph>interpreting</emph> to instances of failure. Kendall's tau B coefficient indicates a positive and statistically significant relationship (<emph>τ</emph><subs><emph>B</emph></subs> =.163, <emph>p</emph> <.001). This indicates a low sophistication level of <emph>attend</emph> is unlikely to lead to a high sophistication of <emph>interpret</emph> and vice versa. In other words, in this study, low sophistication levels of attend more often co-occurred with low sophistication levels of interpret or high sophistication levels of attend more often co-occurred with high sophistication levels of interpret. The second pair of noticing components, <emph>attending</emph> and <emph>responding</emph>, was not statistically significant (<emph>τ</emph><subs><emph>B</emph></subs> =.035, <emph>p</emph> =.326), implying that participants do not have to verbally describe the failure to make a highly sophisticated response and vice versa. The third pair of noticing components investigated was <emph>interpreting</emph> and <emph>responding</emph> to instances of failure. The relationship between these components is positive and statistically significant (<emph>τ</emph><subs><emph>B</emph></subs> =.241, <emph>p</emph> <.001). Similar to the first pair of noticing components examined, a low sophistication level of interpret was likely to co-occur with a low sophistication level of respond while a high sophistication level of interpret was likely to co-occur with a high sophistication level of respond. As illustrated in Fig. 3, it appears that interpretation of why a failure occurred may be the bridging component between high sophistication levels of attending and high sophistication levels of responding to a failure during making. In light of findings from this research question, we further considered how the making context and the making task impacted how youths and educators noticed instances of failure.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3Interaction between noticing components around failure . * p <.001</p> <hd id="AN0138477923-8">Research Question 2</hd> <p>The second research question examined how youths and educators' patterns of failure noticing (i.e., attend to interpret to respond) differed based on the tasks (i.e., assembly, creative construction, tinkering). In conducting a Kruskal–Wallis test, a significant difference was found for how youths and educators attended, interpreted, and responded to instances of failure based on the task (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref52">2</reflink>, 545) = 7.434, <emph>p</emph> =.024). Follow-up tests for patterns of sophistication levels across the patterns indicated a significant difference between creative construction tasks and tinkering tasks (<emph>U</emph> = 178,267, <emph>p</emph> =.007). Table 2 highlights differences in patterns of sophistication levels between the two tasks based on a percentage ratio of at least 1.5 (Cohen et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref53">13</reflink>]). For example, the percentage ratio for the first pattern was found by dividing 18% by 12%, which is 1.5, indicating that youth engaged in a tinkering task are 1.5 times more likely to exhibit a low level of attend, a low level of interpret, and a moderately low level of response than youth engaged in a creative construction task. Choosing a percentage ratio of 1.5 as a benchmark indicates that more often differences in patterns of sophistication levels were minimal (3 out of 64 possible patterns or about 5%). Even though the total frequencies of these patterns are rather low, the differences in activities suggest further exploration is warranted.</p> <p>Frequency of noticing patterns by activity type: creative construction and tinkering</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th colspan="3"><p>Patterns</p></th><th rowspan="2"><p>Creative construction (<italic>n</italic> = 151)</p></th><th rowspan="2"><p>Tinkering (<italic>n</italic> = 280)</p></th><th rowspan="2"><p>Percentage ratio</p></th></tr><tr><th><p>Attend</p></th><th><p>Interpret</p></th><th><p>Respond</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Low</p></td><td><p>Low</p></td><td><p>Moderately low</p></td><td><p>18 (12%)</p></td><td><p>49 (18%)</p></td><td><p>1.5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Moderately low</p></td><td><p>Low</p></td><td><p>High</p></td><td><p>6 (4%)</p></td><td><p>28 (10%)</p></td><td><p>2.5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>High</p></td><td><p>Low</p></td><td><p>Moderately low</p></td><td><p>16 (11%)</p></td><td><p>5 (2%)</p></td><td><p>5.5</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0138477923-9">Research Question 3</hd> <p>The third research question examined how youths' and educators' patterns of failure noticing (i.e., attend to interpret to respond) differed by context (i.e., schools, museum, hybrid). Similar to the second research question, a significant difference manifested among the three contexts for how youths and educators attended, interpreted, and responded to instances of failure (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref54">2</reflink>, 545) = 23.228, <emph>p</emph> <.001). When conducting pairwise comparisons, significant differences existed between formal and informal contexts (<emph>U</emph> = 8630, <emph>p</emph> <.001), as well as between formal and hybrid contexts (<emph>U</emph> = 16,611, <emph>p</emph> <.001). Table 3 illustrates the differences in percentage ratio of at least 1.5 by contexts. For example, youth in the school context exhibited a high level of <emph>attend</emph>, low level of <emph>interpret</emph>, and moderately-low level of <emph>respond</emph> three times more frequently than youth in the museum and hybrid contexts. Again, using a benchmark percentage ratio of 1.5, differences in patterns of sophistication levels among contexts were negligible (5 out of 64 possible patterns or about 8%).</p> <p>Frequency of noticing patterns by context</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th colspan="3"><p>Patterns</p></th><th rowspan="2"><p>Schools (<italic>n</italic> = 189)</p></th><th rowspan="2"><p>Museum (<italic>n</italic> = 123)</p></th><th rowspan="2"><p>Hybrid (<italic>n</italic> = 233)</p></th><th rowspan="2"><p>Ratio</p></th></tr><tr><th><p>Attend</p></th><th><p>Interpret</p></th><th><p>Respond</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Moderately high</p></td><td><p>Low</p></td><td><p>Moderately low</p></td><td><p>26 (15%)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>11 (9%)</p></td><td /><td><p>1.7</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Moderately low</p></td><td><p>Low</p></td><td><p>High</p></td><td><p>6 (3%)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>19 (15%)</p></td><td /><td><p>5.0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>High</p></td><td><p>Low</p></td><td><p>Moderately low</p></td><td><p>17 (9%)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>4 (3%)</p></td><td /><td><p>3.0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Low</p></td><td><p>Low</p></td><td><p>Moderately low</p></td><td><p>19 (10%)</p></td><td /><td char="(" align="char"><p>51 (22%)</p></td><td><p>2.2</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>High</p></td><td><p>Low</p></td><td><p>Moderately low</p></td><td><p>17 (9%)</p></td><td /><td char="(" align="char"><p>8 (3%)</p></td><td><p>3.0</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0138477923-10">Discussion and Conclusion</hd> <p>In this study, we adapted the professional noticing of children's mathematical thinking to consider the relationship of how youths and educators attend, interpret, and respond when experiencing failures within making-related activities, and further how this may have been impacted by the type of task and setting. We discuss our results below by research question.</p> <hd id="AN0138477923-11">Research Question 1</hd> <p>The purpose of this question was to explore the relationship of attending, interpreting, and responding to experiences of failure within making activities. We often observed youths not verbally attending to or interpreting failures. To be clear, this does not imply that youths did not attend or interpret to experiences with failure. We acknowledge that not asking youth to vocally articulate their thought processes when experiencing failure during the process may be considered a limitation, but we also contend this is a strength as it allowed us to understand and establish youths' experiences with failure as a natural part of the making process. In other words, our study highlights in-the-moment decision making of youths and educators that is foundational to making. We question generally how youths' noticing of failure might change their overall experience if attend and interpret was an explicit expectation of educators for youth to verbalize and write down. Further, should this practice be modeled by educators as well? Educators in our study generally had a positive view of failure within the making context (Maltese et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref55">42</reflink>]). For some, they would intentionally talk about the ideas of failure in their setting through a process-oriented setting as opposed to a product-oriented environment. For others, failure was viewed as youth not learning anything and/or not wanting to be engaged in the making process; "a failed learning experience." So how do such views of failure influence the manner in which educators attend, interpret, and respond to youths' experiences with failure? It is likely that educators' perceptions of failures do not necessarily align with their in-the-moment decision making, such as taking ownership of the object (e.g., Zacharos et al. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref56">58</reflink>]). Yet, how might educators' responses to failure moments shift after engaging in deep reflection?</p> <p>These are vital questions to consider in light of youths' responses to failures as we frequently observed youths asking for help immediately following a failure or not making a design change but repeating the same, flawed approach. We believe some of the practice of asking for immediate help may stem from a culture of learned helplessness and instant gratification. Dating back to 1973, Dweck and Reppucci described learned helplessness in children as the perception between what they do and what actually happens, which parallels our definition of failure. Yet, Dweck and Reppucci continued by describing this perception as potentially perceiving a situation beyond one's control. Children may "view outcomes as relatively independent of what they do, they are 'helpless'" (p. 115). Persistence in situations that are perceived as hopeless may lead to wasted time and resources, as well as feelings of disappointment (Lench and Levine [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref57">38</reflink>]) and shame (McGregor and Elliot [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref58">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>This desire for help may also be shaped by the interactions with educators within making. As observed in this study, educators were likely to respond by taking ownership of the design and making changes without any verbal interaction with youth or by providing direct instruction of how to proceed. Therefore, educators in this study situated themselves as "expert" by not encouraging youth to persist through experiences with failure. In a form of behavioral conditioning, this type of interaction reinforces for youth that when they ask for help, they know educators are likely to solve it for them. This contradicts the inherent nature of making as a space for youth and an "influential other" to work alongside one another, each contributing to the activity and the exploration at hand (e.g., Brahms and Crowley [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref59">10</reflink>]). In addition, Blikstein and Worsley ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref60">9</reflink>]) noted, "surely making mistakes is a powerful learning experience, but simply assuming that students will learn from their own mistakes is an oversimplification" (p. 72). From a social constructivist perspective, we believe that it is the interaction between learner and educator that is most likely to get a novice past micro- and macro-failures. We believe that professional development and continued growth as a maker educator can provide opportunities to learn about appropriate and productive instructional practices to respond to youths' failures (Maltese et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref61">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our analysis further indicated a significant relationship between high sophistication level of attend to high sophistication level of interpret (and vice versa) and high sophistication level of interpret to high sophistication level of respond (and vice versa). Does this imply that youths and educators' articulation (or not) of why a failure occurred (i.e., interpret) is the essential component? Is this the necessary component to making an informed design change as opposed to a design change that may or may not be relevant to the failure? Is interpreting the noticing component within failure that leads to powerful learning experiences? Barnhart and van Es ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref62">5</reflink>]) found a similar result with prospective educators and contend that "analysis [interpretation] is what gives reason to the other two skills and distinguishes them as part of effective reflection rather than simply seeing and reacting" (p. 91).</p> <p>Future research could address the above questions as our study highlighted the rapid iteration between one failure experience to another, which may be considered as unthoughtful persistence—seeing and reacting without reflection. Such unthoughtful persistence was also highlighted within youths' repetitive nature of trying the same design change approach to failures; thus, not taking the time to interpret the failure and make a design change informed by and relevant to the failure. If youths are not learning from and through experiences with failure, we may be missing opportunities to shape their potential path in becoming and being a STEM professional (Simpson and Maltese [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref63">49</reflink>]) and being thinkers and producers as opposed to consumers (Dougherty [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref64">18</reflink>]). On the other hand, rapid iterations between micro-failures may be framed positively as youth performing the same action repeatedly "in an attempt to determine if an element of similarity will emerge" (Ellis [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref65">21</reflink>], p. 238). This phenomenon should be considered in the context of making as "students frequently engaged with problems in ways that originally appeared to be unproductive, later were able to develop powerful results" (Ellis [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref66">21</reflink>], p. 257).</p> <p>Moreover, we contend that the manner in which youth attend, interpret, and respond is shaped by who they are (e.g., gender, culture) and their experiences as makers. Within making activities, novices may feel "helpless," frustrated and disempowered when the task and material is believed to be beyond one's skills and ability levels, as well as when educators are not easily accessible within the context (Blikstein and Worsley [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref67">9</reflink>]). Female makers may attribute failures within making environments to their perceived inabilities while male makers may attribute failures to an object or another individual (Cooper [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref68">14</reflink>]; Koch et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref69">33</reflink>]). Parental views of failure as either enhancing or debilitating shape and inform their child(ren)'s views of failure as an experience to learn from or an experience that inhibits performance, respectively (Haimovitz and Dweck [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref70">29</reflink>]). Differences may also be explained by youth's developmental levels and/or age (e.g., Swinton et al. [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref71">52</reflink>]). How do maker educators account for all these differences and use them as strengths in making activities, particulary in drop-in making contexts or short-term making contexts (e.g., 1 week)? How do these differences impact the sophistication levels of youth?</p> <hd id="AN0138477923-12">Research Question 2</hd> <p>This question considered how the making tasks may have shaped the manner in which youths and educators attended, interpreted, and responded to failures. As argued by Tulis et al. ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref72">53</reflink>]), such contextual factors have been shown to facilitate or impede one's experiences with failure. In this study, a significant difference existed between creative construction tasks and tinkering tasks in terms of youths' and educators' patterns of failure noticing (i.e., attend >> interpret >> respond). Creative construction was a task where youth were provided with some step-by-step procedures, then allowed to explore on their own and/or with peers. Therefore, educators provided youths with necessary and appropriate skills and knowledge to enter the task, while also limiting excessive levels of frustration (Blikstein and Worsley [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref73">9</reflink>]). Tinkering tasks on the other hand provide opportunities for youth to explore with little to no instruction and limitations. Such tasks have been found to lead to frustration, lower self-esteem, and limited learning opportunities (e.g., Kapur [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref74">32</reflink>]), particularly for students who are novice makers and disproportionately females and minorities (Blikstein and Worsley [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref75">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, when examining where such differences may lie within patterns of failure noticing, few existed (see Table 2). In addition, no significant differences manifested for youths and educators' attending, interpreting, and responding to failures between assembly tasks (or procedural-oriented making tasks) and creative construction tasks, nor between assembly tasks and tinkering tasks. Therefore, we contend that in general, youths' and educators' patterns of failure noticing across making tasks are more similar than different and may not be due to the task itself but other factors such as familiarity with making, self-esteem, motivation, environment, relationship with educators, and relationship with tools and materials (Ben Zvi Assaraf [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref76">6</reflink>]; Blikstein and Worsley [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref77">9</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0138477923-13">Research Question 3</hd> <p>This question considered how the making contexts may shape the manner in which youths and educators attended, interpreted, and responded to failures. A statistical difference was found between the formal making context and the informal making context, as well as between the formal making context and the hybrid making context. In this study, the formal making context was various classes within a middle school in which institutional structures imposed limitations and constraints such as time, accountability, and evaluation of product (e.g., Dougherty [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref78">18</reflink>]; Eshach [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref79">25</reflink>]). On the other hand, the informal making context was a space where youths volunteered to participate as long as they desired and were not being evaluated on their performance or end product. Similar to Research Question 2, in examining the patterns, there were few differences found between formal making contexts and informal making contexts. The same can be said for differences in formal making contexts and hybrid making contexts—further supporting the notion that additional factors should be considered beyond the making contexts and making tasks. One theoretical grounding to address this complex system is cultural–historical activity theory (CHAT; Engeström [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref80">22</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref81">23</reflink>]) as this theory allows us to examine the relations between how youths and educators navigate their experiences with failures, but also how these relations are mediated by the materials and tools, explicit and implicit rules, division of labor or hierarchy of power, and the broader maker community (Barab et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref82">4</reflink>]). In addition, researchers may be interested in comparing and contrasting the manner in which youth and educators attend, interpret, and respond to failures in spaces that define themselves as do-it-yourself (DIY) spaces, fablabs, and hacker spaces.</p> <hd id="AN0138477923-14">Limitations</hd> <p>While the results of this study highlight ways in which youths and educators notice and respond to failures within different making tasks and contexts, there are several limitations. First, we contend that the "black box" (Jacobs et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref83">30</reflink>]) of mental processes still existed as we did not require youths and educators to verbally attend and interpret failures within making activities. We contend that not using a think-aloud approach allowed us to establish a baseline for how youths and educators are attending, interpreting, and responding to failures. Research could extend this more broadly to consider how youth notice and respond to failures in disciplines such as mathematics, engineering, computer science and art, to name a few. Second, this study was conducted across multiple contexts, but is not generalizable to all variations of those contexts. Future research could utilize a similar approach to data collection and data analysis to continue the conversation of noticing of one's failures within making activities established in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0138477923-15">Implications for Practice</hd> <p>In moving forward, we propose several failure-based pedagogical moves for maker educators regardless of learning environment based on our findings from this project. First, one should remove themselves from the situation. The youth participants in this study exhibited behaviors of persistence when an educator was not nearby or on the other hand, exhibited behaviors of learned helplessness because an educator was nearby. Youths in this study rarely quit the making activity immediately following a failure, or what we termed a micro-failure. Therefore, in becoming a peripheral member of the makerspace, we contend that youth will persist through relying on self or through relying on their peers. Second, we encourage maker educators to <emph>interpret</emph> experiences with failure orally as a means to foster youths' interpretation of failures orally and visually. As suggested in our findings, interpretation is the linchpin between high sophistication levels of attend and respond. This, too, should create a learning environment where failures, errors, and/or mishaps are appreciated and praised as opposed to shamed and discouraged. Third, we encourage educators to record their facilitation strategies as a form of professional development as one's perceptions and reflections of enactment are typically not aligned with their implementation and ideal instructional making practices (e.g., Lee [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref84">37</reflink>]). In sharing our findings with facilitators in our larger study, they expressed appreciation for the opportunity to reflect on what can be a charged topic in an exploratory and non-judgmental process. Many educators stated they had consciously or unconsciously avoided developing a consistent educational practice around failure. By intentionally focusing on the learning experiences of youth and how facilitation techniques support or hinder youth persistence with failures, educators found they were able to further clarify their thinking about failure as a part of making.</p> <hd id="AN0138477923-16">Funding information</hd> <p>This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1623452. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.</p> <hd id="AN0138477923-17">Compliance with Ethical Standards</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0138477923-18">Ethical Approval</hd> <p>All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.</p> <hd id="AN0138477923-19">Electronic supplementary material</hd> <p>Graph: (PDF 86 kb)</p> <p>Graph: (PDF 87 kb)</p> <hd id="AN0138477923-20">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0138477923-21"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abdi H. Bonferroni and Šidák corrections for multiple comparisons. Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics. 2007; 3: 103-107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Amador J. Professional noticing practices of novice mathematics teacher educators. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2016; 14; 1: 217-241</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Antlová, A., & Chudý, Š. (2017). An error as a positive element in a learning process. Unpublished manuscript.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref82" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barab SA, Barnett M, Yamagata-Lynch L, Squire K, Keating T. Using activity theory to understand the systemic tensions characterizing a technology-rich introductory astronomy course. Mind, Culture, and Activity. 2002; 9; 2: 76-107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref42" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Barnhart T, van Es E. Studying teacher noticing: Examining the relationship among pre-service science teachers' ability to attend, analyze and respond to student thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2015; 45: 83-93</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref76" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Ben Zvi Assaraf O. Learning from failure: A case study of where an extracurricular science program went wrong. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2011; 20; 5: 592-607</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref49" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bevan B. The promise and the promises of making in science education. Studies in Science Education Advanced online publication. 2017; 53; 1: 75-103</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref18" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bishop K. Framing failure in the legal classroom: Techniques for encouraging growth and resilience. Arkansas Law Review. 2017; 70; 4: 959-1006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref19" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Blikstein P, Worsley M Peppler K, Halverson ER, Kafai YB. Children are not hackers: Building a culture of powerful ideas, deep learning, and equity in the maker movement. Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments. 2017: New York, NY; Routledge: 64-79</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brahms, L., & Crowley, K. (2016). Learning to make in the museum: The role of maker educators. In Peppler K., Halverson E., & Kafai Y. (Eds.) Makeology in K-12, higher, and informal education: The maker movement and the future of learning. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burris A. A child's-eye view: An examination of point-of-view camera use in four informal education settings. Visitor Studies. 2017; 20; 2: 218-237</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen J. Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin. 1968; 70; 4: 213-220</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen L, Manion L, Morison K. Research methods in education. 20117: New York; Routledge</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cooper J. The digital divide: The special case of gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2006; 22; 5: 320-334</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cornell DG, Krosnick JA, Change LC. Student reactions to being wrongly informed of failing a high-stakes test. Educational Policy. 2006; 20; 5: 718-751</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Craighead, E. W., & Weiner, I. B. (Eds.). (2010a). Kappa coefficient. In The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology (Vol. 2). Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0484. Accessed 7 Feb 2019.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Craighead, E. W., & Weiner, I. B. (Eds.). (2010b). Kruskal-Wallis test. In The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology (Vol. 2). Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0491. Accessed 7 Feb 2019.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dougherty D Honey M, Kanter DE. The maker mindset. Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of science innovators. 2013: New York, NY; Routledge: 7-11</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dweck CS, Reppucci ND. Learned helplessness and reinforcement responsibility in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1973; 25; 1: 109-116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Egılmez HO, Engur D. An analysis of students self-efficacy and motivation in piano, based on different variables and the reasons for their failure. Educational Research and Reviews. 2017; 12; 3: 155-163</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ellis AB. A taxonomy for categorizing generalizations: Generalizing actions and reflection generalizations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 2007; 16; 2: 221-262</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engeström Y. Learning by expanding. 1987: Helsinki; Orienta-konsultit</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engeström Y Engeström Y, Miettinen R, Punamaki R. Activity theory and individual and social transformation. Perspectives on activity theory. 1999: Cambridge, MA; Cambridge University Press: 19-38</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Es E Sherin M, Jacobs V, Philipp R. A framework for learning to notice student thinking. Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers' eyes. 2011: New York, NY; Routledge: 134-151</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eshach H. Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: Formal, non-formal, and informal education. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2007; 16; 2: 171-190</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Falk JH, Dierking LD. Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. 2000: Lanham, MD; Alta Mira Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fusch PI, Ness LR. Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report. 2015; 20; 9: 1408-1416</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grafsgaard J, Wiggins JB, Boyer KE, Wiebe EN, Lester J. Automatically recognizing facial expression: Predicting engagement and frustration. 2013: Memphis, TN; International Conference on Educational Data Mining</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haimovitz K, Dweck CS. Parents' views of failure predict children's fixed and growth intelligence mind-sets. Psychological Science. 2016; 27; 6: 859-869</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacobs VR, Lamb LL, Philipp RA. Professional noticing of children's mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 2010; 41; 2: 169-202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kapur M. Productive failure. Cogn InstrCognition and Instruction. 2008; 26; 3: 379-424</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kapur M. Examining productive failure, productive success, unproductive failure, and unproductive success in learning. Educational Psychologist. 2016; 51; 2: 289-299</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koch SC, Müller SM, Sieverding M. Women and computers. Effects of stereotype threat on attribution of failure. Computers & Education. 2008; 51; 4: 1795-1803</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kulič, V. (1971). Chyba a učení: Funkce chybného výkonu v učení a v jeho řízení. [Mistake and learning: Malfunction in learning and in control.] Prague, Czech: SPN.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lahey J. The gift of failure: How the best parents learn to let go so their children can succeed. 2016: New York, NY; Harper</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Law YK. The role of attribution beliefs, motivation and strategy use in Chinese fifth-graders' reading comprehension. Educational Research. 2009; 51; 1: 77-95</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee HS. Facilitating students' problem solving in a technological context: Prospective teachers' learning trajectory. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education. 2005; 8; 3: 223-254</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lench HC, Levine LJ. Goals and responses to failure: Knowing when to hold them and when to fold them. Motivation and Emotion. 2008; 32; 2: 127-140</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lottero-Perdue PS, Parry EA. Perspectives on failure in the classroom by elementary teachers new to teaching engineering. 2014: Indianapolis, IN; Paper presented at the 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin L. The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER). 2015; 5; 1: 30-39</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maltese, A., Simpson, A., & Anderson, A. (2018). Failing to learn: The impact of failures during making activities. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 30, 116-124. 10.1016/j.tsc.2018.01.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maltese, A., Simpson, A., & Anderson, A. (2019). Learning while failing during maker activities. Structured poster presentation at the annual research meeting of the American Educational Research Association: Toronto, Canada.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGregor HA, Elliot AJ. The shame of failure: Examining the link between fear of failure and shame. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2005; 31; 2: 218-231</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pattison SA, Dierking LD. Staff-mediated learning in museums: A social interaction perspective. Visitor Studies. 2013; 16; 2: 117-143</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Petrich M, Wilkinson K, Bevan B Honey M, Kanter DE. It looks like fun, but are they learning?. Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators. 2013: New York, NY; Routledge: 50-70</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryoo JJ, Kekelis L. Reframing "failure" in "making" the value of play, social relationships, and ownership. Journal of Youth Development. 2018; 13; 4: 49-67</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sagar SS, Lavallee D. The development origins of fear of failure in adolescent athletes: Examining parental practices. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2010; 11; 3: 177-187</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldaña J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. 20132: Los Angeles, CA; Sage</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simpson, A., & Maltese, A. V. (2017). "Failure is a major component of learning anything.": The role of failure in the career development of STEM professionals. Journal of Science and Technology Education, 26(2), 223-237. 10.1007/s10956-016-9674-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simpson, A., Burris. A., & Maltese, A. V. (2017). Youth's engagement as scientists and engineers in an after-school tinkering program. Research in Science Education. [Advanced Online Publication.] 10.1007/s11165-017-9678-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simpson, A., Maltese, A. V., Anderson, A., & Sang, E. (Forthcoming). Failures, errors and mistakes: A systematic review of the literature. In E. Vanderheiden & C.-H. Mayer (Eds.), Mistakes, Errors and Failures: Their Hidden Potentials in Cultural Contexts.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swinton AD, Kurtz-Costes B, Rowley SJ, Okeke-Adeyanju N. A longitudinal examination of African American adolescents' attributions about achievement outcomes. Child Development. 2011; 82; 5: 1486-1500</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tulis M, Steuer G, Dresel M. Learning from errors: A model of individual processes. Frontline Learning Research. 2016; 4; 2: 12-26</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> University of Minnesota. (2018). VideoAnt. Retrieved at https://ant.umn.edu/documentation</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wardrip, P. S., & Brahms, L. (2015). Learning practices of making: developing a framework for design. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 375–378). ACM.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wardrip, P. S., & Brahms, L. (2017). Taking making to school: A model for integrating making into classrooms. In K. Peppler, E. R. Halverson, & Y. B. Kafai (Eds.), Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments (pp. 97–106). New York, NY: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weiner IB, Craighead EW. Mann-Whitney U test. The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology. 20103: Hoboken, NJ; John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from Psychological Experiments Online database: 960-961</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zacharos K, Koustourakis G, Papadimitriou K. Analysing the implemented curriculum of mathematics in preschool education. Mathematics Education Research Journal. 2014; 26; 2: 151-167</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Amber Simpson; Alice Anderson and Adam V. Maltese</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref84"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1227885
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Caught on Camera: Youth and Educators' Noticing of and Responding to Failure within Making Contexts
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Simpson%2C+Amber%22">Simpson, Amber</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Anderson%2C+Alice%22">Anderson, Alice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Maltese%2C+Adam+V%2E%22">Maltese, Adam V.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Science+Education+and+Technology%22"><i>Journal of Science Education and Technology</i></searchLink>. Oct 2019 28(5):480-492.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: National Science Foundation (NSF)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: 1623452
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Youth%22">Youth</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Teachers%22">Science Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Failure%22">Academic Failure</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Data+Collection%22">Data Collection</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Schools%22">Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Museums%22">Museums</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22After+School+Programs%22">After School Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Instruction%22">Science Instruction</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10956-019-09780-0
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1059-0145
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: A lot of attention has been given to the role failure plays in learning and innovation. Yet, we know little about the conditions necessary for the experience to result in positive outcomes. In this study, we sought to answer three research questions: (1) What is the relationship among attend, interpret, and respond when experiencing failures within making-related activities? (2) How does youths' and educators' noticing of failure within making-related activities differ by tasks? (3) How does youths' and educators' noticing of failures within making-related activities differ by context? To address these questions, we used data collected from youths participating in making experiences in three different contexts: schools, a science museum, and an afterschool program run by science museum educators. Analysis of approximately 90 h of video revealed differences in how youths and educators attended, interpreted and responded to failures that suggest differences in the sophistication of their response. Educational implications from these findings support less direct oversight by educators and increased use of techniques to have the youth demonstrate positive troubleshooting behaviors.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1227885
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1227885
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10956-019-09780-0
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 480
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Youth
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Failure
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Data Collection
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Museums
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: After School Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Instruction
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Caught on Camera: Youth and Educators' Noticing of and Responding to Failure within Making Contexts
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Simpson, Amber
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Anderson, Alice
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Maltese, Adam V.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 10
              Type: published
              Y: 2019
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1059-0145
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 28
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Science Education and Technology
              Type: main
ResultId 1