Content uploaded by Jennifer Mansfield
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jennifer Mansfield on Sep 16, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
This is a final draft version. Please note the final citation for the published chapter is:
Mansfield, J., & Gunstone, R. (2021). When Failure Means Success: Accounts of the Role of Failure in the
Development of New Knowledge in the STEM Disciplines. In A. Berry, C. Buntting, D. Corrigan, R.
Gunstone, & A. Jones (Eds.), Education in the 21st Century: STEM, Creativity and Critical Thinking (pp.
137-158). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85300-6_9
WHEN FAILURE MEANS SUCCESS:
ACCOUNTS OF THE ROLE OF FAILURE IN THE DEVELOPMENT
OF NEW KNOWLEDGE IN THE STEM DISCIPLINES
Jennifer Mansfield & Richard Gunstone
Monash University
Abstract: Often failure is not inconsistent with success, in both the advancement of the
disciplines of Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) and in the teaching and
learning of these disciplines in education contexts. This chapter specifically seeks to explore
the ways failure is represented in each of the STEM disciplines, and through this to infer the
role and nature of failure in the development of new knowledge in each discipline. We start
by discussing the notion and variety of failures, why failure is often perceived negatively, yet
is an essential element of the learning process. The nature of failure in each of the STEM
disciplines is explored in turn. In science, failure is commonplace as science is essentially
driven by a desire to understand the world around us. Science can be context independent
rather than design focused. Therefore, the end product that is communicated consists of the
knowledge generated and the ‘successful’ process that led to it. Failures are important aspects
of the process, but are seldom considered desirable or worth publishing. We contrast with the
role of failure in engineering and technology, where failure is celebrated as being an integral
part of the design process and demonstrates rigour of the testing and process. Failure in maths
involves both certainty and failure in its quest for a solution. The fundamental premise of
maths could be argued to include finding a solution to a problem or developing skill as
compared to focusing heavily on generating knowledge for the sake of generating knowledge
per se. The role of failure in school learning of STEM disciplines is considered briefly.
Keywords: Failure, success, STEM education, Science, design process
2
INTRODUCTION
In the everyday world, the common view of failure is that it has no merit and does not lead to
anything of worth. Yet failure is often consistent with success. This is apparent in both the
advancement of the disciplines of Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) and
in the teaching and learning of these disciplines in education contexts. This chapter
specifically seeks to explore the ways failure is represented in each of the STEM disciplines,
and through this to infer the role and nature of failure in the development of new knowledge
in each discipline.
The way failure is used and valued impacts on the ways the discipline is represented
to and perceived by those outside the discipline (see, for example, Manalo & Kapur, 2018).
Thus, these representations impact on the ways people then perceive and relate to failure
within education contexts that involve these disciplines. This chapter considers the role of
failure in each of the separate S, T/E and M disciplines. With T and E considered to be
sufficiently similar in terms of the fundamental epistemologies of each, and so the nature and
recognition of ‘failure’ in success in each, that these are considered together. The chapter
concludes with a brief consideration of the role of failure in school learning of the STEM
disciplines.
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss if and how failure is represented as integral to
the development of new knowledge in each S, T/E and M discipline, and to then consider
how the public illustrations of, and value seen for, failure are often not aligned with these
representations. This purpose has implications for how failure in these disciplines is then
valued and articulated in education settings. It is outside the scope of this chapter to seriously
3
explore the ways in which failure is interpreted and portrayed in school-based versions of the
STEM disciplines. Instead, we briefly consider the ways in which teachers could start to
develop awareness of the value and role of failure in the separate disciplines to bring into
alignment the ways in which failure is represented in the STEM education disciplines and
make links with the themes of creativity and critical thinking that are central to this book (see
Ellerton & Kelly, Chapter 2, this volume).
Before our considerations of the way failure is represented in each of the separate
disciplines, it is important to first consider in some detail how the notion of ‘failure’ is more
generally understood, perceived and used.
WHAT IS FAILURE?
“It is impossible to live without failing at something … unless you live so cautiously that you
might as well not have lived at all – in which case you fail by default.” J K Rowling
Failure, or the lack of success,
1
is often perceived as something undesirable, particularly in an
era where we are constantly measured and ranked according to our successes and failures. In
schools and universities, students are measured and ranked by the extent to which they have
successfully answered questions on tests. These successes are further translated into ranking
scores (e.g., Australian Tertiary Admission Ranking—ATARs, or Grade Point Averages—
GPAs) which are used as commodities of academic quality and thus as leverage into further
study or employment. In schools, failure to spell a word correctly eliminates you from a
spelling bee competition. In the sporting field, failure to perform well in sport trials means
you are less likely to be picked for a sporting team. Getting too many questions wrong on a
driver’s licence test means you are deemed unable to drive a car. In academia, scholars are
1
The first synonym given for “failure” in Roget’s thesaurus is “non-success”
4
measured and ranked on metrics (number of publications, student satisfaction rankings,
number of successful grants, etc.), with higher numbers being perceived as indicators of
higher proficiency. Indeed, universities jostle for positions on global ranking scales, based on
the successes of their academic staff. Throughout our lives, failure and success are used as
means of measuring those who can against those who can do better. It is no wonder that we
are conditioned to see failure as being undesirable. Yet it is our journey of failures that can
often lead to growth and improvement, thus leading to greater success.
This chapter aims to consider the representation of failure in each of the S, T/E and M
disciplines and its value and importance for growth, development and advancement of that
discipline. We argue that the ways in which failure is spoken about outside a discipline are
not necessarily representative of the role failure plays within the discipline.
We begin by considering the meanings associated with ‘success’ and ‘failure’. Then
we elaborate some aspects of the general ways ‘failure’ is represented in science,
technology/engineering and mathematics, and briefly consider failure as a path to learning.
Later in the chapter we consider specifically how failure is perceived and represented in the
formal and informal literatures about the nature and development of knowledge in each of the
separate STEM disciplines, and the flow on effect of these representations into primary and
secondary schooling. We argue that failure is an integral and essential aspect of knowledge
development, particularly in many of the STEM disciplines, yet is rarely represented as such
in some of those disciplines. This has implications for the validity of the ways in which
significant aspects of the nature of some STEM disciplines are represented in schools. This
can lead to a lack of appreciation of failure as a necessary ingredient in growth and
development.
5
DEFINING SUCCESS AND FAILURE
“Every failure is a stem to success.” William Whewell
To succeed or be successful at something is based on the capacity to achieve a “favourable or
desired outcome” (Success, n.d.). An idealised or desired state is often used as a benchmark
for measuring success or degrees of success. Failure, the antithesis of success, describes
moments where success is not achieved, that is, the “omission of occurrence of performance”
or “falling short or being deficient” (Failure, n.d.). Portrayed in this way, it is easy to see why
failure is generally perceived as negative and undesirable. Who would be satisfied with being
seen as ‘not performing as expected’ or to ‘fall short’ of some idealised benchmark?
Firestein (2015) emphasises that “like so many important words, failure is much too
simple for the class of things it represents. Failure comes in many flavours, and strengths, and
contexts, and values, and innumerable other variables” (p. 7). This variety is represented
through terms like error, mistake, blunder, faux pas, misstep, botch, disaster, let-down,
catastrophe; the list goes on. These words exist to differentiate between, and categorise,
different aspects of the process of striving for success. To illustrate the breadth of this
diversity, Firestein (2015) suggests a continuum of failures, from simple lessons (e.g., ‘take
more care next time’) to larger ‘character building’ failures, and from small and easily
dismissed failures, to large, catastrophic and harmful failures. Firestein’s list does not claim
to be exhaustive, but to more simply offer an exemplar range of failure types (see Table 9.1).
Table 9.1 Examples of the diversity of failures, adapted from Firestein (2015).
Waste of time errors or mistakes, e.g., can arise from stupidity, indifference, naivety
Errors from which we learn simple lessons, e.g., take more care next time, check the
answers more carefully
6
Painful, character building errors which lead to life lessons, e.g., failed marriage, failed
business venture
Failures that lead to unexpected discoveries, e.g., serendipity, accidental failure
Failures that are informative, e.g., does not work one way, must work another
Layers of failure: failures which pile up and learning is related to what does not work
compared to what does work
Failures that were successes for a while then were not, e.g., alchemy
Stein failure, e.g., failures which leave a wake of interesting stuff behind
Failures that are an end in themselves
Catastrophic failures
The variety of failures suggested by Firestein (2015) highlights that while some
failures are undesirable and unavoidable, for the most part failures can lead to learning.
Smaller ‘blunders’ or avoidable failures can be described as mistakes or errors and can occur
due to incompetence or lack of judgement which is considered ‘wrong’. Examples include
things like incorrect placement of a decimal point in a mathematics problem, saying the
wrong thing at an inappropriate moment or dropping a coffee mug and spilling its contents on
the floor. As simple or trivial as these ‘errors’ may sometimes seem, at times these result
from some fundamental lack of knowledge as to the socially appropriate way of acting, or a
muscular problem, or an inadequate conceptual understanding.
The essential point of the examples in the paragraph above is that there are many
different ways of defining the nature and degree of failure (e.g., trivial to catastrophic), as
well as the degree of seriousness of the products of failure (e.g., near misses to high numbers
of casualties).
Regardless of how it is communicated, failure is integral to the process of learning. In its
many forms, failure helps us recognise something new, unexpected and valuable. It can help
us learn how to (or how not to) behave in the future, if only we recognised the lesson. Viewed
in this way, failure is valuable and inextricably linked to the development of knowledge (in
an individual or in a whole domain of knowledge), as John Dewey noted in one of his many
7
oft-quoted epithets: “Failure is instructive. The person who really thinks learns quite as much
from his failures as from his successes” (Dewey, Boydston & Rorty, 2008, p. 206). Yet
despite these powerful and realistic arguments, failure is often labelled with pejorative terms
and discussed using negative prose; failure is often perceived as something undesirable and to
be avoided. We argue that this perception of failure is very often incorrect.
What failure is not
While considering what failure is, Cole (2011) suggests it is also helpful to consider, at least
in broad terms, what failure is not. Drawing on the work of Maxwell (2000), Cole outlined
four characteristics of what failure is not, which now are summarised:
● Failure is not always avoidable: All of us will fail at some time, probably more
frequently than we succeed.
● Failure is not some ‘freaky event’: There is usually a process that leads to failure,
such as not studying for a test, being careless, not realising there is a lack of clarity in
our writing or not adequately understanding some concept or process.
● Failure is not always negative, even though it is very commonly seen to be: Some
failures are the result of honest mistakes; these are not shameful. While we are
conditioned to feel that mistakes are undesirable (e.g., when growing up, most
individuals hear rhetorical questions/statements of the form “what’s wrong with you?”
or “get your act together”), not all mistakes are negative. Often we fail because we do
not adequately know something or because we repeat past mistakes because we have
not learned from them, or we deliberately continue to do the wrong thing. It is
extraordinarily rare for anyone to hear the suggestion “it’s OK to fail”.
● Failure is seldom catastrophic: Assuming that a failure is not literally fatal, “every
failure contains within it the seed of success – the opportunity to learn and improve”
8
(Cole, 2011, p. 21). Adversity often leads to success, as is clear from many accounts
of the development of new scientific knowledge or new technologies or other such
advances. Although some failures are no more than just failures and so best avoided,
other failures are valuable learning opportunities, if we choose to learn from them.
Why failure hurts
Humans generally do not like failure as it can highlight when we are incompetent, inaccurate,
ineffective or ‘wrong’ (Firestein, 2015). Failing can give rise to a multitude of emotions, such
as regret, guilt and shame (Cole, 2011), diminished perceptions of self (Conroy, 2003),
avoidance and reduced risk-taking behaviours (Cetin, Ilhan, & Yilmaz, 2014). These
emotions can in turn translate into reduced capacity to attempt new things, pursue study or
make career choices (Simpson & Maltese, 2017). When failure leads to regret, we focus on
past events rather than focusing on the future. Feelings of regret can affect our choices and
actions, including diminishing our propensity to take risks as we are anchored to the past. If
regret lingers it can turn into feelings of guilt, essentially the gap between how we behaved
and how we feel we ought to have behaved (Cole, 2011). Guilt can then turn into shame, such
as ‘I am a bad person’ or ‘I am a failure’. These feelings are toxic as they can easily become
linked to our identity, causing feelings of worthlessness and poor self-image. This can have
flow on effects on behaviour, which can result in feelings of emptiness, withdrawal,
loneliness and disempowerment (Cole, 2011). To deal with these emotions, Cole (2011)
suggests acknowledging mistakes, taking responsibility for them, remedying any
consequences (including forgiving ourselves and others, and apologising to others); then
learning from the mistake can be a productive way of moving forward.
9
Aside from the personally confronting nature of failure, representations of failure in
our schools and workplaces can also lead to failure aversion. Failure is often seen as
undesirable, something to be avoided, seldom discussed, acknowledged and shared and often
linked to our identity (Lottero-Perdue & Parry, 2017). Clark and Thompson (2013) suggest
that part of what makes failure so undesirable is the lack of acknowledgment of the role of
failure in our physical, written and oral communities. For example, in many research
contexts, failure is notably absent from research articles, marketing websites and
presentations. In a similar vein, Boutron, Dutton, Ravaud, and Altman (2010) identified up to
40% of ‘negative’ research findings are communicated in a positive light or dismissed as
anomalies in reports of the research, thus further highlighting our aversion to identifying
failure.
Yet when failure is spoken about, interest and curiosity is often piqued as this
resonates with our own sense of struggle. Hong and Lin-Siegler (2012) observed that
humanising scientists by representing their struggles (as compared to just showcasing their
achievements) increased students’ perceptions of scientists as hardworking, fallible
individuals who struggle. This change in perception led to improved student conceptual
development, interest and ability to solve complex problems.
While failure often carries negative connotations (Simpson & Maltese, 2017), it has
been agued as a central component of learning in a range of contexts (Kapur & Rummel,
2012). We now briefly note some of these before turning to the ways failure plays a role in
the development of new knowledge in each of the disciplines of STEM.
FAILURE IS THE JOURNEY TO LEARNING
10
“Courage allows the successful woman to fail – and to learn powerful lessons from failure –
so that in the end, she didn’t fail at all.” Maya Angelou
It is sad that failure is often viewed as undesirable as it is through failures and mistakes that
learning can abound (with this very often becoming possible only if one is willing to reflect
on the failure and its causes). Success often represents an end point, the culmination of a
journey of uncelebrated and underappreciated failures. Failures are an integral part of the
learning process, which ultimately helps us become successful.
Clark and Thompson (2013) suggest four underappreciated aspects of failure:
● Failure reflects good academic practice; failure often occurs at the boundaries of
innovation and progress.
● Failure is a teacher, helping to develop knowledge and skills, promoting personal
growth and career progression.
● Failure drives progress, such as development of research, leading to unexpected
avenues for inquiry and an opportunity to improve our work (Thomson & Kamler,
2012).
● Failure draws attention to injustice, drawing attention to unfair equalities which
can “masquerade as ability, merit or luck” (Tessman, 2009). Failure can be a
measure of discrimination.
The value of failure and its role in learning is generally becoming more recognised,
and in what is often labelled the ‘self-help literature’ more and more popular. For example,
Page (2011) talks about “failure chic”, with a plethora of popular books devoted to the value
of failure (examples include How to be a successful failure [Cole, 2011] and Failing
Forward: Turning Mistakes into Stepping Stones for Success" [Maxwell, 2000]).
11
Considerations of failure and its positive consequences are now also found in academic
literature. For example, in April 2011 the Harvard Business Review published a ‘failure
issue’ devoted to exploring the nature of failure (see https://hbr.org/archive-toc/BR1104).
ACCOUNTS OF THE ROLE OF FAILURE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE
KNOWLEDGE
“Science has an inside secret: we fail all the time.” Maryam Zaringhalam (2016)
When we look at the role and importance of failure specifically in science, we see a similar
story to that presented above. Success is preferential to failure, as evidenced by the
communication of successes over failures (there is no journal dedicated to reports of
scientists’ failures). The broad culture of science and the ways ‘failure’ is not portrayed are
well represented by use of the term “secret” in the epithet by Zaringhalam just above. Yet in
the quest for new knowledge, failure in science is highly likely and is commonly asserted to
be far more commonplace than success (e.g., Dreyfuss, 2019; Firestein, 2015; Parkes, 2019;
Zaringhalam, 2016, 2017). Innovation is necessarily risky, and with risk comes the likelihood
of failure. Yet a number of searches of peer reviewed science journals revealed an almost
complete absence of any discussion about failure in accounts of science research. However,
comments about the role and importance of failure in scientific endeavour were found to be
abundant in blogs and other forms of informal (and so not peer reviewed and less constrained
by long-term conventions) communication between research scientists.
Failure plays a large part in scientific endeavour. Yet research scientists claim that it
is difficult to observe and appreciate the role of failure in the development of new knowledge
due to the way science continues to be represented in formal publications, conference papers
and applications for research funding. The long established and formalised processes for
12
revealing new knowledge and other research conclusions very often report on completed
science (and thus on science successes), rather than offering an authentic view of the actual
processes of science that lead to the success (for elaboration about the lack of communication
about failure in science, see Dreyfuss, 2019; Maestre, 2019; Zaringhalam, 2019). As Parkes
(2019) suggests “comfortable science is an oxymoron. If we want to make new discoveries,
that means taking a leap in the dark – a leap we might not take if we’re too afraid to fail ….
Science is high-stakes” (p. 5). Zaringhalam (2017) elaborates:
Failure is the natural product of risk, and there’s nothing riskier than the pursuit
of ignorance—asking those big bold questions that probe the unknown. But while
the practice of science is riddled with failures—from the banal failures of day-to-
day life at the bench to the heroic, paradigm shifting failures that populate the
book called Failure—many scientists are uncomfortable with the idea. We
publish our innovations, the stories of how our ignorance led to success. Where
the “publish or perish” mantra prevails, these stories are essential to making a
name for ourselves and securing grant money. So there is little incentive to
replicate the work of others or report experimental failure. In fact, there is barely
a medium to publish these sorts of efforts, which are relegated to the bottom of
the file drawer. (para. 9)
In this context of constant pressure to publish (‘or perish’) and apply for more funding
, it is little wonder that most scientists are reluctant to spend time and effort communicating
failures, or that many scientists drop out of the profession after a few years (Dreyfuss, 2019),
or that people choose to not enter STEM professions in the first place (Simpson & Maltese,
2017).
Perception of failure can impact scientists’ work, their propensity (better, lack of
propensity) to communicate the role of failure in their work, and their longevity in the
profession. Maestre (2019) highlights the role that anxiety also exerts on scientists, which can
further limit communication of failure: “Focusing on success while living under continuous
rejection may put more pressure on the work of our graduate students and postdocs,
increasing their frustration and anxiety levels when their articles or applications are rejected”
13
(p. 5). If we want scientists to acknowledge and speak about the important role of failure, this
process needs to be valued in ways that de-stigmatise failure, and allow the forms of reward
structures that are currently only accorded to refereed (and so conventional) publications.
As a consequence of scientists’ aversion to being open about the role of failure in
their research, a large proportion of all scientific endeavour goes unreported (Parkes, 2019)
and a complete picture of science is therefore not possible (Zaringhalam, 2016). This not only
has ramifications for the work of scientists but also presents a distorted view of the work of
scientists to people outside science research. Importantly, these include most teachers of
school science, as well as other groups such as lay people (as consumers of science) and
individuals who might one day aspire to be scientists. Inaccurate and non-authentic portrayals
of the scientific endeavour cannot give a full and accurate picture of how science is actually
undertaken. The lack of recognition of the important and prevalent role of failure in science
can impact students’ choices to move into science as a career (Lin-Siegler, Ahn, Chen, Fang,
& Luna-Lucero, 2016; Whitlock, 2017). Stories of struggle can not only enhance the
awareness of failure in science, but have also been reported to have positive effects on
improving student motivation and performance in science, as students can then recognise
science and the nature of scientific endeavour as being closer to their lived reality than they
may have realised (Lin-Siegler et al., 2016).
A lack of understanding of the role of failure in the development and practice of
science can also have consequences well beyond the specific realms of science and science
education (and in the extreme, consequences in this century that were largely unimaginable
even just 50 years ago). The extended quote from Zaringhalam (2017) we have given just
above begins with “failure is the natural product of risk” (para. 9). One widespread use of
14
science that must always involve ‘risk’ (and so ‘failure’) is forecasting – of the weather to be
expected in the next week, of the future consequences of an individual’s medical condition,
of the magnitude of global temperature increases that will result from future global emissions,
and so on. Forecasting is necessarily a ‘probabilistic’ exercise, and cannot be absolute. The
combination of a lack of lay acceptance (and understanding) of the necessarily probabilistic
nature of (and so ‘risk’ in) forecasting in science-related matters and the increasingly litigious
nature of democratic societies has now led to what many see as extreme consequences. These
are well illustrated by the case of the earthquake in 2009 that caused major damage to the city
of L'Aquila in central Italy, and multiple human deaths. L’Aquila is in a region of ongoing
seismic activity. Six seismologists had attempted to forecast the then current level of seismic
risk to the city and its inhabitants shortly before the 2009 earthquake hit, with, for example,
one forecast assessing (forecasting) matters as ‘normal’ and indicating that inhabitants of this
region should remain in the region. Subsequently the six, and the one government official
responsible for sending the seismologists to the region to undertake the forecasting, were
convicted of multiple manslaughters and sentenced “to six years jail for having given false
assurances to the public before an earthquake hit…L’Aquila” (Davies, 2012, para. 2). This
was despite the undisputed fact that the current capacity of science to forecast earthquakes
resulting from earth movement along a specific fault is no more than probabilistic, and cannot
include any specific timeframe
2
. (Appeals resulted in the overturning of the convictions for
the seismologists in 2014 and for the government official in 2016.)
Failure in science is also evident in standard accounts of knowledge development
through stories of serendipity, happenstance and blunders (Livio, 2013), such as Fleming
2
This is well illustrated by reference to one of the most well-known fault lines, the San Andreas Fault, which
basically runs down the coastline of California. It is recognised by both seismologists and non-scientists in
California that it is highly likely that there will be another earthquake as catastrophic as that in San Francisco,
1908 or Los Angeles, 1857—but this may be next year or next century, and it may be anywhere along the Fault.
15
discovering penicillin in unwashed petri dishes (although such stories are almost always
represented in such simplified ways as to indicate that it is serendipity that is central and not
failure). Accounts of science consistently fail to communicate how “fortune favours the
prepared mind” (Louis Pasteur, emphasis added).
Another consequence of scientists’ unwillingness to be open about their failures (Dreyfuss,
2019) is the hindrance of the progress of science (Madisch, 2017). If scientists do not share
their failures (or even hold stronger positions about failure such as ‘failures are something
shameful’) then much scientific endeavour will consist of replication of previously
experienced failures. Parkes (2019) further asserts that knowing about failures would help
speed up scientific progress. Initiatives like open access publishing and being more open
about failures could help normalise the role of failure. Scientists have attempted to do this
through initiatives such as the free access website F1000 research (see
https://f1000research.com/), where scientists publish negative and null data results, or a CV
of failures, as a Princeton University Professor of psychology and public affairs, Professor
Johannes Haushofer did when he wrote a “CV of failures” (see
https://www.princeton.edu/~joha/Johannes_Haushofer_CV_of_Failures.pdf). While he had
intended this to be for his students, it surprisingly went viral (Swanson, 2016). The important
role of failure has also led to the development of the interdisciplinary Education for
Persistence and Innovation Centre (EPIC) at Teachers College Columbia University, led by
Professor Xiaodong Lin-Siegler. The core purpose of this centre is to study the critical role
that failure plays in innovation, learning, leadership and career progression (see
http://epic.tc.columbia.edu/).
ACCOUNTS OF THE ROLE OF FAILURE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF
TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING KNOWLEDGE
16
“Don’t read success stories, you will only get a message. Read failure stories, you will get
some ideas to get success.” Abdul Kalam
Kalam, the author of the quote above, was an aerospace engineer of renown (and later
President of India). The point made in the quote is in stark contrast to accounts of failure in
research in science, the role of failure is widely accepted and celebrated in the development
of new knowledge in technology and engineering. Thomas Edison, a technologist/engineer
researcher, not a research scientist, is claimed to have said, “I have not failed. I’ve just found
10,000 ways that won’t work”. This quote further reflects the very different broad culture
with respect to ‘failure’ in Technology and Engineering (TE). TE is driven by innovation and
is responsible for the multitude of human-made objects and structures that exist to enhance
our lives, yet the principles and processes of TE are seldom understood (Petroski, 1982).
Often, TE is used to create a design solution for a problem, but as Petroski (2006) elaborated,
the innovation and development of new technologies can also follow from the failures of
existing technologies to perform as we hoped or as promised. Failure therefore plays a role in
the development of new TE innovations, as testing something new to ensure it is fit for
purpose and is safe for use necessarily requires trial and error—rigorous, systematic and
controlled, it is true, but nevertheless an organised form of ‘trial and error’. Innovation
necessarily involves failure (Engel, 2018) and failure-tolerant environments are known to
nurture innovation (Townsend, 2010). In TE, failure also acts as a way of identifying areas
for improvement in innovative products and structural designs.
In science, failure is experienced but seldom spoken about; in sharp contrast, failure is
at the very heart and soul of technology and engineering. Common professional phrases like
‘tested or engineered to failure’ position mistakes (failure) and learning from failure as
essential parts of the design process, and accounts of this for specific design cases are present
17
in relevant literature (e.g., Gomoll, Tolar, Hmelo-Silver & Šabanović, 2018). Technology and
engineering draw on similar design processes to develop new initiatives, designs and
innovations. Although multiple models for engineering and design thinking have been
proposed, similarities in the design process are evident across these models, with testing,
failure and retesting being integral aspects of the models. A literature search identified eight
such detailed models (see Table 9.2). It seems likely to us that the level of detail in each of
these models is a consequence of the motivation for creating each model: to guide curriculum
or learning development relevant to design (for schools/undergraduate in eight cases, and for
graduate/professional learning in the ninth).
--------------------------------------------------------
insert Table 9. 2 in Landscape orientation about here
--------------------------------------------------------
There are some significant features common to many of the models in Table 9.2. All
but one start by identifying and describing a real-world problem or need or issue that is to be
the focus of the design task; the exception, the Stanford model, positions “empathising”
(understanding people within the context of the design task) as the very first step. In each
model the initial outcome of the first step is uncertain. So, the next step is to become more
informed about the problem/need/issue through ideation, imagining, researching the problem,
etc. Some of the models recognise that this step can be a non-linear process, where thinking
can jump back and forth between stages, such as moving between empathising, identifying a
need or problem, and generating knowledge about the problem as these processes are
undertaken at the same time.
The next step is to generate a prototype or model, or propose other appropriate forms
of possible solutions to the problem, etc. This is then followed by a testing and improvement
18
phase, where success and failure are used as measures of appropriateness of the design. This
in turn is followed by an improvement phase, where changes and redesign, based on data
obtained during testing of the model, take place. Each model finishes with some kind of
communication phase, where the design is shared with others. The Systems engineering
model (Table 9.2) goes a step further and considers issues related to the eventual disposal of
the final product of the design process after the end of its functional life (we infer this to be a
consequence of the very different and much more educationally advanced target group for
which this model has been created).
In each model, the process requires a degree of creative thinking (see Ellerton and
Kelly, Chapter 2, this volume), such as fluency and flexibility of thinking (especially in
ideation), originality to come up with new ideas, capacity to redefine and replace existing
ideas, and a willingness to accept uncertainty. The process also requires critical thinking to
make judgements about alternative prototypes and possible solutions.
Role of failure in the design process
“Failure is the key to success.” Michelle Obama
In a manner that is different to science, the work of engineers and technologists is heavily
scrutinised and subjected to public testing. Testing of an object or structure ensures the
design is fit for purpose and will work as intended. People can observe the fruits of an
engineer’s labours, but can also suffer the consequences if the design fails, such as when
bridges collapse or when a car does not start. The consequences of TE errors are very often
far more obvious than for other professions, such as scientists, mathematicians, lawyers or
accountants (Engel, 2018). There is also a difference in the design and development of
objects always intended to be produced for mass production, as compared with those objects
19
that are seen to be unique throughout the design process. Mass-produced objects often
undergo further debugging and evolution after they are released to the public (Petroski,
1982). On the other hand, larger civil engineering structures that are effectively unique, such
as a single bridge or a single building, need to be fit for purpose from the first stages of
construction. Learning from failure (so as to productively build on previous failures) plays a
pivotal role in any design process, and especially in examples such as large-scale engineering
projects which cannot be tested and consequently modified in design as they are built.
Failure analysis methods
“It’s the failure that leads to success, while prolonged success leads to failure.” Henry
Petroski
The role of failure as a learning tool in TE can be seen through engineering failure
investigations. There are many different investigation types, such as commercial (insurance
claims and contractual disputes), liability (to establish fault), accident (what happened and
who was to blame) and research (generic improvements and improving understanding)
(Matthews, 1998). The premise of failure analysis case studies is to critically analyse the
nature of a TE failure and thus to publicly offer a way for engineers (or other designers) to
examine, discuss, and share (including via publishing) detailed analyses, with the intent of
avoiding similar incidents and improving future related design. For example, with
engineering equipment, which usually has a mechanical basis, failure can take the form of
component fatigue (Matthews, 1998). Understanding the nature of failures of various
materials offers insights about future materials selection, and so be a better fit for a particular
purpose.
20
The articulation of failure cases is diverse. It is found in books (see for example
Jones, 1998) and dedicated journals, such as Engineering Failure Analysis, which accepts
papers that describe “the analysis of engineering failures and related studies”, and Case
Studies in Engineering Failure Analysis, a journal whose title makes clear the nature of the
papers it seeks. Dissemination of TE failures also frequently occurs through conferences (a
mode of dissemination that is of greater prominence and significance in engineering than in
many other fields, in part because forms of refereed conference proceedings are common),
such as the International Conference on Engineering Failure Analysis. Medicine has a failure
investigation process in the form of Morbidity and Mortality conferences (MMC) to analyse
adverse events, errors and shortcomings in patient care and treatment (Bal, Sellier, Tchouda,
& François, 2014). Sometimes analysis of failure is very public, as with the 1983 Challenger
space shuttle disaster (Rogers Commission Report, see
https://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/genindex.htm).
As well as drawing on failure to ensure objects are fit for purpose, TE also involves
engineering objects to fail in predictable ways to ensure their safety and continued usefulness.
Petroski (1997) explains:
We actually want certain things to fail and break, for otherwise we would be
frustrated in their use and possibly even harmed by their existence. The challenge
to the engineer in this case is to design systems and devices that have well-
defined and predictable failure and breaking points so that such physical
phenomena as collapse or fracture happen in the way and at the time they are
supposed to. (p. 412)
Purposeful or built-in failure mechanisms include things such as fuses, pressure
valves, cracks and purposeful gaps in bridges and pavements. Used in this way, failures are
designed into objects to act as a ‘fail safe’ to ensure products and structures are engineered
for maximum usefulness and safety. Failure in this instance has different ramifications
21
compared to science, where failure is part of the process that leads to success, rather than
something that is purposefully worked into the design.
Failure in TE also has a different value attached to it than does failure in science.
Petroski (1997) argues this via the metaphorical use of the example of peeling an apple with a
knife, where the intended purpose of removing the peel is “to cause the failure of the skin to
continue to adhere to the fleshy part of the apple” (p. 413). Used in this way, ‘failure’ is used
to explain how the system has changed, in this case, by causing a failure that is desirable to
some (those who prefer apples to be eaten skinless). From this metaphor, Petroski points to
the ways in which failure at one point in a design or problem solving process is recognized as
often being a central step forward in the eventual completion of the design or crafting of a
solution to a problem.
ACCOUNTS OF THE ROLE OF FAILURE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF
MATHEMATICS KNOWLEDGE
Early in this chapter we quoted William Whewell’s succinct statement about failure and
success: “Every failure is a stem to success”. Whewell was a remarkable nineteenth century
polymath who made particularly important contributions to new knowledge in mathematics,
philosophy, and the nature and forms of the processes of development of new ideas in science
– to use Whewell’s terms, ‘scientific method’. This included the then definitive account of
the nature of induction and the logic of discovery, although his work was certainly not
confined to these matters. We turn to Whewell again here in order to point to the very
different nature of knowledge in what is widely regarded as a system of logic such as
mathematics, when compared with empirically based disciplines (S, T, E) with which he was
concerned when writing ‘every failure is a stem to success’. Whewell (as reproduced in Butts,
22
1968), writing in 1837, saw the certainty of mathematics as arising from its being founded on
axioms (emphasis in original), and conducted by steps that can each, if required, be stated as
syllogisms. The certainty and conclusiveness of axioms and syllogisms in turn rests on initial
definitions. (The conclusion that mathematics rested on definitions was also reached by other
philosophers and mathematicians in this period.) This view of the nature of mathematics
knowledge is consistent with the school of philosophy that is known as ‘Symbolic Logic’
(Shapiro & Kouri Kissel, 2018).
This view that mathematics as knowledge is derived via logic from a set of initial
definitions is still widely accepted today, but no longer universally. The growth in alternative
perspectives on the ways mathematics knowledge is created, and the surprise with which
alternatives are greeted by some, are succinctly described by Devlin (2008):
Recent years have seen a growing acknowledgement within the mathematical
community that mathematics is cognitively/socially constructed. Yet to anyone
doing mathematics, it seems totally objective. (p. 359)
In recent times, ideas derived from the social construction of knowledge that lead to
this less certain view of the nature of mathematics have become more common.
3
And this
century is seeing the emergence of more and diverse new thinking about the nature of
mathematical knowledge, including discussions of the epistemology of mathematics that in
previous times were at best extremely rare. For example, the May 2008 issue of the analytic
philosophy journal Erkenntnis is devoted to the theme ‘Towards a new epistemology of
mathematics’. Even inductive processes have been used in forms of developing mathematical
knowledge, most obviously with Fermat’s last theorem
4
which was for many years accepted
3
See, for example, the work of the radical constructivist Ernst von Glasersfeld (e.g. von Glasersfeld, 1995), and
the work on philosophy of both mathematics and mathematics education by Paul Ernest (e.g. 1997).
4
Fermat’s last theorem (that no three positive integers a, b, and c satisfy the equation an + bn = cn for any integer
value of n greater than 2) was stated by Pierre de Fermat in 1637, together with an assertion that he had proven
this but without giving the proof. A proof advanced in 1994 has become accepted.
23
as true solely on the basis of induction from the correctness of the theorem for many specific
cases.
Whether one sees the nature of mathematics to be purely logical, and so of the
traditional and more widely held view, or to be a socially constructed form, or to be
something different again, is not the central issue here. What is critical is that our literature
searching has not found any mention of ‘failure’ as an issue in the development of
mathematical knowledge. Although we certainly acknowledge that accounts of the
development of mathematical proof as ‘empirical’ or ‘experimental’ (e.g., Baker, 2008;
Buldt, Löwe & Müller, 2008) can be taken to imply a role for failure, the term is not used.)
Further, ‘failure’ is not mentioned at all in iconic texts concerned with the nature of
mathematics, such as Courant and Robbins (1961); nor does it appear at any point in the
comprehensive (almost 2,500 page) anthology of a millennium of the literature of
mathematics created by Newman (1956). Indeed, as Burton (2001) observed, there is
“surprisingly little to be found which critically assesse[s] the epistemology of mathematics”
(p. 589). More significantly, Burton advanced this observation early in her report of a
detailed and intensive study of 35 research mathematicians and their approaches to their own
learning of and developing of new knowledge about mathematics. At no point was ‘failure’
raised by any of the 35 participants.
It is clear that ‘failure’ does not play even a minor role in accounts of the development
of new knowledge in the way of knowing that is mathematics. We assert that the differences
between ‘M’ and ‘S/T/E’ with respect to the ways ‘failure’ is represented in accounts of
development could hardly be greater.
24
We also note that it is a completely different matter when one considers the learning
of mathematics. In general, in the hands of a skilled teacher whose focus is on conceptual
learning of mathematics, ‘failure’ has powerful potential for enhancing this learning. More
specifically, two relevant constructs have been explored in studies of mathematics learning:
“fear of failure” (sometimes described as “mathematics anxiety”, Foley et al., 2017), and, less
prominently, “fear of success” (that is, fear of the consequences of success in mathematics
learning, something that has been one contributor to the gender differences in participation in
mathematics courses; e.g., Leder, 1982).
THE ROLE OF FAILURES IN SCHOOL LEARNING OF THE STEM DISCIPLINES
“Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.” Albert Einstein
We have argued that there is misalignment between each of the individual STEM disciplines
in terms of the ways that the role of failure in the development of new knowledge is
represented in each discipline. We noted in the Introduction to this chapter that the way
failure is represented in each discipline per se impacts on the ways that discipline is
represented to and perceived by those outside the discipline. This is most obviously the case
in the education of students in each of the disciplines, and in integrated STEM. That is, there
is also significant misalignment in primary and secondary schooling contexts in the ways the
individual STEM disciplines portray failure and its role, a misalignment which has significant
impact on the learning of students. For example, it is difficult to celebrate the central role of
failures in the development of the discipline of science when the nature of school science so
often emphasises certainty of knowledge (the curriculum as a ‘rhetoric of conclusions’). This
certainty of knowledge is reinforced when ‘recipe style’ laboratory tasks with pre-determined
steps and outcomes are used, and when assessments treat science as a rigid body of facts to be
learned and regurgitated. Technology education, in a number of countries, attempts to link to
25
real world and authentic contexts, such as food and fibre production, but whether or not
teachers and schools enable students to experience the nature of the ‘design process’,
including the beneficial consequences that can emerge from ‘failure’, is dependent on a wide
range of contextual factors (e.g. curriculum, school, teacher).
More authentic experiences with STEM disciplines can help students recognise the
value and role of failure in both real-world STEM contexts and in their own learning of
STEM, as such experiences may lead to greater learner awareness of the value and
prevalence of failure in the development and processes of these disciplines. We now list some
ways this might be achieved.
● Sharing stories of actual experiences of scientists, most importantly including how
they struggled intellectually and personally and how they actually made their
‘discoveries’ over a period of time and through a range of experiences (usually
involving struggle, failure and/or serendipity, with perhaps controlled scientific
investigation having some part) (Lin-Siegler et al., 2016). Such ‘struggle stories’ help
students to feel more connected to scientists and enable students to see themselves as
not being too dissimilar to the scientists, which in turn can impact whether students
choose to select STEM disciplines as a future career.
● Discussing the nature of success and failure - acknowledging that bad processes do
not always lead to success and correct processes might still result in failed outcomes
(Dahlin, Chuang, & Roulet, 2018).
● Defining what success and failure can look like (McGrath, 2011), and considering
how these are similar and different across the separate disciplines of STEM.
● Ensuring failure is efficient, forward focused and cost effective (a perspective already
common in technology and engineering, but much less so in science and mathematics)
26
● Focusing on process and journey rather than an end product; having conversations
about the nature of failure, considering what works and what does not work and why
(McGrath, 2011)
● Focusing on building capabilities and dispositions which handle failure, such as
resilience, adaptability, critical and creative thinking, and collaboration.
Although it is beyond the scope of this chapter, we most certainly acknowledge the
profoundly important role of failure in the processes of learning, whether it is about the
epistemologies of a discipline or the concepts and relationships of the discipline (e.g., Searle,
Litts & Kafai, 2018; Zieglar & Kapur, 2018) or the development of the capacity to be creative
or to think critically (see Ellerton & Kelly, Chapter 2, this volume). We have already noted
aspects of this at the end of the brief section about failure and any role of this in the
development of the discipline knowledge of mathematics. Indeed, the many critiques that
exist of ‘conventional’, stereotypical school mathematics classrooms could be recast in terms
of the complete lack of attempts to use a student’s ‘failure’ in tackling a specific problem as a
path to developing that student’s understanding, something emphasised by the construct “fear
of failure” in mathematics learning.
Classroom environments that fail to recognise, discuss and share the value and
necessity of failure in learning can stifle learning (Dahlin et al., 2018), in ways we see as
broadly consistent with the negative impact on the development of the disciplines of S, T, E
and M when failure is ignored or if there is a pretence that failure does not occur.
We have argued in this chapter that failure is a critical component of success in the
STEM disciplines. However it is rarely recognised as such in formal accounts of the
27
processes of some of these disciplines. In conclusion, we note that this has clear lessons for
STEM classrooms, lessons that include the list of dot points above. These dot points provide
ways of beginning to think about introducing the notion of failure into STEM education, and
so recognising the importance of failure in each of the disciplines and in learning. In addition,
we would add the following points to the list above:
● Develop a culture that values and openly acknowledges failure, is forgiving and
celebrates failure as being part of the learning process (McGrath, 2011)
● Discuss the nature of success and failure - acknowledge that bad processes do not
always lead to success and correct processes might still result in failed outcomes
(Dahlin et al., 2018)
● Nurture a growth mindset which focuses on what needs improving rather than what
failed
● Reflect on and articulate learning - individually and as a group (Townsend, 2010)
REFERENCES
Baker, A. (2008). Experimental Mathematics. Erkenntnis, 68, 331–334.
Bal, D. G., Sellier, D. E., Tchouda, D. S., & François, D. P. (2014). Improving quality of care
and patient safety through morbidity and mortality conferences. Journal for
Healthcare Quality, 36(1), 29-36. DOI:10.1111/j.1945-1474.2011.00203.x
Boutron, I., Dutton, S., Ravaud, P., & Altman, D. G. (2010). Reporting and interpretation of
randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary
outcomes. JAMA, 303(20), 2058–2064. DOI:10.1001/jama.2010.651
Buldt, B., Löwe, B. & Müller, T. (2008). Towards a new epistemology of mathematics.
Erkenntnis, 68, 309–329.
Burton, L. (2001). Research mathematicians as learners: And what mathematics education
can learn from them. British Educational Research Journal, 27, 589–599.
Butts, R. E. (Ed.). (1968). William Whewell's theory of scientific method. Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh.
28
Cetin, B., Ilhan, M., & Yilmaz, F. (2014). An investigation of the relationship between the
fear of receiving negative criticism and of taking academic risk through canonical
correlation analysis. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(1), 146–158.
Clark, A. M., & Thompson, D. R. (2013). Successful failure: Good for the self and science.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69(10), 2145–2147. DOi:10.1111/jan.12125
Cole, K. (2011). How to be a successful failure: A practical guide to messing up big time, the
right way. Bloomington, USA: Xlibris
Conroy, D. E. (2003). Representational models associated with fear of failure in adolescents
and young adults. Journal of Personality, 71(5), 757–784. DOI: 10.1111/1467-
6494.7105003
Courant, R. & Robbins, H. (1961). What is mathematics? New York: Oxford University.
Dahlin, K., Chuang, Y., & Roulet, T. (2018). Opportunity, motivation, and ability to learn
from failures and errors: Review, synthesis, and ways to move forward. Academy of
Management Annals, 12(1), 252–277. DOI: 10.5465/annals.2016.0049.
Davies, L. (2012, October 2). Jailing of Italian seismologists leaves scientific community in
shock. The Guardian: Australia Edition. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/23/jailing-italian-seismologists-
scientific-community .
Devlin, K. (2008). A mathematician reflects on the useful and reliable illusion of reality in
Mathematics. Erkenntnis, 68, 359–379.
Dewey, J., Boydston, J-A & Rorty, R. (2008). The later works of John Dewey, 1925-1953.
Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University.
Dreyfuss, E. (2019). Scientists need to talk more about failure. Wired. Retrieved from
https://www.wired.com/story/scientists-need-more-failure-talk/
Engel, A. (2018). Practical creativity and innovation in systems engineering. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Ernest, P. (1997) Social constructivism as a philosophy of mathematics. Albany NY: SUNY.
Failure. (n.d.) The Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/failure
Firestein, S. (2015). Failure: Why science is so successful. New York: Oxford University.
Foley, A. E., Herts, J. B., Borgonovi, F., Guerriero, S., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2017).
The math anxiety-performance link: A global phenomenon. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 26, 52–58.
Gomoll, A., Tolar, E., Hmelo-Silver,E. & Šabanović, S. (2018). Designing human-centered
robots: The role of constructive failure. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 30, 90–102.
29
Hong, H.-Y., & Lin-Siegler, X. (2012). How learning about scientists' struggles influences
students’ interest and learning in physics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2),
469–484. DOI: 10.1037/a0026224
Jones, D. R. H. (1998). Failure analysis case studies: a sourcebook of case studies selected
from the pages of Engineering failure analysis 1994-1996. Amsterdam: Oxford,
Elsevier.
Kapur, M., & Rummel, N. (2012). Productive failure in learning from generation and
invention activities. Instructional Science, 40(4), 645–650. DOI: 10.1007/s11251-
012-9235-4
Leder, G.C. (1982). Mathematics achievement and fear of success. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 13, 124–135.
Lin-Siegler, X., Ahn, J. N., Chen, J., Fang, F.-F. A., & Luna-Lucero, M. (2016). Even
Einstein struggled: Effects of learning about great scientists’ struggles on high school
students’ motivation to learn science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3),
314–328. DOI: 10.1037/edu0000092
Livio, M. (2013). Brilliant blunders. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Lottero-Perdue, P. S., & Parry, E. A. (2017). Perspectives on failure in the classroom by
elementary teachers new to teaching engineering. Journal of Pre-College Engineering
Education Research (J-PEER), 7(1).
Madisch, I. (2017). Why scientists must share their failures. Scientific American. Retrieved
from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/why-scientists-must-share-their-
failures/
Maestre, F. T. (2019). Ten simple rules towards healthier research labs. PLoS Computational
Biology, 15(4), e1006914-e1006914. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006914
Manalo, E. & Kapur, M. (2018). The role of failure in promoting thinking skills and
creativity: New findings and insights about how failure can be beneficial for learning.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 30, 1–6.
Matthews, C. (1998). A practical guide to engineering failure investigation. London:
Professional Engineering.
Maxwell, J. C. (2000). Failing forward: How to make the most of your mistakes. Nashville,
USA: Thomas Nelson.
McGrath, R. G. (2011). Failing by design. Harvard Business Review, 89(4), 76–83.
Newman, J.R. (Ed.). (1956). The world of mathematics (Volumes 1-4). New York: Simon &
Schuster.
30
Page, C. (2011, June 26). Failure is now praised as leading to success. Philadelphia Tribune,
p. 1. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/docview/877333579?accountid=12528&rfr_id=info
%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo
Parkes, E. (2019, January 10). Scientific progress is built on failure. Nature. Retrieved from
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00107-y
Petroski, H. (1982). To engineer is human: The role of failure in successful design. London,
UK: Macmillan London Limited.
Petroski, H. (1997). Designed to fail. American Scientist, 85(5), 412–416.
Petroski, H. (2006). Success through failure: The paradox of design: Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University.
Searle, K., Litts, B. & Kafai, Y. (2018). Debugging open-ended designs: High school
students’ perceptions of failure and success in an electronic textiles design activity.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 30, 125–134.
Shapiro, S. & Kouri Kissel, T, (2018). Classical logic. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford
encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition). Retrieved from
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/logic-classical/
Simpson, A., & Maltese, A. (2017). Failure is a major component of learning anything: The
role of failure in the development of STEM professionals. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 26(2), 223–237. DOI: 10.1007/s10956-016-9674-9
Swanson, A. (2016, April 28). Why it feels so good to read about this Princeton professor’s
failures. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/28/it-feels-really-good-to-
read-about-this-princeton-professors-failures/
Success. (n.d.). The Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/success
Tessman, L. (2009). Expecting bad luck. Hypatia, 24(1), 9–28.
Thomson, P., & Kamler, B. (2012). Writing for peer reviewed journals: Strategies for getting
published. London: Routledge.
Townsend, W. R. (2010). Innovation and the value of failure. International Journal of
Management and Marketing Research, 3(1), 75–84.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London:
Falmer.
Whitlock, S. (2017). One reason young people don’t go into science? We don’t fail well.
Retrieved from https://www.statnews.com/2017/03/21/science-research-fail/
31
Zaringhalam, M. (2016). Failure in science is frequent and inevitable – and we should talk
more about it. Retrieved from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/failure-
in-science-is-frequent-and-inevitable-and-we-should-talk-more-about-it/
Zaringhalam, M. (2017). An experiment that didn’t work: My PhD thesis research was a
dead end, but that’s why it was important. Retrieved from
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/an-experiment-that-didnt-
work/?print=true
Zaringhalam, M. (2019). To groom better scientists, harness the power of narrative.
Retrieved from https://undark.org/2019/01/24/to-groom-better-scientists-harness-the-
power-of-narrative/
Zieglar, E. & Kapur, M. (2018). The interplay of creativity, failure and learning in generating
algebra problems. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 30, 64–75.
32
Table 9.2 Examples of engineering and design process models
Massachusetts
Sci & Tech/
Engineering
Curriculum
Framework
(Cyclical and
stepwise)
Engineering
Is
Elementary
(EiE)
(Cyclical)
The new
“BEST” model
(Stepwise,
cyclical,
interactions
between steps)
National Center
for Engineering
and Tech
Ed (NCETE)
(Stepwise with
cycles within the
process)
The UTeach
Engineering
project
(Linear, cycle
in middle)
Next
Generation
Sci
Standards
(NGSS)
(Three
interacting
stages)
Stanford
Model for
Design
Thinking
(Stepwise)
PictureSTE
M
(Two stages with
feedback steps)
Systems
engineering
model
[Engel]
(Stepwise with
feedback)
Empathize
Identify the need
or problem
Ask
Ask
Identify need or
problem
Identify the
need
Define
Define
Problem: Define
Development:
Definition
Research the need
or problem
Imagine
Imagine
Research need or
problem
Describe:
Describe the
needs and
characterise and
analyse the
system
Ideate
Problem: Learn
Design
Develop possible
solutions
Plan
Cycle: Plan
Develop possible
solutions
Generate:
Generate
concepts
Develop
solutions
Solution: Plan
Implementation
Select best
possible solution
Select best
possible solution
Generate: Select
a concept
Construct a
prototype
Create
Cycle: Create
Construct a
prototype
Embody:
Embody the
concept
Prototype
Solution: Try
Integration
Test and evaluate
the solution
Cycle: Test
Test and evaluate
solution
Embody: Test
and evaluate
the concept
Test
Solution: Test
Qualification
Cycle: Improve
Communicate the
solution(s)
Share
Communicate
solution
Communication/
teamwork
33
Redesign
Improve
Redesign
Embody: Refine
the concept
Optimize
Finalize design
Finalise and
share the design
AND evolve the
design
Solution: Decide
Post development:
Production, use and
disposal
