Case Study: “Failure Is…”
This semester, our team set out to design an experience that could aid lifelong learning by way of redefining and reframing how learners view success and failure.
“Failure Is…” — A Guide for Rewriting Failure
Lifelong Learning — Designing Experiences for Learning | Spring 2021 | Carnegie Mellon School of Design
“Failure is…” is a collaborative workbook that helps college students gauge their current relationship with failure and success, and achieve a healthier perspective towards both.
The workbook is designed to guide college students through new experiences with a broadened perspective around notions of success and failure.
Meet the team!
Andrea Benatar is a third-year undergraduate student in the products track of the School of Design. She is originally from Chicago, IL.
Sophia Fan is a fourth-year undergraduate student studying Communication Design. She is originally from San Diego, CA.
Matthew Guo is a third-year undergraduate student studying Information Systems and Human-Computer Interaction.
The Problem
In first approaching the topic of Lifelong Learning, our team identified a few major learning gaps that we wanted to address.
- Pressure to acquire (and master) skills quickly in order to not fall behind
- Constant comparison to others (imposter syndrome) and lack of self-validation
- Lack of deeper connection between students and educators
We noticed that many of these learning gaps could be addressed by providing an avenue for learners to redefine and reframe notions of success and failure, which ultimately became the problem space we explored throughout the semester.
Below you can also find the extensive list of learning gaps we identified by determining the current problem states and preferred states for our three stakeholder groups; college students, parents, and educators.
In addition, we explored the three stakeholder groups in a bit more detail through our stakeholder mapping exercise. By identifying some of their hopes and fears and noting the points of affinity and opposition between them, we were able to get a richer understanding of our learners and related stakeholders.
Audience & Context
As we honed in on college students as our primary stakeholder group, we found that many of our end goals- reframing failure, raised confidence, and embracing risk-taking- were most appropriate for pivotal moments of transition within college. Whether it be at the start of freshman year or at the start of a new class, we knew that our learning experience would be most beneficial before entering a new or daunting situation.
In designing the learning experience, we situated it within in-person settings where students are already accustomed to learning, such as in studios or classrooms. Learners would participate in groups of 3–4 students; we found that these smaller groups kept discussion manageable and that face-to-face interaction with peers helped to facilitate open conversation and sharing. The tactile nature of the workbook also allows for tangible documentation of their progress, both individually and as a group. Some activities, such as the letters at the end of the workbook, require input from other learners. Given that the activities occurs in one sitting, the workbook/poster and the letters also serve to carry lessons beyond the time and setting of the initial experience.
Significance
We found this area of investigation significant because binary views of success and failure contribute to imposter syndrome, inhibit students from taking risks, and create the illusion of a single “correct” pathway to success. As we found through secondary research, risk-taking makes students more creative and provides them with more agency over their own learning (“The Third Teacher” case studies, “The Role of Confidence in Lifelong Learning”).
Our relationships with failure and success impact our resilience and self-concept in the learning process. In re-evaluating them, our goals for the experience were to have more transparent dialogue around the universal nature of failure, to remove fear of failure as an impediment to learning. We wanted to approach this topic with sensitivity. Given that students may already be comparing themselves to their peers and experiencing impostor syndrome, it was important to create activities that would portray failure/ success in less binary terms.
There are moments of scaffolding that ease participants into a place of sharing, by starting with smaller, impersonal failures before digging deeper into self-reflection. We also included moments of rest for learners throughout the experience by presenting them with some of our secondary research on failure/success. By introducing external and expert opinions, we hoped to avoid some of the pitfalls that can occur when discussing these concepts.
Design Process
At the start of the design process, we conducted a brief generative user research method to better understand people’s definitions of success and failure and how they would reframe those definitions with total freedom. We had each participant (seven total) fill out their own concept map using a template we created (example below).
From doing this exercise, we found that it was difficult for most people to answer somewhat abstract and open ended questions, especially without time at the beginning to really think and become comfortable enough to open up. That being said, we also noticed several trends in the answers (and evolution of the answers from start to finish) that indicated that having learners reflect on healthier ways to perceive success and failure was a beneficial exercise to undergo.
In tangent to our research, we spent a lot of time brainstorming different design approaches, ranging from a storytelling artifact to pass down from generation to generation all the way to a “giving wall” for repurposing failed projects.
Most of the ideas we delved into leaned towards tactile and temporal experiences. Temporal design is something that our group was extremely fascinated by. We wanted to think of not only visual and interactive methods to engage our learners but also about how change, progression, and control could come together to form a more holistic learning experience.
One way we wanted to explore temporal design is by creating a “full circle moment” — a moment where you realize that things just happen for a reason. By showing how exercises connect or revisiting something from the past, we aimed to give our learners opportunities to see their growth and development over a short period of time.
Two of the learning theories that became critical in our final design concept were Julie Dirksen’s Structured Flow of Goals diagram and Bernice McCarthy’s 4MAT System. Using these two theories, we took a step back from our sketches and loose ideas in order to see the entire arc of the experience we aimed to create.
As we worked through our framework design and the higher level experience arc, we were simultaneously developing the visual language and design system to best communicate with our learners. We looked at existing imagery, color schemes, and typography, in order to design an artifact that was lighthearted but not childish, and visually captivating without taking the attention away from the activities themselves. In crafting our language, we aimed to treat the subject with respect. We balanced a friendly tone with inclusion of outside knowledge and quotes in order to craft an approachable experience without dumbing down the topic or its significance.
Evaluation Methods
We evaluated our concept and rough prototypes via a speed dating session with our peers and user testing.
Below are some of the low fidelity sketches we utilized to demonstrate our idea to our peers during a speed dating session. Their feedback pointed us to the significance of striking a balance between new and challenging activities and more light hearted ones, being sure to avoid anything that might feel cliché or patronizing (which can be a fine line given our topic of inquiry).
After we had a more solid form nailed down, we conducted nine rounds of user testing, in which we remotely tested the four activities in the workbook that we were most unsure of.
From conducting user tests on those activities, the main feedback we received had to do with providing appropriate amounts of context and instructions in order to set the learners up for an effective experience. We implemented content and visual edits simultaneously to put all the pieces together in our final workbook.
Design Approach
The learning framework that we came up with to guide our design approach combines Dirksen’s Structured Flow of Goals, Salen & Zimmerman’s Magic Circle, and Wiggins’ Six Facets of Understanding. In doing so, we wanted to create a scaffolded experience that moves learners through various facets by crossing an open system of game play. We utilized the four primary arcs as the overarching structure for our workbook, ensuring that the activities linked back to the small and medium sized goals we set for our learners.
Below is the final workbook and accompanying design system that we developed.
We also created this video in order to show the workbook experience in its entirety.
Small groups engage in reflective and interactive activities that alternate between discussion-based and mark-making (writing or drawing) modalities. Some activities build upon each other, such as the scaled failures, where learners move from sharing ‘small’ up to ‘big’ failures. Later on in Arc 2, which pushes them to reframe their existing definitions, learners challenge one another to distinguish between ‘small successes’ and ‘lessons learned’, the takeaway being that valuable outcomes can come from varied paths.
Study Outcomes
Following our peer testing and final presentation feedback, we found the language and storytelling elements of our experience to resonate with our audience. People really gravitated towards the physicality of the artifacts and the sense of ownership it conveyed to learners. Given more time, we would love to actually conduct activities with student groups and follow up to see whether they continued to interact with the unfolded poster and the concepts within. Additionally, we would like to expand to include a digital component. The physical workbook is a great tie between the learner and their learning experience, but the digital component could really develop connections between participants. One of the earliest learning gaps we identified was a lack of community and connection around failure; a digital archive could begin to bridge some of those gaps.
We hope to implement the workbook within students’ time at CMU to provide a healthy framework for learning and failing!
