Ameek Kaur1*, Thijs WILLEMS2, Qian HUANG2
1National University of Singapore (NUS), Business School
2Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities
Kaur, A., Willems, T., & Huang, Q. (2024). Creativity And Failure Tolerance: Puzzling Findings in Student Outcomes [Lightning Talk]. In Higher Education Conference in Singapore (HECS) 2024, 3 December, National University of Singapore. https://blog.nus.edu.sg/hecs/hecs2024-kaur-et-al
SUB-THEME
Opportunities from Wellbeing
KEYWORDS
Failure tolerance, Creativity, Iterative Design, Pedagogy.
CATEGORY
Lightning Talk
We would like to share our study, which aimed to enhance students’ failure tolerance and creativity through modifications in course content and assessment rubrics. The rationale for these modifications was that exposing students to iterative design—learning by prototyping, testing, and refining—should increase failure tolerance and foster creativity (Jablokow et al., 2016). Through our course changes, we observed a significant increase in student creativity. However, students’ failure tolerance significantly dropped, presenting an intriguing paradox.
The study was conducted on a semester-long Design Thinking and Innovation course at the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), with data from two consecutive cohorts of over 200 first-year undergraduate students. In round 1, we established baseline data on the course’s impact on students’ creativity and failure tolerance. Kaur et al. (2023) article provides a process perspective on the course as observed during round 1. In round 2, we modified the course content and assessment rubrics. For both cohorts, students completed pre- and post-course surveys, consisting of items from established scales – the Kirton Adaption Innovation (KAI) scale (Kirton, 1976) for measuring creativity, and the School Failure Tolerance (SFT) scale (Clifford, 1988) for measuring failure tolerance. The modified course included three case studies and three hands-on activities in the first six weeks to emphasize iterative design and encourage action-oriented prototyping. Additionally, creativity was added as an assessment component for all submissions, and students were asked to submit reflections with each assignment.
The survey results from round 1 and round 2 are summarized in Table 1 below. The results highlight that students’ creativity measured by ‘KAI-overall’ increased significantly in round 2. The KAI subscale on originality showed an increase in both round 1 and 2. On the other hand, students’ failure tolerance measured by ‘SFT-overall’ dropped significantly in round 2, whereas it showed a marginal increase in round 1. This counterintuitive change in students’ failure tolerance in round 2 is the puzzling part of our findings.
The results suggest that the increase in student creativity can potentially be attributed to both the course interventions and the new assessment rubrics. However, the drop in failure tolerance presents a complex issue. One possible explanation is that the added emphasis on creativity in the assessment rubrics created pressure to meet high standards, which may have led students to adopt safer approaches to avoid failure. Another interpretation is that students’ view of iteration evolved from a mindset of “keep trying persistently” to one of “let’s try a different approach.” While the SFT scale might register this as reduced failure tolerance (i.e., giving up), it can be seen positively from an innovation standpoint. This shift indicates that students became more inclined to discard less viable ideas and explore new ones, demonstrating improved creative problem-solving and adaptability.
This paradox highlights the challenge of balancing creativity and failure tolerance in educational settings. While promoting creativity, it is crucial to also foster an environment that supports resilience and encourages risk-taking. Future interventions might include regular messaging emphasizing the value of iterative design and learning from failure, as well as assignments that require students to document their exploration of ideas, encountered challenges, and lessons learned from failures.
This study contributes to the conference sub-theme of “opportunities from wellbeing.” By attempting to enhance resilience through course interventions, we aimed to improve students’ long-term well-being. Our findings highlight potential pitfalls and provide insights for future course design.
The lightning talk will include images of the course structure, students’ work, prototypes, and hands-on activities. Some of the images are attached in the appendix.
Table 1
Results from Round 1 and Round 2. The sub-components of SFT and KAI are also stated.
REFERENCES
Clifford, M. M. (1988). Failure tolerance and academic risk-taking in ten- to twelve-year-old students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(1), 15-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1988.tb00875.x
Jablokow, K. W., Zhu, X., Matson, J. V., & Kakde, A. N. (2016), Stimulating creativity in online learning environments through intelligent fast failure. 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.25879
Kaur, A., Huang, Q., Willems, T., Hayat, A. A., & Elara, M. R. (2023). Teaching design thinking to a large cohort, a process perspective. 2023 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE). https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE56641.2023.10398367
Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(5), 622-629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.61.5.622
APPENDIX
Course Structure:
Cow-Drawing activity:
Structure/Material prototyping and iteration:
Prototype: App design
