Intro to Technology: characteristics, concepts, & connections
Term IV (Spring 2016)
As in the first week of my unit, while I structured and sequenced the second week's activities in consideration of the classroom's established weekly instructional schedule, I adjusted the format in order to meet my instructional goals. I also repeated my decision to not give/administer a standard formative assessment.
The week began with a "technology survey" intended to enable the students to examine their own opinions and definitions of technology. I infused a more formal lecture the following day with an emphasis on the role of creativity in invention and innovation on technology and an explanation of STEM (science, technology, engineering, & mathematics) and STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, & mathematics) education. STEAM (building on STEM) acknowledges that there is an element of art in everything that we do. Based on my knowledge of the students, I believed that this concept would resonate and possibly expose an potential pathway into science and engineering. The remainder of the week was dedicated to a group based engineering design challenge. Before introducing the challenge, I explained the purpose of and steps in the engineering design process, emphasizing the roles of teamwork and creativity. The design challenge took the place of my CM’s usual/traditional “exit slip” (i.e. summative written quiz) on the week’s material.
Paper Drop Design Challenge:
For the design challenge, students worked in groups using the engineering design process to design flying devices (actually falling devices) out of the available supplies. I provided each group with:
-
3 sheets 8.5 x 11-inch paper
-
adhesive tape
-
one 3 x 5-inch index card
-
4 small paper clips
-
scissors
Devices were required to meet two criteria: (1) stay in the air as long as possible and a minimum of two seconds; (2) land as close as possible to a given target, but no more than three feet away. Each student design group was directed to design their device and then create it. Each prototype was tested two times. After the first round of tests, groups had the opportunity to improve their design. Each student was required to draw his/her group's prototype, record the steps involved in its construction, the group's test results, and his/her analysis and reasoning. Each student was also required to complete a self/group performance rubric at the end of the challenge. As I introduced the design challenge, I informed the students that the design challenge would count as their exit slip for the week and that they would receive a grade based on group participation and the quality of their prototype.
As with the alternative assessment from the previous week, I was motivated, in part, to engage the students in a design challenge based on my observations throughout the spring that many students—some of whom struggled on formal/traditional assessments—exceled at and gravitated toward visual art and written expression. I was also motivated to design a multi-round challenge based on my reflections from the fall. Given the opportunity to teach a subsequent lesson, I would have planned for the students to design and construct a second filtration system in order to test and evaluate its effectiveness.
I felt that requiring the students to conduct multiple rounds of design and testing would challenge the students to draw on the observations they had made and the data they had collected while designing and testing their initial prototypes to design a more effective model. Additionally, this would reflect the actual design process by requiring that the students connect experiences and learn from past successes and difficulties.
It emphasizes the need to think critically, and to make reasoned choices in order to achieve a better result. The real possibility that some second generation prototypes may be less effective than those the students created initially would provide the opportunity to question/analyze initial assumptions. This is a factor in actual engineering design, where the potential for failure necessitates trial and error. While this struggle may be frustrating, I also believe that the pay off—in terms of genuine learning—is worth the struggle. By extending the lesson in this way, I hoped to help to cement student understanding of the engineering design process; I hoped, to borrow from Brown and Roediger, to make it stick.
The materials that I created, along with samples and analysis of student work, are displayed below.
Student Work and Analysis:
The images that are displayed and analyzed below are screenshots from individual student's Paper Drop Design Challengework packets. The complete packets are available as PDFs on the Artifacts page under Spring 2016.
Analysis: Design Challenge Sketch, and Initial Construction Instructions
-
(Artifact S7)
This student worked with her group members to create a well-designed and well-constructed prototype for the Paper Drop Design Challenge. The pages shown above (artifact S7) are a good indication of the thoroughness and attention to detail with which she proceeded through both the Design Challenge and engineering design process. While I had a very different impression when handling the group's constructed prototype, I would not be surprisedif I were able to replicate the design and construct my own version by following the student's written directions.
Analysis: Design Challenge Sketches, days one & two
-
(Artifact S8)
The directions for the Paper Drop Design Challenge only required the students to complete a sketch of their initial design on the first day of the Challenge.
This student chose to make a sketch for each day of the Design Challenge and both of her group's designs. While this was not required, juxtaposing a sketch of the original and modified prototypes enhanced the student's work. Her choice to do so helped to enrich my understanding of the logic with which she seemed to have approached the challenge.
Reviewing the sketches also brought my attention to a missed opportunity in terms of my own planning. If I conduct the Paper Drop Design Competition in the future, I will--more likely than not--add the requirement that each of the students must draw all versions of their design throughout the Design Challenge.
Design Challenge Design Sketches, days one and two
Design Challenge Design Sketch, Initial Construction Instructions, Pre-Day Two Planning and Analysis Sheet
Analysis: Design Challenge Sketch, Initial Construction Instructions, & Pre-Day Two Planing and Analysis Sheet
-
(Artifact S9)
I included the first three pages of this student's completed Design Challenge packet because I believe it most accurately demonstrates his work throughout the Challenge.
While I do not completely agree with the student's comment on his sketch that he "can't draw", any ambiguity in terms of his design's details are cleared up by the construction directions on the following page. I chose to include the Planning and Analysis sheet from the second day of the Challenge in order to present a glimpse of how the student seemed to proceed, logically, throughout the remainder of the Design Challenge.
Design Challenge, Post-Challenge Rubric
Analysis: Design Challenge, Post-Challenge Rubric
-
(Artifact S10)
This student completed the Design Challenge successfully, and filled out the packet thoroughly. Her analysis was detailed and thoughtful.
A blank copy of the rubric to the left (Artifact S10) was included in each student's packet following the design and analysis worksheets for the Design Challenge. While each student was directed to fill out the rubric and rate his or her individual performance and that of his or her group, the comment box was optional.
This student's comment ("Could we have more...time to improve our invention [?]")--especially in consideration of how thoroughly she completed the requirements of the Design Challenge--seems to indicate a high level of engagement and interest. Additionally, by referring to her prototype as an "invention" she was interweaving the ideas from earlier in the week into her analysis; this is especially significant as the word invention was not used within the text of the Design Challenge.
Final Analysis: Rising to the Challenge
On the first day of the design challenge, multiple students in each class asked me--in earnest--how they were going to be able to use the materials that I had given them to complete the challenge. With a straight face and equal gravity, I simply respond that they would be creative, work as group, and follow the engineering design process. Although this was not the answer that most students seemed to want, it was the truth. The design challenge--while manageable--was never intended to be easy. I wanted to challenge the students to rely on their own knowledge and creativity, and that of their group members, to solve the problem. Not only does this reflect actual engineering design and the processes of invention and innovation, but as Brown and Roediger note, “...when learning is harder, it's stronger and lasts longer" (9).
Blythe et Al. describe “generative topics” as those that allow for “multiple connections” and have an “inexhaustible quality” (p. 30).[6] A generative topic, provides “the chance for students to make connections to their previous experiences, both in and out of school: they can always be explored more and more deeply (p. 30)”.
I chose the Design Challenge for what I saw as its potential to make the material relevant to students by allowing them to apply what they had previously learned and experienced to their real lives as well as a unique opportunity for the students to apply real life experiences to what they are learning in class.
I did not want to simply teach the students the steps in the Engineering Design Process. Rather, I hoped to enable them to be scientists and engineers in the classroom. I wanted them to follow the steps themselves: to complete a design challenge requiring them to plan, construct, and test a design.
As the results of the design challenge seem to indicate, each group was able to rise to the challenge.