Learning Blast: Evaluate Designs and Iterate
The goal of engineering is to systematically develop solutions to problems. But in many ways, finding a solution is only the beginning. It is expected that engineers will develop and improve their ideas. In fact, most engineers devote considerable time to the process of improvement.
This expectation to iterate and improve ideas is critical to the field and provides a unique opportunity for students to learn to evaluate their own work and make changes. Students are used to being evaluated or graded, but they rarely get to evaluate their own work.
The engineering process provides a structure to practice evaluating and improving on your ideas. High-quality engineering activities emphasize the iterative nature of problem-solving and include opportunities for revision and improvement.
As you watch the video, think about this:
- Notice how the activity is set up. How does it encourage youth to iterate on their designs?
- Notice what the facilitators do or say to encourage youth to iterate on their designs.
- What evidence do you see that youth are invested in designs?
Watch the video:
Share what you noticed:
- How is the activity set up to encourage youth to redesign and improve their vehicles? What works or does not work to support this practice?
- What do the facilitators do or say to encourage youth as they revise their design?
What we know:
The process of improvement is built into the engineering design process. The final solution that engineers release oftentimes only vaguely resembles their original ideas. Getting to the polished product is a result of iterative cycles of testing and improvement.
- Engineers assess their designs against criteria and constraints.
- Engineers collect data and analyze them to evaluate how well the design performs against these standards.
- Tests may be conducted with prototypes, models, or simulations.
During testing and evaluation, engineers observe, make notes, collect, record, and then analyze their data. Then they use that information to make data-driven decisions. Youth who evaluate and improve their work develop essential skills: self-guided critical thinking, evidence-based decision making, and creativity.
There are times when team members don’t agree on how to improve their solution. In such cases, engineers are expected to present their recommendations. They are expected to use evidence and data to convince their teammates which recommendations are the best. In addition to the testing results, engineering teams also consider data about the environmental, societal, economic, and ethical impacts of designs before selecting a final solution. The team weighs all the recommendations and data, then develops a plan for the next iteration.
What you know:
All ideas can be improved. Evaluating and improving their ideas helps youth realize that they do not have to get everything right the first time. A failed design can be an opportunity to imagine new ideas, draw up new plans, and make solutions even better. Evaluating and improving on their ideas can help youth develop a growth mindset.
Key Take-Away:
Engineering designs need to be tested to see how well they work. The feedback from testing is used to revise and improve solutions. When youth evaluate and iterate on their ideas, they deepen their understanding of the engineering process and build their critical thinking, language, and communication skills.
Reflection:
- How can the scaffolding of engineering experiences make it easier, or harder, for learners to evaluate, iterate and improve their ideas?
- What strategies could you use to encourage youth to think about, test and revise their solutions?
- How can you create a culture, or way of thinking, in your program that encourages youth to consider and try out multiple solutions to challenges? What norms or expectations can support this practice?
- How can the engineering design process support a growth mindset? What could you, as the facilitator, do to help youth shift their mindset?
Developed in collaboration with Christine M. Cunningham. These practices are also more fully described in educational research articles (Cunningham, 2018; Cunningham & Kelly, 2017).