TEACHER REFLECTION: Cooper, Canal variation (Erosion Control), Fall 2015
Teacher Name: Colleen Cooper
School: Wyandotte Elementary School
Grade: 4
Design Task: Canal variation (Erosion Control)
Date: Fall 2015
PART I:
Day
1
2
3
4
C5
Overview of your SLED lesson(s):
Brief description of lesson activities you enacted
each day over the course of the SLED design task
This inquiry followed a 10 day unit about minerals,
types of rocks, weathering, erosion and deposition.
The Sand vs. Clay inquiry was conducted, and results
recorded in Science Notebooks. Close examination of
clay particles and sand led to a discussion of how the
shape of particles influences the stability of soil.
Inquiry #2 – “How does the slope of a waterway affect
erosion?” was completed. Student predictions were
commonly correct. The demonstration of how to
collect water and sand run-off was important to
student understanding of the measurement skills we
would use when testing the prototypes.
The Erosion Control task was introduced. Students
read through the design brief, highlighted the critical
information about the task. Discussion about the
criteria and constraints clarified some questions.
Students asked many questions about the budget
constraints that were part of this project. Materials
were presented and students familiarized themselves
with them. Approximately 10 minutes was used for
sketching an individual design.
Individual design sketches were completed and
approved by the teacher.
Students were assigned to teams of 3. There was one
team of 2. Teams examined materials, discussed
potential plans, and sketched a team design for the
What do you think your
students learned each day
Students learned that the size
and shape of soil particles
influences erosion patterns.
They also observed that the
amount of slope changes
erosion.
The slope’s impact on the rate
of erosion was the main
learning. Methods of gathering
and measuring the run-off were
introduced. Accurate recording
of data on charts improved on
this day.
Students encountered budget
constraints for the first time.
Planning for that element was
challenging, and they discussed
it at length. Identification of
clients, end users, criteria and
constraints was strengthened,
but needed additional review to
reach mastery.
Using neatness, organization,
and clear representation of the
design was improved. There is a
long way to go on this.
Collaboration, listening, and
problem-solving skills were
enhanced. All teams
demonstrated an improved level
prototype. Whiteboards were an important tool for
adjusting designs in the planning stages.
6
Teams reviewed their final designs and received
teacher approval for each team member. Construction
of the prototypes began.
7
Final building of the prototypes was finished. Each
team created a presentation to explain how their
prototype functioned. Science concepts were
important to the presentation. All team members
needed to present part of the material during the
testing.
Testing and presentation of the prototypes was on Day
8. Data was recorded on charts in notebooks.
8
9
The Design Wrap Up with evaluation questions was
completed by each student. A sketch of a redesign and
paragraph of explanation of how it would work was
part of this day’s work.
of cooperation over the first
design task (different team
members). Sketching on
whiteboards promoted better
communication.
Patience was learned while
waiting for approval.
Cooperation was most
challenging during the building.
Students were challenged by
using the science concepts and
vocabulary in the explanation.
Preparing the material
reinforced knowledge of the
terms and concepts.
Observational skills were
improved and accurate
recording of data was practiced.
Students increased skills of
evaluating their prototype and
creating a plan for redesigned
solution. Expressing science
concepts that explain the new
design helped reinforce written
communication.
PART II:
Reflection#1 on student performance:
The image below shows the beginning of the task prior to the erosion prevention structure
being built. The goal was to keep the soil in the top region while water run-off was drained away
at the bottom of the tray. The border between the soil area and the “playground” area is marked
with a line of masking tape.
This design demonstrates mastery of the concepts:
The design shown above includes two layers of thin plastic that are placed across the top
of the pile of soil in an X form. Those pieces are anchored by duct tape at the corners. The
cheesecloth was applied to cover the soil, the dam of craft sticks, and as a permeable barrier
close to the edges of the tray. The group also placed a single layer of small rocks between the
craft sticks and the soil.
When the water was poured over the soil, it rapidly drained past the empty portion of the
tray. That area was supposed to represent the playground, and the goal was to avoid soil
deposition there. The measured results showed that 70 mL of water and only 2 mL of sand was
collected.
The students understood that erosion would be prevented by protecting the soil surface
from water penetration. The rocks and craft stick barrier would keep the large soil pile from
shifting on to the playground area. Flooding was prevented by allowing the flow of water
through the cheesecloth and craft stick structure.
Reflection#2 on student performance:
This group’s performance was unsatisfactory.
This design combined craft sticks, burlap, rocks and duct tape to create a solid structure.
When water was poured on the soil, it pooled and sank into the soil. The design would not
provide erosion control because water would gather until it caused a rupture and flooding of the
playground area. The run-off from this design was only 8 mL of water and sand in a slurry. The
sand did not settle out of the solution.
The second element that is unsuccessful concerns the area covered by the erosion
prevention structure. The group used most of the playground area to anchor the structure. The
design task indicated that use of the playground while preventing erosion was the primary goal
of the task. When testing the design, the group realized that the criteria had not been met to allow
use of the playground.
PART III: Reflection Questions: Please answer each of the questions below.
1. Based on your students’ presentation of their work, what features made a good design?
Two teams (out of 10 teams) focused on creating a pathway for the water run-off that also
prevented the erosion of the soil. The most successful design allowed 90% of the water to drain
from the site with only 2 millimeters of soil.
That team provided an explanation that showed they considered the possibility of
continuing rainfall. The design did not try to contain the water, but allowed drainage. The
minimal soil erosion of the design demonstrated that the prototype was able to contain the soil in
the original location, even though it shifted in position a slight amount. The successful design
was also cost efficient, and did not obstruct the use of the playground area.
2. What features made a poor design?
The two most poorly designed prototypes were designed so the erosion prevention
structures extended into the playground area. The useable space was reduced significantly with
little benefit in the amount of erosion prevented. The total run-off was in the range of 15 mL,
with 1-2 mL of soil and 13 mL of water. There was a build-up of water in the soil area. If there
was an on-going rain event, the water would collect in a large pool with inadequate drainage
pathways. There would be a risk of collapse of the structure, or flooding of the playground.
3. Which phases of the engineering design process do you feel most comfortable and confident in
teaching?
Using the engineering design process has been so inspiring for our students. I am
confident about introducing design task steps, sketching, coaching students through the prototype
development, and testing of models. I wish that there could be more time to implement multiple
redesign trials.
4. Which phases of the engineering design process do you feel least comfortable and confident in
teaching?
I am challenged most by helping students understand the client and end user terminology
throughout the design process. There is an overlap in these roles for some projects. Students need
more clarity in the terms than I am giving. That leads to confusion. I need to develop better,
concrete ways of teaching students the vocabulary.
Teaching students to communicate their results in our evaluation phase is also hard
because students lack extensive experience expressing their ideas in writing. Oral discussion of
the success, or deficiencies, of designs while using the newer vocabulary is a challenge.
Assessing, evaluating, and organizing thoughts in a written format requires a great deal of
support from the teacher. It is a long process.
5. What is one area in your implementation of the design tasks you want to improve upon in your
next implementation?
I want to be sure to emphasize the broad perspective of how a design should be able to
perform. Students in the past have focused on minor details, one-time uses, or non-essential
elements (adding decorations). The students need to understand the relevance of repeated or
continuous use of a design. Trying to create prototypes that work without constant interventions
and repeated uses will be one of my goals.
Increased instruction about the client and end-user will also be improved in my next
design tasks. If I add more samples and extra review throughout the units, the students may make
substantial gains.
6. Do you feel you teach science differently now than you did years ago? If so, how are you
teaching science differently? What do you think caused you to change your practice? If not, why
do you think you have not changed?
Science instruction has definitely changed for my classes. In the past, we coordinated
teacher-directed inquiry activities and textbook work. Students kept notebooks, read, recorded
data from the inquiries, and took teacher-created tests.
Currently, I teach short units about key science concepts based on textbook material and
inquiry activities. This is the knowledge base for the engineering design tasks. The students are
responsible for creating the design and building the prototype with a team. This practice offers
the opportunity to apply the concepts and engage in real problem-solving. Sustained teamwork,
thinking, and problem-solving changes the way my students think and challenges them in novel
ways. They remember the concepts and increase in their ability to employ higher-level thinking
skills.
I made the changes in my teaching practice because I could see a lack of engagement by
my students in the text/inquiry/test pattern. Students are much more involved in the engineering
design and actively seek new topics to study. They are devoted to increasing their knowledge,
and demonstrate much stronger understanding to science. The additional bonus of seeing them
persist at a task for several days is a wonderful byproduct.
7. Is there anything that causes you concern, that you are afraid of when you think about
changing your science teaching and implementing SLED design tasks? Are there things that keep
you from changing your teaching?
At this time I do not have such concerns. This is my third year of implementing SLED,
and it has made a tremendous difference to my students.