Design Workshop Review

Overview

In this eighth lesson of the ten-lesson unit Design a Sustainable Community, students work in teams to develop and refine a sustainable community-space proposal. They integrate scale, ratios, measurement, percentages, linear relationships and data, then use peer feedback to test assumptions and improve their design.

Learning intentions

• WALT combine mathematical representations to develop a sustainable community-space proposal.
• WALT use scale, ratios, measurement, percentages, linear relationships and data accurately.
• WALT explain assumptions and justify design decisions with mathematical evidence.
• WALT give and respond to constructive peer feedback.

Success criteria

• I can produce a scaled plan with suitable measurements, labels and units.
• I can show accurate calculations for area, scale, costs, percentages and relevant relationships.
• I can explain how data and assumptions support my design decisions.
• I can use peer feedback to identify a weakness and make a justified revision.

Curriculum links

• Measurement — mathematical modelling with ratios, rates and financial contexts.
• Number — modelling practical problems involving rational numbers, percentages and financial decisions.
• Algebra — modelling applied problems involving linear relationships and interpreting their meaning.
• Algebra — creating, expanding, rearranging and simplifying linear expressions where required.

Lesson structure (90 minutes)

1. 0–8 min · Launch and connect. Display the lesson goals and a visual of an empty community space becoming a sustainable shared area using the opening hook and learning-goal slides; students identify two mathematical features a convincing proposal must include and briefly revisit feedback from the previous lesson.

2. 8–20 min · Model a strong proposal. Use the worked proposal and modelling slides to examine a short example, thinking aloud about scale, units, area, a percentage budget allocation and a simple linear cost relationship. Students annotate the design workshop workbook by highlighting evidence of accurate mathematics, stated assumptions and a design decision justified by data. Emphasise that a model is only useful when its assumptions and limits are explained.

3. 20–27 min · Plan team roles and priorities. Introduce the project checklist and roles through the workshop instructions and role-allocation slides; allocate students to two teams of three, with roles such as spatial designer, financial/data analyst and evidence coordinator, while requiring all members to check calculations. Students select or confirm their community-space brief, record their first three priorities in the workbook and set a measurable team target for the workshop.

4. 27–57 min · Collaborative design studio. Teams develop their proposal using the design workshop workbook and the coordinates and quadrants grid templates. Students produce or refine a scaled plan, calculate dimensions and areas, construct a budget, apply percentage changes or allocations, and represent at least one changing quantity with a table, rule or graph. The teacher conferences with each team, checking scale factors, units, reasonableness of totals, fixed and changing costs, and whether the chosen data genuinely supports the design. Pause at 42 minutes for a two-minute calculation check: each team swaps one calculation with a partner for verification.

5. 57–72 min · Structured peer review. Display the review protocol and rubric using the peer-review slides. Teams exchange proposals and complete the review section of the workbook: identify one mathematical strength, ask one clarifying question, test one assumption or calculation, and suggest one feasible improvement. Reviewers must refer to specific evidence rather than personal preference; designers listen, ask questions and record feedback without immediately defending the design.

6. 72–84 min · Revise and communicate. Teams use the feedback to make at least one visible revision to their plan, calculations or rationale. Students add a short “before and after” note explaining what changed, why it changed and how the mathematics or evidence improved. Invite each team to prepare a 60-second presentation naming the design’s purpose, one key calculation, one assumption and one revision.

7. 84–90 min · Present and exit reflection. Each team gives its brief presentation while the audience records one evidence-based commendation. Close with the presentation prompts and plenary slides and students complete the final reflection in the design workshop workbook: “The most important assumption in our model is…”, “Our design is appropriate because…”, and “Before final submission, we still need to check…”.

Resources

• the Design Workshop and Peer Review slide deck
• the design workshop workbook
• the coordinates and quadrants grid templates
• Rulers, pencils, erasers and coloured pens
• Calculators or approved digital calculation tools
• Graph paper or large-format planning paper
• Team role cards or displayed role list
• Peer-review rubric and visible timer
• Access to previously collected community or environmental data

Assessment

• During conferences, check whether students select appropriate representations, maintain consistent scale and units, and interpret results in context.
• Review each team’s workbook for annotated calculations, a defensible budget, a linear relationship or table/graph, stated assumptions and evidence-based rationale.
• Use the peer-review response and exit reflection to assess students’ ability to evaluate model appropriateness and identify a justified next step.

Differentiation

• Provide the project checklist, model proposal, partially completed calculation template, formula prompts and sentence starters such as “We assumed…” and “This is reasonable because…”.
• Allocate roles deliberately, use teacher conferences and allow oral explanation, annotated visuals, handwritten work or a digital presentation.
• For EAL/D and students requiring additional support, pre-teach key terms such as scale, assumption, allocation, fixed cost and rate; pair spoken instructions with worked visual examples and permit speech-to-text.
• For students needing extension, require a sensitivity analysis showing how changed prices, dimensions or demand affect the design, including a comparison table and a recommendation about which change matters most.

Extension

• Add a sensitivity analysis for at least two changed variables, such as a 10% price increase or a reduced site area.
• Graph the effect of a changing variable on total cost or capacity and explain the limits of the model.
• Compare two alternative designs and recommend one using mathematical, environmental and community evidence.