Material Choices

Overview

This is Lesson 4 of 8 in “Waste Wise: Crafting Sustainability”. Students explore and compare possible materials for pencil pots made from used containers (plastic bottles and cans), then use agreed design criteria to decide which material is best for a functional, safe, and lower-waste solution.

Learning intentions

Students will:

• compare the properties of plastic bottles and cans for making pencil pots
• use co-developed design criteria (including sustainability) to evaluate design ideas
• select and justify a material choice for their own pencil pot
• communicate decisions using appropriate technical language and simple diagrams

Success criteria

Students can:

• explain at least two reasons a material suits the pencil pot purpose (e.g. strength, stability, ease of shaping)
• identify one sustainability factor (e.g. reducing waste, recyclability/repairability)
• use the class design criteria to rate options and choose a material
• describe their decision clearly using words like “strong”, “water-resistant”, “sharp edges”, “join”, and “stability”

Curriculum links

• Design and Technologies: use given or co-developed design criteria including sustainability to evaluate design ideas and solutions
• Design and Technologies: generate and communicate design ideas and decisions using technical terms and graphical representation techniques (labels/annotated sketch)
• Design and Technologies: select and use materials and processes to safely create designed solutions (focus on safety when considering container edges)

Lesson structure (45 minutes)

1. 0–5 min · Hook (containers reveal). Teacher displays a plastic bottle (cut sample) and an empty can (lid removed or safely covered) and asks: “Which one would hold pencils best, and why?” Students do a quick think-pair-share and record one early reason.

2. 5–15 min · Direct teach (properties + safety). Teacher introduces the purpose of a pencil pot (hold pencils upright, be stable on a desk, be safe in classroom use). Teacher models a “properties checklist” for both materials: strength/stability, ease of shaping, ability to be cleaned, and safety risks (sharp edges, pinch points). Students copy the checklist into their workbook and add one example of a safety issue they notice (e.g. can edges).

3. 15–25 min · Collaborative decision task (design criteria sorting). Teacher displays the class design criteria from earlier lessons (revisited):

• Function: fits pencils, stands steady, easy to use
• Safety: no sharp edges, secure base/top
• Sustainability: reduces waste; choose materials that can be reused and last longer Students work in small groups to sort ideas cards into “meets / might meet / doesn’t meet” for bottle vs can, then give each option a simple rating (e.g. 1–3 stars) using the criteria.

4. 25–33 min · Guided test/compare (mini-trials). Teacher runs two quick, supervised comparison demos at benches:

• Stability test: place each sample (with safe coverings) on a flat surface and try a gentle push; compare wobble.
• Clean-and-hold test: students compare how easily it could be cleaned and how pencils would sit (teacher demonstrates pencil placement). Students record observations using sentence frames: “I noticed…”, “This means…”, “So the material is good for…”.

5. 33–40 min · Individual decision (choose + justify). Teacher explains: “You must choose one container material for your pencil pot and justify it using the design criteria.” Teacher circulates and prompts safety and sustainability reasoning. Students complete a “Material Choice” sheet with: chosen material, two criterion-based reasons, and one sustainability statement.

6. 40–45 min · Share + exit ticket (quick checks). A few students share their choice and justification. Teacher checks for misconceptions (e.g. assuming cans are always unsafe rather than discussing how to make them safe). Exit ticket: “Which criterion matters most for your pencil pot today, and how will you meet it?”

Resources

• Clean plastic bottles (assorted sizes) and empty cans (lids removed safely or covered with tape)
• Safe display items for observation (teacher-handled where needed)
• Design criteria poster/cards from previous lessons (function, safety, sustainability)
• Mini “properties checklist” worksheet
• “Material Choice” decision sheet with rating space (1–3)
• Pencil samples, desk work mats
• Scissors and craft tools available for later lessons (kept closed now; highlight safety verbally)
• Sentence starters and word bank: strength, stability, safe edges, cleaning, sustainability, reduce waste
• Teacher timer and visual star-rating chart

Assessment

• Formative: teacher observes group sorting and listens for criterion-based reasoning during the decision task.
• Formative: review mini-trial notes for accurate links between observations and the criteria.
• Exit ticket: check that students can name the most important criterion and mention how it will be addressed (especially safety and sustainability).

Differentiation

• Support: provide sentence frames (“One reason this material works is…”, “To make it safe, we will…”), and a word bank for technical terms.
• Support: offer a partially completed “Material Choice” sheet for students who need structure (pre-fill the criterion headings).
• Extension: invite students to compare two sustainability options (e.g. “Which lasts longer and reduces replacement waste?”) and include a brief “revision idea” (what they would change if their first choice fails).
• EAL/SEN: allow students to draw a labelled sketch of their pencil pot choice and justify with 1–2 spoken points recorded by the teacher or peer.