Explore the Design Challenge

Overview

Students are introduced to the “Design, Make, Improve” challenge: design a freestanding structure that supports a specified load using limited materials. They retrieve prior learning about forces and structures, identify the brief’s criteria and constraints, examine an example, and sketch two possible solutions to develop in the next lesson.

Learning intentions

• We are learning to interpret a practical design brief.
• We are learning to identify criteria and constraints before designing.
• We are learning to explain how forces can affect structures.
• We are learning to communicate possible solutions using annotated sketches.

Success criteria

• I can state what my structure must do and what materials I may use.
• I can identify at least two forces acting on a structure.
• I can explain one way a structure could become stronger or more stable.
• I can sketch and label two different possible solutions.

Curriculum links

• Technology — technological practice: identifying a need or opportunity, developing a brief, and generating design ideas.
• Technology — technological knowledge: considering how materials, structure, and forces influence a technological outcome.
• Science — analysing interactions between objects by identifying and interpreting the forces involved.
• Science — recognising that forces can change the shape, size, or position of objects, and may be internal or external.

Lesson structure (45 minutes)

1. 0–5 min · Hook: What makes it stand? Teacher displays the opening challenge image showing a tall, freestanding paper structure beside a collapsed one, then asks, “How could the same material produce two different results?” Students make a silent prediction, then discuss it with a partner.

2. 5–12 min · Reveal and retrieve. Teacher introduces the design brief using the design brief and retrieval slides: “Design a freestanding structure at least 30 cm high that supports a 500 g load for 10 seconds, using only 10 sheets of paper and 30 cm of masking tape.” Clarify that “freestanding” means standing without being held or attached, and retrieve prior learning with quick questions: What is a force? What happens when a force pushes, pulls, bends, or twists? Students respond on mini-whiteboards or with hand signals, then record one useful idea on the design challenge planning sheet.

3. 12–19 min · Model criteria and constraints. Teacher thinks aloud while examining a simple model structure, using the criteria, constraints, and model slides. Sort examples aloud: criteria describe what the structure must achieve; constraints limit materials, size, time, or method. Demonstrate how to annotate a sketch with labels such as “wide base”, “folded beam”, “compression”, “tension”, “load”, and “support”. Students help identify two strengths and one likely weakness in the model, using the sentence frame: “The structure may be stable because…”.

4. 19–24 min · Movement and discussion: force detectives. Teacher places the model where all students can see it and prompts students to point out where the load pushes down and where the structure pushes back. Students work with a partner to mime or trace the direction of forces, then complete a brief “think, pair, share” response: “One external force is… It may change the structure by…”. Provide spoken directions one step at a time and keep the same instructions visible on the force detective prompt.

5. 24–38 min · Independent design sprint. Teacher distributes the design challenge planning sheet and chunks the task: first write the brief, then list criteria and constraints, then sketch Solution A, then sketch Solution B. Pause after each stage for a visual check and model the next step on the design sprint instruction slides. Students create two genuinely different labelled sketches, including approximate height, base, material use, load position, and one predicted force. They may use the Design Thinking Process Cards as a visual reminder of the design stages. The teacher conferences with students, asking, “What makes it stable?” and “Which constraint influenced this choice?”

6. 38–45 min · Share, assess, and improve. Teacher displays the final prompts on the sharing and exit prompt. Students pair-share both sketches, naming one difference and one reason for a preferred option. Each student completes the worksheet reflection: “I would develop Solution ___ because…”, and identifies one question to investigate when making. Invite two or three students to share; collect sheets for planning the next lesson.

Resources

• the complete design challenge slide deck
• the design challenge planning sheet
• the Design Thinking Process Cards
• 10 sheets of paper per team for later making
• Masking tape, prepared in 30 cm lengths for later making
• 500 g test loads and a ruler for later testing
• Mini-whiteboards or response cards
• Completed sample structure and a collapsed example
• Visible timer

Assessment

• Listen to partner explanations and check whether students distinguish criteria from constraints.
• Scan sketches for two different solutions, relevant labels, predicted forces, and evidence of consideration of stability.
• Use the final written choice and reason to identify who is ready to prototype and who needs a short reteach of forces, criteria, or constraints.

Differentiation

• Provide a printed, dyslexia-friendly worksheet with large writing spaces, clear sans-serif font, icons, numbered stages, and a word bank: load, force, tension, compression, stable, base, criteria, constraint.
• For ADHD, show a visual countdown, chunk the sprint into short stages, allow students to stand or use a designated movement break, and give specific conference questions rather than broad reminders.
• For APD, face students when speaking, reduce background noise, provide every direction in writing on the slides and worksheet, check understanding privately, and allow extra processing time before responses.
• Support EAL learners with labelled pictures, gestures, sentence starters, partner rehearsal, and acceptance of annotated diagrams alongside written explanations. Extend confident learners by asking them to predict where buckling or tipping might occur and suggest a test to compare their designs.