Product Prototype and Review

Overview

In this second lesson, students create a working prototype of their digital product from their design brief. They will use flowcharts to guide the steps, then evaluate their prototype using clear criteria for aesthetics, functionality, and user needs, including efficiency and environmental impact.

Learning intentions

• WALT create a prototype for my digital product using appropriate digital tools and steps from my flowchart.
• WALT test and improve my prototype for functionality and usability.
• WALT evaluate my prototype against criteria: aesthetics, functionality, user needs, and efficiency/environmental considerations.
• WALT reflect on material choices and justify what I included or changed.

Success criteria

• I can build a prototype that matches key requirements from my design brief.
• I can follow a flowchart and show logical steps from input to output.
• I can evaluate my prototype using evidence and explain improvements.
• I can consider efficiency (time/energy) and environmental impact in my design choices.

Curriculum links

• Technology — Developing and using design ideas: use a range of resources and digital tools to prototype solutions; test and improve.
• Technology — Communicating design ideas: use planning tools such as flowcharts to show how a process works.
• English — Writing processes (planning): gather information from print/digital and organise it into categories to support planning and justification.
• English — Writing (audience, purpose, and language choice): justify content included or left out based on how writing may affect others.
• English — Drafting: write multi-paragraph texts using headings and subheadings to present evaluation clearly.

Lesson structure (60 minutes)

1. 0–5 min · Revisit aims and success criteria. Teacher displays today’s criteria and quickly revisits how flowcharts guide the build; students turn to their design brief and underline the “must-haves”.

2. 5–12 min · Flowchart check (quick planning). Teacher models a 3-step “input → process → output” example, then students check their own flowchart for missing steps and label decision points (e.g., if/then).

3. 12–25 min · Prototype creation (Set 1). Teacher circulates, prompting students to use the flowchart as they build and to save versions (e.g., v1, v2). Students begin building the prototype using teacher-approved digital tools.

4. 25–32 min · Debug and user test (micro-test). Teacher gives a 3-minute user test routine: one student explains what should happen, another checks against expectations, and a third records one issue and one improvement suggestion. Students run the micro-test and make at least one improvement.

5. 32–44 min · Prototype creation (Set 2) with efficiency focus. Teacher reminds students to consider efficiency: selecting the simplest option that achieves the goal, avoiding unnecessary steps, and choosing efficient settings (where relevant to the tool). Students refine the prototype, referencing user needs from the brief.

6. 44–52 min · Evaluate using a structured checklist. Teacher provides an evaluation template with headings: Aesthetics, Functionality, User Needs, Efficiency and Environmental Impact. Students complete the checklist using evidence from testing (e.g., what worked, what didn’t, why).

7. 52–60 min · Reflection and next-step justification. Teacher models a short “claim-evidence-justification” sentence (e.g., “I changed X because users struggled with Y”). Students write 4–6 sentences: one improvement, one reason, and one environmental/efficiency consideration; then submit.

Resources

• Student design briefs (from Lesson 1)
• Flowcharts (saved or printed)
• Teacher-provided digital tools list and log-in access
• Device/computer access for 20 students
• Evaluation template (printed or digital) with headings and sentence starters
• Version-saving prompts (e.g., v1/v2) and a simple file naming convention
• Earphones or quiet corner option for focused building time
• Sticky notes or a digital form for recording micro-test feedback

Assessment

• During building: teacher checks that students are following their flowchart steps and can explain input/output and key decisions.
• During micro-test: teacher listens for clear evidence-based feedback and whether students respond to it.
• End-of-lesson evaluation: review the completed template for alignment to criteria (aesthetics, functionality, user needs) and inclusion of efficiency/environmental impact justifications.
• Quick formative check: students complete a 1-minute “What will I fix next time?” statement.

Differentiation

• Support: provide sentence starters for evaluation (e.g., “This works well because…”, “Users found… challenging, so I…”) and simplified flowchart symbols/labels for students who need structure.
• Support: offer a “minimum viable prototype” checklist (e.g., must have one clear input, one output, and at least one decision point).
• Extension: students enhance their prototype with an additional feature that directly improves user needs or usability, then justify why it was worth the added complexity using efficiency/environmental reasoning.
• EAL/SEN: allow evaluation responses to be partially oral before writing; provide a word bank for criteria (aesthetics, functionality, user needs, efficiency, environment, improve, justify).

Notes for teacher (technology teaching emphasis)

• Keep prototypes small and achievable within the session: the goal is a working demonstration and a reasoned evaluation, not a fully polished product.
• Use the flowchart as the “process map” students refer to throughout building, testing, and reflecting.
• Ensure all evaluation claims are tied to what happened during user testing (evidence) and connected to design choices (justification).