Approximately 15 million students will be enrolled in high-school in the Fall of 2020, of which 45 percent will attend online, with an additional 48 percent not yet determined. Students across the nation need full access to experience both virtual and hands-on components of the PLTW Introduction to Engineering Design curriculum whether in a brick-and-mortar setting or via remote instruction. How can we provide a practical solution, for an individual kit, that would facilitate PLTW curriculum and not require families to shoulder an additional financial burden for the procurement of hands-on materials?

Our team had a mindset of “continuous improvement” throughout the project. We remained open to a variety of ideas and worked to find a solution that was supported by the data gathered throughout the duration of the project. We each contributed in our own ways and were able to work together without conflict or bottlenecks. This project has become a “labor of love,” one that we would all like to see through to completion so teachers across the nation can more easily implement PLTW’s hands-on activities in a remote learning situation.

(1) What worked well? Digital presentations are hard because the normal facial cues are missing and the small time delay during verbal communication makes a normal dialogue impossible. Practice with ‘who’s line is it anyway’ digital protocol is critical to running a classroom online so the presentations were awkward but very useful. The problem needs very little justification because the demand for physical learning during solo remote learning is obvious to all science and technology teachers. The survey and interviews confirmed our intuition that our problem is relevant and valid. PLTW is currently working on remote learning solutions. CADE museum had already designed and implemented a take-home science kit passed out with the food program and University of Florida had already designed and distributed kits for undergraduate introductory Physics students.

(2) What would the team change? After we interviewed the “experts”, we learned of additional questions we needed to add to our surveys. This would have been helpful, because we wouldn’t have needed to send more than one initial survey.

(3) What lessons did the team learn? We learned how to really connect well with those who had expertise in this field and the importance of connecting with them early on in the project. We also worked really well as a team in managing, dividing, and conquering tasks with our daily assigned tasks spreadsheet and coding of completed tasks.

(1) What worked well? We were able to find products that did not specifically address our problem, but that were similar to brainstormed potential solutions. This helped us narrow down our vision to a tangible product which could borrow from existing product ideas.

(2) What would the team change? We possibly could have researched more about patents that were kit oriented. This was difficult for us, as we really had to go with prior solutions.

(3) What lessons did the team learn? In this element we reviewed how different, alternative solutions were developed and marketed. We used this information to justify our solution for creating our own design in later elements, rather than placing dependence on outside companies to develop our more customized course solution.

(1) What worked well? Since our team members were a thousand miles apart, we were able to come at the problem with different perspectives, keeping in mind that we wanted our solution to be able to address all students in all districts. The design specifications were valid and testable. The whole purpose of the kit is to increase economic access. Correlations with standards and learning objectives were also easy to measure. Ease of use is a little more tricky to measure so volunteer test subjects were used to measure how attainable the construction projects are.

(2) What would the team change? We could possibly schedule to meet with and/or interview teachers who are certified to teach IED and will teach the course in the fall, other than through surveying.

(3) What lessons did the team learn? Later on, we learned that the design specs would change based on consumer feedback and response to our presentation of elements and design solution ideas. This did cause us to go back and revise our design specs a few times.

(1) What worked well? Our decision matrix came together quickly, since we had applicable data from our surveys. It truly helped to narrow our focus to a specific product idea. Nate’s sketches were well done and added to the visualization of our product.

(2) What would the team change? Potentially being more specific in our problem statement from the very beginning. It seemed like the peer feedback wasn’t quite detailed enough for us to really know what to revise or to correct early on. Thus we ended up using the surveys to update our problem statement.

(3) What lessons did the team learn? This would have been an excellent time to begin the Autodesk Inventor parts and assembly due to the time constraints for the summer course. Also, it may have provided more of a basis for how much “room” would be needed in an overall kit design, so that the cardboard shoe box didn’t determine the design, but rather the elements inside of it drove the size of the shoe box kit design

(1) What worked well? POE mechanics of materials ideas such as beam bending, effective stiffness, and pattern recognition in data sets were easily transferred to the physical testing of our nested shoe component of our kit.

(2) What would the team change? Physical testing was a real challenge at home. By chance I had a set of calipers from school. Including a set of calipers as well as a physical ruler is only a $2 addition to kit and would allow for many different IED and POE activities to be possible.

(3) What lessons did the team learn? Harbour Freight was out of calipers. Since many science, engineering, and Career and Technical Education programs are developing similar programs to ours simultaneously we anticipate scarcity for many of the materials in the kits.

(1) What worked well? We were able to find other examples of kits from various vendors to compare.

(2) What would the team change? We would have really liked to have PLTW provide a sample kit contents that would match our updated curriculum. We didn’t have time to review the entire curriculum, optional type materials versus required, and then compare them to what we were recommending.

(3) What lessons did the team learn? We learned all of the things that STEM really means when it comes to designing a solution. We realized there was so much more to designing a solution other than just the engineering aspects.

(1) What worked well? A bill of materials could be quickly assembled to reduce the number of vendors (Harbor Freight/Amazon/Lowes/U-line). Ordering through Amazon takes advantage of fast shipping opportunities and many schools already have Amazon Prime accounts. Ordering “replaceable” components from Harbor Freight greatly reduces cost when compared to other vendors and they offer shipping, with most items received in a week’s time with a nominal shipping fee of $6.99. U-line seems to be the best option for ordering shoe-box sized containers in bulk. This vendor may be the only bottleneck in the ordering process. Most of the items were easy to obtain. Dollar General, Walmart, and Harbour Freight are all local and accessible to our population.

(2) What would the team change? Bulk ordering instead of brick and mortar purchase could reduce the cost per unit significantly.

(3) What lessons did the team learn? Durable items are expensive. Many of the attractive items in the kit that can provide a benefit beyond the PLTW curriculum increased the cost significantly.

(1) What worked well? The group conducted two ‘field tests’ in two days. Video evidence of the test provided interesting information about packing and organizing the kit. The graphical instructions next to the written instructions also seemed to increase the ease of use.

(2) What would the team change? We would have liked to conduct more tests using our plans to further design and redesign our solution. While we know that we’ve designed a good solution to creating the basic kit for the Instant Design Challenges and Automata, we’d like to see it created for the entire curriculum - and potentially other PLTW courses in which we teach.

(3) What lessons did the team learn? We learned how to create test plans, as well as how to isolate each element of a design solution to evaluate it independently. We also learned the importance of video to show proof of concept.

(1) What worked well? Each set of instructions took only ½ an hour to produce. Each test took only about an hour to perform, document, and upload.

(2) What would the team change? Behavioral observations are often subjective. Rather than simple construction tasks. Subjects should be asked to make measurements and answer some kind of question by interpreting a data set they produced with the tool they built.

(3) What lessons did the team learn? The pass/fail method of testing procedures really allows for a yes/no response to whether or not something works. It seems to be super clear cut and to the point in regards to whether something should pass or be reevaluated.

(1) What worked well? Working as individuals, we were able to find willing participants to provide the necessary feedback: teachers, students, admin, and parents (bonus!). Our interviews were able to be conducted in a very short time frame and we were able to compile useful information from all stakeholder groups.

(2) What would the team change? Given a wider time frame, we would have the opportunity to gather information from a larger cross-section of the population.

(3) What lessons did the team learn? It takes time to really put together, analyze, and revise design solution feedback and do so in an effective way.

(1) What worked well? We were able to quickly input our reflections, simultaneously, using Google Docs. As Nate remarked, we would make a great “Google Docs advertisement.”

(2) What would the team change? When I took part in physical training sessions I wondered if the same learning benefits could be achieved through online techniques. Now that we have been forced to try online training I see how tricky it can be and how many barriers there are to communication.

(3) What lessons did the team learn? Reviewing each of the elements helped us to reflect on the process and realize how far we have come in just a few days time. With schools starting in just a few weeks, and most using remote learning in some form, we would all like to see this through to the end and help teachers produce our product for use in “the real world.”

(1) What worked well? Lots of practice with various stakeholders and experts really helped us to hone in on the best design possible, while maximizing flexibility for various schools/districts.

(2) What would the team change? At this point, we'd like just more flexibility to actually present the portfolio, rather than the slides version. It had a lot more to offer.

(3) What lessons did the team learn? There are so many ways to interpret and implement a design solution. We hope to provide a basic set-up for teachers who wish to make this into a reality for this coming school year.

For this project, we believe our team has created a viable solution that will appeal to schools, families, and students for brick-and-mortar and remote/hybrid instruction for the PLTW Intro to Engineering course. While we are aware that it only really addresses the Instant Design Challenges and Automata, we hope that this small modification to the delivery of the content will achieve the design solution specifications that we address, most importantly - student engagement. Otherwise, what are we here for…

Our team adapted well to working remotely in this short time frame, was able to pool resources together, collaborated and communicated very well, divided the work equitably, and conquered the tasks. We are excited for the possibility of actually seeing our design solution/project through to completion.