Appendix A
Student Survey Response Summaries (Samples):
Find the Student Survey here:
In the 2014 student survey, my students’ responses were pretty much in line with my own views on how the year went in my classes. Areas of strength for me: students generally feel that I care about them, think that I am accessible and fun, and am good at explaining concepts in different ways when they don’t understand something. I got a lot of positive feedback that I make lessons fun and interesting. Areas with room for growth: keeping the class engaged and not wasting time, and giving opportunities for students to explain/think about why they think what they think (explain their learning). I had two blocks in particular in which classroom management was a real struggle, and I found it interesting that my ratings were slightly lower in these classes almost across the board. The other classes, in which behavior was not an issue, rated me much higher in all areas. Some questions for me to ponder this summer: How do I develop a stronger classroom management structure with clear behavior boundaries? How do I build a stronger and more positive class culture in classes where student behavior can threaten to derail and undermine the class’ learning and morale?
The average scores were between 3.8 and 4.8 on a 1 - 5 Likert scale. The 3.8 came from the category regarding my availability outside of class. Students overall enjoyed the class and felt like the teacher was fun and energetic which helped them to enjoy the learning process. Some of the students expressed that they need the note-taking to be slower and to desired to do more labs and experiments. Students felt like the textbook was not utilized that much during the school year and felt it was unnecessary.
Students overall enjoyed the course. I averaged between a 4.1 and a 4.9 on all of the categories. Some students did not like the test corrections and some students did. Some students utilized the textbook a lot, but others felt the textbook was unnecessary. Students overall felt mostly prepared for the AP exam and suggested spending a little more time on the details of cell respiration/photosynthesis and molecular biology. Overall, the students felt the class was challenging and would still recommend the class to their peers.
Click here for a visual representation of survey data:
Sample Responses for Different Teachers in the Science Department:
"In general the students in seventh grade had lots of positive comments about me as a teacher and their experience in seventh grade science. They appreciated my fun and calm demeanor and that I was consistently prepared for class. They like doing interesting labs, but felt that our Haiku site was a bit disorganized. I need to work on explaining difficult concepts better for them. ( A number of the things we covered, I had never taught before or only once, such as electromagnetic spectrum and life cycles of stars ). Students liked that I was patient with them and provided rubrics for bigger assignments so they could see what was needed to get full credit ahead of time."
"Feedback on the front side of the survey was very positive (mostly 5's). Interestingly, there were a couple students who asked that we move faster through the material. This is difficult with students of such varying math/science backgrounds. Some students are in AP Calc and AP Physics while others are in Geometry. The course is also very heavily project based so we spend a relatively small percentage of time on actual "theory". Constructive feedback consisted of students saying that there should be no tests and that we should go on field trips. Positive feedback included that the class is very interesting, that I'm knowledgable in the field of Engineering, and that the projects are challenging, engaging, and educational."
"Overall, I was pleased with my students' feedback. Some of the things that were written about me were very flattering, and I appreciated that they took the time to provide me with that feedback. Of course, there are things I can always improve. There are two particular items that I want to focus on next year: being more clear about the grading system and exhibiting more patience."
"I was a little surprised that a few students felt that the grading system wasn't explained clearly, but since different types of assignments (homework, labs, tests) are weighed differently, I can see how there could be confusion. I will make a point to remind them throughout each trimester the way each assignment is graded and what category it falls under."
"A few of the students wrote that I scream and yell a lot. That was embarrassing to read. I will admit that my teaching personality is loud and outgoing, but I can see how some students may not appreciate it as much as others, or take it more personally than others. I want to provide my students with a comfortable learning environment, and I realize that even though this feedback was from a small number of students, they all deserve to be comfortable in every classroom."
Student Survey Response Summaries (Samples):
Find the Student Survey here:
In the 2014 student survey, my students’ responses were pretty much in line with my own views on how the year went in my classes. Areas of strength for me: students generally feel that I care about them, think that I am accessible and fun, and am good at explaining concepts in different ways when they don’t understand something. I got a lot of positive feedback that I make lessons fun and interesting. Areas with room for growth: keeping the class engaged and not wasting time, and giving opportunities for students to explain/think about why they think what they think (explain their learning). I had two blocks in particular in which classroom management was a real struggle, and I found it interesting that my ratings were slightly lower in these classes almost across the board. The other classes, in which behavior was not an issue, rated me much higher in all areas. Some questions for me to ponder this summer: How do I develop a stronger classroom management structure with clear behavior boundaries? How do I build a stronger and more positive class culture in classes where student behavior can threaten to derail and undermine the class’ learning and morale?
The average scores were between 3.8 and 4.8 on a 1 - 5 Likert scale. The 3.8 came from the category regarding my availability outside of class. Students overall enjoyed the class and felt like the teacher was fun and energetic which helped them to enjoy the learning process. Some of the students expressed that they need the note-taking to be slower and to desired to do more labs and experiments. Students felt like the textbook was not utilized that much during the school year and felt it was unnecessary.
Students overall enjoyed the course. I averaged between a 4.1 and a 4.9 on all of the categories. Some students did not like the test corrections and some students did. Some students utilized the textbook a lot, but others felt the textbook was unnecessary. Students overall felt mostly prepared for the AP exam and suggested spending a little more time on the details of cell respiration/photosynthesis and molecular biology. Overall, the students felt the class was challenging and would still recommend the class to their peers.
Click here for a visual representation of survey data:
Sample Responses for Different Teachers in the Science Department:
"In general the students in seventh grade had lots of positive comments about me as a teacher and their experience in seventh grade science. They appreciated my fun and calm demeanor and that I was consistently prepared for class. They like doing interesting labs, but felt that our Haiku site was a bit disorganized. I need to work on explaining difficult concepts better for them. ( A number of the things we covered, I had never taught before or only once, such as electromagnetic spectrum and life cycles of stars ). Students liked that I was patient with them and provided rubrics for bigger assignments so they could see what was needed to get full credit ahead of time."
"Feedback on the front side of the survey was very positive (mostly 5's). Interestingly, there were a couple students who asked that we move faster through the material. This is difficult with students of such varying math/science backgrounds. Some students are in AP Calc and AP Physics while others are in Geometry. The course is also very heavily project based so we spend a relatively small percentage of time on actual "theory". Constructive feedback consisted of students saying that there should be no tests and that we should go on field trips. Positive feedback included that the class is very interesting, that I'm knowledgable in the field of Engineering, and that the projects are challenging, engaging, and educational."
"Overall, I was pleased with my students' feedback. Some of the things that were written about me were very flattering, and I appreciated that they took the time to provide me with that feedback. Of course, there are things I can always improve. There are two particular items that I want to focus on next year: being more clear about the grading system and exhibiting more patience."
"I was a little surprised that a few students felt that the grading system wasn't explained clearly, but since different types of assignments (homework, labs, tests) are weighed differently, I can see how there could be confusion. I will make a point to remind them throughout each trimester the way each assignment is graded and what category it falls under."
"A few of the students wrote that I scream and yell a lot. That was embarrassing to read. I will admit that my teaching personality is loud and outgoing, but I can see how some students may not appreciate it as much as others, or take it more personally than others. I want to provide my students with a comfortable learning environment, and I realize that even though this feedback was from a small number of students, they all deserve to be comfortable in every classroom."
Appendix C
Additional references that relate specifically to the curriculum package:
Augustsson, P., Wolff, K., & Nordin, P. (2002, July). Creation Of A Learning, Flying Robot By Means Of Evolution. In GECCO (pp. 1279-1285).
Boslough, M. B. (2002). Autonomous dynamic soaring platform for distributed mobile sensor arrays. Sandia National Laboratories, Sandia National Laboratories, Tech. Rep. SAND2002-1896.
Chklovski, T. (2012). Pointed-tip wings at low Reynolds numbers. The University of Southern California, USA.
Chung, S. J., & Dorothy, M. (2010). Neurobiologically inspired control of engineered flapping flight. Journal of guidance, control, and dynamics, 33(2), 440-453.
Crandell, K. E., & Tobalske, B. W. (2015). Kinematics and aerodynamics of avian upstrokes during slow flight. The Journal of experimental biology,218(16), 2518-2527.
DeLaurier, J. D., & Harris, J. M. (1993). A study of mechanical flapping wing flight. Aeronautical Journal, 97, 277-277.
DeLaurier, J. D. (1993). The development of an efficient ornithopter wing.Aeronautical journal, 97, 153-153.
Dial, K. P., Biewener, A. A., Tobalske, B. W., & Warrick, D. R. (1997). Mechanical power output of bird flight. Nature, 390(6655), 67-70.
Hedrick, T. L. (2011). Damping in flapping flight and its implications for manoeuvring, scaling and evolution. The Journal of experimental biology,214(24), 4073-4081.
Kovač, M. (2014). The bioinspiration design paradigm: A perspective for soft robotics. Soft Robotics, 1(1), 28-37.
Larijani, R. F., & DeLaurier, J. D. (2001). A nonlinear aeroelastic model for the study of flapping wing flight. Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, 195, 399-428.
Lawrance, N. R., & Sukkarieh, S. (2009, May). A guidance and control strategy for dynamic soaring with a gliding UAV. In Robotics and Automation, 2009. ICRA'09. IEEE International Conference on (pp. 3632-3637). IEEE.
Lentink, D., Müller, U. K., Stamhuis, E. J., De Kat, R., Van Gestel, W., Veldhuis, L. L. M., ... & Van Leeuwen, J. L. (2007). How swifts control their glide performance with morphing wings. Nature, 446(7139), 1082-1085.
Mueller, T. J., & DeLaurier, J. D. (2003). Aerodynamics of small vehicles.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 35(1), 89-111.
Paranjape, A. A., Chung, S. J., & Selig, M. S. (2011). Flight mechanics of a tailless articulated wing aircraft. Bioinspiration & biomimetics, 6(2), 026005.
Provini, P., Tobalske, B. W., Crandell, K. E., & Abourachid, A. (2012). Transition from leg to wing forces during take-off in birds. The Journal of experimental biology, 215(23), 4115-4124.
Robson, G., & D’Andrea, R. (2010). Longitudinal Stability Analysis of a Jet-Powered Wingsuit. In AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference (p. 7512).
Sachs, G. (2005). Minimum shear wind strength required for dynamic soaring of albatrosses. Ibis, 147(1), 1-10.
Send, W., Fischer, M., Jebens, K., Mugrauer, R., Nagarathinam, A., & Scharstein, F. (2012, September). Artificial hinged-wing bird with active torsion and partially linear kinematics. In 28th Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences (pp. 23-28).
Tobalske, B. W., Warrick, D. R., Clark, C. J., Powers, D. R., Hedrick, T. L., Hyder, G. A., & Biewener, A. A. (2007). Three-dimensional kinematics of hummingbird flight. Journal of Experimental Biology, 210(13), 2368-2382.
Tobalske, B. W. (2007). Biomechanics of bird flight. Journal of Experimental Biology, 210(18), 3135-3146.
Zahedi, M. S., & Khan, M. Y. A. (2007). A mechanical model of wing and theoretical estimate of taper factor for three gliding birds. Journal of biosciences, 32(2), 351-361.
Zdunich, P., Bilyk, D., MacMaster, M., Loewen, D., DeLaurier, J., Kornbluh, R., ... & Holeman, D. (2007). Development and testing of the mentor flapping-wing micro air vehicle. Journal of Aircraft, 44(5), 1701-1711.
Zhao, Y. J., & Qi, Y. C. (2004). Minimum fuel powered dynamic soaring of unmanned aerial vehicles utilizing wind gradients. Optimal control applications and methods, 25(5), 211-233.
Additional references that relate specifically to the curriculum package:
Augustsson, P., Wolff, K., & Nordin, P. (2002, July). Creation Of A Learning, Flying Robot By Means Of Evolution. In GECCO (pp. 1279-1285).
Boslough, M. B. (2002). Autonomous dynamic soaring platform for distributed mobile sensor arrays. Sandia National Laboratories, Sandia National Laboratories, Tech. Rep. SAND2002-1896.
Chklovski, T. (2012). Pointed-tip wings at low Reynolds numbers. The University of Southern California, USA.
Chung, S. J., & Dorothy, M. (2010). Neurobiologically inspired control of engineered flapping flight. Journal of guidance, control, and dynamics, 33(2), 440-453.
Crandell, K. E., & Tobalske, B. W. (2015). Kinematics and aerodynamics of avian upstrokes during slow flight. The Journal of experimental biology,218(16), 2518-2527.
DeLaurier, J. D., & Harris, J. M. (1993). A study of mechanical flapping wing flight. Aeronautical Journal, 97, 277-277.
DeLaurier, J. D. (1993). The development of an efficient ornithopter wing.Aeronautical journal, 97, 153-153.
Dial, K. P., Biewener, A. A., Tobalske, B. W., & Warrick, D. R. (1997). Mechanical power output of bird flight. Nature, 390(6655), 67-70.
Hedrick, T. L. (2011). Damping in flapping flight and its implications for manoeuvring, scaling and evolution. The Journal of experimental biology,214(24), 4073-4081.
Kovač, M. (2014). The bioinspiration design paradigm: A perspective for soft robotics. Soft Robotics, 1(1), 28-37.
Larijani, R. F., & DeLaurier, J. D. (2001). A nonlinear aeroelastic model for the study of flapping wing flight. Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, 195, 399-428.
Lawrance, N. R., & Sukkarieh, S. (2009, May). A guidance and control strategy for dynamic soaring with a gliding UAV. In Robotics and Automation, 2009. ICRA'09. IEEE International Conference on (pp. 3632-3637). IEEE.
Lentink, D., Müller, U. K., Stamhuis, E. J., De Kat, R., Van Gestel, W., Veldhuis, L. L. M., ... & Van Leeuwen, J. L. (2007). How swifts control their glide performance with morphing wings. Nature, 446(7139), 1082-1085.
Mueller, T. J., & DeLaurier, J. D. (2003). Aerodynamics of small vehicles.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 35(1), 89-111.
Paranjape, A. A., Chung, S. J., & Selig, M. S. (2011). Flight mechanics of a tailless articulated wing aircraft. Bioinspiration & biomimetics, 6(2), 026005.
Provini, P., Tobalske, B. W., Crandell, K. E., & Abourachid, A. (2012). Transition from leg to wing forces during take-off in birds. The Journal of experimental biology, 215(23), 4115-4124.
Robson, G., & D’Andrea, R. (2010). Longitudinal Stability Analysis of a Jet-Powered Wingsuit. In AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference (p. 7512).
Sachs, G. (2005). Minimum shear wind strength required for dynamic soaring of albatrosses. Ibis, 147(1), 1-10.
Send, W., Fischer, M., Jebens, K., Mugrauer, R., Nagarathinam, A., & Scharstein, F. (2012, September). Artificial hinged-wing bird with active torsion and partially linear kinematics. In 28th Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences (pp. 23-28).
Tobalske, B. W., Warrick, D. R., Clark, C. J., Powers, D. R., Hedrick, T. L., Hyder, G. A., & Biewener, A. A. (2007). Three-dimensional kinematics of hummingbird flight. Journal of Experimental Biology, 210(13), 2368-2382.
Tobalske, B. W. (2007). Biomechanics of bird flight. Journal of Experimental Biology, 210(18), 3135-3146.
Zahedi, M. S., & Khan, M. Y. A. (2007). A mechanical model of wing and theoretical estimate of taper factor for three gliding birds. Journal of biosciences, 32(2), 351-361.
Zdunich, P., Bilyk, D., MacMaster, M., Loewen, D., DeLaurier, J., Kornbluh, R., ... & Holeman, D. (2007). Development and testing of the mentor flapping-wing micro air vehicle. Journal of Aircraft, 44(5), 1701-1711.
Zhao, Y. J., & Qi, Y. C. (2004). Minimum fuel powered dynamic soaring of unmanned aerial vehicles utilizing wind gradients. Optimal control applications and methods, 25(5), 211-233.
Appendix D
Hot Wire CNC Foam Cutter Proposal
Purpose:
CNC foam cutters are used to cut objects out of rigid foam (ie. blue insulation foam) using a very thin, hot wire. This includes, but is not limited to, custom high performance airplane/glider wings. Large wingspans of 6ft or even much longer are easily made (as in photos below).
Cost: $6800 (includes all hardware, electronics, PC, software, 2 year warranty, and training)
http://www.foamlinx.com/foamlinx_medium_hot_wire_cnc_foam_cutters.html
Justification: This equipment brings unique and meaningful learning opportunities to many classes
Engineering Principles would use this as part of a ~2 week unit to learn about aerodynamics (aerospace engineering). Pairs of students could quickly design, build, and test multiple iterations of a custom glider. Trying various airfoil shapes, wing tapers, and wing configurations is simple and fast with this equipment, and students would quickly learn how various designs affect aerodynamic performance and stability.
*Foam wings can be covered with composite material (such as fiberglass) creating true high performance designs—this complements our unit on composite materials and vacuum bagging.
Engineering research projects (where students spend the entire semester doing an original engineering project) would use this on longer term projects. Students would have capability to work on advanced projects aerospace engineering projects which could include building a solar plane, an autonomous plane/drone, a wind turbine, etc.
Physics (both AP and Honors) would utilize this equipment in a manner similar to Engineering Principles. Building and testing custom gliders as part of a short mid year project helps explain how wings generate lift (reinforcing conservation of momentum) and how forces balance in a stable aircraft (reinforcing Newton’s Laws).
Other classes or on campus groups such as theater tech (to construct stage props), Just Build It, Robotics, etc. may find this to be beneficial as well.
Unique high profile equipment like this (which is often found only at the college level and above) would be great to show off during prospective student days.
Hot Wire CNC Foam Cutter Proposal
Purpose:
CNC foam cutters are used to cut objects out of rigid foam (ie. blue insulation foam) using a very thin, hot wire. This includes, but is not limited to, custom high performance airplane/glider wings. Large wingspans of 6ft or even much longer are easily made (as in photos below).
Cost: $6800 (includes all hardware, electronics, PC, software, 2 year warranty, and training)
http://www.foamlinx.com/foamlinx_medium_hot_wire_cnc_foam_cutters.html
Justification: This equipment brings unique and meaningful learning opportunities to many classes
Engineering Principles would use this as part of a ~2 week unit to learn about aerodynamics (aerospace engineering). Pairs of students could quickly design, build, and test multiple iterations of a custom glider. Trying various airfoil shapes, wing tapers, and wing configurations is simple and fast with this equipment, and students would quickly learn how various designs affect aerodynamic performance and stability.
*Foam wings can be covered with composite material (such as fiberglass) creating true high performance designs—this complements our unit on composite materials and vacuum bagging.
Engineering research projects (where students spend the entire semester doing an original engineering project) would use this on longer term projects. Students would have capability to work on advanced projects aerospace engineering projects which could include building a solar plane, an autonomous plane/drone, a wind turbine, etc.
Physics (both AP and Honors) would utilize this equipment in a manner similar to Engineering Principles. Building and testing custom gliders as part of a short mid year project helps explain how wings generate lift (reinforcing conservation of momentum) and how forces balance in a stable aircraft (reinforcing Newton’s Laws).
Other classes or on campus groups such as theater tech (to construct stage props), Just Build It, Robotics, etc. may find this to be beneficial as well.
Unique high profile equipment like this (which is often found only at the college level and above) would be great to show off during prospective student days.
Appendix E
Correlation of Curriculum to Next Generation Science Standards
Science and Engineering Practices
Developing and Using Models
Modeling in 9–12 builds on K–8 experiences and progresses to using, synthesizing, and developing models to predict and show relationships among variables between systems and their components in the natural and designed worlds.
- Develop and use a model based on evidence to illustrate the relationships between systems or between components of a system. (HS-LS1-2)
- Use a model based on evidence to illustrate the relationships between systems or between components of a system. (HS-LS1-4),(HS-LS1-5),(HS-LS1-7)
Planning and carrying out in 9–12 builds on K–8 experiences and progresses to include investigations that provide evidence for and test conceptual, mathematical, physical, and empirical models.
- Plan and conduct an investigation individually and collaboratively to produce data to serve as the basis for evidence, and in the design: decide on types, how much, and accuracy of data needed to produce reliable measurements and consider limitations on the precision of the data (e.g., number of trials, cost, risk, time), and refine the design accordingly. (HS-LS1-3)
Constructing explanations and designing solutions in 9–12 builds on K–8 experiences and progresses to explanations and designs that are supported by multiple and independent student-generated sources of evidence consistent with scientific ideas, principles, and theories.
- Construct an explanation based on valid and reliable evidence obtained from a variety of sources (including students’ own investigations, models, theories, simulations, peer review) and the assumption that theories and laws that describe the natural world operate today as they did in the past and will continue to do so in the future. (HS-LS1-1)
Crosscutting Concepts
Cause and Effect
Cause and effect relationships can be suggested and predicted for complex natural and human designed systems by examining what is known about smaller scale mechanisms within the system. (HS-PS3–5)
Systems and System Models
When investigating or describing a system, the boundaries and initial conditions of the system need to be defined and their inputs and outputs analyzed and described using models. (HS-PS3-4)
Models can be used to predict the behavior of a system, but these predictions have limited precision and reliability due to the assumptions and approximations inherent in models. (HS-PS3-1)
Energy and Matter
Changes of energy and matter in a system can be described in terms of energy and matter flows into, out of, and within that system. (HS-PS3-3)
Energy cannot be created or destroyed—only moves between one place and another place, between objects and/or fields, or between systems. (HS-PS3-2)
Influence of Science, Engineering, and Technology on Society and the Natural World
Modern civilization depends on major technological systems. Engineers continuously modify these technological systems by applying scientific knowledge and engineering design practices to increase benefits while decreasing costs and risks. (HS-PS3-3)
Connections to Nature of Science
Scientific Knowledge Assumes an Order and Consistency in Natural Systems
Science assumes the universe is a vast single system in which basic laws are consistent. (HS-PS3-1)
Connections to Engineering, Technology, and Applications of Science
HS-PS3-1. Create a computational model to calculate the change in the energy of one component in a system when the change in energy of the other component(s) and energy flows in and out of the system are known. Emphasis is on explaining the meaning of mathematical expressions used in the model.] [Assessment Boundary: Assessment is limited to basic algebraic expressions or computations; to systems of two or three components; and to thermal energy, kinetic energy, and/or the energies in gravitational, magnetic, or electric fields.
HS-PS3-2. Develop and use models to illustrate that energy at the macroscopic scale can be accounted for as either motions of particles or energy stored in fields. Examples of phenomena at the macroscopic scale could include the conversion of kinetic energy to thermal energy, the energy stored due to position of an object above the earth, and the energy stored between two electrically-charged plates. Examples of models could include diagrams, drawings, descriptions, and computer simulations.
HS-PS3-3. Design, build, and refine a device that works within given constraints to convert one form of energy into another form of energy.* Emphasis is on both qualitative and quantitative evaluations of devices. Examples of devices could include Rube Goldberg devices, wind turbines, solar cells, solar ovens, and generators. Examples of constraints could include use of renewable energy forms and efficiency.] [Assessment Boundary: Assessment for quantitative evaluations is limited to total output for a given input. Assessment is limited to devices constructed with materials provided to students.
High School Engineering Design
Students who demonstrate understanding can:
HS-ETS1-1. Analyze a major global challenge to specify qualitative and quantitative criteria and constraints for solutions that account for societal needs and wants.
HS-ETS1-2. Design a solution to a complex real-world problem by breaking it down into smaller, more manageable problems that can be solved through engineering.
HS-ETS1-3. Evaluate a solution to a complex real-world problem based on prioritized criteria and trade-offs that account for a range of constraints, including cost, safety, reliability, and aesthetics, as well as possible social, cultural, and environmental impacts.
HS-ETS1-4. Use a computer simulation to model the impact of proposed solutions to a complex real-world problem with numerous criteria and constraints on interactions within and between systems relevant to the problem.
Science and Engineering Practices
Asking Questions and Defining Problems
Asking questions and defining problems in 9–12 builds on K–8 experiences and progresses to formulating, refining, and evaluating empirically testable questions and design problems using models and simulations.
Analyze complex real-world problems by specifying criteria and constraints for successful solutions. (HS-ETS1-1)
Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking
Mathematical and computational thinking in 9–12 builds on K–8 experiences and progresses to using algebraic thinking and analysis, a range of linear and nonlinear functions including trigonometric functions, exponentials and logarithms, and computational tools for statistical analysis to analyze, represent, and model data. Simple computational simulations are created and used based on mathematical models of basic assumptions.
Use mathematical models and/or computer simulations to predict the effects of a design solution on systems and/or the interactions between systems. (HS-ETS1-4)
Constructing Explanations and Designing Solutions
Constructing explanations and designing solutions in 9–12 builds on K–8 experiences and progresses to explanations and designs that are supported by multiple and independent student-generated sources of evidence consistent with scientific ideas, principles, and theories.
Design a solution to a complex real-world problem, based on scientific knowledge, student-generated sources of evidence, prioritized criteria, and tradeoff considerations. (HS-ETS1-2)
Evaluate a solution to a complex real-world problem, based on scientific knowledge, student-generated sources of evidence, prioritized criteria, and tradeoff considerations. (HS-ETS1-3)
Disciplinary Core Ideas
ETS1.A: Defining and Delimiting Engineering Problems
Criteria and constraints also include satisfying any requirements set by society, such as taking issues of risk mitigation into account, and they should be quantified to the extent possible and stated in such a way that one can tell if a given design meets them. (HS-ETS1-1)
Humanity faces major global challenges today, such as the need for supplies of clean water and food or for energy sources that minimize pollution, which can be addressed through engineering. These global challenges also may have manifestations in local communities. (HS-ETS1-1)
ETS1.B: Developing Possible Solutions
When evaluating solutions, it is important to take into account a range of constraints, including cost, safety, reliability, and aesthetics, and to consider social, cultural, and environmental impacts. (HS-ETS1-3)
Both physical models and computers can be used in various ways to aid in the engineering design process. Computers are useful for a variety of purposes, such as running simulations to test different ways of solving a problem or to see which one is most efficient or economical; and in making a persuasive presentation to a client about how a given design will meet his or her needs. (HS-ETS1-4)
ETS1.C: Optimizing the Design Solution
Criteria may need to be broken down into simpler ones that can be approached systematically, and decisions about the priority of certain criteria over others (trade-offs) may be needed. (HS-ETS1-2)
Crosscutting Concepts
Systems and System Models
Models (e.g., physical, mathematical, computer models) can be used to simulate systems and interactions—including energy, matter, and information flows— within and between systems at different scales. (HS-ETS1-4)
Connections to Engineering, Technology, and Applications of Science
Influence of Science, Engineering, and Technology on Society and the Natural World
New technologies can have deep impacts on society and the environment, including some that were not anticipated. Analysis of costs and benefits is a critical aspect of decisions about technology. (HS-ETS1-1) (HS-ETS1-3)
ELA/Literacy –
RS T.11-12.7 Integrate and evaluate multiple sources of information presented in diverse formats and media (e.g., quantitative data, video, multimedia) in order to address a question or solve a problem. (HS-ETS1-1),(HS-ETS1-3)
RS T.11-12.8 Evaluate the hypotheses, data, analysis, and conclusions in a science or technical text, verifying the data when possible and corroborating or challenging conclusions with other sources of information. (HS-ETS1-1),(HS-ETS1-3)
RS T.11-12.9 Synthesize information from a range of sources (e.g., texts, experiments, simulations) into a coherent understanding of a process, phenomenon, or concept, resolving conflicting information when possible. (HS-ETS1-1),(HS-ETS1-3)
Mathematics –
MP.2 Reason abstractly and quantitatively. (HS-ETS1-1),(HS-ETS1-3),(HS-ETS1-4)
MP.4 Model with mathematics. (HS-ETS1-1),(HS-ETS1-2),(HS-ETS1-3),(HS-ETS1-4)
Appendix G
Songs pertaining to flight for meme spreading music lesson
Songs pertaining to flight for meme spreading music lesson