MYP Design - One-Pagers

On Friday I attended the MYP Design Teach Meet at the Bavarian International School. I attended three awesome presentations and met lots of inspiring educators. I also led a session about one-pagers, which I will share here too!

The Problem
​(Death by Design)

• Unlike other subjects, each strand in Design is a separate activity/produc
  
• Students can be overwhelmed with the amount of ‘paper work’ they have to complete in Design
  
• There is little time to cover each strand twice as a summative, with formative leading up.
• Too much time spent on document their work, feels like it takes away from time being creative. It also leaves less time to try, fail and improve.
• Basically: “All work and no play makes design a dull subject”
  

The Solution
​(One-Pagers)

Have students use the command terms, and the MYP 1, 3 or 5 objectives, to help them carefully select information for each strand, to make a one-pager for each criterion.
​
This means students will do lots of formative work in the process journals, but then will carefully select information for their final one-pager.  Longer work is not always better - for example, the difference between 'stating the need for a solution to a problem' and 'explaining and justifying the need for a solution to a problem' can be the difference of a few words!"

I'm doing this MYP One-Pager exercise with two grade levels and two classes:

MYP 1 - We do a unit where we design for an extraordinary client.
MYP 3 - Students pick a UN Global Goal and create a product linked to that goal.

Both units have students create prototypes only (suggested TinkerCad for MYP1 and SketchUp for MYP3). This means they can imagine they have a huge budget, time, skill, etc (so they can design anything from a 'underwater sports stadium' to a 'electric-car')

Students all have print outs of the objectives for their grade and the command terms. We also have this on our class websites (on Veracross). All my students have this, but we spend a lot more time looking at this during these units. I used a spreadsheet made by Stephen Taylor to make my MYP Object and Command Terms docs. We've also been doing alot of games with the command terms too.

Students do a lot of initial work in their Process Journals, then I introduce their Criterion A one-pagers to both grades with this presentation. (Don't worry - They have more detailed information - based on both the two different units - and for each criterion later on too -here's a MYP1 example for Criterion D).

Examples of student work!

MYP 1 - Extraordinary Client
Ai: Students find clues in the pictures of their clients to discover the client's big problems. They also do a formative exercise with an empathy map, to help them understand their client.
Aii: Students do an 'interview' with their client. They then select (priotise) the most important information for their one-pager
Aiii: Students analyse a product the client already owns, using ACCESS FM. (In a longer unit, we would obviously analyse multiple products).
Aiv: Design brief, focussing on the client's main problem, but also showing things they like, learnt in the empathy map, interview and product analysis.

MYP 3
Ai: Students explain they they choose their UN Global Goal, with personal reasons and facts
Aii: Students create a research table to learn more about their UN Global Goal - in the one-pager, they just share the most important pieces of information they found (They prioritise when they select this info, but they also prioritise their research questions - however, sometimes the information they find, which the think is most important, comes out of questions they had as a low priority).
Aiii: Students analyse products linked to solving or raising awareness of the UN Global Goal.They select one to share in their one-pager.
Aiv: Design brief!
​

Criterion A was the easiest to fit on one-pager. For the rest of the criteria, I allowed students to show snippets, then link to longer documents or write 'see process journal' if needed. They were just told to use the command terms to see if they could show the information needed on one-page - if they couldn't this was fine.

Criterion B was vert similar for MYP 1 and MYP 3. 
Bi : Design specifications using ACCESS FM
Biii: Three initial sketches
Bii: Feedback from classmates   (push for students to gather qualitative and quantitive data, and data specifically linked to specifications - however MYP 1 could just ask for comments/feedback if they wanted)
Biv: Detailed sketch of chosen design (or combination of initial sketches)

Students were encouraged to create prototypes in Tinkercad (MYP1) or SketchUP (MYP3) for this unit.In fact, we spent a couple of lessons early on doing TinkerCad and SketchUp tutorials. Some of my Grade 6s also opted to do SketchUp!

Criterion C tasks were pretty similar for both grades too:
Ci: Step by step logical plan. MYP1 can just list the steps, (though many self-selected flow charts, tables and illustrated plans) but MYP3 need to add a lot more detail, including time spent on each step. (One of my students based her logical plan on the SketchUp tutorials she followed - I love this!)
Cii: Should have been screenshots or . photos of them making the product - with annotations showing the skill. Many of my students struggled with this, so I must change how I teach/focus this section. Some students showed photos of them sitting and working at the laptop, instead of screenshots showing their process!
Ciii: Images of final product
Civ: Changes made to the plan (ci). However, some of the students filled in their plan, while making the product, so they could add details, including screenshots of the tool. If students did this, I told them to talk about changes made from their detailed sketch (biv) and their final prototype.

Criterion D had similar tasks for both grades, but different levels of complexities

Di: Students had to make a Google Form to gather feedback. They needed to have questions linked to the specifications and also linked to solving their design problem. Sometimes students struggle with making forms which allow people to suggest improvements - they just say 'Do you like X', etc. I made sure students put in questions that allowed for suggestions for improvements (especially as their final model is a 'prototype'), for example "I made the prototype in your favourite colour red, would you like me to [checklist], make the final version darker, lighter, with different shades of red?" or "If I was to mass produce my e-car, which of the following luxury features would you want added? [checklist] heated seats, sun roof..."
Also for MYP 1, they filled in the form, pretending to be their extraordinary client. In MYP3 peers filled int he form. MYP 3 students had to have qualitative and quantitive feedback and were allowed to do additional testing, including expert interview or physical tests.
Dii: Results from the Google Form showing things the client loved
Diii: Results showing things that could be improved. Annotations added to highlight these.
​Div: MYP1 = a quote from the extraordinary client, showing how the product would help solve their big problem. MYP 3 = description of potential impact of product (for example, if it was mass-produced)

Evaluation
(Benefits, Changes, Problems and Surprises)

• One-Pagers can work for any criterion - but suit criterion A best. I ended up being a little flexible with B-D and allowing students to post links to larger/longer documents (example logical plan, testing measures, specification evaluation)
  
  
• ​Some students struggled with fitting information onto the page. These students were encouraged to put the information on four slides, then use the ‘print settings’ feature, which allows them to show four slides per page.
  
  
• Most students spent equal time/effort on each strand, but there were a few some skipped through quickly, like Bii and Biii! I can also see which strands I don’t support them with best (for example, I was not clear enough about annotating their work in Criterion Cii)
  
  
• Although students are putting citations (some MLA...some not) in their formative work in their process journals...they are not putting these in their one-pagers. Next time I will get them to add a screenshot of their NoodleTools bibliography for each criterion (not included on the one-page).
  
  
• Students are better at carefully selecting the information they need to share. Students have a strong grasp of the command terms and know what is expected of them for each strand. 
  
  
• Many of the best pieces of work were produced by EAL students! Also I was impressed with the quality of work produced by students who were new to the MYP in MYP3.
  
  
• ​This is the most successful way I have introduced the MYP Design Cycle to MYP 1. Students are confident, articulate and enjoyed the unit.
• One of the unexpected benefits was students from MYP1 and MYP3 being able to compare their work. This helped them see the differences and similarities between MYP1 and 3! It will be interesting for MYP1 students to reflect on their one-pagers when they reach MYP 3. Also I’d love students to use their one-pagers as a guide each time they do a unit.

Thanks for reading this incredible long post! My students were really excited that I was sharing their work at the TeachMeet, but also on my blog. The work shown is a full range, and includes a lot by students who are new to the MYP or new to English.

If you'd like to give my students some positive feedback, click here!

Please share you ideas and suggestions as a comment. If you end up doing a one-pager, please let me know how it goes!

Lastly - if you want to see the full presentation from the TeachMeet - here you go!