[Aya Fouad]

I have chosen Comparing the Engineering Design Process and the Scientific Method diagram. (Attached).

This resource is a comparative diagram that illustrates the Scientific Method and the Engineering Method , highlighting their similarities and differences. The Scientific Method is depicted on the left, with steps such as “Ask a Question,” “Do Background Research,” “Construct a Hypothesis,” “Test with an Experiment,” and “Analyze Data and Draw Conclusions.” On the right, the Engineering Method includes steps like “Define the Problem,” “Do Background Research,” “Specify Requirements,” “Brainstorm, Evaluate, and Choose Solution,” “Develop and Prototype Solution,” “Test Solution,” and “Communicate Results.” Both methods are visually connected to emphasize iterative processes and the cyclical nature of learning and problem-solving.

Why did you select this resource?
I selected this resource because it provides a clear and concise comparison between the Scientific Method and the Engineering Method. As an educator, I often find that students struggle to differentiate between these two approaches, especially when they are introduced to engineering design for the first time. This diagram helps bridge the gap by showing how both methods share foundational elements (e.g., background research, testing, and communication) while also highlighting their unique focuses (hypothesis-driven experimentation vs. solution-focused prototyping).

What made it stand out to you personally or professionally?
Professionally, this resource stands out because it uses a visual format that is easy to understand and engaging. The use of color-coding and arrows to show iterations and feedback loops makes the concepts accessible even to younger learners. Personally, I appreciate how it emphasizes the iterative nature of both methods, which is crucial for teaching students about the importance of revising and refining ideas based on data and results. The inclusion of specific steps like “Troubleshoot procedure” in the Scientific Method and “Develop and Prototype Solution” in the Engineering Method adds depth and realism to the process.

How does this resource support the teaching or understanding of the engineering design process?
This resource supports the teaching of the engineering design process by providing a structured framework that mirrors real-world engineering practices. It highlights key stages such as defining problems, brainstorming solutions, prototyping, and testing, which are essential components of engineering. By comparing it to the Scientific Method, students can see how engineering involves more than just experimentation—it requires creativity, collaboration, and practical application.

How do you imagine using this in your classroom? How developmentally appropriate is this for your grade level or learners? What modifications would you make to suit your learners or context?
In my classroom, I would use this resource as a starting point for introducing the engineering design process. For middle school or high school students, the diagram is highly appropriate because it aligns with their developing critical thinking and analytical skills. However, for younger students (e.g., elementary grades), I might simplify the language and focus on key steps like “Ask a Question” and “Test a Solution.”

To make it more developmentally appropriate for younger learners, I would:

Use simpler vocabulary and add visuals or examples for each step.
Create hands-on activities that mirror the steps in the diagram (e.g., having students define a problem, prototype a solution, and test it).
Incorporate storytelling or scenarios that relate to the students’ interests to make the concepts more relatable.
For older students, I might extend the activity by asking them to analyze real-world engineering projects and map them onto the diagram, or have them compare and contrast the two methods in terms of their applications in different fields.

What questions or uncertainties do you still have about this resource?
One question I have is whether the resource could be expanded to include more examples or case studies that illustrate how these methods are applied in real-world contexts. While the diagram is excellent for explaining the steps, additional concrete examples could help students better understand how engineers and scientists actually use these processes. Another uncertainty is whether the resource adequately addresses cultural or interdisciplinary aspects of engineering and science, such as teamwork, ethics, or global perspectives.

How might your selected resource foster skills and habits of mind in students (creativity, iteration, communication, research, critical thinking, flexible thinking, problem solving etc.)?
This resource fosters several important skills and habits of mind:

Creativity : By encouraging students to brainstorm solutions and prototype designs, it promotes creative thinking and innovation.
Iteration : The emphasis on testing, analyzing results, and revising solutions reinforces the importance of iterative processes in problem-solving.
Communication : Both methods highlight the need to communicate results effectively, which is a critical skill in any field.
Research : The steps involving background research encourage students to gather information and think critically about existing knowledge.
Critical Thinking : Students must evaluate data, assess hypotheses, and determine whether solutions meet requirements, all of which require strong critical thinking skills.
Flexible Thinking : The diagram shows that both methods involve adapting plans based on new information, teaching students to be flexible and open-minded.
Problem Solving : By breaking down complex problems into manageable steps, the resource helps students develop systematic approaches to problem-solving.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Aya Fouad]

• Analysis of Inquiry-Based Learning in the “Producing Beats” Lesson:
I was excited to use the “Producing Beats” lesson plan which is designed for high school students in a STEAM context (Engineering + Music), I found it an excellent example of this pedagogical approach. Using the Inquiry Learning Cycle as a framework, the same one I used with my peers during our last session. This analysis examines how the different stages of the lesson align with each phase of the cycle and explains why the lesson qualifies as inquiry-based.
I Wonder
In Step 1, students are introduced to different versions of music (live and studio) and are asked to engage in a “Hear, Think, Wonder” routine. This stage sparks curiosity and encourages students to ask questions and express their initial thoughts. This aligns perfectly with the “I Wonder” phase where learners begin by noticing differences and posing inquiries about the nature of music production.
I Investigate
Step 2 deepens the inquiry as students discuss their ideas on the differences between live and studio recordings. They also watch a 4-minute video on mixing and mastering, which supports them in researching and planning.
I Record
In Steps 3 and 4, roles are assigned, and students start selecting a poem and planning their performance. They begin documenting their creative and technical plans.
I Discover
Step 5 allows each student to select a poem and start imagining how to transform it into a performance. They experiment with tone, fluency, and emphasis, which aligns with the “I Discover” phase. This is the point where they observe and interpret how performance choices affect meaning and emotional impact.
I Think
In Step 6, the producer gives feedback, performers reflect on suggestions, and changes are made. The engineer listens for flaws and enhances the work. This mirrors the “I Think” phase, where students analyze, discuss alternatives, and revise based on logic and peer input. It promotes deeper metacognition and problem-solving.
I Try
This phase is embedded in Step 6 as well. Students experiment with re-recordings, add effects, and rework their interpretations. They are actively engaged in trial-and-error learning and iterative development—key principles of “I Try.”

I Reflect
Step 7 and the Assessment: Music Mixing Critique component close the loop by encouraging students to reflect on both live and edited performances. Through peer listening and rubric-based critique, they examine how effectively they applied mixing and mastering techniques.
Why This Lesson Is Inquiry-Based
The “Producing Beats” lesson puts students at the center of the learning process. They explore real-world roles (producer, engineer, performer), use professional tools (Garage band, Audacity), and engage in authentic tasks. Students construct knowledge through questioning, collaboration, problem-solving, and reflection. The learning is not linear but cyclical, allowing students to revisit and refine ideas. It integrates arts and engineering, making it a true STEAM experience.
The presence of student choice (poem selection), collaboration (group work), and iterative design (feedback and revisions) empowers students and supports inquiry-based pedagogy. Importantly, the teacher’s role transitions from instructor to facilitator, guiding students through the cycle of discovery rather than providing predetermined answers.

• Identify the enduring understanding
I think the big idea or lasting understanding the teacher is aiming for in the “Producing Beats” lesson is: Creative expression in music and spoken word can be enhanced through technology and collaboration, and the process of producing sound involves intentional choices that affect meaning and emotional impact. This understanding is designed to last beyond the lesson by helping students see that engineering design thinking and music are interconnected.

• Use a question designing tool

Factual:
What is the difference between live and studio-recorded music?
Conceptual:
How does the role of a producer or sound engineer influence the final version of a performance?
Debatable:
Does technology improve or take away from the authenticity of artistic expression in music and poetry?

[Aya Fouad]

Bothaina, I really enjoyed reading your analysis of the “Textured Fireworks” lesson! You clearly broke down each phase of the inquiry process and showed how the lesson encourages curiosity, hands-on learning, and creative expression. I especially liked how you highlighted the connection between chemical reactions and art — it really shows the power of STEAM learning. The live painted fireworks display set to music sounds like such a fun and memorable way to bring everything together! I also like the essential questions you included — they’re so related with the STEAM focus of the lesson. The first one, “How do chemical reactions create those amazing firework displays?” really drives the scientific inquiry, while the second one, “How can art and science team up to make unforgettable sensory experiences?” encourages creative thinking and interdisciplinary connections. I also think the third question about safety and crowd entertainment adds a real-world relevance that makes the learning even more meaningful. Great balance of curiosity, creativity, and critical thinking in your big questions!

[Aya Fouad]

Dear Bothaina,
Your reflection is incredibly thoughtful and detailed, demonstrating a deep understanding of how the Engineering Design Process (EDP) Wheel can be effectively integrated into your classroom. You’ve clearly articulated why this resource resonates with you personally and professionally, and you’ve provided specific examples of how it supports key skills like creativity, iteration, and communication. Your implementation ideas are practical and well-suited to your learners’ developmental level, showing that you’ve put considerable thought into adapting the resource for your context. As an educator myself, I completely relate to your emphasis on visuals and simplicity. In my own teaching, I’ve found that clear, approachable diagrams like the EDP Wheel are invaluable for helping students grasp complex processes without feeling overwhelmed.
Your question about making the “Improve” step more meaningful is spot-on, and it’s something I’ve grappled with as well. One idea I’d suggest is incorporating reflective journals or “Improvement Logs” where students document their iterations and explain why they made certain changes. This not only helps them reflect deeply but also provides a tangible record of their learning process. Here’s how you might implement this:

Reflective Journals: Have students keep a simple journal or log where they jot down notes after each iteration. For example:
Before Improving: “I noticed that my prototype didn’t work because ……………………”
After Improving: “I changed [specific part] because [reason], and now it works better.
If you’re looking for more structured ways to deepen the “Improve” step, you might explore resources like the Engineering Design Process Toolkit from TeachEngineering.org. This toolkit includes lesson plans and activities specifically designed to help students reflect on their designs and iterate effectively. Additionally, the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) provide excellent guidance on integrating engineering practices into K-12 education, which could complement your use of the EDP Wheel.
Keep up the great work, and don’t hesitate to experiment with different approaches to make the “Improve” step even more impactful. Your learners will undoubtedly benefit from your thoughtful and creative approach!

[Aya Fouad]

Bothaina 😍
Very interesting lesson chosen, I especially loved how you linked each phase of the inquiry cycle so clearly, from “I Wonder” to “I Reflect.” The hands-on experiences like listening to music, acting out the animals. Your essential questions are strong and well-connected to the big idea. I think “How can we use words to help others imagine animals and actions?” and “How can music help us understand and imagine animals or stories?” are both really powerful — they encourage students to think beyond just writing and see language as something expressive and dynamic.

[Author]

Posts