[students] realize that these artifacts are in fact the result of much thought, iteration, and analysis; i.e., the design process. These products do not just “happen”. (Shepperd, 1992)
For my microteaching exercise, I chose to run a laptop disassembly task based on the e-waste workshops we run in the CCI. For the 20 minutes, participants were instructed to collaboratively take apart a scrap laptop as far as they could with provided tools, while discussing a set of three questions that prompted them to identify components, discuss standardisation, and identify different materials and manufacturing processes, inspired by Prown’s forensic analysis (Prown, 1980). Following a short risk assessment, I chose to remove the battery (due to fire risk), and advised participants to wash their hands after the activity.
Reflection
Overall, I thought this task was partly successful. The object became very compelling — it felt easy to involve everyone, all participants relayed that they found the task enjoyable. I was able to avoid talking entirely for the first part of the exercise, in which students correctly identified the laptop model and some components, though I helped later on to identify more obscure components.
The more critical feedback I recieved described the task as unstructured. This can also be an issue in the e-waste workshop — there’s a feeling of ‘now what’ once an object is disassembled, and guidance is required to make meaning from the scrap. Another participant reported that she would want to keep the freeform nature of the exercise, describing it as ‘learning through play’. To develop structure, it would be important to ‘scaffold’ learning () in order to maintain this sense of openness.
On reflection, the questions provided were too high-level and abstract, and the first question (around identification) was more than sufficient for the allotted time. This theme might have been better explored by drawing participants’ attention to specific components, rather than inviting general speculation. One potential task would be a ‘treasure hunt’ of different electrical connectors (which are a great example of standardisation), combined with short descriptions of their use. Connectors provide useful clues to the higher-level functionality of components, and so such a document could be used to inform exploration in a structured way, expanding the ‘Zone of Proximal Development’ of the learners (Vygotsky, 1978).
Lastly, one participant said that they would appreciate more discussion of practical repair technique — while this was out of scope for the time period, it’s an important consideration for our longer e-waste workshops in the department, as it intersects with both sustainability and safety concerns.
References
Prown, J.D. (1980) ‘Style as evidence’, Winterthur Portfolio, 15(3), pp. 208–215. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/495962.
Sheppard, S. D., 1992, “Mechanical Dissection: An Experience in How Things Work,” Engineering Education: Curriculum Innovation & Integration, Santa Barbara, CA, Jan. 6–10, pp. 1–8 Available at: http://www-cdr.stanford.edu/images/Dissection/dissphil.pdf
Vygotsky, L.S., 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (Vol. 86). Harvard university press.