[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 20 minutes, participants were instructed to collaboratively take apart a scrap laptop as far as they could with provided tools, while discussing three questions that prompted them to identify components, discuss standardisation, and identify different manufacturing processes. This approach was inspired by Prown’s forensic analysis (Prown, 1980), and mechanical dissection tasks that encourage critical thinking through reflective material engagement (Sheppard, 1992). Following a 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. It felt easy to involve everyone, and 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. Participants only engaged with the first question, but used it as the basis for a thoughtful discussion.
The more critical feedback I recieved described the task as ‘unstructured’. In response, another participant remarked that she would want to keep the freeform nature of the exercise, describing it as ‘learning through play’. This is also a tension in the e-waste workshop — students enjoy the open-endedness, but there’s a feeling of ‘now what’ once an object is disassembled, and guidance is required to make meaning from the scrap.
Three questions were too ambitious: the first question (around part identification) was sufficient for the allotted time, but risked over-emphasising prior knowledge in the students. This topic might have been better explored by focussing on specific components, reducing the intrinsic cognitive load of the task by drawing attention to parts within the whole (van Merriënboer et. al, 2006), and thus requiring less external guidance.
A potential replacement for questions would be a ‘treasure hunt’ of different electrical connectors combined with short descriptions of their use. Connectors provide many clues about the higher-level functionality of components, and the ‘goal-free’ task of identification from images could free up more capacity for students to engage with the higher-level learning outcome (Didau and Rose, 2016), while introducing a tactic also used by electronic engineers.
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
Didau, D., Rose, N., (2016) ‘What Every Teacher Needs to Know about Psychology’, pp. 43-49 John Catt Educational Ltd, ISBN 9781909717855
Prown, J.D. (1980) ‘Style as evidence’, Winterthur Portfolio, 15(3), pp. 208–215. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/495962
van Merriënboer, J.J.G., Kester, L. and Paas, F. (2006), Teaching complex rather than simple tasks: balancing intrinsic and germane load to enhance transfer of learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20: 343-352. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1250
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