Deliverable
🧭 How Might We Design Brief
Reflection
Core Content
Project Launch
Community Partners
Essential Question
Submission Required
Grading Required
Teams sort evidence from Phase 1 notes, site maps, measurement cards, and stakeholder comments from the parks planner, engineer, or architect into three columns: user needs, math constraints, and design opportunities. The teacher models how to turn evidence into a focused How Might We statement, then teams draft one statement plus 2-3 nonnegotiable criteria using scale, unit rate, or cost data. Each student records one individual claim about which user need matters most and supports it with a number from the project materials before the team finalizes its brief.
Plan day
Day 1
Duration
55 min
Grouping
Small Group
Steps
7 steps
Lesson plan
7 steps · 55 min| # | What teachers do |
|---|---|
| 1 | Launch the design brief by posting the essential question, revisiting key evidence from the project launch, and naming the goal: create one team How Might We statement and 2-3 math-based criteria for a community space. Model how one piece of stakeholder feedback and one number from a site map can become a user need, a math constraint, or a design opportunity. (8 min) |
| 2 | Teams sort Phase 1 notes, site maps, measurement cards, photos, and stakeholder comments from the parks planner, engineer, or architect into three labeled columns: user needs, math constraints, and design opportunities. Ask teams to highlight any unit rates, ratios, percent data, scale information, or rational number calculations they notice and to discuss why each piece matters. (12 min) |
| 3 | Facilitate a quick math evidence check in which teams compute or verify at least two useful quantities from their materials, such as cost per unit, materials per square foot, distance per area, percent of space for different users, or scaled dimensions. Circulate to question teams about whether their numbers are accurate and connected to a real design decision. (10 min) |
| 4 | Model how to turn sorted evidence into a focused How Might We statement by showing a weak version and then revising it to include a specific user, purpose, and realistic space condition. Teams then draft 2 possible How Might We statements and choose 1 through shared discussion, making sure it fits the site dimensions and community needs. (10 min) |
| 5 | Teams write 2-3 nonnegotiable design criteria that must be met in later sketches, and each criterion must include math evidence such as a unit rate, proportional relationship, ratio, percent, cost limit, or measurement. Each student also writes an individual claim naming the most important user need and supports it with one number from the project materials. (8 min) |
| 6 | Run a mid-activity gallery walk where teams leave their draft brief visible and rotate to one other team. Students use sticky notes to give one suggestion specifically about unit rates, proportions, fairness of space allocation, or clarity of criteria, and one note naming an academic strength or collaboration move they noticed. (6 min) |
| 7 | Teams return to their own work, review feedback, and revise their How Might We statement or criteria before final drafting. Close with a brief before-and-after comparison conference at each table in which teams show one change they made after feedback, explain how the revision improved the community space, and complete an exit chart claim about how math improved their plan plus one goal for contributing more thoughtfully next time. (6 min) |
Preparation (9 items)
- Prepare a team evidence packet with site maps, measurement cards, photos, stakeholder comments from the parks planner, engineer, or architect, and any launch notes students will use to define the problem.
- Create a three-column sorting mat or chart for each team labeled user needs, math constraints, and design opportunities.
- Select or prepare numeric data that allows students to work with unit rates, ratios, percents, scale, cost information, and rational number calculations connected to the community space.
- Prepare a teacher model showing how to move from evidence to a strong How Might We statement and 2-3 criteria grounded in math evidence.
- Make a team design brief template with spaces for the final How Might We statement, nonnegotiable criteria, cited numbers, and team member names.
- Prepare an individual claim slip for each student with sentence starters for naming the most important user need and citing one numerical piece of evidence.
- Set up gallery walk materials including sticky notes, markers, and posted feedback prompts focused on unit rates, proportions, fairness, and collaboration.
- Prepare an exit chart or class chart for final claims and goals about how math improved the plan and how students will contribute more thoughtfully next time.
- Arrange teams and materials in advance so movement to the gallery walk is quick and the full activity fits within the 60-minute block.
Student-facing instructions
You will work with your team to turn project evidence into a clear design brief for a shared community space. Use your evidence packet, sorting mat, design brief template, sticky notes, and claim slip. First, sort your notes, maps, measurements, photos, and stakeholder comments into three groups: user needs, math constraints, and design opportunities. Then identify the numbers that matter most, including unit rates, ratios, percents, scale relationships, costs, distances, or other measurements. Your team will draft possible How Might We statements, choose the strongest one, and write 2-3 nonnegotiable criteria that include math evidence. You will also write your own individual claim about which user need matters most and support it with one number from the materials. During the gallery walk, you will give another team one sticky-note suggestion about their math reasoning or criteria and one note that names an academic strength or social skill. After feedback, your team will revise and finalize its brief. Your goal is to create a focused problem statement and clear criteria that can guide later sketches, models, and revisions.