Knowledge/Skill Building

🧭 Design Journey Mini-Lesson

Learn from the past Engage and critique perspectives Gather and organize original data Analyze and interpret data Develop as a multilingual Engage in discussion 6.3.12.HistoryCA.12 6.1.12.GeoHE.5.a Plan an investigation or test a design individually and c... Design, evaluate, and/or refine a solution to a complex r... 6.3.12.GeoGI.1 Compare and evaluate competing arguments or design soluti... Product Assessment Exhibition Core Content Community Partners Essential Question Critique and Revision Submission Required

The class studies strong examples of revision logs, evidence boards, and 3-minute public health pitches, then names what makes a final recommendation credible to clinic staff and community members. Students use a presentation planner to organize four required moves: user need, Black Death/modern outbreak connection, data evidence, and design or policy decision. Teams leave with a checklist for what must be visible in their refined prototype and forum display.

Plan day

Day 18

Duration

50 min

Grouping

Whole Class

Steps

6 steps

Lesson plan

6 steps · 50 min

#	What teachers do
1	Launch the mini-lesson by posting the essential question and today’s goal, then have teams do a fast notice/wonder on two strong mentor examples: one evidence board and one 3-minute public health pitch. Ask, "What makes this recommendation credible to clinic staff and community members?" Capture criteria on a public class chart. (10 min)
2	Facilitate a guided comparison of mentor examples, including one stronger and one weaker sample revision log, pitch outline, or display. Students identify which communication techniques, visuals, and evidence choices make one recommendation more convincing, feasible, ethical, multilingual, and user-centered. Build a class list of success moves and common problems to avoid. (15 min)
3	Model the four required presentation moves on the planner: user need, Black Death/modern outbreak connection, data evidence, and design or policy decision. Think aloud about criteria and constraints, tradeoffs, and what a clinic partner or community member would need to trust the recommendation. (10 min)
4	Have teams use the presentation planner to map their own 3-minute pitch and forum display. They must name the infection-prevention problem, identify the intended user, select the strongest statistics or charts, decide how to include the historical comparison, and note where bilingual or audience-friendly language will appear. (20 min)
5	Run a peer critique huddle in which teams pair up, briefly share their planner, and exchange targeted feedback using response cards with prompts such as: "Where is the evidence strongest?" "What claim needs clearer data?" "What tradeoff or constraint is missing?" and "How accessible is this for community audiences?" Teams sort feedback into revise now, revise later, and keep. (10 min)
6	Close with a refinement checklist build. Teams turn planner decisions and critique notes into a concrete checklist for tomorrow’s prototype revision sprint, including what must be visible on the prototype, evidence board, and policy brief or campaign. End with a quick share-out: each team names one revision priority and one thing they are ready to defend in the Community Health Action Forum. (15 min)

Preparation (8 items)

Select and prepare 2-3 mentor examples of strong public health pitches, evidence boards, and revision logs, plus 1 weaker sample that shows missing evidence, weak audience awareness, or unclear tradeoffs.
Create a presentation planner with sections for user need, Black Death/modern outbreak connection, data evidence, design or policy decision, audience needs, multilingual access, constraints, and next revisions.
Prepare response cards or half-sheets for peer critique with sentence stems focused on evidence strength, clarity, ethical considerations, feasibility, tradeoffs, and language accessibility.
Post or project the essential question, today’s goal, and a visible checklist of the four required presentation moves.
Prepare a class anchor chart titled "What makes a recommendation credible to clinic staff and community members?" with space to record criteria students generate.
Gather team materials from prior work: outbreak research notes, Black Death comparison notes, charts or data displays, prototype sketches or models, and drafts of policy brief or campaign materials.
Pre-sort teams and identify which students may need language supports, discussion roles, or visual planning scaffolds; prepare bilingual vocabulary supports for terms such as user need, evidence, tradeoff, constraint, prevention, and recommendation.
Set up the room for quick transitions between whole-class analysis, team planning, and partner critique, with visible timers and designated spaces for mentor examples.

Student-facing instructions

Today you will study strong examples of public health presentations and use them to plan your own final recommendation. You will need your team’s research notes, Black Death comparison evidence, data charts or statistics, prototype or design draft, and any campaign or policy brief materials you already have. First, you will examine mentor examples and identify what makes a recommendation credible for clinic staff and community members. Next, you will use a presentation planner to organize four required moves: the user need, the Black Death to modern outbreak connection, the data evidence, and the design or policy decision. You will also decide what constraints, tradeoffs, and multilingual communication features need to be visible. Then you will share your planner with another team, give and receive feedback on response cards, and turn that feedback into a revision checklist for tomorrow. Your goal is to leave with a clear plan for what must be improved in your prototype, evidence board, and final 3-minute pitch for the Community Health Action Forum.

Success criteria

You are successful when your team completes a presentation planner that includes all four required moves; identifies a specific user need and infection-prevention problem; includes at least one clear Black Death/modern outbreak connection; selects at least two relevant data points, charts, or comparisons to support the recommendation; names at least one constraint or tradeoff; shows at least one specific multilingual or accessibility feature for community audiences; receives and sorts peer feedback using response cards; and creates a revision checklist with at least three concrete next steps for the prototype, evidence board, or policy brief/campaign.

Facilitator notes

Keep the pace tight and visible with a timer so the mini-lesson stays focused on planning for revision, not full revision work. During mentor analysis, press students to explain why a feature is credible or useful rather than simply calling it "good." Push for audience-specific reasoning: what would matter to a nurse, epidemiologist, patient, or family member? Common pitfalls include teams choosing too many statistics, using historical comparison as a side note instead of a reasoning tool, or forgetting to show how language accessibility appears in the product. Encourage students to choose only the strongest data evidence for a 3-minute pitch. If teams struggle, offer sentence frames such as "Our user needs...," "A historical pattern we see again is...," "The data suggest..., so we recommend...," and "A tradeoff we had to consider was...." Differentiate by providing annotated mentor examples, a partially completed planner, bilingual vocabulary supports, or assigned discussion roles such as evidence lead, history lead, audience advocate, and language access checker. For advanced teams, ask them to justify why they rejected a competing design or policy option. Save all planners and response cards because they should directly feed tomorrow’s gallery walk and revision sprint.

Resources

No resources yet