Module 3 Field Activity. Digital Fabrication WITH kids and sustainability

Ergonomic Screwdriver Project

1. Project Overview

In this field activity, I designed and tested a product design lesson where students develop a compact ergonomic screwdriver handle. The activity combines ergonomics, anthropometrics, physical prototyping, CAD modelling, 3D printing, and sustainability.

Students investigate how user needs and human body measurements can inform the design of a comfortable and functional hand-held product.

Full lesson plan on SCOPES-DF: LINK

2. Lesson Context

• Subject: Design and Technology / Product Design
• Age group: Secondary
• Topic: Ergonomics and product design
• Technologies used: CAD modelling , 3D printing, physical prototyping
• Final outcome: 3D printed compact screwdriver

3. Learning Objectives

By the end of the lesson, students will be able to:

1. Explain how ergonomics and anthropometrics influence the design of comfortable and safe hand-held products.
2. Collect and use basic hand measurement data to inform a product design.
3. Analyse existing ergonomic products and develop annotated design ideas.
4. Model and manufacture a compact screwdriver handle using CAD and 3D printing.
5. Evaluate their prototype in relation to comfort, usability, durability, material efficiency, and waste reduction.

4. Lesson Structure

The image below summarises the sequence of student activities and teacher interventions across the lesson.

The full lesson steps, materials, teacher instructions, and activity descriptions are documented in the SCOPES-DF lesson plan:

SCOPES-DF lesson link:
[Add link here]

5. Technology Integration

The lesson uses a gradual progression from low-tech to digital fabrication processes:

1. Product discussion and analysis
2. Hand measurement and sketching
3. Physical prototyping
4. CAD modelling
5. 3D printing and testing

This sequence supports students’ technological fluency because they first explore the product physically before modelling it digitally.

6. Sustainability Connection

The lesson connects to SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production.

Students consider:

• Reducing unnecessary 3D printing material
• Avoiding failed prints
• Designing for durability
• Using interchangeable screwdriver bits
• Creating a product that can remain useful for longer

Sustainability is included in the learning objectives, the design development stage, the 3D printing discussion, and the final evaluation.

7. Assessment Protocol

The lesson uses both formative and summative assessment.

Formative assessment

Formative assessment happens during:

• Starter discussion
• Ergonomics and anthropometrics questions
• Hand measurement activity
• Product analysis
• Idea generation
• Design development
• Physical prototype testing
• CAD progress

Summative assessment

Summative assessment is based on:

• Student booklet
• Developed design idea
• Physical prototype
• CAD model
• 3D printed prototype
• Final testing and evaluation

8. Assessment Alignment

Learning Objective	Assessment Evidence
LO1: Explain ergonomics and anthropometrics	Booklet questions, product analysis, class discussion
LO2: Use hand measurement data	Anthropometrics activity, design annotations
LO3: Analyse products and develop ideas	Product analysis, idea generation, developed design
LO4: Model and manufacture using CAD and 3D printing	CAD model, STL file, 3D printed prototype
LO5: Evaluate comfort, usability, durability, material efficiency, and waste	Testing activity, peer feedback, final evaluation

Rubric:
Open the assessment rubric PDF

9. Lesson Testing

Part of the lesson was tested with adult learners in the context of a 4 hour workshop.

• Group: tested with adults and colleagues
• Number of students: 4
• Activities tested: 3D design, CAD modelling and fabrication
• Evidence collected: observations and photos

10. Feedback collection

As part of the feedback process for this field activity, I used the following prompt to request structured feedback from Chat GPT.

AI Feedback Prompt

Act as an instructional designer with experience in STEM education, digital fabrication, project-based learning, and assessment design.

I am preparing a lesson plan that includes product design and digital fabrication and is aimed at secondary students of Design and Technology. I will provide links to my lesson plan, student resources, and assessment rubric. Please review the linked materials and provide feedback by answering these questions:

1. Does the project support the learning objectives? Are any objectives weakly supported?

2. Are the learning objectives clear, specific, measurable, and appropriate for the students’ level?

3. Does the assessment rubric measure the learning objectives effectively? Are there any gaps or unclear criteria?

4. Does the lesson integrate sustainability in a meaningful way?

5. Are the digital fabrication tools and processes appropriate for the students’ technological level?

6. What are the main strengths, weaknesses, and improvements you recommend to implement the lesson?

Be concise in the response.

Links to review:

• Lesson plan: https://www.scopesdf.org/scopesdf_lesson/ergonomic-screwdriver-project-designing-and-3d-printing-a-compact-hand-tool/
• Student booklet/resources: attached
• Assessment rubric: attached

AI Feedback Received

1. Does the project support the learning objectives?

Yes. The project is well aligned with the learning objectives. The SCOPES-DF lesson moves logically from ergonomics and anthropometrics to hand measurement, product analysis, idea generation, physical prototyping, CAD modelling, 3D printing, and final testing. This sequence directly supports the learning objectives related to research, design, CAD modelling, manufacturing, and evaluation.

The strongest alignment is between the activities and the objectives related to ergonomics, anthropometrics, product design, and CAD/3D printing. The student booklet also supports this alignment through sections on user-centred design, hand measurements, product analysis, and the compact screwdriver design brief.

The weakest-supported objective is the sustainability objective. It is present in the lesson, but it appears more strongly at the end of the process during printing and evaluation. It would be stronger if sustainability were also made visible during the design brief and design development stages.

2. Are the learning objectives clear and measurable?

Yes. The learning objectives use measurable verbs such as explain, collect and use, analyse, model and manufacture, and evaluate. They are appropriate for secondary Design and Technology students and are clearly connected to the project outcome. The SCOPES-DF lesson includes five objectives that cover conceptual understanding, design research, product analysis, CAD/manufacturing, and evaluation.

The objectives are also well balanced. At least one objective is non-technical, especially the objective focused on ergonomics and anthropometrics. At least one objective also includes sustainability through material efficiency, durability, and waste reduction.

3. Does the assessment rubric measure the learning objectives effectively?

Yes. The rubric is strongly aligned with the learning objectives. It assesses ergonomics and anthropometrics, initial design ideas, design development and prototyping, CAD modelling and 3D manufacturing, and testing, evaluation, and sustainability reflection.

The rubric measures both the design process and the final product, which is appropriate for this type of project-based digital fabrication activity. It also clearly links the assessment criteria to the relevant learning objectives.

The main improvement would be to make the sustainability criterion more visible earlier in the rubric, not only in the final evaluation section. For example, students could also be assessed on whether they considered material efficiency during CAD modelling or slicing.

4. Does the lesson integrate sustainability meaningfully?

Partly yes. The sustainability connection is meaningful because students consider material use, failed prints, durability, interchangeable bits, and product longevity. The learning diary also identifies the connection to SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production.

However, sustainability could be more integrated throughout the design process. At the moment, it is strongest in the lesson summary, printing stage, and final evaluation. A simple improvement would be to add a sustainability prompt during design development, such as: How does your design reduce material waste, increase durability, or make the tool useful for longer?

5. Are the digital fabrication tools appropriate for the students’ technological level?

Yes. Autodesk Fusion and 3D printing are appropriate for secondary Design and Technology students, especially because the lesson includes scaffolding before CAD. Students first work through discussion, measuring, sketching, product analysis, and physical prototyping before moving into CAD modelling and 3D printing. The learning diary describes this gradual progression from product discussion and hand measurement to physical prototyping, CAD modelling, and 3D printing.

The Fusion tutorial also helps keep the CAD task within students’ zone of proximal development. The main risk is that some students may follow the tutorial too closely without applying their own design thinking. To avoid this, each student should be required to include at least one custom ergonomic feature from their developed design.

6. Main strengths, weaknesses, and recommended improvements

• Strengths:
  The lesson has a clear design challenge, a strong connection to real product design, and a logical design process. The student booklet provides good support for ergonomics, anthropometrics, product analysis, and idea generation. The rubric is well aligned with the learning objectives and assesses both the process and the final outcome.

• Weaknesses:
  Sustainability is included, but it could be more visible before the final evaluation. The SCOPES-DF lesson should also make the product analysis step clearly visible in the activity sequence, as product analysis is already present in the booklet and supports the learning objectives.

• Recommended improvements:
  Add a short sustainability checkpoint during design development, include product analysis as a visible SCOPES-DF step, and give students a simple testing checklist for comfort, grip, safety, confined-space use, durability, and material efficiency. These are small changes that would strengthen the lesson without changing its overall structure.

11. Reflection on Feedback and Lesson Testing

Once I had a clear lesson structure and the main resources for the lesson delivery, I asked ChatGPT for feedback on the lesson plan, learning objectives, assessment rubric, sustainability integration, and technology use. This helped me review whether the project was aligned with the learning goals and whether the assessment protocol made sense within the lesson.

The feedback came from two main sources:

• AI feedback: ChatGPT was used to review the lesson structure, learning objectives, assessment rubric, sustainability connection, and technology integration.
• Workshop observation: I observed learners and colleagues while they followed the CAD modelling and 3D printing part of the activity.

Feedback on Learning Goals and Assessment Alignment

The AI feedback confirmed that the project supports the learning objectives well. The lesson moves logically from ergonomics and anthropometrics to product analysis, idea generation, physical prototyping, CAD modelling, 3D printing, and testing. This sequence supports the objectives related to research, design development, digital fabrication, and evaluation.

The feedback also confirmed that the learning objectives are clear, measurable, and appropriate for secondary Design and Technology students. The rubric was considered well aligned with the learning objectives because it assesses both the design process and the final product. It includes criteria for ergonomics, anthropometrics, design ideas, prototyping, CAD modelling, 3D manufacturing, testing, evaluation, and sustainability reflection.

The main area for improvement was sustainability. Although sustainability is included in the learning objectives and the final evaluation, the feedback suggested that it could be made more visible earlier in the lesson, especially during the design brief, design development and fabrication stages.

Workshop Observations

During the workshop, learners and colleagues with varied levels of experience were able to follow the CAD modelling and 3D printing activities. This showed that the technology integration was appropriate when supported with a clear step-by-step guide.

Participants appreciated having access to a detailed Fusion tutorial. The tutorial made the CAD modelling process more accessible and helped learners complete a printable screwdriver handle even if they had limited previous experience with Fusion.

However, I noticed that most participants followed the tutorial very closely. As a result, many final screwdriver designs looked very similar. In the context of a longer workshop or classroom project, I would encourage learners to develop more unique designs based on their own sketches, hand measurements, product analysis, and physical prototypes before moving into CAD.

Improvements planned

Based on the feedback and observations, I would make the following changes:

• Add a short sustainability checkpoint during design development, for example:
  How does your design reduce material waste, improve durability, or make the tool useful for longer?
• Require each student to include at least one custom ergonomic feature from their own developed design, rather than only following the Fusion tutorial.
• Add a simple testing checklist for comfort, grip, safety, confined-space use, anti-roll function, durability, and material efficiency.
• Use the Fusion tutorial as a scaffold, but make it clear that the tutorial is a starting point, not the final design solution.
• Include extension activities such as packaging design where sustainabililty can also be incorporated.