Look for: The design solution must account for relevant…

5.A Make an oral argument based on a systematic evaluation process using relevant scientific principles, to support or refute the ability of different existing solutions (structure) to mitigate the effects of tsunamis and meet the needs of at-risk communities (function).

Listen for students to use criteria and constraints to evaluate existing tsunami-mitigation solutions using a systematic process that accounts for community needs and the stated performance of the design solutions. Important ideas include:

The design solution must account for relevant scientific principles (e.g., it dissipates the wave’s energy), the needs of the community (e.g., economic activity), how well the structure would function for surrounding communities (how well it will function in this scenario vs. its proposed functionality), and its environmental impacts (e.g., on marine life).

Clearly defining and prioritizing criteria and constraints is necessary when evaluating and choosing a solution for a given community.

Communities have different criteria and constraints, so the evaluation process should also consider impacts on neighboring communities. Students should realize that the proposed performance of a structure in one area may affect other areas in ways that might negate the intended result, such as the seawall at Kamaishi having a negative effect on Ryoishi.

There are multiple opportunities on day 3 to assess this lesson-level performance expectation. This Consensus Discussion is the first opportunity to press students to use evidence and reasoning from the investigations on days 1 and 2 to support their claims about which solutions might be most effective. Through argumentation, students refine their thinking about which solutions are more or less effective for Ryoishi and the surrounding areas. However, it is not important to come to agreement on one particular solution; rather, the purpose is to develop an understanding that engineers use systematic processes to decide which solutions might be most promising and must also consider their broader effects on surrounding areas. Throughout day 3, as students argue for their chosen solutions, press them with questions such as, “What is your reasoning for that?” “Why do you think that criterion or constraint is more important than others?” and “How might that solution work for Ryoishi and what would be the trade-offs, either for Ryoishi or the surrounding communities?”