Testing Push & Pull Designs

For 5–6 year olds, the learning goal is a hands-on engineering-enquiry loop: set an observable goal, predict, test, record the outcome, read the record to judge whether the design met the goal, change ONE thing, and re-test. The teaching objective is first-hand building and testing with real ramps, marbles, launchers and targets, where the recorded evidence (not the child's wish or how fun it was) decides success — and a design that missed the goal is something to improve, not simply 'broken'. A screen 'design-test bench' is a strong proxy for the data-and-judgment logic but cannot provide the haptic build-and-test experience, so it belongs alongside real apparatus. Stay within the K-PS2-2 assessment boundary by changing speed with push strength or ramp height, and direction with push direction or a block/wall/curved track that turns the marble, not friction. The UK anchor is the Working Scientifically enquiry skill, not forces content, which is not in KS1.

• Judging that the design 'worked' by intention or enjoyment ('I wanted it to, so it did' / 'it was fun, so it worked') rather than by the observed outcome against the goal.
• Treating the goal vaguely so success can't be checked — no concrete, observable success criterion was set.
• Changing several things at once between tries, so the child can't tell which change made the difference (emergent fair-testing gap at this age).
• Expecting one try to settle it — not yet repeating the test or noticing run-to-run variation.
• Carrying the 'motion needs a continuous force' intuition from Pushes & Pulls — thinking the object keeps a push 'inside it' (the impetus idea seeded young; keep the focus on the design test, not on explaining why it eventually stops, which is outside the K assessment boundary anyway).
• Thinking a design that failed the goal is simply 'broken' rather than something to modify and improve (missing the iterate-and-improve idea).

• A ramp-and-marble (or simple launcher) test rig with a clearly marked GOAL/target
• A child-readable results record: a mark on the track where the marble stopped each try, or a hit/miss tally of tokens/stickers
• A before/after design comparison: low ramp vs high ramp, gentle vs hard push, with the two outcomes side by side
• A picture 'goal card' showing the intended outcome (reach the bear / knock the cups / follow the curved path)
• Push/pull arrows on the object linking the action to the change in speed or direction (ties back to the prerequisite)

• Set a concrete, observable GOAL with the child first (reach the bear / knock down the cups / make it curve round) so 'works as intended' can be checked against what happened, not against hopes or how fun it was.
• Predict, then test: have the child say or point to what they think will happen before each release, so the test becomes a question being answered, not just play.
• Record the outcome BEFORE judging it — mark where the marble stopped, drop a hit/miss token, take a photo — giving a child-readable trace they can look back at to decide if the design worked.
• Change only ONE thing between tries (steeper ramp OR harder push) and re-test, comparing the two records — fair-testing logic planted without the vocabulary.
• Keep it a push/pull story (the substantive idea underneath): a stronger push sends it further/faster, a steeper ramp speeds it up, a wall or barrier turns it — and stay within the assessment boundary by varying push strength or ramp, not friction.
• Use talk as the main analysis tool: ask 'How do you know it worked?' and 'What one thing could we change?' to press for evidence-based reasoning at a level a 5-year-old can manage.
• Distinguish 'it met the goal' from 'that was fun' explicitly — young children readily conflate enjoyment or intention with success.