Roller Coaster

As part of an engineering study, students worked collaboratively to build, test, adapt, and share roller coasters, reflecting on the process throughout.

Students were studying a unit on engineering. This lesson was based on mechanical engineering and understanding the design cycle of planning, building, testing, reflecting, and then making changes to the developing product.  The class also discussed the idea of constraints by asking the question: “What limitations or boundaries do engineers typically need to work within if they are designing something?” (materials, time, space, money, etc.)

The students brainstormed these aloud and documented them on larger chart paper for viewing during the project. Students did a smaller challenge activity to practice the design process where they built standing structures using only five index cards, scissors and tape, and then testing those structures and adapting them. They reflected as a group on the challenges involved in designing a new structure.

The bigger challenge was to build a marble roller coaster. Students watched a video on a hydraulic-powered roller coaster in New Jersey and then they discussed the physics behind these machines (momentum, G forces, kinetic and potential energy). Students brainstormed what they would need to take into consideration while building, and several topics emerged including turn banking, friction, starting from a high point to create enough momentum, etc. They then talked about the constraints in terms of time (one class period), space (the whole classroom, chairs, table tops, but no climbing allowed), and materials (marbles, pipe insulation tubing cut in half, masking tape, small wood pieces for supports if needed). Students then engaged in the activity by first sketching a plan and then working on building with a partner.

Over the course of one class period they built, tested, adapted their designs, and then shared their roller coasters with other groups, all the while reflecting on the process of creation. The teacher asked questions that would gently point their thinking in the right direction as needed, such as, “Have you considered all of the materials available?” or if a marble didn’t make it all the way down a track, “What would you add to that turn to give it more momentum?” If the marble went off the track, “What could you do to adjust the marble’s momentum?” Students were on task the entire time, engaging in active communication with their partner about what they could add to make the marble roller coaster longer or bigger. Designs started with a quick sketch (or no sketch, as these students like to jump to the big idea plan in their head versus documenting it on paper, so that was also a learning part of the activity) but were actively adapted through student thinking as they tested their creations and problem-solved together. Students were given the opportunity at the end to test other groups’ coasters to evaluate their effectiveness. There were criteria given to students to provide some guidance through a point system, with credit given for overall length, number of loops, height, and other, unique features.

Students were incredibly motivated by this activity, both by watching roller coasters in the video and by the freedom to play and to create something so interactive and large wherever they liked within the classroom space. Some of the best critical thinking happens when students are playing – there wasn’t a separation here between playing to create a roller coaster and participating in the thinking behind the design process. Critical thinking was happening in the moment; not all of their adaptations and testing are obvious in a final product. Having students reflect on this work at the end of class and during the following session was important for cementing the point of the lesson, understanding how the design cycle works and the thinking process behind it, as well of providing evidence of the processes students used.