"My Home, My World"

Teacher presents the project purpose and context, explaining how students will explore their own homes, connect with international peers, and design solutions to real household challenges using the Design Thinking methodology.

Students review the 4-week timeline together, understanding the sequence from home exploration to final solution showcase and how vocabulary mastery and intercultural communication are central to the project.

Each student identifies one household challenge they've noticed at home (storage, comfort, accessibility, or sustainability) and shares it briefly with the class to activate prior knowledge and build excitement for the work ahead.

Students create short introduction videos or digital presentations (1-2 minutes) showing their homes and family routines, highlighting one unique architectural feature, room, or household practice that reflects their culture.

Each student posts their home showcase on the project board with descriptions in English, including the name of the room or feature, its purpose, and one interesting fact about how their family uses that space.

Students watch partner class videos and write down 3 observations about similarities and differences they notice between their homes and the partner classroom's homes (e.g., room layouts, architectural styles, household practices).

Teams collaborate to create a shared collaborative mural or Padlet with photos, descriptions, and questions about the partner class's homes, initiating dialogue about how families live differently across cultures.

Facilitate a live chat or asynchronous forum discussion where students ask their international peers questions about their homes and share what surprised them or what they found familiar (e.g., 'Do you have a similar kitchen layout?' or 'What is this room used for?').

Students conduct informal interviews with 2-3 family members, asking questions like 'What is difficult about our home?' 'What would make your daily life easier?' and 'Is there anything you wish we could improve?' and document responses in a shared Google Doc.

Each student observes their own home for one week, taking photos or sketches of spaces where family members struggle (e.g., cluttered storage areas, uncomfortable seating, difficult-to-reach shelves, or areas that waste energy) and notes what they observe.

Students create empathy maps using a template (digital or paper) showing who is affected by household challenges, what problems they face, what they feel, and why these challenges matter to their family's daily life.

Small teams cluster their individual observations to identify 3-4 common household challenges across their homes (e.g., storage, comfort, accessibility, or sustainability issues) and document these findings with photos and notes on the project board.

Students share their empathy findings with the partner class via the project board, comparing how similar challenges appear in different cultural contexts and asking international peers if they face the same problems in their homes.

Facilitate a group discussion where students reflect on what they learned about their families' needs and how understanding these challenges will help them design better solutions.

Small teams analyze their empathy data together, identifying root causes of household challenges by creating cause diagrams or problem trees that show why families struggle with storage, comfort, accessibility, or sustainability.

Each team develops 3-5 'How might we?' questions that focus on specific, actionable problems (e.g., 'How might we create more storage in small bedrooms?' or 'How might we make our kitchen more accessible for elderly family members?') and shares these on the project board.

Teams review partner class empathy findings and their 'How might we?' questions, identifying which challenges are universal (appear in both communities) and which are context-specific (unique to one cultural or geographic context).

Using the group chat feature, students collaborate asynchronously with the partner class to discuss and agree on 1-2 shared problem statements that include who is affected, what the challenge is, why it matters, and what success would look like for a solution.

Each team refines their final problem statement into a clear, actionable definition (e.g., 'Families in our community struggle with kitchen storage for small appliances, making meal preparation inefficient and cluttering counter space. A solution should maximize storage while keeping frequently used items accessible.') and posts it on the project board for peer feedback.

Teams conduct a 20-minute rapid brainstorming session using classic brainstorming or SCAMPER techniques (Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to another use, Eliminate, Reverse) to generate 20+ solution ideas addressing their defined problem, recording all ideas without judgment on a shared Google Doc.

Students sketch or describe their top 5-10 ideas with quick drawings or 1-2 sentence descriptions, focusing on variety and creativity rather than feasibility at this stage.

Teams cluster similar ideas into 3-4 groups and create an impact-viability matrix (using a simple table or Canva template) to evaluate ideas based on potential impact on the problem and feasibility to build with available materials.

Teams select their top 3-4 finalist ideas and share these with the partner class asynchronously via the project board, including sketches, descriptions, and the reasoning behind their selections.

Facilitate an asynchronous forum discussion where students from both classes discuss the pros and cons of each finalist idea, with the partner class offering their international perspective on which ideas would work best in their context.

Teams make a final selection of 2-3 ideas for prototyping that integrate feedback from the partner class and address sustainability or accessibility factors, documenting their decision and rationale on the project board.

Teams gather available materials (cardboard, recycled items, wood scraps, fabric, or digital tools) and build low-to-mid-fidelity prototypes of their selected solutions, creating sketches, paper models, 3D cardboard versions, or simple digital mockups using Canva.

Each team documents their prototype with clear photos from multiple angles and creates a 1-2 minute explanatory video showing how the solution works and what problem it solves, posting both on the project board.

Teams conduct internal peer testing by inviting other classmates to interact with their prototypes, observing reactions, asking 'What works?' 'What's confusing?' and 'What could improve?' and taking notes on feedback received.

Based on initial feedback, teams iterate on their prototypes by making quick improvements (e.g., adjusting dimensions, adding labels, changing colors) and document the changes they made and why, posting updated photos on the project board.

Teams share their prototypes with the partner class via the project board, including photos, videos, and detailed descriptions of the solution, the design choices made, and the feedback they received from peer testing.

Facilitate an asynchronous discussion where the partner class provides cross-cultural perspective and suggestions for improvement, considering how the solution might work in their context and what adaptations might be needed.

Teams present their prototypes to target users (family members, community members, or other students) in structured interviews, asking specific questions like 'Does this solve the problem?' 'What works well?' 'What's confusing?' and 'What would make this better?'

Students administer feedback surveys (using Google Forms or a paper template) where users rate the solution on criteria like effectiveness, ease of use, and appeal, and provide open-ended comments on improvements.

Teams document observations from user testing with photos or video clips of users interacting with the prototype, noting facial expressions, questions asked, and behaviors that reveal what works and what doesn't.

Teams analyze feedback by identifying themes (e.g., 'Users found the design confusing' or 'The solution saved time but was too expensive') and prioritize which improvements to implement based on frequency and importance of feedback.

Teams create version 2.0 of their prototypes by implementing the most important improvements from user feedback, documenting the changes and explaining why each change was made based on what users told them.

Teams compare their testing results and improvements with the partner class via the project board, identifying which insights were context-specific (unique to their community) and which were universal (would apply to both communities), and discussing how this shaped their final design.

Each team develops a 3-5 minute startup-style pitch using Google Slides or Canva that explains the problem they identified, their design process, the final solution, testing results, and potential real-world impact, practicing delivery with clear language and engaging visuals.

Teams organize a local Solution Showcase or Innovation Fair at school where they present their final solutions to the school community (families, teachers, other classes), displaying their prototypes and distributing informational materials (one-page flyers or QR codes linking to their project board).

During the local showcase, students deliver their pitches to visitors, answer questions about their design choices and testing process, and collect additional feedback on their solutions using comment cards or a feedback form.

Simultaneously, teams participate in a joint virtual celebration with the partner class, sharing their final solutions via video presentations or live video call, explaining how their design addresses the identified problem and what they learned from testing.

Students compare how context shaped each design by discussing with partner class peers how their solutions differ based on local needs, available resources, and cultural preferences, celebrating the diversity of approaches to solving similar problems.

Teams create a digital summary of their solution (using a template or free tool) that includes problem statement, design journey, final prototype, testing insights, and impact potential, which is shared on the project board and with the partner class for reference.

Teacher facilitates a guided reflection discussion using prompts such as 'What did we learn about solving real-world problems?' 'How did our solution evolve from our first idea to the final version?' 'What was the most challenging part of the design process?' and 'How could our solution create real impact in our community?'

Each student completes a self-assessment rubric evaluating their own growth in critical thinking (ability to analyze problems), creativity (generating innovative ideas), and collaboration (working effectively with teammates and international peers), reflecting honestly on strengths and areas for growth.

Teams exchange structured peer feedback with classmates, highlighting specific strengths they observed (e.g., 'Your team's empathy interviews were really thorough') and growth areas (e.g., 'Consider testing with more diverse users next time'), using a peer feedback template posted on the project board.

Students create individual reflections (written, video, or audio) answering prompts like 'How did talking to my family change how I see our home?' 'What surprised me about the partner class's perspective?' and 'What would I do differently if I solved this problem again?'

Both classes collaborate to create a shared digital mural (using Padlet, Jamboard, or a similar tool) where students from both classrooms post key design thinking takeaways, lessons learned, and thank you messages to their international partners, celebrating the collaborative achievement.

Teacher guides a final discussion connecting the project to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Children's Rights, asking students to identify which SDGs their solutions address (e.g., SDG 11 Sustainable Cities and Communities, SDG 10 Reduced Inequalities) and how their work contributes to global change.