Hard Materials: Junior Engineering Group of Green Bay College

The Junior Engineering Group (an extension group selected to work on a Technology project) identified the junior playground as a problem. Some of the equipment was unsafe, and they wanted to encourage juniors to play there, instead of in the senior playground.

The group analysed the playground equipment and came up with some initial ideas on what they considered unsafe, and the new features they wanted. They then consulted with process engineer and Futureintech Ambassador Kenny Liew, who introduced them to the engineering design process and then visited the children every two weeks to review their progress.

The Junior Engineers surveyed the junior school on which parts of the playground they considered safe/unsafe and recorded their responses on a teacher-designed spreadsheet. The results showed that the chain bridge, rocky bridge, wooden tunnel and climbing wall were considered unsafe. The team decided that there was actually no significant danger posed by the rocky bridge, and that they would concentrate on the chain bridge, climbing wall and wooden tunnel. They would also look at replacing the soggy bark cover with soft-fall landing.

The group divided into pairs to work on the three areas they'd identified as requiring improvement. Each pair considered the problems and what materials could be used to improve it. When they sketched their concept designs they were encouraged to use the 'crazy idea concept' – to think outside the box, and use their knowledge and experiences to create a new design.

When the chain bridge team looked at suitable materials they also considered what household materials they might be able to use, such as garden hose, carpet or wood.

The climbing wall team had to think about how they could make it safer for younger students. They explored different types of climbing walls and designed their own, explaining why the features they incorporated were better.

The wooden tunnel team decided to change the design of the structure, so that students couldn't climb on top or hang off the rails. Their concept designs included the use of new materials, such as plastic, to avoid gaps children could dangle from.

The group reviewed all their ideas for the playground and then consulted a catalogue to see what was available and at what cost. They chose a hop-scotch bridge, submarine barrel and soft-fall landing to replace the currently identified unsafe areas, and a 'snakes & ladders' and cable wall challenge as additional options for the upgrade.

The students then met with a consultant from playground equipment manufacturers Playco. He discussed their plans, suggested how the pieces should fit, and a suitable alternative for the hop – scotch bridge, which was impossible to install, and provided a quote for these items plus soft-fall landing.

Their final solution was to replace two unsafe pieces of equipment, install two new climbing frames which would be easier to use and safer for juniors, and provide soft-fall landing. They then had to contact the school fundraising committee to discuss their plans, and the Board of Trustees to seek permission for the changes.

Teacher comment

The Engineers Group investigated a real-life problem from the perspective of the whole school community rather than their own viewpoint, which has meant they have been in contact with all children in the junior classes. This group of six-and-seven-year-olds has been particularly enthusiastic and it has been a pleasure to work with them.

Engineer comment

Working with the Junior Engineering Group was rewarding and fun, as they were always enthusiastic and full of creative ideas for redesigning the playground. They were willing to work in a team environment and learnt to communicate their ideas through their drawings.