Pirl Experimental Education & Consulting
Design journal · Injuries & Healing · Unit 6.6
Let’s Build It.
Then Let’s Break It.
Brainstorming a unit launch with a mystery injury, virtual experiments, physical models, and a lot of questions.
Work in progress. The simulation is ready to explore. The physical classroom investigation is still being developed.
There is a question students always ask when we begin our Injuries & Healing unit:
“How much weight did the student drop?”
That question stayed with me as I started brainstorming a new launch for Unit 6.6. Students are already curious about how the injury happened. Could I give them a way to investigate their ideas, collect evidence, and argue for a possible explanation?
I did not begin with a finished plan. My first request was essentially: Explore the lesson materials and help me think of a simulation. I’ll know a good idea when I see one. My longer-term goal is to develop a useful simulation for each lesson, including the unit launch. This thread became an experiment in figuring out what “useful” should look like.
01 · Start with a question
Keep the mystery. Give students something to investigate.
The first part stays close to the lesson’s storyline. A student has injured their foot. Students examine the available evidence and follow the recovery reports, paying attention to what changes over time.
They can look closely, examine movement, test feeling in different locations, and view an illustrated X-ray. The point is to notice structures and function, separate observations from inferences, and identify what the available evidence still cannot explain.
The idea that clicked: “Recreate the Injury”
The other early modes did not give students enough to do. I wanted them to explore and test their own ideas. The question about the dropped weight provided a direction.
In the new experiment tab, students choose a dumbbell, weight plate, or bar; change the mass and drop height; and decide how the object lands. They make a prediction, run a virtual drop, and examine the resulting foot using the same tools available in the original case.
That creates a reason to revise a trial. Did the X-ray evidence match? What about the visible injury, movement, or feeling? Which variable might they change next, and why?
Watch a short simulation walkthrough
An updated 20-second demonstration using the current realistic illustrations and interface views. It is an animated demonstration, not a live screen recording.
02 · Make the thinking visible
The evidence log might be my favorite part.
A completed trial does not tell me very much about what a student is thinking. I wanted the notebook to keep the kind of evidence, too: “looking closely—top of foot” tells a different story from “X-ray of foot.”
Each entry can include the student’s thinking or a question. Students can copy the log into a Google Form or Doc, giving me a way to look at their observations, uncertainty, and explanations together.
I would be interested in the question “Could a different drop produce similar evidence?” That opens a much richer conversation than simply finding a combination that looks right.
The notebook keeps entries during the current tab session. Students should copy or download their work before refreshing or leaving.
03 · Learn. Experiment. Refine.
The revisions were part of the work.
The graphics have moved much closer to real life. I want enough detail for students to notice a wound, compare swelling, and follow changes across the recovery reports. Visual realism still needs an accuracy check: the foot and scan views remain labeled illustrations.
One early heel view put the indicator in the right place while showing the top of the foot. That needed to change. A student investigating feeling at the heel should see the underside of the foot. The original case’s bone views also needed to show partial fractures of the 2nd and 3rd metatarsals, with the bones still partly connected.
The horizontal wound now changes across the appointments: bleeding and bruising in the ER illustration, stitches after surgery, strips after stitch removal, and a gradually fading scar. The reports guide the documented changes; the added bruising and scar appearance help illustrate recovery without becoming extra case evidence.
The falling objects needed attention as well. A dumbbell, a plate, and a bar should be recognizable, and students should be able to see the difference between a broad contact and an edge or end contacting the foot.
The student and equipment needed another pass
Once I asked for an entire student in the drop scene, I had another request: clean up the arm that appeared to be cut in half by the body. Some revisions are about the evidence. Some are about making the visual clear enough that it stops distracting from the task.
A third tab: Injuries & Recovery Tools
Students can now explore 27 flip cards: 12 about bone injuries, six about bruising, swelling, and scars, and nine about tools that support healing. The collection includes crutches, casts, splints, walking boots, and surgical hardware. Cards pair realistic illustrations or scan-style views with diagrams and short explanations.
Students can keep a useful card in the evidence notebook as a reference and add their thinking. Underlined medical words throughout the simulation also open a short definition and picture when students hover, tap, or focus them.
See the explanation on the back of a card
04 · From a screen to the workbench
I’m all for technology. I also want their hands on the materials.
In true Pirl fashion, I am considering a hybrid launch: virtual experimentation paired with physical experimentation. Students could explore the injury in the simulation, then build and test a material model that raises related questions about structure and function.
The physical ideas are still developing. Pasta, craft sticks, marshmallows, and other simple materials could give students something to construct, test, and revise. Those materials come with limitations as models of a living body, and I want that to become part of the discussion.
How often do I ask students to build something just to break it?
Who doesn’t want to break stuff?
Models, of course. The interesting part comes when students explain what failed, what evidence supports their explanation, and what they would change in the next version.
| Question | Virtual investigation | Physical model |
|---|---|---|
| What did you change? | Choose an object, mass, height, or contact orientation. | Choose a material or structural feature to compare in a planned test. |
| What is your evidence? | Use appearance, movement, feeling, and illustrated X-rays. | Observe bending, cracking, movement, or loss of function in the model. |
| What can you explain? | Argue for a possible injury scenario and identify what remains uncertain. | Explain the model’s behavior and where the analogy to a foot stops working. |
I have not run this physical launch yet. Before I do, I need to settle the learning goal, choose a manageable test, and make sure students can connect what happens to their model with the questions we are investigating.
05 · A brainstorm worth questioning
The AI video helps me picture possibilities.
The clip below is AI-generated concept footage of potential classroom activities. It helps make a rough idea visible while I decide what is worth developing. The people, activities, and outcomes shown are generated imagery; these are not photos or results from my classroom.
And the vision board gives us something else to investigate.
The pinboard looks convincing at a glance. Look more closely and there are scientific inaccuracies, questionable labels, and ideas that need more work. I want to put that fact right alongside the image.
Look more closely at the board’s labels and models
06 · Share the process
Brainstorming in public
I also put together a set of portrait images and short video options to share the developing idea. They show the simulation, the evidence notebook, the hybrid plan, and the invitation to question the AI-generated board.
I am sharing this at the brainstorming stage because I would like other teachers’ ideas while there is still plenty of room to change the plan. What would you have students build, test, and break? What would help them connect structure, injury, and function?
See a selection of the updated simulation views
