An initial testing of the proposed procedure was performed by the members of the project. Authors Jörgenson and Sinclair ran members of ATiC (including author Balka) through a mockup of the initial trial. A number of adjustments were subsequently made to the procedure which later were found to be important; for example, pads of paper were needed to allow students to rough out preliminary designs before attempting their final version on PostIt Note paper.
Three simCHET trials were undertaken within a period of one month. Each trial took about 1.5 to 2 hours. Except for the first trial, each was followed by an oral debriefing (the first trial was followed by journalling).
The first trial introduced simCHET to the students. It required additional time to communicate how the tools were to be used and to demonstrate construction techniques. They were led through the initial steps of the design as a group, identifying the components needed to build a relatively simple rotation applet with which they had worked before. A large support team of five researchers was present to provide constant support for the six working groups. Most of the groups were able to complete a working design within a two hour period.
A followup trial was run the next school day involving a somewhat more complex applet. The students sketched their designs on paper instead of using the full PostIt Note-based process. This was intended to reinforce their experience on the previous day without invoking all the support and materials needed for a full run. The students were able to construct the applets without difficulty in a much shorter time period.
The final trial was aimed at seeing if the students could now employ simCHET to design their own applets using transformations. They were aware that their ideas and designs would be potentially developed by the PDG team. The teachers stressed the fact that their creativity would be particularly welcomed, as would their suggestions for new JavaBeans. The students began by brainstorming ideas both individually and in groups. They were very excited by their ideas and very comfortable working within the framework of the existing technology. As they saw the need for a new JavaBean, they would inquire whether it was necessary and possible to make.
The students then planned the layout of their applets and made a list of JavaBeans that would be needed in order to make the applet work. After having discussed their designs with their teacher and members of the PDG team, the students began the construction of their applets.
