The Tikkun Project
Lesson
3
Considering Multiple Perspectives
Concept
The same product can be simultaneously beneficial and harmful, depending on whose perspective individual, environment, or manufacturer you're evaluating from.
Focus Question
Who or what is most connected to the benefits and harms of everyday products, and does the answer change depending on whose perspective you take?
Knowledge & Understanding Goals
Science and Technology, Matter and Energy Strand C, Grade 7: Analyse the differing social, economic, and environmental impacts of the use and disposal of a product from multiple stakeholder perspectives. (C1.1)
Thinking & Learning Skills
ATL — Thinking Skills: Deliberately generating criteria from a specific, non-default perspective rather than one assumed-universal viewpoint.
Learner Profile: Open-Minded, Caring.
Context
Deepens the criteria work from Lessons 1-2 by forcing students to generate perspective-specific criteria rather than a single universal list, using the Project Zero Circle of Viewpoints routine. Connects directly to the ANT map's "actors" concept introduced in Lesson 2: the three perspectives here (Individuals, Environment, Manufacturers) are exactly the kind of actors students have already been mapping for their own chosen product.
Lesson Outline
GENERATING CRITERIA FROM AN ASSIGNED PERSPECTIVE
Divide students into groups, each given a large sheet of paper labelled with one perspective: Individuals, The Environment, or Manufacturers. Each group completes two prompts from their assigned perspective only: "I would say that something is beneficial if..." and "I would say that something is harmful if..."
Example criteria from an individual consumer's perspective — beneficial if: it's affordable, supports my well-being, has a lasting positive impact, is equitable, improves quality of life; harmful if: it's toxic, its negative impacts can't be undone, it's expensive, it's not accessible, it's inconvenient. Example criteria from the environment's perspective — beneficial if: it's sustainable/renewable, supports the well-being of living things, supports the well-being of the environment; harmful if: it's toxic or polluting, its negative impacts can't be undone, it's destructive to living things, habitats, or the earth.
TESTING CRITERIA AGAINST A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE
Groups exchange papers and review the criteria generated by a different perspective, suggesting revisions or additions worth highlighting. Groups then present their perspective's criteria to the whole class; all criteria get recorded on a shared Perspectives Organizer.
WIDENING THE VIEW WITH REAL CERTIFICATIONS
To surface additional harms or benefits students might not have considered, show examples of real product certifications that reflect specific criteria: Rainforest Alliance, Fair Trade, Organic, Kashrut, Vegan, Cruelty-Free Cosmetics, Non-GMO, Certified Non-Toxic (MSDS sheets), Recyclable, Plant-based, No CFCs. Ask: which perspective (individual, environment, manufacturer, or another one entirely) does each certification seem to represent?
WRAP-UP
Exit card: Do you think a product can be beneficial to every perspective at once? Why or why not? Complete: "I would say that the harms of a product outweigh the benefits if..."
Notes for Teaching and Evaluation
Circle of Viewpoints (Project Zero thinking routine): assigning a specific, non-default perspective — rather than asking "what are the benefits and harms" generically — forces students to notice that criteria themselves shift depending on who's asking.
Introducing real certifications only after students have generated their own perspective-based criteria (not before) lets those examples test and extend independent student thinking, the same sequencing principle used with Bal Tashchit in Lesson 1.