Lesson 6: Self Design Reflection

What was the "Point of Failure" in our design, and was it a result of the sketch, the assembly, or the material limits?

If we had an unlimited budget and time, which subsystem would we fundamentally redesign?

How did our robot's performance compare to our original "Research & Design" goals?

Post-Mortem: A process used to identify the causes of failure or success after a project is completed.

Root Cause Analysis: A method of problem-solving used for identifying the "root" of faults or problems (e.g., "The arm broke because the gear slipped, which happened because the axle wasn't supported by a bearing flat").

Optimization: The act of making a design as fully functional or effective as possible.

Technical Debt: The implied cost of additional rework caused by choosing an easy (quick) solution instead of a better approach during the build phase.

Quantitative vs. Qualitative Data: Using numbers (points scored, motor temp) versus descriptions (it felt "sluggish," the intake was "clunky").

NGSS HS-ETS1-3: Evaluate a solution to a complex real-world problem based on prioritized criteria and trade-offs that account for a range of constraints.

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.WHST.11-12.1: Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content, including a clear claim and valid reasoning.

Description: Students will review their 18-class build log, their instruction booklet, and their competition results. They will produce a "Revision 2.0" proposal. This includes a written reflection and a "Redline Sketch"—taking their original design and marking it up in red ink to show where structural or mechanical changes are needed.

Purpose: To instill a "growth mindset" in engineering. In the real world, the first version of a product is rarely the final one. This lesson teaches students that failure is just data.

DOK Level: Level 4 (Extended Thinking). This requires the highest level of metacognition. Students must synthesize their entire experience over the past several weeks to evaluate their own work and propose complex, evidence-based changes.

In this course, we recognize that students enter the lab with varying levels of technical experience. Our differentiation strategy employs a 'Scaffolded Autonomy' approach. We provide structured, step-by-step guidance for foundational concepts while offering open-ended, 'Design Challenge' extensions for advanced learners. By utilizing peer-mentorship models, diverse instructional media (visual, tactile, and digital), and flexible project pathways, we ensure every student can move from consumer to creator at their own pace.

• Formative: "The Counter-Factural Discussion." The instructor asks: "If the game objects were twice as heavy, would your robot have still functioned? Why or why not?"

• Summative: The Final Portfolio Presentation. This is a 3–5 minute presentation or a detailed report where the team presents their "Engineering Successes," "Mechanical Failures," and "Revision 2.0 Plan."