Lesson 2: The "Version 2.0" Redesign Proposal
Duration of Days: 3
Lesson Objective
Students will synthesize their mission data and teardown findings to propose a comprehensive redesign of their ROV for a more difficult mission.
If you had a $50 "Upgrade Budget," where would you spend it?
How would you change your frame shape to pass through a hoop that is 2 inches narrower?
What was the biggest "trade-off" you made, and would you make it again?
Iterative Design: A design methodology based on a cyclic process of prototyping, testing, analyzing, and refining a product.
Optimization: The act of making a design as effective or functional as possible within given constraints.
Trade-off: A situational decision that involves diminishing or losing one quality, quantity, or property of a design in return for gains in other aspects.
NGSS HS-ETS1-3: Evaluate a solution to a complex real-world problem based on prioritized criteria and trade-offs.
ITEEA STEL-2T: Demonstrate the use of models to identify conflicting design considerations.
Description: This is the final academic "Pitch." Using their mission times, stability logs, and teardown notes, teams create a presentation or poster detailing their "Version 2.0." They must show a new blueprint that solves the problems they encountered during the challenge.
Purpose: To solidify the lesson that engineering is never "finished"—it is an ongoing cycle of improvement.
DOK Level: Level 4 (Extended Thinking). This is the highest level of cognitive demand. Students are creating a new design based on a complex synthesis of their own data, peer feedback, and physical observations.
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.
The Summative Presentation: Teams present their findings to the class. The grade is based on:
1. Data Integration: Did they use their "Challenge" times to justify changes?
2. Technical Accuracy: Are their proposed fixes physically sound?
3. Reflective Honesty: Did they accurately identify their original design's weaknesses?