Your Second Print - Teacher Template (Extension Project)
Briefing
Building on the first successful print, students now adapt an existing model to meet a specific constraint or improvement goal. This project emphasizes design iteration, parametric thinking, and the ability to modify existing designs for new contexts.
Key Learning: Design iteration; constraint-based modification; documentation of changes.
Real-world Connection: Adaptation and iteration are core engineering practices. Most real products are refinements of earlier versions.
Constraints
- Must be a modification or adaptation of an existing 3D model
- Modifications must be parametric (variables or commented code showing what changed)
- Student must document the modification rationale and testing process
- Iteration should be evidence through multiple print attempts or variant comparisons
Functional Requirements
- Modification is clearly documented with before/after code comparison
- Adapted print functions as intended in the modified context
- Student provides evidence of testing the adaptation
- Design shows intentional thought about materials, fit, or functionality
Deliverables
- Completed documentation template with:
- Original model identification and link
- Modifications made (with code comments or diff)
- Design iteration cycle (print, test, adapt, repeat)
- User testing results (if applicable)
- Reflection on design decisions
- Comparison of original vs. adapted version
- Modified
.scador.stlfiles showing changes - Photos of both original and adapted prints (if possible)
- Test results or user feedback documentation
Rubric
All projects are scored on a 0-9 scale across three equally weighted categories (3 points each):
| Category | Points | What We Measure |
|---|---|---|
| Problem & Solution | 0-3 | Is the adapted design functional? Does it solve the stated adaptation goal? |
| Design & Code Quality | 0-3 | Are modifications clear and well-documented? Is iteration evident? Does the part work well? |
| Documentation | 0-3 | Is the iteration cycle documented? Are design decisions explained? Is reflection thorough? |
Category 1: Problem & Solution (0-3 points)
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 3 | Adaptation successfully addresses design goal. Print is functional and performs as intended in modified context. |
| 2 | Adaptation mostly addresses goal. Print is functional with minor limitations. |
| 1 | Adaptation partially addresses goal. Print has functional limitations. |
| 0 | Adaptation does not work or is not attempted. |
Category 2: Design & Code Quality (0-3 points)
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 3 | Modifications clearly documented with before/after comparison. Iteration cycle evident (multiple prints/tests). Print quality excellent. |
| 2 | Modifications documented adequately. Some iteration evident. Print quality acceptable. |
| 1 | Minimal modification documentation. Little iteration. Print quality acceptable but lacks refinement. |
| 0 | Modifications not documented or design not functional. |
Category 3: Documentation (0-3 points)
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 3 | All sections complete. Design iteration documented with measurements and testing results. Reflection is specific. Photos included. |
| 2 | Most sections present. Iteration documented but could be more detailed. Reflection adequate. |
| 1 | Incomplete sections. Minimal iteration documentation. Reflection brief. |
| 0 | No documentation submitted. |
Score Interpretation
| Total Score | Interpretation | Next Step |
|---|---|---|
| 8-9 | Excellent adaptation | Student demonstrates design maturity |
| 6-7 | Good iteration and adaptation | Encourage further design work |
| 4-5 | Meets basics; improve iteration | Resubmit iteration documentation |
| 2-3 | Does not meet expectations | Resubmission or coaching |
| 0-1 | Missing components | Meet with instructor |
Resubmission Policy
Students may resubmit to improve their score. Resubmissions must include:
- A one-paragraph explanation of what was changed and why
The resubmission score replaces the original.
Assessment Notes
- Strong submissions show clear modification intent, multiple iteration cycles with documented changes, and user feedback integration
- Watch for: Minimal modifications, no iteration, or generic reflections
- Reinforce: Why iteration matters; how to document design decisions
- Extension: Portfolio development; design for manufacturability