Test, Analyze, Improve

Overview

In this seventh lesson of the eight-lesson unit Designing for Other Worlds, students test their team rovers on simulated planetary terrain and use performance data to evaluate the design. They calculate speed, compare results with design criteria, identify likely causes of failure, and propose evidence-based improvements before a final redesign lesson.

Learning intentions

Students will be able to:

• Follow a multistep rover-testing procedure accurately and safely.
• Record organized quantitative data from repeated trials.
• Calculate and compare rates using distance and time.
• Use evidence from data to recommend a specific design improvement.

Success criteria

• I can follow each testing step in the correct order and keep the test fair.
• I can record distance, time, units, and observations clearly.
• I can calculate a rover’s rate using distance ÷ time.
• I can explain how my data supports an improvement to the rover design.

Curriculum links

• Reading technical procedures: follow multistep directions when carrying out a technical task.
• Reading technical information: connect written testing instructions and data with tables, diagrams, and other visual representations.
• Reading science and technical texts: determine the meaning of terms such as rate, trial, variable, criteria, traction, and reliability.
• Writing in science and mathematics: cite specific data as evidence when explaining a design decision and identifying additional questions for investigation.
• California Common Core mathematics connection: describe and compare numerical distributions using center and variability, including mean and range, when appropriate.

Lesson structure (45 minutes)

1. 0–5 min · Launch and predict. Teacher opens the rover challenge hook slides and displays a rough, rocky “planet surface” beside a smooth track, asking, “Which rover will travel farther in 20 seconds, and what evidence would convince you?” Students make a quick prediction and name one feature that may affect rover performance.

2. 5–11 min · Review the test procedure. Teacher uses the procedure and fair-test slides to model the testing sequence: inspect the rover, place it at the start line, release without pushing, measure distance, record time and observations, and repeat three trials. Students silently number the steps on the rover testing and analysis worksheet and explain why the starting point, time limit, and release method must remain consistent.

3. 11–15 min · Assign roles and prepare. Teacher organizes the four students into one testing team, assigns driver/releaser, timer, measurer, and data recorder roles, and reviews safe handling of materials and the instruction to stop immediately if a rover or surface becomes unsafe. Students collect the rover, stopwatch or timer, meterstick or tape measure, and testing surface; they check that the worksheet includes units and a space for observations.

4. 15–27 min · Conduct repeated trials. Teacher starts the test and circulates with a clipboard, checking that students follow the procedure in order and repeat any trial affected by an accidental push, obstacle, or timing error. Students run three trials on the selected terrain, recording distance traveled in centimeters, time in seconds, whether the rover crossed the finish line, and observations such as slipping, tipping, veering, or stopping.

5. 27–35 min · Calculate and visualize results. Teacher models one example from the class data: rate = distance ÷ time, with units such as centimeters per second; then prompts students to calculate each trial’s rate and the mean rate and range when the data are usable. Students complete the calculations on the rover testing and analysis worksheet and organize their results using the Results Table Builder Cards, checking for consistent units, decimal places, and clearly labeled trials.

6. 35–41 min · Analyze and improve. Teacher displays the data analysis and redesign slides and asks, “Did the rover meet the design criteria? Which data point is strongest evidence? What may have caused the failure?” Students compare their results with the team’s criteria, identify a pattern or source of failure, and write one evidence-based improvement using the frame: “We should change ___ because ___; our data show ___.”

7. 41–45 min · Share and exit check. Teacher invites each student to share one finding and one proposed improvement, then returns to the opening prediction on the discussion and exit slides. Students complete the final worksheet prompt: “State your rover’s mean rate, describe one performance problem, and recommend one change supported by a specific result.”

Resources

• the rover challenge hook slides
• the rover testing and analysis worksheet
• the Results Table Builder Cards
• One student-built rover per team
• Simulated planetary terrain or obstacle surface
• Meterstick or measuring tape
• Stopwatch, timer, or classroom tablet timer
• Masking tape for start and finish lines
• Calculator or scratch paper
• Safety glasses, if required by the rover materials

Assessment

• During testing, observe whether students follow the multistep procedure, maintain consistent conditions, record units, and repeat compromised trials.
• Check calculations and ask students to explain how their mean rate, range, or observations support their conclusion.
• Use the final worksheet response to assess accurate data use, technical vocabulary, and a specific improvement linked to evidence.

Differentiation

• Provide a partially completed sample table, a rate formula card, and the sentence frames “The rover’s rate was ___ because…” and “The data suggest ___.”
• Assign roles deliberately so students who need support can begin as recorder or observer before taking a timing or measuring role; read procedure steps aloud and check understanding one step at a time.
• For students needing language support, pair each technical term with a simple definition, gesture, or image and allow oral rehearsal before writing.
• Challenge students who finish early to compare the fastest and slowest trials, calculate the percent difference if ready, or generate a focused follow-up question about terrain, wheel design, weight, or release technique.