Engineering Design · California Grade 6-8
MS-ETS1-2
Evaluate competing design solutions using a systematic process to determine how well they meet the criteria and constraints of the problem.
Chapters
The textbook lesson has no engineering spread; the engineering practice comes from Lab 3, where groups test layered and three-dimensional toothpick structures against load, push and drop criteria under a material budget, and from W9, where students score three salt-model prototypes against criteria and constraints they wrote. Both build the practice; neither is a full assessment of the PE.
The textbook lesson has no engineering spread; this connection comes from Lab 2 and Worksheet 9, where students evaluate seven candidate materials for a product against stated criteria and constraints using the property data this lesson teaches. It is practice because the problem and its criteria are supplied rather than defined by students.
The lesson's engineering spread describes how engineers judged biomass sources for jet fuel. Lab 3 requires students to score several competing feedstocks in a decision matrix built from explicit criteria and constraints and to justify the winner, which is direct evidence toward this PE; the W9 transfer challenge builds the same evaluation.
The lesson's engineering spread evaluates reforestation sites against criteria and constraints. Lab 3 requires students to score five competing fertilizer plans in a decision matrix against stated criteria and constraints, and the presentation task does the same for four reforestation sites, which is direct evidence toward this PE.
The medicine strand (slides 23-25) has students weigh salicylic acid against aspirin on the criteria of relieving pain and fever with few side effects, and W9 applies the same systematic check to three fictional anti-itch cream designs with two criteria and a cost constraint. The trial results are supplied rather than generated, so this builds the practice rather than fully assessing the PE.
W9 produces evidence for it: students evaluate four cold-pack designs in a pass-or-fail decision table against criteria and constraints they wrote themselves from a user's letter. Lab 3, W8 and the slide-21 task practice the same systematic process with supplied criteria.
Lab 2 and the presentation's task slide have students score four cup materials against the same criteria and constraints using information cards, then defend a choice. This is a systematic comparison of competing solutions; the decision is qualitative and classroom-scale, so the role is practice.
The lesson's engineering spread tells how a team compared five dam types for the Hoover Dam site. Lab 3 has students score three competing water-supply plans in a decision matrix, and W9 has them test four competing energy plans in a pass/fail matrix with 30-year costs; both end in a choice justified against stated criteria and constraints, which is evidence toward this PE.
The lesson has no engineering spread; this code comes in through W9, where pairs test four drought options for a fenced elk herd against criteria, constraints and a budget in a check table and defend a plan, and through the Lab 3 plan check, where groups test plans A to E against two criteria and two constraints. The options, criteria and checking steps are supplied in both, so this is practice rather than assessment.
In Lab 3 and W9 students score two or more shield designs against the same criteria in a decision matrix and defend the choice with test data. The role is practice rather than assesses in both places: the criteria and the scoring steps are supplied (fully in W9, partly in Lab 3), and only a few designs are compared.
In W9 students evaluate five creek-restoration options and one combination systematically, eliminating any that break a constraint before scoring the rest against the criteria. The options and cost estimates are supplied rather than designed by students, so the role is practice. The slide 24 comparison of two Louisiana wetland designs previews the same reasoning.
In W9 students score five frost-protection plans for a vineyard against stated criteria and constraints in a decision table, using the test data and the particle model of freezing and evaporation, before recommending one plan. The plans and their results are supplied rather than designed by students, so the role is practice.
Groups compare tested bridge designs with a shared results table in Lab 2 and compare three sites with a scoring table and a cost check in Lab 3, mirroring the lesson's account of engineers comparing bridge designs before choosing one.
Students score bridge designs in a decision matrix built from shared test data (Lab 2, slide 24) and score warning procedures by misses, false alarms and lead time against a record of past events (Lab 3). The criteria are supplied and the scoring frame is teacher-built, so this practices the PE rather than assessing it.
Lab 3, W9 and the presentation task use a pass-or-fail table for every criterion and constraint so that plans are compared the same way. The evaluation method is supplied rather than built by students, so this is practice toward the PE.
Lab 3 requires students to score seven competing options on weighted criteria and a budget and to use the totals in their recommendation; Lab 2 compares filter designs on a criteria table as practice.
In Lab 3 students apply fixed scoring rules and weighted totals to every competing plan and package and test how the ranking holds up under other weights and worst-case estimates; in W9 they run two competing plans through one model and check each against every criterion and the budget. Both are the PE as written: the process is supplied, and students carry it out and judge the results. Lab 1's criteria checks, Lab 2's shared test data and W4, W6, W8 and W10 item 9 are practice.
Worksheets (36)
| Chapter | Worksheet | Role | How it connects |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ch. 2 | W9 · Design Brief: A Touchable Salt-Crystal Model for Science Night Transfer and design | practice | Students score three candidate designs against their own criteria and constraints in a systematic table before choosing. |
| Ch. 3 | W9 · Design Challenge: A Float-Sink Line for Five Plastics Transfer and design | practice | Students evaluate three competing tank designs with a systematic table against stated criteria (pure streams, cost, safety) and constraints (three tanks, available liquids), then build and justify their own. This practices the PE's systematic evaluation without a full design cycle. |
| Ch. 4 | W9 · Fuel for the Island Ferry: Choosing a Biomass Source Transfer and design | assesses | Students score four competing biomass sources in a systematic matrix against their own criteria and constraints and choose or combine solutions, producing evidence toward this PE. |
| Ch. 4 | W10 · Capturing the Sun's Energy: Mastery Check Retrieval and mastery check | supports | One item checks the criterion-versus-constraint distinction from the biofuel strand as background for evaluating design solutions. |
| Ch. 6 | W9 · Clearing Alder Reservoir: Choose a Food-Web Fix and Plan the Test Transfer and design | assesses | Students score four competing solutions in a decision matrix against the town's criteria and constraints and justify a choice. That is the systematic evaluation the PE describes; the scenario and cost figures are teaching estimates, which is acceptable for an engineering-practice task. |
| Ch. 7 | W9 · Where Should the Trees Go? Judging Three Carbon-Capture Plans Transfer and design | assesses | Students score three candidate sites against stated criteria and constraints using a decision matrix and per-dollar calculations, then choose. That systematic comparison is the PE as written. |
| Ch. 8 | W9 · Where Can the Gym Go? Reading a Fault Trench Before Building Transfer and design | assesses | Students score three competing site plans in a systematic matrix against stated criteria and constraints and choose one, which is the practice this engineering PE describes. |
| Ch. 9 | W9 · Design a Hallway Timeline That Tells the Truth About Time Transfer and design | practice | Three candidate layouts are compared against the same criteria and constraints in a decision table before one is chosen and justified. |
| Ch. 11 | W9 · Where Should the Overlook Go? Siting a Deck on a Changing Coast Transfer and design | assesses | Students score three competing overlook designs against stated criteria and constraints using a decision matrix and rate calculations, then recommend one with reasons. Evaluating competing solutions with a systematic process is the PE as written. |
| Ch. 12 | W3 · From Willow Bark to a White Powder: Proving Something New Was Made Reading with evidence | supports | The passage describes doctors judging salicylic acid and aspirin against the same criteria (reduce fever and pain, cause little harm). It is background for the lesson's engineering strand, not a design evaluation by the student. |
| Ch. 12 | W9 · Two Creams, One Choice: Confirm the New Substance, Then Judge the Design Transfer and design | practice | Students receive trial results for three cream designs, convert them to percentages, check each against two criteria and one cost constraint in a table, and justify a choice with its trade-off. The data are supplied, so this builds the systematic-evaluation practice toward the PE rather than fully assessing it. |
| Ch. 13 | W9 · Choose the Greener Route: Combining the Best of Three Process Designs Transfer and design | practice | Checking each route against the same criteria and constraints in a table is the systematic evaluation this PE describes; here it is a step toward the combination task rather than the final product. |
| Ch. 14 | W8 · Which Way Did the Energy Go? An Evidence Sort for Pack Designers Collaborative investigation | practice | In the group task students evaluate the sorted processes against three supplied criteria (direction, size of temperature change, safety) using a decision table. The criteria are given rather than defined by students, so the role is practice. |
| Ch. 14 | W9 · A Cold Pack for the Cross-Country Kit: Define, Evaluate, Modify Transfer and design | assesses | Students evaluate four competing cold-pack designs with a pass/fail decision table against the criteria and constraints they defined, a systematic process that produces evidence toward this PE. |
| Ch. 15 | W6 · Should the Festival Switch to Corn Cups? A Claim-Evidence-Reasoning Case Claim, evidence, reasoning | practice | The decision compares two competing solutions against the town's real criteria and constraints (landfill space, recycling, cost, facilities available), which is the evaluation practice this PE describes, at classroom scale. |
| Ch. 15 | W9 · The Sixty-Thousand-Fork Problem: Choosing a Material for the Cafeteria Transfer and design | practice | Students score four fork materials against the same criteria and constraints in a matrix and defend a choice, which is the systematic comparison the PE describes; the data are simulated and the scale is one cafeteria. |
| Ch. 17 | W9 · Choose the Stone: Which Rock Will Last on the Riverside Steps? Transfer and design | practice | Students evaluate four competing stone choices systematically against stated criteria and constraints, using test data and cost calculations, which is the practice this ETS standard describes. |
| Ch. 19 | W9 · Power for Cinder Ridge: Choosing an Energy Source With Criteria and Constraints Transfer and design | assesses | Students evaluate four competing energy designs with a pass/fail constraint check, a 30-year cost calculation and a decision matrix, then justify a recommendation against every criterion and constraint; that is the systematic evaluation this PE names, so the matrix and q6 are evidence toward it. The lesson's Hoover Dam section models the same move. |
| Ch. 19 | W10 · Earth's Natural Resources: Mastery Check Retrieval and mastery check | practice | Item q12 asks students to sort the Hoover Dam team's criteria and constraints and justify the arch-gravity choice against them. It is a retrieval check on systematic evaluation, not a full evaluation of competing solutions, which W9 and Lab 3 provide. |
| Ch. 20 | W9 · Ridgeback Reserve: Design a Drought Plan for a Fenced Elk Herd Transfer and design | practice | Pairs evaluate four options and their combinations against stated criteria and constraints with a criteria check table before choosing and defending a plan. This practices the systematic evaluation the PE describes; the options, criteria and check table are supplied, so the sheet builds toward the PE rather than assessing it. |
| Ch. 21 | W9 · Listening Past the Highway: Choose a Shield for the Frog Recorders Transfer and design | practice | Students check four designs against four criteria and four constraints in a decision matrix, eliminate designs that break a constraint, and justify a choice with test data. The criteria, pass marks and the subtraction for each cell are supplied and only one design survives the checks, so this practices the systematic evaluation the PE describes rather than assessing it; Lab 3, where teams evaluate their own designs, is the fuller version. |
| Ch. 22 | W9 · Bringing Back Arroyo Verde: Design a Creek Restoration Transfer and design | practice | Students evaluate five designs and a combination with a decision matrix, eliminating any design that breaks a constraint before comparing how well the rest meet the criteria. This is the systematic evaluation the PE describes, applied to a given set of options. |
| Ch. 23 | W9 · Keep It Between 2 and 8: Choosing a Melting Pack for a Vaccine Cooler Transfer and design | practice | Pairs evaluate four competing pack materials and three pack counts against stated criteria and constraints with a decision matrix before choosing. The criteria are given rather than written by students, so the sheet practices evaluation (ETS1-2), not problem definition. |
| Ch. 24 | W9 · Frost Night at Oak Hollow Vineyard: Choose the Protection Plan Transfer and design | practice | Students score five plans against stated criteria and constraints in a decision table before choosing one. The criteria and test results are supplied, so this practices the evaluation step rather than a full design cycle. |
| Ch. 25 | W9 · Listening to Silver Basin: Design a Volcano Monitoring and Alert Plan Transfer and design | practice | Students score two competing plans against the same criteria and constraints in a decision table before designing their own. The comparison is systematic but the plans are given, so the sheet practices the PE. |
| Ch. 26 | W9 · After the Fire: Choosing Debris-Flow Defenses for Sycamore Canyon Transfer and design | practice | Pairs eliminate options that break a constraint, then score the rest against four criteria in a matrix. The criteria and scoring scale are supplied, so this practices the systematic evaluation the PE describes rather than assessing it. |
| Ch. 27 | W9 · Design Challenge: Salt Ponds or Marsh? Planning a Bay Shoreline Transfer and design | practice | A pass-or-fail check of every constraint followed by a comparison of criteria is a systematic process for evaluating competing solutions. |
| Ch. 28 | W6 · Seawall or Sand Dunes? Arguing From Five Winters of Evidence Claim, evidence, reasoning | practice | Before writing the argument, students score both solutions against each criterion and the cost constraint in a table, a simple systematic comparison. |
| Ch. 28 | W8 · Saving the Store Banana: A Jigsaw on Biodiversity and Disease Collaborative investigation | practice | Home groups score the three solutions against shared criteria in a decision matrix and cite card evidence for each score, a systematic comparison of competing solutions. |
| Ch. 28 | W9 · Owls or Poison? Designing Rodent Control for a California Vineyard Transfer and design | assesses | Students apply a constraint, compute three-year costs and complete a weighted decision matrix with stated scoring rules before recommending a solution, which is the systematic evaluation this PE describes. |
| Ch. 29 | W4 · Modeling the Sound: Nitrogen, Oxygen and a Test-and-Revise Loop Diagrams and models | practice | The healthy-ecosystem model acts as a set of criteria; students compare measurements against it and use real monitoring data to judge how well a solution is working, which practices systematic evaluation. |
| Ch. 29 | W6 · Sun, Shade or Forest? Choosing a Coffee Farm Design Claim, evidence, reasoning | practice | Parts A and B have students check each design against every criterion in a table before arguing, a systematic comparison that builds toward the full weighted evaluation in W9. |
| Ch. 29 | W7 · Checking Riley's Notes: Cycles, Counts and Who Decides Error analysis | supports | Note 7 describes the test-compare-revise process correctly; students must recognize it as accurate, which supports later systematic evaluation of designs. |
| Ch. 29 | W8 · Six Pressures Jigsaw: Weighing Solutions Three Ways Collaborative investigation | practice | The group table applies the same three kinds of criteria and an evidence-strength rating to every solution, a systematic comparison of competing approaches. |
| Ch. 29 | W9 · Keep the Mussels Out: Designing a Boat Check for a Reservoir Transfer and design | assesses | Students run each plan through the same calculation and check it against every criterion and the budget before choosing, a systematic evaluation of competing solutions. |
| Ch. 29 | W10 · Checkpoint: People, Populations and Protecting Ecosystems Retrieval and mastery check | practice | Item 9 is a short weighted decision matrix in which students compute totals and judge whether a small difference settles a choice. |
Labs (24)
| Chapter | Lab | Role | How it connects |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ch. 2 | Lab 3 · Sheets or Networks: Build a Structure That Survives Engineering design challenge | practice | Each group tests two reference structures and two designs of its own against the same three criteria under the same constraints, records pass or fail, and ranks them. This builds the systematic-evaluation practice; a full assessment would need a more open problem with social and environmental impacts weighed. |
| Ch. 3 | Lab 2 · Pick the Spoon: Property Data Decides Data-driven decision | practice | The criteria and constraints are supplied, and students apply a systematic process (must-pass screen, weighted scoring) to seven competing options, which is the heart of the PE. It is practice rather than assesses because students do not define the problem and the candidate set is small and given. |
| Ch. 4 | Lab 3 · Fuel for Flight: Which Biomass Should Become Jet Fuel? Data-driven decision | assesses | Students screen five candidates against explicit constraints, then score the survivors in a weighted matrix and justify the result with the data. The matrix, the screening table and q4 are direct evidence of a systematic evaluation, which is the PE as written. |
| Ch. 7 | Lab 3 · Feed the Field, Keep the Pond: Choosing a Fertilizer Plan Data-driven decision | assesses | Students score five competing plans in a decision matrix, apply constraints as pass or fail, weight the criteria, rank the plans and justify a recommendation that names the criterion it falls short on. The matrix and the written recommendation are direct evidence for this PE. |
| Ch. 10 | Lab 3 · Where Should Pine Ridge Drill? A Geothermal Data Decision Data-driven decision | practice | Students compare four candidate sites with a decision matrix built from a temperature criterion, a depth constraint and a budget constraint, and justify a choice. The sites are given, not designed, so the role is practice. |
| Ch. 14 | Lab 1 · Four Mystery Packets: Which Way Does the Energy Go? Evidence-based mystery | supports | Matching each packet to a spec-sheet description from evidence is a small version of evaluating whether a material meets a stated requirement, which students do fully in Lab 3. |
| Ch. 14 | Lab 3 · The Decision Meeting: Six Hand-Warmer Prototypes, Three Customers Data-driven decision | practice | Students score every prototype against every customer in a pass-or-fail matrix before choosing, which is a systematic process; the criteria and constraints are supplied by the customer briefs, so the role is practice rather than full evidence. |
| Ch. 15 | Lab 2 · The Spring Fair Cup Decision: Score It, Then Defend It Data-driven decision | practice | The scoring matrix is a systematic process for comparing four candidate solutions on the same criteria; the decision is qualitative and classroom-sized, so this builds the practice rather than fully assessing it. |
| Ch. 15 | Lab 3 · Design a Produce Bag: Criteria First, Then Build and Revise Engineering design challenge | practice | Groups test their own bag and compare it with other groups' bags on the same load, walk and rain tests, then combine features that worked into a revised design. |
| Ch. 19 | Lab 2 · The Cookie Mine: Ore Grade, Costs and What Mining Leaves Behind Physical model | practice | Students choose tools and mining time under cost constraints and judge their choices by a stated criterion, a small version of evaluating competing solutions systematically. |
| Ch. 19 | Lab 3 · Dry Creek Decides: Aquifer Cups and a Twenty-Year Water Plan Data-driven decision | assesses | Students score three plans in a matrix against four criteria and three constraints, reject any plan that breaks a constraint, and justify a recommendation with the scores and the calculations, which is the systematic evaluation this PE describes. |
| Ch. 20 | Lab 3 · The Cedar Hollow Case File: Deer, Cattle and the Next Dry Year Data-driven decision | practice | Groups check plans A to E against two criteria and two constraints in a table, and may design plan E, before recommending one. The plans, criteria and prediction methods are supplied, so this practices the systematic evaluation the PE describes rather than assessing it. |
| Ch. 21 | Lab 3 · Shield the Frog Listener: A Noise Barrier for a Pond Sensor Engineering design challenge | practice | Each team scores two of its own designs against the same criteria in a weighted decision matrix after a constraint check, and defends the choice with measured decibel changes (q2, q3). The comparison is between two classroom designs with a supplied scoring guide, so it builds toward the PE rather than fully assessing it. |
| Ch. 25 | Lab 2 · Shake Table Bridge Challenge: Define, Build, Shake, Improve Engineering design challenge | practice | The class results table puts every design's cost, features and ratings side by side so groups can judge which designs best meet the criteria and constraints and justify a redesign from that comparison. |
| Ch. 25 | Lab 3 · Three Crossings, One Bridge: Rank the Sites by Hazard Risk Data-driven decision | practice | The scoring table and cost table are a systematic process for comparing three competing solutions against the criteria and constraints; q7 asks students to evaluate the scoring method itself. |
| Ch. 26 | Lab 1 · Tilt, Soak, Slide: When Does a Model Hillside Fail? Physical model | supports | Session 2 compares three slope mitigations against one criterion, rain taken before failure, using class data. It previews the fuller systematic evaluation in Lab 2 and Lab 3. |
| Ch. 26 | Lab 2 · Clear the Flood: Design, Test and Combine a Model Bridge Engineering design challenge | practice | Students score every tested design on the same criteria (overtopping, logs trapped, scour, load) and constraints (budget, deck height) in a class decision matrix built from shared test data. The criteria are supplied, so this practices the PE. |
| Ch. 26 | Lab 3 · Four Hours or Twenty Minutes: Write a Tsunami Warning Procedure Data-driven decision | practice | Each procedure is scored against the same twelve events for misses, false alarms and late warnings, and compared with another group's procedure and with a magnitude-only rule. The criteria and record are supplied, so this practices the PE. |
| Ch. 27 | Lab 3 · Bring Back the Forest: Choosing a Restoration Plan for Driftwood Cove Data-driven decision | practice | The pass-or-fail scorecard applies the same five tests to every plan and hybrid. The evaluation process is supplied rather than designed by students, so the lab practices this PE. |
| Ch. 28 | Lab 2 · Build a Better Filter: Can Sand and Gravel Do a Watershed's Job? Engineering design challenge | practice | Each test is checked against the same clarity, volume and cost criteria, so the competing designs in the class can be compared systematically. |
| Ch. 28 | Lab 3 · The Council Packet: Protect the Ecosystem or Pay to Replace It? Data-driven decision | assesses | Each group sets criterion weights, scores all seven options on the same scale and computes weighted totals, then uses the totals and the budget to justify its choices. |
| Ch. 29 | Lab 1 · The Lake Can Give Ten: A Token Model of People, Fish and Fixes Collaborative systems modeling | practice | Every design posted on the class chart is checked against the same three criteria and the 8-coin budget, so students compare competing solutions with one consistent process. The criteria are supplied, so this is practice. |
| Ch. 29 | Lab 2 · Spare the Snail-Eaters: Design a Net That Lets By-Catch Escape Engineering design challenge | practice | Every design is tested the same way and judged against the same two numerical criteria, and the class graph lets students compare designs systematically. The test procedure is supplied, so this is practice. |
| Ch. 29 | Lab 3 · Bats, Pigs and People: Choosing a Plan to Prevent Nipah Data-driven decision | assesses | Students apply one systematic process, fixed scoring rules and weighted totals, to every competing plan and package against the same criteria and the $6 million constraint, then test how the ranking holds up under each stakeholder's weights and under worst-case estimates. That is the PE as written: the process is supplied, and students carry it out, check it and judge what the results mean. |