Key dates
Iterations begin Block 6. Comparative Reflection due Block 8. Defense delivered Block 11 or 12 (your section's assigned defense day). Submission via Google Classroom: slides + Sessions Sheet + journal; defense delivered live (default) or recorded video pre-approved by Block 9.
The arc
You've identified your city and its geology in your Hazard Profile. Now you're going to design a city plan that maximizes population saved against a fixed budget, iterate that plan three times in the Tectonic City Builder, reflect on what changed across iterations, and defend your final design in a 5-minute pitch.
The four deliverables
Sessions Sheet auto-logging not yet live
Until the simulator's auto-save to the Sessions Sheet ships, screenshot each attempt (final score, grade, budget used) from the debrief and paste them into your engineering journal. Same iteration discipline: manual logging for now, auto-logging coming.
- Three (or more) simulator attempts. Play your chosen scenario at least three times. Capture each attempt's final score, grade, budget used, and a screenshot of your placements into your engineering journal. Iterations 1, 2, and 3 are the minimum. Iteration 4 is optional and may improve your score. (Auto-logging to a Sessions Sheet is coming. See the launcher page; until then, manual capture.)
- Engineering journal entries. Before each iteration, write or record a prediction: what change are you making, why, and what do you expect to happen? After each iteration, write or record a reflection: what actually happened, and how does it match your prediction? 2–3 sentences each. Specificity beats length. Format options: typed in the journal doc, voice memo with auto-transcription, or paired journaling.
- Comparative Reflection (1 page). Written between your second and third iteration. Prompt: name one specific engineering decision you changed between attempts, and explain, using a specific geology concept, why that change had the effect it did. Then compare your scenario to a classmate's different scenario: why does the same building+tech yield different outcomes across boundary types? ≤500 words OR 90-second video.
- Final Defense. ≤5 slides + 5-minute presentation + 2-min Q&A. Defend your final city design to a peer panel of "city councillors."
Defense slide structure (required content)
| Slide | Content |
|---|---|
| 1 | Your city + boundary + dominant hazards (lifted directly from your Hazard Profile; reuse it). |
| 2 | Your final design: annotated screenshot of your city. Walk the panel through three engineering decisions. |
| 3 | Iteration evidence: score progression across attempts. A simple chart, or screenshots of your Sessions Sheet rows. |
| 4 | Historical anchoring: reference at least two case studies, with specific engineering claims tied to each. Not "Tōhoku was bad"; instead "Tōhoku showed that seawalls sized for expected events fail at actual M9 run-up heights, which is why I spent on tsunami walls AND relocated my hospitals inland." |
| 5 | What you'd do differently with double the budget, and why. This is where you show you understand the trade-offs you couldn't resolve. |
Timeline mapped to blocks
- Block 6: Iteration #1 + journal entry
- Block 7: Iteration #2 + journal entry
- Block 8: Comparative Reflection due
- Block 9: Iteration #3 + start defense slides
- Block 10: Defense rehearsal + optional Iteration #4
- Blocks 11–12: Final defenses delivered
Alternative formats (with prior approval by Block 9)
- Recorded video defense: same five-slide structure; recorded with you on camera presenting.
- Written essay defense (~1500 words): same five required elements, written rather than presented.
Talk to Ms. Jayanthi/Mr. Ignash if you want one of these. No penalty for using an alternative. The rubric is the same.
How this is scored
Scored against the AISC strand rubric (K/U / T/T / C). The Engineering Portfolio applies that rubric specifically to: Science Accuracy, Engineering Reasoning, Iteration Evidence, and Historical Synthesis. See The Rubric for the full bands.
Standards: HS-ETS1-3 and HS-ETS1-4 primary; HS-ETS1-1, HS-ETS1-2, and HS-ESS3-3 secondary; science practices SEP-2, SEP-5, SEP-6, and SEP-7.
Iteration evidence is non-negotiable
Three captured attempts is the floor. A defense without iteration evidence cannot earn full marks on T/T (Thinking & Transfer). The rubric is built to detect whether you actually used the simulation as a research instrument rather than a one-shot.