A1 — The Sealed Workshop

How to participate#

In person is the preferred route. Use the campus teaching pack in the facilitated session, with the supplied apparatus or paper models and your own individual predictions and tests. Keep your station sheets, predictions, revisions, receiver acknowledgements and explanation. These form the practical record; an additional browser run is not required.

Online, if you cannot attend: use the equivalent activity and control instructions below. The 3D environment supports the same reasoning, rehearsals and evidence requirements. Both routes use this brief’s deliverables and rubric. Label measured, paper-model and simulated results accurately.

Online control guide: complete an individual workshop trial#

Your task: investigate why a model carriage cannot make a justified transfer. Decide what to inspect and which test would distinguish a wrong ratio, an orientation mistake or a blocked mechanism. This combines Weeks 1–4. Notes are permitted; forced memorisation is not a gate.

1. Watch the alternate worked example for the method, if needed. Its arrangement and required output differ from this task. Declare that assistance.
2. Open Enter assessment trial, select a new Baseline trial and inspect the mission console. Read the inventory, map and required movement. Write one prediction and explain which observation would contradict it before manipulating equipment.
3. Choose your own investigation order. Observer / Navigator owns inspection and map controls; Systems Specialist owns the gear, holding brake and crank. Read each control’s result. Choose a follower using the published ratio model; the instructions do not prescribe your configuration.
4. Once the three required conditions are supported, visit Dispatch. Release and collect the case, use the marked orientation checkpoints and deliver it. Select Finish workshop trial, then Export assessment record.
5. Add the detailed observation, connector and mechanism records identified below. Include a changed-condition attempt and a comparison of recall with reliable notes: explain which support suits this task rather than treating memorisation as superior.
6. Assemble your causal model, explanation and attribution after the practical work.

You are finished when: the workshop trial has a debrief, you have kept the practical and transfer evidence, and every item under What you hand over is present. A successful trial alone is not a complete assessment.

Playing in fullscreen: choose Fullscreen mission. The Mission & controls panel keeps objectives, roles, area buttons and equipment controls with the scene. Scroll over the scene to zoom. The cursor starts free: click and drag to turn, or scroll and choose options in the panel. Press X to lock the cursor for mouse-look; press X again (or Tab) to free it. Esc or Exit fullscreen returns to the page. Write your assessment explanation after the practical run.

The brief#

Work individually in the Sealed Workshop. An archive carriage must be prepared for a fictional transfer. Choose inspections and tests in the browser trial, interpret the map, prepare the geared cradle and justify the release before transporting the case. Your lab records show the more detailed observation classification, connector positioning and mechanism checks. The context combines skills you have already practised.

The trial is playable from this page. You can inspect instructions and practise before recording an attempt. Use the campus trial pack for the equivalent tabletop route.

What you must demonstrate#

1. Separate visible scene details from claims and inferred causes.
2. Compare deliberate recall with an external record and justify which information support the task needs.
3. Fit a connector using labelled world directions and a stated level.
4. Select and test a gear configuration while checking the interlock, cam and spring.
5. Apply at least one capability after a published condition changes.

The workshop’s name does not imply a real lock task. Its carriage uses the purpose-built Week 4 mechanism.

What you hand over#

Where each submission item comes from#

Assemble one labelled bundle using the assessment template. Reuse the relevant records you made in the labs; a record can support more than one requirement.

The browser trial has three required skill objectives followed by a performed release and delivery. Recall is optional; the Week 2 record supports your judgement about information aids. The statement-classification form, connector height controls and adjustable cam/spring are in the linked labs. Their saved records provide those parts of the assessment evidence.

Include the configuration and attempt date. Diagram labels, source references and the event trace are outside the word guidance. A trial ending is evidence to analyse, not the academic mark.

Suggested account structure#

Name the intended result. Quote the observation that shaped the first decision. Explain the mechanism prediction before describing the result. Identify what changed in the transfer task and why the old answer was no longer sufficient.

A useful explanation is specific. In the separate Week 4 demonstration: ‘With an eighteen-tooth driver, I selected thirty driven teeth because five input turns must produce three opposite output turns: 18 ÷ 30 × 5 = 3.’ Use your own assigned measurements and calculation. ‘I clicked until it worked’ does not establish the same understanding.

Independent work and feedback#

You may discuss published rules before the trial. Your practical record, model and explanation must be your own. Hints are allowed when declared; concealing assistance weakens traceability.

Feedback is scheduled within seven days of the deadline. Use it when taking responsibility for a different system in A2.

Criterion-specific performance standards#

Demonstrated skill — 40%#

• Outstanding: Shows accurate observation, spatial transformation and causal mechanism use, with a justified choice of information aid.
• Competent: Demonstrates the required capabilities and explains the information aid with minor gaps or recoverable errors.
• Developing: Some capabilities are visible, while others depend on unexplained guesses.
• Insufficient: Major capabilities are absent or essential supplied rules are not understood.

Diagnosis — 25%#

• Outstanding: Uses discriminating observations, changes one relevant variable and verifies the repair.
• Competent: Identifies a plausible fault and supplies a reasonable verification.
• Developing: Reaches a working state through trial and error with weak causal explanation.
• Insufficient: No supported fault diagnosis or verification.

Transfer — 25%#

• Outstanding: Adapts the learned principles to the unfamiliar arrangement and explains changed dependencies.
• Competent: Completes the changed task with a sound but limited account.
• Developing: Repeats a familiar sequence despite changed conditions.
• Insufficient: No credible attempt to transfer the skill.

Clarity — 10%#

• Outstanding: A concise account links every consequential claim to a readable trace or model and declares assistance.
• Competent: The account is understandable and the main evidence is identifiable.
• Developing: Evidence is difficult to follow or claims are only loosely connected.
• Insufficient: Missing account, unusable evidence or unclear authorship.

Format, export and access#

Use the downloadable template, retain editable source and export a readable record. The website provides downloads and local practice; it does not submit to an institutional system. The browser and campus routes assess the same concepts and problem-solving outcomes. Neither automatically certifies physical dexterity.

All due times use 17:00 Canberra time on the published date. Policies and support explain attribution, accessible alternatives, contribution disputes, saving and extensions.