Course Description Assessment¶
Course: Introduction to 3D Printing Assessment date: 2026-05-07 Analyzer version: 0.03
Overall Score¶
100 / 100 — Excellent. Ready for learning graph generation.
Quality Rating Scale¶
| Range | Rating |
|---|---|
| 90–100 | Excellent — Ready for learning graph generation ← this course |
| 75–89 | Good — Minor improvements recommended |
| 60–74 | Adequate — Several improvements needed |
| 40–59 | Fair — Significant gaps to address |
| 0–39 | Poor — Major revision required |
Detailed Scoring Breakdown¶
| Element | Max | Earned | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title | 5 | 5 | "Introduction to 3D Printing" — clear and specific |
| Target Audience | 5 | 5 | High school grades 9–12 (focus 10–12), CTE/STEM context, articulation framing |
| Prerequisites | 5 | 5 | Algebra I + basic computer literacy required; recommended additions listed |
| Main Topics Covered | 10 | 10 | 18 topics spanning history, standards, CAD, materials, processes, DfAM, metrology, safety, careers |
| Topics Excluded | 5 | 5 | 9 explicit out-of-scope items (microcontrollers, CNC, metal AM hands-on, FEA, business, etc.) |
| Learning Outcomes Header | 5 | 5 | "After completing this course, students will be able to:" |
| Remember | 10 | 10 | 10 specific, verb-driven outcomes (recall, list, identify, name, define, recognize) |
| Understand | 10 | 10 | 10 outcomes (explain, describe, summarize, interpret) |
| Apply | 10 | 10 | 10 outcomes (create, configure, level, operate, measure, diagnose, apply) |
| Analyze | 10 | 10 | 8 outcomes (compare, decompose, examine, break down) |
| Evaluate | 10 | 10 | 9 outcomes (judge, evaluate, critique, assess) |
| Create | 10 | 10 | 6 outcomes + 3 capstone options |
| Descriptive Context | 5 | 5 | 3-paragraph overview anchored to PLTW, ASTM/ISO 52900, America Makes, and community-college articulation |
| TOTAL | 100 | 100 |
Gap Analysis¶
No gaps identified. Every required element is present and substantive.
Minor observations (not point deductions):
- The Create level intentionally offers three capstone options to give teachers flexibility — make sure the syllabus tells students which is required vs. optional.
- Some outcomes touch standards bodies (NC3, NIMS, SME) that are mentioned but not deeply taught. The learning graph generator should be told whether to enumerate concepts for those organizations or treat them as references only.
Improvement Suggestions¶
The course description is comprehensive enough to proceed. Optional enhancements for later iterations:
- Add target hour count — e.g., "designed for 90 instructional hours" — useful when articulation reviewers compare to college courses.
- Name a target articulation course — e.g., "intended to articulate to Hennepin Tech CADD-1100 or equivalent" — strengthens dual-credit conversations.
- Specify a primary CAD tool — currently lists "Onshape, Fusion 360, or FreeCAD" as alternatives. Picking one will sharpen the concept graph; keeping options open is fine if MicroSims will be tool-agnostic.
- Reference NGSS or state standards — if the course will be submitted for state CTE approval (Perkins funding, etc.).
None of these are required for learning graph generation.
Concept Generation Readiness¶
Estimated concept yield: well above the 200-concept target.
Reasoning:
- 18 main topics × roughly 12–15 concepts each = ~216–270 concepts before counting Bloom-level outcomes
- The seven ISO/ASTM 52900 process categories alone yield 25–35 concepts
- Materials science section yields 20–30 concepts (one per filament family + properties)
- Slicer-settings vocabulary yields 30+ concepts
- DfAM, metrology, troubleshooting, safety, and engineering-design-process each contribute 10–20 concepts
The course description provides enough breadth and depth for the learning-graph-generator to comfortably produce a 200+ concept dependency graph with clear taxonomy categories.
Next Steps¶
- Add to MkDocs navigation — see prompt below.
- Run
learning-graph-generator— the course description is ready.