Skip to content

Quiz: Capstone Design Challenges and Course Wrap-Up

Test your understanding of capstone design challenges and course wrap-up with these review questions.

1. What is a design brief?

  1. A single document placed alongside a project's code explaining what it does and how to run it
  2. A scheduled event where students demonstrate their finished capstone to an audience
  3. A personalized sequence of what to study after finishing a course
  4. A short document stating a project's goal, intended user, key requirements, and constraints, written before construction begins
Show Answer

The correct answer is D. A design brief is a short document stating a project's goal, its intended user, its key requirements, and its constraints, written before construction begins so the whole team is building toward the same target. Option A describes a README file, option B describes a project demo day, and option C describes a next steps learning path.

Concept Tested: Design Brief

2. How does an open-ended problem differ from constraint-based design?

  1. An open-ended problem always requires a fixed budget, while constraint-based design has no requirements at all
  2. Constraint-based design only applies to remixed projects, never original inventions
  3. An open-ended problem states a goal without specifying how to reach it, leaving the approach up to the builder, while constraint-based design pairs a specific goal with firm limits like budget or required parts
  4. Open-ended problems and constraint-based design are two names for the same challenge type
Show Answer

The correct answer is C. An open-ended problem states a goal without specifying how to reach it, leaving the approach, hardware, and interpretation entirely up to the builder, while constraint-based design pairs a specific goal with firm limits, such as a fixed budget, a required sensor, or a maximum size. Option A reverses these descriptions. Option B invents a restriction not in the chapter, and option D incorrectly treats them as identical.

Concept Tested: Open Ended Problem

3. What is the difference between an original invention and a remix-and-extend capstone?

  1. An original invention is a project whose combination of purpose, hardware, and behavior hasn't appeared elsewhere in the book, while remix and extend deliberately changes or adds to an earlier chapter's project
  2. An original invention must use a Pico only, while remix and extend must use a Pi 5 only
  3. Remix and extend is considered less legitimate engineering work than an original invention
  4. Original invention and remix and extend both require building completely from scratch with no reference to earlier chapters
Show Answer

The correct answer is A. An original invention is a project whose combination of purpose, hardware, and behavior hasn't appeared anywhere else in the book, while remix and extend takes a project from an earlier chapter and deliberately changes or adds to it. Option B invents an unsupported hardware restriction. Option C directly contradicts the chapter's statement that remixing is just as legitimate a capstone as an original invention, and option D misapplies "from scratch" to remix and extend, which is defined by building on existing work.

Concept Tested: Original Invention

4. A class built physical, interactive robots and wants younger students to see them working live rather than reading about them on a poster. Based on the chapter's comparison table, which showcase format best fits this goal?

  1. Science fair format
  2. Robot Day showcase format
  3. Community showcase event
  4. Independent study extension
Show Answer

The correct answer is B. The chapter's comparison table lists the Robot Day showcase format as the best fit for physical, interactive builds, emphasizing live demonstration for an audience of peers and younger students — exactly matching this scenario. Science fair format (option A) emphasizes posters and formal judging instead of live interaction, community showcase (option C) emphasizes public reach over a specific younger-student audience, and independent study extension (option D) is not a showcase format at all.

Concept Tested: Robot Day Showcase Format

5. A student writes down exactly what sensors a project needs, how fast it must react, and the available budget, before making any design decisions. Which stage of the engineering design process does this activity belong to?

  1. Prototype iteration
  2. User testing
  3. Peer code review
  4. Requirements gathering
Show Answer

The correct answer is D. Requirements gathering is the step of figuring out exactly what a project needs to do, for whom, and under what constraints — sensors, reaction speed, budget — before any design decisions get locked in, exactly matching this activity. Prototype iteration (option A) comes later, building and rebuilding a working version. User testing (option B) involves a real person trying the finished prototype, and peer code review (option C) examines already-written code.

Concept Tested: Requirements Gathering

6. A student asks a classmate for a peer code review by saying, "Can you follow why I check the distance sensor twice in this function?" instead of just asking, "Does this work?" Based on the chapter's guidance, why is this the better approach?

  1. A specific question gets a specific, useful answer, while a general question like "does this work?" tends to get only a shrug
  2. Asking a specific question is required by the engineering design process before any code can be tested
  3. General questions are against the rules of peer code review
  4. Specific questions replace the need for user testing entirely
Show Answer

The correct answer is A. The chapter's tip explicitly contrasts these two questions, noting that "does this work?" gets a shrug while a specific question like the one asked here gets an actual answer and often finds the bug faster than either person expected. Option B invents a formal requirement that doesn't exist. Option C overstates the guidance as a strict rule, and option D confuses peer code review with the separate practice of user testing.

Concept Tested: Peer Code Review

7. A student's finished robot makes complete sense to them, but a classmate trying it for the first time is confused within seconds about how to start it. What does this chapter identify as the underlying gap this situation reveals?

  1. The robot's design brief was too long
  2. The robot needs cross-tier integration to be usable
  3. This is exactly the gap user testing exists to surface early, since a builder's own familiarity can hide problems a real first-time user immediately notices
  4. The student should have skipped requirements gathering entirely
Show Answer

The correct answer is C. The chapter explains that a robot making perfect sense to its builder can baffle a first-time user within seconds, and that this exact gap is what user testing exists to surface early, by putting a prototype in front of someone who wasn't the one who built it. Option A and D misattribute the problem to unrelated planning steps, and option B introduces an unrelated hardware requirement that has nothing to do with usability confusion.

Concept Tested: User Testing

8. A student's capstone runs entirely on a single Pico W, with no other board involved anywhere in the project. Based on this chapter's definition, does this project satisfy cross-tier integration?

  1. Yes, because the Pico W includes wireless communication hardware
  2. No, because cross-tier integration specifically means combining components from at least two of the five hardware tiers, and this project uses only one
  3. Yes, because any wireless project automatically counts as cross-tier by definition
  4. It cannot be determined without knowing the project's design brief
Show Answer

The correct answer is B. Cross-tier integration is explicitly defined as combining components from at least two of the five hardware tiers covered in the course, such as a Pico sensor node feeding a Pi 5 running real-time recognition; a project built entirely on one Pico W, regardless of its wireless capability, uses only a single tier. Option A and C both mistake wireless capability for tier-spanning integration, and option D is unnecessary since the definition alone answers the question.

Concept Tested: Cross Tier Integration

9. A student's favorite part of this course was designing an original robot face with animated expressions on an OLED display, and they want to go deeper into that specific skill after finishing this book. Based on the chapter's companion book descriptions, which book should they choose, and why?

  1. AI Racing League, because it is the newest book in the series
  2. Moving Rainbow, because OLED displays are a type of LED
  3. Clocks and Watches, because it also uses display hardware
  4. Robot Faces, because it specifically goes deeper into OLED expression programming, matching the student's stated interest
Show Answer

The correct answer is D. The chapter explicitly lists Robot Faces as the companion book for "deep OLED expression programming," directly matching a student whose favorite part of the course was designing animated facial expressions. Option A picks a book based on recency rather than topic fit, option B misapplies Moving Rainbow's NeoPixel focus to OLED work, and option C picks a display-adjacent book that focuses on clock and watch driver chips, not expressive faces.

Concept Tested: Companion Book Cross Reference

10. A team wants to design a capstone that detects when a package is delivered to a mailbox far from the house and alerts someone inside in real time, combining at least two hardware tiers as this chapter requires. Which architecture best applies the chapter's cross-tier integration and sensor-to-cloud pipeline concepts to this goal?

  1. Use only a Raspberry Pi 5 mounted at the mailbox, with no other board involved, since one powerful board can do everything needed
  2. Use a Pico W with a sensor at the mailbox to detect the delivery and transmit the reading over Wi-Fi to a Raspberry Pi 5 inside the house, which processes the signal and triggers an alert
  3. Use two identical Pico boards with no wireless connection between them, requiring someone to manually check each one
  4. Skip requirements gathering and multi-board communication entirely and start wiring immediately
Show Answer

The correct answer is B. This architecture directly matches the chapter's sensor-to-cloud pipeline pattern: a low-power sensor node (the Pico W) captures a reading and transmits it over Wi-Fi (multi-board communication) to a more capable system (the Pi 5) that processes it and triggers an action — exactly the cross-tier integration the chapter defines. Option A uses only a single hardware tier. Option C provides no communication path between boards at all, and option D skips the planning steps the chapter identifies as essential before building.

Concept Tested: Sensor To Cloud Pipeline