Sakshi Trivedi

Overall a solid concept — my child liked the catapult and cotton-ball launcher projects — but a few activities seemed geared toward younger kids, so adding optional challenges for older participants could increase engagement. Mild caveat:

The step-by-step routine with a short science talk followed by hands-on building was exactly what we were looking for. Using common household materials made it easy to practice designs again at home, and the final sharing meeting sounded like a nice wrap-up.

Invented example: The course content is solid and the projects are fun, but some of the science explanations felt a bit advanced for younger 7-year-olds. The 45-minute weekly meeting sometimes didn’t leave enough time to iterate. With a slightly slower pace or split activities, this would be a better fit for the lower end of the age range.

Invented example: Fantastic small engineering challenges for ages 7–11. The consistent class structure (challenge, science talk, build, test, iterate) made it easy to follow, and kids could see immediate results from their designs. Great for sparking creativity and problem-solving.