Summary & Reflection 教学材料：把最后一页写成 AO5 证据

What have I learned from completing this project?

Completing this project taught me that a strong EPQ is not built by collecting as many sources as possible, but by choosing evidence that directly answers a focused research question. At the beginning, my topic was too broad because I wanted to discuss dynamic wireless charging, coil design, cost, safety and infrastructure all at once. Through the planning review and mid-project review, I learned to narrow the project to one main issue: how coil misalignment affects power transfer efficiency in DWPT systems for electric vehicles. This made the final report more analytical because each section could link back to the same question.

New knowledge or expertise I found valuable

The most valuable knowledge I gained was understanding the relationship between coil alignment, magnetic coupling and power transfer efficiency. Before the project, I knew wireless charging existed, but I did not understand why small changes in coil position could significantly reduce efficiency. I also learned that engineering solutions are not only technical; they must be judged against real-world constraints such as vehicle movement, infrastructure cost, heat loss and commercial feasibility.

Strengths and weaknesses of my project

A strength of my project is that the final report became more focused than the original idea. The source evaluation process helped me reject sources that were too general and prioritise studies that discussed misalignment or efficiency more directly. This improved the quality of my evidence and helped me form a balanced conclusion. Another strength is that my final structure moved from general background to analysis of efficiency loss, engineering challenges and commercial limits, which made the argument easier to follow.

A weakness is that I relied on secondary research, so I could not test coil misalignment myself under controlled conditions. Some sources used different coil designs, vehicle assumptions or experimental conditions, which made direct comparison difficult. I addressed this by explaining limitations in the discussion, but the final conclusion is still limited by the comparability of published studies. If I had more time, I would use a clearer table to compare source conditions earlier in the project.

Skills I have improved

I improved my source evaluation skills because I learned to judge sources by relevance, method, data quality and limitations rather than only by whether they looked academic. I also improved my project management. My source evaluation stage took longer than planned, so I adjusted the timeline and reduced less relevant sections instead of continuing to expand the topic. Finally, the presentation helped me improve communication skills because I had to explain a technical topic to a non-specialist audience using diagrams and simpler wording.

Changes I would make if I did this again

If I repeated the project, I would create stricter source selection criteria earlier. I would also make a comparison table before writing the literature review, listing each source’s coil type, misalignment condition, efficiency result and limitation. This would make the analysis stage more efficient and reduce the risk of using sources that cannot be fairly compared. I would also schedule an earlier supervisor meeting specifically about my outline, because several structural improvements happened later than ideal.

Advice I would give to future students

My advice is to test whether the research question is answerable before collecting too many sources. Students should keep a record of rejected sources because it shows decision-making, not failure. They should also update the production log while the project is happening, because it is much harder to remember why decisions were made at the end. Finally, they should prepare the presentation as an explanation of the project journey, not just a summary of the final report.