Literature review
Build a structured literature review summarizing what existing sources say about your prototype's problem.
Three-source literature review with citations, main claims, conflict notes, and a synthesis paragraph identifying a design gap.
- 1Do thisBuild a structured literature review summarizing what existing sources say about your prototype's problem.
- 2Use this resource
- 3Submit thisCER: Three-source literature review with citations, main claims, conflict notes, and a synthesis paragraph identifying a design gap.
- 4Submit it here
- 1CMSD website. Go to clevelandmetroschools.org and click the Clever button.
- 2Clever. Clever opens. Sign in if it asks.
- 3Microsoft (district) login. Use your district Microsoft account (the one for school).
- 4Schoology. Open Schoology, then your class, then Assignments, and find the file named below.
The file to submit is named: Biotechnology for Health (Biomedical Innovations) › Literature review, decision matrices, validation metrics, MP1 data inflection. › CEROpen Schoology
- CER:
- Claim, Evidence, Reasoning — make a claim, back it with evidence, explain your reasoning.
- SOP:
- Standard Operating Procedure — the exact steps to follow (especially in a lab).
- Tracker:
- Your PLTW progress log where you record completed evidence.
- myPLTW:
- The PLTW course site where you do the online activities — you open it through Schoology.
Minute-by-minute · 80-minute block
💡 Big idea: A literature review maps what is already known so a prototype fills a real gap.
- 0-5 minWarm-up: what question is your prototype trying to answer?
- 5-20 minLocate and record three credible sources with citations
- 20-40 minFill in main claim and evidence for each source
- 40-55 minCompare sources: where do they agree or conflict?
- 55-70 minWrite synthesis paragraph connecting sources to your design gap
- 70-80 minPair-share: swap reviews and check that each source has a citation and a claim
- • Before building anything, biomedical innovators read what others have already tried.
- • Today you'll conduct a mini literature review on your own Problem 3 topic.
- • Three sources is the minimum to see agreement, conflict, and gaps.
- • Your synthesis paragraph is the bridge between what's known and why your prototype is needed.
- 1Choose three credible sources on your Problem 3 design challenge.
- 2For each source, record the citation, the main claim, and the supporting evidence.
- 3Note where sources agree and where they conflict.
- 4Identify one gap that your prototype could address.
- 5Write a short synthesis paragraph connecting the three sources to your design goal.
- • You produced a three-source review with citations and main claims.
- • You named a gap your prototype addresses.
- • Each source in a review needs a citation, a main claim, and evidence supporting that claim.
- • Conflicts between sources reveal uncertainty your prototype could help resolve.
- • Synthesis means connecting sources to your design goal, not just listing them.
Your PLTW work today
Literature review, decision matrices, validation metrics, MP1 data inflection. · Literature review
Day 2 of this lesson. Open this exact section in myPLTW (reached through Schoology), then do the work below.
Do this: Open Problem 3 in your myPLTW course shell and navigate to the current activity, then build a three-source literature review on your prototype challenge.
Attach your three-source literature review to the Problem 3 evidence portfolio.
The source-ethics debate is done; by end of today your literature review with three cited sources and a synthesis paragraph should be submitted.
Literature review with citations, main claims, conflict notes, and a synthesis paragraph identifying a design gap, shared with your teacher.
All PLTW activities are completed inside the PLTW course environment — this page only gives direction. Submit producibles on Schoology.
Today's PLTW tracker
Check things off as you work, then submit. This tells Mr. Mendoza how you're doing so he can help the class. It does not replace turning in your producible on Schoology.
Use the code Mr. Mendoza gave you, not your name. Saved on this device.
Literature review, decision matrices, validation metrics, MP1 data inflection. · Literature review
Open Problem 3 in your myPLTW course shell and navigate to the current activity, then build a three-source literature review on your prototype challenge.
The source-ethics debate is done; by end of today your literature review with three cited sources and a synthesis paragraph should be submitted.
This is how Mr. Mendoza sees the class keeping pace with PLTW. Be honest, it only helps if it is accurate.
🎯 Build a structured literature review summarizing what existing sources say about your prototype's problem.
- Choose three credible sources on your Problem 3 design challenge.
- For each source, record the citation, the main claim, and the supporting evidence.
- Note where sources agree and where they conflict.
- Identify one gap that your prototype could address.
- Write a short synthesis paragraph connecting the three sources to your design goal.
CER: Three-source literature review with citations, main claims, conflict notes, and a synthesis paragraph identifying a design gap.
Submit on SchoologyUpload by 11:29 PM for full credit.
| Task | Who |
|---|---|
| Choose three credible sources on your Problem 3 design challenge. | _______ |
| For each source, record the citation, the main claim, and the supporting evidence. | _______ |
| Note where sources agree and where they conflict. | _______ |
| Identify one gap that your prototype could address. | _______ |
| Write a short synthesis paragraph connecting the three sources to your design goal. | _______ |
Working solo? Put your own name in "Who" for every row.
- You produced a three-source review with citations and main claims.
- You named a gap your prototype addresses.
Teacher-posted resources
Classroom documents for this lesson. Ones marked “Open the file” open right here; the rest are posted in Schoology. Use the label on each card to choose the right move.
Use this if you were absent, got stuck, or need another pass before you submit the lesson artifact.
Placement rationale
Matched Prototype validation and evidence audit by path:Biomedical-Innovations/Problem-3_Medical-Innovation/3.1_Medical-Innovation; keywords:rubric. Score 134. Visibility: student-schoology (student-facing resource; link through Schoology rather than local path).
Use this if you were absent, got stuck, or need another pass before you submit the lesson artifact.
Placement rationale
Matched Prototype validation and evidence audit by path:Biomedical-Innovations/Problem-3_Medical-Innovation/3.1_Medical-Innovation; keywords:rubric. Score 130. Visibility: student-schoology (student-facing resource; link through Schoology rather than local path).
Open this when the class reaches this activity and use it to complete the required lesson artifact.
Placement rationale
Matched Prototype validation and evidence audit by path:Biomedical-Innovations/Problem-2_Human-Physiology/2.1_Human-Physiology. Score 126. Visibility: student-schoology (student-facing resource; link through Schoology rather than local path).
How to get there: open the CMSD website, click Clever, sign in with your Microsoft (district) account, then open Schoology from Clever.
Lab & supplies
WebXam practice
Cumulative WebXam review
A quick mixed-review pulling questions from earlier units plus today, so the WebXam material stays fresh.
Where this leads — careers
What today's skills lead to. These are real health-science careers this course builds toward. Tap one to see, on the US Department of Labor's O*NET site, what the job actually involves, what it pays, and how fast it is growing.
What to do if you were absent
Today is individual PLTW work, so do exactly what we did in class, from home: complete the same PLTW target above, then submit your CER.
Open Schoology (CMSD) and keep goingHow to get there: open the CMSD website, click Clever, sign in with your Microsoft (district) account, then open Schoology from Clever.
Class still runs. Complete the online activity above (it's self-guided). Need the concept taught without a teacher? Use this authoritative explainer:
Khan Academy: scientific method and experiment design- CompleteEvery required part of the artifact is present, nothing left blank.
- AccurateThe science and the data are correct and match the evidence.
- Scientific reasoningYou explain your claim with evidence and reasoning (CER), not just an answer.
- Professional communicationClear, organized, labeled, and written the way a clinician or scientist would.
- SubmittedTurned in the right way (Schoology for routine work) and confirmed.
Drop your Wed, Mar 10, 2027 · Literature review here. Use a clear file name (your initials + project). Routine work still goes to Schoology (via the CMSD portal).
Upload a project