Problem definition
Open your materials, follow the steps, then turn in your work.
Define a medical innovation problem with a clear, evidence-based problem statement.
1. Open your materials
Use the materials named in the first step below. Open lesson resources.
2. Start the work
Choose a healthcare problem from your earlier work or research.
Show all 5 required steps
- Choose a healthcare problem from your earlier work or research.
- Write a specific, measurable problem statement.
- Cite evidence showing the problem is real and significant.
- Identify the stakeholders most affected.
- Submit your problem definition.
Lost your place? Reopen today's Problem definition record. Find the last completed evidence ID, check it against the claim ceiling, and continue with the first unfinished step rather than restarting the whole task.
Check your work before submitting
- Your problem statement is specific and evidence-based.
- You can name the stakeholders affected.
3. Turn in your work
DueCheck Schoology- Hand in
- Innovation problem definition: specific problem statement supported by cited evidence, and a named list of affected stakeholders.
How to submit and name your file
Use the submission route shown on today's today's page.
In Schoology, open your course and the assignment for this lesson. Attach your file, select Submit, and check that it appears in the submission.
PDF upload helpYou get two school days for every day you were absent, so this deadline moves with you.
How this lesson connects
Keep using what you learned last class: A defensible biomedical decision separates scientific evidence from value judgments, identifies who may benefit or be burdened, and states the uncertainty and tradeoffs that remain. Today: A biomedical design advances when test evidence is compared with explicit user needs, criteria, constraints, risks, and failure modes, then used to justify a documented revision.
Optional: listen or watch a unit review▸
Need help? Warm-up, timing, and directions▸
💡 Big idea: A biomedical design advances when test evidence is compared with explicit user needs, criteria, constraints, risks, and failure modes, then used to justify a documented revision.
- 0-10Review problem-statement standards: specific, measurable, evidence-backed
- 10-25Choose your healthcare problem from your earlier work or new research
- 25-45Write a specific problem statement and find evidence showing the problem is real and significant
- 45-60Identify the stakeholders most affected and explain why each one matters
- 60-75Submit your problem definition
- 75-80Peer check: read a partner's problem statement and identify one gap in specificity
- • Yesterday you decided what makes an innovation worth pursuing.
- • Today you apply that thinking to a real healthcare problem you will propose a solution for.
- • A good problem statement is specific enough that someone who has never heard of your idea can evaluate whether your solution actually solves it.
- • Cite evidence -- a problem you cannot support with data is a problem you cannot design for.
- • How to write a problem statement that is specific, measurable, and grounded in cited evidence.
- • How to identify and name the stakeholders most harmed by the problem.
- • Why a vague problem statement produces vague solutions that never get built.
PLTW connection and today's work
Open your myPLTW course shell and locate any innovation or problem-definition activity to review the problem-statement format and evidence standards.
Today's stopping point: The innovation-debate CER is done; by end of today a specific, evidence-based problem statement and a named stakeholder list should be submitted.
PLTW activity titles identify the course connection. If your account will not open, use the posted materials for today and tell Mr. Mendoza. Do not mark an online activity complete unless you completed it.
Course connection
- Problem 3, Lesson 3.1 Design of a Medical Innovation
The mapping has not been confirmed inside myPLTW.
Use the turn-in directions at the top of this page. Do not create a second submission unless your teacher asks for one.
Show another explanation or a smaller first step
Need help? Choose a starting point
Lesson resources: reading, slides, and vocabulary▸
The deck carries the prior idea forward, lets you inspect an analogy, maps the rule to biology, and ends with the same evidence decision and exit ticket used on this page.
Generated from this lesson's canonical data with a red-team citation check.
A defensible biomedical decision separates scientific evidence from value judgments, identifies who may benefit or be burdened, and states the uncertainty and tradeoffs that remain.
A biomedical design advances when test evidence is compared with explicit user needs, criteria, constraints, risks, and failure modes, then used to justify a documented revision.
An engineering team tests one prototype feature at a time against a written criterion and records each failure before revising.
- Which criterion is being tested?
- What stays controlled between trials?
- Which result justifies a specific revision?
A useful prototype test links a controlled trial to a measurable criterion and turns the result into a documented revision decision.
A classroom test can reveal a design weakness without establishing clinical , effectiveness, durability, or regulatory readiness.
- • The written criterion maps to the pass condition.
- • Repeated controlled trials map to test evidence.
- • The revision log maps to the next design change and its rationale.
Driving question: Define a medical innovation problem with a clear, evidence-based problem statement.
What you already know: A defensible biomedical decision separates scientific evidence from value judgments, identifies who may benefit or be burdened, and states the uncertainty and tradeoffs that remain.
New idea: A biomedical design advances when test evidence is compared with explicit user needs, criteria, constraints, risks, and failure modes, then used to justify a documented revision.
Visual or model: F1. F1. A lesson illustration or teaching diagram for Problem definition. Use it with E1-E3; it is a model or context image, not experimental or patient data. What to notice: Trace the labeled system, test, or design relationship and identify which evidence should trigger revision.
- Observe or measure the relevant feature in problem definition.
- Organize the observation with a stable evidence ID.
- Apply this rule: A useful prototype test links a controlled trial to a measurable criterion and turns the result into a documented revision decision.
- Choose the option the evidence supports and state the limit of the conclusion.
Real biomedical example: Today the biomedical innovation team uses Problem definition to make a bounded evidence decision. A classroom prototype, , presentation, or does not establish clinical , effectiveness, manufacturing quality, or regulatory clearance.
What the evidence supports: E1-E3 and F1 support the daily take-home when the response meets the stated success criteria.
What it cannot prove: The package does not support claims beyond this lesson's or any real patient diagnosis.
Use it now: Choose one decision option. Cite E1 and E3, then explain how the rule connects the evidence to your choice.
Go further, optional: The source links below are optional enrichment. Every fact required for today's local evidence decision appears in this lesson package.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration is the source this lesson's claim is checked against: Design Controls
Limit: A classroom prototype, , presentation, or does not establish clinical , effectiveness, manufacturing quality, or regulatory clearance.
A useful prototype test links a controlled trial to a measurable criterion and turns the result into a documented revision decision.
Limit: A classroom test can reveal a design weakness without establishing clinical , effectiveness, durability, or regulatory readiness.
Your problem statement is specific and evidence-based.
Limit: E3 defines the classroom product or success criterion. It is not independent scientific evidence and cannot justify a clinical or causal claim.
PLTW-BFH-2027-03-18 · Simulated classroom evidence scenario
Your role: biomedical design team member
Decision: Your team must decide what the evidence from problem definition supports before submitting the notebook record named on today's page.
- • Hold the problem statement until users state the need themselves, because naming who is affected does not say what they need.
- • State the problem with a named source and the stakeholders it affects, so the design has criteria to test against.
- • Keep the problem statement that reads well, because a clear, confident write-up shows the need behind it is real.
Response: State one choice, cite at least two evidence IDs, explain the rule that connects them, and add one limitation. Submit it as the notebook record.
Claim ceiling: Today's evidence supports a classroom claim about problem definition. It cannot prove causation, diagnose a real patient, or justify action outside this room.
Reason for review: Your team must decide what the evidence from problem definition supports before submitting the notebook record named on today's page.
Context: Today the biomedical innovation team uses Problem definition to make a bounded evidence decision. A classroom prototype, , presentation, or does not establish clinical , effectiveness, manufacturing quality, or regulatory clearance.
- • T1: Choose a healthcare problem from your earlier work or research.
- • T2: Write a specific, measurable problem statement.
- • T3: Cite evidence showing the problem is real and significant.
- • T4: Identify the stakeholders most affected.
- • T5: Submit your problem definition.
- • E1: U.S. Food and Drug Administration is the source this lesson's claim is checked against: Design Controls
- • E2: A useful prototype test links a controlled trial to a measurable criterion and turns the result into a documented revision decision.
- • E3: Your problem statement is specific and evidence-based.
Measurements: Use only the measurements, units, graph, or counts supplied in today's task. No additional patient measurement is implied.
Figure finding: Teaching diagram for Problem definition. Trace the labeled system, test, or design relationship and identify which evidence should trigger revision. This is a teaching model, not patient or experimental data.
Uncertainty: This is a composite classroom scenario. Missing history, measurements, or confirmation tests remain unknown and limit the conclusion.
Mean = sum of values / number of values. Median = middle ordered value. Range = maximum - minimum.
For 2, 4, 4, and 10: mean = 20 / 4 = 5, median = 4, and range = 10 - 2 = 8.
Mean, median, and range keep the measurement unit. Order the values before finding the median.
Calculate the requested summary for today's supplied values, then write what it reveals and what it hides.
- • The solution must address the stated need in problem definition.
- • The decision must be supported by E1-E3.
- • The final product must make the success criteria visible.
- • Complete the work inside the 80-minute block.
- • Use only supplied or teacher-approved materials and evidence.
- • Do not trade , accessibility, or privacy for speed.
- • and evidence quality: must pass before scoring other criteria.
- • User need and effectiveness: highest scored criterion.
- • Time, cost, and ease of use: compare only after and effectiveness pass.
Test evidence: For each option, record the E1-E3 result that supports or fails each criterion. Do not assign a score without a named observation.
- Version or option tested
- Criterion met or missed
- Evidence ID and result
- Revision made
- Reason for the revision
- Need and user
- Criteria and constraints
- Chosen option and evidence
- Test result
- Revision and reason
Students often think A polished answer about Problem definition is trustworthy even when its evidence source, comparison, or limitation is missing.. The trap: Presentation quality cannot raise the evidence level. A classroom prototype, , presentation, or does not establish clinical , effectiveness, manufacturing quality, or regulatory clearance.
Health problem: About 1 in 3 children under age 5 who get a middle-ear infection are diagnosed late because parents cannot tell an ear infection from ordinary fussiness at home.
Why it matters: Late diagnosis raises the risk of temporary hearing loss during peak language-learning years and drives extra clinic visits.
Evidence: Pediatric guidance reports that acute otitis media is one of the most common reasons young children are prescribed antibiotics, and that delayed treatment increases complication rates (cited: class-provided AAP summary, 2013).
Measurable target: cut the average time from first symptom to diagnosis from about 5 days to under 2 days for families using an at-home screener.
Stakeholders affected:
- Parents and caregivers of children under 5
- The children themselves, whose language development is at risk
- Pediatric clinics handling repeat visits
(Tip: a strong problem statement names WHO is affected, gives a NUMBER, and states the specific gap in current care.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: States a specific, measurable health problem, backs it with cited evidence, and names the stakeholders the problem affects most.
- Date and label the entry.
- Record the procedure, observation, or design decision clearly.
- End with what the evidence means and the next step.
Keep the structure. Replace the question, facts, measurements, and evidence. Then recheck units, vocabulary, and whether the conclusion goes beyond the evidence.
Also due today: Submit your problem definition on 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. Find it in Clever with your Microsoft sign-in, right next to Schoology.
Classroom documents for this lesson are posted in Schoology. Open Clever, then Schoology, and find each one by the name shown on its card.
Use this for optional reserve or extra-credit work after the required class lesson is complete.
Placement rationale
Matched Medical innovation proposal and independent project by path:Biomedical-Innovations/Problem-3_Medical-Innovation/3.1_Medical-Innovation; keywords:innovation, design. Score 142. Visibility: student-schoology (student-facing resource; link through Schoology rather than local path).
Use this for optional reserve or extra-credit work after the required class lesson is complete.
Placement rationale
Matched Medical innovation proposal and independent project by path:Biomedical-Innovations/Problem-3_Medical-Innovation/3.1_Medical-Innovation; keywords:innovation, design. Score 142. Visibility: student-schoology (student-facing resource; link through Schoology rather than local path).
Use this for optional reserve or extra-credit work after the required class lesson is complete.
Placement rationale
Matched Medical innovation proposal and independent project by path:Biomedical-Innovations/Problem-3_Medical-Innovation/3.1_Medical-Innovation; keywords:innovation, proposal, design. Score 142. Visibility: student-schoology (student-facing resource; link through Schoology rather than local path).
Sign in to Clever with your district Microsoft account to open Schoology or myPLTW. Follow today's posted steps. If myPLTW will not open, use the posted alternative and tell Mr. Mendoza. Turn in your completed work through the Schoology assignment.
Practice: try a question, then check your answer▸
Claim ceiling for this check: Today's evidence supports a classroom claim about problem definition. It cannot prove causation, diagnose a real patient, or justify action outside this room.
A student makes a certain conclusion about Problem definition from one classroom result. What must the student add before the conclusion is defensible?
Write an answer and pick a confidence to unlock the key.
Missed class or ready for more?▸
Run this before you touch the bench. It is built from the real lab procedure, so the decisions you make here are the ones you will make with the equipment in your hands.
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.
Today is individual work you can do from home: complete the same target above, then submit your Notebook check.
Go to Schoology to turn this in. Submit one PDF. Put your first and last name in the document header. Name the file: FirstName LastName - Assignment Title - YYYY-MM-DD.pdf. If you cannot get in, see Mr. Mendoza. Do not skip the work.
Class still runs. Complete the online activity above (it's self-guided). Need the concept taught without a teacher? Use this authoritative explainer:
NGSS Engineering 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.
- SubmittedGo to Schoology to turn this in. Submit one PDF. Put your first and last name in the document header. Name the file: FirstName LastName - Assignment Title - YYYY-MM-DD.pdf. If you cannot get in, see Mr. Mendoza. Do not skip the work.
This week
My Progress dashboard