Submit innovation proposal
Safety gate · before any work
- Wear the required PPE, keep the bench clear, handle equipment only as directed, and know where the eyewash, sink, and spill kit are before you start.
- Human samples and data stay private: label with a code, never a name, and dispose of materials in the correct waste container, then wash your hands.
Do now
Submit a feasibility-checked innovation design proposal that ties problem, criteria, and concept together.
- Hand in
- Innovation design proposal: assembled problem statement, criteria and constraints, chosen concept, feasibility check, expected benefit, and one major risk.
- Where
- Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not.
You get two school days for every day you were absent, so this deadline moves with you.
Submit a feasibility-checked innovation design proposal that ties problem, criteria, and concept together.
Submit a feasibility-checked innovation design proposal that ties problem, criteria, and concept together.
- • Your proposal links problem, criteria, and concept coherently.
- • You include a feasibility check with benefit and risk.
- What do you already know about Submit innovation proposal?
- What would you need to find out to answer today's question?
- 1Assemble problem statement, criteria, constraints, and chosen concept.
- 2Add a brief feasibility check: can it be built within constraints?
- 3State the expected benefit and one major risk.
- 4Self-assess against the proposal rubric.
- 5Submit the innovation design proposal.
What did this day actually feel like?
Submit innovation proposal
Problem, evidence, users, criteria, constraints, three concepts, one recommendation.
Turned in: lab report → Lab Reports folder
Fiction. There is no such student. The lessons, labs and dates are the real planned course; the student, the classmates and the conversations are invented.
The same day, drawn.
Problem, evidence, users, criteria, constraints, three concepts, one recommendation.
Fiction. There is no such student. The lessons, labs and dates are the real planned course; the student, the classmates and the conversations are invented.
🛠 Get unstuck · pick your level
Lab day: Tier 1 is the whole class at the bench. No extension today.
Do the work · 80-minute blockfirst 5 min = hook▸
💡 Big idea: A feasibility-checked proposal ties problem, evidence, criteria, and concept together into one coherent argument for why this innovation is worth building.
- 0-10Review the proposal rubric: what does a complete, coherent innovation proposal contain?
- 10-25Assemble the sections: problem statement, criteria, constraints, and chosen concept in order
- 25-45Write the feasibility check: can this concept be built within the stated constraints? Be honest.
- 45-60State the expected benefit and one major risk in stakeholder-accessible language
- 60-75Self-assess against the rubric and submit the innovation design proposal
- 75-80Exit reflection: what would you do differently if you had one more week to work on this?
- • This is the capstone day of the reserve unit: you assemble everything into a full innovation design proposal.
- • A proposal is not a wish list -- it is an argument that your solution is feasible, worth pursuing, and grounded in evidence.
- • Include a feasibility check, an expected benefit, and one major risk -- hiding the risk does not make it go away.
- • This submission represents the full arc of the innovation-proposal reserve unit.
- • What a feasibility check is and how to apply it to your chosen concept before proposing it.
- • How to state the expected benefit and one major risk of an innovation in terms a stakeholder can evaluate.
- • How to self-assess a proposal against a rubric to identify gaps before submission.
Pitching innovation: problem definition, criteria, constraints, and feasibility · Submit innovation proposal
Day 5 of this lesson. Open this exact section in myPLTW (find it in Clever, Microsoft sign-in), then do the work below.
Do this: Open your myPLTW course shell and locate any capstone or innovation-proposal submission activity to review the final format expectations.
Mark the innovation-proposal activity complete in your tracker after submitting the full proposal.
The problem definition, constraints log, and design sprint are all done; today you assemble them into the final innovation design proposal with a feasibility check.
Full innovation design proposal with problem, criteria, constraints, chosen concept, feasibility check, expected benefit, and one major risk.
The official PLTW activity stays inside myPLTW. If myPLTW will not open, use F1 and E1-E3 on this page to complete today's local evidence decision, then make up the official activity when access returns. Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not.
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 through the submission route shown below.
Use the code Mr. Mendoza gave you, not your name. Saved on this device.
Pitching innovation: problem definition, criteria, constraints, and feasibility · Submit innovation proposal
Open your myPLTW course shell and locate any capstone or innovation-proposal submission activity to review the final format expectations.
The problem definition, constraints log, and design sprint are all done; today you assemble them into the final innovation design proposal with a feasibility check.
This is how Mr. Mendoza sees the class keeping pace with PLTW. Be honest, it only helps if it is accurate.
🎯 Submit a feasibility-checked innovation design proposal that ties problem, criteria, and concept together.
- Assemble problem statement, criteria, constraints, and chosen concept.
- Add a brief feasibility check: can it be built within constraints?
- State the expected benefit and one major risk.
- Self-assess against the proposal rubric.
- Submit the innovation design proposal.
Lab report: Innovation design proposal: assembled problem statement, criteria and constraints, chosen concept, feasibility check, expected benefit, and one major risk.
Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not. Use the checklist just below and upload by 11:29 PM for full credit. Absent with an excused absence? You get two school days for every day you were absent, so this deadline moves with you.
| Task | Who |
|---|---|
| Assemble problem statement, criteria, constraints, and chosen concept. | _______ |
| Add a brief feasibility check: can it be built within constraints? | _______ |
| State the expected benefit and one major risk. | _______ |
| Self-assess against the proposal rubric. | _______ |
| Submit the innovation design proposal. | _______ |
Working solo? Put your own name in "Who" for every row.
- Your proposal links problem, criteria, and concept coherently.
- You include a feasibility check with benefit and risk.
- 1Do thisSubmit a feasibility-checked innovation design proposal that ties problem, criteria, and concept together.
- 2Use this resource
- 3Submit thisLab report: Innovation design proposal: assembled problem statement, criteria and constraints, chosen concept, feasibility check, expected benefit, and one major risk.
- 4Submit it here
- 1Open the drop folder.
- 2Sign in with your district Microsoft account, not a personal one.
- 3Upload the file, named Lastname_Firstname__Assignment Title.
- 4Your own upload panel says Uploaded with a green check: that is your receipt.
Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not. Biotechnology for Health (Biomedical Innovations) › Pitching innovation: problem definition, criteria, constraints, and feasibility › Lab reportOpen the drop folder
Learn it · deck, reading, 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 specific, evidence-based problem statement is the single most important artifact in any innovation project -- it determines what counts as a valid solution.
A feasibility-checked proposal ties problem, evidence, criteria, and concept together into one coherent argument for why this innovation is worth building.
A bridge prototype is tested against a load limit, cost limit, and user need before revision.
- Which requirement is a criterion?
- Which limit is a constraint?
- What test result should trigger a redesign?
A design improves when evidence is compared with explicit criteria and constraints.
Biomedical designs also require , ethics, and biological validation beyond a physical prototype test.
- • Bridge requirements map to design criteria.
- • Load results map to E1-E3.
- • Revision maps to the next evidence-based iteration.
Driving question: Submit a feasibility-checked innovation design proposal that ties problem, criteria, and concept together.
What you already know: A specific, evidence-based problem statement is the single most important artifact in any innovation project -- it determines what counts as a valid solution.
New idea: A feasibility-checked proposal ties problem, evidence, criteria, and concept together into one coherent argument for why this innovation is worth building.
Visual or model: F1. F1. A lesson illustration or teaching diagram for Submit innovation proposal. 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 Submit innovation proposal.
- Organize the observation with a stable evidence ID.
- Apply this rule: A design improves when evidence is compared with explicit criteria and constraints.
- Choose the option the evidence supports and state the limit of the conclusion.
Real biomedical example: Submit a feasibility-checked innovation design proposal that ties problem, criteria, and concept together.
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.
What a feasibility check is and how to apply it to your chosen concept before proposing it.
Limit: E1 supplies context or an observation; it does not by itself establish the explanation.
A feasibility-checked proposal ties problem, evidence, criteria, and concept together into one coherent argument for why this innovation is worth building.
Limit: E2 is a teaching statement or comparison and must be checked against the task evidence.
Your proposal links problem, criteria, and concept coherently.
Limit: E3 supports only the result or product criterion named here; it cannot justify a broader clinical or causal claim.
PLTW-BFH-2027-03-19 · Simulated classroom evidence scenario
Your role: biomedical design team member
Decision: Your team must decide what the evidence from Submit innovation proposal supports before submitting the lab report named on the lesson page.
- • Keep the current design.
- • Revise the feature that misses a criterion.
- • Run one more fair test before choosing.
Response: State one choice, cite at least two evidence IDs, explain the rule that connects them, and add one limitation. Submit it as the lab report.
Claim ceiling: The supplied lesson evidence can support an observation, pattern, classroom mechanism, or next-step decision about Submit innovation proposal. It cannot by itself prove causation, establish a real clinical diagnosis, or justify action outside this classroom task.
Rate or percent = part / comparison total x 100%. Percent change = (new - comparison) / comparison x 100%.
If 18 of 60 records meet a condition, the frequency is 18 / 60 x 100% = 30%.
Name the comparison total. A percent describes the supplied group and does not automatically predict an individual's outcome.
Use today's supplied counts to calculate one rate, risk, frequency, or percent change. Show the denominator and interpretation.
- • The solution must address the stated need in Submit innovation proposal.
- • 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
Title: External Ear-Infection Screener for At-Home Early Detection
Problem: About 1 in 3 children under 5 are diagnosed late with middle-ear infections because caregivers cannot tell infection from ordinary fussiness at home; target is to cut time-to-diagnosis from about 5 days to under 2.
Criteria and constraints: at least 90 percent agreement with a clinician, result under 60 seconds, under 5 dollars per use, build cost under 40 dollars, no insertion into the ear canal, buildable in one 3-week sprint.
Chosen concept: Concept B, an external ear-temperature and pressure sensor that reads infection signs without entering the ear canal, selected because it respects the no-insertion safety constraint while keeping accuracy high enough to prompt a clinic visit.
Feasibility check: Can it be built within the constraints? Yes for a screening prototype. Off-the-shelf infrared temperature and pressure sensors plus a phone app fit under the 40-dollar build cost and the 3-week sprint. It flags risk; it does not diagnose, which keeps it inside over-the-counter screening rules.
Expected benefit: earlier clinic visits, cutting average time-to-diagnosis toward the under-2-day target and reducing complications from delayed treatment.
One major risk: false reassurance. If the external sensor misses a real infection, a caregiver might delay care. Mitigation: the app always advises a clinic visit for persistent symptoms regardless of the reading.
(Tip: a feasibility check must answer one blunt question in a sentence: can this be built inside the stated constraints? Then name a real risk, not a fake one.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Ties the problem statement, criteria and constraints, and chosen concept into one proposal, adds a feasibility check, and states the expected benefit and one major risk.
- State the question and method.
- Present the observations and data with units.
- Explain the result, limitations, and next investigation.
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 innovation design proposal on the class site, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class.
- 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).
How to get there: open Clever and sign in with your Microsoft (district) account. Both myPLTW and Schoology are in Clever. Do the activity in myPLTW. Turn the work in on this site or hand it to Mr. Mendoza, because that is the step that counts as submitted. Schoology only shows your report-card grade later.
Check yourself · commit, then reveal▸
Claim ceiling for this check: The supplied lesson evidence can support an observation, pattern, classroom mechanism, or next-step decision about Submit innovation proposal. It cannot by itself prove causation, establish a real clinical diagnosis, or justify action outside this classroom task.
Go further and get help▸
I can name the procedure's purpose and the evidence I will record. I can identify each named hazard and the control that reduces it: Wear the required PPE, keep the bench clear, handle equipment only as directed, and know where the eyewash, sink, and spill kit are before you start. My data table is ready before materials are handled.
Finish the checklist before you handle any material.
- • Wear the required PPE, keep the bench clear, handle equipment only as directed, and know where the eyewash, sink, and spill kit are before you start.
- • Human samples and data stay private: label with a code, never a name, and dispose of materials in the correct waste container, then wash your hands.
- 1Before materials are handled, identify the purpose, variables or comparison, controls, measurement units, and stop-work condition.
- 2Assemble problem statement, criteria, constraints, and chosen concept.
- 3Add a brief feasibility check: can it be built within constraints?
- 4State the expected benefit and one major risk.
- 5Self-assess against the proposal rubric.
- 6Submit the innovation design proposal.
- 7Record each result in the prepared table before interpreting it. Mark missing, repeated, or invalid results truthfully.
- 8Complete the named cleanup and waste route, remove PPE safely, wash hands when required, and confirm the station is ready for the next group.
| Trial or sample ID | Independent condition | Measured result with units | Observation before interpretation | Quality-control note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Before the procedure, predict the result and cite the rule behind the prediction.
After the procedure, compare the result with the prediction and name one limitation or source of uncertainty.
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 Lab report.
Open the drop folderTurn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not.
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 DesignYou've passed Unit 2, so the optional extra-credit track is open. Complete reserved-unit work from home, including virtual labs, for extra credit. Each item shows its correct submission route.
Open the extra-credit track- 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, on the class site or handed to Mr. Mendoza in class, and confirmed. Not in Schoology: that is where the report-card grade appears later.
- Error analysis and method · counts doubleName a specific limit of the method and how it moved your result, and compare what you predicted to what happened. "Human error" does not count; say what about the procedure or instrument caused it.