Submit innovation proposal
Open your materials, follow the steps, then turn in your work.
Submit a feasibility-checked innovation design proposal that ties problem, criteria, and concept together.
1. Open your materials
Use the materials named in the first step below. Open lesson resources.
2. Start the work
Assemble problem statement, criteria, constraints, and chosen concept.
Show all 5 required steps
- 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.
Lost your place? Reopen today's Submit innovation proposal 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 proposal links problem, criteria, and concept coherently.
- You include a feasibility check with benefit and risk.
Before lab work: read the safety rules
- 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.
3. Turn in your work
DueCheck Schoology- Hand in
- Innovation design proposal: assembled problem statement, criteria and constraints, chosen concept, feasibility check, expected benefit, and one major risk.
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 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. 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 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.
PLTW connection and today's work
Open your myPLTW course shell and locate any capstone or innovation-proposal submission activity to review the final format expectations.
Today's stopping point: 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.
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
Finish the assigned lab safely before starting extra practice.
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 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.
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: Submit a feasibility-checked innovation design proposal that ties problem, criteria, and concept together.
What you already know: 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.
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 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 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 Submit innovation proposal 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 proposal links problem, criteria, and concept coherently.
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-2027-03-19 · 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 today's page.
- • Submit the proposal once problem, criteria, and concept line up and the feasibility check states a benefit and a risk.
- • Turn it in as is; the slides look sharp and the concept is explained clearly enough to stand alone.
- • Hold the proposal until one test compares the concept against a criterion, because a design on paper has produced no evidence yet.
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: Today's evidence supports a classroom claim about submit innovation proposal. 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 submit innovation proposal supports before submitting the lab report named on today's page.
Context: Today the biomedical innovation team uses Submit innovation proposal to make a bounded evidence decision. A classroom prototype, , presentation, or does not establish clinical , effectiveness, manufacturing quality, or regulatory clearance.
- • T1: Assemble problem statement, criteria, constraints, and chosen concept.
- • T2: Add a brief feasibility check: can it be built within constraints?
- • T3: State the expected benefit and one major risk.
- • T4: Self-assess against the proposal rubric.
- • T5: Submit the innovation design proposal.
- • 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 proposal links problem, criteria, and concept coherently.
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 Submit innovation proposal. 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.
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
Students often think A polished answer about Submit innovation proposal 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.
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 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 submit innovation proposal. It cannot prove causation, diagnose a real patient, or justify action outside this room.
A student makes a certain conclusion about Submit innovation proposal 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.
I can name the procedure's purpose and the evidence I will record. I can state today's specific hazards and the control for each. If this deck does not name them, I ask Mr. Mendoza before I touch anything. 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.
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 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.
- 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.
- 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.
This week
My Progress dashboard