Literature review
Do now
Build a structured literature review summarizing what existing sources say about your prototype's problem.
- Hand in
- Three-source literature review with citations, main claims, conflict notes, and a synthesis paragraph identifying a design gap.
- 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.
Three credible sources already studied your Problem 3 challenge. Where do they disagree, and which unanswered question could your prototype actually settle?
Build a structured summarizing what existing sources say about your prototype's problem.
- • You produced a three-source review with citations and main claims.
- • You named a gap your prototype addresses.
- What is one thing you already believe is true about your Problem 3 problem, and how do you know it?
- Name one place you would look for a trustworthy source instead of a random search result.
- 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.
What did this day actually feel like?
Literature review
Finding what already exists. Four products already address my problem and two are quite good, which was deflating for an hour and then useful.
Knowing what exists is how you find the gap instead of rebuilding something.
Turned in: CER → Claim Evidence Reasoning 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.
Finding what already exists. Four products already address my problem and two are quite good, which was deflating for an hour and then useful.
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
🔑 Today's words · 5
Tap a word in the lesson for a plain meaning and one example. Recycled into next week's Do-Now.
Do the work · 80-minute blockfirst 5 min = hook▸
💡 Big idea: You map what three sources already claim so that your prototype targets a gap they left open instead of repeating work that is already done.
- 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 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.
- • 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.
Literature review, decision matrices, validation metrics, MP1 data inflection. ·
Day 2 of this lesson. Open this exact section in myPLTW (find it in Clever, Microsoft sign-in), 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 on your prototype challenge.
Attach your three-source to the Problem 3 evidence portfolio.
The source-ethics debate is done; by end of today your with three cited sources and a synthesis paragraph should be submitted.
with citations, main claims, conflict notes, and a synthesis paragraph identifying a design gap, shared with your teacher.
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.
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 on your prototype challenge.
The source-ethics debate is done; by end of today your 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 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 with citations, main claims, conflict notes, and a synthesis paragraph identifying a design gap.
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 |
|---|---|
| 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.
- 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
- 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) › Literature review, decision matrices, validation metrics, MP1 data inflection. › CEROpen 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 peer-reviewed trial uses a that shows what happens without the device, so its claim can be trusted farther than an anecdote that never ruled out hope, natural recovery, or chance.
You map what three sources already claim so that your prototype targets a gap they left open instead of repeating work that is already done.
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: Three credible sources already studied your Problem 3 challenge. Where do they disagree, and which unanswered question could your prototype actually settle?
What you already know: A peer-reviewed trial uses a that shows what happens without the device, so its claim can be trusted farther than an anecdote that never ruled out hope, natural recovery, or chance.
New idea: You map what three sources already claim so that your prototype targets a gap they left open instead of repeating work that is already done.
Visual or model: F1. F1. A lesson illustration or teaching diagram for Literature review. 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 .
- 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: Three credible sources already studied your Problem 3 challenge. Where do they disagree, and which unanswered question could your prototype actually settle?
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.
- • : A careful summary and analysis of existing published research on a topic, used to find what is known and where gaps remain.
- • : The process where independent experts evaluate a research study for quality and accuracy before it is published.
- • : A scoring table that rates each option against the same set of criteria so the best choice can be picked with evidence rather than guesswork.
- • validation: Confirming through testing and evidence that a method, device, or result actually does what it claims and gives accurate, repeatable outcomes.
- • metric: A standard measurement used to track or compare something, such as growth rate, concentration, or survival, giving data a clear number.
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.
Each source in a review needs a citation, a main claim, and evidence supporting that claim.
Limit: E1 supplies context or an observation; it does not by itself establish the explanation.
You map what three sources already claim so that your prototype targets a gap they left open instead of repeating work that is already done.
Limit: E2 is a teaching statement or comparison and must be checked against the task evidence.
You produced a three-source review with citations and main claims.
Limit: E3 supports only the result or product criterion named here; it cannot justify a broader clinical or causal claim.
PLTW-BFH-2027-03-24 · Simulated classroom evidence scenario
Your role: biomedical design team member
Decision: Your team must decide what the evidence from supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning response 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 claim-evidence-reasoning response.
Claim ceiling: The supplied lesson evidence can support an observation, pattern, classroom mechanism, or next-step decision about . It cannot by itself prove causation, establish a real clinical diagnosis, or justify action outside this classroom task.
Reason for review: Your team must decide what the evidence from supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning response named on the lesson page.
Context: A maps what people already know so your prototype fills a real gap instead of rebuilding something that already exists or chasing a problem that is already solved.
- • T1: Choose three credible sources on your Problem 3 design challenge.
- • T2: For each source, record the citation, the main claim, and the supporting evidence.
- • T3: Note where sources agree and where they conflict.
- • T4: Identify one gap that your prototype could address.
- • T5: Write a short synthesis paragraph connecting the three sources to your design goal.
- • E1: Each source in a review needs a citation, a main claim, and evidence supporting that claim.
- • E2: You map what three sources already claim so that your prototype targets a gap they left open instead of repeating work that is already done.
- • E3: You produced a three-source review with citations and main claims.
Measurements: No patient measurement is supplied unless it appears explicitly in E1-E3 or F1. Do not invent a value.
Figure finding: Teaching diagram for . 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.
- • The solution must address the stated need in .
- • 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 Students often think a means listing sources one after another, writing a summary of each with no connection between them.. The trap: Listing is not reviewing because a pile of summaries never shows the gap your design fills. The trap is stopping at 'here is source one, here is source two.' Synthesis means naming where they agree, where they clash, and what none of them answered.
Design challenge (parallel case, NOT today's prompt): a wearable alert that detects when an elderly person living alone has fallen and calls for help.\n\nClaim: The literature shows that unwitnessed falls among seniors who live alone are a large, well-documented problem, and that automatic detection helps, but the sources disagree about whether the alert should trigger on its own or wait for the person to press a button. That disagreement points to a clear design gap my prototype could settle.\n\nEvidence:\nSource 1: CDC report on older adult falls (cdc.gov). Main claim: falls are the leading cause of injury for adults 65 and older, and many who fall cannot get up on their own. Evidence: national injury and emergency-visit data.\nSource 2: Peer-reviewed study of manual push-button medical alert pendants (journal article). Main claim: pendants get help faster when they are used, but a large share of wearers do not or cannot press the button after a serious fall. Evidence: response-time logs and follow-up interviews with users.\nSource 3: Peer-reviewed trial of an accelerometer-based automatic fall detector (journal article). Main claim: automatic detection reaches people who cannot press a button, but it also produces false alarms when the person only sits down quickly or drops the device. Evidence: measured true-positive and false-alarm rates against recorded activity.\n\nReasoning: Source 1 establishes that the problem is real and serious, since falls injure many seniors and often leave them unable to get up. Sources 2 and 3 agree that a faster alert saves time, but they conflict on the trigger: a push button (Source 2) fails exactly when the wearer is hurt and cannot press it, while automatic detection (Source 3) reaches those people but raises false alarms that annoy users and may get ignored. The gap is that neither source tests a device that pairs automatic detection with a short cancel window, so a conscious user could stop a false alarm while an unconscious user still gets help. My prototype targets that gap directly: it detects the fall on its own, then waits a few seconds for the wearer to cancel before it calls for help. That design uses the strength of Source 3 (reaches people who cannot press a button) while answering the weakness both sources raise (missed alerts and false alarms), which is the unanswered question my prototype could actually settle.
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Parallel-case model of the Problem 3 literature review: three credible sources with citations, main claims, evidence, a conflict note, and a synthesis paragraph naming a design gap. Uses a different design challenge so it models the format and depth without solving today's own prompt.
- Write one defensible claim.
- Choose specific evidence that supports the claim.
- Explain the scientific rule that connects the evidence to the claim.
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 the literature review document on the class site today.
- 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.
Tap the speaker to hear a term. Add two of these to your notebook glossary with a definition and an example in your own words.
Pick just 2 or 3 words from today and make them yours: write what each one means in your own words, name the context clue or evidence that helped, then give one example from what you actually did in Literature review. Try your own words first; the glossary is there if you get stuck. This is voluntary and counts as extra credit, so keep it short.
Saved on this device. Show Mr. Mendoza or add these to your notebook glossary to claim the extra credit.
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 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 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 . It cannot by itself prove causation, establish a real clinical diagnosis, or justify action outside this classroom task.
You have three sources on wound healing. Two say a gel speeds healing; one says it makes no difference. In your synthesis, should you delete the source that disagrees? What should you do with it instead?
Write an answer and pick a confidence to unlock the key.
Fast retrieval with instant answers, not the commit-then-reveal check above. Try each from memory first: write what you remember about the earlier units, then check yourself here.
Go further and get help▸
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 CER.
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:
Khan Academy: scientific method and experiment 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.