Decision matrix
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
Use a weighted decision matrix to choose among competing prototype design options.
- Hand in
- Weighted decision matrix with three options, four criteria, weights, scores, weighted totals, and a written justification.
- 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.
Your three prototype options each win on a different criterion. If matters more than cost, which option actually scores highest once you weight the numbers?
Use a weighted to choose among competing prototype design options.
- • You completed a weighted matrix with at least three options and four criteria.
- • You justified your choice using the matrix results.
- If you could only weight one thing highest for a medical device, cost or , which would you pick and why?
- Name three things that could make one design option better than another.
- 1List three candidate design options for your prototype.
- 2Define four selection criteria such as cost, , feasibility, and effectiveness.
- 3Assign each criterion a weight that sums to 100 percent.
- 4Score each option against each criterion and compute weighted totals.
- 5Write a justification naming the winning option and the criterion that decided it.
What did this day actually feel like?
Decision matrix
Scoring concepts against weighted criteria. The weighting is the argument, because whichever criterion you weight heaviest decides the winner before you score anything.
My matrix picked the concept I already liked until I fixed the weights, which is worth knowing about myself.
Turned in: data table → Data Tables 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.
Scoring concepts against weighted criteria. The weighting is the argument, because whichever criterion you weight heaviest decides the winner before you score anything.
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.
🔑 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 weight each criterion by how much it matters so that the winning option is chosen by an auditable score, not by whichever design you liked first.
- 0-5 minWarm-up: name two criteria a medical device must meet before you'd use it
- 5-20 minList three design options and define four weighted criteria
- 20-45 minScore each option; compute and double-check weighted totals
- 45-60 minWrite justification: winning option and deciding criterion
- 60-72 minPeer check: swap matrices and verify weights sum to 100
- 72-80 minExit ticket: one sentence on why the lowest-scoring option was eliminated
- • Today we replace gut instinct with math by using a weighted .
- • You'll score three design options against criteria you set and then let the numbers guide you.
- • This is exactly how engineering teams avoid bias when choosing between prototypes.
- • By the end you'll have a justified design direction and a document to back it up.
- • Criteria weights reflect what matters most to users and stakeholders.
- • A weighted score lets you compare options with different strengths objectively.
- • Documenting the matrix is a Lab SOP practice: decisions need an auditable rationale.
Literature review, decision matrices, validation metrics, MP1 data inflection. ·
Day 3 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 weighted to choose among your prototype design options.
Upload your completed to the Problem 3 portfolio.
The is done; by end of today your weighted matrix with three options, four criteria, and a written justification should be submitted.
Photo or screenshot of your completed weighted with justification attached as evidence.
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. · Decision matrix
Open Problem 3 in your myPLTW course shell and navigate to the current activity, then build a weighted to choose among your prototype design options.
The is done; by end of today your weighted matrix with three options, four criteria, and a written justification should be submitted.
This is how Mr. Mendoza sees the class keeping pace with PLTW. Be honest, it only helps if it is accurate.
🎯 Use a weighted to choose among competing prototype design options.
- List three candidate design options for your prototype.
- Define four selection criteria such as cost, , feasibility, and effectiveness.
- Assign each criterion a weight that sums to 100 percent.
- Score each option against each criterion and compute weighted totals.
- Write a justification naming the winning option and the criterion that decided it.
Data table: Weighted with three options, four criteria, weights, scores, weighted totals, and a written justification.
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 |
|---|---|
| List three candidate design options for your prototype. | _______ |
| Define four selection criteria such as cost, , feasibility, and effectiveness. | _______ |
| Assign each criterion a weight that sums to 100 percent. | _______ |
| Score each option against each criterion and compute weighted totals. | _______ |
| Write a justification naming the winning option and the criterion that decided it. | _______ |
Working solo? Put your own name in "Who" for every row.
- You completed a weighted matrix with at least three options and four criteria.
- You justified your choice using the matrix results.
- 1Do thisUse a weighted decision matrix to choose among competing prototype design options.
- 2Use this resource
- 3Submit thisData table: Weighted decision matrix with three options, four criteria, weights, scores, weighted totals, and a written justification.
- 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. › Data tableOpen 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.
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.
You weight each criterion by how much it matters so that the winning option is chosen by an auditable score, not by whichever design you liked first.
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: Your three prototype options each win on a different criterion. If matters more than cost, which option actually scores highest once you weight the numbers?
What you already know: 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.
New idea: You weight each criterion by how much it matters so that the winning option is chosen by an auditable score, not by whichever design you liked first.
Visual or model: F1. F1. A lesson illustration or teaching diagram for Decision matrix. 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: Your three prototype options each win on a different criterion. If matters more than cost, which option actually scores highest once you weight the numbers?
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.
Criteria weights reflect what matters most to users and stakeholders.
Limit: E1 supplies context or an observation; it does not by itself establish the explanation.
You weight each criterion by how much it matters so that the winning option is chosen by an auditable score, not by whichever design you liked first.
Limit: E2 is a teaching statement or comparison and must be checked against the task evidence.
You completed a weighted matrix with at least three options and four criteria.
Limit: E3 supports only the result or product criterion named here; it cannot justify a broader clinical or causal claim.
PLTW-BFH-2027-03-25 · Simulated classroom evidence scenario
Your role: biomedical design team member
Decision: Your team must decide what the evidence from supports before submitting the labeled and result claim 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 labeled and result claim.
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 labeled and result claim named on the lesson page.
Context: A weighted makes tradeoffs visible and turns a gut choice into a defensible one, so anyone can audit why one design won.
- • T1: List three candidate design options for your prototype.
- • T2: Define four selection criteria such as cost, , feasibility, and effectiveness.
- • T3: Assign each criterion a weight that sums to 100 percent.
- • T4: Score each option against each criterion and compute weighted totals.
- • T5: Write a justification naming the winning option and the criterion that decided it.
- • E1: Criteria weights reflect what matters most to users and stakeholders.
- • E2: You weight each criterion by how much it matters so that the winning option is chosen by an auditable score, not by whichever design you liked first.
- • E3: You completed a weighted matrix with at least three options and four criteria.
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 . 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 .
- • 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 the option with the most high scores automatically wins, so they just count how many criteria each option is best at.. The trap: Counting best scores ignores the weights, and weights are the whole point. The trap is treating a 9 on a criterion worth 10 percent the same as a 9 on a criterion worth 50 percent. A weak option can win on unweighted counts and lose the moment you multiply by what actually matters.
Options for my medication-reminder prototype: A) standalone beeping pillbox, B) smartphone app, C) wall clock with alarm lights.
Criteria and weights (sum to 100 percent): Cost 25, Safety 20, Feasibility 25, Effectiveness 30.
Scoring scale: 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). Weighted score = raw score times weight.
Weighted totals:
- Option A: (3x25)+(5x20)+(4x25)+(4x30) = 75+100+100+120 = 395
- Option B: (2x25)+(5x20)+(3x25)+(5x30) = 50+100+75+150 = 375
- Option C: (4x25)+(5x20)+(5x25)+(3x30) = 100+100+125+90 = 415
Justification: Option C (wall clock with alarm lights) wins with 415. The criterion that decided it was Feasibility: it is the easiest to build for an older user who does not use a smartphone, and it scored high on cost. Option B scored best on effectiveness but lost on feasibility because many target users do not own smartphones.
| Criterion (weight) | A pillbox | B app | C clock |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cost (25) | 3 | 2 | 4 |
| Safety (20) | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Feasibility (25) | 4 | 3 | 5 |
| Effectiveness (30) | 4 | 5 | 3 |
| Weighted total | 395 | 375 | 415 |
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Completes the Problem 3 design-selection step: a weighted decision matrix with three options, four weighted criteria, scores, weighted totals, and a written justification.
- Name the variables and include units.
- Enter observations without changing the raw values.
- Check labels, calculations, and patterns before interpreting the data.
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 matrix and justification on the class site by end of 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.
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 Decision matrix. 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.
Option A scores 8 on cost (weight 20 percent) and 4 on safety (weight 60 percent). Option B scores 4 on cost and 8 on safety, with the same weights. Which option has the higher weighted total, and why?
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▸
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.
- 2List three candidate design options for your prototype.
- 3Define four selection criteria such as cost, safety, feasibility, and effectiveness.
- 4Assign each criterion a weight that sums to 100 percent.
- 5Score each option against each criterion and compute weighted totals.
- 6Write a justification naming the winning option and the criterion that decided it.
- 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 Data table.
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.
- 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.