Design critique
Do now
Write a design critique recommending whether an emerging intervention is ready for patients.
- Hand in
- Design critique with a readiness verdict (ready/promising/not viable), two evidence points on effectiveness or safety, and reasoning identifying the main remaining barrier.
- 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.
Write a design critique recommending whether an emerging intervention is ready for patients.
Write a design critique recommending whether an emerging intervention is ready for patients.
- • You'll be able to judge readiness of an emerging intervention.
- • You'll be able to support the judgment with effectiveness and evidence.
- What do you already know about Design critique?
- What would you need to find out to answer today's question?
- 1Review your scaffold diagram, replacement comparison, and design-analysis notes.
- 2Make a claim on whether the intervention is ready, promising, or not yet viable.
- 3Cite two pieces of evidence on effectiveness, , or risk.
- 4Reason through the main barrier that still must be solved.
- 5Submit your design critique on the class site.
What did this day actually feel like?
Design critique
A written critique naming one strength, one weakness, and one thing that would have to be true for it to work.
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.
A written critique naming one strength, one weakness, and one thing that would have to be true for it to work.
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
Do the work · 80-minute blockfirst 5 min = hook▸
💡 Big idea: A readiness critique is a professional judgment that synthesizes technical evidence and real-world standards.
- 0-10Review scaffold diagram, comparison table, and design-analysis notes
- 10-22Write claim: ready, promising, or not yet viable
- 22-45Write evidence: two data points on effectiveness, , or risk
- 45-62Write reasoning: identify the main barrier still to be solved
- 62-72Revise for clarity and completeness
- 72-80Submit design critique to the class site
- • This is the final synthesis of the -engineering unit.
- • You have data on scaffolds, replacement options, and one specific design.
- • Now you write a professional judgment: is this intervention ready for a real patient?
- • This capstone format integrates Biotech Research and Lab SOPs writing skills from the WebXam.
- • Readiness for clinical use requires evidence of , efficacy, and manufacturability at scale.
- • A promising-but-not-ready verdict is as defensible as ready, if the barrier is clearly identified.
- • The critique format mirrors how regulatory agencies evaluate device or therapy applications.
Building Better Bodies: Tissue Engineering and Beyond · Design critique
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 the -engineering unit submission in myPLTW and confirm all Activity 4.4.1 through 4.4.3 slots are filled before submitting your design critique.
Mark the design-critique entry complete and attach your submitted critique.
Design-analysis notes should be done (Thursday); -engineering unit fully closed today.
Design critique with readiness verdict, two evidence points, and main-barrier reasoning submitted.
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.
Building Better Bodies: Tissue Engineering and Beyond · Design critique
Open the -engineering unit submission in myPLTW and confirm all Activity 4.4.1 through 4.4.3 slots are filled before submitting your design critique.
Design-analysis notes should be done (Thursday); -engineering unit fully closed today.
This is how Mr. Mendoza sees the class keeping pace with PLTW. Be honest, it only helps if it is accurate.
🎯 Write a design critique recommending whether an emerging intervention is ready for patients.
- Review your scaffold diagram, replacement comparison, and design-analysis notes.
- Make a claim on whether the intervention is ready, promising, or not yet viable.
- Cite two pieces of evidence on effectiveness, , or risk.
- Reason through the main barrier that still must be solved.
- Submit your design critique on the class site.
CER: Design critique with a readiness verdict (ready/promising/not viable), two evidence points on effectiveness or , and reasoning identifying the main remaining barrier.
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 |
|---|---|
| Review your scaffold diagram, replacement comparison, and design-analysis notes. | _______ |
| Make a claim on whether the intervention is ready, promising, or not yet viable. | _______ |
| Cite two pieces of evidence on effectiveness, , or risk. | _______ |
| Reason through the main barrier that still must be solved. | _______ |
| Submit your design critique on the class site. | _______ |
Working solo? Put your own name in "Who" for every row.
- You'll be able to judge readiness of an emerging intervention.
- You'll be able to support the judgment with effectiveness and evidence.
- 1Do thisWrite a design critique recommending whether an emerging intervention is ready for patients.
- 2Use this resource
- 3Submit thisCER: Design critique with a readiness verdict (ready/promising/not viable), two evidence points on effectiveness or safety, and reasoning identifying the main remaining barrier.
- 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. Genetics of Disease (Medical Interventions) › Building Better Bodies: Tissue Engineering and Beyond › 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.
Every engineering design is a set of trade-offs; the best design minimizes the most critical failure mode for the specific patient.
A readiness critique is a professional judgment that synthesizes technical evidence and real-world standards.
A pilot uses a preflight checklist before the aircraft moves.
- Which checks happen before action?
- Which hazard does each check control?
- What happens if a familiar step is skipped?
A routine works when each action controls a named hazard before exposure begins.
A laboratory hazard can change during a procedure, so students must keep monitoring conditions after the checklist.
- • Preflight checks map to PPE and setup.
- • Aircraft hazards map to chemical, biological, heat, or sharps hazards.
- • Go or no-go maps to the pre-lab readiness decision.
Driving question: Write a design critique recommending whether an emerging intervention is ready for patients.
What you already know: Every engineering design is a set of trade-offs; the best design minimizes the most critical failure mode for the specific patient.
New idea: A readiness critique is a professional judgment that synthesizes technical evidence and real-world standards.
Visual or model: F1. F1. A lesson illustration or teaching diagram for Design critique. Use it with E1-E3; it is a model or context image, not experimental or patient data. What to notice: Trace the labeled testing, treatment, or biological process and identify where evidence limits the decision.
- Observe or measure the relevant feature in Design critique.
- Organize the observation with a stable evidence ID.
- Apply this rule: A routine works when each action controls a named hazard before exposure begins.
- Choose the option the evidence supports and state the limit of the conclusion.
Real biomedical example: Write a design critique recommending whether an emerging intervention is ready for patients.
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.
Readiness for clinical use requires evidence of , efficacy, and manufacturability at scale.
Limit: E1 supplies context or an observation; it does not by itself establish the explanation.
A readiness critique is a professional judgment that synthesizes technical evidence and real-world standards.
Limit: E2 is a teaching statement or comparison and must be checked against the task evidence.
You'll be able to judge readiness of an emerging intervention.
Limit: E3 supports only the result or product criterion named here; it cannot justify a broader clinical or causal claim.
PLTW-GEND-2026-12-16 · Simulated classroom evidence scenario
Your role: medical interventions team member
Decision: Your team must decide what the evidence from Design critique 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 Design critique. 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 Design critique supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning response named on the lesson page.
Context: Write a design critique recommending whether an emerging intervention is ready for patients.
- • T1: Review your scaffold diagram, replacement comparison, and design-analysis notes.
- • T2: Make a claim on whether the intervention is ready, promising, or not yet viable.
- • T3: Cite two pieces of evidence on effectiveness, , or risk.
- • T4: Reason through the main barrier that still must be solved.
- • T5: Submit your design critique on the class site.
- • E1: Readiness for clinical use requires evidence of , efficacy, and manufacturability at scale.
- • E2: A readiness critique is a professional judgment that synthesizes technical evidence and real-world standards.
- • E3: You'll be able to judge readiness of an emerging intervention.
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 Design critique. Trace the labeled testing, treatment, or biological process and identify where evidence limits the decision. 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 Design critique.
- • 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
Claim: Gene-edited pig kidneys are promising but not yet ready for routine patient use.
Evidence 1 (effectiveness): In a monitored study, a gene-edited pig kidney filtered a recipient's blood and produced urine for over 50 days, showing the organ can do real kidney work in a human body.
Evidence 2 (safety): The same trials still rely on heavy immune-suppression, and researchers watch closely for pig viruses (PERVs) that could pass to the patient, which is an unresolved safety risk.
Reasoning: The effectiveness evidence clears the first bar, the organ functions. But 'ready for patients' also means safe at scale, and the rejection and cross-species infection risks are not yet controlled well enough for routine surgery. So the honest verdict is promising, not ready.
Main barrier still to solve: controlling long-term rejection and the risk of animal viruses without immune-suppression so heavy that it endangers the patient.
(Tip: pick 'ready,' 'promising,' or 'not viable' on purpose and make your evidence match the verdict; do not claim 'ready' while your own evidence lists an unsolved risk.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Write a claim-evidence-reasoning critique judging whether an emerging intervention is ready for patients, then name the main barrier still in the way.
- 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: turn it in on the class site under today's design-critique assignment.
- 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 and emerging interventions by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.4_Building-a-Better-Body; keywords:tissue engineering, xenotransplantation. Score 146. 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 and emerging interventions by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.4_Building-a-Better-Body; keywords:tissue engineering, xenotransplantation. Score 138. 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 and emerging interventions by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.4_Building-a-Better-Body; keywords:tissue engineering, xenotransplantation. Score 134. 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 Design critique. It cannot by itself prove causation, establish a real clinical diagnosis, or justify action outside this classroom task.
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:
MedlinePlus: Stem cellsYou'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.