Why these are here: the calendar could not fit every unit at full depth, so these carry an extra-credit track on top of class time. They are NOT low-weight on the exam. Several of them feed the outcomes the WebXam weighs most, so treat the extra credit as a bonus for going deeper, not as a sign this material is optional to learn.
Optional extra-credit units
Many of these units DO appear on the in-class calendar and are taught on a dated day; the extra credit is for the additional work on top of that. Each track opens partway through the term and then stays open for the rest of it, so you can go further on your own schedule; the section below says when your course's pack opens. Every hands-on step has a virtual lab. Finished work goes to the same place as everything else: your class form, or handed to Mr. Mendoza in class.
Medical Interventions runs 77 class days with 77 lessons already bound to them, so the only way to give laboratory technique more class time was to move something else off the calendar. These four are what moved. Every one of them is built from data you already collected at the bench, which is why they work on your own time. The pack opens once we finish the pathogen identification work on 14 September, then stays open to the last week of the semester. Read the cover sheet first: it says which items help you on the WebXam, which one does not, and how the point cap works.
Start here: the extra credit cover sheetWhy these four came off the calendar, what went on in their place, and the WebXam domain each one trains. It also names the one item the exam does not measure at all.PDF · 4 pages · 200 KBOpenNothing in this pack needs a bench, a plate, or an incubation, so all of it can be done at home. Finished work goes the same place as everything else: your class form, or handed to Mr. Mendoza in person. Put your name and period on every page and every photo filename. The point value and the semester cap are announced when the pack opens.
🎯 Argue how a limited supply of donor organs should be allocated among waiting patients.
- 1Read the organ-allocation briefing in the PLTW course shell and list the factors used to rank patients.
- 2Pick a stakeholder role: patient, surgeon, ethicist, or transplant board member, and write your opening claim.
- 3Defend one allocation factor such as urgency, match quality, or wait time using one piece of evidence.
- 4Write a rebuttal to a factor a classmate role would prioritize over yours.
- 5Record the class consensus ranking and your personal stance with a reason.
- • You'll be able to name the factors used to allocate scarce donor organs.
- • You'll be able to defend an allocation priority and answer an objection.
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 Organ failure overview and by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.2_Organ-Failure; keywords:organ failure, kidney, dialysis. 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 Organ failure overview and by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.2_Organ-Failure; keywords:organ failure, kidney. 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 Organ failure overview and by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.2_Organ-Failure; keywords:kidney, renal. Score 138. 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.
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.
Counts as one extra-credit evidence point toward your MI portfolio grade.
A model of the work to turn in. Match its structure and level of detail; do not copy it. Your data and wording should be your own.
1. Decision or claim I am testing: ____
2. Evidence ID and exact observation: ____
3. Second evidence ID and exact observation: ____
4. Rule that connects the evidence to my claim: ____
5. Strongest alternative or tradeoff: ____
6. Limitation or missing evidence that controls my confidence: ____
7. Revision I would make if the missing evidence changed: ____
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: A blank structure for organizing the assigned response. It contains no claim, ranking, calculation, data interpretation, or recommendation from today's task.
- Name the prompt or task.
- Answer it directly with the key evidence.
- Check that the response matches the requested format.
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: Hand in your exit-ticket card, or turn it in on Schoology under the Unit 4 Organ-Allocation Debate exit-ticket assignment.
One exam-style question for this reserve skill. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.
It builds this reusable test skill: Defending an organ-allocation priority with evidence.
- Name the concept or data pattern being tested.
- Cross out choices that violate that rule or the evidence.
- Justify the best remaining choice before checking the answer.
🎯 Trace how recombinant DNA lets cells manufacture a useful human protein.
- 1Opener: collect your four yeast plates from Tuesday, score what percent of each is covered, and finish the Project 3.2.2 data table before anything else.
- 2Read the recombinant-DNA notes in the PLTW course shell and define plasmid and recombinant DNA.
- 3Order the steps of inserting a human gene into a plasmid and into a host cell.
- 4Explain why a bacterial cell can read a human gene and make the protein.
- 5Name one medicine, such as insulin, made this way.
- 6Submit a labeled recombinant-DNA flow diagram as PLTW tracker evidence.
- • You'll be able to sequence the steps of making recombinant DNA.
- • You'll be able to explain how a host cell manufactures a human protein.
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 Organ failure overview and by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.2_Organ-Failure; keywords:organ failure, kidney, dialysis. 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 Organ failure overview and by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.2_Organ-Failure; keywords:organ failure, kidney. 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 Organ failure overview and by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.2_Organ-Failure; keywords:kidney, renal. Score 138. 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.
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.
Counts as one extra-credit evidence point toward your MI portfolio grade.
A model of the work to turn in. Match its structure and level of detail; do not copy it. Your data and wording should be your own.
Labeled recombinant-DNA flow (insulin example):
- Step 1, Isolate the gene: Cut the human insulin gene out of human DNA using a restriction enzyme such as EcoRI, which leaves sticky ends.
- Step 2, Cut the plasmid: Use the SAME restriction enzyme to open the bacterial plasmid, so its sticky ends match the gene's sticky ends.
- Step 3, Insert the gene: DNA ligase seals the human insulin gene into the plasmid. The result is recombinant DNA, meaning DNA combined from two sources.
- Step 4, Transform the host: Take up the recombinant plasmid into a host cell such as E. coli. The transformed bacterium now carries the human gene.
- Step 5, Manufacture the protein: The bacterium reads the inserted gene using the same genetic code all cells share, transcribes it to mRNA, and translates it into human insulin protein. Grow the culture and the bacteria make insulin in bulk.
Named product: human insulin (used to treat diabetes).
Why a bacterium can read a human gene: the genetic code is nearly universal, so the codons in the human gene mean the same amino acids inside the bacterial cell.
(Tip: label the restriction enzyme as the same tool in Step 1 and Step 2, since matching sticky ends is the part graders look for.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Completes the recombinant-DNA flow diagram: a labeled sequence showing a plasmid cut open, a human gene inserted, a host cell transformed, and the named human protein produced.
- Date and label the entry.
- Record the procedure, observation, or design decision clearly.
- End with what the evidence means and the next step.
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: Attach the diagram to your PLTW tracker, and turn it in on Schoology under the Unit 4 Recombinant DNA Flow assignment.
One exam-style question for this reserve skill. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.
It builds this reusable test skill: Sequencing the steps of making recombinant DNA.
- Name the concept or data pattern being tested.
- Cross out choices that violate that rule or the evidence.
- Justify the best remaining choice before checking the answer.
🎯 Rotate through hands-on stations modeling protein purification, HLA matching, and tissue-engineering data.
- 1Open the station packet and table.
- 2Run chromatography; record protein fractions.
- 3Score the HLA crossmatches.
- 4Compare scaffold cell growth.
- 5Submit the completed three-station table.
- • You'll be able to collect and record data from each Unit 4 station.
- • You'll be able to interpret a purification fraction, an HLA crossmatch, and a scaffold comparison.
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 Organ failure overview and by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.2_Organ-Failure; keywords:organ failure, kidney, dialysis. 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 Organ failure overview and by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.2_Organ-Failure; keywords:organ failure, kidney. 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 Organ failure overview and by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.2_Organ-Failure; keywords:kidney, renal. Score 138. 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.
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.
Counts as one extra-credit evidence point toward your MI portfolio grade.
A model of the work to turn in. Match its structure and level of detail; do not copy it. Your data and wording should be your own.
Three-station data table (my recorded results):
- Purification station (chromatography column): Collected 6 fractions. Protein assay was strongest in Fraction 4 (dark blue, high signal) and Fraction 5 (medium), with Fractions 1-3 and 6 near zero. Conclusion: the target protein eluted in Fractions 4 and 5.
- HLA-matching station: Compared donor and recipient cards across 6 HLA loci. Matches at 5 of 6 loci; one mismatch at HLA-DR. Crossmatch score recorded as 5/6, flagged as a strong but not perfect match.
- Tissue station (scaffold comparison): Scaffold A (dense mesh) showed cell coverage about 45 percent after the modeled growth period; Scaffold B (porous mesh) showed about 78 percent. Note: the porous Scaffold B supported more cell growth, likely because pores let nutrients and cells move deeper.
One-line reading of each: high-protein fractions = 4 and 5; crossmatch = 5/6 (usable); better scaffold = B.
(Tip: write the actual number in every cell, even an estimate like 78 percent, because a data table with words but no values loses the most points.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Completes the three-station data table: recorded results from the protein-purification station, the HLA-matching station, and the tissue-scaffold station.
- 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: turns in the completed data table on Schoology under the Unit 4 Protocol and Data Stations assignment.
One exam-style question for this reserve skill. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.
It builds this reusable test skill: Interpreting a chromatography fraction result.
- Name the concept or data pattern being tested.
- Cross out choices that violate that rule or the evidence.
- Justify the best remaining choice before checking the answer.
🎯 Compare tissue-engineering approaches and judge which best replaces a failing organ function.
- 1Read the tissue-engineering notes in the PLTW course shell and define scaffold and stem cell.
- 2Compare a scaffold-plus-stem-cell graft to a mechanical or donor option in a table.
- 3List one advantage and one limitation of each approach.
- 4Pick the best fit for a sample patient and justify it in one sentence.
- 5Add your tissue-engineering comparison to your Unit 4 PLTW tracker evidence.
- • You'll be able to compare engineered, mechanical, and donor approaches.
- • You'll be able to justify an approach for a specific patient need.
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 Organ failure overview and by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.2_Organ-Failure; keywords:organ failure, kidney, dialysis. 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 Organ failure overview and by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.2_Organ-Failure; keywords:organ failure, kidney. 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 Organ failure overview and by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.2_Organ-Failure; keywords:kidney, renal. Score 138. 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.
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.
Counts as one extra-credit evidence point toward your MI portfolio grade.
A model of the work to turn in. Match its structure and level of detail; do not copy it. Your data and wording should be your own.
Comparison table for replacing a failing organ function:
- Engineered (scaffold + patient's own stem cells): Advantage: grown from the patient's own cells, so rejection risk is very low. Limitation: still experimental for whole organs and takes weeks to grow.
- Mechanical (device such as a mechanical heart valve or pump): Advantage: available now and works immediately. Limitation: needs power or blood-thinning drugs and can wear out or clot.
- Donor (transplanted human organ): Advantage: a real, fully functioning organ. Limitation: scarce supply and lifelong immunosuppression drugs to prevent rejection.
Sample patient: a 16-year-old needing a heart valve who wants to avoid lifelong blood thinners.
My recommendation: an engineered valve grown from her own cells, because it lowers rejection and clotting risk over a long life ahead, and time to grow it is acceptable since her condition is stable.
(Tip: make your patient pick match a real limitation you listed, so the justification points straight back to your own table.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Completes the tissue-engineering comparison table: a three-column comparison of an engineered graft, a mechanical device, and a donor organ, each with an advantage and a limitation, plus a justified pick for one patient.
- 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: Attach the comparison to your PLTW tracker, and turn it in on Schoology under the Unit 4 Tissue-Engineering Comparison assignment.
One exam-style question for this reserve skill. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.
It builds this reusable test skill: Comparing engineered, mechanical, and donor replacement approaches.
- Name the concept or data pattern being tested.
- Cross out choices that violate that rule or the evidence.
- Justify the best remaining choice before checking the answer.
🎯 Assemble your Unit 4 evidence and confirm the MI portfolio is complete for submission.
- 1Open your PLTW tracker and check off each Unit 4 evidence item against the required list.
- 2Attach your recombinant-DNA diagram, station data table, and tissue-engineering comparison.
- 3Flag any missing or weak evidence and write a one-line plan to fix it.
- 4Confirm your WebXam testing status is current in the course shell.
- 5Submit your final tracker evidence packet and portfolio checkpoint.
- • You'll be able to verify your Unit 4 evidence is complete and attached.
- • You'll be able to confirm portfolio and WebXam status before the deadline.
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 Organ failure overview and by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.2_Organ-Failure; keywords:organ failure, kidney, dialysis. 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 Organ failure overview and by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.2_Organ-Failure; keywords:organ failure, kidney. 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 Organ failure overview and by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.2_Organ-Failure; keywords:kidney, renal. Score 138. 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.
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.
Counts as one extra-credit evidence point toward your MI portfolio grade.
A model of the work to turn in. Match its structure and level of detail; do not copy it. Your data and wording should be your own.
Unit 4 tracker checkpoint:
- Recombinant-DNA flow diagram: ATTACHED. Complete, all five steps labeled with the restriction enzyme named twice.
- Three-station data table: ATTACHED. All three rows have numbers (fractions 4 and 5, crossmatch 5/6, scaffold B 78 percent).
- Tissue-engineering comparison table: ATTACHED. Three columns filled, patient recommendation justified.
- Organ-allocation exit ticket: WEAK. My rebuttal sentence is missing. Fix plan: add one sentence answering the surgeon's match-quality argument before Friday.
- WebXam testing status: Confirmed CURRENT in Schoology; practice attempt logged, seat assigned.
Packet summary: 3 of 4 artifacts strong, 1 flagged with a same-week fix. Portfolio on track for the deadline.
(Tip: mark each item present, weak, or missing in one word, then write the fix as a dated action, so your checkpoint reads as a plan and not just a list.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Completes the Unit 4 tracker evidence packet: each required artifact checked off and attached, any weak items flagged with a fix plan, and WebXam status confirmed.
- Copy the required categories or checkpoints.
- Record the current evidence in each field.
- Mark the next action and update the tracker after new evidence arrives.
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 final tracker evidence packet on Schoology.
One exam-style question for this reserve skill. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.
It builds this reusable test skill: Auditing Unit 4 evidence against the required list.
- Name the concept or data pattern being tested.
- Cross out choices that violate that rule or the evidence.
- Justify the best remaining choice before checking the answer.
🎯 Argue how donor kidneys should be allocated when demand far exceeds supply.
- 1Read the kidney-allocation briefing in the PLTW course shell and list the matching and fairness factors.
- 2Pick a role: patient, nephrologist, ethicist, or allocation board member, and write your opening claim.
- 3Defend one factor such as HLA match, urgency, or wait time with evidence.
- 4Write a rebuttal to a factor a competing role would rank higher.
- 5Record the class ranking and your personal stance with a reason.
- • You'll be able to name the medical and ethical factors in kidney allocation.
- • You'll be able to defend an allocation priority and answer an objection.
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 Transplant matching and allocation ethics by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.3_Transplant; keywords:transplant, hla, allocation, organ. Score 158. 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 Transplant matching and allocation ethics by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.3_Transplant; keywords:transplant, allocation, organ. 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 Transplant matching and allocation ethics by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.3_Transplant; keywords:transplant, allocation, organ. Score 146. 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.
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.
Counts as one extra-credit evidence point toward your MI portfolio grade.
A model of the work to turn in. Match its structure and level of detail; do not copy it. Your data and wording should be your own.
1. Decision or claim I am testing: ____
2. Evidence ID and exact observation: ____
3. Second evidence ID and exact observation: ____
4. Rule that connects the evidence to my claim: ____
5. Strongest alternative or tradeoff: ____
6. Limitation or missing evidence that controls my confidence: ____
7. Revision I would make if the missing evidence changed: ____
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: A blank structure for organizing the assigned response. It contains no claim, ranking, calculation, data interpretation, or recommendation from today's task.
- Name the prompt or task.
- Answer it directly with the key evidence.
- Check that the response matches the requested format.
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: turns in the stance card on Schoology under today's exit-ticket assignment.
One exam-style question for this reserve skill. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.
It builds this reusable test skill: Naming the medical and ethical factors in kidney allocation.
- Name the concept or data pattern being tested.
- Cross out choices that violate that rule or the evidence.
- Justify the best remaining choice before checking the answer.
🎯 Explain how the nephron filters blood and read renal data that signals kidney failure.
- 1Read the renal-function notes in the PLTW course shell and label the parts of a nephron.
- 2Describe how the nephron filters waste and returns useful substances to the blood.
- 3Read the sample lab values and identify which ones show failing filtration.
- 4Explain why waste builds up in the blood when nephrons fail.
- 5Submit a labeled nephron diagram with a one-line data interpretation.
- • You'll be able to describe how the nephron filters blood.
- • You'll be able to read renal lab data for signs of failure.
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 Transplant matching and allocation ethics by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.3_Transplant; keywords:transplant, hla, allocation, organ. Score 158. 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 Transplant matching and allocation ethics by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.3_Transplant; keywords:transplant, allocation, organ. 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 Transplant matching and allocation ethics by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.3_Transplant; keywords:transplant, allocation, organ. Score 146. 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.
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.
Counts as one extra-credit evidence point toward your MI portfolio grade.
A model of the work to turn in. Match its structure and level of detail; do not copy it. Your data and wording should be your own.
Labeled nephron parts: glomerulus, Bowman's capsule, proximal tubule, loop of Henle, distal tubule, collecting duct.
Filtration in my words: Blood pressure pushes water and small solutes out of the glomerulus into Bowman's capsule as filtrate. As the filtrate moves down the tubule, the body reabsorbs what it needs (glucose, most water, sodium) back into the blood, and wastes like urea stay behind to leave as urine.
Sample lab values I read:
- Serum creatinine: 4.8 mg/dL (normal about 0.6 to 1.2)
- BUN: 62 mg/dL (normal about 7 to 20)
- eGFR: 14 mL/min/1.73m2 (normal above 90)
One-line interpretation: The high creatinine and BUN with an eGFR of 14 show the nephrons are barely filtering, so waste is building up in the blood and this signals kidney failure.
(Tip: creatinine and BUN go UP when filtration fails because the nephron can no longer clear them, so rising numbers mean worse filtering.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Submits a labeled nephron diagram, describes in the student's own words how the nephron filters blood and returns useful substances, and gives a one-line reading of renal lab values that flags failing filtration.
- Date and label the entry.
- Record the procedure, observation, or design decision clearly.
- End with what the evidence means and the next step.
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: turns in the diagram and interpretation on Schoology under today's notebook assignment.
One exam-style question for this reserve skill. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.
It builds this reusable test skill: Reading renal lab data for signs of failure.
- Name the concept or data pattern being tested.
- Cross out choices that violate that rule or the evidence.
- Justify the best remaining choice before checking the answer.
🎯 Simulate dialysis and HLA crossmatching to model how patients are kept alive and matched.
- 1Read the simulation protocol in the PLTW course shell and define dialysis and crossmatch.
- 2Run the dialysis model and record how waste levels change across the session.
- 3Compare donor and recipient HLA cards and score each crossmatch as compatible or not.
- 4Flag any crossmatch that predicts rejection and explain why.
- 5Record your dialysis and matching results in the simulation data table.
- 6Submit your completed simulation results.
- • You'll be able to model how dialysis lowers blood waste.
- • You'll be able to score an HLA crossmatch and predict rejection risk.
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 Transplant matching and allocation ethics by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.3_Transplant; keywords:transplant, hla, allocation, organ. Score 158. 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 Transplant matching and allocation ethics by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.3_Transplant; keywords:transplant, allocation, organ. 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 Transplant matching and allocation ethics by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.3_Transplant; keywords:transplant, allocation, organ. Score 146. 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.
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.
Counts as one extra-credit evidence point toward your MI portfolio grade.
A model of the work to turn in. Match its structure and level of detail; do not copy it. Your data and wording should be your own.
Dialysis waste-level time series (recipient R):
- Start (0 min): urea 110 mg/dL
- 60 min: urea 78 mg/dL
- 120 min: urea 51 mg/dL
- 180 min: urea 33 mg/dL
- 240 min: urea 22 mg/dL
Reading: Dialysis pulled urea down from 110 to 22 mg/dL over four hours, modeling how the machine does the filtering the failed nephrons cannot.
HLA crossmatch scores (recipient R vs three donors):
- Donor A: 5 of 6 antigens match, no reaction in the well = COMPATIBLE
- Donor B: 3 of 6 match, weak reaction = BORDERLINE
- Donor C: 1 of 6 match, strong reaction = INCOMPATIBLE
Rejection-risk flags:
- Donor C flagged: a strong crossmatch reaction means the recipient already has antibodies against the donor tissue, so the immune system would attack the kidney quickly.
(Tip: a positive or strong crossmatch reaction is a stop sign, not a detail; it predicts fast rejection even if a few antigens match.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Records a data table showing how modeled blood-waste levels drop across a dialysis session, scores each donor-recipient HLA crossmatch as compatible or not, and flags crossmatches that predict rejection with a short reason.
- 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: turns in the completed simulation table on Schoology under today's data-table assignment.
One exam-style question for this reserve skill. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.
It builds this reusable test skill: Scoring an HLA crossmatch and predicting rejection risk.
- Name the concept or data pattern being tested.
- Cross out choices that violate that rule or the evidence.
- Justify the best remaining choice before checking the answer.
🎯 Build a compatibility table and explain how immunosuppression manages rejection.
- 1Read the rejection notes in the PLTW course shell and define rejection and immunosuppression.
- 2Build a compatibility table ranking donors for one recipient by HLA match.
- 3Explain why the immune system attacks a poorly matched organ.
- 4Describe one benefit and one risk of immunosuppression drugs.
- 5Add your compatibility table to your Unit 4 PLTW tracker evidence.
- • You'll be able to rank donors by compatibility for a recipient.
- • You'll be able to explain rejection and the trade-offs of immunosuppression.
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 Transplant matching and allocation ethics by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.3_Transplant; keywords:transplant, hla, allocation, organ. Score 158. 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 Transplant matching and allocation ethics by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.3_Transplant; keywords:transplant, allocation, organ. 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 Transplant matching and allocation ethics by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.3_Transplant; keywords:transplant, allocation, organ. Score 146. 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.
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.
Counts as one extra-credit evidence point toward your MI portfolio grade.
A model of the work to turn in. Match its structure and level of detail; do not copy it. Your data and wording should be your own.
Recipient: patient M. Donors ranked best to worst by HLA match:
- Donor 2: 6 of 6 match, crossmatch negative = rank 1 (best)
- Donor 1: 4 of 6 match, crossmatch negative = rank 2
- Donor 3: 2 of 6 match, crossmatch weak positive = rank 3 (worst)
Why a poor match is attacked (my words): Immune cells read the HLA markers on the donor kidney. When too many markers look foreign, T cells and antibodies treat the organ like an invader and attack its blood vessels and cells, which is rejection.
Immunosuppression:
- Benefit: The drugs calm the immune attack so even a good-but-not-perfect match can survive and keep filtering.
- Risk: A dialed-down immune system fights infections and some cancers less well, so the patient is more vulnerable to getting sick.
(Tip: a higher match number plus a negative crossmatch is what you want; ranking is not just the match count, the crossmatch can overrule it.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Builds a table ranking candidate donors for one recipient by HLA match score, then explains in the student's own words why a poorly matched organ is attacked and gives one benefit and one risk of immunosuppression.
- 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: turns in the compatibility table on Schoology under today's data-table assignment.
One exam-style question for this reserve skill. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.
It builds this reusable test skill: Explaining rejection and the trade-offs of immunosuppression.
- Name the concept or data pattern being tested.
- Cross out choices that violate that rule or the evidence.
- Justify the best remaining choice before checking the answer.
🎯 Write a claim-evidence-reasoning argument recommending which patient should receive a donor kidney.
- 1Review your renal data, simulation results, and compatibility table.
- 2Make a claim naming which waiting patient should receive the available kidney.
- 3Cite two pieces of evidence such as crossmatch score and urgency.
- 4Reason through why your evidence outweighs the competing patient's case.
- 5Submit your allocation CER on the class site.
- • You'll be able to recommend a recipient using a CER structure.
- • You'll be able to justify the choice with matching and urgency data.
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 Transplant matching and allocation ethics by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.3_Transplant; keywords:transplant, hla, allocation, organ. Score 158. 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 Transplant matching and allocation ethics by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.3_Transplant; keywords:transplant, allocation, organ. 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 Transplant matching and allocation ethics by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail/4.3_Transplant; keywords:transplant, allocation, organ. Score 146. 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.
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.
Counts as one extra-credit evidence point toward your MI portfolio grade.
A model of the work to turn in. Match its structure and level of detail; do not copy it. Your data and wording should be your own.
1. Decision or claim I am testing: ____
2. Evidence ID and exact observation: ____
3. Second evidence ID and exact observation: ____
4. Rule that connects the evidence to my claim: ____
5. Strongest alternative or tradeoff: ____
6. Limitation or missing evidence that controls my confidence: ____
7. Revision I would make if the missing evidence changed: ____
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: A blank structure for organizing the assigned response. It contains no claim, ranking, calculation, data interpretation, or recommendation from today's task.
- 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: turns in the allocation CER on Schoology under today's CER assignment.
One exam-style question for this reserve skill. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.
It builds this reusable test skill: Recommending a recipient using a CER structure.
- Name the concept or data pattern being tested.
- Cross out choices that violate that rule or the evidence.
- Justify the best remaining choice before checking the answer.
🎯 Argue whether emerging interventions like xenotransplantation and bionics should be pursued and who decides.
- 1Read the emerging-tech briefing in the PLTW course shell and note one promise and one risk.
- 2Pick a role: patient, bioengineer, ethicist, or regulator, and write your opening claim.
- 3Support your claim with one piece of evidence using a term like scaffold, xenotransplantation, or prosthetic.
- 4Write a rebuttal to a competing role's strongest argument.
- 5Record the class position and your personal stance with a reason.
- • You'll be able to weigh the promise and risk of an emerging intervention.
- • You'll be able to defend a stance and respond to an objection.
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).
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.
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.
Counts as one extra-credit evidence point toward your MI portfolio grade.
A model of the work to turn in. Match its structure and level of detail; do not copy it. Your data and wording should be your own.
1. Decision or claim I am testing: ____
2. Evidence ID and exact observation: ____
3. Second evidence ID and exact observation: ____
4. Rule that connects the evidence to my claim: ____
5. Strongest alternative or tradeoff: ____
6. Limitation or missing evidence that controls my confidence: ____
7. Revision I would make if the missing evidence changed: ____
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: A blank structure for organizing the assigned response. It contains no claim, ranking, calculation, data interpretation, or recommendation from today's task.
- Name the prompt or task.
- Answer it directly with the key evidence.
- Check that the response matches the requested format.
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 Schoology under today's emerging-tech debate exit-ticket assignment.
One exam-style question for this reserve skill. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.
It builds this reusable test skill: Weighing the promise and risk of an emerging intervention.
- Name the concept or data pattern being tested.
- Cross out choices that violate that rule or the evidence.
- Justify the best remaining choice before checking the answer.
🎯 Explain how scaffolds and stem cells work together to grow replacement tissue.
- 1Read the tissue-engineering notes in the PLTW course shell and define scaffold and stem cell.
- 2Diagram stem cells seeded on a scaffold growing into organized tissue.
- 3Explain why the scaffold shape guides how the new tissue forms.
- 4Name one tissue or organ scientists are trying to grow this way.
- 5Submit a labeled scaffold-and-stem-cell diagram as PLTW tracker evidence.
- • You'll be able to explain the roles of scaffolds and stem cells.
- • You'll be able to describe how scaffold shape guides tissue growth.
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).
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.
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.
Counts as one extra-credit evidence point toward your MI portfolio grade.
A model of the work to turn in. Match its structure and level of detail; do not copy it. Your data and wording should be your own.
Diagram labels, top to bottom:
- Scaffold: a porous, biodegradable mesh shaped like the tissue we want (here, a tube for a windpipe segment).
- Stem-cell seeding: undifferentiated stem cells are pipetted onto the scaffold and settle into its pores.
- Signals and nutrients: growth factors and a bioreactor bath tell the cells to divide and specialize.
- Differentiation: stem cells turn into the specific cell types the tissue needs, such as cartilage and lining cells.
- Organized tissue: cells fill the scaffold's shape while the scaffold slowly dissolves, leaving living tissue in the intended form.
Why shape matters: the scaffold is a physical template. Its tube shape guides cells to grow into a tube, so the finished tissue matches the airway it must replace.
Real application: lab-grown tracheal (windpipe) segments seeded on a scaffold.
(Tip: label the scaffold as a temporary shape guide that dissolves, not a permanent part of the finished organ.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Draw and label how stem cells seeded on a shaped scaffold grow and specialize into organized replacement tissue, and name one real organ target.
- Date and label the entry.
- Record the procedure, observation, or design decision clearly.
- End with what the evidence means and the next step.
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 Schoology under today's scaffold-and-stem-cell diagram assignment.
One exam-style question for this reserve skill. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.
It builds this reusable test skill: Describing how scaffold shape guides tissue growth.
- Name the concept or data pattern being tested.
- Cross out choices that violate that rule or the evidence.
- Justify the best remaining choice before checking the answer.
🎯 Compare xenotransplantation, bionic devices, and prosthetics as ways to replace lost function.
- 1Read the replacement-options notes in the PLTW course shell and define xenotransplantation.
- 2Compare animal organs, bionic devices, and prosthetics in a three-column table.
- 3List one advantage and one limitation for each option.
- 4Explain why rejection or rejection-like failure matters for each.
- 5Add your replacement-options comparison to your Unit 4 PLTW tracker evidence.
- • You'll be able to compare xeno, bionic, and prosthetic options.
- • You'll be able to explain a key limitation of each approach.
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).
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.
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.
Counts as one extra-credit evidence point toward your MI portfolio grade.
A model of the work to turn in. Match its structure and level of detail; do not copy it. Your data and wording should be your own.
Compare three ways to replace lost function.
- Xenotransplantation (animal organ): Advantage: a living organ can do full biological work, such as filtering blood. Limitation: the human immune system attacks non-human tissue hard, so strong anti-rejection drugs are required. Failure mode: rejection, the immune system destroys the transplanted organ.
- Bionic device (for example, a cochlear implant or bionic eye): Advantage: does not trigger immune rejection because it is not living tissue. Limitation: needs power, electronics can fail, and it interfaces imperfectly with nerves. Failure mode: rejection-like failure is scar tissue or infection forming around the implant and blocking the signal.
- Prosthetic (external limb): Advantage: no surgery inside the body and easy to repair or replace. Limitation: replaces movement but not sensation or living function. Failure mode: rejection-like failure is skin breakdown and pressure sores where the socket meets the body.
Patient note: For a patient who needs kidney function, only the xenotransplant restores the biological job; a bionic or prosthetic cannot filter blood.
(Tip: for the non-living options, describe the 'rejection-like' failure as the body walling off or breaking down at the device, not true immune rejection.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Build a three-column table comparing animal-organ transplants, bionic devices, and prosthetics on an advantage, a limitation, and how each can fail like a rejection.
- 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: turn it in on Schoology under today's replacement-options comparison assignment.
One exam-style question for this reserve skill. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.
It builds this reusable test skill: Comparing xenotransplantation, bionic, and prosthetic options.
- Name the concept or data pattern being tested.
- Cross out choices that violate that rule or the evidence.
- Justify the best remaining choice before checking the answer.
🎯 Analyze an emerging-intervention design and judge how well it restores the lost function.
- 1Open the assigned design case in the PLTW course shell and identify the function it must restore.
- 2Evaluate how well the design meets the patient's need against stated criteria.
- 3Identify one strength and one weakness in the design.
- 4Propose one improvement and explain the trade-off it introduces.
- 5Add the criterion nobody writes on a design poster: the product has to be shown free of living organisms before it goes in a person, and the only way that is shown is by trying to grow whatever is on it.
- 6Write your sterility test procedure in your notebook: what goes in each tube, every control and the job it does, incubation, and when you will read it. The simulation will not open its design screens until this is written.
- 7Open the pre-lab simulation on today's page and set the test up. Which controls exist, how the product gets into the medium, and when you plan to read are all yours and none of them can be changed once the incubator door shuts.
- 8Submit your design-analysis notes and your written test procedure as the day's evidence.
- • You'll be able to evaluate a design against function criteria.
- • You'll be able to propose an improvement and name its trade-off.
- • You'll be able to set up a sterility test with both of its controls and say what job each one does.
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).
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.
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.
Counts as one extra-credit evidence point toward your MI portfolio grade.
A model of the work to turn in. Match its structure and level of detail; do not copy it. Your data and wording should be your own.
Case: a bionic hand for a patient who lost a hand below the wrist.
Function it must restore: grip and basic object handling so the patient can hold a cup and a phone.
Criteria evaluation: The design must (1) close and open on the patient's intent, (2) grip firmly enough to hold a full cup, and (3) be light enough to wear all day. It meets criteria 1 and 3: it reads muscle signals from the forearm and weighs about 400 grams. It partly meets criterion 2: it grips a cup but slips on smooth glass.
Strength: it responds to the patient's own muscle signals, so control feels natural and needs little training (case data: 90 percent of intended grips succeeded).
Weakness: it gives no sense of touch, so the patient must watch the hand to judge grip force, which slows tasks and causes drops on slick objects.
Proposed improvement: add pressure sensors in the fingertips that buzz the forearm when grip is firm.
Trade-off: the sensors and feedback motor add weight and drain the battery faster, so all-day wear (criterion 3) gets harder.
(Tip: tie every strength and weakness to a specific criterion, not to a general 'it works well' claim.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Analyze one assigned emerging-intervention design against the function it must restore, naming a strength, a weakness, and one improvement with its trade-off.
- Date and label the entry.
- Record the procedure, observation, or design decision clearly.
- End with what the evidence means and the next step.
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 Schoology under today's design-analysis assignment.
One exam-style question for this reserve skill. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.
It builds this reusable test skill: Evaluating a design against function criteria.
- Name the concept or data pattern being tested.
- Cross out choices that violate that rule or the evidence.
- Justify the best remaining choice before checking the answer.
🎯 Write a design critique recommending whether an emerging intervention is ready for patients.
- 1Review your scaffold diagram, replacement comparison, and design-analysis notes.
- 2Reopen the pre-lab simulation and read your control tubes first, before the tubes you care about. A control that failed changes what every other tube means.
- 3Run the recovery experiment: measure how many colonies actually come off a colonized surface with a swab alone against one, three and five minutes of sonication, at least two readings per level.
- 4Make the release call and write it as a claim, evidence and reasoning. Name which control did which job and how many days into the method you were when you looked.
- 5Make a claim on whether the intervention is ready, promising, or not yet viable, using your own tube and recovery data alongside effectiveness and rejection-risk evidence.
- 6Cite two pieces of evidence on effectiveness, safety, or rejection risk.
- 7Reason through the main barrier that still must be solved.
- 8Submit your design critique on the class site.
- • You'll be able to judge readiness of an emerging intervention.
- • You'll be able to support the judgment with effectiveness and safety evidence.
- • You'll be able to read a culture result and say what a clear tube does and does not prove.
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).
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.
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.
Counts as one extra-credit evidence point toward your MI portfolio grade.
A model of the work to turn in. Match its structure and level of detail; do not copy it. Your data and wording should be your own.
1. Decision or claim I am testing: ____
2. Evidence ID and exact observation: ____
3. Second evidence ID and exact observation: ____
4. Rule that connects the evidence to my claim: ____
5. Strongest alternative or tradeoff: ____
6. Limitation or missing evidence that controls my confidence: ____
7. Revision I would make if the missing evidence changed: ____
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: A blank structure for organizing the assigned response. It contains no claim, ranking, calculation, data interpretation, or recommendation from today's task.
- 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 Schoology under today's design-critique assignment.
One exam-style question for this reserve skill. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.
It builds this reusable test skill: Judging the readiness of an emerging intervention.
- Name the concept or data pattern being tested.
- Cross out choices that violate that rule or the evidence.
- Justify the best remaining choice before checking the answer.
🎯 Argue a final bioethics question that spans the molecule-to-patient interventions of the course.
- 1Read the capstone-ethics briefing in the PLTW course shell and pick the dilemma you feel strongest about.
- 2Choose a stakeholder role and write an opening claim that connects across units.
- 3Support your claim with evidence drawn from two different course interventions.
- 4Write a rebuttal to a competing role's strongest argument.
- 5Record the class position and your personal stance with a reason.
- • You'll be able to take a position on a cross-unit bioethics dilemma.
- • You'll be able to defend it with evidence from multiple interventions.
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 Final portfolio and WebXam closeout by path:Medical-Interventions/00-Course-Planning; keywords:webxam, review. Score 134. 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 Final portfolio and WebXam closeout by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail; keywords:tracker. Score 134. 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 Final portfolio and WebXam closeout by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail; keywords:tracker. Score 134. 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.
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.
Counts as one extra-credit evidence point toward your MI portfolio grade.
A model of the work to turn in. Match its structure and level of detail; do not copy it. Your data and wording should be your own.
1. Decision or claim I am testing: ____
2. Evidence ID and exact observation: ____
3. Second evidence ID and exact observation: ____
4. Rule that connects the evidence to my claim: ____
5. Strongest alternative or tradeoff: ____
6. Limitation or missing evidence that controls my confidence: ____
7. Revision I would make if the missing evidence changed: ____
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: A blank structure for organizing the assigned response. It contains no claim, ranking, calculation, data interpretation, or recommendation from today's task.
- Name the prompt or task.
- Answer it directly with the key evidence.
- Check that the response matches the requested format.
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: turns in the final-ethics exit ticket on Schoology under the capstone debate assignment.
One exam-style question for this reserve skill. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.
It builds this reusable test skill: Drawing evidence from two different course interventions.
- Name the concept or data pattern being tested.
- Cross out choices that violate that rule or the evidence.
- Justify the best remaining choice before checking the answer.
🎯 Trace one integrated case from molecule to patient using interventions from across the course.
- 1Open the integrated case in the PLTW course shell and identify the patient's core problem.
- 2Map the case from diagnosis through molecular tools to a treatment or replacement.
- 3Name at least three course interventions the case connects.
- 4Explain how each intervention moves the patient toward a better outcome.
- 5Submit your integrated-case map as the checkpoint evidence.
- • You'll be able to connect a case from molecule to patient outcome.
- • You'll be able to name the interventions that link across units.
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 Final portfolio and WebXam closeout by path:Medical-Interventions/00-Course-Planning; keywords:webxam, review. Score 134. 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 Final portfolio and WebXam closeout by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail; keywords:tracker. Score 134. 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 Final portfolio and WebXam closeout by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail; keywords:tracker. Score 134. 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.
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.
Counts as one extra-credit evidence point toward your MI portfolio grade.
A model of the work to turn in. Match its structure and level of detail; do not copy it. Your data and wording should be your own.
Patient core problem: kidneys are failing, so waste is building up in the blood.
Map from molecule to patient:
- Diagnosis: renal lab values (high blood waste) plus HLA typing flag the failure and set up matching.
- Intervention 1, dialysis: filters waste from the blood to keep the patient stable while they wait.
- Intervention 2, HLA crossmatching: scores donor-recipient compatibility so a poorly matched organ is not transplanted.
- Intervention 3, immunosuppression: lowers the immune attack after transplant so a matched kidney is not rejected.
Outcome: the patient moves from unstable failure to a matched, medication-supported transplant.
How each moves the patient forward: dialysis buys time, crossmatching lowers rejection risk, immunosuppression protects the graft.
(Tip: label the exact tool at each arrow, not just the disease, so a reader can see the molecule-to-patient chain.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Trace one patient from diagnosis through the molecular tools that identify the problem to a treatment or replacement, labeling at least three course interventions and how each helps.
- Date and label the entry.
- Record the procedure, observation, or design decision clearly.
- End with what the evidence means and the next step.
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: turns in the integrated-case map on Schoology under the checkpoint assignment.
One exam-style question for this reserve skill. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.
It builds this reusable test skill: Naming interventions that link across units.
- Name the concept or data pattern being tested.
- Cross out choices that violate that rule or the evidence.
- Justify the best remaining choice before checking the answer.
🎯 Audit your MI portfolio against the required-evidence list and log every gap.
- 1Open your portfolio and the required-evidence checklist in the PLTW course shell.
- 2Check off each required artifact you have already submitted.
- 3List every missing or incomplete item in a gap log.
- 4Rank the gaps by how long each will take to close.
- 5Submit your portfolio audit and gap log.
- • You'll be able to verify each required artifact is present.
- • You'll be able to produce a ranked gap log for closeout.
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 Final portfolio and WebXam closeout by path:Medical-Interventions/00-Course-Planning; keywords:webxam, review. Score 134. 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 Final portfolio and WebXam closeout by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail; keywords:tracker. Score 134. 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 Final portfolio and WebXam closeout by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail; keywords:tracker. Score 134. 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.
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.
Counts as one extra-credit evidence point toward your MI portfolio grade.
A model of the work to turn in. Match its structure and level of detail; do not copy it. Your data and wording should be your own.
Artifact checklist:
- Recombinant-DNA flow diagram: present, labeled.
- Three-station data table: present, but missing the scaffold-comparison row (weak).
- Tissue-engineering comparison table: present, labeled.
- Allocation CER: missing.
- Final-ethics exit ticket: present, labeled.
Gap log, ranked by time to close:
1. Add scaffold-comparison row to the station table, about 15 minutes.
2. Write the allocation CER (claim, two evidence points, reasoning), about 45 minutes.
Confidence this audit caught every gap: 85 percent. I am least sure the station table is complete because I reused an older file and may have an unlabeled column.
(Tip: rank gaps by minutes-to-close, not by how important they feel, so you fix the fast ones first and do not run out of time.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Check each required artifact against the evidence list, mark it present, weak, or missing, and rank the gaps by how long each will take to close.
- Copy the required categories or checkpoints.
- Record the current evidence in each field.
- Mark the next action and update the tracker after new evidence arrives.
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: turns in the portfolio audit and gap log on Schoology under the portfolio-audit assignment.
One exam-style question for this reserve skill. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.
It builds this reusable test skill: Marking each artifact present, weak, or missing.
- Name the concept or data pattern being tested.
- Cross out choices that violate that rule or the evidence.
- Justify the best remaining choice before checking the answer.
🎯 Close the highest-priority gaps so your portfolio meets every requirement.
- 1Open your gap log and start with the top-ranked missing item.
- 2Complete or revise that artifact to meet the checklist standard.
- 3Work down the list, marking each gap closed as you finish.
- 4Confirm your WebXam testing status is current in the course shell.
- 5Submit your updated artifacts and an updated gap log.
- • You'll be able to close your highest-priority portfolio gaps.
- • You'll be able to confirm WebXam status before final submission.
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 Final portfolio and WebXam closeout by path:Medical-Interventions/00-Course-Planning; keywords:webxam, review. Score 134. 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 Final portfolio and WebXam closeout by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail; keywords:tracker. Score 134. 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 Final portfolio and WebXam closeout by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail; keywords:tracker. Score 134. 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.
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.
Counts as one extra-credit evidence point toward your MI portfolio grade.
A model of the work to turn in. Match its structure and level of detail; do not copy it. Your data and wording should be your own.
Starting gap log (top priority first):
1. Allocation CER: missing.
2. Scaffold-comparison row on station table: incomplete.
Work done today:
- Allocation CER: closed. Wrote a claim naming the recipient, cited crossmatch score and urgency as evidence, and reasoned why competing evidence was outweighed.
- Scaffold-comparison row: closed. Added the row with cell-growth notes and units.
Remaining open items: none in the top two; one low-priority formatting cleanup on the diagram caption still open.
WebXam testing status: confirmed current in Schoology.
Confidence the top gaps are truly closed to standard: 90 percent. The one point of doubt is whether my CER reasoning is specific enough about why urgency outweighed a slightly better match.
(Tip: close items top-down from the ranked log so the artifacts that block a complete portfolio get finished first.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Work down the ranked gap log, close the top-priority items to the checklist standard, mark each one closed, and confirm your WebXam testing status is current.
- Copy the required categories or checkpoints.
- Record the current evidence in each field.
- Mark the next action and update the tracker after new evidence arrives.
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: turns in the updated artifacts and gap log on Schoology under the gap-closeout assignment.
One exam-style question for this reserve skill. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.
It builds this reusable test skill: Closing the highest-priority missing artifact.
- Name the concept or data pattern being tested.
- Cross out choices that violate that rule or the evidence.
- Justify the best remaining choice before checking the answer.
🎯 Submit a complete, final MI portfolio that documents your molecule-to-patient learning.
- 1Review your portfolio against the checklist one final time.
- 2Confirm every required artifact is attached and labeled.
- 3Write a short reflection naming your strongest piece of evidence.
- 4Verify your gap log shows no open items.
- 5Submit your final MI portfolio on the class site.
- • You'll be able to confirm your portfolio is complete and labeled.
- • You'll be able to submit final evidence with a closing reflection.
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 Final portfolio and WebXam closeout by path:Medical-Interventions/00-Course-Planning; keywords:webxam, review. Score 134. 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 Final portfolio and WebXam closeout by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail; keywords:tracker. Score 134. 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 Final portfolio and WebXam closeout by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-4_When-Organs-Fail; keywords:tracker. Score 134. 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.
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.
Counts as one extra-credit evidence point toward your MI portfolio grade.
A model of the work to turn in. Match its structure and level of detail; do not copy it. Your data and wording should be your own.
Final check against the checklist:
- Recombinant-DNA flow diagram: attached, labeled.
- Three-station data table (all rows complete): attached, labeled.
- Tissue-engineering comparison table: attached, labeled.
- Allocation CER: attached, labeled.
- Final-ethics exit ticket and integrated-case map: attached, labeled.
Gap log: zero open items.
WebXam testing status: confirmed current.
Closing reflection: my strongest piece of evidence is the allocation CER, because it ties crossmatch data and urgency into one recommendation and shows I can reason across matching and ethics, not just recall terms.
Confidence the portfolio is complete and submission-ready: 95 percent. The remaining 5 percent is a formatting worry that one file name may not match the checklist label exactly.
(Tip: verify the gap log reads zero open items before you hit submit; a leftover open item is the most common reason a portfolio comes back.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Confirm every required artifact is attached and labeled, verify the gap log shows no open items, add a short reflection naming your strongest evidence, and submit the final portfolio.
- Copy the required categories or checkpoints.
- Record the current evidence in each field.
- Mark the next action and update the tracker after new evidence arrives.
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: turns in the final MI portfolio on Schoology under the final-portfolio assignment.
One exam-style question for this reserve skill. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.
It builds this reusable test skill: Confirming every required artifact is attached and labeled.
- Name the concept or data pattern being tested.
- Cross out choices that violate that rule or the evidence.
- Justify the best remaining choice before checking the answer.