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.
Human Body Systems runs 57 class days at John Hay and PLTW writes the course for 160, so four days had to come off the calendar to give four denser lessons a full block each. These four are what moved: three unit-opening ethics debates and the revision half of the rehabilitation plan project. The pack opens once you finish the rehabilitation plan project on 5 March, because item 4 revises the plan you build that day, and it stays open to the last week of the semester. Read the cover sheet first. It is honest about the state exam: all four of these score zero on it, which is exactly why they were the ones that moved, and it says why they are still worth your time.
Start here: the extra credit cover sheetWhat came off the calendar, what took its place, and what each item costs you in time. It also carries the honest note about the state exam: all four score zero against it, and it says why that is a fact about one test rather than about the work.PDF · 3 pages · 200 KBOpenEvery item here is written work you can do at home. Nothing needs a bench, a partner, or a lab. 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. Item 4 needs the rehabilitation plan you built on 5 March, so find that before you start it. The point value is announced when the pack opens.
🎯 Debate how much medical risk is acceptable for adventurers in extreme environments.
- 1Read a scenario on high-altitude or deep-sea expeditions.
- 2Form groups for adventurers, physicians, and rescuers.
- 3List two arguments about acceptable risk and responsibility.
- 4Respond to one opposing group's claim.
- 5Write your position with one supporting reason.
- • Each student defends a stance on acceptable risk.
- • Groups identify one tradeoff between freedom and safety.
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.
Completing reserve-unit days earns extra-credit points; see the course syllabus for point values.
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: Submit your risk-debate exit ticket 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: Reasoning about physiological risk in an extreme environment.
- 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 pathogen transmission and antiviral action using teacher notes and the PLTW online task.
- 1Take notes on transmission routes and viral replication.
- 2Define plaque assay and antiviral mechanism.
- 3Complete the PLTW online transmission-modeling activity.
- 4Diagram how an antiviral interrupts viral spread.
- 5Write one question about antiviral resistance.
- • Transmission routes are correctly identified.
- • PLTW online task is submitted complete.
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.
Completing reserve-unit days earns extra-credit points; see the course syllabus for point values.
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.
Transmission routes noted: respiratory droplets, contaminated water, and direct contact.
Viral replication cycle (annotated):
- Attachment: virus binds a receptor on the host cell surface.
- Entry: viral genetic material gets inside the cell.
- Replication: the cell is forced to copy viral genes and build viral proteins.
- Assembly: new virus particles are put together.
- Release: new viruses leave to infect more cells.
Antiviral intervention point: I labeled the Replication step, because a drug that blocks viral copying stops new particles from ever being built.
Definitions (my own words):
- Plaque assay: a lab test that grows virus on a lawn of cells and counts the clear holes (plaques) where virus killed cells; each plaque marks roughly one infectious virus particle, so counting plaques measures how much infectious virus is present.
- Antiviral mechanism: a drug that interrupts one step of the viral cycle, such as blocking entry or blocking replication, so the virus cannot spread from cell to cell.
My resistance question: If a virus mutates the protein the antiviral targets, how many copies of the cycle does it take before the drug stops working?
(Tip: label the exact step your antiviral blocks; an antiviral works on one step, not the whole cycle at once.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Presents an annotated viral replication diagram with the antiviral intervention point marked, plus plain-language definitions of a plaque assay and of how an antiviral works.
- 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: Submit your transmission-and-antiviral notebook 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: Diagramming how an antiviral interrupts viral spread.
- 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.
🎯 Perform an antiviral plaque assay and an eye dissection to connect structure, infection, and treatment.
- 1Review plaque-assay setup and dissection safety.
- 2Apply antiviral treatments to plated samples.
- 3Count and record plaque numbers per condition.
- 4Dissect the eye and identify major structures.
- 5Record observations linking structure to function.
- • Plaque counts are recorded for every condition.
- • Eye structures are correctly identified and labeled.
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.
Completing reserve-unit days earns extra-credit points; see the course syllabus for point values.
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.
Part 1: Antiviral plaque assay
Setup: each condition plated in 3 wells on a cell lawn; plaque counts averaged.
- No-virus control: 0, 0, 0 -> average 0 plaques (confirms the plates were not contaminated).
- Untreated virus control: 50, 46, 48 -> average 48 plaques.
- Antiviral A: 24, 20, 22 -> average 22 plaques. Percent reduction = (48 - 22) / 48 = 54%.
- Antiviral B: 10, 14, 12 -> average 12 plaques. Percent reduction = (48 - 12) / 48 = 75%.
Reading: Antiviral B cut infectious virus the most (75% fewer plaques than untreated).
Measurement-error source: plaques were counted by eye, and two plaques that overlap can be miscounted as one, which undercounts the virus.
Part 2: Eye dissection
Structures identified and labeled: cornea, iris, pupil, lens, retina, optic nerve.
Structure to function: the lens focuses light onto the retina, and the retina turns that light into signals the optic nerve carries to the brain.
Structure vulnerable to viral infection: the cornea, because it is the exposed outer surface and viruses such as herpes simplex can infect it and cloud vision.
(Tip: always run a no-virus control; the 0 count is what proves the plaques you counted came from the virus, not contamination.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Reports plaque counts for each antiviral condition with percent reduction calculated against an untreated control, then adds a labeled eye-structure diagram noting one structure that a virus can infect.
- State the question and method.
- Present the observations and data with units.
- Explain the result, limitations, and next investigation.
Keep the structure. Replace the question, facts, measurements, and evidence. Then recheck units, vocabulary, and whether the conclusion goes beyond the evidence.
Also due today: Submit your plaque-assay and eye-dissection lab report 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: Counting plaques and calculating percent reduction per antiviral condition.
- 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 plaque-assay data and write a CER about antiviral effectiveness.
- 1Graph plaque counts across treatment conditions.
- 2Make a claim about which antiviral was most effective.
- 3Cite two data points as evidence.
- 4Add reasoning connecting plaque count to viral inhibition.
- 5Note one limitation of the assay.
- • CER includes claim, evidence, and reasoning.
- • Reasoning links lower plaque counts to inhibition.
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.
Completing reserve-unit days earns extra-credit points; see the course syllabus for point values.
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: Submit your antiviral CER 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: Reasoning that lower plaque counts mean greater viral inhibition.
- 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 their adventure-medicine evidence and update the unit tracker.
- 1Compile your plaque data, dissection notes, and CER.
- 2Check each artifact against the rubric.
- 3Upload all evidence to the submission folder.
- 4Update the progress tracker.
- 5Reflect on one risk-medicine concept you learned.
- • All artifacts are submitted and tracker updated.
- • Reflection names one mastered concept and one to revisit.
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.
Completing reserve-unit days earns extra-credit points; see the course syllabus for point values.
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.
Evidence checklist (against rubric):
- Plaque-count data table with percent reduction: Submitted. Rubric check: has control, three wells per condition, percent reduction shown.
- Labeled eye-dissection diagram: Submitted. Rubric check: cornea, iris, pupil, lens, retina, optic nerve labeled; one virus-vulnerable structure noted.
- Antiviral CER: Submitted. Rubric check: claim, two evidence entries with percent reduction, reasoning linking low counts to inhibition, one limitation.
Upload location: all three files uploaded to the Adventure Medicine submission folder; tracker marked complete.
Reflection:
- Concept I mastered: I can now read a plaque assay and turn plaque counts into percent reduction to compare antivirals.
- Concept to revisit: how antiviral resistance develops when the virus mutates the drug's target, since I still had an open question about it.
(Tip: check each artifact against the rubric before you upload; a missing control or unlabeled structure is easier to fix now than after the deadline.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Confirms submission status for the plaque data table, eye dissection diagram, and antiviral CER against the rubric, then adds a reflection naming one risk-medicine concept mastered and one to revisit.
- 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 completed Adventure Medicine tracker and all three evidence files 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: Checking evidence against the rubric before submission.
- 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.
🎯 Debate how kidneys and dialysis access should be prioritized among patients.
- 1Read short profiles of patients with kidney failure.
- 2Form groups representing a renal care committee.
- 3List two criteria for allocating transplants or dialysis.
- 4Respond to one opposing group's criterion.
- 5Write your position with one supporting reason.
- • Each student defends an allocation criterion.
- • Groups name one tradeoff in prioritizing patients.
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.
Completing reserve-unit days earns extra-credit points; see the course syllabus for point values.
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: Submit your written position 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: Weighing criteria for allocating a transplant or dialysis slot.
- 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 nephron filtration and digestion using teacher notes and the PLTW online task.
- 1Take notes on nephron structure and filtration steps.
- 2Define urinalysis and explain electrophoresis for PKD genetics.
- 3Complete the PLTW online filtration-and-digestion activity.
- 4Diagram enzyme action and the role of the microbiome.
- 5Write one question about kidney or digestive function.
- • Nephron filtration steps are correctly ordered.
- • PLTW online task is submitted complete.
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.
Completing reserve-unit days earns extra-credit points; see the course syllabus for point values.
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.
Filtration path through the nephron (in order):
- Blood enters the glomerulus, where high pressure pushes water and small solutes into the tubule (filtration).
- Filtrate moves into the proximal tubule, where glucose, most water, and salts are reabsorbed into the blood.
- The loop of Henle concentrates the filtrate by pulling out water and salt.
- The distal tubule fine-tunes salt and water balance.
- The collecting duct sends the finished urine toward the bladder.
Key terms in my own words:
- Urinalysis: a test that reads what is in the urine (protein, glucose, blood, pH) to check how the kidney is filtering.
- Gel electrophoresis: a method that sorts DNA fragments by size in a gel so PKD genetic markers show up as bands.
Enzyme action in digestion:
- The enzyme amylase acts on starch and breaks it into smaller sugars; the enzyme is reused, the starch is the substrate.
My question: if the glomerulus is damaged, why does protein start showing up in the urine when it normally stays in the blood?
(Tip: filtration is passive and driven by pressure at the glomerulus, while reabsorption is selective and happens down the tubule; keep those two steps separate.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Orders the nephron filtration steps in a labeled diagram, defines urinalysis and gel electrophoresis, and shows enzyme action in digestion.
- 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: Submit your notes and diagram 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: Ordering the nephron filtration steps.
- 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.
🎯 Run urinalysis and enzyme-digestion labs to connect filtration and digestion to health.
- 1Review safe handling of simulated urine and enzymes.
- 2Perform urinalysis and record indicator results.
- 3Run an enzyme-digestion test and observe substrate breakdown.
- 4Run gel electrophoresis to interpret PKD genetic markers.
- 5Tabulate results across the renal and digestive tests.
- • Urinalysis and enzyme results are both recorded.
- • Electrophoresis bands are interpreted for PKD markers.
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.
Completing reserve-unit days earns extra-credit points; see the course syllabus for point values.
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.
Urinalysis results (simulated patient sample), with normal range:
- Glucose: negative | normal range: negative. Result normal.
- Protein: 2+ (about 100 mg/dL) | normal range: negative to trace (under 15 mg/dL). Result high, a sign of failing filtration.
- pH: 6.0 | normal range: 4.5 to 8.0. Result normal.
- Blood: trace | normal range: negative. Result slightly high.
- Specific gravity: 1.012 | normal range: 1.005 to 1.030. Result normal.
Enzyme-digestion test:
- Tube with amylase + starch: iodine stayed amber (starch broken down). Digestion occurred.
- Control tube, no amylase: iodine turned blue-black (starch remained). No digestion.
Gel electrophoresis, PKD markers:
- Patient lane showed a band at the affected-allele position that matched the PKD1 marker lane.
- Interpretation: the band pattern is consistent with a PKD1 variant linked to polycystic kidney disease.
What the table shows together: high urine protein plus a PKD1 band pattern points to kidney filtration that is being damaged by polycystic kidney disease.
(Tip: always read each urinalysis value against its normal range; a number means nothing until you say whether it is inside or outside normal.)
| Test | Result | Normal range | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|
| Urine glucose | negative | negative | normal |
| Urine protein | 2+ (~100 mg/dL) | negative to trace (<15 mg/dL) | high, failing filtration |
| Urine pH | 6.0 | 4.5 to 8.0 | normal |
| Urine blood | trace | negative | slightly high |
| Specific gravity | 1.012 | 1.005 to 1.030 | normal |
| Amylase + starch | starch broken down | n/a | digestion occurred |
| PKD1 gel band | band at affected-allele position | n/a | consistent with PKD1 variant |
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Records urinalysis dipstick readings against a normal range, notes enzyme-digestion results, and interprets electrophoresis bands for PKD markers in one combined table.
- Name the variables and include units.
- Enter observations without changing the raw values.
- Check labels, calculations, and patterns before interpreting the data.
Keep the structure. Replace the question, facts, measurements, and evidence. Then recheck units, vocabulary, and whether the conclusion goes beyond the evidence.
Also due today: Submit your combined lab data table 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: Interpreting urinalysis dipstick results against a normal range.
- 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.
🎯 Synthesize their lab evidence into a patient-perspective exhibit as a project team.
- 1Review your urinalysis, enzyme, and genetics results.
- 2As a team, choose a patient story to anchor the exhibit.
- 3Connect each lab result to the patient experience.
- 4Draft exhibit panels with claim, evidence, and reasoning.
- 5Assign each member a panel to finalize.
- • Exhibit links lab evidence to a patient narrative.
- • Each team member owns a completed panel.
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.
Completing reserve-unit days earns extra-credit points; see the course syllabus for point values.
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 narrative (one sentence): Marisol is 34, tired and swollen for months, and just learned she has polycystic kidney disease that is slowly damaging her kidneys.
Panel 1, Urinalysis (CER):
- Claim: Marisol's kidneys are leaking protein.
- Evidence: her urine protein read 2+ (about 100 mg/dL) versus a normal range of negative to trace.
- Reasoning: healthy filtration keeps protein in the blood, so protein in the urine means the glomerulus is damaged.
Panel 2, Enzyme digestion (CER):
- Claim: Marisol's digestion still works, so her fatigue is not a digestive-enzyme problem.
- Evidence: her amylase tube broke down starch (iodine stayed amber) while the control did not.
- Reasoning: normal enzyme activity points the cause of her symptoms back to the kidneys, not the gut.
Panel 3, PKD genetics (CER):
- Claim: Marisol's kidney damage has a genetic cause.
- Evidence: her gel showed a band matching the PKD1 marker.
- Reasoning: a PKD1 variant causes cysts that slowly crush working nephrons, which explains the protein in her urine.
Panel assignments:
- Panel 1 Urinalysis: Jordan.
- Panel 2 Enzyme digestion: Alex.
- Panel 3 PKD genetics: Priya.
- Narrative and layout: whole team.
(Tip: keep the same patient at the center of every panel so the exhibit tells one story instead of three separate lab reports.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Drafts a patient-perspective exhibit outline that ties each lab result to a patient's story in claim-evidence-reasoning panels and assigns each teammate a panel.
- 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: Submit your exhibit outline 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: Connecting a lab result to the patient experience in a CER panel.
- 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 their patient-perspective exhibit and update the unit tracker.
- 1Compile your lab data, genetics interpretation, and exhibit panels.
- 2Check each artifact against the rubric.
- 3Upload all evidence to the submission folder.
- 4Update the progress tracker.
- 5Reflect on how the labs changed your view of the patient.
- • All artifacts are submitted and tracker updated.
- • Reflection connects evidence to a patient perspective.
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.
Completing reserve-unit days earns extra-credit points; see the course syllabus for point values.
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.
Weekly tracker, Patient Perspectives evidence:
- Renal and digestive lab data table: submitted, meets rubric.
- Nephron filtration diagram: submitted, meets rubric.
- Patient exhibit panels (urinalysis, enzyme, PKD): submitted, one panel still needs a citation.
- Rubric self-check: 3 of 4 rows at target, exhibit panel needs the PKD1 source added.
- Fix plan: add the PKD1 marker source to Panel 3 tonight, then re-upload.
Reflection: Before the labs I thought kidney failure was just one number on a chart. After running the urinalysis and seeing Marisol's protein at 2+ next to a PKD1 band, I understood that her tiredness and swelling are the visible side of nephrons being slowly destroyed. The data made the patient real, not just a case.
(Tip: mark an artifact submitted only after you have checked it against the rubric, not just uploaded it, so your tracker reflects real readiness.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Marks the submission status of each Patient Perspectives artifact on the weekly tracker and adds a reflection on how the labs changed the student's view of the patient.
- 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 updated tracker and reflection 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: Checking each artifact against the rubric before marking it submitted.
- 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.