Why these are optional: the WebXam weighs them least, so they move here to keep every tested unit in class. Doing them is a real way to go deeper and earn extra credit, never a penalty if you skip them.
Optional extra-credit units
These units are not on the in-class calendar or any in-class test. They unlock once the class finishes Unit 2, then stay open for the rest of the term so you can go further for extra credit on your own schedule. You will know they are open when an Extra Credit section appears at the bottom of your daily lesson pages. Every hands-on step has a virtual lab. Finished work goes to the same place as everything else: the drop folder, or handed in during class.
HBS, Adventure Medicine
🎯 Students will 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.
Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not.
Completing reserve-unit days earns extra-credit points; see the course syllabus for point values.
Open the drop folderA 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.
Role: emergency physician.
Position: A climber may accept high personal risk above 8,000 meters, but a rescue team should not be legally required to enter conditions that would likely kill the rescuers.
Reason: Above the altitude where oxygen pressure drops too low, the body cannot keep blood oxygen high enough to think clearly or move safely, so a rescuer sent up is at real risk of the same collapse as the climber.
Tradeoff: This protects rescuers, but it means some injured climbers will be left in places no one can safely reach, so respecting one person's freedom can cost another person their chance at rescue.
Rebuttal to the adventurer group: They argued a climber who signs a waiver has fully taken on the risk, but a waiver does not remove the danger a rescue attempt puts on other people, so personal choice does not settle who is obligated to respond.
(Tip: a strong stance names who carries the risk, not just how big the risk is.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: States a defended position on how much medical risk is acceptable for adventurers in extreme environments, citing one physiological or ethical reason and naming one honest tradeoff between freedom and safety.
- 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 the class site, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class.
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.
🎯 Students will 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.
Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not.
Completing reserve-unit days earns extra-credit points; see the course syllabus for point values.
Open the drop folderA 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 the class site, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class.
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.
🎯 Students will 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.
Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not.
Completing reserve-unit days earns extra-credit points; see the course syllabus for point values.
Open the drop folderA 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 the class site, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class.
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.
🎯 Students will 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.
Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not.
Completing reserve-unit days earns extra-credit points; see the course syllabus for point values.
Open the drop folderA 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.
Claim: Antiviral B was the most effective treatment against the virus.
Evidence: Across three wells per condition, the untreated virus control averaged 48 plaques. Antiviral A averaged 22 plaques (54% reduction) and Antiviral B averaged 12 plaques (75% reduction). The no-virus control averaged 0 plaques, which confirms the assay was not contaminated.
Reasoning: Each plaque marks about one infectious virus particle, so fewer plaques means fewer viruses got through to infect cells. Antiviral B left the fewest plaques, so it inhibited the virus the most. The 0-plaque control rules out contamination, so the drop is a real drug effect and not a plating error.
Limitation: Only three wells were run per condition, and plaques were counted by eye, so overlapping plaques could be undercounted; more wells and a second counter would make the comparison stronger.
(Tip: always cite your control in the evidence; the 0-plaque control is what proves the reduction came from the drug.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Completes a claim-evidence-reasoning argument judging which antiviral was most effective, citing two averaged plaque counts with percent reduction, connecting lower counts to viral inhibition, and naming one limitation of the assay.
- 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 the class site, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class.
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.
🎯 Students will 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.
Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not.
Completing reserve-unit days earns extra-credit points; see the course syllabus for point values.
Open the drop folderA 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 the class site, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class.
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.
HBS, Patient Perspectives
🎯 Students will 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.
Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not.
Completing reserve-unit days earns extra-credit points; see the course syllabus for point values.
Open the drop folderA 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.
Position: When two patients need the one available kidney, I would prioritize the patient with the best tissue-match score and lowest predicted rejection risk.
- Criterion I chose: match quality, because a poorly matched organ is more likely to be rejected and wasted.
- Patient A: match score 5 of 6 antigens, on dialysis 14 months.
- Patient B: match score 2 of 6 antigens, on dialysis 30 months.
- I would give the kidney to Patient A even though Patient B waited longer.
Tradeoff I am naming honestly: prioritizing match quality can push long-waiting patients like Patient B further down the list, which feels unfair to someone who has waited years.
My one-sentence reason: a well-matched organ is more likely to survive and help the patient long term, so match quality does the most good with a scarce resource.
(Tip: a strong position admits what its own rule costs; that is the tradeoff, not a weakness in your argument.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Takes a written stance on how a scarce kidney or dialysis slot should be prioritized among patients, backs it with one criterion, and names one honest tradeoff.
- 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 the class site, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class.
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.
🎯 Students will 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.
Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not.
Completing reserve-unit days earns extra-credit points; see the course syllabus for point values.
Open the drop folderA 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 the class site, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class.
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.
🎯 Students will 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.
Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not.
Completing reserve-unit days earns extra-credit points; see the course syllabus for point values.
Open the drop folderA 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 the class site, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class.
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.
🎯 Students will 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.
Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not.
Completing reserve-unit days earns extra-credit points; see the course syllabus for point values.
Open the drop folderA 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 the class site, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class.
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.
🎯 Students will 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.
Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not.
Completing reserve-unit days earns extra-credit points; see the course syllabus for point values.
Open the drop folderA 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 the class site, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class.
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.