Build the evidence board
Do now
Construct a team evidence board linking all evidence streams to a tentative conclusion.
- Hand in
- Individual notebook entry: sketch or description of your team's evidence board, the tentative cause-of-death claim, one corroborating link you found most convincing, and one gap your team could not fill.
- Where
- Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not.
You get two school days for every day you were absent, so this deadline moves with you.
When your team pins all four evidence streams to one board and draws the links between them, does the case actually converge on one , or do the arrows reveal a conflict or a gap you had not noticed?
Construct a team evidence board linking all evidence streams to a tentative conclusion.
- • I can build an evidence board that links streams.
- • I can identify gaps and conflicts in the evidence.
- In your own words, what is the difference between corroborating evidence and conflicting evidence?
- Why is an unexplained gap in the evidence a weakness even when the evidence you do have is strong?
- 1As a team, post each evidence item to the board by stream.
- 2Draw links showing how items corroborate or conflict.
- 3Flag gaps where evidence is missing or weak.
- 4Draft a tentative cause-of-death claim the board supports.
- 5Note each stream's limitations beside its evidence cluster.
What did this day actually feel like?
Build the evidence board
TEAM Best day of the semester so far. Our team put every piece of evidence on a board by stream, then drew links showing what corroborates what and what conflicts. Then we flagged the gaps.
The arguing was real. Two of us read the same tissue finding differently, and instead of one person winning we ended up drawing both interpretations on the board with a conflict marker between them. Mr. Mendoza said that was the right call, because a board that hides a disagreement is lying.
Seeing it laid out spatially did something no list had done. Two streams clearly converged. One had a hole in the middle that none of us had noticed while the evidence lived in separate notebooks.
Turned in: board photo and notebook entry → Lab Notebooks folder
Fiction. There is no such student. The lessons, labs and dates are the real planned course; the student, the classmates and the conversations are invented.
The same day, drawn.
Best day of the semester. Two of us read the same tissue finding differently, so we drew both on the board with a conflict marker between them.
MR. MENDOZA
Right call. A board that hides a disagreement is lying.
Fiction. There is no such student. The lessons, labs and dates are the real planned course; the student, the classmates and the conversations are invented.
🛠 Get unstuck · pick your level
🔑 Today's words · 5
Tap a word in the lesson for a plain meaning and one example. Recycled into next week's Do-Now.
Do the work · 80-minute blockfirst 5 min = hook▸
💡 Big idea: An evidence board makes an investigation's logic visible so that converging evidence and dangerous gaps both stand out, because a conclusion is only as strong as the gap it cannot yet explain.
- 0:00Distribute planning sheets from Tuesday; assign team roles (evidence organizer, link drawer, gap-flagging, scribe)
- 0:10Post all evidence items by stream (sticky notes, index cards, or shared digital board)
- 0:28Draw linking arrows: green = corroborates, red = conflicts; annotate conflicts with a question mark
- 0:48Flag gaps; note each stream's key limitation beside its cluster
- 1:02Draft and post tentative cause-of-death claim; team reaches consensus or notes dissent
- 1:05Gallery walk: teams briefly view two other boards; note one strength and one gap in each
- 1:15Return to own board; revise if needed; preview Thursday report writing
- • Today your team builds the evidence board. Think of it as the physical representation of your argument. Every piece of evidence gets a spot, and every link between pieces gets drawn.
- • Real detectives and scientists use evidence boards because they make the structure of the argument visible. You can see whether your evidence is converging on one conclusion or scattering in three directions.
- • When you find a conflict, do not hide it. Flag it. A board that shows one conflict with a resolution note is stronger than a board that pretends the conflict does not exist.
- • By the end of class you will have a tentative cause-of-death claim posted on the board. Tomorrow you turn that claim into a full written CER report.
- • Corroborating evidence is when two independent streams point to the same conclusion; conflicting evidence is when streams disagree and must be reconciled or acknowledged.
- • Evidence gaps are as important to document as evidence present; an unexplained gap is a weakness in any conclusion.
- • A tentative cause-of-death claim at this stage is a working hypothesis, not a final verdict; it is refined as gaps are addressed.
Unit 1.3 Open Investigation: Virtual/open case investigation; synthesize scene, lab, suspect, and autopsy evidence. · Build the evidence board
Day 3 of this lesson. Open this exact section in myPLTW (find it in Clever, Microsoft sign-in), then do the work below.
Do this: In myPLTW, record your team's tentative cause-of-death claim and the number of corroborating and conflicting evidence links in the Lesson 1.3 Open Investigation activity.
Mark the Lesson 1.3 evidence-board task started in myPLTW.
You completed the planning task Tuesday. Today the board should be complete with a tentative claim posted before the gallery walk.
Photo of the completed evidence board submitted to the tracker, plus myPLTW entry with the tentative claim.
The official PLTW activity stays inside myPLTW. If myPLTW will not open, use F1 and E1-E3 on this page to complete today's local evidence decision, then make up the official activity when access returns. Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not.
Check things off as you work, then submit. This tells Mr. Mendoza how you're doing so he can help the class. It does not replace turning in your producible through the submission route shown below.
Use the code Mr. Mendoza gave you, not your name. Saved on this device.
Unit 1.3 Open Investigation: Virtual/open case investigation; synthesize scene, lab, suspect, and autopsy evidence. · Build the evidence board
In myPLTW, record your team's tentative cause-of-death claim and the number of corroborating and conflicting evidence links in the Lesson 1.3 Open Investigation activity.
You completed the planning task Tuesday. Today the board should be complete with a tentative claim posted before the gallery walk.
This is how Mr. Mendoza sees the class keeping pace with PLTW. Be honest, it only helps if it is accurate.
🎯 Construct a team evidence board linking all evidence streams to a tentative conclusion.
- As a team, post each evidence item to the board by stream.
- Draw links showing how items corroborate or conflict.
- Flag gaps where evidence is missing or weak.
- Draft a tentative cause-of-death claim the board supports.
- Note each stream's limitations beside its evidence cluster.
Notebook check: Individual notebook entry: sketch or description of your team's evidence board, the tentative cause-of-death claim, one corroborating link you found most convincing, and one gap your team could not fill.
Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not. Use the checklist just below and upload by 11:29 PM for full credit. Absent with an excused absence? You get two school days for every day you were absent, so this deadline moves with you.
| Task | Who |
|---|---|
| As a team, post each evidence item to the board by stream. | _______ |
| Draw links showing how items corroborate or conflict. | _______ |
| Flag gaps where evidence is missing or weak. | _______ |
| Draft a tentative cause-of-death claim the board supports. | _______ |
| Note each stream's limitations beside its evidence cluster. | _______ |
Working solo? Put your own name in "Who" for every row.
- I can build an evidence board that links streams.
- I can identify gaps and conflicts in the evidence.
- 1Do thisConstruct a team evidence board linking all evidence streams to a tentative conclusion.
- 2Use this resource
- 3Submit thisNotebook check: Individual notebook entry: sketch or description of your team's evidence board, the tentative cause-of-death claim, one corroborating link you found most convincing, and one gap your team could not fill.
- 4Submit it here
- 1Open the drop folder.
- 2Sign in with your district Microsoft account, not a personal one.
- 3Upload the file, named Lastname_Firstname__Assignment Title.
- 4Your own upload panel says Uploaded with a green check: that is your receipt.
Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not. Principles of Biomedical Technology (Principles of Biomedical Science) › Unit 1.3 Open Investigation: Virtual/open case investigation; synthesize scene, lab, suspect, and autopsy evidence. › Notebook checkOpen the drop folder
Learn it · deck, reading, and vocabulary▸
The deck carries the prior idea forward, lets you inspect an analogy, maps the rule to biology, and ends with the same evidence decision and exit ticket used on this page.
Generated from this lesson's canonical data with a red-team citation check.
You weight each evidence stream by how it was collected, because a controlled test with an unbroken earns more trust than an uncontrolled or interested account, and your report is only as strong as that weighting.
An evidence board makes an investigation's logic visible so that converging evidence and dangerous gaps both stand out, because a conclusion is only as strong as the gap it cannot yet explain.
A detective board holds observations, possible explanations, and one next question.
- Which notes are direct observations?
- Which notes are explanations?
- What new evidence would separate the explanations?
Keep observations separate from explanations, then collect the evidence that can distinguish the options.
Biomedical investigations use controlled procedures and validated measurements, not intuition alone.
- • Board notes map to E1-E3.
- • Possible explanations map to the decision options.
- • The next question maps to the evidence-based action.
Driving question: When your team pins all four evidence streams to one board and draws the links between them, does the case actually converge on one , or do the arrows reveal a conflict or a gap you had not noticed?
What you already know: You weight each evidence stream by how it was collected, because a controlled test with an unbroken earns more trust than an uncontrolled or interested account, and your report is only as strong as that weighting.
New idea: An evidence board makes an investigation's logic visible so that converging evidence and dangerous gaps both stand out, because a conclusion is only as strong as the gap it cannot yet explain.
Visual or model: F1. F1. A lesson illustration or teaching diagram for Build the evidence board. Use it with E1-E3; it is a model or context image, not experimental or patient data. What to notice: Trace the labeled observation or evidence sequence before choosing an explanation.
- Observe or measure the relevant feature in Build the evidence board.
- Organize the observation with a stable evidence ID.
- Apply this rule: Keep observations separate from explanations, then collect the evidence that can distinguish the options.
- Choose the option the evidence supports and state the limit of the conclusion.
Real biomedical example: When your team pins all four evidence streams to one board and draws the links between them, does the case actually converge on one , or do the arrows reveal a conflict or a gap you had not noticed?
What the evidence supports: E1-E3 and F1 support the daily take-home when the response meets the stated success criteria.
What it cannot prove: The package does not support claims beyond this lesson's or any real patient diagnosis.
- • synthesis: Building a molecule in the cell, as in synthesis (making a protein from mRNA).
- • : A formal written document presenting the evidence, methods, and conclusions of a scientific investigation, often used to support legal cases.
- • limitation: A weakness or boundary of a study, design, or method that restricts how far its results can be trusted or applied.
- • reliability: The degree to which a measurement, method, or person produces the same dependable result each time under the same conditions.
- • : Evidence given in court by a qualified specialist who explains technical findings, such as DNA or results, to help the jury understand.
- • conclusion: The closing part of an investigation where you state whether the evidence supported your hypothesis and explain what the results mean.
Use it now: Choose one decision option. Cite E1 and E3, then explain how the rule connects the evidence to your choice.
Go further, optional: The source links below are optional enrichment. Every fact required for today's local evidence decision appears in this lesson package.
Corroborating evidence is when two independent streams point to the same conclusion; conflicting evidence is when streams disagree and must be reconciled or acknowledged.
Limit: E1 supplies context or an observation; it does not by itself establish the explanation.
An evidence board makes an investigation's logic visible so that converging evidence and dangerous gaps both stand out, because a conclusion is only as strong as the gap it cannot yet explain.
Limit: E2 is a teaching statement or comparison and must be checked against the task evidence.
I can build an evidence board that links streams.
Limit: E3 supports only the result or product criterion named here; it cannot justify a broader clinical or causal claim.
PLTW-PBT-2026-10-01 · Simulated classroom evidence scenario
Your role: biomedical investigator
Decision: Your team must decide what the evidence from Build the evidence board supports before submitting the notebook record named on the lesson page.
- • Choose the strongest supported explanation.
- • Choose the next evidence to collect.
- • Hold the decision because the evidence is insufficient.
Response: State one choice, cite at least two evidence IDs, explain the rule that connects them, and add one limitation. Submit it as the notebook record.
Claim ceiling: The supplied lesson evidence can support an observation, pattern, classroom mechanism, or next-step decision about Build the evidence board. It cannot by itself prove causation, establish a real clinical diagnosis, or justify action outside this classroom task.
Reason for review: Your team must decide what the evidence from Build the evidence board supports before submitting the notebook record named on the lesson page.
Context: Laying an investigation out visually exposes both where independent evidence converges and where the gaps are, because a claim is only as strong as the holes it cannot fill.
- • T1: As a team, post each evidence item to the board by stream.
- • T2: Draw links showing how items corroborate or conflict.
- • T3: Flag gaps where evidence is missing or weak.
- • T4: Draft a tentative cause-of-death claim the board supports.
- • T5: Note each stream's limitations beside its evidence cluster.
- • E1: Corroborating evidence is when two independent streams point to the same conclusion; conflicting evidence is when streams disagree and must be reconciled or acknowledged.
- • E2: An evidence board makes an investigation's logic visible so that converging evidence and dangerous gaps both stand out, because a conclusion is only as strong as the gap it cannot yet explain.
- • E3: I can build an evidence board that links streams.
Measurements: No patient measurement is supplied unless it appears explicitly in E1-E3 or F1. Do not invent a value.
Figure finding: Teaching diagram for Build the evidence board. Trace the labeled observation or evidence sequence before choosing an explanation. This is a teaching model, not patient or experimental data.
Uncertainty: This is a composite classroom scenario. Missing history, measurements, or confirmation tests remain unknown and limit the conclusion.
Students often think Students often think the goal of the evidence board is to display everything they found, so more items pinned up feels like a stronger case.. The trap: That is a trap, because a board full of items with an unexplained gap between them is weaker than a smaller set that links cleanly; documenting where evidence is missing or conflicts is as important as showing what is present, since an unaddressed gap can collapse the whole conclusion.
Evidence board entry (Andre, Period 4):
Tentative claim: The most likely cause of death is poisoning by a toxic substance.
Most convincing corroborating link: The lab toxicology data and the autopsy histology both point to the same organ damage, and these are two independent streams agreeing.
Conflict noted: The suspect interview suggested a different timeline than the scene photos, which we flagged to reconcile.
Gap we could not fill: We have no confirmed source for the toxic substance, so the claim stays tentative until that gap is addressed.
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: An individual notebook entry describing the team's evidence board, the tentative cause-of-death claim, the most convincing corroborating link, and one gap the team could not fill.
- 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: Upload the evidence board photo and your notebook entry to the tracker before leaving.
- CER:
- Claim, Evidence, Reasoning: make a claim, back it with evidence, explain your reasoning.
- SOP:
- Standard Operating Procedure, the exact steps to follow (especially in a lab).
- Tracker:
- Your PLTW progress log where you record completed evidence.
- myPLTW:
- The PLTW course site where you do the online activities. Find it in Clever with your Microsoft sign-in, right next to Schoology.
Tap the speaker to hear a term. Add two of these to your notebook glossary with a definition and an example in your own words.
Pick just 2 or 3 words from today and make them yours: write what each one means in your own words, name the context clue or evidence that helped, then give one example from what you actually did in Build the evidence board. Try your own words first; the glossary is there if you get stuck. This is voluntary and counts as extra credit, so keep it short.
Saved on this device. Show Mr. Mendoza or add these to your notebook glossary to claim the extra credit.
Hand-picked readings and interactives for this lesson, from authoritative open organizations and PLTW's own public course outline.
Check yourself · commit, then reveal▸
Claim ceiling for this check: The supplied lesson evidence can support an observation, pattern, classroom mechanism, or next-step decision about Build the evidence board. It cannot by itself prove causation, establish a real clinical diagnosis, or justify action outside this classroom task.
Your board shows scene, lab, and autopsy all pointing to the same cause of death, but there is no toxicology result posted at all. Is your tentative claim ready to treat as final? Explain what the empty toxicology space means.
Write an answer and pick a confidence to unlock the key.
Fast retrieval with instant answers, not the commit-then-reveal check above. Try each from memory first: write what you remember about the earlier units, then check yourself here.
Go further and get help▸
What today's skills lead to. These are real health-science careers this course builds toward. Tap one to see, on the US Department of Labor's O*NET site, what the job actually involves, what it pays, and how fast it is growing.
With your team, build a shared digital evidence board mapping scene, lab, suspect, and evidence to a tentative conclusion, marking gaps and limitations.
NN/g: Card SortingThen submit your Notebook check. 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.
Class still runs. Complete the online activity above (it's self-guided). Need the concept taught without a teacher? Use this authoritative explainer:
Khan Academy Biology Library- CompleteEvery required part of the artifact is present, nothing left blank.
- AccurateThe science and the data are correct and match the evidence.
- Scientific reasoningYou explain your claim with evidence and reasoning (CER), not just an answer.
- Professional communicationClear, organized, labeled, and written the way a clinician or scientist would.
- SubmittedTurned in the right way, on the class site or handed to Mr. Mendoza in class, and confirmed. Not in Schoology: that is where the report-card grade appears later.