Prototype evaluation CER
Do now
Students write a CER evaluating prototype performance and proposing a design iteration.
- Hand in
- CER stating whether the prototype met its design goal, citing averaged trial data and variable-control evidence, explaining design strengths and flaws, proposing a specific iteration with a predicted result, and stating test-data limitations.
- 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.
Students write a CER evaluating prototype performance and proposing a design iteration.
Students write a CER evaluating prototype performance and proposing a design iteration.
- • Write a CER evaluating prototype performance with trial data.
- • Propose a specific iteration and state one limitation.
- What do you already know about Prototype evaluation CER?
- What would you need to find out to answer today's question?
- 1State a claim about whether the prototype met its design goal.
- 2Cite trial data and variable control as evidence.
- 3Explain reasoning that links the data to the design's strengths and flaws.
- 4Propose one iteration to improve performance.
- 5Identify assumptions and limitations in the test data.
What did this day actually feel like?
Prototype evaluation CER
A CER on whether the prototype met its design goal, citing averaged trial data, explaining strengths and flaws, and proposing the next iteration.
He was explicit that a CER reporting only success is incomplete. Our prototype partly met its goal and failed on one measure, and writing both, with a specific proposed change, is the assignment. The honest version is more useful than the flattering one, which by now is the most repeated idea in this class.
Turned in: CER → Claim Evidence Reasoning folder
Fiction. There is no such student. The lessons, labs and dates are the real planned course; the student, the classmates and the conversations are invented.
The same day, drawn.
Ours partly met its goal and failed on one measure. Writing both, with a specific proposed change, is the assignment.
Fiction. There is no such student. The lessons, labs and dates are the real planned course; the student, the classmates and the conversations are invented.
🛠 Get unstuck · pick your level
Do the work · 80-minute blockfirst 5 min = hook▸
💡 Big idea: Evaluating a prototype honestly, including its failures, is what drives the next iteration: a CER that only reports success is incomplete.
- 0-8 minReview Wednesday : confirm average performance and trial variability.
- 8-20 minWrite the claim: one sentence stating whether the prototype met its design goal.
- 20-42 minWrite evidence: cite average trial data, controlled variables, and one variability observation.
- 42-58 minWrite reasoning: link data to design strengths and flaws.
- 58-70 minWrite the iteration proposal (one variable to change, predicted outcome) and test-data limitations.
- 70-80 min: confirm claim addresses the design goal, data is cited specifically, iteration predicts a result.
- • You collected the data Wednesday; now you write the formal argument about what it means for the device design.
- • The claim must address the design goal directly: did the prototype meet the specification or not?
- • The iteration you propose is the most practically valuable part of this CER: it says what you would do next.
- • Your limitation should explain why the Wednesday data might not generalize to a real clinical use case.
- • A prototype evaluation CER claim states whether the device met the specified design goal, not whether it was 'good.'
- • Trial data is the primary evidence: average performance and trial-to-trial variability both belong in the evidence section.
- • An iteration proposal changes one variable based on the data; it should predict what the next trial result will be.
Innovation, Inc.: designing and testing a biomedical device · Prototype evaluation CER
Day 4 of this lesson. Open this exact section in myPLTW (find it in Clever, Microsoft sign-in), then do the work below.
Do this: Open myPLTW and find the Lesson 4.1 Designing the Future prototype evaluation or CER activity to use as a writing scaffold.
Submit any platform prompts before shifting to independent CER writing.
Platform prompts done in first 10 minutes; full CER submitted before end of period.
Submitted CER on the class site, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class is the primary evidence.
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.
Innovation, Inc.: designing and testing a biomedical device · Prototype evaluation CER
Open myPLTW and find the Lesson 4.1 Designing the Future prototype evaluation or CER activity to use as a writing scaffold.
Platform prompts done in first 10 minutes; full CER submitted before end of period.
This is how Mr. Mendoza sees the class keeping pace with PLTW. Be honest, it only helps if it is accurate.
🎯 Students write a CER evaluating prototype performance and proposing a design iteration.
- State a claim about whether the prototype met its design goal.
- Cite trial data and variable control as evidence.
- Explain reasoning that links the data to the design's strengths and flaws.
- Propose one iteration to improve performance.
- Identify assumptions and limitations in the test data.
CER: CER stating whether the prototype met its design goal, citing averaged trial data and variable-control evidence, explaining design strengths and flaws, proposing a specific iteration with a predicted result, and stating test-data limitations.
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 |
|---|---|
| State a claim about whether the prototype met its design goal. | _______ |
| Cite trial data and variable control as evidence. | _______ |
| Explain reasoning that links the data to the design's strengths and flaws. | _______ |
| Propose one iteration to improve performance. | _______ |
| Identify assumptions and limitations in the test data. | _______ |
Working solo? Put your own name in "Who" for every row.
- Write a CER evaluating prototype performance with trial data.
- Propose a specific iteration and state one limitation.
- 1Do thisStudents write a CER evaluating prototype performance and proposing a design iteration.
- 2Use this resource
- 3Submit thisCER: CER stating whether the prototype met its design goal, citing averaged trial data and variable-control evidence, explaining design strengths and flaws, proposing a specific iteration with a predicted result, and stating test-data limitations.
- 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) › Innovation, Inc.: designing and testing a biomedical device › CEROpen the drop folder
Learn it · deck, reading, and vocabulary▸
The deck carries the prior idea forward, lets you inspect an analogy, maps the rule to biology, and ends with the same evidence decision and exit ticket used on this page.
Generated from this lesson's canonical data with a red-team citation check.
Performance data only means something if you controlled the variables and ran enough trials: one trial is a measurement, three trials are evidence.
Evaluating a prototype honestly, including its failures, is what drives the next iteration: a CER that only reports success is incomplete.
A bridge prototype is tested against a load limit, cost limit, and user need before revision.
- Which requirement is a criterion?
- Which limit is a constraint?
- What test result should trigger a redesign?
A design improves when evidence is compared with explicit criteria and constraints.
Biomedical designs also require , ethics, and biological validation beyond a physical prototype test.
- • Bridge requirements map to design criteria.
- • Load results map to E1-E3.
- • Revision maps to the next evidence-based iteration.
Driving question: Students write a CER evaluating prototype performance and proposing a design iteration.
What you already know: Performance data only means something if you controlled the variables and ran enough trials: one trial is a measurement, three trials are evidence.
New idea: Evaluating a prototype honestly, including its failures, is what drives the next iteration: a CER that only reports success is incomplete.
Visual or model: F1. F1. A lesson illustration or teaching diagram for Prototype evaluation CER. 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 Prototype evaluation CER.
- Organize the observation with a stable evidence ID.
- Apply this rule: A design improves when evidence is compared with explicit criteria and constraints.
- Choose the option the evidence supports and state the limit of the conclusion.
Real biomedical example: Students write a CER evaluating prototype performance and proposing a design iteration.
What the evidence supports: E1-E3 and F1 support the daily take-home when the response meets the stated success criteria.
What it cannot prove: The package does not support claims beyond this lesson's or any real patient diagnosis.
Use it now: Choose one decision option. Cite E1 and E3, then explain how the rule connects the evidence to your choice.
Go further, optional: The source links below are optional enrichment. Every fact required for today's local evidence decision appears in this lesson package.
A prototype evaluation CER claim states whether the device met the specified design goal, not whether it was 'good.'.
Limit: E1 supplies context or an observation; it does not by itself establish the explanation.
Evaluating a prototype honestly, including its failures, is what drives the next iteration: a CER that only reports success is incomplete.
Limit: E2 is a teaching statement or comparison and must be checked against the task evidence.
Write a CER evaluating prototype performance with trial data.
Limit: E3 supports only the result or product criterion named here; it cannot justify a broader clinical or causal claim.
PLTW-PBT-2026-12-11 · Simulated classroom evidence scenario
Your role: biomedical investigator
Decision: Your team must decide what the evidence from Prototype evaluation CER supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning response named on the lesson page.
- • Keep the current design.
- • Revise the feature that misses a criterion.
- • Run one more fair test before choosing.
Response: State one choice, cite at least two evidence IDs, explain the rule that connects them, and add one limitation. Submit it as the claim-evidence-reasoning response.
Claim ceiling: The supplied lesson evidence can support an observation, pattern, classroom mechanism, or next-step decision about Prototype evaluation CER. 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 Prototype evaluation CER supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning response named on the lesson page.
Context: Students write a CER evaluating prototype performance and proposing a design iteration.
- • T1: State a claim about whether the prototype met its design goal.
- • T2: Cite trial data and variable control as evidence.
- • T3: Explain reasoning that links the data to the design's strengths and flaws.
- • T4: Propose one iteration to improve performance.
- • T5: Identify assumptions and limitations in the test data.
- • E1: A prototype evaluation CER claim states whether the device met the specified design goal, not whether it was 'good.'.
- • E2: Evaluating a prototype honestly, including its failures, is what drives the next iteration: a CER that only reports success is incomplete.
- • E3: Write a CER evaluating prototype performance with trial data.
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 Prototype evaluation CER. 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.
- • The solution must address the stated need in Prototype evaluation CER.
- • The decision must be supported by E1-E3.
- • The final product must make the success criteria visible.
- • Complete the work inside the 80-minute block.
- • Use only supplied or teacher-approved materials and evidence.
- • Do not trade , accessibility, or privacy for speed.
- • and evidence quality: must pass before scoring other criteria.
- • User need and effectiveness: highest scored criterion.
- • Time, cost, and ease of use: compare only after and effectiveness pass.
Test evidence: For each option, record the E1-E3 result that supports or fails each criterion. Do not assign a score without a named observation.
- Version or option tested
- Criterion met or missed
- Evidence ID and result
- Revision made
- Reason for the revision
- Need and user
- Criteria and constraints
- Chosen option and evidence
- Test result
- Revision and reason
Claim: The prototype did not fully meet its design goal. The goal was a flow rate of at least 12 mL/min, and the prototype averaged 11.3 mL/min.
Evidence: Across three trials the flow rates were 11.0, 11.6, and 11.3 mL/min, for an average of 11.3. Variability was small (a 0.6 mL/min spread), so the result is consistent, just below target. Controlled variables (liquid, volume, temperature) were held constant, so pore size was the cause of the flow rate.
Reasoning: A consistent 11.3 average that sits below the 12 goal tells us the design is close but the pore size is slightly too restrictive. The low trial-to-trial spread means the shortfall is real, not random noise.
Iteration proposal (one variable): increase the pore size by one step, holding everything else constant. Prediction: flow rate should rise above 12 mL/min, likely around 12 to 13, because a larger pore lets more liquid through per minute.
Assumptions and limitations: Only three trials were run, so the average could shift with more data. The hand-started stopwatch adds small timing error. Both are reasons to re-test after the iteration rather than assume success.
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Completes the prototype argument: a CER stating whether the device met its goal, citing averaged trial data, proposing a specific iteration with a predicted result, and stating limitations.
- 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 CER on the class site, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class before end of period.
- 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.
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 Prototype evaluation CER. It cannot by itself prove causation, establish a real clinical diagnosis, or justify action outside this classroom task.
Go further and get help▸
What today's skills lead to. These are real health-science careers this course builds toward. Tap one to see, on the US Department of Labor's O*NET site, what the job actually involves, what it pays, and how fast it is growing.
Today is individual work you can do from home: complete the same target above, then submit your CER.
Open the drop folderTurn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not.
Class still runs. Complete the online activity above (it's self-guided). Need the concept taught without a teacher? Use this authoritative explainer:
PhET: simulations for engineering and physical testingYou've passed Unit 2, so the optional extra-credit track is open. Complete reserved-unit work from home, including virtual labs, for extra credit. Each item shows its correct submission route.
Open the extra-credit track- CompleteEvery required part of the artifact is present, nothing left blank.
- AccurateThe science and the data are correct and match the evidence.
- Scientific reasoningYou explain your claim with evidence and reasoning (CER), not just an answer.
- Professional communicationClear, organized, labeled, and written the way a clinician or scientist would.
- SubmittedTurned in the right way, on the class site or handed to Mr. Mendoza in class, and confirmed. Not in Schoology: that is where the report-card grade appears later.