Coating ratio CER
Open your materials, follow the steps, then turn in your work.
Design your own ratio trial, then write a CER recommending a coating ratio against the five-to-six-minute window.
1. Open your materials
2. Start the work
State the target precisely: intact through the stomach phase, then fully separated from the coverslip between five and six minutes.
Show all 6 required steps
- State the target precisely: intact through the stomach phase, then fully separated from the coverslip between five and six minutes.
- Choose which polymer ratios you will test and how many, and write down why.
- Write your operational definition of fully separated before you run anything, and how you will time it.
- Decide whether you will repeat each ratio, and how many times.
- Run the trials and record on the data sheet.
- Write the CER: your recommended ratio, the data that supports it, and the reasoning that connects them.
Lost your place? Reopen today's Coating ratio CER record. Find the last completed evidence ID, check it against the claim ceiling, and continue with the first unfinished step rather than restarting the whole task.
Check your work before submitting
- Change one variable at a time so a result can be attributed to the ratio.
- Recommend a ratio against the window, not against the fastest time.
3. Turn in your work
DueCheck Schoology- 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.
How to submit and name your file
Use the submission route shown on today's today's page.
In Schoology, open your course and the assignment for this lesson. Attach your file, select Submit, and check that it appears in the submission.
PDF upload helpYou get two school days for every day you were absent, so this deadline moves with you.
How this lesson connects
Keep using what you learned last class: An interval you skipped is data you cannot get back, so the discipline of the interval is what makes the run usable. Today: A biomedical design advances when test evidence is compared with explicit user needs, criteria, constraints, risks, and failure modes, then used to justify a documented revision.
Check you have the right sheet: the top of it prints today's portal day, Coating ratio CER. The PLTW activity itself is in myPLTW and is not posted here.
Optional: listen or watch a unit review▸
Need help? Warm-up, timing, and directions▸
💡 Big idea: A biomedical design advances when test evidence is compared with explicit user needs, criteria, constraints, risks, and failure modes, then used to justify a documented revision.
- 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.
PLTW connection and today's work
Open myPLTW and find Lesson 4.1 Designing the Future, Activity 4.1.5 Drug Design Lab Part II, and use its analysis prompts as a writing scaffold.
Today's stopping point: Platform prompts done in first 10 minutes; full CER submitted before end of period.
PLTW activity titles identify the course connection. If your account will not open, use the posted materials for today and tell Mr. Mendoza. Do not mark an online activity complete unless you completed it.
Use the turn-in directions at the top of this page. Do not create a second submission unless your teacher asks for one.
Show another explanation or a smaller first step
Need help? Choose a starting point
Lesson resources: reading, slides, 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.
An interval you skipped is data you cannot get back, so the discipline of the interval is what makes the run usable.
A biomedical design advances when test evidence is compared with explicit user needs, criteria, constraints, risks, and failure modes, then used to justify a documented revision.
An engineering team tests one prototype feature at a time against a written criterion and records each failure before revising.
- Which criterion is being tested?
- What stays controlled between trials?
- Which result justifies a specific revision?
A useful prototype test links a controlled trial to a measurable criterion and turns the result into a documented revision decision.
A classroom test can reveal a design weakness without establishing clinical , effectiveness, durability, or regulatory readiness.
- • The written criterion maps to the pass condition.
- • Repeated controlled trials map to test evidence.
- • The revision log maps to the next design change and its rationale.
Driving question: Design your own ratio trial, then write a CER recommending a coating ratio against the five-to-six-minute window.
What you already know: An interval you skipped is data you cannot get back, so the discipline of the interval is what makes the run usable.
New idea: A biomedical design advances when test evidence is compared with explicit user needs, criteria, constraints, risks, and failure modes, then used to justify a documented revision.
Visual or model: F1. F1. A lesson illustration or teaching diagram for Coating ratio 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 coating ratio CER.
- Organize the observation with a stable evidence ID.
- Apply this rule: A useful prototype test links a controlled trial to a measurable criterion and turns the result into a documented revision decision.
- Choose the option the evidence supports and state the limit of the conclusion.
Real biomedical example: Today the biomedical investigation team uses Coating ratio CER to make a bounded evidence decision. A classroom prototype, , presentation, or does not establish clinical , effectiveness, manufacturing quality, or regulatory clearance.
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.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration is the source this lesson's claim is checked against: Design Controls
Limit: A classroom prototype, , presentation, or does not establish clinical , effectiveness, manufacturing quality, or regulatory clearance.
A useful prototype test links a controlled trial to a measurable criterion and turns the result into a documented revision decision.
Limit: A classroom test can reveal a design weakness without establishing clinical , effectiveness, durability, or regulatory readiness.
Change one variable at a time so a result can be attributed to the ratio.
Limit: E3 defines the classroom product or success criterion. It is not independent scientific evidence and cannot justify a clinical or causal claim.
PLTW-PBT-2026-12-17 · Simulated classroom evidence scenario
Your role: biomedical investigator
Decision: Your team must decide what the evidence from coating ratio CER supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning response named on today's page.
- • Recommend the device for real patients if it meets the criteria in class, since that is what a successful test means.
- • Collect the missing failure-mode data before proposing an iteration, since the trials never tested how this device fails.
- • Judge the prototype against the trial data and the stated criteria, then propose the one iteration that evidence supports.
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: Today's evidence supports a classroom claim about coating ratio CER. It cannot prove causation, diagnose a real patient, or justify action outside this room.
Reason for review: Your team must decide what the evidence from coating ratio CER supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning response named on today's page.
Context: Today the biomedical investigation team uses Coating ratio CER to make a bounded evidence decision. A classroom prototype, , presentation, or does not establish clinical , effectiveness, manufacturing quality, or regulatory clearance.
- • T1: State the target precisely: intact through the stomach phase, then fully separated from the coverslip between five and six minutes.
- • T2: Choose which polymer ratios you will test and how many, and write down why.
- • T3: Write your of fully separated before you run anything, and how you will time it.
- • T4: Decide whether you will repeat each ratio, and how many times.
- • T5: Run the trials and record on the data sheet.
- • T6: Write the CER: your recommended ratio, the data that supports it, and the reasoning that connects them.
- • E1: U.S. Food and Drug Administration is the source this lesson's claim is checked against: Design Controls
- • E2: A useful prototype test links a controlled trial to a measurable criterion and turns the result into a documented revision decision.
- • E3: Change one variable at a time so a result can be attributed to the ratio.
Measurements: Use only the measurements, units, graph, or counts supplied in today's task. No additional patient measurement is implied.
Figure finding: Teaching diagram for Coating ratio 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.
Mean = sum of values / number of values. Median = middle ordered value. Range = maximum - minimum.
For 2, 4, 4, and 10: mean = 20 / 4 = 5, median = 4, and range = 10 - 2 = 8.
Mean, median, and range keep the measurement unit. Order the values before finding the median.
Calculate the requested summary for today's supplied values, then write what it reveals and what it hides.
- • The solution must address the stated need in coating ratio 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
Students often think A polished answer about Coating ratio CER is trustworthy even when its evidence source, comparison, or limitation is missing.. The trap: Presentation quality cannot raise the evidence level. A classroom prototype, , presentation, or does not establish clinical , effectiveness, manufacturing quality, or regulatory clearance.
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 CER on Schoology 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.
Play the cold open at the start of the unit to set the scene. Each recording is AI-generated and simulated (fictional callers, no real people or student data).
Hand-picked readings and interactives for this lesson, from authoritative open organizations and PLTW's own public course outline.
Practice: try a question, then check your answer▸
Claim ceiling for this check: Today's evidence supports a classroom claim about coating ratio CER. It cannot prove causation, diagnose a real patient, or justify action outside this room.
A student makes a certain conclusion about Coating ratio CER from one classroom result. What must the student add before the conclusion is defensible?
Write an answer and pick a confidence to unlock the key.
Missed class or ready for more?▸
Run this before you touch the bench. It is built from the real lab procedure, so the decisions you make here are the ones you will make with the equipment in your hands.
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.
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.
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.
- SubmittedGo 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.
This week
My Progress dashboard