Innovation pitch CER
Do now
Students write a CER that frames their final innovation pitch as an evidence-based recommendation.
- Hand in
- Synthesis CER naming the health problem and innovation, citing evidence from at least two prior units and the story-map, explaining disease-prevention reasoning, recommending a specific next development step, and stating assumptions and 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 that frames their final innovation pitch as an evidence-based recommendation.
Students write a CER that frames their final innovation pitch as an evidence-based recommendation.
- • Write a CER framing the innovation with synthesized evidence.
- • Recommend next steps and state at least one limitation.
- What do you already know about Innovation pitch CER?
- What would you need to find out to answer today's question?
- 1State a claim that the proposed innovation addresses the health problem.
- 2Cite synthesized evidence from earlier units and the story-map.
- 3Explain reasoning that links the innovation to disease prevention.
- 4Recommend next steps for development and testing.
- 5Identify assumptions and limitations of the proposal.
What did this day actually feel like?
Innovation pitch CER and final submission
Last day. A synthesis CER naming the health problem and our innovation, citing evidence from two prior units and the story-map, and reasoning through how the innovation connects to disease prevention. Then everything gets compiled and submitted.
He told us a pitch CER is not a sales pitch. It is an argument that the thing is worth pursuing, and it has to survive someone who does not want to be convinced. That is the same standard as the very first CER in August, applied to something twenty times larger.
Then we retook the WebXam practice test we took cold on August 28. I will not pretend the number was spectacular, but it was not close to the same test I sat in week one. He showed us both scores side by side and said the gap is the semester.
Turned in: capstone package and final tracker → recorded in Class Records
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: A pitch CER is not a sales pitch: it is a reasoned argument that the innovation is worth pursuing, backed by evidence from multiple units and a clear set of next steps.
- 0-8 minReview Wednesday innovation brief and story-map; identify two strongest cross-unit evidence points.
- 8-20 minWrite the claim: name the health problem and the proposed innovation in one sentence.
- 20-42 minWrite evidence: cite at least two prior-unit findings and the story-map as separate evidence points.
- 42-58 minWrite reasoning: link each evidence point to the disease-prevention mechanism of the innovation.
- 58-70 minWrite next-steps recommendation and add assumptions and limitations.
- 70-80 min: confirm claim names both problem and innovation, two units are cited, is specific.
- • You built the innovation concept and story-map Wednesday; today you write the individual argument that makes the case for your team's idea.
- • The synthesis CER is the most complex writing task in this unit: it asks you to connect evidence across multiple units.
- • Cite specific findings from prior units by name, not just vaguely reference 'earlier in the course.'
- • Your next-steps recommendation should be concrete enough that someone could actually do it.
- • A synthesis CER claim must name both the health problem addressed and the innovation proposed in one sentence.
- • Synthesized evidence draws from at least two prior units: cite the unit and the specific finding, not just a general statement.
- • Next steps in an innovation CER name a specific development or testing action, not a general direction like 'more research.'
Innovation Synthesis: new frontiers and your final medical-innovation pitch · Innovation pitch 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 Lessons 4.2 and 4.3 innovation pitch 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 synthesis 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 Synthesis: new frontiers and your final medical-innovation pitch · Innovation pitch CER
Open myPLTW and find the Lessons 4.2 and 4.3 innovation pitch or CER activity to use as a writing scaffold.
Platform prompts done in first 10 minutes; full synthesis 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 that frames their final innovation pitch as an evidence-based recommendation.
- State a claim that the proposed innovation addresses the health problem.
- Cite synthesized evidence from earlier units and the story-map.
- Explain reasoning that links the innovation to disease prevention.
- Recommend next steps for development and testing.
- Identify assumptions and limitations of the proposal.
CER: Synthesis CER naming the health problem and innovation, citing evidence from at least two prior units and the story-map, explaining disease-prevention reasoning, recommending a specific next development step, and stating assumptions and 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 that the proposed innovation addresses the health problem. | _______ |
| Cite synthesized evidence from earlier units and the story-map. | _______ |
| Explain reasoning that links the innovation to disease prevention. | _______ |
| Recommend next steps for development and testing. | _______ |
| Identify assumptions and limitations of the proposal. | _______ |
Working solo? Put your own name in "Who" for every row.
- Write a CER framing the innovation with synthesized evidence.
- Recommend next steps and state at least one limitation.
- 1Do thisStudents write a CER that frames their final innovation pitch as an evidence-based recommendation.
- 2Use this resource
- 3Submit thisCER: Synthesis CER naming the health problem and innovation, citing evidence from at least two prior units and the story-map, explaining disease-prevention reasoning, recommending a specific next development step, and stating assumptions and 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 Synthesis: new frontiers and your final medical-innovation pitch › 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.
Synthesis means connecting evidence across units into one coherent argument: your innovation concept is only as strong as the prior-unit evidence it draws from.
A pitch CER is not a sales pitch: it is a reasoned argument that the innovation is worth pursuing, backed by evidence from multiple units and a clear set of next steps.
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: Students write a CER that frames their final innovation pitch as an evidence-based recommendation.
What you already know: Synthesis means connecting evidence across units into one coherent argument: your innovation concept is only as strong as the prior-unit evidence it draws from.
New idea: A pitch CER is not a sales pitch: it is a reasoned argument that the innovation is worth pursuing, backed by evidence from multiple units and a clear set of next steps.
Visual or model: F1. F1. A lesson illustration or teaching diagram for Innovation pitch 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 Innovation pitch CER.
- 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: Students write a CER that frames their final innovation pitch as an evidence-based recommendation.
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 synthesis CER claim must name both the health problem addressed and the innovation proposed in one sentence.
Limit: E1 supplies context or an observation; it does not by itself establish the explanation.
A pitch CER is not a sales pitch: it is a reasoned argument that the innovation is worth pursuing, backed by evidence from multiple units and a clear set of next steps.
Limit: E2 is a teaching statement or comparison and must be checked against the task evidence.
Write a CER framing the innovation with synthesized evidence.
Limit: E3 supports only the result or product criterion named here; it cannot justify a broader clinical or causal claim.
PLTW-PBT-2026-12-18 · Simulated classroom evidence scenario
Your role: biomedical investigator
Decision: Your team must decide what the evidence from Innovation pitch CER supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning response 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 claim-evidence-reasoning response.
Claim ceiling: The supplied lesson evidence can support an observation, pattern, classroom mechanism, or next-step decision about Innovation pitch 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 Innovation pitch CER supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning response named on the lesson page.
Context: Students write a CER that frames their final innovation pitch as an evidence-based recommendation.
- • T1: State a claim that the proposed innovation addresses the health problem.
- • T2: Cite synthesized evidence from earlier units and the story-map.
- • T3: Explain reasoning that links the innovation to disease prevention.
- • T4: Recommend next steps for development and testing.
- • T5: Identify assumptions and limitations of the proposal.
- • E1: A synthesis CER claim must name both the health problem addressed and the innovation proposed in one sentence.
- • E2: A pitch CER is not a sales pitch: it is a reasoned argument that the innovation is worth pursuing, backed by evidence from multiple units and a clear set of next steps.
- • E3: Write a CER framing the innovation with synthesized evidence.
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 Innovation pitch 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 Innovation pitch 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: A portable early-screening kit, routed by a GIS story-map to the highest-need blocks, would reduce delayed infection diagnoses in our target neighborhood.
Evidence: From the Infection unit, rapid antigen screening detects disease earlier and lowers onward spread. From the Outbreak unit, mapping case locations shows that cases cluster, so screening is not needed evenly everywhere. Our story-map's access layer shows that a quarter of households sit farthest from a clinic and overlap the historical clusters.
Reasoning: Earlier detection prevents disease by interrupting spread before an outbreak grows. Because the evidence shows both that early screening helps and that need is geographically uneven, routing a portable kit to the highest-cluster, lowest-access blocks should catch cases sooner than spreading the same resource evenly. The two units support different halves of the claim, and the story-map ties them to a place.
Recommended next step: build one kit prototype and pilot it on the two highest-cluster blocks, measuring time-to-diagnosis against a clinic-only baseline.
Assumptions and limitations: we assume the historical clusters still hold and that households will use a nearby kit; both need checking in the pilot. Our access data came from one source, so the estimate may be off. These are reasons to pilot and re-measure, not to deploy citywide yet.
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Completes the synthesis argument: a CER naming the problem and innovation, citing evidence from two prior units and the story-map, explaining disease-prevention reasoning, recommending a next step, and stating limits.
- 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 Innovation pitch 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:
NIBIB: biomedical engineering science topics and new frontiersYou'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.