Why these are here: the calendar could not fit every unit at full depth, so these carry an extra-credit track on top of class time. They are NOT low-weight on the exam. Several of them feed the outcomes the WebXam weighs most, so treat the extra credit as a bonus for going deeper, not as a sign this material is optional to learn.
Optional extra-credit units
Many of these units DO appear on the in-class calendar and are taught on a dated day; the extra credit is for the additional work on top of that. Each track opens partway through the term and then stays open for the rest of it, so you can go further on your own schedule; the section below says when your course's pack opens. Every hands-on step has a virtual lab. Finished work goes to the same place as everything else: your class form, or handed to Mr. Mendoza in class.
Unit 4 has eleven pieces of PLTW material and seven class days. Two are taught in class. These are the other nine. Pick any of them, in any order, and turn one in any day once the pack opens. Start with the cover sheet: it carries the rules, the semester point cap, and how each item is graded.
Start here: the extra credit cover sheetThe rules, the semester cap, how to submit, and all nine items ranked by whether they help you on the WebXam. Read this before you pick one.PDF · 6 pages · 200 KBOpenAnything hands-on in this pack happens at school, in the lab, with Mr. Mendoza there. Finished work goes the same place as everything else: your class form, or handed in person. Put your name and period on every page and every photo.
🎯 Separate a drug's active from its inactive ingredients and explain why a pill must survive the stomach and open in the small intestine.
- 1Map the GI tract and name four accessory organs and what each contributes.
- 2Place stomach and small intestine on the pH scale and state which is acidic.
- 3Predict, in writing, what an uncoated tablet does in stomach acid before you watch the demonstration.
- 4Compare your prediction against the demonstration and record what differed.
- 5Name the two coating polymers and what cross-linking does to each.
- • State why absorption, not digestion, is the target and which organ does it.
- • Read the pH scale in the correct direction: a lower number means more acid.
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.
A 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.
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.
- 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: Hand in your exit-ticket card, or turn it in on Schoology under today's exit-ticket.
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: Reading the pH scale and naming where an oral drug is absorbed.
- 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.
🎯 Record the coating procedure, the protective equipment it requires, and the handling and disposal rules, before any solution is opened.
- 1Copy the Part I procedure into the notebook in your own numbered steps.
- 2List every material and mark which ones need goggles, gloves, or a fume-free bench.
- 3Locate the kit safety data sheet and record the hazard for the simulated stomach fluid and for the shellac preparation.
- 4Write the disposal rule for each solution and where the waste container is.
- 5State the one step where a burn is possible and how you will avoid it.
- • Produce a procedure you could follow without the screen.
- • Name every hazard and its control before the lab, not after.
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.
A 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.
My own numbered procedure (Part I), written so I could run it with the screen off:
- 1. Goggles on, bench cleared, waste container open and labeled before anything is poured.
- 2. Mass out the sodium alginate and dissolve it in the stated volume of water. Stir until no grains are left on the bottom.
- 3. Prepare the shellac solution in a separate beaker. Cap it between pours.
- 4. Coat the artificial pill by dipping, then let it set for the stated time before the second dip.
- 5. Bring the simulated stomach fluid to the stated temperature in the water bath. Move the beaker with forceps.
- 6. Put the coated pill in, start the timer, and record what I see every 30 seconds.
- 7. Transfer to the simulated intestinal fluid, keep the same 30-second interval, and record until the coating comes off.
- 8. Pour every solution into the waste container, rinse the glassware, wipe the bench, wash hands.
Materials, and the protective equipment each one needs:
- Sodium alginate solution: goggles, gloves.
- Shellac preparation: goggles, gloves, and kept away from the hot plate because it is alcohol based.
- Simulated stomach fluid: goggles and gloves, and it stays in the spill tray so a knock stays in the tray.
- Water bath or hot plate: goggles, and forceps for anything warm.
- Balance, graduated cylinder, beakers, stirring rods, coverslips, timer: no extra equipment, but goggles stay on because the bench is shared.
From the kit safety data sheet, read before the first mixing step and not after:
- Simulated stomach fluid: acidic, a skin and eye irritant. First aid is to rinse with running water and tell Mr. Mendoza straight away.
- Shellac preparation: flammable, alcohol based. Keep it capped and off any heat source.
Disposal, solution by solution:
- Simulated stomach fluid: designated waste container, not the sink.
- Simulated intestinal fluid: designated waste container.
- Leftover alginate and shellac: designated waste container. Coated pills and used coverslips go in the solid waste the teacher points out, not the classroom bin.
- The line I wrote in capitals at the bottom of the page: NOTHING GOES DOWN THE SINK UNLESS MR. MENDOZA SAYS SO.
The one step where a burn is possible: step 5, moving the beaker into and out of the water bath. My control is forceps rather than fingers, and the beaker lands on the heat-proof mat, not on the bench.
Why I wrote all of this out instead of skipping to the lab: handling, preparation, storage and disposal is just under 54 percent of this exam. This page is not the part before the lab. It is the part the test asks about.
| Material | Hazard | Protective equipment | Disposal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sodium alginate solution | Irritant if splashed | Goggles, gloves | Designated waste container |
| Shellac preparation | Flammable, alcohol based | Goggles, gloves, kept off heat | Designated waste container |
| Simulated stomach fluid | Acidic, skin and eye irritant | Goggles, gloves, spill tray | Designated waste container |
| Water bath or hot plate | Burn hazard | Forceps, heat-proof mat | Not applicable |
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Completes the preparation task: the Part I procedure rewritten in the student's own numbered steps, a materials list marked for protective equipment, the hazards pulled from the kit safety data sheet, the disposal rule for each solution, and the one step where a burn is possible.
- 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: Complete the assigned PLTW online activity for the drug design lab, then keep your notes for Wednesday's coating lab.
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: Finding the hazard, first-aid, and disposal rules for a specific solution before a procedure starts.
- 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.
🎯 Coat and test artificial pills, recording observations at fixed thirty-second intervals through both simulated environments.
- 1Put on goggles and confirm the bench is clear and the waste container is open.
- 2Prepare the polymer solutions and coat the pills exactly as the procedure directs.
- 3Place a coated pill in the simulated stomach environment and start the timer.
- 4Record what you observe every thirty seconds. Do not skip an interval and do not round the times.
- 5Move the pill to the simulated intestinal environment and keep the same interval.
- 6Write one sentence on what the practice run taught you about how the coating fails.
- • Produce an unbroken thirty-second observation record for both environments.
- • State one limitation of judging dissolution by eye.
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.
A 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.
Setup recorded before I started: goggles on, bench clear, waste container open, timer at zero, both fluids at the stated temperature.
Variables:
- Independent variable: which fluid the pill was sitting in (simulated stomach, then simulated intestinal).
- Dependent variable: the condition of the coating at each 30-second check.
- Controlled variables: same pill, same number of coating dips, same fluid volume (50 mL), same temperature, same observer for the whole run.
Stomach phase, 0:00 to 4:00:
- 0:30 coating smooth, no color change, no bubbles.
- 1:00 surface slightly cloudy, still sealed.
- 1:30 cloudy, no cracks.
- 2:00 no change from 1:30.
- 2:30 one faint line along the top edge, coating still holding.
- 3:00 same faint line, nothing lifting.
- 3:30 no change.
- 4:00 coating intact. Pill moved to the intestinal fluid at 4:00.
Intestinal phase, 4:00 onward, timer left running:
- 4:30 edges softening.
- 5:00 first small piece lifts off the coverslip.
- 5:30 about a third of the surface has lifted.
- 6:00 most of the coating is off, one thin patch still attached.
- 6:30 fully separated. Recorded 6:30 as the separation time for this practice run.
What the practice run taught me about how the coating fails: it did not split open all at once. It softened first, then lifted in pieces, so the moment I call 'separated' depends on the definition I use.
Limitation of judging separation by eye: 'fully separated' is a judgement, not a reading off an instrument. My 6:30 could be someone else's 6:00. That is why the operational definition has to be written down before Part II, and why one person should score a whole run.
One more note to myself: I nearly skipped the 2:00 check because nothing was happening. A blank row there would have been unusable, because a reader cannot tell a coating that held from an observer who looked away. 'No change' is data.
| Time | Phase | Observation |
|---|---|---|
| 0:30 | Simulated stomach | Coating smooth and sealed |
| 2:00 | Simulated stomach | Cloudy surface, no cracks |
| 4:00 | Simulated stomach | Intact, pill transferred |
| 5:00 | Simulated intestinal | First piece lifts away |
| 6:30 | Simulated intestinal | Coating fully separated |
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Completes the Part I practice run: an unbroken 30-second observation record through the simulated stomach phase and the simulated intestinal phase, with the variables labeled and one stated limitation of judging separation by eye.
- 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 data table on Schoology before leaving.
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: Keeping an unbroken timed observation record while a procedure runs.
- 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.
🎯 Design your own ratio trial, then write a CER recommending a coating ratio against the five-to-six-minute window.
- 1State the target precisely: intact through the stomach phase, then fully separated from the coverslip between five and six minutes.
- 2Choose which polymer ratios you will test and how many, and write down why.
- 3Write your operational definition of fully separated before you run anything, and how you will time it.
- 4Decide whether you will repeat each ratio, and how many times.
- 5Run the trials and record on the data sheet.
- 6Write the CER: your recommended ratio, the data that supports it, and the reasoning that connects them.
- • 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.
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.
A 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.
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.
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: Judging trial results against a target window rather than against the fastest time.
- 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 submit the coating data and the ratio recommendation, and update the tracker.
- 1Compile the model specs, trial data, and CER into one labeled file.
- 2Check the package against the rubric for completeness and vocabulary.
- 3Cite sources and note unresolved limitations.
- 4Update the project tracker with status and a confidence rating.
- 5Submit the package through the course portal on time.
- • Submit a complete, rubric-aligned package on time.
- • Tracker reflects accurate status and a limitations note.
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.
A 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.
Project tracker, coating unit:
- Status: Complete. Four artifacts attached and labeled: the preparation and safety notes, the Part I 30-second observation table, the ratio CER, and this tracker.
- Confidence rating: 81 percent.
- Handling, preparation, storage and disposal (safety data sheet, protective equipment, waste routing): 92 percent.
- Reading the pH scale in the right direction: 88 percent.
- Designing my own ratio trial and defending it against a window: 68 percent.
- Reflective note: I can run and record a procedure cleanly. The design side is where I am shaky. In my first attempt I changed the dip count at the same time as the ratio, so that trial told me nothing about either one and I had to run it again. Changing one variable at a time is my review target.
- Sources cited: the kit safety data sheet, the Part I procedure, and my own two data sheets. All real and attached, no placeholders.
- Unresolved limitation: my separation times were scored by eye, so they carry an observer error I never measured.
Writing 68 percent on the design line instead of rounding the whole unit up to 100 is the useful move: it names the one skill worth practicing before the exam.
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Completes the coating unit closeout: a tracker with unit status, a confidence rating on the handling and preparation rules and on the ratio argument, and a reflective note linked to the evidence package.
- 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: turns in the tracker update on Schoology under the Friday Tracker assignment and attach the full evidence package.
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: Recognizing the artifacts that make a coating-unit evidence package complete.
- 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.
🎯 Debate whether a living organism and the compounds it makes should be patentable, and defend a position with a reason you can state.
- 1Summarize how a compound found in nature becomes an approved drug, and roughly how long it takes.
- 2Research one therapeutic that came from a living organism, other than the examples given.
- 3State the strongest argument for allowing a patent, and the strongest against.
- 4Take a position and name the one fact that would change your mind.
- 5Record the opposing argument you found hardest to answer.
- • Argue from the approval pipeline and its cost, not from whether patents feel fair.
- • Name a fact that would change your position.
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.
Completing all five days of this reserve unit earns extra credit points applied to your current unit grade; partial completion earns proportional credit.
A 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.
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.
- 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: Hand in your exit-ticket card, or turn it in on Schoology under today's exit-ticket.
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: Explaining how the cost and length of the approval pipeline shapes arguments about owning a natural compound.
- 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.
🎯 Practise setting and using a micropipette, and explain why aseptic technique changes the number you get.
- 1Read the micropipette care resource and record the volume range of the pipette you were issued.
- 2Set a volume, seat a tip, and practise the two-stop plunger until the motion is consistent.
- 3Practise transferring a fixed volume and describe what a wrong first stop does to it.
- 4Label every tube before any liquid moves.
- 5Write why a contaminated sample produces a wrong result rather than no result.
- • Demonstrate the two-stop plunger without prompting.
- • Explain contamination as a source of a plausible wrong number, not an obvious failure.
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.
Completing all five days of this reserve unit earns extra credit points applied to your current unit grade; partial completion earns proportional credit.
A 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.
The pipette I was issued: a variable P100, range 10 to 100 microliters. I wrote the range down first, because setting 5 or 150 on this barrel is outside what it can deliver, and forcing the dial past its stop damages it.
Setting the volume: I turned the dial down to 50 and read the display as 0 5 0, which on this model is 50 microliters. My partner read it back to me before I drew anything.
Seating a tip: press the shaft straight down into the tip in the box, one firm push. A tip on crooked leaks air, and a leak means the volume in the tip is not the volume on the dial.
The two-stop plunger, in order:
- 1. Press down to the FIRST stop before the tip goes anywhere near the liquid.
- 2. Put the tip just under the surface and release slowly to draw the set volume.
- 3. Move to the receiving tube and touch the tip to the tube wall.
- 4. Press to the first stop to deliver, then to the SECOND stop to push out what is left in the tip.
- 5. Eject the tip. Do not let the plunger back up while the tip is still in liquid, or the sample gets sucked back.
What a wrong first stop does: if I press past the first stop before drawing, I blow out extra air and pull up more than 50 microliters. Nothing about that looks wrong. The tube fills, the run finishes, and the number at the end is simply too high.
Labeling rule I wrote for myself: every tube gets labeled before any liquid moves, on the side and on the cap, because caps get swapped while a rack sits open. A tube I label afterwards is a tube I am labeling from memory.
Why contamination is worse than an obvious failure: if I reuse a tip between samples, a little of sample 1 rides into sample 2. Sample 2 still develops, the reading still lands in a believable range, and there is nothing in the number itself that tells me it is wrong. A dropped tube announces that it failed. A shared tip does not. That is why the tip changes between every sample and the bench gets wiped before I start.
| Step | Plunger position | What is happening |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | First stop | Air pushed out before the tip enters the liquid |
| 2 | Released slowly | The set volume is drawn into the tip |
| 3 | First stop | The set volume is delivered into the receiving tube |
| 4 | Second stop | Residual liquid is pushed out of the tip |
| 5 | Eject | Tip discarded before the next sample is touched |
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Completes the technique note-taking task: the issued pipette's volume range, the two-stop plunger written out in order, what a wrong first stop does to a transfer, the labeling rule, and why contamination produces a believable wrong number.
- 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: Complete the assigned PLTW online activity on micropipetting and aseptic technique, then keep your notes for Wednesday's screen.
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: Explaining why a reused pipette tip is a hidden error rather than an obvious failure.
- 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.
🎯 Run the qualitative screen on five samples and record a positive or negative result for each.
- 1Put on the protective equipment the procedure specifies and clear the bench.
- 2Label all tubes before starting. A mislabelled tube is an unrecoverable run.
- 3Extract the compounds from the five samples following the procedure exactly.
- 4Run the screen and let it develop for the stated time.
- 5Score each sample by colour as positive or negative, and record all five.
- 6Note that this result tells you presence or absence only, and write what it does not tell you.
- • Produce a complete five-sample result table.
- • State in writing that a qualitative screen carries no quantity.
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.
Completing all five days of this reserve unit earns extra credit points applied to your current unit grade; partial completion earns proportional credit.
A 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.
Labeling scheme, written before any liquid moved:
- Tubes M1 to M5 for the five marine samples, plus C+ for the positive control and C- for the negative control. Initials and period on every cap.
- I labeled the sides and the caps, because a cap can get swapped between tubes while the rack sits open.
Technique for this run: fresh tip for every sample, bench wiped before and after, tubes kept closed except while I was pipetting into them, beaker covered on the hot plate.
Module I results, scored by color after the stated development time:
- C+ positive control: strong color. The chemistry worked, so a negative on a sample means something.
- C- negative control: no color. Nothing in the reagents is producing color on its own.
- M1: color. Positive.
- M2: no color. Negative.
- M3: color, fainter than M1. Positive.
- M4: no color. Negative.
- M5: color, the deepest in the rack. Positive.
Three of the five samples screened positive: M1, M3, and M5.
What this result cannot tell me: none of it is a quantity. A color says the compound is there or it is not. M5 looked deepest and M3 looked faintest, and I am not entitled to conclude from that alone that M5 holds more of the compound than M3, because color depth in a screen like this also moves with how much extract went in, how long it developed, and whatever else in the extract absorbs light. Ranking M1, M3, and M5 by amount takes Module II: known standards, a curve, and a measured concentration for each.
Why both controls matter: without C+, a negative sample could mean the compound is absent or the reagents were dead, and I would have no way to tell those two apart.
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Completes the Module I screen: the labeling scheme recorded, all five samples scored positive or negative by color, and one sentence stating what a qualitative result cannot tell you.
- Identify the purpose, hazards, and required controls.
- Write the procedure in a usable order.
- Confirm materials, measurements, and waste handling before starting.
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 Module I results table on Schoology before leaving.
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: Separating what a qualitative screen reports from what a quantitative assay reports.
- 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.
🎯 Build a standard curve from known concentrations, read the unknowns off it, and write a CER recommending which sample to advance.
- 1Label the seven standards and record each stated concentration. Notice that each is half the one before it.
- 2Treat the standards and your samples identically. Anything done to one is done to all.
- 3Plot the standards and draw the curve.
- 4Read each sample's concentration off the curve, going from the measured value to the concentration axis.
- 5Put the qualitative result and the quantitative concentration side by side for all five samples.
- 6Write the CER recommending which sample to advance, and explain any sample where the two results disagree.
- • Read the curve in the correct direction.
- • Recommend on the measured concentration, not on the strongest colour.
- • Offer a real explanation for a screen-versus-assay disagreement rather than calling it an error.
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.
Completing all five days of this reserve unit earns extra credit points applied to your current unit grade; partial completion earns proportional credit.
A 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.
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.
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: Recommending a sample on measured concentration rather than on screen color.
- 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.
🎯 Submit the results table and the concentration-based recommendation, and update the tracker.
- 1Compile the story-map, pitch, and CER into one labeled package.
- 2Check the package against the rubric for completeness and vocabulary.
- 3Cite all sources and note unresolved limitations.
- 4Update the project tracker with final status and a confidence rating.
- 5Submit the innovation pitch package through the course portal on time.
- • Submit a complete, rubric-aligned pitch package on time.
- • Tracker reflects accurate final status and a limitations note.
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.
Completing all five days of this reserve unit earns extra credit points applied to your current unit grade; partial completion earns proportional credit.
A 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.
Project tracker, bioprospecting unit:
- Status: Complete. Four labeled artifacts attached: the micropipetting and aseptic-technique notes, the Module I five-sample screen results, the Module II standard curve with the concentrations read off it, and this tracker.
- Confidence ratings:
- Handling, preparation, storage and disposal (labeling, tip changes, waste routing): 90 percent.
- Micropipetting to a set volume with the two-stop plunger: 85 percent.
- Building a curve from standards and reading an unknown off it: 74 percent.
- Explaining a screen-versus-assay disagreement: 70 percent.
- Reflective note: My screen and my assay disagreed about one sample, and my first instinct was to call it an error and drop it. The better move was the one I made in the end: report both results, then give a reason the two can differ. That disagreement turned out to be the most interesting line in my report.
- Sources cited: the kit procedure, the micropipette care resource, my standards table, and my two data sheets. All real and attached, no placeholders.
- Unresolved limitation: I ran each sample once. Duplicates would tell me how much of the spread is the sample and how much is my pipetting.
Rating the curve line at 74 percent rather than rounding the unit up to 100 is the useful move: reading an unknown off a curve is the first thing I would practice with one more period.
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Completes the bioprospecting closeout: a tracker with unit status, confidence ratings on technique and on quantitative reading, one reflective note, and the linked four-artifact package.
- 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: turns in the tracker update and the full lab report package on Schoology under the Friday Tracker assignment.
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: Closing out a bench session so the waste and the record are both handled correctly.
- 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.