Why these are optional: the WebXam weighs them least, so they move here to keep every tested unit in class. Doing them is a real way to go deeper and earn extra credit, never a penalty if you skip them.
Optional extra-credit units
These units are not on the in-class calendar or any in-class test. They unlock once the class finishes Unit 2, then stay open for the rest of the term so you can go further for extra credit on your own schedule. You will know they are open when an Extra Credit section appears at the bottom of your daily lesson pages. Every hands-on step has a virtual lab. Finished work goes to the same place as everything else: the drop folder, or handed in during class.
PBS Unit 4, Innovation (capstone)
🎯 Students debate how much testing a new biomedical device should require before reaching patients.
- 1Read a case about a promising device awaiting further testing.
- 2Choose a stance on rapid deployment versus extended testing.
- 3Gather two arguments using safety and access examples.
- 4Debate using terms like prototype, iteration, and disease prevention.
- 5Record the strongest opposing argument you heard.
- • Defend a clear position with two evidence points.
- • Use design and testing vocabulary correctly during the debate.
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.
Open the drop folderA 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.
I argued for extended testing before release. The strongest opposing argument I heard was that for a patient who is dying now, a long testing timeline can be a death sentence, so rapid access to a promising device may be the more ethical choice even with some added risk.
(Tip: state the opposing point fairly in one sentence using design vocabulary like prototype, iteration, or disease prevention. Stating the strongest version of the other side is what earns full marks.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Completes the device innovation ethics debate exit task: one sentence naming the strongest opposing testing argument the student encountered.
- 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 the class site 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: Defining a prototype in the engineering design process.
- 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 take notes on the engineering design process and CAD modeling, then complete the PLTW online task.
- 1Annotate the stages of the engineering design process from problem to test.
- 2Describe how CAD turns a concept into a testable model.
- 3Connect device or vessel design to a disease-prevention goal.
- 4Define iteration as redesign driven by test data.
- 5Complete the assigned PLTW online activity on engineering design.
- • Order the engineering design stages correctly.
- • Submit the PLTW online task fully completed.
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.
Open the drop folderA 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.
Engineering design process (seven stages, in order):
- Define the problem: state exactly what need the device must meet.
- Research: gather what is already known.
- Brainstorm: generate many possible solutions.
- Prototype: build an early testable model.
- Test: collect data on how it performs.
- Evaluate: compare the data to the design goal.
- Iterate: redesign based on the data, then test again.
CAD (computer-aided design):
- CAD turns a concept sketch into a precise digital model with real measurements, so it can be tested or 3D printed exactly to specification.
Iteration worked example:
- A filter device let 8 mL/min through; the goal was 12 mL/min. We changed only the pore size (one variable) and predicted a higher flow. Next trial measured 11 mL/min, closer to goal. Changing one variable at a time told us the pore size caused the change.
Disease-prevention connection:
- The design criteria come from the prevention goal: a device meant to filter a contaminant must be specified to remove that contaminant, because you cannot test what you did not specify.
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Completes the engineering design note-taking task: the seven labeled design stages, a CAD description, an iteration worked example, and a disease-prevention connection.
- 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 engineering design, then keep your notes for Monday's testing 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: Defining iteration as evidence-driven redesign in the design process.
- 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 build and test a device or vessel model, collecting data to evaluate performance.
- 1Record the SOP for assembling and testing the model.
- 2Identify the independent, dependent, and controlled variables for the test.
- 3Build the CAD-based or physical model to specification.
- 4Run repeated trials and record performance data in a table.
- 5Note measurement error and one limitation of the test setup.
- • Collect repeated-trial performance data following the SOP.
- • Identify all variables and state one procedural limitation.
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.
Open the drop folderA 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.
SOP recorded: assemble the model to spec, run the same test three times, record each result, then average.
Variables:
- Independent variable: pore size of the filter (what we deliberately changed between designs).
- Dependent variable: flow rate in mL/min (what we measured).
- Controlled variables: same liquid, same volume, same temperature, same timer, held constant across all trials.
Design goal: flow rate of at least 12 mL/min.
Results: Trial 1 = 11.0, Trial 2 = 11.6, Trial 3 = 11.3 mL/min. Average = (11.0 + 11.6 + 11.3) / 3 = 11.3 mL/min.
Measurement error source: the stopwatch was started by hand, so reaction time could add or subtract a fraction of a second each trial. That is a tool-and-technique error, named at the source, not just 'human error.'
Test-setup limitation: we ran only three trials, so an unusual single result would pull the average noticeably. More trials would make the average more trustworthy.
| Trial | Pore size (independent) | Flow rate mL/min (dependent) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Medium | 11.0 |
| 2 | Medium | 11.6 |
| 3 | Medium | 11.3 |
| Average | Medium | 11.3 |
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Completes the testing lab: a data table with at least three trials, labeled variables, an average, one measurement-error source, and one setup limitation.
- 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 the class site, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class 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: Distinguishing controlled variables from the independent variable in a device test.
- 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 write a CER evaluating prototype performance and proposing a design iteration.
- 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.
- • Write a CER evaluating prototype performance with trial data.
- • Propose a specific iteration and state one limitation.
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.
Open the drop folderA 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.
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.
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 whether a prototype met its design goal using averaged trial data.
- 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 finalize and submit the device innovation package 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.
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.
Open the drop folderA 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, Innovation unit:
- Status: Complete. Four artifacts attached and labeled: model specifications, the three-trial data table, the prototype evaluation CER, and this tracker.
- Confidence rating: 84 percent.
- Engineering design stages and iteration: 90 percent (confident).
- Variable types and measurement error: 78 percent (less sure).
- Reflective note: I can order the design stages and explain iteration, but I sometimes mislabel controlled versus independent variables. That is my review target before the WebXam.
- Sources cited: the design brief, the testing SOP, and the reference specifications used. All real and attached, no placeholders.
Writing 84 percent instead of rounding up to 100 is the useful move: the 78 percent on variables tells me precisely where to study next.
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Completes the unit closeout: a tracker with innovation-unit status, a confidence rating on engineering design and biotechnology, and a reflective note linked to the 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 the class site 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 an innovation 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.
PBS Unit 4, Innovation (capstone synthesis)
🎯 Students debate whether biomedical research dollars should target extreme frontiers like space and undersea medicine.
- 1Read a case weighing frontier biomedical research against everyday care needs.
- 2Choose a stance on prioritizing frontier innovation versus established medicine.
- 3Gather two arguments using space and undersea biomedical examples.
- 4Debate using terms like innovation, translation, and disease prevention.
- 5Record the strongest opposing argument you heard.
- • Defend a clear funding position with two evidence points.
- • Use innovation vocabulary correctly during the debate.
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.
Completing all five days of this reserve unit earns extra credit points applied to your current unit grade; partial completion earns proportional credit.
Open the drop folderA 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.
I argued that research dollars should prioritize established, everyday care because it reaches the most patients now. The strongest opposing argument I heard was that frontier work in space and undersea medicine drives translation: a bone-loss treatment developed for astronauts can become an osteoporosis therapy on Earth, so funding the frontier can prevent disease for far more people later.
(Tip: state the other side's strongest version in one sentence, and use a real term like translation, innovation, or disease prevention. Naming the best opposing point, not the weakest, is what earns full marks.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Completes the frontier medicine ethics debate exit task: one sentence naming the strongest opposing argument heard, stated fairly with innovation vocabulary.
- 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 the class site 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 translation: how frontier biomedical research reaches everyday disease prevention.
- 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 take notes on frontier biomedical technology and GIS story-maps, then complete the PLTW online task.
- 1Annotate notes on biomedical challenges in space and undersea settings.
- 2Describe how a GIS story-map communicates spatial health data.
- 3Connect frontier innovations back to disease prevention on Earth.
- 4Outline the components of a persuasive medical-innovation pitch.
- 5Complete the assigned PLTW online activity on frontier innovation.
- • Name two frontier biomedical challenges and one Earth application.
- • Submit the PLTW online task fully completed.
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.
Completing all five days of this reserve unit earns extra credit points applied to your current unit grade; partial completion earns proportional credit.
Open the drop folderA 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.
Two frontier biomedical challenges and their Earth parallels:
- Space: microgravity causes rapid bone-density and muscle loss. Earth parallel: the same countermeasures inform osteoporosis and bed-rest muscle-wasting treatments.
- Undersea / hyperbaric: high-pressure environments risk decompression injury and oxygen toxicity. Earth parallel: hyperbaric oxygen therapy is now used to heal chronic wounds and treat carbon-monoxide poisoning.
What a GIS story-map communicates:
- A GIS story-map layers health data onto a map so you can see WHERE events happen, not just how many. Components I will use: a base map, a data layer (cases or exposure points by location), a legend, and short narrative text panels that walk the reader through the pattern.
Four-component innovation pitch outline:
- Problem: the specific health need, stated with a number.
- Solution: the innovation and how it works.
- Evidence: data from prior units and the story-map that support it.
- Next step and limits: what to develop or test next, and what is still unknown.
Earth application in one line: frontier constraints force efficient, portable designs, and portable diagnostics built for a submarine or capsule also serve rural clinics with no lab.
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Completes the frontier note-taking task: two frontier biomedical challenges with Earth parallels, the components of a GIS story-map, and a four-part innovation-pitch outline.
- 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 frontier innovation, then keep your notes for the team project.
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: Identifying what a GIS story-map is best used to communicate.
- 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.
🎯 Student teams synthesize prior units into a final medical-innovation project with a GIS story-map.
- 1Record the SOP for the project workflow and member responsibilities.
- 2Define the health problem and the variables the innovation addresses.
- 3Synthesize evidence from earlier units into a single innovation concept.
- 4Build a draft GIS story-map presenting the problem and solution.
- 5Assign pitch sections and note one limitation of the project data.
- • Team produces an innovation concept grounded in prior-unit evidence.
- • Draft a story-map and assign pitch roles with one stated limitation.
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.
Completing all five days of this reserve unit earns extra credit points applied to your current unit grade; partial completion earns proportional credit.
Open the drop folderA 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.
SOP and member responsibilities:
- Workflow: define problem, synthesize evidence, build story-map, draft pitch, then review against the rubric. Roles: Maria (story-map), Devon (evidence synthesis), Priya (CER draft), me (problem definition and tracker).
Health problem (with a number): In our target neighborhood, an estimated 1 in 4 households lacks quick access to a clinic for early infection screening, delaying diagnosis.
Synthesis evidence from two prior units:
- From the Infection unit: rapid antigen screening catches disease earlier, which lowers spread.
- From the Outbreak unit: mapping case locations reveals clusters where screening should be placed first.
Innovation concept: a portable, low-cost screening kit paired with a GIS story-map that routes it to the highest-cluster blocks first.
Draft story-map (two layers): Layer 1, a base map of the neighborhood; Layer 2, screening-access points colored by household distance to the nearest clinic.
Pitch-section assignments: problem (me), solution and story-map (Maria), evidence (Devon), CER and next steps (Priya).
One stated limitation: our access estimate uses one public data source, so it may undercount households that recently moved. We would validate with a second source before deployment.
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Completes the team project plan: SOP and roles, health problem, synthesized evidence from two prior units, a two-layer story-map draft, pitch-section assignments, and one data limitation.
- 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: Save the brief and the draft story-map so the team can build the pitch and CER next session.
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: Grounding a capstone innovation concept in synthesized evidence from prior units.
- 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 write a CER that frames their final innovation pitch as an evidence-based recommendation.
- 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.
- • Write a CER framing the innovation with synthesized evidence.
- • Recommend next steps and state at least one limitation.
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.
Completing all five days of this reserve unit earns extra credit points applied to your current unit grade; partial completion earns proportional credit.
Open the drop folderA 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.
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.
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: Identifying the job of the reasoning section in an evidence-based recommendation CER.
- 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 finalize and submit the final medical-innovation pitch package 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.
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.
Completing all five days of this reserve unit earns extra credit points applied to your current unit grade; partial completion earns proportional credit.
Open the drop folderA 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, PBS Innovation capstone:
- Status: Complete. Four labeled artifacts attached: the draft GIS story-map, the innovation pitch, the pitch CER, and this tracker.
- Confidence ratings across the course:
- Forensics and evidence (Units 1 to 2): 88 percent.
- Clinical data and diagnostics (Unit 3): 82 percent.
- DNA, protein, and genetic risk: 79 percent.
- Infection, outbreak, and this innovation synthesis: 90 percent.
- Capstone reflection: My strongest synthesis was tying outbreak mapping to infection screening; my weakest spot is genetic-risk vocabulary, which is my WebXam review target.
- Sources cited: the two prior-unit datasets, the public access data, and the design brief. All real and attached, no placeholders.
- Unresolved limitation: the access estimate uses one source and needs a second before any real deployment.
Rating genetic risk at 79 percent instead of rounding up is the useful move: it tells me exactly what to study before the exam.
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Completes the capstone closeout: a tracker with final PBS status, per-unit confidence ratings, one reflection note, and the linked four-artifact innovation 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 and the full four-artifact pitch package on the class site under the capstone submission 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: Recognizing the artifacts that make a capstone innovation 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.