This class runs in two periods and they do not do the same lesson on the same day. You are reading the Period 6A-7B calendar, the one with John Carroll bioethics on Mondays.
Analyze histology evidence
Safety gate · before any work
- Wear the required PPE, keep the bench clear, handle equipment only as directed, and know where the eyewash, sink, and spill kit are before you start.
- Human samples and data stay private: label with a code, never a name, and dispose of materials in the correct waste container, then wash your hands.
Do now
Interpret tissue and heart observations with a CER and evaluate identification limits.
- Hand in
- CER arguing what tissue damage could indicate as a cause of death, using Wednesday's microscopy observations as evidence and referencing a comparison to normal histology in the reasoning.
- Where
- Submit this on the class form named on this page. The form requires the student's district Microsoft sign-in. The thank-you page is the submission receipt. A physical handoff counts only when the day page names that route. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not count as submitted.
You get two school days for every day you were absent, so this deadline moves with you.
If the form offers you a saved draft, choose New draft. If the Assignment box comes up empty, type it exactly: Analyze histology evidence
Looking at your own sketches next to a reference image of healthy tissue, what deviation would you point to as possible evidence of what killed this person?
Interpret and heart observations with a CER and evaluate identification limits.
- • I can interpret against references.
- • I can connect to possible pathology.
- Why can you not call a abnormal just by looking at one slide with no healthy tissue to compare it to?
- Name one thing about how a slide was made (not the itself) that could make a healthy tissue look damaged.
- 1Compare your sketches to reference images.
- 2Write a CER: what damage could indicate ?
- 3Relate one heart structure to a possible pathology.
- 4Identify two variables that affect slide interpretation.
- 5State one limitation of microscopy for determining .
What did this day actually feel like?
Analyze histology evidence
We compared our sketches to reference histology images and wrote a CER about what tissue damage could indicate as a cause of death. The reference comparison is the whole method. You cannot identify disease without knowing what healthy looks like, so a pathologist is really recognizing what is absent or distorted.
My sketches were rougher than the references and it was hard to tell whether a difference was real or just my bad drawing. I wrote that in the limitations. Mr. Mendoza said noticing that your own instrument is the weak link is a legitimate finding.
AT HOME, THE WEEKEND BEFORE MON SEP 28 Submit morgue evidence Four labeled histology sketches with magnification, the heart diagram with chambers and vessels, the CER. This packet connects the microscopic to the macroscopic, which is the actual job: tissue under a lens explaining an organ you can hold.
Turned in: full morgue packet → 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.
The same day, drawn.
My sketches were rougher than the reference images, and I could not always tell if a difference was real or just my bad drawing. I wrote that down.
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
Lab day: Tier 1 is the whole class at the bench. No extension today.
🔑 Today's words · 5
Tap a word in the lesson for a plain meaning and one example. Recycled into next week's Do-Now.
🧭 Everything on this day
PBS Unit 1 is one case, not twenty topics. A woman was found dead at home, and you are the team that has to work out how she died. You get the evidence in pieces, in the order a real investigation would get it, and you are not told the answer at any point.
You read the sections for damage and write down what you found. Some damage is not visible yet at the point a section was taken, and saying so is a finding, not a failure.
- Activity 1.2.4 Histology
Look this up in myPLTW to check you are in the right place.
What you cannot claim in this case, on any day
- A physiological chart records breathing and heart rate. It does not measure lying, and nothing in this unit produces a deception call.
- Microscopic hair comparison can support consistency or support exclusion. It cannot identify a person.
- A fingerprint pattern class can narrow a field or exclude a person. By itself it cannot name a source, and it never says when or why a finger touched something.
- A scheduled event is not proof that a person was there. Time of death is not established by the early evidence.
- Repeating a measurement reduces random error. It does not remove a calibration offset, a shared bias, contamination, or a weak method.
Where the case record itself lives: the case file, the source packet and the timeline are PLTW materials and are handed out on paper in class. They are not posted here.
Do the work · 80-minute blockfirst 5 min = hook▸
💡 Big idea: A pathologist diagnoses disease by comparing to a normal reference because appearance varies between people, so disease is recognized as deviation from normal rather than from any single slide.
- 0:00Return Wednesday lab notebooks; display reference images for all four types
- 0:10Guided comparison: walk through one type together, identifying normal vs. abnormal features
- 0:22Students compare their four sketches to references; annotate differences directly on their notebook sketches
- 0:38Heart-pathology connection: for one heart structure, research and note one associated pathology (e.g., valve thickening, chamber enlargement)
- 0:52CER writing: claim about what damage could indicate , evidence from comparison, reasoning from pathology connection
- 1:05List two slide-interpretation variables and one limitation of microscopy alone; preview Friday submission
- • Yesterday you looked at slides and sketched what you saw. Today you figure out what it means. That requires a reference, something to compare your observation to.
- • A pathologist does not just look at a slide and announce what is wrong. They compare every structure to what it should look like in a healthy sample. When something is thicker, thinner, misshapen, or missing, that is the finding.
- • We are going to do the same thing. You will compare your Wednesday sketches to reference images and ask: does this look normal? If not, what could have caused the deviation?
- • Your CER today is your argument. What does the evidence suggest about how this person might have died? You will also connect one heart structure to a possible pathology.
- • Comparison to reference images is required because appearance varies between individuals; diagnosis is based on deviation from normal, not on a single observation.
- • Two variables that affect slide interpretation are the quality of the staining (how well the dye bound to structures) and the thickness and angle of the section.
- • Microscopy alone cannot determine ; it must be combined with gross , clinical history, and toxicology for a complete picture.
Unit 1.2 Master the Morgue: Body systems, toxicology evidence, tissue microscopy, gross anatomy, preserved-heart/autopsy alternative. · Analyze evidence
Day 3 of this lesson. Open this exact section in myPLTW (find it in Clever, Microsoft sign-in), then do the work below.
Do this: In myPLTW, open Lesson 1.2 Master the Morgue and go back to Activity 1.2.4 . Finish its analysis section using your reference comparisons.
Mark Activity 1.2.4 complete in myPLTW.
You examined slides and the heart Wednesday. By the end of today your CER and reference comparison annotations should both be done.
Annotated notebook sketches with reference comparisons and a completed CER.
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. Submit this on the class form named on this page. The form requires the student's district Microsoft sign-in. The thank-you page is the submission receipt. A physical handoff counts only when the day page names that route. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not count as submitted.
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.
Unit 1.2 Master the Morgue: Body systems, toxicology evidence, tissue microscopy, gross anatomy, preserved-heart/autopsy alternative. · Analyze histology evidence
In myPLTW, open Lesson 1.2 Master the Morgue and go back to Activity 1.2.4 . Finish its analysis section using your reference comparisons.
You examined slides and the heart Wednesday. By the end of today your CER and reference comparison annotations should both be done.
This is how Mr. Mendoza sees the class keeping pace with PLTW. Be honest, it only helps if it is accurate.
🎯 Interpret and heart observations with a CER and evaluate identification limits.
- Compare your sketches to reference images.
- Write a CER: what damage could indicate ?
- Relate one heart structure to a possible pathology.
- Identify two variables that affect slide interpretation.
- State one limitation of microscopy for determining .
CER: CER arguing what damage could indicate as a , using Wednesday's microscopy observations as evidence and referencing a comparison to normal in the reasoning.
Submit this on the class form named on this page. The form requires the student's district Microsoft sign-in. The thank-you page is the submission receipt. A physical handoff counts only when the day page names that route. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not count as submitted. 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 |
|---|---|
| Compare your sketches to reference images. | _______ |
| Write a CER: what damage could indicate ? | _______ |
| Relate one heart structure to a possible pathology. | _______ |
| Identify two variables that affect slide interpretation. | _______ |
| State one limitation of microscopy for determining . | _______ |
Working solo? Put your own name in "Who" for every row.
- I can interpret against references.
- I can connect to possible pathology.
- 1Do thisInterpret tissue and heart observations with a CER and evaluate identification limits.
- 2Use this resource
- 3Submit thisCER: CER arguing what tissue damage could indicate as a cause of death, using Wednesday's microscopy observations as evidence and referencing a comparison to normal histology in the reasoning.
- 4Submit it here
- 1Open the form. It must say For students at the top: if it says For parents and guardians, press Back and pick I am the student.
- 2If it offers you a saved draft, choose New draft: an old draft brings back the old assignment.
- 3Sign in with your district Microsoft account, not a personal one.
- 4Check the Assignment box says today's assignment from this page, then pick your period and type your student ID, all nine digits.
- 5Attach your file and press Submit. The thank-you page is your receipt.
Submit this on the class form named on this page. The form requires the student's district Microsoft sign-in. The thank-you page is the submission receipt. A physical handoff counts only when the day page names that route. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not count as submitted. Principles of Biomedical Technology (Principles of Biomedical Science) › Unit 1.2 Master the Morgue: Body systems, toxicology evidence, tissue microscopy, gross anatomy, preserved-heart/autopsy alternative. › CERTurn it in
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.
You must record magnification on every microscopy sketch because apparent size means nothing without it, so an unlabeled sketch cannot be trusted or compared by another scientist.
A pathologist diagnoses disease by comparing to a normal reference because appearance varies between people, so disease is recognized as deviation from normal rather than from any single slide.
A mechanic studies a tool whose shape allows one job but limits another.
- Which feature makes the tool work?
- What changes if that feature bends or breaks?
- Which observation shows function rather than appearance?
Structure creates possibilities and limits for function.
Living tissues adapt and interact with other systems; a metal tool does not.
- • Tool shape maps to .
- • The job maps to physiological function.
- • Damage maps to a predicted functional change.
Driving question: Looking at your own sketches next to a reference image of healthy tissue, what deviation would you point to as possible evidence of what killed this person?
What you already know: You must record magnification on every microscopy sketch because apparent size means nothing without it, so an unlabeled sketch cannot be trusted or compared by another scientist.
New idea: A pathologist diagnoses disease by comparing to a normal reference because appearance varies between people, so disease is recognized as deviation from normal rather than from any single slide.
Visual or model: F1. F1. A lesson illustration or teaching diagram for Analyze histology evidence. Use it with E1-E3; it is a model or context image, not experimental or patient data. What to notice: Use the labels and arrows in F1 to identify the relationship that supports Analyze histology evidence.
- Observe or measure the relevant feature in analyze evidence.
- Organize the observation with a stable evidence ID.
- Apply this rule: Structure creates possibilities and limits for function.
- Choose the option the evidence supports and state the limit of the conclusion.
Real biomedical example: Looking at your own sketches next to a reference image of healthy tissue, what deviation would you point to as possible evidence of what killed this person?
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.
- • : The body's ongoing process of keeping internal conditions like temperature, blood sugar, and pH steady despite changes in the outside environment.
- • : A group of similar cells working together to perform a shared function, such as muscle, nerve, or .
- • : A group of organs that work together to carry out a major body function, such as the digestive or circulatory system.
- • toxicology: The science of how chemicals and other substances cause harm to living things, including the dose at which they become dangerous.
- • : The study of the microscopic structure of tissues, examining thin stained slices under a microscope to see how cells are arranged.
- • : The specific physiological breakdown inside the body that directly ends life, such as a fatal heart rhythm or blood loss, separate from the underlying cause.
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.
Standard anatomical terms describe location and structure precisely, while physiology describes function; connecting levels from cells to tissues, organs, and systems supports a bounded explanation.
Limit: A classroom map or organization model simplifies three-dimensional variation and cannot diagnose injury or disease.
Structure creates possibilities and limits for function.
Limit: Living tissues adapt and interact with other systems; a metal tool does not.
You can interpret against references.
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@P67-2026-09-25 · Simulated classroom evidence scenario
Your role: biomedical team member
Decision: Your team must decide what the evidence from analyze evidence 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: Today's evidence supports a classroom claim about analyze evidence. 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 analyze evidence supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning response named on the lesson page.
Context: Diagnosis works by comparison to normal, so a pathologist recognizes disease by what is missing or distorted, not by any single observation alone.
- • T1: Compare your sketches to reference images.
- • T2: Write a CER: what damage could indicate ?
- • T3: Relate one heart structure to a possible pathology.
- • T4: Identify two variables that affect slide interpretation.
- • T5: State one limitation of microscopy for determining .
- • E1: Standard anatomical terms describe location and structure precisely, while physiology describes function; connecting levels from cells to tissues, organs, and systems supports a bounded explanation.
- • E2: Structure creates possibilities and limits for function.
- • E3: You can interpret against references.
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 Analyze evidence. Use the labels and arrows to identify the decision-relevant relationship. 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.
Students often think Students think an experienced pathologist can look at one slide alone and just know it is diseased, the way you know a bruise when you see one.. The trap: That is a trap because appearance varies between individuals, so diagnosis is based on deviation from normal reference tissue, not a single observation; a bad stain or a thick section can mimic disease if you have nothing to compare against.
Claim: The latent print lifted from the scene could indicate that this individual touched the surface before the incident.\nEvidence: Compared to a known reference print taken directly from the individual, the latent print showed the same pattern of ridge endings and bifurcations in the same relative positions, which are the features examiners use to match prints.\nReasoning: Identification is based on agreement between an unknown sample and a known reference, so the side-by-side comparison is what makes the matching ridge features meaningful. A shared arrangement of ridge endings and bifurcations is consistent with both prints coming from the same finger.\nLimitation: A partial or smudged latent print cannot confirm identity on its own; it must be combined with the quality of the reference print, the number of matching features, and other case evidence before a firm conclusion is reached.
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: A claim-evidence-reasoning paragraph modeling how a forensic examiner argues an identification from comparison to a reference, so students can copy the CER structure and depth without it answering today's histology question.
- 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: Upload your CER and annotated notebook page to the tracker by end of class.
- 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.
Tap the speaker to hear a term. Add two of these to your notebook glossary with a definition and an example in your own words.
Pick just 2 or 3 words from today and make them yours: write what each one means in your own words, name the context clue or evidence that helped, then give one example from what you actually did in Analyze histology evidence. Try your own words first; the glossary is there if you get stuck. This is voluntary and counts as extra credit, so keep it short.
Saved on this device. Show Mr. Mendoza or add these to your notebook glossary to claim the extra credit.
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: Today's evidence supports a classroom claim about analyze evidence. It cannot prove causation, diagnose a real patient, or justify action outside this room.
Name two things about how a slide is prepared, not the tissue itself, that could make you misread whether a tissue is normal or diseased.
Write an answer and pick a confidence to unlock the key.
Fast retrieval with instant answers, not the commit-then-reveal check above. Try each from memory first: write what you remember about the earlier units, then check yourself here.
Go further and get help▸
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. This lesson has more than one, and they cover different skills.
I can name the procedure's purpose and the evidence I will record. I can identify each named hazard and the control that reduces it: Wear the required PPE, keep the bench clear, handle equipment only as directed, and know where the eyewash, sink, and spill kit are before you start. My data table is ready before materials are handled.
Finish the checklist before you handle any material.
- • Wear the required PPE, keep the bench clear, handle equipment only as directed, and know where the eyewash, sink, and spill kit are before you start.
- • Human samples and data stay private: label with a code, never a name, and dispose of materials in the correct waste container, then wash your hands.
- 1Before materials are handled, identify the purpose, variables or comparison, controls, measurement units, and stop-work condition.
- 2Compare your tissue sketches to reference histology images.
- 3Write a CER: what tissue damage could indicate cause of death?
- 4Relate one heart structure to a possible pathology.
- 5Identify two variables that affect slide interpretation.
- 6State one limitation of microscopy for determining cause of death.
- 7Record each result in the prepared table before interpreting it. Mark missing, repeated, or invalid results truthfully.
- 8Complete the named cleanup and waste route, remove PPE safely, wash hands when required, and confirm the station is ready for the next group.
| Trial or sample ID | Independent condition | Measured result with units | Observation before interpretation | Quality-control note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Before the procedure, predict the result and cite the rule behind the prediction.
After the procedure, compare the result with the prediction and name one limitation or source of uncertainty.
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.
The bench work needs equipment you do not have at home. Do the thinking half now: read the procedure, write your prediction, and set up your data table so it is ready.
Back in class. Ask Mr. Mendoza for the class data set, or for a bench slot to run it yourself. Do not submit a CER with invented numbers.
Class still runs. Complete the online activity above (it's self-guided). Need the concept taught without a teacher? Use this authoritative explainer:
Khan Academy: human body systems (Health and medicine)- 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 through the one route named under Submit here and confirmed by the form receipt or the named physical handoff. Not in Schoology: that is where the report-card grade appears later.
- Error analysis and method · counts doubleName a specific limit of the method and how it moved your result, and compare what you predicted to what happened. "Human error" does not count; say what about the procedure or instrument caused it.