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.
Write the report CER
Do now
Write a full investigative CER report integrating all evidence and acknowledging limitations.
- Hand in
- Full investigative CER report: a clear cause-of-death claim, one piece of evidence cited from each of the four streams, a convergence reasoning paragraph, a conflict-resolution sentence, and at least two limitations.
- 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: Write the report CER
How do you turn your team's board into a written report that opens with your cause-of-death claim, backs it with one piece of evidence from each of the four streams, and still admits, out loud, the evidence that fights your conclusion?
Write a full investigative CER report integrating all evidence and acknowledging limitations.
- • I can write a CER integrating multiple evidence streams.
- • I can acknowledge limitations that qualify a conclusion.
- What are the three parts of a CER, and which one comes first in a strong ?
- If one piece of evidence contradicts your claim, is it better to leave it out or address it? Why?
- 1State your cause-of-death claim clearly.
- 2Cite evidence from each of the four streams that supports the claim.
- 3Reason through how the evidence converges on the conclusion.
- 4Address conflicting evidence and explain how you resolved it.
- 5List the limitations that qualify your conclusion.
What did this day actually feel like?
Write the report CER
The big one. A full investigative CER with a cause-of-death claim, one piece of evidence cited from each of the four streams, reasoning showing how they converge, and an honest limitations section. This is the longest thing I have written in the class.
We peer reviewed before submitting. The person who read mine said my reasoning explained three of my four evidence streams and just listed the fourth. She was right. I had cited the suspect information and never said why it mattered.
AT HOME, THE WEEKEND BEFORE TUE OCT 6 Submit investigation report Board photo and the final report. This closes Unit 1. Six weeks ago I did not know what a CER was and today I wrote a multi-stream investigative argument with a limitations section. I want that on the record because in the middle of it I did not feel like I was learning anything.
Turned in: full investigation 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.
Peer review before submitting.
CLASSMATE
You explained three of your four streams and just listed the fourth.
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
🔑 Today's words · 5
Tap a word in the lesson for a plain meaning and one example. Recycled into next week's Do-Now.
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.
Cause, mechanism and manner. You write the conclusion, then test it against worked examples of conclusions that fail. This is where the whole unit lands.
- Project 1.2.6 Case Closed
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 CER report turns an evidence board into a written argument that others can challenge, because naming and handling the conflicting evidence, rather than hiding it, is what makes the conclusion credible.
- 0:00Review the CER report structure with a class example; annotate what goes in each section
- 0:12Students draft the claim sentence; teacher circulates and gives rapid feedback
- 0:22Draft the evidence section: one item per stream, specific and attributed to the correct collection method
- 0:42Draft the reasoning section: convergence argument plus conflict resolution
- 1:02Draft the limitations paragraph: at least two limitations that qualify the conclusion
- 1:05: swap reports, check that all four streams are cited and at least one limitation is stated
- 1:15Revise based on peer feedback; preview Friday final submission
- • Today is writing day. Your evidence board is done; now you translate it into a report that can stand on its own. Someone who was not in this room should be able to read your CER and understand exactly what you concluded and why.
- • Start with the claim. One sentence. Clear and specific. Then go through each of the four streams and pull the strongest piece of evidence from each.
- • In the reasoning section you explain why all four streams point in the same direction. If one of them conflicts, you address it here. You do not pretend it does not exist.
- • End with your limitations. These are the things your evidence cannot tell you. The best reports end with honest limitations, not false certainty.
- • A strong CER report opens with the claim, then provides one piece of evidence from each stream, then reasons through how the streams converge.
- • Conflicting evidence must be addressed and either explained (with a reason) or acknowledged as an unresolved limitation.
- • Limitations that qualify a conclusion are not weaknesses in the argument; they are signs of scientific honesty and increase the credibility of the report.
Unit 1.3 Open Investigation: Virtual/open case investigation; synthesize scene, lab, suspect, and autopsy evidence. · Write the report CER
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, submit your Project 1.2.6 Case Closed investigative CER report draft through the report section.
Mark the Project 1.2.6 CER draft task complete in myPLTW.
You built the evidence board Wednesday. By the end of today a complete draft (claim, evidence, reasoning, limitations) should be finished.
Draft CER report (handwritten or typed) peer-reviewed and uploaded to the tracker.
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 1.3 Open Investigation: Virtual/open case investigation; synthesize scene, lab, suspect, and autopsy evidence. · Write the report CER
In myPLTW, submit your Project 1.2.6 Case Closed investigative CER report draft through the report section.
You built the evidence board Wednesday. By the end of today a complete draft (claim, evidence, reasoning, limitations) should be finished.
This is how Mr. Mendoza sees the class keeping pace with PLTW. Be honest, it only helps if it is accurate.
🎯 Write a full investigative CER report integrating all evidence and acknowledging limitations.
- State your cause-of-death claim clearly.
- Cite evidence from each of the four streams that supports the claim.
- Reason through how the evidence converges on the conclusion.
- Address conflicting evidence and explain how you resolved it.
- List the limitations that qualify your conclusion.
CER: Full investigative CER report: a clear cause-of-death claim, one piece of evidence cited from each of the four streams, a convergence reasoning paragraph, a conflict-resolution sentence, and at least two limitations.
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 |
|---|---|
| State your cause-of-death claim clearly. | _______ |
| Cite evidence from each of the four streams that supports the claim. | _______ |
| Reason through how the evidence converges on the conclusion. | _______ |
| Address conflicting evidence and explain how you resolved it. | _______ |
| List the limitations that qualify your conclusion. | _______ |
Working solo? Put your own name in "Who" for every row.
- I can write a CER integrating multiple evidence streams.
- I can acknowledge limitations that qualify a conclusion.
- 1Do thisWrite a full investigative CER report integrating all evidence and acknowledging limitations.
- 2Use this resource
- 3Submit thisCER: Full investigative CER report: a clear cause-of-death claim, one piece of evidence cited from each of the four streams, a convergence reasoning paragraph, a conflict-resolution sentence, and at least two limitations.
- 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 1.3 Open Investigation: Virtual/open case investigation; synthesize scene, lab, suspect, and autopsy evidence. › 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.
An evidence board makes an investigation's logic visible so that converging evidence and dangerous gaps both stand out, because a conclusion is only as strong as the gap it cannot yet explain.
A CER report turns an evidence board into a written argument that others can challenge, because naming and handling the conflicting evidence, rather than hiding it, is what makes the conclusion credible.
A detective board holds observations, possible explanations, and one next question.
- Which notes are direct observations?
- Which notes are explanations?
- What new evidence would separate the explanations?
Keep observations separate from explanations, then collect the evidence that can distinguish the options.
Biomedical investigations use controlled procedures and validated measurements, not intuition alone.
- • Board notes map to the signs, results and measurements you recorded.
- • Possible explanations map to the competing biological causes.
- • The next question maps to the test or observation that would separate them.
Driving question: How do you turn your team's board into a written report that opens with your cause-of-death claim, backs it with one piece of evidence from each of the four streams, and still admits, out loud, the evidence that fights your conclusion?
What you already know: An evidence board makes an investigation's logic visible so that converging evidence and dangerous gaps both stand out, because a conclusion is only as strong as the gap it cannot yet explain.
New idea: A CER report turns an evidence board into a written argument that others can challenge, because naming and handling the conflicting evidence, rather than hiding it, is what makes the conclusion credible.
Visual or model: F1. F1. A lesson illustration or teaching diagram for Write the report CER. 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 Write the report CER.
- Observe or measure the relevant feature in write the report CER.
- Organize the observation with a stable evidence ID.
- Apply this rule: Keep observations separate from explanations, then collect the evidence that can distinguish the options.
- Choose the option the evidence supports and state the limit of the conclusion.
Real biomedical example: How do you turn your team's board into a written report that opens with your cause-of-death claim, backs it with one piece of evidence from each of the four streams, and still admits, out loud, the evidence that fights your conclusion?
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.
- • synthesis: Building a molecule in the cell, as in synthesis (making a protein from mRNA).
- • : A formal written document presenting the evidence, methods, and conclusions of a scientific investigation, often used to support legal cases.
- • limitation: A weakness or boundary of a study, design, or method that restricts how far its results can be trusted or applied.
- • reliability: The degree to which a measurement, method, or person produces the same dependable result each time under the same conditions.
- • : Evidence given in court by a qualified specialist who explains technical findings, such as DNA or results, to help the jury understand.
- • conclusion: The closing part of an investigation where you state whether the evidence supported your hypothesis and explain what the results mean.
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.
Biomedical evidence supports a conclusion only to the level allowed by the measurement, comparison, controls, source quality, and uncertainty in the investigation.
Limit: The classroom evidence supports the stated learning decision, not a real clinical diagnosis, causal conclusion, or treatment recommendation.
Keep observations separate from explanations, then collect the evidence that can distinguish the options.
Limit: Biomedical investigations use controlled procedures and validated measurements, not intuition alone.
You can write a CER integrating multiple evidence streams.
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@P67-2026-10-02 · Simulated classroom evidence scenario
Your role: biomedical team member
Decision: Your team must decide what the evidence from write the report CER supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning response named on the lesson page.
- • Choose the strongest supported explanation.
- • Choose the next evidence to collect.
- • Hold the decision because the evidence is insufficient.
Response: State one choice, cite at least two evidence IDs, explain the rule that connects them, and add one limitation. Submit it as the claim-evidence-reasoning response.
Claim ceiling: Today's evidence supports a classroom claim about write the report CER. It cannot prove causation, diagnose a real patient, or justify action outside this room.
Reason for review: Your team must decide what the evidence from write the report CER supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning response named on the lesson page.
Context: A written CER report translates an evidence board into an argument anyone can read and challenge, because a conclusion no one else can check is not yet science.
- • T1: State your cause-of-death claim clearly.
- • T2: Cite evidence from each of the four streams that supports the claim.
- • T3: Reason through how the evidence converges on the conclusion.
- • T4: Address conflicting evidence and explain how you resolved it.
- • T5: List the limitations that qualify your conclusion.
- • E1: Biomedical evidence supports a conclusion only to the level allowed by the measurement, comparison, controls, source quality, and uncertainty in the investigation.
- • E2: Keep observations separate from explanations, then collect the evidence that can distinguish the options.
- • E3: You can write a CER integrating multiple evidence streams.
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 Write the report CER. 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 often think admitting a limitation or a conflicting result makes their report look weak, so they leave the contradicting evidence out.. The trap: That is backwards, and it is a trap: a limitation you name and explain shows scientific honesty and raises the report's credibility, while a contradiction you hide is the exact thing a reviewer or attorney will find and use to discredit you, so addressing it protects your conclusion.
Parallel case: A sudden fish die-off in a neighborhood pond. A student team investigated why hundreds of fish died overnight, pulling evidence from four independent streams.\n\nClaim: The most likely cause of the fish die-off is oxygen depletion triggered by an algae bloom, not direct chemical poisoning.\n\nEvidence by stream: Field, a dissolved-oxygen meter read far below the level fish need to survive at dawn. Lab, water samples showed nitrate and phosphate concentrations high enough to feed a large algae bloom. Biological, a thick mat of decaying algae covered the surface, and decay consumes oxygen. Records, the weather log showed several hot, still, cloudy days with no wind to mix the water.\n\nReasoning (convergence): These four independent streams point to the same explanation. Low oxygen, bloom-feeding nutrients, decaying algae, and calm warm weather each describe one part of the same chain, and when separate methods agree on one story the conclusion is strong.\n\nConflict resolution: One water test flagged a trace of a lawn chemical, which hinted at poisoning instead. I resolved this by trusting the repeated oxygen readings and the visible algae mat over a single trace measurement that was near the detection limit.\n\nLimitations: 1) I did not test the water on the days before the die-off, so I am inferring the bloom timeline rather than observing it directly. 2) Oxygen and nutrient data show a strong pattern but cannot by themselves rule out every other stressor, so the conclusion stays a reasonable-certainty finding, not a certainty.
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: A complete investigative report in CER form for a parallel scenario: a cause claim, one piece of evidence from each of four streams, a convergence paragraph, a conflict-resolution sentence, and at least two limitations. Structure mirrors the report students must write, but the case is different so it guides without revealing today's answer.
- 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 draft CER to the tracker or hand in the written copy for peer review 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 Write the report CER. 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 write the report CER. It cannot prove causation, diagnose a real patient, or justify action outside this room.
In a different case, not yours: a report claims death by drug overdose, but the autopsy also noted a partly blocked coronary artery that could point somewhere else. What must your report do with that coronary finding?
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▸
What today's skills lead to. These are real health-science careers this course builds toward. Tap one to see, on the US Department of Labor's O*NET site, what the job actually involves, what it pays, and how fast it is growing.
Today is individual work you can do from home: complete the same target above, then submit your CER.
Turn it inSubmit 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.
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 Biology Library- 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.