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.
Coating ratio CER
Do now
Design your own ratio trial, then write a CER recommending a coating ratio against the five-to-six-minute window.
- Hand in
- CER stating whether the prototype met its design goal, citing averaged trial data and variable-control evidence, explaining design strengths and flaws, proposing a specific iteration with a predicted result, and stating test-data 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: Coating ratio CER
Design your own ratio trial, then write a CER recommending a coating ratio against the five-to-six-minute window.
Design your own ratio trial, then write a CER recommending a coating ratio against the five-to-six-minute window.
- • 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.
- What do you already know about Coating ratio CER?
- What would you need to find out to answer today's question?
- 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 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.
What did this day actually feel like?
Frontier medicine ethics debate
ETHICS MONDAY The final Monday. Should biomedical research money go to extreme frontiers like space and undersea medicine, or to everyday care that helps more people now?
I argued for everyday care and lost ground on a point I had not considered: frontier research produces unexpected breakthroughs that come back to ordinary patients, and you cannot know in advance which ones.
The counterargument to my counterargument is that "it might pay off somehow" justifies any spending at all.
We ended without resolving it, which at this point is what I expect and no longer find frustrating.
John Carroll closed by asking us to name one position we had changed across the semester. Mine was genetic privacy. I came in certain and left genuinely unsure, and I think that is an improvement.
Turned in: exit ticket → Exit Tickets folder
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.
🧭 Everything on this day
Check you have the right sheet: the top of it prints today's portal day, Coating ratio CER. The PLTW activity itself is in myPLTW and is not posted here.
Do the work · 80-minute blockfirst 5 min = hook▸
💡 Big idea: This is the first task in the course where better is not more: a coating that opens at three minutes fails exactly as hard as one that opens at nine.
- 0-8 minReview Wednesday : confirm average performance and trial variability.
- 8-20 minWrite the claim: one sentence stating whether the prototype met its design goal.
- 20-42 minWrite evidence: cite average trial data, controlled variables, and one variability observation.
- 42-58 minWrite reasoning: link data to design strengths and flaws.
- 58-70 minWrite the iteration proposal (one variable to change, predicted outcome) and test-data limitations.
- 70-80 min: confirm claim addresses the design goal, data is cited specifically, iteration predicts a result.
- • You collected the data Wednesday; now you write the formal argument about what it means for the device design.
- • The claim must address the design goal directly: did the prototype meet the specification or not?
- • The iteration you propose is the most practically valuable part of this CER: it says what you would do next.
- • Your limitation should explain why the Wednesday data might not generalize to a real clinical use case.
- • A prototype evaluation CER claim states whether the device met the specified design goal, not whether it was 'good.'
- • Trial data is the primary evidence: average performance and trial-to-trial variability both belong in the evidence section.
- • An iteration proposal changes one variable based on the data; it should predict what the next trial result will be.
Unit 4.1 Innovation, Inc.: Engineering design, device/vessel model, CAD concept, prototype testing, disease prevention. · Coating ratio 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: Open myPLTW and find Lesson 4.1 Designing the Future, Activity 4.1.5 Drug Design Lab Part II, and use its analysis prompts as a writing scaffold.
Submit any platform prompts before shifting to independent CER writing.
Platform prompts done in first 10 minutes; full CER submitted before end of period.
Submitted CER on the class site, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class is the primary evidence.
The official PLTW activity stays inside myPLTW. If myPLTW will not open, use F1 and E1-E3 on this page to complete today's local evidence decision, then make up the official activity when access returns. 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 4.1 Innovation, Inc.: Engineering design, device/vessel model, CAD concept, prototype testing, disease prevention. · Coating ratio CER
Open myPLTW and find Lesson 4.1 Designing the Future, Activity 4.1.5 Drug Design Lab Part II, and use its analysis prompts as a writing scaffold.
Platform prompts done in first 10 minutes; full CER submitted before end of period.
This is how Mr. Mendoza sees the class keeping pace with PLTW. Be honest, it only helps if it is accurate.
🎯 Design your own ratio trial, then write a CER recommending a coating ratio against the five-to-six-minute window.
- State the target precisely: intact through the stomach phase, then fully separated from the coverslip between five and six minutes.
- Choose which polymer ratios you will test and how many, and write down why.
- Write your of fully separated before you run anything, and how you will time it.
- Decide whether you will repeat each ratio, and how many times.
- Run the trials and record on the data sheet.
- Write the CER: your recommended ratio, the data that supports it, and the reasoning that connects them.
CER: CER stating whether the prototype met its design goal, citing averaged trial data and variable-control evidence, explaining design strengths and flaws, proposing a specific iteration with a predicted result, and stating test-data 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 the target precisely: intact through the stomach phase, then fully separated from the coverslip between five and six minutes. | _______ |
| Choose which polymer ratios you will test and how many, and write down why. | _______ |
| Write your of fully separated before you run anything, and how you will time it. | _______ |
| Decide whether you will repeat each ratio, and how many times. | _______ |
| Run the trials and record on the data sheet. | _______ |
| Write the CER: your recommended ratio, the data that supports it, and the reasoning that connects them. | _______ |
Working solo? Put your own name in "Who" for every row.
- 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.
- 1Do thisDesign your own ratio trial, then write a CER recommending a coating ratio against the five-to-six-minute window.
- 2Use this resource
- 3Submit thisCER: CER stating whether the prototype met its design goal, citing averaged trial data and variable-control evidence, explaining design strengths and flaws, proposing a specific iteration with a predicted result, and stating test-data 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 4.1 Innovation, Inc.: Engineering design, device/vessel model, CAD concept, prototype testing, disease prevention. › 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 interval you skipped is data you cannot get back, so the discipline of the interval is what makes the run usable.
This is the first task in the course where better is not more: a coating that opens at three minutes fails exactly as hard as one that opens at nine.
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: Design your own ratio trial, then write a CER recommending a coating ratio against the five-to-six-minute window.
What you already know: An interval you skipped is data you cannot get back, so the discipline of the interval is what makes the run usable.
New idea: This is the first task in the course where better is not more: a coating that opens at three minutes fails exactly as hard as one that opens at nine.
Visual or model: F1. F1. A lesson illustration or teaching diagram for Coating ratio 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 Coating ratio CER.
- Observe or measure the relevant feature in coating ratio 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: Design your own ratio trial, then write a CER recommending a coating ratio against the five-to-six-minute window.
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.
- • prototype: Use the lesson context and glossary entry to explain prototype in your own words.
- • constraint: A limit or requirement that a design must work within, such as a budget, available time, materials, or rules.
- • criterion: A clear, agreed-upon standard or rule used to judge, compare, or decide between options.
- • CAD: Computer-aided design: software used to create precise digital models of objects, such as prosthetics or medical devices, before building them.
- • iteration: One repeated cycle of building, testing, and improving, where each pass refines the design or result based on what the last pass revealed.
- • : A small mesh tube placed inside a narrowed or blocked vessel or duct to hold it open and keep fluid flowing.
- • prevention: Actions taken to stop a disease or injury before it happens, such as vaccines, screenings, or healthy daily habits.
- • : A written outline of what will be tested, how, and what counts as success, used to guide an experiment or product check.
Use it now: Choose one decision option. Cite E1 and E3, then explain how the rule connects the evidence to your choice.
Go further, optional: The source links below are optional enrichment. Every fact required for today's local evidence decision appears in this lesson package.
A biomedical design advances when test evidence is compared with explicit user needs, criteria, constraints, risks, and failure modes, then used to justify a documented revision.
Limit: A classroom prototype, , presentation, or does not establish clinical , effectiveness, manufacturing quality, or regulatory clearance.
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.
Change one variable at a time so a result can be attributed to the ratio.
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@P67-2026-12-14 · Simulated classroom evidence scenario
Your role: biomedical team member
Decision: Your team must decide what the evidence from coating ratio CER supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning response named on the lesson page.
- • Keep the current design.
- • Revise the feature that misses a criterion.
- • Run one more fair test before choosing.
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 coating ratio 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 coating ratio CER supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning response named on the lesson page.
Context: Design your own ratio trial, then write a CER recommending a coating ratio against the five-to-six-minute window.
- • T1: State the target precisely: intact through the stomach phase, then fully separated from the coverslip between five and six minutes.
- • T2: Choose which polymer ratios you will test and how many, and write down why.
- • T3: Write your of fully separated before you run anything, and how you will time it.
- • T4: Decide whether you will repeat each ratio, and how many times.
- • T5: Run the trials and record on the data sheet.
- • T6: Write the CER: your recommended ratio, the data that supports it, and the reasoning that connects them.
- • E1: A biomedical design advances when test evidence is compared with explicit user needs, criteria, constraints, risks, and failure modes, then used to justify a documented revision.
- • E2: Keep observations separate from explanations, then collect the evidence that can distinguish the options.
- • E3: Change one variable at a time so a result can be attributed to the ratio.
Measurements: Use only the measurements, units, graph, or counts supplied in today's task. No additional patient measurement is implied.
Figure finding: Teaching diagram for Coating ratio 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.
Mean = sum of values / number of values. Median = middle ordered value. Range = maximum - minimum.
For 2, 4, 4, and 10: mean = 20 / 4 = 5, median = 4, and range = 10 - 2 = 8.
Mean, median, and range keep the measurement unit. Order the values before finding the median.
Calculate the requested summary for today's supplied values, then write what it reveals and what it hides.
- • The solution must address the stated need in coating ratio CER.
- • The decision must be supported by E1-E3.
- • The final product must make the success criteria visible.
- • Complete the work inside the 80-minute block.
- • Use only supplied or teacher-approved materials and evidence.
- • Do not trade , accessibility, or privacy for speed.
- • and evidence quality: must pass before scoring other criteria.
- • User need and effectiveness: highest scored criterion.
- • Time, cost, and ease of use: compare only after and effectiveness pass.
Test evidence: For each option, record the E1-E3 result that supports or fails each criterion. Do not assign a score without a named observation.
- Version or option tested
- Criterion met or missed
- Evidence ID and result
- Revision made
- Reason for the revision
- Need and user
- Criteria and constraints
- Chosen option and evidence
- Test result
- Revision and reason
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 the class site, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class before end of period.
- CER:
- Claim, Evidence, Reasoning: make a claim, back it with evidence, explain your reasoning.
- SOP:
- Standard Operating Procedure, the exact steps to follow (especially in a lab).
- Tracker:
- Your PLTW progress log where you record completed evidence.
- myPLTW:
- The PLTW course site where you do the online activities. Find it in Clever with your Microsoft sign-in, right next to Schoology.
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 Coating ratio 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 coating ratio CER. It cannot prove causation, diagnose a real patient, or justify action outside this room.
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.
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:
PhET: simulations for engineering and physical testingYou've passed Unit 2, so the optional extra-credit track is open. Complete reserved-unit work from home, including virtual labs, for extra credit. Each item shows its correct submission route.
Open the extra-credit track- CompleteEvery required part of the artifact is present, nothing left blank.
- AccurateThe science and the data are correct and match the evidence.
- Scientific reasoningYou explain your claim with evidence and reasoning (CER), not just an answer.
- Professional communicationClear, organized, labeled, and written the way a clinician or scientist would.
- SubmittedTurned in 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.