Clue 1: Orient yourself
What is outside the frame?
Use the labels and the picture's left-to-right, near-to-far, or before-and-after order. Name only what you can point to.
The question
What is outside the frame?
Why it matters: Clinical recommendations affect real children and families. Fair comparisons, bias control, ethical limits, and honest uncertainty keep a promising result from becoming a harmful claim. Today you practice the professional reasoning behind that work: A researchable question names a population, a factor or intervention, a comparison, and a measurable outcome.
On your WebXam
Recognizing a researchable PICO question versus a non-researchable one
For life
To find the cause, change one thing and watch what changes.
Principle: Same look, different cause
Five principles we return to
Having it is not using it
Same instructions, different switches
Same look, different cause
Change one thing and watch
Boss or doorman?
Decides the result or only allows it
Held down, not gone
Remove the brake and it returns
Many roads, one ending
One result can begin many ways
Try the everyday version first
A camera turns a wide scene into one answerable frame
A camera frame includes some details and leaves others outside the picture. Choosing the frame decides which question the image can answer.
Do not jump to the biology yet. Treat the picture as a small system. Track its parts, follow one change at a time, and keep more than one explanation open until the picture supplies a way to separate them.
Clue 2: Trace one change
Which action and comparison remain inside it?
Follow one object, stage, or path. Point to the first place where the situation changes instead of jumping to the ending.
Clue 3: Keep the cause open
How will the camera know when the moment has happened?
List more than one explanation that still fits. Name the extra observation that would help you separate those possibilities.
Now inspect the illustration
Work from the visible evidence. A useful answer names the part of the picture that supports it and leaves unknown causes open.
- 1What is outside the frame?
- 2Which action and comparison remain inside it?
- 3How will the camera know when the moment has happened?
Tier 1 check
Finish with the everyday model
Use the everyday picture to answer today's question in plain words: What is outside the frame?
You can complete today's required check without opening the technical details below.
Ready for the real names? Optional tier 2
Technical rules and limits
Rule 1: Name who is being studied.
Rule 2: Name the factor or intervention and comparison.
Rule 3: Name an outcome that can be measured at a set time.
Where the analogy stops: A study question guides evidence collection, but it cannot remove every uncertainty the way a camera crops a scene.
Carry the previous idea forward
A complete anatomical story can define structures, functions, repairs, and uncertainties while leaving treatment comparisons open to experiment.
Today's technical takeaway
A researchable question names a population, a factor or intervention, a comparison, and a measurable outcome.
Now map the same rules onto biology
Frame the palate-timing question with PICO
Subject in frame
Population
Two possible actions
Intervention and comparison
Visible finish line
Measurable outcome and time
Educational illustration, not a clinical photograph or a patient-specific study plan. Use the supplied evidence cards and claim ceiling.
Mateo's case file: evidence supplied in this lesson
EXP01-E1
The open anatomical question is whether repair timing changes later speech function.
Why it matters: The question concerns a treatment choice, not the cause of Mateo's cleft.
EXP01-E2
A supplied candidate population is medically fit infants with isolated cleft palate.
Why it matters: The population is specific enough to set eligibility rules.
EXP01-E3
VPI can be scored at age 5 by trained assessors.
Why it matters: The outcome and time point can be defined before the study begins.
Make the clinical decision
You are the junior investigator writing the first protocol line.
The team must choose one question before enrolling any participants.
AAmong eligible infants, does repair at 6 rather than 12 months reduce VPI at age 5?
BWhat is the best cleft surgery?
CDid Mateo's family cause his cleft?
Choose the researchable question and label its population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and time.
Evidence required
EXP01-E1 + EXP01-E2 Claim ceiling
You may define the study question. You may not predict which timing is better before data are collected.Go deeper Optional tier 3
Everything required for today is above. Open these only if you want the explainer, source trail, or download files.
The everyday model and Tier 1 check are the complete required path for this lesson.
Use these checks to keep your place. They are not turned in through the portal.
Check off as you finish
- Worked through the everyday picture and answered its three questions.
- Completed the Tier 1 check in plain words.
Turn in: Experimental Design lesson 1: From an Observation to a Researchable Question
Go to Schoology to turn this in.
Submit one PDF. Put your first and last name in the document header. Name the file: FirstName LastName - Assignment Title - YYYY-MM-DD.pdf.
Open Schoology PDF upload helpIf you cannot get in, see Mr. Mendoza. Do not skip the work.
Optional legacy technical materials Open only if you want the original notes, vocabulary, artifact, and CER work
Goal: Students will convert an observation about Mateo into a focused, answerable using the PICO framework, and separate researchable from non-researchable questions.
Know by the end
- A question is researchable when it can be answered by collecting and analyzing real, observable (empirical) data; questions of blame, single fate, or value are not.
- PICO sharpens a vague question into Population, Intervention or exposure, Comparison, and Outcome.
- A scientific question must be falsifiable: some possible result could prove it wrong.
- Three of the team's questions map onto real studies: the TOPS surgical-timing trial, a five-country of stress, and a Danish twin heritability study.
1
Researchable versus interesting
Model start: A question is researchable when real, observable (empirical) data could answer it; blame, fate, and value questions are important but not measurable.
- A question is researchable when it can be answered by collecting and analyzing real, observable data; we call data-based answers ____ (empirical) answers.
- Questions of blame, single fate, and value matter to people, but a study cannot settle them by measurement.
2
Sharpening with PICO
- P = ____ (Population): who or what we study. I = the Intervention or exposure we are interested in.
- C = ____ (Comparison): what we compare against. O = ____ (Outcome): the specific thing we measure.
3
The falsifiability rule
- A good scientific question must be ____ (proven wrong); if no possible data could ever change the answer, it is not scientific.
- TOPS answered a tightly PICO-shaped question and reported a clear measured result, fewer speech problems with earlier repair (8.9% versus 15.0%).
Everything you need for today is on this page. These links are optional.
What to read
Read the short plain-language explanation written for this lesson. Plain-language explainer for this lesson
Why this source matters
This explanation gives you the background for today's idea without making you decode a research paper: A question is researchable only when real, observable data could answer it, and PICO is how we sharpen it.
Words to unlock first
researchable questionPICOpopulationcomparisonoutcome
Reading moves
- Skim the title and abstract first to get the gist.
- Circle the one sentence that states the main claim.
- Box the evidence the authors give for that claim.
- Mark one sentence that confuses you, and move on.
Stop point
Stop after the final 'Use it now' section. The research citations are available separately for advanced readers.
Your output
Write one claim-evidence sentence: state the main idea, then name the example or evidence that supports it.
Where this fits
Tested on (Ohio WebXam)
Genetics of Disease · 072130
PLTW lesson
MI · Experimental Design domain · Research design and the scientific method (asking researchable questions)
WebXam domain
Molecular and Genetic Technology
Evidence to produce
Pick one open question about Mateo and write it as a clean PICO question with all four parts (P, I, C, O) labeled, then write one sentence stating what kind of data you would collect to answer it and whether the outcome is something you could actually measure.
Lab / skill
Biomedical Innovations (BI) · Principles of Biomedical Science (PBS)
Everything required for today's decision is already in the case file and plain-language explainer. The links below are original papers and database records for teachers and advanced readers, not assigned student reading.
- NEJM. Timing of Primary Surgery for Cleft Palate (TOPS), 2023.
- Gamble C, et al. 2023. Timing of Primary Surgery for Cleft Palate (TOPS trial). N Engl J Med. [PMID:37646677]
- Sabbagh HJ, et al. 2023. COVID-19 risk factors and orofacial clefts, five Arab countries: case-control study. BMC Oral Health. [PMID:37118740]
- Grosen D, et al. 2011. Risk of Oral Clefts in Twins. Epidemiology. [PMID:21423016]
- Claim: One question on the team's whiteboard is researchable and one is not.
- Evidence: The researchable one is ____, with P = ____, I = ____, C = ____, O = ____; the non-researchable one is ____.
- Reasoning: The second question cannot be answered by collecting data because it asks about ____ (blame, single fate, or value) rather than a measurable outcome.
How this is graded (rubric)
For: Pick one open question about Mateo and write it as a clean PICO question with all four parts (P, I, C, O) labeled, then write one sentence stating what kind of data you would collect to answer it and whether the outcome is something you could actually measure.
| Criterion | Proficient | Developing | Beginning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Complete | Every required part of the artifact is present and filled in. | Most parts are present, but one is missing or left blank. | Several parts are missing. |
| Accurate | The science and data are correct and match the evidence. | Mostly correct, with a small factual slip. | Key science or data is wrong. |
| Scientific reasoning (CER) | States a claim, backs it with specific evidence, and explains the reasoning. | Has a claim and evidence, but the reasoning is thin or missing. | Gives an answer with no evidence or reasoning. |
| Professional communication | Clear, organized, and labeled the way a clinician or scientist would write it. | Readable but disorganized or missing labels. | Hard to follow. |
| Submitted | Turned in through the route named under Submit here and confirmed. | Turned in, but in the wrong place or unconfirmed. | Not turned in. |
How the model answer scores against this rubric
- CompleteProficient: Nothing is left blank: the model fills every part of "Pick one open question about Mateo and write it as a clean PICO question with all four parts (P, I, C, O) labeled, then write one sentence stating what kind of data you would collect to answer it and whether the outcome is something you could actually measure.".
- AccurateProficient: Every number and claim matches the case evidence.
- Scientific reasoning (CER)Proficient: It names a claim, cites the specific evidence, and explains the reasoning, not just the answer.
- Professional communicationProficient: It is organized and labeled like a real chart note.
- SubmittedProficient: It would be attached to your class form or handed in, and confirmed.
What's next: We turned an observation into a sharp PICO question. But a question is still not a prediction. How do we turn a PICO question into a hypothesis we can actually prove wrong, with variables we control and a clear way to fail?