Screening for a Hidden Syndrome
Genetics domain · Lesson 2 of 20 · Medical Interventions (MI), with PBS overlap
Today's goal: Students will triage a cleft by its associated features, use lower-lip pits to recognize Van der Woude syndrome, and apply that screen to decide that Mateo's cleft looks nonsyndromic (isolated).
What a finished product looks like
This is a model of the work you should turn in. Use it to check your own: match the structure and the level of detail, do not copy it. Your wording should be your own.
Triage note: Cleft screens as nonsyndromic because the patient has no lower-lip pits and no other associated anomalies; the Van der Woude flag (lip pits) is absent.
Checked to clear him:
- Lower lip examined for paramedian pits in Mateo: none found.
- Lower lips examined in both parents: none found.
- General exam for other anomalies (limbs, skin, knees): none found.
Pass to the inheritance team: this cleft reads as isolated; continue working out its inheritance pattern.
Also due today: Pass the cleared screen to the team that handles inheritance.
How this was built, step by step
The finished product above did not appear all at once. Here is the path from the question to the turned-in work, so you can follow the same steps.
- 1Start from today's question: What clue separates a syndrome from a lone , and does Mateo show it?
- 2Work the Model and the Explore questions to reason it out before writing anything.
- 3Pull the specific evidence the product needs from the reading and any database you used.
- 4Write it up in the required format: Write a one-line note for Mateo's chart stating whether the screens as syndromic or nonsyndromic and whether the Van der Woude flag () is present, then list the specific things you checked to clear him.
- 5Check it against the rubric, then submit.
| 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 the right way (Schoology for routine work) and confirmed. | Turned in, but in the wrong place or unconfirmed. | Not turned in. |
- CompleteProficient: Nothing is left blank: the model fills every part of "Write a one-line triage note for Mateo's chart stating whether the cleft screens as syndromic or nonsyndromic and whether the Van der Woude flag (lip pits) is present, then list the specific things you checked to clear him.".
- 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 turned in on Schoology and confirmed.
WebXam problem for today's skill
One exam-style question that uses exactly what you practiced today. 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.