Teaching Notes

A Shot in the Arm

Case Analysis IntroducingKey Concepts about the Immune System and HIV/AIDS

Overview

This case stimulates student interest in the immune system and vaccines and to recognize the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the population.This case focuses on the following topics:

Developed as part of the RCSB Collaborative Curriculum Development Program 2014

Teaching Notes

  • Immune response
  • Viral infections
  • Vaccinations
  • HIV/AIDS
  • HIV treatment
  • Influenza

Developed as part of the RCSB Collaborative Curriculum Development Program 2014

Teaching Notes

Learning Goals

  1. Investigate specific questions related toimmune system, vaccines and HIV/AIDS through the following:
  2. askrelevant questions
  3. assess prior knowledge
  4. research and find answers to the questions
  5. develop suitable models
  6. share findings– orally and in a written report.

Educational Standards

  1. Common Core
  2. Key Ideas and Details
  3. RST.11-12.1
  4. RST.11-12.2
  5. Craft and Structure
  6. RI.11-12.4
  7. Integration of Knowledge and Ideas
  8. RI.11-12.7
  9. RI.11-12.8
  10. Next Generation Science Standards
  11. Practices
  12. 7. Engaging in argument from practice
  13. 8. Obtaining, Evaluating and Communicating Information
  14. Crosscutting Concepts
  15. 4. Systems and system models
  16. 6. Structure and function
  17. Disciplinary Core Ideas
  18. LS1: From Molecules to Organisms: Structures and Processes
  19. LS4: Biological Evolution: Unity and Diversity
  20. Advanced Placement Biology - Essential Knowledge (EK), Learning Objectives (LO), Science Practices (SP)
  21. EK 2.D.3
  22. LO 2.28, SP 1.4
  23. EK 2.D.4
  24. LO 2.29, SP 1.1, 1.2
  25. LO 2.30, SP 1.1, 1.2

Suggestions for how to use this investigative case:

This investigative case is written to help bring about a discussion of the immune system by providing a scenario, which invites discussion.

  1. To begin, provide students printed or electronic copies of the case and have them read it out loud in class. Students can assume the roles of the characters and also a narrator. Allow the students to read and hear the case.
  2. Have the students go back and reread the case and look for unfamiliar terms and for the topics, issues or questions that the case raises. Have them make a list and then and then discuss their topics by creating a class list on the board. Some of the topics may have nothing to do with the immune system or AIDS so all answers should be recorded without any judgment.
  3. The teacher assesses prior knowledge of students by having students fill in a chart with two columns (see Case Analysis Sheet). The first column titled, “What Do I Know?”lists topics and issues students know something about – they write down what they know. In the second column titled, “What Do I Need to Know?” students generate any questions they have about the topics and issues. At least 3-5 minutes should be provided to give students a chance to complete the chart individually. Then, another 2-3 minutes should be given to allow students to compare their charts with their neighbors.
  4. There is aclass discussion to fill in the chart collectively, as a class. During this time, again, all statements and questions should be recorded without judgment. Sometimes, someone may “know” something that is not correct. This is not a problem and does not need to be corrected by the teacher at this time. Other students may correct it or the issue may be clarified as students investigate the question they have developed and discuss their research findings.
  5. The teacher reviews the questions generated to see they are subject/theme related, open-ended (does not have a yes or no answer), and scientific questions. Scientific questions are those that can be formulated around a hypothesis and tested to prove or disprove it. The teacher can direct the class to begin to focus on open-ended, scientific questions. Depending on the time allotted for this activity and the extent of the research, the class can choose the three most important questions to answers. They can then discuss where they can find out the answers.
  6. Students should be given time to research the answer to one of the important questions. The background information provided along with the curriculum may be consulted during this research. Students may be grouped (typically, groups of 3) and begin researching the answers to the questions. This is differentiation by process – students may be grouped by their interest and abilities so that they are suitably challenged in this research process. If possible, allow students to work on the questions that interest them the most.
  7. Students share their research with the class. This can be done as presentations, either in an electronic format or on posters. All students should be given a chance to a look at the work done by their classmates. Students can perform a poster review where groups present their posters to each other and get feedback from their peers.The peer-reviews can be conducted using the claim-evidence-reasoning rubrics (see appendix).

More information on the use of cases in the classroom can be found at sciencecasenet.org.

Sample Responses

This case was presented to an AP Biology class in NJ by the developer of this unit and these are the responses of students in that class.

What issues/topics does the case raise? Are there any unfamiliar terms?

  • CD4 cells or T cells
  • Antiretroviral medications
  • Stem cell transplants
  • Difference between disease and virus
  • Rare diseases associated with HIV
  • 26% of new are in young people
  • No vaccine for HIV

What Do You Know? / What Do You Need to Know?
  • Vaccines should focus on cells that the virus attacks
  • T cells are the cells in your body that fight off diseases
  • You don’t die from HIV directly; you die from other diseases because HIV attacks your immune system
  • T cells produce antibodies
/
  • More facts about the Berlin patient
  • What are antiretroviral mediations?
  • Why are so many of the new cases found in people, ages 13-24?
  • How do we get the right information?
  • Are there any cases of known immunity? *
  • Do viruses come in different structures? *
  • How do most people get HIV?
  • Why have we not been able to get a vaccine?
  • Does HIV infect any other species?

From this chart, one can see that some of what they know is inaccurate, for example T cells produce antibodies and that some of the questions can be answered with a yes or no (e.g. those marked by a *). The studentsshould be encouraged to modify the questions or extend them.

To answer a question about antiretroviral medications, the students would first have to understand what a retrovirus is and how that differs from other viruses. It is also important to have students break down the questions to ensure that they get a complete picture. During the research, the teacher should be meeting with the groups to help them understand the complete picture.

Once the research is complete, students will present their findings. Other students in the class and also the teacher can use the following sheet to review the presentation.

Use the following Claim Evidence Reasoning Rubrics for reviewing/assessing the student presentations

5 / 4 / 3 / 2 / 1
Question / Is narrowly focused and is answerable / Language is more generalfocused. It is answerable. / Is answerable but not focused enough / Is answerable but not clear or focused. It may have a variety of different answers. / Is too broad and impractical.
Claim / Clearly stated and specific / Is stated in a more general way. / Is stated but it may be ambiguous or overreaching / Not as clearly stated. / Doesn’t make sense or it doesn’t answer the question.
Evidence
(2X) / Contains accurate data and summarizes trends. Inferences are drawn clearly from research. Known scientific explanations are tied to both the inferences and research. / All data is present and summarized. There may be some minor errors. All variables are accounted for.
Inferences are drawn clearly from data. Known scientific explanations are tied to either the inferences and observations / All data is present and summaries are adequate
Inferences are drawn clearly from observations and research. Known scientific explanations may be incorrect, missing or difficult to tie in. / Errors in reporting research with poor or missing summaries. All variables are accounted for. Inferences are present but may not be clearly stated. Known scientific explanations / Inaccurate and/or missing information. No summaries or inferences may be present. If present, they are inappropriate. Scientific explanations are missing or incorrect.
Reasoning
(2X) / Develops a methodical, powerful, and thorough plan for supporting the evidence. The approach and answers are explicitly detailed and reasonable throughout (whether or not the knowledge used is sophisticated or accurate). Claims are justified with compelling evidence and argument: counter-arguments, questionable data, and implicit premises are explored. / Develops fully a methodical plan for supporting the claim. The approach taken is appropriate, well-thought out, and based on reasonable data and strategies. Evidence and argument for most claims are provided, and the quality of the argument is high. All important reasoning is explicit and logical, though one or two implicit premises may not have been considered. Even when there is limited knowledge, all the reasons are logical and appropriate. / Grasps the problem adequately and develops an acceptable plan for solving it. All important variables have been considered, though the arguments may be incomplete.The problem-solving plan may be inefficient: the final write-up of the research and analysis may have gaps or illogical organization of steps. Some arguments along the way may not be reasonable ones, but the work provides evidencethat this was recognized. / Provides a barely adequate plan for solving the problem, and/or fails to consider certain critical aspects of the problem in the overall strategy. Even when work is thorough, the reasoning may not be sound, suggesting that the student is working with limited understanding of the meaning of the research and the logic of supporting a point. There is a semblance of sequential steps and organization of data into a meaningful result, but no clear overall strategy of supporting and explaining the evidence / The student has failed to come up with any clear, appropriate, and/or reasonable strategy for explaining or compiling the research. There is a semblance of proof or logic only:randomness or inappropriate or unsupported arguments comprise the reasoning.
Limitation / Cites specific types of evidence that would strengthen the claim. Explains clearly how to obtain that evidence and how it would impact the claim. / Cites at least one type of evidence that would strengthen the claim. Explains generally how to obtain that evidence and how it would impact the claim. / Cites at least one type of evidence that would strengthen the claim. Explains generally how that evidence would impact the claim. / Cites at least one type of evidence that would strengthen the claim. Is unclear as to how to obtain the evidence or the impact it would make on the claim. / Speaks in generalities of how to strengthen the claim.

Modified from a rubric used by the Olathe East High School Science Department, Olathe, KS, which was modified from a rubric used by the Colorado Spring School District Science Department.

Retrieved from

Developed as part of the RCSB Collaborative Curriculum Development Program 2014