Professional Documents
Culture Documents
How has our understanding of biological foundations improved through scientific discovery and technological
Key Concepts / Big Ideas
developments?
(Essentail Question)
This unit of work will be implemented during Term 3 of year 10. At this stage, students will be familiar with the relationship
Unit Context:
between multicellular organisms and their environment as explored in LW1
(Scope and Sequence a) describe some examples of how multicellular organisms respond to changes in their environment.
Information)
The unit of work builds upon prior foundational knowledge of survival and reproduction, as well as technological
developments gained during stage 4, being;
SC4-14LW - Relates the structure and function of living things to their classification, survival and reproduction
SC4-15LW - Explains how new biological evidence changes people's understanding of the world.
Despite this, prior knowledge is not to be assumed, and hence this program promotes such learning strategies as concept
maps, coupled with collaborative student learning tools to provide foundation for students to demonstrate proficient
understanding of evolution, adaptation, natural selection, and how this enhances survival of organisms in a population.
Student understanding and knowledge is formally assessed through an independent multimodal research task.
Prior to undertaking this unit of study, students may likely follow the the thought process of ‘everything came from
Rationale:
something’. Such a unit as this has been designed to develop student understanding in specific relation to evolution, and the
(The importance of this processes that come with it. Students delve through content that examines adaptations of organisms, processes such as
learning) geological time scales and the fossil record, as well as the scientific discoveries that have led to the development of our
current understanding of the evolutionary process. Students also demonstrate inter-curricular development of STEM
through activities including simulations, collaborative design tasks, and other group activity. Such study is crucial in that
students examine the relevance, reliability, and validity of both primary and secondary sources to determine an enduring
understanding of evolution as a whole, and what it means for future sustainability of life on Earth.
Literacy Focus Numeracy Focus ICT Focus Differentiation
Student literacy skills are developed Student numeracy skills are enhanced Student ICT development is focused Extra column added to identify specific
via demonstration of appropriate through recording of data in through multiple occurrences of differentiation. All worksheets used
scientific terminology through appropriate tables during practical research from secondary sources. can be potentially modified to adjust
comprehension activities, as well as investigations. Students demonstrate Students additionally develop ICT difficulty to suit differing learning
abilities of students.
analysis of data from practical numerical aptitude through skills through the completion of
activities and secondary sources. calculations of population change, as simulation activities. Foremost,
Students further identify key features well as time-scale activities relative to students learn to identify credible
of sources through ICT activities. fossil records. Students emphasise sources, as well as development of
understanding of numeracy in STEM ICT ability in the completion of their
activities listed below. formal assessment
Skills
Strand Outcomes Content
Questioning and Develops questions or WS4 Students question and predict by:
predicting hypotheses to be
b. Predicting outcomes based on observations and scientific knowledge.
investigated
scientifically SC5-4WS
Planning Produces a plan to WS5.1 Students identify data to be collected for an investigation by:
Investigations investigate identified
b. Explaining why certain types of information need to be collected in a range of investigation
questions, hypotheses
or problems, types.
individually d. Justifying why variables need to be kept constant if reliable first-hand data is to be collected
and collaboratively in controlled experiments.
SC5-5WS
WS5.2 Students plan first-hand investigations by:
a. Planning and selecting appropriate investigation methods, including fieldwork and laboratory
experimentation, to collect reliable data.
b. Describing a logical procedure for undertaking a range of investigation types.
c. Designing controlled experiments to collect valid first-hand data.
d. Specifying the dependent and independent variables for controlled experiments.
Strand Outcomes Content
Conducting Undertakes first-hand WS6 Students conduct investigations by:
investigations investigations to collect
a. Individually and collaboratively using appropriate investigation methods, including fieldwork and laboratory
valid and reliable data
experimentation, to collect reliable data.
and
b. Safely constructing, assembling and manipulating identified equipment.
information,individually
c. Selecting and using appropriate equipment, including digital technologies, to systematically and accurately
and collaboratively.
collect and record data.
SC5-6WS
e. Reporting data and information, evidence and findings, with accuracy and honesty.
Processing and Processes, analyses and WS7.1 Students process data and information by:
analysing data evaluates data from
a. Selecting and using a variety of methods to organise data and information including diagrams, tables,
and information first-hand
models, spreadsheets and databases.
investigations and
c. Accessing data and information by using a range of appropriate digital technologies.
secondary sources to
d. Applying numerical procedures and mathematical concepts and using digital technologies, where
develop evidence-
appropriate.
based arguments and
f. Describing specific ways to improve the quality of the data.
conclusions. SC5-7WS
Student-Driven STEM Level of assistance Students show “Let’s Get Beaky” STEM
WS5.2 Students plan
Development provided is varied upon depth in Instructional Guide
first-hand
investigations by: Given prior foundational student ability. In understanding of
Using ICT research provided
research, students are allocated classes of higher content by relating
a. Planning and prior, students are given the
the task of developing a ability, students are beak structure and opportunity to combine
selecting appropriate development to
habitually successful beak. instructed to outline a understanding of STEM
investigation selective changes
Students independently method to complete through their research,
methods, including in a population,
research the Galapagos Finches, the investigation. design and construction of a
fieldwork and demonstrating habitually ideal bird beak.
laboratory before designing and In classes of lower
constructing a ‘beak’ from means of which Students combine results of
experimentation, to ability, students are different materials used, as
allocated materials. Students natural selection
collect reliable data. provided a pre- well as total ‘foods’
record findings in a graph occurs within a
designed method for collected, before creating a
before discussing as a class the population.
activity. collaborative line graph to
benefits and limitations of their demonstrate efficiency of
designed beak. Students in a G&T class
beak structure over time.
are provided the
additional challenge of
WS8 Students solve relating their beak to
problems by: an ideal habitat, based
upon background
d. Using cause-and-
foundational
effect relationships to
knowledge.
explain ideas.
d. Using knowledge of
scientific concepts to
draw conclusions that
are consistent with
evidence.
a. Describe
5 lessons WS7.1 Students Teacher-Guided Mind-Map In classes of lower Given a base Mind-Map
scientific process data and Creation ability, additional structure, students
evidence that Students are provided a
information by: teacher scaffolding is effectively create a
present-day Teacher engages students by template with four blank
provided to guide Mind-Map of
organisms a. Selecting and using asking ‘How can we prove the Boxes feeding from the
students to the desired knowledge.
have evolved a variety of methods occurrence of evolution? What central topic. Students
outcome.
from to organise data and evidence do we have?’. are advised that they will
organisms in information including Students collaboratively discuss In a G&T class, be addressing four key
the past. diagrams, tables, potential evidence before students are forms of evolutionary
models, spreadsheets combining thoughts into a challenged to relate evidence.
and databases. Mind-Map to visually represent their ideas to specific
information. examples, such as
WS4 Students vestigial structures in
Student-Driven Investigation Students “It’s All Comparative”
question and predict whales and humans. successfully relate Activity Sheet
Students are presented the
by: In classrooms of lower the similarity in
skeletal structure of an arm of a Where possible, students
b. Predicting ability, structured structure of
bird, dog, and a fish. Prior to are given a to-scale
outcomes based on documents with links certain organisms
informing students of the model of each organisms
observations and to research articles is as evidence of
identity of organisms, teacher skeletal structure.
scientific knowledge. given, allowing descendance from
challenges students to consider Dependant on resource
students to research a common
what these structures availability, students may
the concept of ancestor. Students
WS7.2 Students represent. Students are be provided with 3D
homology before demonstrate
analyse data and provided with an activity sheet images of each organism.
describing their depth in
information by: containing a colouring activity,
findings as a class. understanding by Activity sheet contains a
matching bone structures to
providing other diagram of the ‘arm’
a. Analysing patterns particular colours. Upon In a G&T class,
examples of structure of a whale,
and trends, including completion, students are asked students are not
similar structure of human, fish, dog, horse,
identifying to explain what their findings provided with a ‘colour
organisms. and bird. Students are
inconsistencies in suggest. bank’, and are required to colour the
data and information. challenged to colour humerus, radius, carpals,
their diagrams based metacarpals, and
e. Synthesising data upon initial phalanges of each
and information to observation of organism, using a
develop evidence- features. provided template.
based arguments.
Foremost, a ‘like, dislike, challenging’ thinking tool upon completion of the unit would ideally gauge student interest and aptitude, allowing individuals to
provide feedback to the teacher by voicing their opinions of the content and activities.
References: *Note* All Images used in Resource B referenced from same location/author.
Adams, W., Podolefsky, N., & Olsen, J. (2017). Natural Selection. PhET Interactive Simulations. University of Colorado. Retrieved from
https://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/natural-selection.
AmritaCreate University. (2014, October 13). Comparative Anatomy – MeitY OLabs [Video file]. Retrieved from Khan Academy of Organic Chemistry. (2013,
October 30). The Periodic Table – Transition metals [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCM2mSb4qIU.
Bird & the Worms Clipart [Image] (2017, January 17). Retrieved September 28, 2017, from https://cliparts.zone/search?q=bird+and+the+worms.
Diego, R., & Molnar, J. (2014). Comparative anatomy, evolution, and homologies of tetrapod hindlimb muscles, comparison with forelimb muscles, and
deconstruction of the forelimb-hindlimb serial homology hypothesis. The Anatomical Record, 297(6), 1047-1075. DOI: 10.1002/ar.22919.
Drollinger, M. (2015). The effect of abiotic and biotic factors. Socratic Biology Foundations. Retrieved from https://socratic.org/biology/evolution/the-effect-
of-abiotic-and-biotic-factors.
McLean, L.J. (2016). Peppered Moths: Natural selection in black and white. Weebly. Retrieved from http://peppermoths.weebly.com.
Senter, P., Ambrocio, Z., Andrade, J.B., Froust, K.K., Gaston, J.E., Lewis, R.P., …, Stanley, S.G. (2015). Vestigial biological structures: A classroom-applicable test
of creationist hypotheses. The American Biology Teacher, 77(2), 99-106. DOI: 10.1525/abt.2015.77.2.4
Additional Resources:
This unit is structured in a manner that progresses student understanding of the link
between developmental changes in science with our biological understanding, and how this
meets societal needs. As means of addressing depth in understanding, this unit focuses
crucial emphasis on the interweaving concepts of Wiggins & Mctighe’s (1998) model of
Understanding By Design (UBD), Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL), and the heightened
engagement of students by creativity-driven STEM approaches. Furthermore, students
demonstrate enduring understanding via means of a summative assessment task, designed
to align student learning activities with the content required to demonstrate proficiency in
meeting the desired outcomes of the unit. Prior to utilizing the UBD approach, it is of
foremost importance to relate prior student foundational knowledge to the current
outcome present (Trigwell, Prosser & Waterhouse, 2011). By creating a scope and sequence
to address these foundations, a teacher can gain insight into the depth applicable within a
new unit of work, in an effective manner of time (Karapetrovic & Casadesus, 2009). In this
instance, students build upon prior knowledge gained from stage 4 of their learning, being
SC4-14LW and SC4-15LW (Board of Studies NSW, 2012).
The development and usage of appropriate scaffolding within this unit demonstrates
the enhancement of Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL). In utilizing such learning tools as concept
maps and Frayer diagrams, students are able to represent their thoughts in such a manner
that critically reflects upon content and enhances their academic ability (Hooper, 2008;
Wang, Lin, Spalding, Klecka & O’Dell, 2011). The construction of these learning tools
provides students a visual representation of knowledge, allowing not only the teacher to
align student levels of understanding with activities planned, but also for a student to gauge
their level of proficiency (Kolodner & Nagel, 1999). This unit plan makes use of activities
such as simulation activities, which challenge students to, using lesser scaffolding assistance,
consider and hypothesize based upon backing foundations gained prior (Raes, Schellens,
DeWever & Vanderhoven, 2012).
Prior to initial activity at the beginning of each new content point, students are
posed a scenario, or a question that challenges themselves to think with logic and
reasoning. In doing so, a teacher can informally assess student understanding, and thus
create adjustments to their content based upon student observations, inferences, and
linkage to interlocking concepts (Blessinger & Carfora, 2014). Within student-centred
research tasks, students demonstrate construction of evidence-based arguments of
content-specific knowledge, whilst demonstrating independence and ability to work
collaboratively with lesser teacher guidance where possible (Berlin & Lee, 2005). The
provision of scaffolded instruction demonstrated in such student-focused activities as
simulations provides students with an explicit set of criteria required, whilst showing ability
to demonstrate content aptitude with less available resources (Akos, Cockman & Strickland,
2007). Development of such activity allows for adjustments for differentiation where
required, wherein students are provided additional resource material if required based
upon ability. Such structure in design allows for students of Gifted and Talented classes to
demonstrate higher order thinking in their responses and approaches to completing the
tasks required, with lesser scaffolded assistance from the teacher (Tunnicliffe, 2010).
Foremost, this unit places heavy emphasis on the inclusion of Science, Technology,
Engineering & Mathematics (STEM) Development. Through appropriate linkage to STEM
activities such as “Let’s Get Beaky” provides students with an inquiry-driven scenario and a
means of which students hypothesise, design, and complete practical investigations whilst
enhancing inter-syllabus development of mathematics and engineering (Geier et al., 2008;
Stohlmann, Moore & Roehrig, 2012). Such activities as the “I’m a worm.. Get me out of
here!” investigation was utilized in such a manner that heightens student social capability
and constructive ability, as well as critical analysis and reflection, four driving factors of the
STEM approach (Katehi, Pearson & Feder, 2009). Using this activity as a base structure,
students demonstrate higher-order-thinking and both personal and social capability,
fundamental aspects of the NSW Quality Teaching Model (Gore, 2007; Smith & Karr-Kidwell,
2000) During this multi-lesson investigation, students are further challenged to consider
sustainability at an ecosystem level, given opportunity to describe future cause-and-effect
relationships that drive the natural selection process.
The implementation of an UBD approach to this unit plan has allowed the
demonstration of an inquiry-driven approach to learning, through questioning, predicting,
and completing investigations to meet content required for assessment (Bryan & Clegg,
2006). These activities support student collaborative engagement, emphasising one’s
personal and social capability to heighten academic success, as well as allowing opportunity
for students to develop appreciation of values of their classmates, hence enhancing
diversity at an educational context (Hooper, 2008; NESA, 2017). The incorporation of
numerous learning tools, simulations and STEM activities encourage students to reflect
critically upon prior knowledge and make predictions based upon evidence present, whilst
incorporating inter-syllabus outcomes of design, creativity, and numerical application (Geier
et al., 2008).
References:
Akos, P., Cockman, C.R., & Strickland, C.A. (2007). Differentiating classroom guidance.
Professional School Counselling, 10(5), 455-463. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/213360497?accountid=36155.
Berlin, D., & Lee, H. (2005). Integrating science and mathematics education: Historical
analysis. School Science and Mathematics, 105(1), 15-24. DOI:10.1111/j.1949-
8594.2005.tb18032.x.
Blessinger, P., & Carfora, J.M. (2014). Inquiry-based learning for faculty and institutional
development: A conceptual and practical resource for educators. Galston. Emerald
Group Publishing Limited.
Board of Studies NSW. (2012). Science K-10 (Incorporating Science and Technology K-6).
NSW Syllabus for the Australian Curriculum, Board of Studies NSW. Retrieved from
http://syllabus.nesa.nsw.edu.au/download/.
Bryan, C., & Clegg, K. (2006). Innovative Assessment in Higher Education. York, United
Kingdom: Routledge.
Dunlop, J.C., Sobel, D., & Sands, D.I. (2007). Designing for deep and meaningful student-to-
content interactions. TechTrends, 51(4), 20-31. DOI:10.1007/s11528-007-0052-6.
Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J.S, Fishman, B., Soloway, E., & Clay-
Chambers, J. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-
based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 45(8), 857-970. DOI: 10.1002/tea.20248.
Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (2009). Engineering in K-12 Education. Washington, D.C.
National Academies Press.
Kolodner, J., & Nagel,K. (1999). The design discussion area: A collaborative learning tool in
support of learning from problem-solving and design activities. In Hoadley, C., &
Roschelle, J. (Ed.) Proceedings of computer support for collaborative learning (CSCL)
1999 Conference (300-307). Palo Alto, California, United States: Stanford University.
Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Classroom assessment: Minute by
minute, day by day. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 19-24. Retrieved from
http://facets.edc.org/sites/facets.edc.org/files/classrassessmentdaybyday.pdf.
NESA. (2017). Learning across the Curriculum. NSW Education Standards Authority.
Retrieved from http://syllabus.nesa.nsw.edu.au/english/english-k10/learning-across-
the-curriculum.
McTighe, J., & Seif, E. (2003). A summary of underlying theory and research base for
understanding by design. Unpublished manuscript.
Raes, A., Schellens, T., DeWever, B., & Vanderhoven, E. (2012). Scaffolding information
problem solving in web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Computers &
Education, 59(1), 82-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.010
Smith, J., & Karr-Kidwell, P. (2000). The interdisciplinary curriculum: A literary review and a
manual for administrators and teachers. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED443172.
Stohlmann, M., Moore, T.J., & Roehrig, G.H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated
STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28-34.
DOI: 10.5703/1288284314653.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (2011). Relations between teachers’ and
approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education,
37(1), 57-70. DOI:10.1023/A:1003548313194.
Tunnicliffe, C. (2010). Teaching able, gifted and talented children: Strategies, activities and
resources. London: Sage.
Wang, J., Lin, E., Spalding, E., Klecka, C.L., & Odell, S.J. (2011). Quality teaching and teacher
education: A kaleidoscope of notions. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 331-338.
DOI:10.1177/0022487111409551.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.