2005 First Place Winner
Lesson Plan
Joy Killough
Westwood High School
Austin, Texas
Shellfish Shenanigans
Lesson Overview
Shellfish Shenanigans is a problem-based learning activity in
which students play the role of scientists responding to a letter
from a lawyer representing the producer of the reality-based TV
show
Last Islander.
The students have been asked to investigate the near death of
a male contestant during a seafood potluck meal on the island.
Investigation is student-driven, with information obtained or
provided on a need-to-know basis as the problem progresses.
Examination of the victim's symptoms leads students to suspect
anaphylactic shock from an allergy as the cause of the near death.
As they investigate, students realize the need to identify the
contents of each dish provided at the potluck dinner (from samples
saved for "evidence"). To do so, students must learn to isolate,
separate, and analyze proteins using a biotechnology technique
called polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE). Analysis of gels,
enhanced by image processing, allows the students to identify the
exact seafood components of each dish. This information allows them
to identify the culprit who used his or her knowledge of the ill
contestant's shellfish allergy to eliminate him from the contest.
Students present their findings in the form of a multimedia
presentation to be used in the event they give testimony as expert
witnesses.
Grade level: 11-12
Time required: One day for phase one; two days for phase two;
and one day for phase 3 (the presentation).
Learning Objectives
Upon completion of this project students will be able to:
- Develop an original hypothesis and modify this hypothesis as
the new evidence becomes available,
- Relate physical symptoms to correct diagnosis through
research on anaphylactic shock and assign logical cause after
reviewing medical records,
- Create a protein fingerprint using PAGE,
- Analyze protein fingerprints using image processing software
to identify species of origin for samples, and
- Synthesize explanatory ideas and support them with scientific
evidence in a multimedia format.
Materials Used
Phase 1
:
- Letter from lawyer requesting investigation,
- Video tape of "Last Meal" (or alternately the script; my
drama department used the script to make a video for me),
- Computer with Internet connection for research on student
questions, and
- Medical records for cast members (when requested by
students).
Phase 2
:
- PAGE supplies;
- Seafood samples (both "evidence" and control); and
- Scanner, image processing software, and computer.
Phase 3
:
- Multimedia projector for presentations and
- Appropriate software to develop presentations.
Methods of Implementation
Phase 1
: Students identify anaphylactic shock as cause for man's
collapse.
The law office of Gonzalez, Ahmed, Kay and Davis "would like
to contract with your group to investigate the incident, examine
any evidence, and either identify and build a case against the
perpetrator or provide evidence exonerating all involved and
proving Mr. Whittlestone's illness was natural."
As students settle in for the day's lesson, it is apparent
something special is in the works. They receive an official-looking
letter from a legal firm asking for their help in determining what
happened on the set of a reality TV show and whether or not it was
foul play.
The students watch a video the lawyers provided of the last few
minutes of footage showing the group having a seafood potluck meal
and the sudden collapse one of the cast members, who lies clutching
his throat and gasping for air. Suddenly the medic rushes in and
injects the victim with a mysterious drug. The video concludes with
an interview with each cast member and the medic.
As the students replay the video over and over, they try to pick
up some subtle (or not so subtle) clues explaining what happened to
contestant Bob Whittlestone. Some groups notice the comment in the
interview section where contestant Betsy recalls Steve, the medic,
injecting "Analine? Adarine? Whatever. I guess from what they were
saying, that saved his life."
After intense discussion, they decide Betsy meant adrenaline.
Off they race to the computers to research what condition
adrenaline is used for and to compare its symptoms with the
physical appearance of poor Bob in the video and the descriptions
given of his condition during the cast interviews. Combining their
research with their knowledge of his symptoms, they decide he
suffered from anaphylactic shock and was saved by the swift
injection of adrenaline. Their next question is what caused the
anaphylaxis.
The students recall a mention in the video of a break-in at the
medical tent and the tidbit that nothing was stolen but the medical
records. Eventually a group will ask, "What about those medical
records? Do they exist? Can we see them?" At this point, the
records are produced. It doesn't take the students long to find out
that Bob is severely allergic to shellfish. They return to the
computers to make sure everything they know so far works together,
and in the process learn about the immune system response to
allergens. Reviewing the videotape, they find no one served
shellfish at the potluck. Or did they? Didn't the letter from the
lawyer mention that physical evidence was collected? The students
ask for the evidence and find that food samples from the potluck
meal have been kept and are available for analysis.
Phase 2
: Students search for source of allergen by analyzing samples using
PAGE.
At this point, students receive instruction on proteins along
with muscle anatomy and physiology, and they learn how to perform
PAGE. This technique will yield a protein fingerprint, much like a
DNA fingerprint, that can be used to compare various protein
samples (for instance, fish and shellfish).
More questions arise. Each group has one gel with 10 wells for
protein samples. The students have to make choices about what to
test, as there are seven potluck samples and a great number of
known fish and shellfish samples available to compare them with.
Collaboration is seen between groups as students realize they have
a better chance of solving this problem if they work together. Even
so, analysis is difficult, and much discussion and comparison of
results ensues. Gels are scanned in and subjected to image
processing software to help determine which proteins are present.
This information allows the students to determine if all the
offered fish dishes at the potluck dinner were as "advertised."
Phase 3
: Evidence is presented identifying culprit in near-death case.
In this phase, students put it all together. They make a
multimedia presentation that announces in an organized, persuasive
way the facts they collected and their conclusions. They
act as expert witnesses for the law firm and provide evidence that
one of the contestants deliberately gave Bob crab disguised as
flounder in an effort to take him off the island and reduce
competition.
Evaluation Tool
This lesson is evaluated using a rubric. The following criteria
are for "exceeds expectation" (maximum points in parentheses):
- Conclusion presented is supported by multiple lines of
evidence. (15)
- Explanations are clear, concise, and
organized. Students offer insight into processes.
(20)
- Explanation connects all symptoms to evidence and conclusion.
(20)
- Theory of PAGE is thoroughly outlined and associations are
made connecting species identities to protein patterns in an
exemplary manner. (15)
- Muscle structure is correctly related to fingerprint bands.
(15)
- The immunology of allergy and anaphylactic shock are
completely discussed. (15)
What Makes the Lesson Effective
This is a fun, challenging lesson that requires good questioning
skills, cooperation among students, outside research, and
technology. The students love the role-playing and the sense that
this is a "real problem" that will require a variety of techniques
to solve. Students cannot look up the answer; they can find it only
through application of critical thinking skills. As one student
said, they learn "how to look outside of the obvious and use
sophisticated means to solve a problem." In the words of another:
"I liked the detective feel of the lab because it made the results
seem more critical and interesting."