HIV Resistance?

HIV Resistance?
 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170410154718.htm

When finding an article this week, I first looked at the websites recommended by Text Savvy (Guilford et al., 2017): Scientific American, Science Mag, and NationalGeographic. None of the articles stood out to me, so I moved onto the website Science Daily. Within minutes of looking on this website, this article about HIV resistance caught me eye. Since HIV is renowned for being a death sentence, HIV resistance would be a huge step in the field of medicine. Rebecca found the article equally as capturing, so we decided to use it for this weeks blog post.

If this treatment works, it could potentially prevent HIV from
developing into AIDS. Retrieved from https://aidsinfo.nih.gov/

This article was written in a straightforward, scientific way. The author did not use abstraction or creative writing techniques such as irony, humor, or metaphors. The article was written by the Scripps Research Institute and therefore may be subject to bias; the researchers may want to promote their idea by describing how the idea would work and leaving out potential complications. The article is not written in chronological order: first the treatment is described and then the experiment involving a virus is explained.

Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/

This author expected readers to have some understanding of biology and physiology. Students should know what a virus is, how it multiplies, and what an antibody is. The text is written like a summary; there are no subheadings or charts, etc. Students should understand that current treatment of HIV involves daily oral medication of numerous pills (shown in the picture on the left).  

When first reading this article, I was captured by the idea that a long-term treatment for HIV was being developed. Rather than taking oral medication of antibodies everyday, HIV patients would have a permanent group of cells that had and reproduced the antibodies. However, when I continued reading through the explanation of the treatment, I began to be skeptical about how successful it would be. The author explains that certain cells would be injected with an antibody that would bind onto the part of the cell that HIV uses to reproduce (Scripps Research Institute, 2017). The treated cells would survive and multiply while the untreated cells would die off from the HIV infection. Essentially, the body’s cells would experience “survival of the fittest” (SRI, 2017). They then tested their theory with a group of treated cells and untreated cells in a petri dish that they then infected with the rhinovirus (the virus of a cold) (SRI, 2017). The treated cells stayed alive and reproduced while the untreated cells all died. This made me skeptical because humans need all of their cells and organs to survive; if there are untreated areas of the body (liver, heart, etc.), a human can’t afford to just lose that chunk of cells.

HIV in the blood. Retrieved from
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/

I decided to tie my skepticism into a lesson plan for the students. Maryland standard 3.6.1 states, “The student will analyze the consequences and/or trade-offs between technological changes and their effect on the individual, society, and the environment.” (MSDE, 2012). I would fulfill this standard by requiring my students to think critically about the consequences of using this treatment on an infected individual. I will use this article to address two of the literacy standards as well. Since the article is fairly complex to understand, helping students comprehend it would fulfill the standard RST.11-12.2 which requires a student to understand a “text’s explanation or depiction of a complex process.” (MSDE, 2012). Additionally, the standard RST.11-12.8 would be addressed because it requires a student to determine if the evidence in a text is base enough to solve the scientific problem (MSDE, 2012).

The Request Self-Questioning strategy would be an appropriate comprehension strategy to use for this text’s complexity (McLaughlin, 2015). With this strategy, students read a few paragraphs of the text silently and generate discussion questions. The class then comes together and discusses the text: students answer questions generated by the teacher and the students ask questions about things they don’t understand. The students then read a few more paragraphs silently and repeat this process. I would use this strategy because it would allow the students to bounce ideas off of one another and express what they have trouble understanding. Also, it would give me an opportunity to help students understand the text step by step through visual explanations on the board and by simplifying concepts.

Example discussion questions that I will ask the class:

1. What is the significance of finding a long-term treatment for HIV?
2. Describe the process of how this treatment works. (*This question would allow me to see if students comprehend the reading. If students are lost, I will describe the process and map it out on the board).
3. Do you think this treatment would be effective?

References

Guilford, J., Bustamante, A., Mackura, K., Hirsch, S., Lyon, E., & Estrada, K. (2017). Text Savvy. The Science Teacher, 84 (1), 49-56. Retrieved from https://blackboard.stevenson.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-1349981-dt-content-rid-7100950_1/courses/17S8W2_ED_620_OL1/ED%20620_Science%20Journal.pdf

Maryland State Department of Education. (2012). Maryland state STEM standards of practice. Retrieved from http://mdk12.msde.maryland.gov/instruction/clg/biology/goal3.html

Maryland State Department of Education. (2012). Reading Standards for Literacy in Science and Technical Subjects - Grades 9-12. Retrieved from https://blackboard.stevenson.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-1349975-dt-content-rid-5225317_1/courses/15S8W2_ED_620_OL1/CCSC_Science_gr9-12r.pdf

McLaughlin, M. (2015). Content Area Reading: Teaching and Learning for College and Career Readiness. Boston, MA: Pearson. 

Scripps Research Institute. (2017, April 10). New approach makes cells resistant to HIV. ScienceDaily. Retrieved April 10, 2017 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170410154718.htm