Sample HS Biology Unit: Body Systems Failure
This is a working sample of a single week of HS Biology I — phenomenon-anchored, three-dimensional, and tuned for a comprehensive public high school running on Canvas. It is built from existing curriculum architecture I use at Kairos Academies and adapted up to the rigor of HS Biology. It is not a polished textbook unit; it is a teacher's working week, the kind I would walk into a PLC with on Monday.
1. Standards alignment
| Framework | Standard | Where in the unit |
|---|---|---|
| NGSS Performance Expectation | HS-LS1-2. Develop and use a model to illustrate the hierarchical organization of interacting systems that provide specific functions within multicellular organisms. | Days 1, 4, 5 |
| NGSS Science & Engineering Practice | SEP-2. Developing and using models. | Days 1, 4 (revision) |
| NGSS Disciplinary Core Idea | LS1.A. Multicellular organisms have hierarchical structural organization in which any one system is made up of numerous parts and is itself a component of the next level. | Day 2 (cardiovascular), Day 3 (renal/excretory), Day 4 (integration) |
| NGSS Crosscutting Concept | CCC-4. Systems and system models — emergent behavior of integrated systems. | Days 4, 5 |
Missouri's secondary science expectations are NGSS-aligned; the specific MLS code for this performance expectation should be confirmed against the current Missouri Learning Standards document for Biology before use in a course shell.
2. The phenomenon
A varsity wrestler at a Missouri high school cuts 10 pounds in 36 hours to make weight at a Saturday tournament. He weighs in successfully, walks off the scale, and collapses on the mat before his first match. He is conscious. The trainer calls EMS. Why did his body fail when nothing was wrong with him 36 hours earlier?
The phenomenon is chosen to be locally credible (HS wrestling is well-attended in Missouri), interpretable on multiple levels (a freshman can engage; a senior can dig deeper), and forced by integration — no single body system explains the collapse. Students cannot solve it without modeling interactions.
Care note: weight cutting in HS athletics is taken seriously by the National Federation of State High School Associations and by Missouri State High School Activities Association rules. The unit acknowledges the safety dimension; it does not glorify the practice.
3. Storyline (5 days)
| Day | 5E phase | Move | Student artifact |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Engage | Phenomenon, initial individual model, "what would we need to know" question wall | Initial system model (drawing + text) |
| 2 | Explore | Cardiovascular response — heart rate & blood pressure under simulated dehydration; data analysis | Lab notebook entry; cardiovascular sub-model |
| 3 | Explore | Renal & excretory system; water balance reading + structured discussion | Annotated reading; renal sub-model |
| 4 | Explain | System integration — revise the Day 1 model with cardiovascular and renal mechanisms; small-group consensus | Revised integrated model (drawing + written explanation) |
| 5 | Elaborate / Evaluate | Apply to a different scenario (a marathon runner hitting the wall, or a passenger on a long flight); summative explanation | Summative written explanation, scored on 3D rubric |
4. Day 1 lesson plan
Time: 50 minutes · Materials: printed wrestler scenario (1/student), plain paper, colored pencils, sticky notes
Opener (5 min)
Posted question on the board: "How does a body that was working yesterday stop working today?" Settle: 30 seconds silent, write one sentence in your notebook. Cold-call rotation: three students share, no commentary, no "good job." Move on.
Phenomenon presentation (8 min)
Read the wrestler scenario aloud. Show two photographs: a wrestler at weigh-in, a wrestler on the mat. Pose: "He weighed in successfully. Nothing about his body was diseased. So what failed?" Take 60 seconds of silent thinking; collect sticky-note guesses on the board.
Initial model (15 min)
Each student draws an initial model on plain paper. Required elements: at least three body systems, arrows showing what flows between them, a labeled "where the failure happens" point. No talking during drawing (every student writes before any student speaks). Walk the room; do not correct. Photograph 6–8 anonymous models on a phone for later use.
Question wall (10 min)
Distribute three sticky notes per student. Each writes one question they would need answered to explain the phenomenon. Sort questions on the board into three columns: cardiovascular, kidneys / water balance, other. The "other" column gets parked for week two.
Close (7 min)
Exit ticket (see Section 6 below). Quiet, individual. Collect on the way out the door.
Mechanic to surface understanding from every student
The model drawing is silent — no student can hide behind a louder peer. The exit ticket is individual. The cold-call rotation has structured think time. Every student has produced visible evidence of their thinking by the end of the period.
5. Day 1 Canvas student page
The page below is what students see when they open Canvas on Day 1. Paste-ready. In a deployed week, the imagery and the exit-ticket form embed are generated by the Forms script and the visual-asset pipeline.
Bio I · Week 14 · Day 1: When the body fails
Today's question: How does a body that was working yesterday stop working today?
Standard: HS-LS1-2 (model the hierarchical organization of interacting systems)
The phenomenon
A varsity wrestler at a Missouri high school cuts 10 pounds in 36 hours to make weight at a Saturday tournament. He weighs in successfully, walks off the scale, and collapses on the mat before his first match. He is conscious. The trainer calls EMS.
Why did his body fail when nothing was wrong with him 36 hours earlier?
What you do today
- Settle. Open your notebook. One sentence: what's your first guess?
- Draw your initial model. Plain paper. Show at least three body systems. Use arrows to show what flows between them. Label the point where you think the failure happens. No talking during drawing.
- Question wall. Write three questions on three sticky notes — questions you'd need answered to explain what happened. Stick them on the board.
- Exit ticket. Five quick questions. You will get back to me before the bell.
If you finish early
Read the short article on weight cutting in high school wrestling (linked in Canvas). Highlight one sentence that surprises you. We will use it tomorrow.
Accommodations available today
- Speech-to-text for the exit ticket (ask).
- Pre-printed model template with body outlines (ask).
- One-on-one phenomenon walkthrough during settle time (ask).
Reminder: my office hours are after school Tuesday and Thursday. Email or ask in class.
6. Day 1 exit ticket
Five-statement RATE format on a 1–5 scale (FALSE ← 1-2-3-4-5 → TRUE). Three FALSE (common misconceptions, correct answer 1–2) and two TRUE (scientific consensus, correct answer 4–5). The justification field is the diagnostic instrument; the rating alone is insufficient.
| # | Statement | Truth | Misconception caught |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The wrestler collapsed because he didn't drink enough water that morning. | FALSE | Reduces a multi-system failure to a single proximate cause; ignores cumulative loss. |
| 2 | Sweating and urinating both remove water from the body, so the body treats them the same. | FALSE | Conflates two regulated systems with different control loops; ignores electrolyte differences. |
| 3 | Body systems work mostly independently — the heart does its job, the kidneys do theirs. | FALSE | The CCC-4 misconception this unit is built to fix. |
| 4 | The cardiovascular system depends on the volume of fluid circulating through it. | TRUE | Foundation for Day 2. |
| 5 | The kidneys help regulate the body's water and electrolyte balance. | TRUE | Foundation for Day 3. |
Justification prompt (required, two of five): Defend two of your ratings. What do you know that you know?
7. Summative rubric (Day 5)
Three-dimensional — each row scored independently. A student who can model but cannot explain sees specifically what to practice.
| Dimension | 4 — Mastery | 3 — Approaching | 2 — Developing | 1 — Not yet |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEP-2 Modeling | Model includes ≥ 3 systems, all flows correctly directed and labeled, failure point identified at a system interaction. | Model includes 3 systems, most flows correct, failure point identified within a single system. | Model includes 2 systems or has missing/reversed arrows. | Model is a labeled diagram of one system. |
| DCI LS1.A Hierarchy | Explanation moves cleanly between cellular, tissue/organ, and system levels. | Two levels integrated; one level mentioned but not used. | One level used; mentions of others are decorative. | Single-level description. |
| CCC-4 Systems | Failure attributed to interaction between systems with a clear feedback or coupling described. | Failure described in two systems; coupling implied but not explicit. | Failure described in two systems sequentially, not as interaction. | Failure described in one system. |
| Argument from evidence | Cites specific Day 2 lab data and Day 3 reading to support each claim. | Cites either lab data or reading; not both. | References evidence generally without specific citation. | No evidence cited. |
8. Differentiation
For students with an IEP
- Pre-printed body-outline templates for the Day 1 model task; reduces motor and processing load while keeping the cognitive task identical.
- Speech-to-text available for all written tasks and the exit-ticket justification field.
- Sentence frames on Day 4 (model revision): "When [system A] failed, it caused [system B] to… because…"
- Pre-teach 5 vocabulary words the day before the unit starts: cardiovascular, renal, electrolyte, hierarchy, interaction. Pulled into Tier 2 vocabulary support.
- Co-plan with the case manager the week before. The unit plan is shared in writing with the case manager and the IEP-listed accommodations are named on the unit-plan page.
For students with a 504
- Extended time on the Day 5 summative is built into the schedule: students who use it move to a quiet space during the second half of the period.
- Movement breaks during the Day 1 silent drawing window for students whose plan requires them.
For multilingual learners
- Bilingual phenomenon card printed in English and the home languages represented in the room. The phenomenon translates well; the technical vocabulary does not.
- Vocabulary front-loaded one day in advance. The Tier 3 science vocabulary is taught with images and cognates before the phenomenon is introduced.
- Discourse norms include explicit "rephrase what you just heard" turns, which reduce the cost of speaking in a second language.
- Assessment items reviewed for cultural assumptions before the test goes out.
For students working above grade level
- Day 1 finish-early prompt: read a short MSHSAA or NFHS position document on weight cutting in HS wrestling. Bring one sentence on Day 2.
- Day 5 extension: a second scenario (a passenger on a long-haul flight) and a comparison rubric line.
- Optional bridge for students interested in health-science career pathways: a parallel diabetic-ketoacidosis case that runs as a Friday flex investigation.
9. Lab safety brief (Day 2 cardiovascular response)
The Day 2 lab measures heart-rate response to a controlled exertion (a 60-second step-up cycle) with rest and recovery measurements. It does not simulate dehydration on students; the dehydration data comes from a published dataset students analyze, not from their own bodies.
- Pre-lab: students complete a physical activity readiness check (PAR-Q-style, 4 questions). Any "yes" routes the student to a data-analysis-only role for the day.
- Lab safety contract on file before the first wet or physical lab of the year.
- Visible safety expectations posted next to the materials station.
- Step-up height capped at 8 inches; students with any orthopedic concern stay seated and partner with a peer for data collection.
- If a student reports lightheadedness, the lab pauses for that student. No exceptions.
The unit is structured to teach about a body-systems failure without putting any student through a body-systems stress. The phenomenon is the case; the lab is the inquiry.
10. Family-communication template
A weekly note for students on a Tier 2 or Tier 3 plan. Sourced from actual student work, not the gradebook. Sent through the district's official channel.
Hi [Family Name],
A short update on how [Student First Name]'s week in Biology went. We're in a unit on body systems — the question is how a body that was working yesterday can stop working today.
Working well this week: [Student] drew a strong initial model on Monday with three systems and clear arrows. On Wednesday's reading, [their] annotations showed [specific evidence].
Where I'm watching: [Student] is still treating two body systems as independent in [their] writing. We're going to spend Thursday on connecting them. I'll send the revised model home Friday.
One thing to celebrate: [Specific concrete moment from the week].
As always, I'd rather hear from you sooner than later if anything is on [Student]'s mind. My direct line is […].
— Mr. Rosche
11. Possible local connections
Two connections I would expect this unit to make at a comprehensive Missouri public high school. I would not assume either without first sitting in a PLC conversation.
- PLTW Biomedical Sciences pathway. The system-integration modeling and body-system case structure recur throughout the PLTW Biomedical Sciences sequence. Students who continue into the pathway revisit body-systems reasoning at greater depth; this unit can serve as a bridge case for ninth and tenth graders considering the pathway.
- National School of Character / Compassionate strand. The unit's care moves — we don't put students through the systems failure we are studying, every student writes before any student speaks, the lab pauses for any student who reports lightheadedness — are there because dignity is a precondition for the science work, not a separate add-on.
12. What this unit doesn't claim
This is one week of one unit. It is not a full-year scope and sequence; it is not a department-adopted text; and it is not a substitute for the pacing guide and common assessments OHS already uses. Year-one priority for me is sitting in the PLC and learning the local norms before importing anything. What this artifact shows is the shape of the work I would bring to a planning conversation, not a plan I would deploy on Monday.
If any element here is useful as a conversation starter, I would be glad to walk through it. If a panelist would prefer to see a different sample — a chemistry unit, a physics unit, an Earth-science unit, a unit anchored on a different phenomenon — I can produce one in a similar shape.