Lesson no. 3 (the first in my subject of almost 4 lessons). This lesson comes after history and english introductions to the argument with history examples and technological issues.
\nShould society allow designer babies to improve future generations?
\n!!List the subject-specific learning goals / competences / curriculum content of the lesson.!!
\n\ud83e\udde9 STUDENT FINAL OUTPUT (FINAL TASK PRODUCT: Task Based Learning) Students can produce:
\nMaterials
\nNewspaper article
\nNews video
\nSocial media post
\nInfographic
\nBlog
\nScientific institutional report
\nPhase 1: Activation (15 mins)
\nDetection of Manipulation & Framing
\nGoal: Identify intent, bias, and source credibility.
\nPHASE 1: Activation
\nIdentify the emotional words used in these social media headlines (e.g., "miracle", "perfect", "horror").
\nDistinguish between scientific facts and "techno-futuristic" promises in the images provided.
\nCompare how different newspapers frame the same news about genetic engineering.
Activities:
Phase 2: Scientific Input (20 mins)
\nContextualization & Accuracy
\nPHASE 2: Scientific Input
\nGoal: Differentiate between science and simplified popularization.
\nDescribe the basic steps of the CRISPR/Cas9 process using the provided infographic and context to the questions in Edpuzzle video (this video has questions developing students listening comprehension, but we can see it only entering in the session of the class created by the teacher in the educational platform space).
\nCategorize the information into two groups: "Verified Scientific Data" and "Simplified Popularization".
\nRelate these scientific techniques to current European health regulations.
\nActivities:
\nPhase 3: Investigation (30 mins)
\nMultimodal Critical Reading
\nPHASE 3: Investigation
\nGoal: Evaluate authority and emotional storytelling.
\nEvaluate the credibility of the authors: is the source a scientific institution or an independent influencer?
\nAnalyze the storytelling techniques used in blank\" rel=\"noopener\">El Pais article (blank\" rel=\"noopener\">english version) to engage the audience.
\nContrast the evidence-based arguments found in scientific blogs with the opinions found in editorials.
\nActivities:
\nPhase 4: Fact-Checking (20 mins)
\nVerification Strategy
\nPHASE 4: Fact-Checking
\nGoal: Debunking genetic misinformation (Maldita.es).
\nExamine a viral news story about genetics using the Maldita.es platform.
\nVerify if the headline matches the actual data presented in the article.
\nClassify the content as "True", "False", or "Exaggerated" based on your research.
\nActivities:
\n
Phase 5: Ethical Debate (25 mins)
European Bioethics Council Role-play
\nPHASE 5: Ethical Debate
\nGoal: Argumentation and trade-offs.
\nFormulate a logical argument for or against "designer babies" using scientific and ethical evidence.
\nDefend your assigned position (e.g., EU policymaker, scientist, or citizen) during the role-play simulation.
\nAssess the potential social and economic impact of genetic engineering on future European generations.
\nActivities:
\nBefore the HOW activity, students are introduced to the socio-scientific issue of genetic engineering and precision medicine through authentic multimodal media sources including social media posts, scientific headlines, short videos, infographics and news articles.
\nThe teacher activates prior knowledge by guiding students to identify emotional language, visual persuasion techniques and differences between scientific information and media simplification. Students are also introduced to basic scientific concepts related to CRISPR, genomic medicine and assisted reproduction in order to provide sufficient conceptual background for the critical media analysis tasks.
\nThis lesson is situated within a broader interdisciplinary learning sequence connecting:
\nStudents are already familiar with:
\nThe lesson uses authentic and potentially biased media content intentionally, so that students can practice identifying manipulation, omissions, emotional framing and conflicting viewpoints in real-world scientific communication.
\nAfter the HOW activity, students apply their findings in collaborative and argumentative tasks including:
\nStudents use evidence collected during the media investigation phase to construct and defend informed viewpoints about the ethical, social and economic implications of genetic engineering and "designer babies".
\nThe lesson culminates in the creation of an oriented multimodal final product such as:
\nThe activities aim to strengthen students' capacity to:
\nVideo (Spanish/Scientific): ¿Qué es la edición genética CRISPR? - El País Ciencia. Focus: Technical accuracy and professional tone.
\nVideo (English/Popular Science): Genetic Engineering Will Change Everything Forever – CRISPR (Kurzgesagt/Vox style).
\nFocus: Use of "Technofuturistic" aesthetics and simplified storytelling.
\nScientific Report: AEGH - Consenso sobre diagnóstico prenatal y genética.
\nFact-Check: Maldita.es - Bulos sobre el ADN y la modificación genética.
Task: Students check if the headline "Científicos crean el primer humano modificado" is a factual report or clickbait "hype".
Use this for the European Bioethics Council role-play:
Resource: Bioethics Observatory – Catholic University of Valencia.
Discussion Point: The economic gap in Europe regarding access to Precision Medicine.
National Geographic - https://www.nationalgeographic.com
\nNature - https://www.nature.com
\nSpanish Association of Human Genetics (AEGH) - https://www.aegh.org
\nEl País Ciencia - https://elpais.com/ciencia
\nNature Blog - https://www.nature.com/immersive
\nFinal year of upper secondary school (Year 4–5 depending on curriculum)
\nThrough multimodal comparison of news articles, videos, social media posts, blogs and scientific reports, students evaluate:
\nStudents then use evidence-based reasoning to compare conflicting viewpoints, assess ethical trade-offs and formulate informed positions about the social implications of genetic enhancement technologies in Europe.
\nThe HOW activity develops students' capacity to:
\nAnalyse, compare and evaluate authentic multimodal media sources about genetic engineering and "designer babies". Identify emotional framing, scientific inaccuracies, omissions, visual manipulation and bias, then use scientific evidence to construct and justify an informed ethical viewpoint.
\nThe specific activity inside the lesson is in the phase 4:
\nVerification Strategy
\nPHASE 4: Fact-Checking
\nExamine a viral news story about genetics using the Maldita.es platform.
\nVerify if the headline matches the actual data presented in the article.
\nClassify the content as "True", "False", or "Exaggerated" based on your research.
\nGoal: Debunking genetic misinformation (Maldita.es).
\nteacher-led - group work - student activities
\nteacher computer - LIM- student tablets - access to internet
\nblank\" rel=\"noopener\">SciLMiLessonFrameworkMarcella_Biserni.pdf 4760999
","UPDATEDAT":"2026-05-14T13:33:40.728Z","ID":"b67062c6-c488-4b8c-a4c1-bee659e88e33","TITLE":"Biserni, Marcella"}