Day 3: Outbreak Investigators, Follow the Evidence

Daily Learning Contract

• Topic: Outbreak Evidence
• Objective: Students will use the FYF case to explain how an epidemiologist compares exposure and outcome, writes a working claim, and identifies what still needs testing.
• TEKS: d(1)(C)
• Demonstration of Learning: FYF pp. 75-76 investigation report and one epidemiologist work-product sentence.

Lesson Overview

Before Class

1. Embed the licensed case table and environmental clues in Canvas.
2. Students use FYF pp. 75-76 by default. Print the expanded record only for the no-workbook or extended route.
3. Prepare the written-image route or read-aloud for students who need it.
4. Keep the case fictional. Do not connect symptoms to a real student or current local event.
5. Display this boundary: In a real health or water emergency, follow local officials and a trusted adult.
6. Default route: individual FYF pp. 75-76 with one device or projected case table per student. Pair students only for the timed comparison; every student records an individual claim and career-work-product sentence.

Warm-Up (4 min)

WARM-UP: Several people become sick during the same week. What information would help you tell whether they share one source?

Sort responses into exposure, symptoms, time, and comparison groups.

Activity 1: What an Epidemiologist Does (4 min)

Use the workbook opening and the BLS definition. Epidemiologists investigate patterns and causes of disease and injury in groups of people. They compare cases, exposures, and time. They do not prove a cause from one clue.

The class task is to make a supported working claim and name the test still needed.

Activity 2: Compare Sick and Healthy Residents (11 min)

Students inspect the licensed Fairview Edge case table and environmental clues.

Think-Pair-Share: 30 seconds silent think. Partner A completes "The sick residents share _." Partner B completes "The residents who stayed healthy share ___." Two pairs share. Students may use a written partner route.

Students mark the case table and record at least one sick-to-healthy comparison in a notebook, a short Canvas response, or the optional expanded record. Require exposure and outcome in the same comparison. If they list only sick residents, redirect them to the residents who stayed healthy.

Activity 3: Write the Investigation Report (18 min)

Students complete the FYF investigation report: number of cases, common symptoms, timing, three clues, likely source, and a claim with evidence. Then they analyze:

• what sick residents share;
• what the healthy comparison group shares;
• what the one-day difference between Monday and Tuesday cases may suggest;
• a defensible severity description;
• whether more people could remain at risk;
• one question that still requires a test.

Teacher key: The strongest working pattern is tap-water exposure after flooding near the well, compared with bottled-water residents who stayed healthy. This is a supported hypothesis, not final proof. Water testing and further interviews are still required.

Students close the report by naming one part of an epidemiologist's investigation report and who would use it next. This sentence is the direct d(1)(C) evidence.

Safe trim: Move the practice quiz and ranked exit check to the next opening. Protect the sick-to-healthy comparison, three clues, working claim, unanswered test, and epidemiologist work-product sentence. Reserve three minutes to confirm the individual record and return to the fictional-case boundary.

Activity 4: Practice Feedback Check (5 min)

Students complete the unpublished Canvas Outbreak Evidence Check and read the automatic feedback. A written self-check is the equal no-device route. This is formative feedback, not a second graded artifact.

Exit Ticket (5 min)

EXIT TICKET (Ranked Justification) · Printable PDF:

Rank these from strongest to weakest for the tap-water hypothesis:

1. sick residents mostly drank tap water;
2. two bottled-water residents stayed healthy;
3. flooding occurred near the well;
4. one sick resident also swam in the river.

Students defend the top and bottom rank in one sentence each.

• Top evidence: ____ Why: _________

• Bottom evidence: _____ Why: _____

Teacher Key and Extension Prompt

Mastery signal: The student values the sick-to-healthy comparison and explains that one resident's river activity does not explain the other cases by itself. Accept another order when the reasoning is evidence-based.

DOK 3 prompt: What additional result would most strengthen or weaken the tap-water hypothesis, and why would it change the claim?

Access, Absence, and Extension

• Support: Read the case aloud, highlight the exposure and outcome columns without preselecting the answer, and allow speech-to-text, teacher scribing, or a written partner route.
• ELL: Preteach outbreak, exposure, outcome, source, comparison, and hypothesis with bilingual labels and a claim frame.
• Absence: An absent student receives the same licensed case crops in Canvas and completes the record independently.
• Extension: change one case fact that would weaken the tap-water hypothesis and explain why.