Learning Strategy: Group discussion
A decision making activity from the Y9 Metahuman unit.
Goal-line technology has been proven to work but should this automatically mean that it should be introduced? In this activity students consider some of the arguments that have been put forward for and against using the technology to learn that economic, social and ethical arguments need to be taken into account before decisions about new technology can be made.
The activity is part of upd8's 'Segue' course. This 4 unit transition programme prepares students for GCSE, finishes KS3, and contains a wealth of APP assessment opportunities.
Check out more Segue activities Download two free activities from the Hollywood unit, for teaching forces, analysing graphs, and plate tectonics.
Published: 3rd July 2010
Reviews & Comments: 1
To consider ethical, economic, social and cultural factors when making decisions about adopting new technology.
Try the activity
You will need Acrobat Reader installed to open the activity sheets.
Scientific thinking: developing argument (Strategy Framework 1.1a3)
AQA Spec A core science (draft)
3.4.5 Analyse and interpret primary and secondary data
Distinguish between a fact and an opinion, by recognising that an opinion might be influenced by factors other than scientific fact. Candidates should recognise that the opinion may be influenced by economic, ethical, moral, social or cultural considerations.
Edexcel core science (draft)
How Science works - Applications and implications of science
12. The use of contemporary science and technological developments and their benefits, drawbacks and risks
13. How and why decisions about science and technology are made, including those that raise ethical issues, and about the social, economic and environmental effects of such decisions
OCR A & B core science (draft)
9.6 Spiritual, moral, ethical, social, legislative, economic and cultural issues
Running the activity
Display slide 3 to prompt strong reactions in the students.
This part of the activity allows students to see that the technology may work, but that doesn't mean we should automatically implement it.
Slide 4 describes how the technology works. Ask the students if we could prove that goal-line technology that works should we use it? Elicit ideas about whether it should be installed. Students should appreciate that the science is sound and the technology works. Students should respond in a positive way.
Then raise the issue of whether it is enough that the technology works, or whether other factors need to be considered.
Slide 5 prompts groups to recognise ethical, economic, social and cultural arguments for and against using goal-line technology, decide on their relative importance and justify their decision.
One strategy would be to let groups of 4-6 take turns to read the SS 1 cards and place them in the right boxes on SS2. Then they can divide the cards in each box into points FOR and AGAINST using the technology. To reach their final decision, students need to decide which arguments are strongest.
Students could justify their decisions orally or prepare a written summary. Then a mini-plenary could be used to compare each group’s decision and the types of arguments they found most important.
- Evidence that the system works
- This video can be shown to the students during the elicit stage. It is evidence that the goal-line technology works.
- Calibrating and testing the technology
- Demo of Cairos system at work in Tokyo for FIFA referees.
- Simple animation
- 3D animation of how the goal-line technology works.
- More complex animation
- Animation showing how the ball interacts with the magnetic fields. Only suitable for older students.
- Positive comments and images of the technology
- Goal Line Technology - ball testing and soundbites
Reviews & Comments
Write your online review to share your feedback and classroom tips with other teachers. How well does it work, how engaging is it, how did you use it, and how could it be improved?
Goal-line technology review
Apr 26th, 2011
Excellent using it for KS3 Key skills program
Reviewer: Julie Rees