lab report

r e c o m m e n D a t i o n

i n q u i r y & i n v e s t i g a t i o n

Science Galls Me: What is a Niche Anyway?

k r i S t y Ly n n H a LV e r S o n

D e a n n a m a r i e L a n k f o r D

During many backyard barbecues, nature walks, and other outdoor activities, we are often approached by people fascinated by an odd bulb-like structure they have found on a nearby plant. They ask, “What is this?” These “bulbs” are actually specialized growths, galls, that have been caused by insects. Since so much natural curiosity surrounds these phenomena, why not use them to edu- cate students about plant insect interactions? We’ve developed a lesson to investigate basic principles of ecology, more specifically niche partitioning, while using a jigsaw activity that explores gall- ing insects’ interactions with goldenrods. Not only does this lesson capture secondary students’ interest and keeps them engaged in hands-on activities, the content addresses two Content Standards (of the National Science Education Standards) for 9-12 life sciences: (1) Organisms both cooperate and compete in ecosystems. The interrelationships and interdependencies of these organisms may generate ecosystems that are stable for hundreds or thousands of years (NRC, 1996, p. 186). (2) Living organisms have the capac- ity to produce populations of infinite size, but environments and resources are finite. This fundamental tension has profound effects on the interactions between organisms (NRC, 1996, p. 186).

Organisms often must compete for food and resources access in natural communities in order to survive. This is true espe- cially for insects that live on the tall goldenrod (Solidago altissima). Hundreds of insects have overcome resource limitations by out- competing other herbivores and making use of the same plant in various ways. These ecological interactions take place at the level of the individual, the population, the community, and the ecosys- tem. We offer an introduction to principles of ecology, plant insect interactions, and provide a classroom activity that highlights niche partitioning by galling insects to help provide secondary science educators with a way to share and explore these interactions with their students.

Investigating trophic relationships among goldenrod plants and gall inducing insects offers rich learning opportunities for high school life science classes (Heinrich et al., 2001; Sandro & Lee, 2006). Our investigation focuses on gall collection, gall identifica- tion, measurement skills, and observation. These skills support the development of content knowledge as well as scientific process skills such as prediction, developing and testing hypotheses, gath- ering empirical data, and inference. Understanding variation in resource use is directly related to resource partitioning. Using wild- life in classroom experiments improves content retention, problem solving, and decision making (Millenbah & Millspaugh, 2003). Because a single goldenrod plant often has multiple insects associ- ated with it, and is common within most of the United States, gold- enrods are an optimal choice for investigating niche partitioning.

One way multiple species are able to interact in a single envi- ronment and limit competition is a strategy called niche partition- ing (Albrecht & Gotelli, 2001). Ecologists approach the problem of quantifying niches by focusing on one or more aspects of competi- tion between species. For example, there may be many different

food sources, growth resources, or habitat regions available in the environment; yet, a particular species may only use a narrow range of the environmental resources available.

There are two different descriptions of a species’ niche, the fundamental and the realized. These can be thought of as the “potential” and “realistic” niches. The fundamental niche of a spe- cies includes all of the conditions in which it could live, all of the geographic regions it could occupy, and all of the potential food sources it could consume. This type of niche is typically very broad, because many species are capable of being generalists. More specifi- cally, a fundamental niche is determined by the morphological and physiological capacity to deal with variation in the environment, in the absence of antagonists. For instance, some species are adapted to consume fibrous, leafy materials while others are adapted to consume vascular tissues. Fundamental niche can be measured by examining the range of resources or range of environments a spe- cies is capable of exploiting.

Organisms share the environment with other species, resulting in an overlap of fundamental niches indicating intense competi- tion for a specific resource. The competitive exclusion principle illustrates the outcome when two species utilize the same limited resource within a stable community; one species will consistently out-compete the other. Thus, when two or more fundamental nich- es overlap, a phenomenon called niche partitioning occurs. This means that species will interact and compete until each species has reduced its niche size to reduce competition. The result is that each species only uses a portion of its fundamental niche. This portion of the fundamental niche is called a realized niche. It may be much

Fundamental niche

Limiting Resources (e.g., Temperature)

Li m

it in

g R

es o

u rc

es (e

.g .,

Fo o

d )

realized niche

Figure 1. a comparison of the fundamental versus real- ized niche.

The american biology Teacher niche 483

smaller than the fundamen- tal niche (see Figure 1). A significant characteristic of realized niches is that pop- ulations of the same species may have very different real- ized niches. Realized niche limitations depend upon the precise commodities of the ecosystem and the nature of the other species involved in the resource partitioning.

Study System Host Plant

Solidago L. (Asteraceae; tribe Goldenrod) is a North American genus of 75 spe- cies. Solidago altissima (tall goldenrod) is a native flow- ering plant that regrows each spring from under- ground rhizomes (Maddox et al., 1989; Abrahamson & Weis, 1997). This species is widely distributed over most of temperate North America, primarily in disturbed habi- tats, such as abandoned fields, roadsides, and other areas of secondary succes- sion. These plants are also commonly encountered in undisturbed or recon- structed prairies. Solidago altissima display tiny, yellow rayed blossoms massed in a showy, plume-like cluster from September to late October (see Figure 2). These plants can be identified by their hairy, grayish stem and rough texture of the leaves, which are toothed and have triplicate parallel venation (Abrahamson & Weis, 1997). In the midwestern region of the United States, these plants can grow alongside the similar smooth goldenrod (Solidago gigantea). The major morpho- logical distinction between these species is the presence of hairs on the leaves and stem of the tall goldenrod and absence of hairs on the smooth goldenrod. For a more detailed compari- son, see Abrahamson’s (n.d.) online guide. Either or both of these plant species may be used for this activity.

Galling Insect Herbivores

A diverse community of insect herbivores (>100 species) uses S. altissima as a host plant (Maddox & Root, 1990; Root & Cappuccino, 1992; Fontes et al., 1994). These insects represent a diversity of feed- ing guilds and many are

Figure 2. Tall goldenrods in bloom.

Figure 3. Asteromyia carbonifera associ- ated blister gall.

Figure 4. Epiblema scudderiana associated woody gall. Photo: Stephen B. Heard (University of New Brunswick)

goldenrod specialists. Remnants of galling insects in particular are easily collectible and identifiable, as each insect develops its own distinct gall type that remains observable even after the insect has abandoned the structure. Descriptions and illustra- tions of some common gall-making species on S. altissima follow (see Figures 3 through 9).

Asteromyia carbonifera Sacken (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) (Figure 3). This is a gall-making fly that creates multiple, small, blister-like galls on the leaves of goldenrods with the aid of a mutualistic fungus (Weis, 1982). These galls first appear on the plants between May and June and are observable through late October. Tip: Have students look on both sides of the leaf; these galls will be visible on each side.

484 The american biology Teacher volume 71, no. 8, ocTober 2009

Epiblema scudderiana Clemens (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) (Figure 4). This gall-making moth creates rough, elliptical, woody appearing galls high on goldenrod stems. While these galls begin to appear in May/June, the moths over-winter in the galls so they can be found late in the year. Tip: The galls are often overlooked since they look very much like the stem. Have students who are willing to be careful observers search for these.

Eurosta solidaginis Fitch (Diptera: Tephritidae) (Figure 5). This fly and its gall are most commonly associated with goldenrods (see Heinrich et al., 2001; Waring et al., 1990). Ball-shaped galls are created by the fly and appear midway down on goldenrod stems beginning in late June to early July. Generally only one larval gall forms on each plant. Tip: These galls will probably be the easiest to find and they can also be used for additional lab activities (see Sandro & Lee, 2006; Yahnke, 2006).

Gnorimoschema gallaesolidaginis Riley (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) (Figure 6). These moths lay their eggs in the fall near patches of goldenrod. The eggs over-winter and hatch in the spring, leaving the larvae to find new goldenrod shoots. Larvae bore their way into the young terminal meristem where they induce elliptical galls beginning to appear in early summer. Tip: Since these galls form early in the summer, they tend to be found low on the gold- enrod stem and can also be identified by a small circular patch near the top end of the gall.

Procecidochares atra Loew (Diptera: Tephritidae) (Figure 7). This fly creates a bunch gall at the terminal and lateral meristems (buds) of a developing goldenrod shoot during midsummer. Tip: You will most likely find these galls within a cluster or bunch for- mation with multiple galls at each meristem.

Rhopalomyia solidaginis Loew (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) (Figure 8). This midge attacks the terminal meristem of a developing shoot, producing an apical bunch or rosette gall that provides protection for the developing midges and a habitat for a community of other insects. These galls appear in midsummer with adults emerging around September. Tip: If you carefully dissect this gall, you will find a “tent-like” housing surrounding the insect.

Outdoor Gall Activity The activity includes guidelines for gall collection, classroom use, and assessment questions. We suggest that this unit only be implemented in the fall semester of the academic year. Most of these galls will remain observable until October; after this time, plants tend to lose their leaves, making it difficult to identify the plants and insect galls. In the spring, the majority of the gall inducing insects will not have begun laying their eggs, thus, galls will not yet be formed.

Figure 5. Eurosta solidaginis associated ball gall.

Figure 6. Gnorimoschema gallaesolidaginis associated elliptical gall.

The american biology Teacher niche 485

Background Knowledge • Galls are caused by many organisms living on plants,

including insects, mites, mistletoe, fungi, and bacteria.

• Most gall-forming insects are herbivores, but do not sig- nificantly damage the host plant, and the larvae inside are often eaten by a variety of birds and rodents.

• Typically, galls grow into a specific size, shape, and color that is characteristic of the par- ticular insect species.

• The plant's defensive reaction to the galling insect herbivore attacks is to isolate the toxins or activities of the invader in a tough, tumorous mass of tissue called a gall. However, in doing so, the plant provides food and shelter for the developing larvae inside.

The selected insects and galls dis- cussed earlier are easy to come by if you visit a field prior to your lesson and gath- er the galls you will be searching for that day. This will also provide an opportunity

to survey the common insect galls that students will be able to iden- tify in your particular region. The portion of the plant that supports the gall can be a clue as to how a particular insect uses its host as a food resource. Most insect herbivores are selective: They specialize as leaf chewers, sap suckers, stem borers, root pruners, gall mak- ers, leaf miners, collectors of pollen or nectar, etc. Each of these feeding strategies represents a separate ecological niche and all of the species that feed on the same plant in the same way are known as members of a feeding guild. Within a feeding guild, all species compete directly with each other for exactly the same resource. Between members of different guilds, competition is usually less direct and less severe. As a result, there is strong selective pressure limiting the number of species within each guild. However, there can also be resource separation among different galling insects; an example would be the gall-forming insects which produce galls on different regions of the goldenrod plant (see Figure 9). This leads to the development of different realized niches for each species. If an insect herbivore typically consumes leaf tissue, such as Asteromyia carbonifera, it is more likely to develop galls on goldenrod leaves; while Epiblema scudderiana, an insect that consumes the core of the goldenrod stem, is more likely to develop galls on the primary stem of the goldenrod.

It is important to remember that each insect makes a specific gall, therefore, you can identify insect species by identifying the gall. It is reasonable to expect each group to collect between 10 to 30 galls dependent upon the insect selected for investigation (up to 30 galls for Eurosta, Rhopalomyia, and Asteromyia, as these galls tend to be common in most goldenrod fields, and 10 to 15 galls for P. atra, Gnorimoschema, and Epiblema since these insects tend to be patchy and may or may not be present in the field you are investigating). See the materials list and guidelines for gall collection (Appendix A).

Lesson Goals This lesson is

designed to create a cooperative and challenging learn- ing environment in which students will have the oppor- tunity to gain an understanding of field biology. We focus on developing content knowledge and process skills including collection,

Figure 7. Procecidochares atra associated rosette gall.

Figure 8. Rhopalomyia solidaginis asso- ciated rosette gall.

Figure 9. Primary locations of galls on Solidago altissima. Artwork by John O. Stireman III, Wright State University.

486 The american biology Teacher volume 71, no. 8, ocTober 2009

observation, and identification techniques. This is accomplished by organizing and analyzing evidence collected in the field and utilizing empirical data to generate supporting evidence for student claims. Students can also gain valuable experience by collaborating with peers to solve real-world problems.

Lesson Format We propose engaging high school students with a collabora-

tive jigsaw investigation focused on gall related plant-insect inter- actions. The jigsaw approach to investigations is an instructional strategy that encourages the formation of a community of learners (Michaelsen et al., 1997). In our lesson, students work as teams to conduct investigations into plant insect interactions and the result- ing gall formation.

These are the six steps we suggest for setting up a jigsaw inves- tigation of niche partitioning in your classroom.

• First. Divide students into teams of three to four students each. We found that, for the full effect of this activity, it is optimal to have the same number of groups as insects avail- able to investigate, but this is not necessary. At this point, the teacher should carefully consider how the teams are grouped with respect to students who may need extra assis- tance during the field investigation portion of the activity. It may be advantageous to group individuals needing the most help with advanced students.

• Second. Assign or have each group select a specific galling insect and develop guiding questions encompassing four areas of focus: the gall itself (individuals), the galling insect (populations), the plant (individuals or populations), and organismal interactions (at the level of the community and ecosystem). As the instructor, you must be sure that the questions selected will help guide students toward inves- tigating niche-based topics. These questions can be gener- ated by student teams or assigned by the teacher, depend- ing upon the desired level of inquiry. Each student should have one question to investigate. These are some examples of questions students have investigated:

Do galls damage or kill the plant? What is the primary purpose of a gall? Are galls caused by a specific species always found on the same part of the plant? Are galls or the contents of galls used as a resource for other organisms? What is the defensive action of plants toward gall-inducing insects? What is the full scope of resources available for our insect to utilize (e.g., the fundamen- tal niche)?

• third. Once the guiding questions have been established, each student team is responsible for collecting galls and pertinent field data (see Appendix A for a sample gall col- lection protocol; See Appendix B for sample field data col- lected). During this portion of the investigation, students should take note of the location of the galls on the plant and gather evidence to help them answer their guiding questions. You may need to help students with plant iden- tification, gall identification, and demonstrate appropriate collection techniques to gather some galls for dissection in the classroom. During field observations, it is appropriate to challenge student teams to apply their knowledge of galls and gall forming insects or ask additional investigation questions. If a student cannot participate in the outdoor field portion, he/she can still investigate the collected galls back in the classroom. Once back in the classroom, it is often fun and appropriate to have students dissect some of the galls collected to see the internal anatomy and how many insects or species are present. For example, we found

that the Eurosta galls are often attacked by birds in search of food and the Rhopalomyia galls are often hosts to several different insect species.

• Fourth. Student teams should use the evidence from their field investigation and resources gathered upon returning to the classroom to answer their assigned questions. At this point, we challenged students to find articles focusing on ecological relationships that exist between plants and insects, in particular, resources about niche partitioning.

• Fifth. Students incorporated information from their read- ings with their field data to develop answers to their questions and shared these with their group. Then the group developed a presentation to share with the class summarizing all of its findings regarding its assigned insect. The ultimate goal for these presentations is for students to understand that the gall forming insects utilize different plant resources, allowing them to use the same plant as a resource while eliminating competition. For example, we found that Gnorimoschema utilizes goldenrods very early in the season, followed by Eurosta and finally Epiblemba. Thus, these species employ temporal niche partitioning. We also found that Rhopalomyia and P. atra tend to com- pete by attempting to occupy the same niche space (apical meristem) at the same time. Thus we could assume that the least successful species would eventually adapt to a differ- ent niche or die out.

• Sixth. Assessing student learning is a major part of all les- sons. In this activity, both students and teacher are respon- sible for assessment. The students assess peers on their contributions to the investigation. The instructor assesses student performance throughout the tasks as well as the quality and accuracy of content given during the group presentations. We designed a rubric to assist with students’ peer evaluations (Appendix C). We also designed a scoring guide to assist with the instructor’s summative assessment (Appendix D). This scoring guide emphasizes the use of evidence to support claims and relate explanations to key concepts associated with niche (e.g., fundamental niche, realized niche, and niche partitioning). We also encourage conducting formative assessment throughout the activity. This is implemented when challenging the students in the field, asking questions as students are interpreting data, probing students to think beyond superficial responses to questions, and encouraging communication about the project among groups.

Conclusion Utilizing jigsaw activities in high school classrooms offers flex- ibility for teachers to control their level of involvement within an investigation. For example, this approach is open to both student- developed questions or teacher-assigned investigations. Teachers have multiple opportunities within the jigsaw approach to provide or withhold scaffolded instruction based upon the level of student skill. This lesson provides students opportunities to develop both content knowledge and build process skills needed for conduct- ing science. Students partake in fieldwork interacting with an ecosystem in which there are multiple examples of niches. Such investigations of niches using goldenrods have not previously been conducted at the high school level. In particular, using goldenrods as a study system allows students access to content knowledge not found within traditional textbooks. Additionally, students are given the opportunity to experience an investigation similar to what sci- entists might experience and to approach it as scientists might.

The american biology Teacher niche 487

References Abrahamson, W.G. (n.d.) Some notes on recognition of the members of

the Solidago canadensis polyploid complex in central Pennsylvania. Retrieved on March 17, 2006 from http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/ abrahmsn/solidago/plantid.html.

Abrahamson, W.G. & Weis, A.E.. (1997). Evolutionary Ecology Across Three Trophic Levels: Goldenrods, Gall Makers, and Natural Enemies. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Albrecht, M. & Gotelli, N. J. (2001). Spatial and temporal niche partitioning. Oecologia, 126, 134-141.

Fontes, E.M.G., Habeck, D.H. & Slansky Jr., F. (1994). Phytophagous insects associated with goldenrods (Solidago spp.) in Gainsville, Florida. Florida Entomologist, 77, 209-221.

Heinrich, P., Abrahamson, W. G., Whipple, A.V. & Goodenow, W.G. (2001). The Goldenrod and the Gallfly: Evolution of an Interaction. 35-minute video. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State Media Sales.

Maddox, G.D., Cook, R.E., Wimberger, P.H. & Gardescu, S. (1989). Clone structure in four Solidago altissima (Asteraceae) populations: Rhizome connections within genotypes. American Journal of Botany, 76, 318-326.

Maddox, G.D. & Root, R.B. (1990). Structure of the encounter between goldenrod (Solidago altissima) and its diverse insect fauna. Ecology, 71, 2115-2124.

Michaelsen, L.K., Fink, L.D. & Knight, A. (1997). Designing effective group activities: Lessons for classroom teaching and faculty development. In D. DeZure (Ed.) ,To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty, Instructional, and Organizational Development.

Millenbah, K.F. & Millspaugh, J.J. (2003). Using experiential learning in wildlife courses to improve retention, problem solving, and decision making. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 31, 127-137.

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Root, R.B. & Cappuccino, N. (1992). Patterns in population change and the ori- entation of the insect community associated with goldenrod. Ecological Monographs, 62, 393-420.

Sandro, L.H. & Lee, R.E. (2006). Winter biology & freeze tolerance in the golden- rod gall fly. The American Biology Teacher, 68, 29-35

Waring, G., Abrahamson, W.G. & Howard, D.J. (1990). Genetic differentiation among host-associated populations of the gall maker Eurosta solidaginis. Evolution, 44, 1648-1655.

Weis, A.E. (1982). Use of a symbiotic fungus by the gall maker Asteromyia carbonifera to inhibit attack by the parasitoid Torymus capite. Ecology, 63, 1602-1605.

Yahnke, C. J. (2006). Testing optimal foraging theory using bird predation on goldenrod galls. The American Biology Teacher, 68, 471-475.

Appendix A. Gall collection

Gall Collection protocol

1. Search for galls of insect assigned — this will be a haphazard sampling technique.

2. Record location of gall on plant and number of this type of gall on plant.

3. Note any additional galls found on plant.

4. Record any additional data deemed necessary for guiding question i.e., light intensity, flowering density, plant height, distance of plant from others, etc.

5. Clip goldenrod stem directly above and below gall (as appli- cable) for collection.

6. As collecting galls, consider whether or not you are noticing any trends in plant usage or location by your insect.

7. Bring galls and recorded observations back to class.

necessary Collection Materials

• cutting utensil

• bag to carry galls

• pencil and paper

• measuring tape

• class-developed matrix – one copy per student

• photometer — optional

Note: It is important to try to make collections from plants that are at least 5 meters apart to help prevent multiple collections from clones. While this technique is not fail-safe, it will help students get a better diversity of gall collections from unique goldenrod host plants. This approach of selecting plants is considered haphazard since students will happen upon plants with galls in a quasi-ran- dom manner.

B IO

KRISTY L. HALVERSON ([email protected]) is Assistant Professor of Biological Sciences at University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS 39406- 0001. DEANNA M. LANKFORD ([email protected]) is a doctoral candidate in science education at University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65201.

The National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT ) and the Advanced Placement Section are honored to present

Kim Foglia the Advanced placement Biology Service Award, generously sponsored and supported by Pearson.

Kim’s willingness to share her materials, knowledge, and insight with teachers everywhere makes her a truly deserving recipient of this award. Kim has inspired biology teachers all over the world and the following praises to Kim were made on the AP listserve over the past year.

• I had followed your sage advice and educational altruism on the list serve as an onlooker …To me, in the world of biology educa- tion, you are the most admired, esteemed and one and only, KIM FOGLIA !!!!

• You have given so much...I am truly grateful for your advice, resources and the countless number of times you gave clarifications that allowed the labs to run more efficiently...

• Every time my students use one of the resources I have gotten from you, they ask who you are. My response is someone I hope to meet someday so I can tell her in person how outstanding and helpful her resources are.

• I am continually learning from you.

• You have helped my first year teaching AP go smoothly. You are an inspiration to me.

Congratulations Kim Folgia!

488 THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER VOLUME 71, NO. 8, OCTOBER 2009

Appendix B. Team 3: Gnorimoschema

Guiding Question: Are galls caused by specific species always found on the same part of a plant?

Team questions: Do galls damage or kill the plant? What is the primary purpose of a gall? Are galls or the contents of galls used as a resource for other organisms?

Plant location of Gall Plant HeiGHt/Diameter otHer information

1 One Gnorimoschema gall One Asteromyia on one leaf 22 cm from ground on main stem 111 cm/0.55 cm (78 cm from ground) Gnor. gall looks eaten – bird?

2 One Gnorimoschema gall 37 cm from ground on main stem 93.5 cm/0.5 cm

3 One Gnorimoschema gall Two Asteromyia on one leaf 74.5 cm from ground on main stem 108 cm/0.55 cm (67.5 cm from ground)

4 One Gnorimoschema gall 39 cm from ground on main stem 95 cm/0.4 cm

5 One Gnorimoschema gall Two Asteromyia on two leaves 32 cm from ground on main stem 112 cm/0.7 cm (105 cm from ground) (74.5 cm from ground)

6 One Gnorimoschema gall One Asteromyia on one leaf 29.5 cm from ground on main stem 77.5 cm/0.4 cm (58 cm from ground)

7 One Gnorimoschema gall 27 cm from ground on main stem 72 cm/0.45 cm

8 One Gnorimoschema gall 1 Rhopalomyia 31.5 cm from ground on main stem 70 cm/0.5 cm on apical meristem (70 cm)

9 One Gnorimoschema gall 61 cm from ground on main stem 97.5 cm/0.35 cm

10 One Gnorimoschema gall 36.5 cm from ground on main stem 106 cm/0.5 cm

11 One Gnorimoschema gall 59.5 cm from ground on main stem 109 cm/0.6 cm

12 One Gnorimoschema gall 59 cm from ground on main stem 110 cm/0.7 cm

13 One Gnorimoschema gall 34 cm from ground on main stem 89 cm/0.4 cm

14 One Gnorimoschema gall One Eurosta on main stem 61 cm from ground on main stem 93 cm/0.4 cm (69 cm from ground)

Dissec tion Data

1 Empty 8 One larva inside

2 One larva inside 9 Looks like sesame seeds – parasitic wasp?

3 One larva inside 10 Looks like sesame seeds – parasitic wasp?

4 Empty – webs inside (spider?) 11 One larva inside

5 Empty 12 One larva inside

6 One larva inside 13 Empty – small beetle shell

7 One larva inside 14 One larva inside

Denver! see page 506 for more information. Photo © Colorado.com

APPENDIX C. Peer Evaluation Rubric

Peer Evaluation Rubric – Science Galls Me

student: _________________________________________ Date: _____________ evaluator:_______________________________

Criteria Poor Good Exemplary Comments

Gathering Data Very little material evidence was collected in the field.

Did not complete field notes.

Considerable material evidence was collected in the field.

Field notes were of good quality and provided information for classification.

Evidence collection was significant and guidance was provided.

Field notes were of high quality and very useful for the team.

Sharing Information

Did not readily share information with teammates.

Shared information with the team on a regular basis.

Readily shared information with the team.

Accepting Responsibility

Did not accept responsibility for researching or answering assigned questions.

Accepted responsibility for researching and answering questions. Most of the information provided was useful for the team.

Consistently accepted responsibility for researching and answering ques- tions. The information provided was useful for the team.

Collaboration

Difficult to work with and unreli- able when collecting evidence in the field – did not collaborate or show support for others.

Worked well with teammates when collecting evidence in the field – lim- ited cooperation and support for others was shown.

Worked well with teammates when collecting evidence in the field – was cooperative and supportive of others.

Presentation Preparation

Limited involvement in preparation for presentation.

Provided limited ideas, information, and evidence for presentation.

Consistently contributed ideas, information, and evidence for pre- sentation.

Overall Assessment

This individual was not a good col- laborator. He/she was often unreli- able and unwilling to work with teammates.

This individual was a good collabora- tor. He/she often worked effectively with teammates.

This individual was easy to work with and an excellent collaborator. He/she was always reliable and willing to work with teammates.

APPENDIX D. Summative Scoring Guides for Instructor

INDIvIDuAL ASSESSMENT OF STuDENT PRESENTATION Science Galls Me Scoring Guide

student:__________________________________________________________

Criteria Expectations Point values

Accuracy The information presented by the student during the team presentation is accurate.

Preparation The student is confident, well prepared, and organized during his/her portion of the presentation. He/she is able to discuss the topic without reading from a prepared text.

Knowledge The student was knowledgeable and was able to provide complete and in-depth expla- nations.

Evidence The student supported all claims with evidence gathered during the field collection, observed on the plants, observed within the galls, or noted in the field notes.

Clarity The student spoke clearly and was easy to understand.

Appearance The student was dressed appropriately.

Answers to Questions

The student was able to answer questions from other teams about the galling insect his/her team chose to investigate.

490 The american biology Teacher volume 71, no. 8, ocTober 2009

continued on next page

cadillac High school, Mi

carlynton Jr. /sr. High school, Pa

carmel senior High school, in

chicago Horticultural society, il

encyclopedia of life, Ma

episcopal High school, Fl

Jim thorpe High school, Pa

Johnson county community

college, Ks

overlake school, Wa

Padua Franciscan High school, oH

Peoria High school, il

Polytech Prep Day school, ny

Powhatan High school, va

Presentation High school, ca

Punahou school, Hi

university of arkansas for

Medical sciences, ar

Interested in becoming an Organizational Member? Call NABT at (800) 406-0775.

TEAM ASSESSMENT OF STuDENT PRESENTATION Science Galls Me Scoring Guide

student:__________________________________________________________

Criteria Expectations Point values

Preparation

The team was well prepared for the presentation.

• Student participants worked together to present their work to the class.

• The team was well prepared: ° All necessary PowerPoints, overheads, handouts, etc., were prepared ahead of

time.

Knowledge and Accuracy

The team was able to accurately explain:

• all of the questions addressed by the research group.

• explanations addressed fundamental niche, realized niche, and niche partitioning.

Evidence

The team supported all claims with evidence:

• gathered during field collection.

• observed during gall dissections, if appropriate.

• additional resources used.

organization and Clarity

The presentation was well organized and easy to follow.

Explanations provided by the team were clear and easy to understand.

Answers to Questions

The team was able to accurately address questions from the teacher and other teams.

APPENDIX D. continued from the previous page

The american biology Teacher niche 491

n a b t OrganizatiOnal M e M b e r S

Thank you... NABT salutes the following organizations for their support:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.