Two Eyed Soap
NGSS Performance Expectations: MS-LS2-2 (Construct an explanation that predicts patterns of interactions among organisms across ecosystems).
Driving Question: How can understanding the relationships between organisms help us solve real-world ecological problems?
Anchor Phenomenon: Students are presented with two images:
They are asked: "Why is one tree thriving with insects, while the other is dying because of them?"
Final Project: Students will create a Public Service Announcement (PSA)—in video, podcast, or brochure format—targeted at their community. The PSA will explain the difference between mutualism and parasitism using the two case studies, and advocate for a specific action (e.g., reporting invasive species, supporting conservation of mutualistic partnerships).
This table outlines the progression from inquiry to creation and presentation.
| Day | Phase | Activity & Key Questions | UDL/SEL Integration |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Launch & Inquiry | Introduce the Anchor Phenomenon. Generate questions: What's happening here? What do the insects get? What does the tree get? Watch intro videos on mutualism and parasitism. | SEL: Establish wonder and curiosity. UDL: Use images, videos, and class discussion to introduce concepts. |
| 2-3 | Direct Instruction & Case Study | Jigsaw Activity: Groups become experts on one case: • Team Ants: Research the mutualistic treaty (shelter/food for defense). • Team Lanternfly: Research the parasitic harm (sap consumption, sooty mold). Groups then teach their findings to a mixed team. |
SEL: Develop collaboration and peer teaching skills. UDL: Provide varied texts, videos, and diagrams for research. |
| 4 | Analysis & Modeling | Venn Diagram or T-Chart: As a class, co-create a comparison of the two relationships, focusing on cost/benefit and impact on the ecosystem. Students then create a physical or digital model of one relationship. | SEL: Collective problem-solving. UDL: Choice in modeling method (draw, build, digital). |
| 5 | Project Introduction | Introduce the Driving Question and Final PSA Project. Review rubric. Form project groups and allow groups to choose their PSA format and which organism (ants or lanternfly) they will feature as their primary example. | SEL: Student voice and choice in product. UDL: Multiple means of action and expression. |
| 6-7 | Work Time | Groups research, script, and create their PSA. Teacher conferences with groups to guide argumentation: "Are you clearly explaining the type of relationship? What action are you asking of your audience?" | SEL: Responsible decision-making in groups. UDL: Scaffold with script templates, storyboards, and checklists. |
| 8 | Peer Review & Revision | Groups conduct a "Gallery Walk" or peer feedback session using a simple feedback form focused on clarity and accuracy. Groups use feedback for final revisions. | SEL: Giving and receiving constructive feedback. |
| 9-10 | Presentation & Reflection | PSA Showcase: Groups present final products. Culminating reflection: "How does understanding these relationships change how you see your local environment?" | SEL: Public speaking and celebrating work. UDL: Safe, structured presentation environment. |
This rubric assesses the core science understanding and the application of skills through the project.
| Criteria | Exemplary (4) | Proficient (3) | Developing (2) | Beginning (1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scientific Accuracy & Explanation | Clearly and correctly defines mutualism & parasitism. Uses both case studies (Ants and Lanternfly) to contrast the relationships with deep detail. | Correctly defines both terms. Uses at least one case study effectively to explain the difference between the relationships. | Definitions or use of examples may have minor inaccuracies. Contrast between the two relationship types is unclear. | Definitions are incorrect or missing. Examples are not used or are misidentified. |
| Argument & Real-World Connection | PSA makes a compelling, evidence-based argument for a specific community action. Clearly links the science to the proposed solution. | PSA suggests a relevant action connected to the science of the featured relationship. | The connection between the science and the suggested action is weak or unclear. | No real-world connection or call to action is present. |
| Product Quality & Creativity | PSA is highly polished, engaging, and uses media/format effectively to enhance the message. Exceptionally creative. | PSA is complete and clear. Format is used appropriately to communicate the message. | PSA is somewhat disorganized or unclear. Format does not strongly support the message. | PSA is incomplete, confusing, or hastily assembled. |
| Collaboration (SEL Focus) | Group worked exceptionally well together, with clear evidence of shared responsibility and effective resolution of disagreements. | Group worked well together to complete the project with shared responsibility. | Group cooperation was inconsistent, with uneven contribution among members. | Group did not work effectively as a team; project suffered as a result. |
This plan moves students beyond memorizing definitions to applying knowledge to a genuine problem (invasive species), fostering both scientific literacy and civic engagement. The rubric ensures they are assessed on their understanding of the critical contrast between the symbiotic relationships you've provided.