Teaching Guide
Topic: Critical Habitat Protection of Hellbender Salamanders
Host: Zen Pisani
Guests: Trisha Crabill and Brain Segee
Listen in to learn more about Hellbenders, the subspecies of Giant Salamanders in North America, and different views as to why the subspecies having a Critical Habitat Designation along with their classifications under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Objectives:
- I can define what a critical habitat designation is.
- I can explain two positive and two negative consequences of designating critical habitat protection to Hellbender Salamanders.
- I can use critical thinking to form my own opinion as to why critical habitat designation would be beneficial or consequential to a species.
Pre-Viewing Questions:
- List four things you know about what is means for a species to be threatened or endangered.
- What is your current opinion of the ESA?
- What do you think a Critical Habitat Designation is?
- Why do you think this could be a controversial topic?
Guided Questions:
- What is the main difference for classifying an animal as either threatened or endangered?
- What are the two protections given to a species under section 7 of the ESA?
- What are the three reasons listed as to why the populations of Hellbenders have decreased in the past half century?
- One protection of the ESA is the prohibition “to take” a species, aside from physically taking an animal, what are some examples provided that fall under this prohibition?
- What does it mean if a person gets critical habitat designated on their private property?
- What could be a possible downfall of designating Hellbenders a Critical Habitat?
Post-Listening Questions:
- What does it mean for a species to have a critical habitat designation?
- What are two positive and two negative consequences of not providing critical habitat protection to Hellbenders?
- Do you believe it would be beneficial or consequential for the Hellbender subspecies to be designated critical habitat protection?
Scoring Rubric
Categories
Level 1: 1 points
Level 2: 2 points
Level 3: 3 points
Knowledge
Level 1: Student cites either one positive or one negative consequence.
Level 2: Student lists at least 1 positive and 1 negative consequence.
Level 3: Student lists multiple positive and negative consequences.
Synthesis
Level 1: Student responses do not incorporate relevant viewpoints from the podcast.
Level 2: Student incorporates information related to one viewpoint presented in the podcast.
Level 3: Student incorporates information from both viewpoints.
Reasoning
Level 1: Student does not back up reasoning or show why they have a certain opinion.
Level 2: Student supports some statements with facts and evidence.
Level 3: All or most opinions are backed up by facts from the podcast or other credible sources.
