A ≈20-minute explicit case study, then the pivot into the social inquiry
What the explicit teaching is for: the Language Line activity showed te reo being driven down in the classroom. This gives the class the vivid recent counterpart — te reo going public, loudly, and the country arguing about it — so they have a concrete, contested case to carry into the inquiry. Keep it ≈20 minutes. Hard stop.
Can language revitalisation be considered activism? Why, or why not?
Each student picks one event and, in Google Slides, explains:
By the end of the lesson students can:
A ≈20-minute explicit input: the 1999 Rugby World Cup match at Twickenham, Hinewehi Mohi singing "God Defend New Zealand" entirely in te reo Māori, the backlash, the shift to a bilingual anthem now standard, and Waiata / Anthems (2019) — placed on the unit timeline next to the native-schools era so the contrast is visible. Then a ≈35-minute inquiry working block: each student chooses one of six events and builds the four-part explanation in Google Slides, focusing on questions 3 and 4. Close with a short structured share on question 4.
Previous: the Do Now and Language Line activity established the 95% → 5% collapse in te reo fluency and the native-schools system behind it, and the class has met the critical-thinking prompt "can language revitalisation be considered activism?". This lesson adds the recent anchor case and turns that prompt into the working social inquiry. Subsequent: students continue the chosen-event analysis in Google Slides and present / hand in the finished inquiry response; today's stance on question 4 is that response's thesis in draft.
Recall the line → a tight, evidence-first explicit block → an explicit hand-off to the inquiry → a long working block with targeted conferencing → a share that requires a claim.
| Timing | Concept(s) / skills | Content and learning activities | Assessment for learning |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0–4 | Recall · placing events in time | Do Now. On the board: the timeline dates with the events removed. "You've met most of these. Put the events back — native schools, the petition, kōhanga reo, the Land March. Leave a gap where you think something to do with an anthem goes." | Scan — do they order the suppression era before the revitalisation events? |
| 4–6 | Orientation | Frame. "≈20 minutes on one event that goes in that gap, then the rest of the lesson you start your inquiry slide. Listen for facts you can use in the inquiry, not just a story." | — |
| 6–20 | Cause and consequence · continuity and change · reading a source · te reo revitalisation | The event (explicit). 1999. Rugby World Cup. Twickenham, London. All Blacks v England. A New Zealand singer, Hinewehi Mohi (Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāi Tūhoe), is asked to sing the national anthem. She sings "God Defend New Zealand" entirely in te reo Māori — the first time on that stage. Play the clip. Then briefly: some booing at the ground; the next day talkback and letters ran hot — "disrespectful", "we couldn't sing along", "sing it in English"; Mohi has said the reaction hurt, and that she sang in te reo because [her own words from the clip]. What's different now: within a few years, te reo verse then English became standard; it's unremarkable at tests today. 2019 — Mohi releases Waiata / Anthems. Mark it on the board timeline — between the 1987 Act and today. "Native schools drove te reo out of the classroom. This is te reo going onto the biggest stage there is — and the country arguing about it." | Cold-call 2 students to retell the sequence in order. Check: anthem, not haka. |
| 20–25 | Hand-off · catalyst vs. cause · testing a definition | Launch the inquiry. Deck's Social Inquiry slide up. "Pick one event. Four questions on the slide. The two that matter most:" Q3 — did your event cause a change in how te reo / te ao / mātauranga Māori is regarded, or was it a sign of a change already happening? (Use the timeline. What was already moving?) Q4 — is your event "activism"? (Test it against the definition on the board and against Ngā Tamatoa / the Land March / Bastion Point.) "The anthem event is the newest, and Mohi says she wasn't protesting — so it's the hardest test of question 4. Take it if you want the challenge." | — |
| 25–52 | Managing self · argument from evidence · synthesis | Inquiry working block. Students choose an event and build their Google Slide — questions 1–2 briefly, then real work on 3 and 4. Scaffold prompts: Q3: ① What changed after this event? ② What was already happening before it? ③ Would the change have happened without it — sooner, later, the same? ④ Catalyst, cause, or both? Q4: ① Your definition of activism, in your words. ② Does your event fit it? ③ Does intent matter — that Ngā Tamatoa meant to protest and Mohi says she didn't? ④ Where's your line between "activism" and "just living your culture / language"? Teacher conferences 4–5 students — behind ones first. One question: "What's your claim on Q4?" | Conferencing record vs. class list: has a claim / drafting / stuck. Q3 — catalyst/cause distinction? Q4 — using the definition? |
| 52–58 | Relating to others · defending a claim | Share + exit. Take Q4. 3–4 students name their event and their claim + one reason; invite one genuine disagreement each time. Don't resolve it — name that reasonable people put the activism line in different places, and that where they put it is the argument they're making. Exit: one sentence — "[My event] [is / is not / is partly] activism, because ______." Collect. | Exit sentence: is a definition or a distinction doing the work, not just an opinion? |
The explicit block is evidence, not the lesson. If the 1999 story runs past ≈20 minutes the inquiry gets squeezed and questions 3–4 never get worked. Hard stop at 20. The board timeline is the bridge — it's what lets students answer "was it already happening?"
Question 4 has no settled answer, and that's the point. "Singing an anthem is obviously activism" and "activism means protest, this was Mohi being herself" are both defensible. Push them to define the word and hold the line consistently across their event — don't push them to a conclusion. The Mohi case is the sharp one precisely because she says she wasn't making a statement.
Anthem, not haka, and the Māori words ("Aotearoa", Thomas Henry Smith, 1878) are a re-working, not a literal translation of Bracken's English — one sentence if it comes up.
None new. Continue the chosen-event slide, especially questions 3 and 4; next lesson is finishing / presenting the inquiry response.
(After teaching) Did the explicit block stay inside 20 minutes? Did students carry the 1999 case into the inquiry as evidence, or retell it on their slide? Did "catalyst vs. cause" land, or do I need a cleaner example? Was the Q4 share genuinely contested? Did enough students take the anthem event, or did they cluster on the easier protest events?
Template fields from: University of Auckland, Faculty of Arts and Education. (2026). EDPRAC 612 GDTSE Practicum Handbook, Section 8. Aligned to the class deck "Civil Rights — A NZ Case Study" (TMC). Historical spine — Hinewehi Mohi, Twickenham, 9 Oct 1999; move to a bilingual anthem in the early 2000s; Waiata / Anthems 2019 — is settled public record; verify Mohi's stated reasons against the clip before teaching, as her words carry inquiry question 4.