WALT We Are Learning To / Ko tā mātou e ako nei

Plan a complete Level 2 History essay — an introduction, three full PEE perspective paragraphs, and an Excellence conclusion — before writing a single word of the final assessment.

Paearu Angitu — Success Criteria · I can…

A Produce a detailed plan for each of my three PEE paragraphs, identifying my P, E, and E for each group.
A Write a draft introduction that names my event, names three groups, and states what the essay will argue.
M Identify in my plan where each paragraph will explain why the group held its perspective — not just what they believed.
M Identify the specific language I will use to signal depth: "because," "which reflects," "this demonstrates that..."
E WHAKAHŌHONU: Draft an Excellence conclusion that analyses the core value clash between perspectives — explaining why agreement was impossible, not just that it didn't happen.

← Back to Lesson 7: Choose Your Event

Lesson 8: Whakaaro Tātai — Essay Planning

Plan before you write. Every mark is won or lost in the plan.

Ngā rauemi — Resources for this lesson:

📄 PEE Graphic Organiser (completed from Lesson 7) 📋 Essay Outline Template (print 1 per student) 📝 Peer Feedback Form

Whakatūwhera — Whakaaro / Cultural Opening 5 min

In whakapapa, every story has a structure: who came before, what happened, what followed. The whaikōrero — the formal speech at a marae — does not begin with the speaker's main point. It begins with an acknowledgement: of place, of people, of connection. Then it builds, layer by layer, to its argument.

Your assessment essay follows the same logic. It begins by placing the event in context — who, what, when, why it matters. Then it builds, perspective by perspective, to its conclusion. Today you plan that architecture. You do not write a word of the final assessment yet. You build the whare — the house — so that when you sit down to write in Lesson 9, every plank is already cut to length.

"Mā pango mā whero ka oti ai te mahi."

With black and with red the work is completed — different threads woven together produce a whole.

1He Tauira — Reading an NCEA Exemplar 20 min

Before planning, we examine what a successful Level 2 History essay actually looks like. Read the three annotated extracts below — AchievedMerit, and Excellence — from the same essay question about the 1981 Springbok Tour. Identify what each paragraph does and does not do.

Achieved paragraph — "describes but doesn't explain why"

Rugby supporters believed the Springbok Tour should go ahead. They thought sport and politics should be kept separate. Many people in New Zealand wanted to watch the tour and felt protesters were being disruptive. The New Zealand Rugby Football Union decided to allow the tour to continue despite pressure from groups like HART who opposed it.

What this paragraph does: Names the group, states their view, provides some evidence. What it doesn't do: Never explains WHY rugby supporters held this belief. What values, history, or identity shaped the view that sport and politics should be separate? Why was rugby so important to this group's identity? The "why" is missing — that's what keeps it at Achieved.

Merit paragraph — "explains why, links to context"

Rugby supporters believed the 1981 Springbok Tour should proceed because rugby was not simply a sport to them — it was a central part of New Zealand national identity. As historian Geoff Chapple observed in 1981: The Tour, rugby had been the one arena in which New Zealand consistently competed as a world power, and the All Blacks' rivalry with South Africa dated back to 1921. The NZRFU's decision to proceed reflected this deep cultural attachment: to cancel the tour felt to many supporters like an admission that New Zealand had no right to define its own sporting relationships, regardless of South Africa's internal politics. Their perspective was shaped by a decades-long tradition in which international rugby was understood as neutral ground, separate from the political conflicts of the nations involved.

What this paragraph does: Names the group, states their view, gives a specific source (Chapple, 1981), and — crucially — explains WHY they held this view: identity, tradition, self-determination. What it doesn't yet do at Excellence level: It doesn't analyse how this perspective clashed with others or why the clash was irreconcilable.

Excellence conclusion — "analyses irreconcilability + significance"

The three perspectives on the 1981 Springbok Tour were ultimately irreconcilable because they rested on fundamentally incompatible understandings of what sport is for. Rugby supporters held that sport operated in a neutral, apolitical sphere — that allowing the tour was not an endorsement of apartheid, merely a recognition of sportspeople's right to compete. Anti-apartheid protesters, by contrast, argued that no human activity could be morally neutral while apartheid systematically denied the humanity of Black South Africans. And for Māori and Pasifika communities, the question of racial segregation was not abstract — it was continuous with their own experience of institutional racism in Aotearoa. This is what made compromise impossible: not that the groups disagreed on facts, but that they disagreed on the very framework through which sport, race, and political responsibility should be understood. The significance of the Tour lies precisely here: it forced Aotearoa to confront, in live television time, a contradiction it had long preferred to ignore.

What this conclusion does: Identifies the core clash (what is sport for?), explains why the clash was irreconcilable (different frameworks, not different facts), connects to Māori/Pasifika experience, and makes a significance claim. This is the analytical voice that earns Excellence.

Discussion question (pair, 3 min): "What is the one sentence that most clearly separates the Merit paragraph from the Achieved paragraph? What change in language signals the shift from 'what' to 'why'?"

🔵 Tautoko: Underline every use of the word "because" in the Merit paragraph. Count them. Now count how many times "because" appears in the Achieved paragraph. This one word — explaining causation — is often the single clearest marker of Merit thinking. Plan to use "because" or equivalent language ("this reflects," "this demonstrates that," "which explains why") at least once per PEE paragraph.

🟣 Whakahōhonu: The Excellence conclusion uses the phrase "they disagreed on the very framework through which sport, race, and political responsibility should be understood." This is the language of historiography — analysing the structure of disagreement, not just its content. For your event, write one sentence that names the "framework clash" — the deeper conceptual disagreement that made the surface argument irresolvable.

2Te Hanganga o te Tuhinga — Essay Structure 10 min

Your Level 2 History essay follows a specific structure. Copy this structure into your Essay Outline Template and keep it in front of you for the rest of this unit.

Introduction (1 paragraph, ~80–120 words)
Name the event. When did it occur? Why was it significant? Name your three groups. State briefly what each believed. Thesis sentence: "The perspectives of [Group 1], [Group 2], and [Group 3] on [event] were shaped by [brief reason] and were ultimately irreconcilable because [the core clash]."
Note: The introduction does not yet explain why — it only names. The explanation happens in the body paragraphs.

Perspective 1 — [Group name] (~150–200 words)
P: "[Group] believed / maintained / held that..." — state their view clearly.
E: Evidence — cite a specific source. "This is shown in [source type], [creator], [date], which stated..." — quote or summarise.
E: Explanation — "This perspective was shaped by... because... which reflects..." — explain the values, context, identity that drove the view.

Perspective 2 — [Group name] (~150–200 words)
Same PEE structure. Begin with a transition: "A different perspective was held by..." or "In contrast, [Group 2] maintained..."
Avoid starting with "Another group was..." — name the group specifically.

Perspective 3 — [Group name] (~150–200 words)
Same PEE structure. Begin with "A third perspective..." or "Complicating both of these views was the perspective of [Group 3]..."
The third perspective is a good place to introduce the most complex or overlooked group — often the one whose voice is hardest to find in mainstream sources.

Excellence Conclusion (~100–150 words)
Do NOT summarise what you already said — the examiner just read it. Instead: analyse. Why were these perspectives irreconcilable? What fundamental value, worldview, or assumption prevented agreement? Why does this event matter to Aotearoa's history? Significance claim: "The significance of [event] lies in..."
This section separates Merit from Excellence. Excellence students write about why the conflict happened at the level of ideas — not just facts.

Total word count target: ~600–800 words. Quality over quantity — a precise 600-word essay often outperforms a sprawling 1000-word one if the 600 is tightly argued.

3Whakaaro Hōhonu — Deep Planning 35 min

Using your Essay Outline Template and your completed PEE Graphic Organiser from Lesson 7, plan each section of your essay in detail. This is not free writing — it is structural planning. Use bullet points, not full sentences.

What to complete in this 35 minutes:

Introduction plan — list your event, three groups, and one-sentence thesis. Do not write the paragraph yet.

Perspective 1 plan — Group name. Dot-point their view (P). Dot-point your source: who, when, what it says (E). Dot-point your explanation of WHY (E) — minimum 3 reasons linked to context/values/identity.

Perspective 2 plan — Same structure. Focus: is this perspective genuinely distinct from P1? What makes it different?

Perspective 3 plan — Same structure. Note: who is the voice least heard in mainstream accounts? Use Te Ara or Papers Past community newspaper archives.

Excellence conclusion plan — In one sentence (no more): what is the core value clash? In a second sentence: why was agreement impossible? In a third sentence: what is the significance of the event?

Teacher circulates during this time. Use the five-minute check-in at the 20-minute mark: ask each student "what is your strongest piece of evidence, and why is it relevant to your group's perspective?" This reveals whether students have internalised the PEE framework or are still collecting facts.

🔵 Tautoko: Use the PEE Graphic Organiser's write-lines to draft the first sentence of each section only. The first sentence of a perspective paragraph is always: "[Group] [believed/maintained/held that] [their specific view]." Write that one sentence for all three paragraphs now — it gives you a running start for Lesson 9.

🟣 Whakahōhonu: Plan a fourth, optional paragraph: "Ngā Reo Kore — The Silenced Voices." Which group's perspective is almost entirely absent from the historical record you found? What can we infer about their experience from secondary accounts or from what was not said? This is the kind of historiographical awareness that distinguishes an excellent historian.

4Aromatawai ā-hoa — Peer Plan Check 15 min

Swap Essay Outline Templates with a partner. Using the Peer Feedback Form, give written feedback on each section. You are not the examiner — you are a critical friend. Focus on these questions:

For each PEE paragraph:

Can I clearly identify the group's perspective (P)?
Is the evidence specific enough? Could I find this source? (E)
Does the explanation tell me why — not just what? (E)

For the conclusion plan:

Does it identify a real value clash, or does it just say "they disagreed"?
Does it make a significance claim — why does this event matter to Aotearoa's history?

After feedback: spend 5 minutes updating your plan in response to your peer's comments. This is the only time you revise your plan — in Lesson 9 you write from the plan as-is, then revise the writing.

🔵 Tautoko: If your partner is also using a supported event (Springbok Tour or Dawn Raids from Lessons 5–6), compare your planned evidence. Have you found different sources for the same group? Sharing sources is allowed at this stage — the writing must be your own in Lessons 9–10.

🟣 Whakahōhonu: After receiving peer feedback, evaluate your own plan using the NZQA Level 2 History grading descriptors. Which criteria are you confident you meet? Which require more evidence or deeper explanation? Annotate your plan with [A], [M], or [E] beside each section to signal your own grade expectation.

Aromatawai — Formative Check 5 min

Plan Sign-Off — before Lesson 9

Students who do not have a signed-off plan before Lesson 9 begins writing cold — and commonly produce lower-grade work. Teacher should collect plans at the end of Lesson 8. Return at the start of Lesson 9 with one written comment per section.

Three questions to check before sign-off:

Does each PEE paragraph include a named, specific source?
Does the explanation in each paragraph include the word "because" (or equivalent)?
Does the conclusion plan go beyond "they disagreed" — does it name the value clash?

He kitenga — What to Watch For

Plans with only one source per group: Students need at least one primary and one secondary source to write at Merit level. Direct them back to Papers Past tonight.
Conclusions that summarise rather than analyse: "All three groups had different views" is a summary. "Their disagreement was irreconcilable because they operated from different understandings of [value]" is analysis.
Māori/Pasifika perspectives treated as secondary: Check that group 3 (often a Māori or community perspective) has equal evidence depth to groups 1 and 2 — not a token paragraph.

Whakaaroaro Akoranga — Differentiation

🔵 Tautoko — Support

Provide the Essay Outline Template pre-divided with scaffolded sentence starters for each section (e.g., "Group 1 (___) believed... / This is shown in... / Their view was shaped by...").
Allow students to work from a shared event (Springbok Tour or Dawn Raids) so they can use class sources from Lessons 5–6 and peer-compare plans.
Pre-highlight the key lines in the NCEA exemplars — students identify what makes each highlighted section Merit or Excellence, rather than finding it themselves.
Teacher conference (5 min, 1:1) during planning time to check the core clash is correctly identified before the student plans the conclusion.

🟣 Whakahōhonu — Extension

Write a full draft introduction (not just a plan) — this becomes the opening for Lesson 9's writing session.
Evaluate the three NCEA exemplar extracts using the published Level 2 History achievement standard — do they agree with the grade labels given? Why or why not?
Research one historian's interpretation of your event (use academic sources via school library databases or Google Scholar). How does the historian's framing of the event differ from the primary sources? This is secondary source analysis at University-entry level.

🏫 He Kōrero mā te Kaiako — Teacher Notes

Exemplar quality — set the bar high, not scary

The exemplars in this lesson are written at a high standard. Reassure students that the exemplars are targets, not entry requirements. The purpose is to show them what analytical language looks like so they can reproduce it, not to intimidate. Emphasise: "This is what we're building towards."

The 35-minute planning block is sacred

Do not allow students to start writing their assessment in this block. The discipline of planning before writing is the single most impactful habit for improving NCEA History outcomes. Students who skip the plan consistently produce disorganised essays that underperform their capabilities.

Sign-off as accountability

Collecting plans overnight and returning with one comment per section creates a brief teacher–student feedback loop before Lesson 9. This is more efficient than trying to conference with 25 students during a writing lesson. Comments should be specific: "Your evidence for Group 2 needs a date and author. Find this tonight." not "Good work!"

Hononga Whānau — Whānau Connection

Tonight's home task (15 min): Review the teacher's comment on your plan. Find the one piece of evidence you are still missing (usually for your third group). Use Papers Past, NZ History, or Te Ara — one focused search. Bring one additional source with the citation (author, date, title, publication) to Lesson 9. If you are unsure how to cite a source, the Notes section of Te Ara shows you exactly how to reference each article.

Lesson 9: Tuhituhi Tuatahi — Writing Workshop 1

Bring your signed-off plan, your PEE Graphic Organiser, and any additional sources. In Lesson 9 you write your full draft — introduction through conclusion — in one session. Peer feedback follows at the end.

Go to Lesson 9 →

📋 Teacher Planning Snapshot

Ngā Whāinga Ako — Learning Intentions

Students will engage with this resource to develop NCEA Level 2 historical thinking skills — examining how and why different groups held distinct perspectives on significant events in Aotearoa New Zealand's past, and constructing analytical essays using the PEE (Point–Evidence–Explanation) framework.

Ngā Paearu Angitū — Success Criteria

✅ Students can identify the values, beliefs, and circumstances that shaped the perspectives of different historical groups.
✅ Students can construct a well-evidenced analytical essay that moves beyond description to explain why perspectives were irreconcilable.

Differentiation & Inclusion

Scaffold support: Provide PEE sentence frames and perspective analysis templates for entry-level access. Students new to historical essay writing benefit from annotated exemplars showing the difference between describing and explaining a perspective. Extend capable writers by asking them to explain the enduring significance of the perspective clash — why does it still shape Aotearoa today?

ELL / ESOL: Pre-teach key historical vocabulary (perspective, corroboration, reliability, significance, agency) with visual glossaries. Allow oral explanation of perspective analysis before written essay drafts. Sentence starters and argument frames lower the language barrier without reducing the historical thinking demand.

Inclusion: Essay writing is cognitively demanding — chunk the process across multiple sessions with formative checkpoints. Neurodiverse learners benefit from explicit essay structure guides and colour-coded paragraph planning. Oral history discussion forums are a valid alternative assessment pathway for students who need them.

Mātauranga Māori lens: This achievement standard centres events where Māori perspectives have historically been marginalised or misrepresented. Placing tangata whenua perspectives as the primary lens — not as "the other side" — is an act of historical justice. Whakapapa provides a framework for understanding why events like the NZ Wars, land confiscations, and the Dawn Raids were not isolated incidents but linked expressions of colonial power. Tino rangatiratanga and mana motuhake frame what was at stake. Students develop empathy and critical historical consciousness together.

Prior knowledge: Students should have foundational knowledge of the relevant historical events (NZ Wars, Treaty of Waitangi, Dawn Raids, or other case study). Familiarity with the PEE structure supports engagement with essay-focused resources.

Curriculum alignment

NCEA Level 2 History · (5 credits): “Interpret different perspectives of people in an historical event that is of significance to New Zealanders”