← Back to Lesson 8 | 🖨️ Print
 
 
 
Introduction · Kuputaki
~80–120 words when written · plan here in bullet points
Event name + dates:
Three groups — one line each:
Thesis — why irreconcilable? (one sentence):
Perspective 1 · Tirohanga Tuatahi
~150–200 words when written
Group name:
P
Their perspective — what did they believe? ("[Group] believed / maintained that...")
E
Evidence — source name / creator / date / what it said:
E
WHY — context / values / identity / "because...which reflects...":
Perspective 2 · Tirohanga Tuarua
~150–200 words when written
Group name:
P
Transition + their perspective ("In contrast, [Group] maintained...")
E
Evidence — source name / creator / date / what it said:
E
WHY — what makes this perspective distinct from Perspective 1?
Perspective 3 · Tirohanga Tuatoru
~150–200 words · often the Māori / community perspective
Group name:
P
Transition + their perspective ("A third perspective came from [Group], who...")
E
Evidence — whose voice? Find Māori/community source where possible.
E
WHY — connect to identity, historical experience, what they had to lose:
Excellence Conclusion · Whakahōhonu
~100–150 words · analyse, do NOT summarise
Core value clash — why were perspectives irreconcilable? (one sentence):
Why agreement was impossible (deeper reason — what framework did each group use?):
Significance — why does this event still matter for Aotearoa today?
Kaiako comment:
Signed off: ✓ / ✗
Kaiako: Collect plans at the end of Lesson 8. Return with one written comment per section at the start of Lesson 9. Three sign-off questions: (1) Does each PEE paragraph have a named, citable source? (2) Does each explanation contain "because" or equivalent? (3) Does the conclusion plan name the value clash — not just "they disagreed"?

📋 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

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