← Back to Lesson 8 | 🖨️ Print

Essay Plan Feedback — Aromatawai Mahere Tuhituhi

Level 2 History · HIS 2.3 · Lesson 8 · Peer checks essay outline before writing begins in Lesson 9

Feedback writer (your name)

Plan writer (peer's name)

Their event

Introduction Plan · Mahere Kuputaki

The event name and approximate dates are noted.

Three distinct groups are named specifically (not "protesters" or "the government" — actual group names).

There is a draft thesis — a sentence claiming WHY perspectives were irreconcilable.

Strength of the thesis plan:

Strong — names a specific clash OK — claims irreconcilability but vague Needs work — just lists the groups No thesis yet

One suggestion for the thesis:

Perspective 1 Plan · Tirohanga Tuatahi

P The group is named. Their core perspective/belief is noted in dot points.

E An evidence source is identified — with a creator/author name AND a date (not just "a historian says").

E The "why" explanation notes something about context, values, identity, or experience — not just what they wanted.

Is the evidence source specific enough to find and cite?

Yes — name + date Partly — name only or date only Too vague — needs a real source

Most important improvement for P1 before writing:

Perspective 2 Plan · Tirohanga Tuarua

P A different group is named. Their perspective is distinct from Perspective 1.

E An evidence source is identified with creator/author AND date.

E The "why" explanation notes something that explains the difference between P1 and P2.

Is this perspective genuinely different from Perspective 1?

Yes — different group, different reason Mostly — same conclusion, different reason Too similar to P1 — needs a distinct angle

Most important improvement for P2 before writing:

Perspective 3 Plan · Tirohanga Tuatoru

P A third, distinct group is named. Their perspective adds something new.

E For events affecting Māori or Pacific peoples — is the evidence from a Māori or community voice speaking for themselves? (Not just a Pākehā description.)

E The "why" explanation connects to identity, cultural context, lived experience, or historical background.

Most important improvement for P3 before writing:

Conclusion Plan · Mahere Whakahōhonu

The plan names a specific value clash or framework difference — not just "they disagreed about the event."

The plan notes WHY agreement was impossible — the deeper reason (different frameworks, different definitions of a core concept).

There is a significance note — why does this event still matter for Aotearoa today?

The conclusion plan currently:

E — names a value clash + significance M — mentions irreconcilability but vague A — just restates the three perspectives Missing or very brief

One suggestion to strengthen the conclusion plan:

The strongest part of this plan:
Why this is working well:

Single most important fix before writing starts in Lesson 9:

Be specific — e.g. "Find an author name and date for the source in P2" or "Rewrite the thesis to name the specific value clash."

📋 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 —: Examine the causes and consequences of a significant historical event, examining how different groups' perspectives shaped and were shaped by the event.

Identity, Culture, and Organisation: Understand how the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles shape participation, rights, and responsibilities in Aotearoa New Zealand.