Comparing National Parks

Overview

In this lesson (lesson 9 of 20) students compare how an Australian national park and Peru’s Huascarán National Park are managed, using evidence to identify similarities and differences in protecting environments and supporting biodiversity. This builds from earlier learning about landscapes, environments and environmental change.

Learning intentions

Students will:

• identify key features of places and environments in Australian national parks and Huascarán
• compare environmental management strategies and their likely impacts on biodiversity
• recognise the value of different forms of caring for Country and environments (including Aboriginal Peoples’ management approaches where relevant)
• use geographic evidence (maps, short texts, and data) to support claims about “what management does”

Success criteria

Students can:

• list management strategies used in each park and describe what each strategy is trying to protect
• identify biodiversity features (e.g. species/habitats) linked to environmental conditions in each park
• explain one similarity and one difference in management using evidence
• communicate findings clearly using a comparison table or paragraph structure

Curriculum links

• GELS-DFC-02: Students identify features or characteristics of places and environments
• GELS-MAN-01: Students demonstrate ways to manage and protect a place or environment
• GELS-APC-02: Students identify ways in which Aboriginal Peoples care for and manage Country
• GELS-PRI-01: Students describe how places and environments change (as a reason management is needed)

Lesson structure (60 minutes)

1. 0–8 min · Hook: “Same goal, different place?” Teacher displays two images (one Australian national park, one Huascarán) and a short prompt: “How might management need to be different in each place?” Students quick-write 2–3 ideas, then turn-and-talk: what threats might exist and what protection might look like.

2. 8–16 min · Direct teach: Management and biodiversity lens Teacher models a comparison lens using a simple framework: Threat → Management action → Biodiversity outcome (and “evidence type”). Students annotate a class example (one sentence starter sheet provided): “In this park, management is likely to protect…”

3. 16–30 min · Investigation stations (evidence gathering) Teacher sets up 2–3 stations with short, teacher-prepared sources:

• Station A: Australian national park management (e.g. track access, ranger programs, fire management, pest control) plus biodiversity cues
• Station B: Huascarán National Park management (e.g. community involvement, visitor management, protection zones, glacial/high-altitude biodiversity cues) plus biodiversity cues
• Station C (optional rotation for all): an Aboriginal land/caring-for-Country prompt relevant to biodiversity protection (kept general to avoid claiming to represent specific nations) Students work in pairs using a graphic organiser: record management strategies, biodiversity hints, and evidence notes.

4. 30–40 min · Guided comparison: Similarity and difference Teacher uses a whole-class model to complete a partial comparison table (one similarity, one difference, one piece of evidence). Students complete the rest of their table independently, then pair-share with the “evidence check”: underline the evidence they used.

5. 40–52 min · Writing task: “Which management fits the landscape?” Teacher provides a paragraph structure:

• Topic sentence (similarity/difference)
• Evidence from Park 1 + claim
• Evidence from Park 2 + claim
• Link to biodiversity/conditions Students write one well-structured paragraph (or two short bullet paragraphs if preferred), using at least two evidence points total.

6. 52–58 min · Formative check: Gallery walkthrough Teacher groups papers on desks/walls for a brief walkthrough. Students leave one “glow” (what’s strong) and one “grow” (what to improve) using a feedback sentence stem.

7. 58–60 min · Exit ticket Teacher asks: “Name one management strategy from each park and predict one effect on biodiversity.” Students answer individually in 2–3 lines.

Resources

• Printed or teacher-prepared evidence sheets for: Australian national park management, Huascarán management, and a caring-for-Country prompt
• Comparison table template (Threat → Management → Biodiversity outcome → Evidence)
• Paragraph writing scaffold (sentence starters + evidence prompts)
• Timer visible to students
• Station labels and checklists for pair roles (Reader / Recorder)
• Coloured highlighters for evidence vs claims
• Exit ticket slips

Assessment

• Teacher checks station organisers for accurate identification of management strategies and biodiversity-related outcomes (formative)
• Review of paragraph for evidence use, clarity of comparisons, and correct cause–effect reasoning (formative)
• Exit ticket to confirm students can name strategies and predict biodiversity effects (summative-in-mini)

Differentiation

• Provide sentence starters and a word bank (e.g. “protect”, “manage access”, “reduce impacts”, “habitat”, “species”, “biodiversity”, “threat”)
• Use image cues and simplified evidence tiers at stations (basic/standard/challenge versions of the same idea)
• For students who need support: allow a “fill-in-the-table” mode before writing; provide an example paragraph with gaps to complete
• For advanced learners: require linking to “environmental change” by naming one likely change (e.g. visitors increasing pressure, climate/high-altitude sensitivity) and how management responds
• EAL support: pair with a consistent speaking partner; model vocabulary pronunciation; permit oral planning before writing

Extension (for advanced learners)

• Add a mini-argument: “Which park faces the bigger management challenge and why?” Students must use two evidence points and at least one reference to biodiversity/habitat conditions.
• Optional enrichment: students create a “management recommendation” for one park that addresses one identified threat, explaining why it could help biodiversity.