Land Degradation Issues

Overview

In this lesson (Lesson 11 of 20) students analyse land degradation challenges in Australia and Peru. They compare causes, impacts, and responses, building towards demonstrating how places and environments change and how they can be managed and protected.

Learning intentions

• Students will identify features and characteristics of land degradation in Australia and Peru.
• Students will describe how land and environments change due to degradation processes.
• Students will demonstrate ways people can manage and protect places and environments.
• Students will compare similarities and differences between two case studies using geographical thinking.

Success criteria

Students can:

• identify at least three features of land degradation (e.g. erosion, salinity, deforestation, overgrazing, soil loss)
• explain one way land degradation changes a place over time
• propose one land management strategy and justify why it reduces harm
• use a comparison table to clearly show similarities and differences between Australia and Peru

Curriculum links

• GELS-DFC-02: Students identify features or characteristics of places and environments.
• GELS-PRI-01: Students describe how places and environments change.
• GELS-MAN-01: Students demonstrate ways to manage and protect a place or environment.
• Investigating environments: students gather evidence from provided case-study data and represent it using tables and short explanations.

Lesson structure (60 minutes)

1. 0–5 min · Hook (photo analysis). Teacher displays two images: one showing degraded land (e.g. eroded farmland) and one showing a rehabilitation action (e.g. revegetation/terraces). Students quick-write: “What do you notice? What might be happening to the land?”

2. 5–12 min · Activate prior learning (unit recap). Teacher prompts students to recall Lesson 10: causes of environmental change and how land is part of a landscape system. Students complete a 3-2-1: 3 causes, 2 impacts, 1 key word connecting land degradation to change.

3. 12–25 min · Direct teach (land degradation frame). Teacher introduces a simple “Cause → Process → Impact → Management” framework and models it with one brief example from Australia. Students annotate a provided template with 4 headings and add one example per heading (teacher provides sentence starters).

4. 25–40 min · Case study compare (Australia vs Peru). Teacher groups students and assigns each group one set of case-study evidence for Australia and one for Peru (short excerpts, data points, and a map/diagram description—no internet required). Students complete a two-part comparison table:

• Similarities: shared causes/processes/impacts (at least 2)
• Differences: unique causes or management approaches (at least 2) Teacher circulates using prompts: “What evidence shows this? How do you know it’s degradation and not just normal land use?”

5. 40–52 min · Evidence-based response (short paragraph). Teacher sets a writing task: “Land degradation changes places. In Australia and Peru, explain one key similarity and one key difference, then describe one management response for each country.” Students write a 8–10 sentence paragraph using a checklist (claim + evidence + explanation + management).

6. 52–58 min · Gallery walk and feedback. Students rotate through two student samples (or teacher-selected exemplars) and leave one “glow” (what’s strong) and one “grow” (how to improve clarity/evidence) using sticky notes or brief forms.

7. 58–60 min · Exit ticket (quick check). Students answer: “Name one feature of land degradation and one management strategy that could protect a landscape. Explain how it reduces harm.”

Resources

• Case-study evidence sheets for Australia and Peru (short text + data points + diagram descriptions)
• Land degradation framework graphic organiser (“Cause → Process → Impact → Management”)
• Similarities/differences comparison table (worksheet or digital doc)
• Writing checklist and sentence starters
• Photos/images of degraded land and rehabilitation actions
• Sticky notes or quick feedback slips
• Exit ticket slips

Assessment

• Formative checks during table work: teacher observation using prompts for evidence and cause–impact links.
• Written paragraph assessed against success criteria (features identified, change explained, management justified, comparison clear).
• Exit ticket reviewed for misconceptions (e.g. confusing land degradation with general land use change).

Differentiation

• Provide sentence starters and word banks (e.g. erosion, salinity, overgrazing, deforestation, terracing, revegetation, sustainable farming, soil conservation).
• Offer a scaffolded comparison table with pre-filled “similarity categories” and partially completed examples for students who need support.
• Chunk the case-study evidence: smaller text sections, highlighted key details, and teacher-guided reading at the start of group work.
• Extension for advanced learners: require an additional “trade-off” sentence (e.g. cost, time, community acceptance) and link it to why management options are not always adopted.
• EAL learners: allow oral rehearsal before writing; provide paragraph frames and alternative response options (diagram + labels + 3-sentence explanation).

Extension (optional for advanced learners)

• Add a “Scale and sustainability” challenge: students choose one management strategy for each country and decide whether it would likely work locally, regionally, or nationally, justifying using evidence from the case studies.