Land Management Approaches

Overview

In this lesson (10 of 20), students compare Indigenous land management approaches in Australia with land management responses used in Peru. Students focus on how Indigenous Peoples’ custodianship and care for Country supports sustainable environmental management and reduces harm from environmental change.

Learning intentions

Students will:

• identify how Aboriginal Peoples care for and manage Country through place-based knowledge and practices
• explain how land management approaches influence environmental outcomes (e.g. health of land, water, biodiversity)
• compare similarities and differences between land management ideas in Australia and Peru, using geographical reasoning

Success criteria

Students can:

• name at least two Aboriginal land management practices and describe the purpose of each
• use a cause-and-effect statement to link a land management practice to an environmental result
• compare at least one Australian example with one Peruvian example using similarities and differences

Curriculum links

• GELS-APC-02: Students identify ways in which Aboriginal Peoples care for and manage Country
• GELS-MAN-01: Students demonstrate ways to manage and protect a place or environment
• Thinking and working geographically: asking questions, using evidence, and explaining cause and effect in environmental management

Lesson structure (60 minutes)

1. 0–8 min · Retrieval and hook. Teacher shows 3 images on the board (e.g. mosaic burning landscapes, river/lake care, food gathering). Students do a quick “notice–wonder” in pairs, then share 1 wonder with the class. Target: activates prior learning about landscapes and environmental change management.

2. 8–15 min · Direct teach: Custodianship and Country. Teacher explains that Aboriginal land management is grounded in Aboriginal Peoples’ custodianship and care, including knowledge of seasonal cycles and caring for Country over generations. Teacher models two cause-and-effect chains (e.g. how planned burning can support healthier vegetation and reduce risk of intense wildfires). Students record the cause-and-effect template in their books: Practice → environmental process → outcome.

3. 15–28 min · Case study stations (Australia focus). Teacher divides students into 3 groups and rotates every ~4 minutes through stations with short excerpts and images (teacher-prepared, no links). Each station asks: “What is the practice? What is it for? What outcome might it support?” Students complete a one-page station table using the template: Practice / Purpose / Evidence clues / Possible outcome.

4. 28–40 min · Compare with Peru (land management connection). Teacher briefly introduces Peru context: land management practices in mountain and rural areas often respond to environmental hazards, water availability, and sustaining agriculture (e.g. terracing and water management systems; local approaches to managing slopes and water). Students use a Venn diagram (Australia vs Peru) to compare one Australian practice (from stations) with one Peruvian example discussed by the teacher or included in a short handout. They must write one similarity and one difference plus a cause-effect sentence for each.

5. 40–52 min · Whole-class reasoning: “Choose the best explanation”. Teacher presents 4 explanation cards (some are stronger than others). Each card contains a claim and evidence statement (e.g. “Planned burning reduces the chance of very intense fire by changing fuel loads”). Students choose the best card and justify with a sentence using: Because… therefore… Teacher collects 4–5 reasons and reinforces the link to environmental outcomes.

6. 52–60 min · Exit ticket (formative assessment). Students answer two questions on paper:

• “Identify one Aboriginal land management practice and explain its purpose.”
• “In one sentence, compare it to a Peru land management idea (similarity or difference).”

Resources

• Teacher-made image set for hook (printed or displayed)
• Station excerpts and images (3 short sets) with space for responses
• One-page station table and cause-and-effect template
• Venn diagram handout (Australia vs Peru)
• Explanation cards (4–6) for “best explanation” task
• Exit ticket slips or worksheet
• Coloured highlighters/pens for coding practice/purpose/outcome
• Timer for station rotations

Assessment

• Station table completion: checks whether students identify practice, purpose, and likely outcome (formative)
• Venn diagram: checks comparison quality and use of evidence clues (formative)
• Exit ticket: confirms progress toward GELS-APC-02 and GELS-MAN-01 (summative for this lesson’s objectives)

Differentiation

• Support for students needing scaffolding:
• Provide sentence starters: “The practice is… It is used to… This can lead to…”
• Offer a partially completed station table for one example practice
• Use a word bank (practice, purpose, outcome, evidence, environment, water, biodiversity, risk)
• Support for EAL learners:
• Pre-teach key terms using simplified definitions and visuals
• Allow responses in point form before converting to complete sentences
• Challenge/extension for advanced learners:
• Require an additional comparison point that explains why a difference exists (e.g. climate, landforms, water availability, hazard types)
• Ask for a more precise cause-and-effect chain including an environmental process word (fuel, regrowth, erosion control, water flow)
• Classroom management:
• Roles in stations (reader, recorder, evidence finder) to keep engagement high with 25 students

Extension (optional)

• Students create a short “management pitch” (60–90 words) proposing one practical land management action that could protect a place/environment, using one Australian example and one Peru comparison to justify their choice.