Landscapes in Transition

Overview

In this lesson, students investigate how landscapes in Australia and Peru change over time due to natural processes and human activities. They build geographical understanding by comparing evidence from locations and using geographic reasoning to explain “how” and “why” landscapes change.

Learning intentions

• Students will describe how places and environments change in Australia and Peru.
• Students will identify features or characteristics of landscapes that show environmental change.
• Students will explain how natural processes and human activities contribute to those changes.
• Students will use evidence from case studies to support their claims.

Success criteria

• I can name at least one natural process and one human activity that change landscapes.
• I can identify landscape features that provide evidence of change (before/after indicators).
• I can explain the cause-and-effect link between a process/activity and landscape outcomes.
• I can compare change in Australia and Peru using geographic terms and evidence.

Curriculum links

• GELS-PRI-01: Students describe how places and environments change.
• GELS-DFC-02: Students identify features or characteristics of places and environments.
• Thinking and working geographically: using evidence, describing patterns, and forming explanations.
• Environmental change and management: recognising the role of natural processes and people in shaping environments.

Lesson structure (60 minutes)

1. 0–5 min · Starter (Activate prior knowledge). Teacher writes “Natural or human change?” on the board and shows 4 quick landscape prompts (e.g., riverbank erosion, drought impact, terracing, road building). Students classify each as natural, human, or both and justify with one word.

2. 5–15 min · Mini direct teach (Cause-and-effect for landscapes). Teacher models a simple explanation framework: Landscape feature → Evidence of change → Cause (natural/human) → Effect (what changes). Students annotate a worked example using the framework (teacher supplies a short, non-linked dataset or description cards).

3. 15–27 min · Case study stations (Evidence hunt). Teacher divides students into 4 groups and rotates them through 3 stations (10 minutes each) with short printed “case cards”:

• Australia station: e.g., bushfires and post-fire regrowth/sediment movement, or coastal erosion and land use.
• Peru station: e.g., Andean glacier retreat and impacts on water, or changes from mining/agriculture.
• Comparison station: mixed evidence and prompt questions. Students complete a station sheet noting: landscape feature, indicator of change, natural process, human activity, and one cause-effect sentence.

4. 27–42 min · Guided comparison (Geographical reasoning). Teacher conducts a guided discussion using two comparison questions on the board:

• “What is changing and what evidence shows it?”
• “Which causes are natural, which are human, and what outcomes follow?” Students work in pairs to fill a 2-column organizer (Australia vs Peru) and then add a short “Therefore…” conclusion sentence connecting causes to outcomes.

5. 42–55 min · Create a comparison claim (Structured response). Teacher gives a writing prompt: “Landscapes in Australia and Peru are changing. In both countries, identify one natural process and one human activity that contribute to change, and explain how they affect a specific landscape feature.” Students write a 1-paragraph response using a claim–evidence–reasoning structure. Teacher circulates for formative feedback.

6. 55–60 min · Exit ticket (Quick check of learning). Students answer two questions on an exit slip:

• “One landscape feature showing change is… because…”
• “One natural cause is… and one human cause is… in Australia/Peru.”

Resources

• Printed case study cards for Australia and Peru (short descriptions with “before/after” indicators)
• Station evidence sheets (landscape feature, indicators, causes, effects)
• Worked example paragraph + annotated model
• 2-column comparison graphic organiser
• Writing prompt slips and exit ticket slips
• Coloured highlighters or markers for coding natural vs human causes

Assessment

• Formative: teacher checks station sheets for correct identification of causes and evidence.
• Formative: pair comparison organizer reviewed during guided discussion for reasoning quality.
• Summative-in-lesson: 1-paragraph claim–evidence–reasoning response assessed against the success criteria.
• Exit ticket used to identify misconceptions (e.g., confusing evidence with causes).

Differentiation

• Support: provide sentence starters for cause-and-effect (“This happens because…”, “As a result…”) and a word bank (erosion, flooding, drought, agriculture, mining, land clearing, infrastructure).
• Support: offer an annotated example response and allow students to complete graphic organisers before writing.
• EAL: allow key vocabulary to be translated in a personal glossary; encourage oral rehearsal in pairs before writing.
• Extension (for advanced learners): require an additional “management implication” sentence—how people could reduce harm or support recovery—and ask students to justify it with evidence from the case cards.
• SEN/Additional needs: reduce writing load by allowing a two-sentence minimum response for the paragraph while still meeting the evidence and cause-effect requirements.

Learning support (teacher moves to keep pace)

• At each station, ask one “quality check” question: “What evidence are you using—what did you see/read?”
• During the paragraph stage, remind students to include one explicit compare phrase (“In Australia… whereas in Peru…”).