Analysis Writing Model

Overview

In this lesson you will explicitly model how to move from description to analysis for NCEA Religious Studies. You will use a guided writing workshop, structured peer feedback, and reflection to produce an excellence-informed explanation about how a spiritual tradition influences people and practices in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Learning intentions

• Students will identify the difference between description and analysis in Religious Studies writing.
• Students will use a structured modelling framework to write clear, evidence-supported analysis.
• Students will practise peer feedback using success-criteria language (not vague comments).
• Students will reflect on how to improve depth and perception in their analysis.

Success criteria

• I can explain why and how spiritual/traditional features influence beliefs and practices (not just what they are).
• I can support claims with relevant evidence from authoritative sources and/or appropriate examples.
• I can use “analysis phrases” (because, therefore, this shows, however) to connect features to impacts and conclusions.
• I can improve my writing after peer feedback and a short self-reflection.

Curriculum links

• Understanding Religion (analyse a religious tradition(s) in Aotearoa New Zealand): focus on breaking features into components and drawing conclusions supported by evidence.
• Understanding Religion (analyse in depth; analyse with perception): deepen by discussing influencing factors and critically evaluating/wider implications.
• Religious Studies learning expectations: develop explanations that are clear, justified, and connected to evidence and interpretation.

Lesson structure (60 minutes)

1. 0–8 min · Retrieval hook (description vs analysis). Teacher shows two short examples on the board: one “describes” a practice; one “analyses” its influence and meaning. Students highlight what changes between the two using highlighters.

2. 8–18 min · Explicit modelling (turning features into analysis). Teacher models a paragraph using a Māori spirituality faith-connection prompt (e.g., whakaaro/tapu—presented respectfully and generally, without attacking beliefs). Teacher thinks aloud:

• Step 1: Name the essential feature (description).
• Step 2: Break into components (why it matters / what it affects).
• Step 3: Connect to influence (analysis).
• Step 4: Conclude with a judgement about implications (with perception). Students annotate the model for “analysis moves” (because/therefore, impact language, conclusion).

3. 18–28 min · Mini-tool: analysis sentence stems. Teacher provides a short set of stems and demonstrates two “upgrades”:

• Upgrade A: “This is a practice” → “This practice influences…, because…”
• Upgrade B: “This shows spirituality” → “This shows how values shape…; therefore outcomes may be…” Students practise by upgrading 2 short sentences from a shared exemplar.

4. 28–44 min · Guided writing workshop (first draft). Teacher gives a structured planning sheet:

• Essential features (2–3 bullet points)
• Influencing factors (1–2 bullet points)
• Impact/influence (1–2 bullets)
• Evidence note (from class resources provided earlier in the unit) Students write a single paragraph (or half-page) aiming for merit/excellence language. Teacher circulates and prompts with targeted questions: “What is your evidence?”, “What is the influence?”, “So what?”

5. 44–52 min · Structured peer feedback (excellence checks). Students use a feedback protocol with three prompts:

• One strength: “Your analysis is clear because…”
• One next step: “To deepen your analysis, add…”
• One evidence check: “Can you point to where your evidence supports your claim?” Teacher models how to phrase feedback respectfully and specifically.

6. 52–60 min · Revision sprint + exit reflection. Students revise 3 sentences only (not the whole piece) based on peer feedback. Then complete a quick exit reflection:

• “One analysis move I used today was…”
• “One thing I will improve next lesson is…”

Resources

• Board/slide with two short paragraphs (description vs analysis)
• Annotation highlighters (or coloured pens)
• Printed analysis planning sheet (essential features → influence → evidence → conclusion)
• Sentence stems sheet (because/therefore/however/wider implications)
• Peer feedback protocol card (strength/next step/evidence check)
• Student draft paper or device for writing
• Class resource pack with authoritative examples used in previous lessons (prepared by teacher)

Assessment

• Formative: teacher observes during conferencing and checks whether students include influence and evidence (not only features).
• Formative: peer feedback quality is checked using the protocol (specific, evidence-linked, improvement-focused).
• Exit ticket: short reflection confirms students’ understanding of the description-to-analysis shift and identifies next-step targets.

Differentiation

• Support: provide sentence starters, a model paragraph with underlined “analysis words,” and a checklist for paragraph structure (feature → influence → evidence → conclusion).
• Support for EAL/SEN: allow bullet-to-paragraph scaffolding (students expand bullets into sentences) and offer brief conferencing prompts.
• Extension: challenge students to add a “however” or complexity statement (e.g., differing interpretations, changes over time, or varied community practice) to move toward “perception” and wider implications.
• Peer grouping: mix stronger writers with developing writers, assigning roles (e.g., “evidence checker” and “analysis-language checker”) to ensure access for all students.