Chart Studio Navigation

Overview

Students research and build a comparison chart showing how Pacific wayfinding worked alongside European exploration approaches used by Abel Tasman and James Cook. They focus on how different knowledge systems and technologies shaped navigation choices.

Learning intentions

• WALT: Compare indigenous Pacific navigation with European exploration approaches.
• Students will identify similarities and differences in how people observed, interpreted information, and travelled across ocean spaces.

Success criteria

• I can create a comparison chart with four clear differences between Pacific and European navigation.
• I can use evidence from sources to support each difference.
• I can explain how knowledge systems (including Indigenous knowledge and European methods) influenced navigation decisions.
• I can present my comparison neatly and clearly to the class (in writing, speaking, or recorded audio).

Curriculum links

• Social Sciences: understanding how people in different times and places used knowledge, technology, and systems to meet needs and solve problems.
• History: investigating historical events and/or people by using sources, then explaining significance and relationships.
• Literacy in the curriculum: using information from sources to build and communicate meaning.
• Key competencies: thinking critically (comparing), participating and contributing (group work), and using language symbols (charts and explanations).

Lesson structure (70 minutes)

1. 5 minutes — Starter: “What counts as evidence?” Students view three short prompts on the board: “stars/weather/ocean signs”, “maps/compasses/ship logs”, “observations vs instruments”. They quick-write one example of evidence they think could help navigation.

2. 10 minutes — Model + clarify the task Teacher models one chart row for “information used”. Show a sentence frame: “Pacific navigators used… which suggests…”. Another frame for European methods: “European explorers often relied on… which suggests…”. Emphasise using at least one source per difference.

3. 12 minutes — Research sprint in groups Students work in collaborative groups of 3–4. Each group assigns roles: reader, note-taker, chart builder, and reporter. They consult teacher-provided source cards and audio clips (explorer accounts read aloud) and record key notes on a shared doc or worksheet.

4. 18 minutes — Comparison chart building (4 differences) Students complete comparison chart templates. Required four differences must be visible, with an evidence sentence under each. Suggested difference categories to guide students:

• Primary information sources
• Tools/technologies used
• How routes/decisions were planned and communicated
• How knowledge was learned and validated

5. 8 minutes — Dyslexia-friendly check: audio + partner proof Students read/share their chart content using audio recording on Chromebook or a partner. Teacher circulates for quick feedback: “Is the difference clear?” “Do you have evidence?” Provide a one-word fix or rewrite suggestion.

6. 10 minutes — Studio share: gallery walk or mini-presentations Half the class stays seated for a “teacher-led gallery” while the other half walks, leaving one sticky feedback note per chart (e.g., “Your evidence sentence is strong”). Switch groups so everyone shares.

7. 7 minutes — Exit reflection: “Knowledge systems” Exit ticket: “One way Pacific wayfinding and European navigation differ is… Evidence is… This shows that…”. Collect for next-lesson planning and grouping.

Resources

• Comparison chart template (one per student) and a simplified version for support
• Explorer account audio (Abel Tasman / James Cook excerpts) read aloud by teacher
• Source cards on Pacific wayfinding (e.g., stars, swell, winds, birds, cloud patterns) with short text
• Starter sentence frames for students who need support
• Chromebooks with access to Google Classroom and a shared doc/slide
• Sticky notes for peer feedback
• Highlighters or colour-coding labels for the four required differences
• A sample “good” chart row (teacher model)
• Technology evolution timeline strips (cut-and-match) for teachers to offer those who need it

Assessment

• Formative: teacher checks charts during circulation using a quick checklist (4 differences + evidence + clarity).
• Formative: audio/partner proof and gallery feedback identify gaps in understanding of navigation differences.
• Summative-for-this-lesson: exit ticket answers are reviewed for evidence-based explanations.

Differentiation

• Support (low learners, low confidence, dyslexic students):
• Provide the simplified chart template with four pre-labeled boxes and sentence starters.
• Offer audio-to-text alternatives: students can record their explanation instead of writing full sentences.
• Use colour-coding for “difference” vs “evidence”.
• ELL learners:
• Provide a small word bank for navigation concepts (e.g., stars, winds, compass, map, observations, decision, route).
• Allow oral responses first, then students transcribe key phrases into the chart.
• Extension (exceeding learners):
• Add a “Cause-and-effect” extension: link one difference to a likely outcome (e.g., safer travel, exploration reach, route changes).
• Require a fifth comparison category of choice (e.g., communication, training/learning, recording information).
• SEN/organisation:
• Set role cards for group work and a timed step-by-step chart schedule (teacher signal every stage).
• Offer a partially completed template so students focus on evidence and clarity.

Extension (optional)

• Not requested.