Cultural Responses

Overview

This is lesson 3 of 30 in Climate Change in the Pacific. Students examine how Pacific communities perceive climate change and why responses differ according to cultural values, lived experience, location and access to resources. The lesson builds on prior learning about climate change as a geographic challenge and prepares students to evaluate decision-making in later lessons.

Learning intentions

• WALT describe how climate change affects selected Pacific communities.
• WALT explain how cultural perspectives shape responses to a geographic challenge.
• WALT use evidence and geographic terminology to compare viewpoints.
• WALT recognise that Pacific communities are diverse and should not be represented as having one shared response.

Success criteria

• I can describe a climate-related challenge using accurate geographic terms and evidence.
• I can identify at least two perspectives, including an Indigenous or community perspective.
• I can explain how values, beliefs, place and lived experience influence a response.
• I can compare responses respectfully and justify which information is most useful for decision-making.

Curriculum links

• Geography: decision-making in response to a geographic challenge in the wider Pacific region.
• Social Sciences Refresh: understanding how people’s perspectives, values, identities and relationships with place influence actions.
• Science: human-induced change within the Earth system, including connections between the atmosphere, hydrosphere, geosphere and biosphere.
• Key competencies: thinking; relating to others; participating and contributing; using language, symbols and texts.

Lesson structure (60 minutes)

1. 0–7 min · Hook and prior knowledge. Teacher opens with the hook and image comparison showing a Pacific island community responding to coastal change and asks, “Why might two communities facing similar climate risks choose different responses?” Students complete a silent quick-write, then share one idea with a partner. Invite students to distinguish between a fact, a viewpoint and a perspective.

2. 7–17 min · Direct teaching. Teacher uses the key concepts and Pacific case-study overview to clarify climate change, vulnerability, adaptation, mitigation, relocation, resilience, perspective and viewpoint. Introduce three contrasting case studies: Kiribati and planned relocation, Tuvalu and adaptation alongside international advocacy, and Fiji communities using local knowledge alongside government adaptation planning. Emphasise that these examples represent particular communities and viewpoints, not every person in a country. Students annotate a simple three-column table: challenge, response and influencing perspective.

3. 17–32 min · Evidence stations. Teacher distributes the Pacific perspectives evidence organiser and places short evidence extracts at three stations around the room. Extracts should include a community or Indigenous perspective, a government or political perspective, and an economic or scientific perspective for each case study. In groups of five, students rotate through stations, recording the source’s viewpoint, supporting evidence, values or beliefs, and proposed response. Students must use at least three terms from the board, such as sea-level rise, coastal erosion, vulnerability, adaptation and sustainability.

4. 32–45 min · Structured comparison. Teacher displays the comparison questions and discussion protocol and assigns each group one case study to discuss. Students answer: “What is the geographic challenge?”, “Whose perspective is represented?”, “What response is proposed?”, and “How does culture or connection to place influence the response?” Each group prepares a 60-second report using the frame: “This community’s response is influenced by ___ because the evidence shows ___.”

5. 45–54 min · Decision-making discussion. Teacher presents a hypothetical decision: “A government has limited funding and must choose between coastal protection, community relocation support or investment in local adaptation.” Students individually select a priority, then discuss it in groups using their evidence. Students should identify who benefits, whose viewpoint may be overlooked, and one limitation of their decision. Stress respectful discussion and avoid asking students to speak for a culture or community they do not belong to.

6. 54–60 min · Plenary and exit ticket. Teacher revisits the hook using the plenary and exit-ticket prompt. Students complete the final section of the Pacific perspectives evidence organiser: “One way culture influences climate responses is…” and “One question I still have is…”. Collect responses to identify misconceptions and students ready for greater challenge.

Resources

• the complete Cultural Responses to Climate Change slide deck
• the Pacific perspectives evidence organiser
• Three sets of teacher-prepared case-study evidence extracts
• Projector or interactive display
• Pacific region map
• A3 paper or whiteboards and marker pens
• Timer
• Board or shared digital workspace for key terminology

Assessment

• Listen for accurate distinctions between a perspective and a viewpoint during paired and group discussion.
• Check station organisers for a clear geographic challenge, relevant evidence and explanation of how values, beliefs or connection to place influence responses.
• Use exit tickets to assess whether students can connect culture with decision-making rather than simply describe climate impacts.

Differentiation

• Provide a word bank, simplified evidence extracts and sentence starters: “The challenge is…”, “This viewpoint values…”, and “This response may be effective because…”.
• Allow students to record ideas using labelled diagrams, bullet points or speech-to-text before producing their oral report.
• Pair EAL learners with supportive peers and pre-teach perspective, viewpoint, adaptation, relocation and vulnerability using visual examples.
• For students requiring additional support, reduce the number of evidence extracts and provide highlighted key sentences. Advanced learners should evaluate whose perspectives are absent, assess the reliability or limitations of an extract, and propose a decision that balances cultural, environmental, social and economic considerations.