Diving and Kaitiakitanga

Overview

Students investigate recreational diving in Aotearoa New Zealand as a social activity connected to identity, the environment, safety, access and kaitiakitanga. They use short sources and contrasting perspectives to consider how people can respond to the challenge of protecting marine places while allowing responsible recreation.

Learning intentions

• WALT describe why people take part in recreational diving in Aotearoa New Zealand.
• WALT use sources to identify different perspectives about marine protection.
• WALT explain how rules and community actions can support safe, sustainable diving.
• WALT participate respectfully in a social sciences discussion.

Success criteria

• I can identify at least two reasons people go recreational diving.
• I can use evidence from a source to explain a diver’s or kaitiaki’s perspective.
• I can describe one challenge and one possible response.
• I can listen, build on ideas and disagree respectfully.

Curriculum links

• Social Sciences Years 7–8: exploring environmental, social and historical challenges across Aotearoa, the Pacific and the wider world.
• Social Sciences Years 7–8: using sources to examine perspectives and analyse responses to challenges and events.
• Social Sciences Years 7–8: engaging in social sciences dialogue and communicating understanding.
• Social Sciences Years 7–8: developing understanding of civic participation, governance, identity, power, change and te Tiriti o Waitangi as foundations of society.

Lesson structure (60 minutes)

1. 0–7 min · Hook: Beneath the surface. Teacher opens with the underwater hook image showing a clear marine environment alongside a damaged or littered seabed, and asks, “Who should be responsible for looking after places people enjoy?” Students silently record one observation and one question, then share with a partner.

2. 7–17 min · Build background knowledge. Teacher uses the recreational diving overview to explain that recreational diving includes activities such as scuba diving and snorkelling for enjoyment, learning and exploring; introduce marine habitats, safety, access, rāhui, marine reserves and kaitiakitanga. Students complete the first section of the diving and kaitiakitanga investigation sheet, recording two benefits of recreational diving and two responsibilities of divers. Clarify that diving is only undertaken with appropriate training, supervision, equipment and conditions.

3. 17–30 min · Source investigation. Teacher distributes the source cards included in the perspective source investigation and models identifying the speaker, main concern and evidence in one source. The sources present contrasting but valid perspectives, such as a recreational diver, a local kaitiaki, a marine scientist, a tourism operator and a decision-maker responsible for marine rules. In groups of four, students read the sources, highlight evidence and complete a perspective table. Each student takes a role: reader, evidence finder, recorder or discussion leader.

4. 30–42 min · Analyse the challenge. Teacher displays the challenge and perspectives prompt and asks, “When, if ever, should access to a popular diving place be limited?” Groups discuss how diving may bring enjoyment, wellbeing, learning and income, while also creating risks such as damage to habitats, disturbance of wildlife, rubbish or unsafe behaviour. Students use evidence to complete: “The main challenge is…”, “This matters to…”, and “One response could be…”. Encourage students to distinguish a source’s opinion from evidence.

5. 42–53 min · Community decision dialogue. Teacher introduces a fictional coastal site, “Te Rimu Reef”, where increased diving has led to both local benefits and concerns about habitat damage and safety. Using the Te Rimu Reef decision slide, each group agrees on one response: education and signage, a booking system, seasonal limits, a protected area or a community monitoring plan. Groups prepare a 30-second explanation using the frame, “We recommend… because… The evidence that supports this is… This would affect…”. Groups share their recommendation; classmates may ask one respectful question.

6. 53–60 min · Plenary and exit check. Teacher returns to the hook question and invites students to revise their first idea. Students complete the final section of the diving and kaitiakitanga investigation sheet: “A responsible recreational diver should…”, “One perspective I understand better is…”, and “One fair response to the challenge is…”. Collect the sheets and ask two or three students to share a response supported by evidence.

Resources

• the recreational diving and decision slide deck
• the diving and kaitiakitanga investigation sheet
• Projector or interactive whiteboard
• Printed source cards within the worksheet
• Highlighters or coloured pencils
• Timer
• Whiteboard and markers
• Group role cards or role labels

Assessment

• Listen during partner and group talk for accurate use of terms such as perspective, evidence, responsibility, kaitiakitanga and marine protection.
• Check group tables and recommendations for a clear connection between a source, a challenge and a proposed response.
• Use the completed worksheet as an exit assessment: students should identify benefits and responsibilities, explain one perspective and justify a response with evidence.

Differentiation

• Provide a word bank and sentence starters: “The source suggests…”, “This matters because…”, “A possible response is…”, and “The evidence is…”.
• Pair students strategically and allow students to listen to sources read aloud. Use high-contrast text, short paragraphs and enlarged copies for students with reading or visual needs.
• For EAL learners, pre-teach key words with images and permit discussion ideas to be noted in home languages before being shared in English.
• Support learners who need structure with assigned group roles and a reduced choice of two possible responses. Challenge confident students to compare two perspectives and explain who gains or loses from their group’s recommendation.
• Handle tikanga and mātauranga Māori respectfully: explain kaitiakitanga as a relationship of care and responsibility, avoid presenting it as simply another word for conservation, and acknowledge that local iwi or hapū perspectives are place-specific.