Lake Future Action

Overview

In this final lesson of “Exploring Horowhenua Lake Together”, students bring together scientific understandings about lake health, causes of issues, and evidence-based solutions. They communicate recommendations by writing persuasive letters and creating an informational brochure to share with the wider community.

Learning intentions

WALT: Communicate our scientific findings and recommendations for lake protection.

• WALT: Synthesize evidence from our investigations and notes to make clear recommendations.
• WALT: Explain scientific reasons for protecting Horowhenua Lake using appropriate science language.
• WALT: Persuade an audience (local authorities) with respectful, structured writing.
• WALT: Create a brochure that informs and encourages protective actions.

Success criteria

Students can…

• Write a persuasive letter that includes a clear introduction, three evidence-based recommendations, and a concluding call to action.
• Use scientific vocabulary accurately (e.g., nutrients, habitat, water quality, pollution/run-off).
• Create a brochure with organised sections, key facts, and actions people can take.
• Present recommendations that link directly to evidence from class learning about Horowhenua Lake.

Curriculum links

• Te Mātaiaho Social Sciences, Economic Activity / Financial Education: (Not covered in this science lesson—focus is lake protection communication.)
• Te Mātaiaho Science, Economic Activity / Financial Education: (Not covered in this science lesson—focus is lake protection communication.)
• Te Mātaiaho Science, Biological and ecosystem understanding: Students connect human impacts to ecosystem health and propose actions to protect lake life.
• Te Mātaiaho Science strand focus: Students communicate science understandings and recommend actions based on evidence.
• Key competencies: thinking (synthesising evidence), communicating (persuasive letter and brochure), participating and contributing (collaborative creation), managing self (meeting deadlines and draft steps).

Lesson structure (45 minutes)

1. 0–5 min · Opening: Evidence refresher. Teacher shows a simple “Evidence → Problem → Action” class anchor chart (from earlier lessons) and reviews the main scientific ideas students used to describe lake issues. Students quick-write: “One thing we learned about the lake that matters for action is…”

2. 5–12 min · Model: Persuasive letter structure. Teacher introduces the letter template and demonstrates how to embed evidence (a fact/observation) and then a recommendation (what to do and why). Students highlight in a sample paragraph: claim, evidence, reason, and action.

3. 12–28 min · Create 1: Persuasive letters (draft). Teacher circulates with a checklist: audience-appropriate tone, three recommendations, and at least one sentence using science language correctly. Students draft letters independently, then do a quick “two stars and a wish” check with a partner.

4. 28–40 min · Create 2: Informational brochure design. Teacher shares brochure sections: Title, “What we found”, “Why it matters”, “3 recommendations”, “How you can help”, plus a simple layout plan (boxes/columns). Students design brochures in pairs or threes, using either paper templates or a digital tool the class has used before.

5. 40–45 min · Share-out and exit ticket. Teacher invites 2–3 students to share one recommendation orally; then gives an exit ticket. Students complete: “My strongest evidence is… My recommendation is… My audience is… (and I want them to…)”

Resources

• Persuasive letter writing frames and planning sheets (including “Evidence → Recommendation” boxes)
• Brochure templates (paper) with section prompts and suggested headings
• Vocabulary bank cards: nutrients, run-off, habitat, water quality, pollution, biodiversity, kaitiakitanga-related language (as school uses)
• Students’ previous notes/learning packs from the unit (problem, evidence, actions)
• Sentence starters for persuasion (e.g., “Based on our findings…”, “We recommend… because…”)
• Timer and class checklist for letter and brochure requirements
• Laptops/tablets or classroom computers (optional, for digital brochure design)
• Markers, coloured paper, scissors, glue sticks (if using physical brochures)

Assessment

• Teacher observation during drafting using the letter/brochure checklist (evidence-based recommendations and science vocabulary use).
• Partner “two stars and a wish” for structure and clarity (claim/evidence/reason).
• Exit ticket to confirm each student can link evidence to a specific action recommendation.

Differentiation

• Writing frames for all students, with lighter support (full frame) for students needing it and a reduced frame for others (partial prompts only).
• Vocabulary banks with sentence starters for English language learners; include a “word bank → sentence” example strip.
• Provide a “3 recommendation planner” that breaks writing into short steps to reduce overwhelm for students who need chunking.
• Digital creation option for students who learn quickly with technology (e.g., brochure template in a slide/document app), while ensuring paper option remains equal.
• Collaborative grouping for peer support: pair a confident reader/writer with a supportive partner, rotate roles (writer/designer/editor).
• Extension for fast finishers: add a short “FAQ” box to the brochure (e.g., “What can I do at home?” with one evidence-based answer).

Differentiation (as student needs)

• Support: teacher conferencing checkpoints at 14 minutes (letters draft started) and 32 minutes (brochure sections chosen).
• Language: encourage respectful persuasive tone; allow oral rehearsal before writing.
• SEN: provide checklist and highlight examples of science vocabulary in students’ own notes for quick retrieval.