Local Voices, Pacific Action

Overview

This is lesson 8 of 30 in Climate Change in the Pacific. Students investigate how Pacific communities communicate climate concerns and advocate for action, recognising that local voices draw on scientific evidence, lived experience, cultural values and community priorities. The lesson builds from previous learning about climate change impacts and prepares students to evaluate decision-making and responses in later lessons.

Learning intentions

• WALT identify Pacific community perspectives on climate change.
• WALT explain the methods communities use to advocate for climate action.
• WALT connect local experiences and values with evidence about human-induced change.
• WALT consider how different perspectives influence decision-making.

Success criteria

• I can describe a Pacific community’s climate concern using specific evidence.
• I can explain how a community advocacy method communicates its perspective.
• I can compare scientific, cultural, social or political perspectives.
• I can suggest a respectful, science-informed action that demonstrates tiakitanga.

Curriculum links

• Decision-making in response to a geographic challenge in the wider Pacific region: describing and explaining perspectives, viewpoints, evidence and responses.
• Human-induced change within the Earth system: using science ideas to explain how climate change affects interconnected Earth systems.
• A science-informed response to a local issue: recognising the importance of scientific and other perspectives, and responsible action through tiakitanga.
• New Zealand Curriculum Refresh: inquiry, critical thinking, communication, participation and contribution, and understanding how identity, culture and perspectives shape responses.

Lesson structure (60 minutes)

1. 0–7 min · Hook and prior learning. Teacher displays a striking image of Pacific youth or community members addressing climate change and asks, “Who has the right to speak about a place at risk, and what makes people listen?” Open with the opening image and inquiry question. Students complete a quick think-pair-share, then write one climate change impact they remember from the previous lesson.

2. 7–17 min · Direct teaching: voices and methods. Teacher introduces three short, age-appropriate case studies: Pacific youth climate advocacy, community-led coastal adaptation or relocation planning, and an iwi or Pacific community using cultural knowledge alongside scientific evidence. Explain that perspectives may be social, economic, political, Indigenous or spiritual, and that advocacy methods can include speeches, petitions, marches, social media, talanoa, art, church or community meetings, and formal submissions. Use the case-study overview and advocacy-methods slides. Students annotate their notes with the concern, perspective, evidence and method for each example.

3. 17–32 min · Case-study investigation. Teacher forms six groups of five and gives each group one case-study profile from the Pacific community voice investigation sheet. Each profile includes a community, climate concern, relevant evidence, perspective, advocacy method and response sought. Students identify the main message, select two pieces of evidence, and explain why the chosen method may be effective for that audience. Groups allocate roles such as reader, evidence finder, perspective analyst, method analyst and reporter.

4. 32–44 min · Community voice presentations. Teacher asks each group to deliver a two-minute briefing using the prompts on the group briefing instructions: “What is changing?”, “Whose perspective is represented?”, “What evidence supports it?”, “How is the community advocating?”, and “What action is sought?” Students listen actively and record one similarity and one difference between two groups’ perspectives on the worksheet.

5. 44–53 min · Decision-making discussion. Teacher presents the question, “How should decision-makers respond when scientific evidence, cultural values, economic pressures and community experience do not all point to the same action?” Use the decision-making question and perspective continuum. Students stand or position themselves along a continuum from “science should lead” to “decisions should balance all perspectives”, then justify their position with evidence. Emphasise that perspectives are not always opposites and that respectful decision-making includes listening to affected communities.

6. 53–60 min · Action and exit reflection. Teacher asks students to complete the final section of the personal response and exit reflection. Students write: one Pacific community voice they found significant; one advocacy method and why it could work; and one science-informed, responsible action that demonstrates tiakitanga. Invite two or three students to share, affirming careful use of evidence and respectful language.

Resources

• the Local Voices, Pacific Communities slide deck
• the Pacific community voice investigation sheet
• Printed or digital Pacific community case-study profiles
• Projector or interactive display
• Board and markers
• Timer
• Sticky notes or small cards
• Accessible audio or read-aloud versions of case-study text, where needed

Assessment

• During group investigation, check whether students distinguish a perspective from a viewpoint and select relevant evidence.
• Listen to presentations and discussion for accurate use of geographic terminology, explanation of advocacy methods and recognition of multiple perspectives.
• Collect the worksheet exit reflection to assess understanding of community voice, evidence, response and tiakitanga.

Differentiation

• Provide a vocabulary bank and sentence starters: “The community is concerned about…”, “This perspective is shaped by…”, “The method is effective because…”, and “The evidence suggests…”.
• Offer case studies at varied reading levels, with key information highlighted and optional audio support for EAL learners and students requiring literacy support.
• Allow students to present orally, use a visual explanation or submit a recorded response; pre-teach respectful pronunciation of place and community names.
• Support participation by assigning clear group roles and allowing students to rehearse with a partner before speaking to the class.
• Extension: students evaluate which advocacy method is most likely to influence a specific decision-maker, considering audience, evidence, power and potential limitations. They should propose a combined strategy using scientific evidence and community knowledge.