Protecting Aotearoa Biodiversity

Overview

In this eighth lesson of the nine-lesson unit, students use scientific evidence and mātauranga Māori-informed respect for taonga species and place to design a locally relevant biodiversity action for a New Zealand farming context. They consider environmental, social and economic consequences before preparing a feasible action plan that supports sustainable primary production.

Learning intentions

• WALT develop a locally relevant action to protect unique New Zealand biodiversity within a primary production context.
• WALT use scientific evidence and place-based knowledge to justify an action.
• WALT consider environmental, social and economic perspectives when making a sustainability decision.
• WALT communicate an action clearly for a specific audience.

Success criteria

• I can identify a biodiversity issue affecting a farm or surrounding ecosystem.
• I can propose a feasible action and explain who would carry it out.
• I can use relevant evidence, including place-based knowledge, to justify my action.
• I can explain how the action supports biodiversity and sustainable primary production.

Curriculum links

• Biological Science — interpreting data to evaluate how human activity influences ecosystem stability and biodiversity.
• Biological Science — explaining how agriculture and other human activities can cause habitat destruction, pollution and biodiversity loss.
• Biological Science — recognising that environmental change can occur faster than some species can adapt.
• Science capabilities and key competencies — communicating in science, interpreting evidence, managing self, participating and contributing, and thinking critically about different perspectives.

Lesson structure (45 minutes)

1. 0–5 min · Local hook. Open with the opening farm biodiversity image and question showing a productive New Zealand farm beside a native habitat, and ask: “How can a farm produce food while protecting taonga species?” Students complete a quick think-pair-share, drawing on learning from the previous seven lessons.

2. 5–12 min · Build the decision frame. Use the evidence and perspectives slides to revisit biodiversity threats linked to farming, such as loss of habitat, runoff, pests and changing climate. Teacher explains that a strong action considers environmental outcomes, whānau and community values, practical farming needs and economic realities; students sort example statements orally into these three perspectives.

3. 12–17 min · Model an action plan. Teacher models a concise example, such as protecting a stream margin with native planting and fencing, using a local map or farm diagram. With the worked-example slide, identify the issue, action, evidence, people involved and likely benefits; explicitly acknowledge that mātauranga Māori may include local knowledge, relationships, responsibilities and respect for taonga species, and should be used appropriately rather than treated as decorative information.

4. 17–32 min · Collaborative planning. Place students in five groups of five and assign roles: facilitator, evidence finder, kaitiakitanga and place perspective, feasibility checker, and communicator. Distribute the biodiversity action planner and offer local maps, farm photographs or teacher-provided data; groups choose one issue and complete the plan, including a specific action, evidence, environmental/social/economic impacts and a sustainable-production link. Teacher conferences with groups, checking that actions are realistic rather than simply “stop farming”.

5. 32–40 min · Action pitches. Use the action-pitch instructions and criteria slide and have each group deliver a 60-second pitch: “Our issue is… We propose… Our evidence is… This supports biodiversity and production because…” Peers give one “strength” and one “question” focused on evidence, feasibility or impact.

6. 40–45 min · Individual reflection and exit. Return to the plenary reflection slide and ask students to independently complete the final section of the individual reflection and exit response: name one action they would recommend and explain the strongest evidence behind it. Preview that the final lesson will refine and communicate the most convincing plans.

Resources

• the Protecting Aotearoa Biodiversity slide deck
• the biodiversity action planner
• Local maps, aerial photographs or farm-site diagrams
• Teacher-selected local biodiversity data, species information or previous fieldwork results
• Display board or projector
• Role cards or role list on the board
• Sticky notes or small cards for peer feedback
• Dyslexia-friendly printed and audio/video evidence sources

Assessment

• During group planning, question students: “What is the biodiversity issue?”, “What evidence supports this?”, and “How is the action feasible for a primary producer?” Note whether students connect cause, action and outcome.
• Assess group pitches informally against the success criteria, especially use of evidence and consideration of environmental, social and economic perspectives.
• Collect individual exit responses to identify students needing support before the final lesson.

Differentiation

• Provide local maps, labelled photographs, a visual planning template and sentence starters: “The issue is…”, “Evidence shows…”, “This action is feasible because…”.
• Offer structured group roles, oral rehearsal before writing, teacher conferencing and choice of written, spoken or recorded pitch.
• Provide dyslexia-friendly planning sheets: clear sans-serif font, enlarged spacing, short instructions, uncluttered sections and permission to use speech-to-text or audio/video sources.
• Use culturally responsive examples connected to local whenua and taonga species, invite students to distinguish scientific evidence from local or mātauranga Māori-informed knowledge, and reinforce respectful attribution and consultation.

Extension

• Add three monitoring indicators, such as native plant survival, stream clarity or species observations, and explain how each would show whether the action is working.
• Identify key stakeholders, their responsibilities and possible concerns, then add a realistic implementation timeline with immediate, seasonal and longer-term steps.