The Story Behind Waiata

Overview

In lesson 9 of the 30-lesson unit Waiata: Living Records, students investigate the event, experience or purpose that inspired a waiata. They work with teacher-provided written, visual and audio sources, distinguishing what the evidence states from what they infer before writing an evidence-based summary.

Learning intentions

• WALT identify the event, experience or purpose that inspired a waiata.
• WALT interpret written, oral and visual sources about migration and settlement in Aotearoa New Zealand.
• WALT distinguish factual evidence from reasonable inference.
• WALT summarise a waiata’s background using accurate evidence.

Success criteria

• I can identify the likely event, experience or purpose behind the waiata.
• I can sort information into fact and inference and explain my choices.
• I can use at least two accurate pieces of evidence in a clear paragraph.
• I can identify an unanswered question for further inquiry.

Curriculum links

• Geography — Impact of Migration: interpret qualitative data, including testimonies, cultural artefacts and photographs, to understand lived experiences of migration.
• Geography — Impact of Migration: communicate findings using extended written responses that make reasoned arguments.
• Social Sciences Years 9–10: analyse sources and data, make decisions and evaluate significant events and challenges.
• Social Sciences Years 9–10: explore how societies function and change, including New Zealand’s place in a globalised world.

Lesson structure (55 minutes)

1. 0–5 min · Hook and prior knowledge. Teacher plays a short excerpt of the waiata and displays an evocative image connected to its setting using the hook and listening slide, then asks, “What might have happened for someone to create or perform this waiata?” Students record one observation and one tentative idea silently, then share with a partner. Emphasise that a first idea is an inference, not yet a fact.

2. 5–12 min · Learning focus and modelling. Teacher introduces the WALT and success criteria on the learning intention and success criteria slides. Briefly explain the difference between fact (“the source directly tells us this”) and inference (“this is what the evidence makes us think”); model one example from a source, thinking aloud about wording, reliability and missing information. Students help classify two further examples with thumbs-up for fact or hands-to-chest for inference.

3. 12–27 min · Group source investigation. Teacher places students in five groups of three and distributes the waiata source investigation worksheet with a differentiated source set: a short accessible text, a standard text, an extended text, one photograph or cultural artefact and an audio testimony or waiata explanation. Groups read, listen and examine the visual source, replaying audio as needed. Students highlight or note direct evidence, record the source it came from, and agree on the event, experience or purpose most strongly suggested. Each student must contribute one observation or question.

4. 27–38 min · Fact-versus-inference sort. Teacher displays the sorting instructions on the source investigation and sorting slides and checks that groups understand the difference between evidence and interpretation. Students sort the statements on their worksheet into “Fact” and “Inference”, then justify at least two decisions using the frame: “This is a fact/inference because the source…”. Groups compare one disagreement with another group and revise their thinking if stronger evidence is offered.

5. 38–50 min · Individual evidence summary. Teacher models a concise paragraph structure: identify the waiata’s background, provide two pieces of evidence, explain what those details suggest, and acknowledge uncertainty where appropriate. Students independently complete the summary on the paragraph frame and evidence table, aiming for 5–7 sentences. They underline evidence and circle the sentence that states the event, experience or purpose. Students who finish early write one unanswered question that could guide further inquiry.

6. 50–55 min · Share and exit check. Teacher returns to the reflection and plenary slides and invites two or three students to read a strong evidence-based sentence. Students complete a quick exit response on the worksheet: “The waiata was inspired by… My strongest evidence is… One question I still have is…”. Collect responses to identify who can distinguish evidence from inference and who needs support next lesson.

Resources

• the complete waiata investigation slide deck
• the waiata source investigation worksheet
• Teacher-provided source set: written texts, photograph or cultural artefact, and audio testimony or waiata explanation
• Audio playback device and headphones or speakers
• Projector or interactive display
• Highlighters or coloured pencils
• Timer
• Whiteboard and markers

Assessment

• Listen to group explanations during the source investigation and fact-versus-inference sort; question unsupported claims with “Which source shows that?”
• Check worksheets for accurate source references, appropriate classification and a clearly stated background.
• Use the final paragraph and exit response to assess whether students summarise using at least two accurate pieces of evidence and recognise unanswered questions.

Differentiation

• Provide three source lengths and reading demands, with the same key ideas represented across versions. Offer audio versions, replay time and text-to-speech for students who need them.
• Use chunked text, generous spacing, clear sans-serif font, highlighted key terms and reduced copying for dyslexic learners. Allow oral rehearsal before writing.
• Provide the summary frame: “The waiata is connected to ____. One source states ____. Another source shows/tells us ____. This suggests ____. However, we still do not know ____.”
• Pair students strategically and assign roles such as reader/listener, evidence finder and reporter; accept spoken, typed or handwritten responses where appropriate.
• Extension: students identify two unanswered questions, explain which source or perspective is missing, and propose what evidence could be gathered next.