Tracing Change Over Time

Overview

Lesson 4 of 12 in Changing Whakairo Practices. Students build on prior learning about whakairo conventions, contexts and terminology by comparing pre-European, transitional and contemporary practices. They will trace how materials, tools, techniques, purposes and production processes change, while recognising that change does not mean a simple replacement of one practice by another.

Learning intentions

• WALT compare whakairo practices across three historical moments.
• WALT explain how changes in materials, tools, techniques and production processes affect the meaning and purpose of artworks.
• WALT use specific visual, contextual and published evidence to support claims.
• WALT give and respond to feedback using art-history language.

Success criteria

• I can accurately identify similarities and differences between selected whakairo exemplars.
• I can explain why a practice may have changed, using contextual evidence.
• I can distinguish between an observation, an interpretation and a supported claim.
• I can improve my comparison after checking whether my evidence is relevant and specific.

Curriculum links

• Demonstrate understanding of style in art works: analyse stylistic characteristics and explain similarities and differences using evidence.
• Examine the different values placed on art works: explain how cultural, historical, spiritual, symbolic, functional and other values influence interpretation.
• Analyse methods and ideas from established painting practice: transfer the processes of identifying, examining and explaining how artworks are made, viewed and valued to whakairo.
• Level 8 Visual Arts: investigate contexts, meanings, intentions and technological influences related to the making and valuing of artworks.

Lesson structure (120 minutes)

1. 0–10 min · Provocation and retrieval. Teacher opens with the hook and comparison images showing three teacher-selected whakairo exemplars and asks, “What has changed, and what appears to have endured?” Students independently record three visual observations, then share one observation and one question with a partner. Teacher reminds students to use respectful, specific language and not assume that contemporary practice is less traditional.

2. 10–30 min · Chronological model. Teacher uses the chronological timeline and modelling sequence and a teacher-created timeline to model comparison across pre-European, transitional and contemporary contexts. Think aloud through one example: identify evidence, name the change, suggest a contextual reason, and explain its effect on purpose or value. Explicitly distinguish “The surface is…” from “This may suggest…”. Students annotate the three stages on the scaffolded comparison matrix and contribute possible evidence for the class model.

3. 30–45 min · Concepts and evidence workshop. Teacher briefly clarifies the six comparison lenses: materials, tools, techniques, conventions, purposes and production processes. Using the six comparison lenses and evidence prompts, teacher demonstrates how a claim becomes stronger when linked to visible evidence and reliable contextual information. In pairs, students classify sample statements on the worksheet as observation, interpretation or supported claim, then revise one weak claim.

4. 45–75 min · Exemplar investigation. Teacher forms groups of three or four and provides each group with referenced images, short publication extracts and access to the exemplar investigation instructions. Students investigate the selected exemplars, completing the comparison matrix with at least two specific observations and one contextual source for each historical moment. They must record uncertainty rather than invent information, and identify one continuity as well as one change. Teacher conferences with groups, checking that students explain causes and significance rather than merely listing differences.

5. 75–95 min · Peer evidence audit. Teacher displays the peer-review questions in the peer feedback prompts: “What is the claim?”, “Which evidence supports it?”, “Is the evidence specific and relevant?”, and “What further context is needed?” Students exchange matrices with a different group and provide written feedback on two claims, identifying one well-supported claim and one claim requiring stronger evidence or clearer explanation. Groups return the matrices and students revise at least one claim in a different colour.

6. 95–112 min · Whole-class synthesis. Teacher leads a structured discussion using the synthesis discussion prompts. Students contribute examples to a shared three-column timeline, explaining relationships between technological change, cultural context, artistic intention and the values placed on whakairo. The teacher challenges simplistic narratives by asking, “Who benefits from this change?”, “What values might be retained or reasserted?”, and “How might different viewers interpret the same work?”

7. 112–120 min · Exit reflection. Teacher displays the final prompt in the plenary and exit prompt. Students complete the final section of the worksheet: one supported comparison, one continuity, and one question for further research. Invite two students to read contrasting responses, then collect worksheets to inform the next lesson on values and interpretation.

Resources

• the complete Changing Whakairo Practices slide deck
• the scaffolded comparison matrix
• Teacher-created chronological timeline
• Referenced images of pre-European, transitional and contemporary whakairo
• Short extracts from appropriately referenced publications
• Digital museum collections prepared for classroom viewing
• Projector or interactive display
• Highlighters or coloured pens
• Devices or printed source packs for groups

Assessment

• Circulate during modelling and group investigation, checking accurate use of the six comparison lenses and the distinction between observation and interpretation.
• Formatively assess each matrix for chronological understanding, specific evidence, explanation of causes and recognition of continuity.
• Use peer feedback and the exit reflection to identify students who can describe change but need support explaining significance, values or contextual reasons.

Differentiation

• Provide a completed first row, a comparison word bank and sentence starters such as: “The use of ___ changes from ___ to ___, which may reflect ___.” and “This is supported by evidence from ___.”
• Offer selected source packs with key information highlighted for students requiring reading or processing support; allow speech-to-text, oral recording or typed responses.
• Pair EAL learners with supportive peers and pre-teach terms such as convention, provenance, technique, intention, continuity and context, while affirming correct use of te reo Māori names and macrons.
• Extend confident students by requiring analysis of conflicting source perspectives, discussion of who assigns value to an artwork, or comparison of how the same change may affect cultural, symbolic and functional values.