📚 Unit Plans → 🌍 History 2.4: Perspectives → 📄 Peer Feedback Form — History 2.4 Lessons 8 & 9
Year 12 Tikanga-ā-Iwi / Social Sciences
← Back to Lesson 9 | 🖨️ Print

Peer Feedback Form — Aromatawai ā-Hoa

Level 2 History · History 2.4 · Lessons 8 & 9 · Complete for essay plan (L8) and full draft (L9)
 
 
Introduction · Kuputaki
Three distinct groups are named (not "protesters" or "they" — actual group names).
There is a thesis statement — a claim about why perspectives were irreconcilable.
The event, dates, and historical context are briefly established.
One suggestion to strengthen the introduction:
Perspective Paragraph 1
Group is named specifically in the opening sentence.
Evidence includes: author/source + date + what it said.
Explanation uses "because" (or "which reflects" / "this demonstrates") to explain WHY.
Current grade level:
A — Describes M — Explains WHY E — Analyses framework/identity Not yet at A
Most important improvement for P1:
Perspective Paragraph 2
Group is named specifically. Perspective is distinct from Paragraph 1.
Evidence includes: author/source + date + what it said.
Explanation uses "because" to explain WHY.
Current grade level:
A — Describes M — Explains WHY E — Analyses framework/identity Not yet at A
Most important improvement for P2:
Perspective Paragraph 3
Group is named. Perspective is distinct from P1 and P2.
Evidence — is this a Māori or community voice speaking for themselves? (Not just a Pākehā description of Māori.)
Explanation connects to identity, cultural context, or lived experience.
Current grade level:
A — Describes M — Explains WHY E — Analyses framework/identity Not yet at A
Most important improvement for P3:
Conclusion · Whakahōhonu
The conclusion analyses — it explains WHY perspectives were irreconcilable (not just "they disagreed").
It names a core value clash or framework difference — the deeper reason agreement was impossible.
There is a significance claim — the conclusion states why this event still matters for Aotearoa.
The conclusion does NOT summarise paragraphs — it adds new analytical insight.
The conclusion currently:
Analyses (E) Partly analyses (M) Summarises only (A) Missing / incomplete
One suggestion to strengthen the conclusion:
The single best sentence in this essay (copy it exactly):
Why this sentence is strong:
Single most important improvement for Lesson 10 (be specific):
Not "make it better" — e.g. "Add an author name and date to the source in P2" or "Rewrite the conclusion to name the specific value clash."

📋 Teacher Planning Snapshot

Ngā Whāinga Ako — Learning Intentions

A structured peer check on the full draft, grading each perspective paragraph as Achieved, Merit or Excellence and naming the single most important improvement.

Ngā Paearu Angitū — Success Criteria

Differentiation & Inclusion

Scaffold support: The sheet covers the plan (Lesson 8) and the draft (Lesson 9), so it can carry forward from one session to the next. Extend by asking the reviewer to rewrite one of the peer's sentences at the next grade up as a model.

ELL / ESOL: The grade descriptors are written in student language — describes / explains why / analyses framework — so a reviewer does not need the standard's own register to use the form.

Inclusion: Written feedback on a printed form removes the social load of verbal critique. Reviewers can work at their own pace across the 18-minute block.

Mātauranga Māori: Check that the reviewer applies the same grade descriptors to every paragraph. Where the third perspective is a Māori or Pasifika one, a reviewer marking it more generously than the others is a kindness that costs the writer marks.

Prior knowledge: Use in Lesson 9's 18-minute peer feedback block, on a complete draft.