Find Mexico and Tora on a map or globe. Measure or estimate the distance between them. Ask students: how far is that compared to something familiar?
Find your school building on a map. How tall is it? A hundred-metre wave is roughly ten times the height of a standard school building. Ask students to visualise that from where they are standing.
Listen for the moment the geologist connects the pebbles from Part 1 to the impact, the wave, and the Pacific crossing.
Return to the ideas students recorded in Part 1 Step 3. Ask: does this theory explain what you thought then? What does it explain that your ideas didn't?
| Level | Years 5–6 | Years 7–10 | Years 11–13 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | I can describe what the theory says happened 66 million years ago. | I can explain the chain of events from asteroid impact to beach material on the deep sea floor. | I can describe the impact event, the tsunami generation mechanism, and the proposed depositional sequence at Tora. |
| 2 | I can say how far Mexico is from New Zealand and why the distance matters. | I can explain why the distance and the wave height together make this a significant finding. | I can contextualise the Tora deposit within the global evidence for the K-Pg tsunami and explain its geographic significance. |
| 3 | I can say whether the theory explains the puzzle from Part 1 and why. | I can evaluate whether the tsunami theory adequately explains the rounded pebbles and identify any remaining gaps. | I can critically assess the theory against alternative hypotheses and identify what additional evidence would strengthen or weaken it. |
| 4 | I can say one thing AI told me about tsunamis that surprised me and whether I think it is right. | I can identify where AI's response is well-supported by evidence and where it generalises or speculates. | I can evaluate AI's treatment of scientific uncertainty and compare it with the uncertainty acknowledged in the video. |
| 5 | I can say what question I want answered in Part 3. | I can state what physical evidence at the site would confirm or challenge the theory, and predict what Part 3 might show. | I can propose what stratigraphic or geochemical evidence Part 3 should present to move the hypothesis toward confirmation. |