A 12-minute immersive experience across two large projection screens. It moves from Antarctica's prehistoric rainforests and dinosaurs through the Heroic Age of Exploration to the cutting-edge science shaping the continent today. This is the entry point for every visit and sets the scale of the inquiry.
Students enter an enclosed room and experience an Antarctic blizzard at minus eight degrees Celsius. No photograph, video, or classroom description replicates this. The cold and wind load students with physical reference that anchors every subsequent conversation about Antarctic conditions.
Little Blue penguins in active care at the IAC. Students observe live animals: real movement, real behaviour, real biological adaptation in context. Staff explain the rescue and care process. This is not a display but a working wildlife rehabilitation setting.
Artefacts and equipment from Antarctic expeditions and research. Students encounter real gear used under real conditions by real researchers. Useful anchor for Expeditions & Exploration and The Human Factor programmes.
Focused on young people, the future of the continent, and the role of the next generation. A natural match for sustainability and conservation programmes.
A ride on the amphibious all-terrain vehicle used in Antarctic operations. Approximately 15 minutes on an outdoor course. Additional cost for education groups. Minimum height 1.2 m. Not recommended for those with heart conditions, back or neck pain, or pregnancy.
An immersive film experience with physical effects. Additional cost for education groups. Contact the IAC for current pricing.
Education programme slots fill quickly, particularly in Terms 2 and 3. Contact [email protected] with your proposed date, year level, group size, and curriculum focus well before your intended visit.
The more you share about your learning intentions and curriculum focus, the better the programme can be tailored to your group. The enquiry form on the IAC education page asks for this information directly.
Students who arrive having investigated a single question — "What is the Antarctic Treaty?" or "Why does Christchurch send people to Antarctica?" — engage more deeply with the Antarctica 101 film and programme content. One question is enough.
The storm room and penguin encounter produce reactions that cannot be anticipated in the classroom. These moments are your best material for the Layer 2 AI thinking tasks. Encourage students to record their immediate reactions while still at the IAC.
38 Orchard Road, Christchurch, adjacent to Christchurch Airport. Coach parking is available. The site is accessible and flat. Bus access is available from central Christchurch.
The Field-Based STEM protocol Antarctica: Why It Matters supports broader classroom inquiry into Antarctica's global significance. Use it before the visit to build context or after to extend the inquiry.
These prompts build on what students experienced at the IAC. They are anchored in specific moments from the visit: the Antarctica 101 film, the storm room, the penguin encounter, the gallery, and the named programme. The IAC's interpretation is the starting point; gen AI is the thinking partner that extends and challenges it back in the classroom.
The Antarctica 101 film covered millions of years in 12 minutes. Ask a gen AI chatbot to describe Antarctica in three sentences. Compare what it says with what you saw on the screen. What did the film show that the AI could not?
You saw a real Little Blue penguin at the IAC. Ask a gen AI chatbot: "How is a Little Blue penguin adapted to cold water?" Then compare its answer with what the keeper told you. Did the AI get it right? Did it miss anything?
Write down everything you remember about the storm room: the temperature, the wind, what it felt like on your face and hands. Share your description with a gen AI chatbot and ask it to explain what causes Antarctic storms. Could the AI have taught you the same thing?
Ask a gen AI chatbot: "Why is Christchurch one of the gateways to Antarctica?" Compare what it says with what you learned at the IAC. Is there anything it missed or got wrong?
Based on what the Treaties & Agreements programme covered, ask a gen AI chatbot to explain the Antarctic Treaty System. Which claims can you verify? Which are too vague to check? What did the programme teach that the AI left out or simplified?
Using what you learned in the Ecosystems & Food Webs programme, ask a gen AI chatbot to build a food web starting from Antarctic krill. Check each link against what the programme said. Where does the AI's account hold? Where does it simplify or introduce errors?
From the Carbon Conundrum programme: ask a gen AI chatbot to explain how Antarctica functions as a carbon sink and what threatens that function. Is the causal chain accurate? What is missing from the AI's account?
The Tourism programme covered sustainable Antarctic tourism. Ask a gen AI chatbot: "What are the main threats that tourism poses to Antarctic ecosystems, and what rules currently govern it?" Compare the response with what you learned on site. Where does the AI's account align? Where does it fall short?
After the Treaties & Agreements programme, ask a gen AI chatbot to outline the Antarctic Treaty System's key protocols, including the Madrid Protocol. Evaluate the account for accuracy, gaps, and framing. Where does the AI reduce complexity in ways that matter for understanding how Antarctic governance actually works?
The Human Factor programme explored how people shape and are shaped by Antarctica. Ask a gen AI chatbot the same central question. Compare its framing of human impact with the IAC's approach. Where do they align? Where does the IAC's interpretation reflect values or priorities the AI does not express?
Christchurch is the departure point for NZ and US Antarctic operations. Ask a gen AI chatbot to explain NZ's legal, scientific, and strategic relationship with Antarctica, including the NZ Antarctic Programme and Scott Base. Evaluate the response against primary sources: the NZAP website, the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat, and any information the IAC guides provided.
From the Land, Sea & Sky programme: identify one Antarctic tipping point such as ice sheet instability, ocean circulation disruption, or accelerated glacial loss. Ask a gen AI chatbot to explain the evidence base, the timeline of risk, and the implications for NZ. Then assess: does the AI's account reflect the uncertainty that current peer-reviewed science acknowledges, or does it flatten it?
| Level | Years 0–6 | Years 7–10 | Years 11–13 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Student names at least one thing encountered at the IAC from the visit itself: a penguin species, a fact from the Antarctica 101 film, an object from the gallery, or a sensation from the storm room. Understands this came from a real place connected to the actual continent. | Student identifies which programme they completed and names two substantive things learned from it. Can say which curriculum area the programme belongs to and why Antarctica is relevant to that area. | Student identifies the programme completed, names three substantive claims made in it, and locates at least one primary source that supports or challenges one of those claims. |
| 2 | Student makes a simple explanatory connection: "The penguin has waterproof feathers because Antarctica is cold and wet" or "The storm room was cold because Antarctic winds bring air from the south." The connection links something seen to a reason. | Student explains a mechanism connected to their programme: a food web pathway and its vulnerability, the purpose of a specific treaty clause, or the process by which Antarctica functions as a carbon sink. Links the IAC experience to the mechanism. | Student constructs a causal account connecting the programme's central concept to a current Antarctic challenge: how legal frameworks do or do not address a specific human pressure, how a food web disruption cascades through an ecosystem, or how carbon feedbacks interact with land use beyond Antarctica. |
| 3 | Student compares what a gen AI chatbot said about something from the visit with what the programme or guide said. Can explain in simple terms where the two accounts agreed and where they did not. | Student documents a comparison between a gen AI chatbot's account of a programme concept and the IAC's treatment of it. Identifies at least one discrepancy and offers an explanation of why it exists. | Student evaluates a gen AI chatbot's account of the programme's central concept for accuracy, gaps, and framing. Draws on primary sources to verify claims. Documents the comparison systematically and draws conclusions about where gen AI is reliable and where it falls short in this domain. |
| 4 | Student explains what being at the IAC added that a classroom lesson or AI explanation could not: the cold of the storm room, watching a real penguin move, the scale of the Antarctica 101 projection. Names at least one thing that cannot be replicated on a screen. | Student articulates what physical simulation and expert interpretation at the IAC provided that secondary sources cannot replicate. Explains why standing in the storm room changes what it means to know something about Antarctic conditions. | Student reflects on the epistemological difference between physical simulation and expert interpretation at the IAC, a classroom lesson, and a gen AI response: what each can and cannot constitute as evidence or understanding in a Social Science, Science, or Environmental Conservation context. |
| 5 | Student generates one question about Antarctica they want to investigate further. Identifies one action they could take connected to what they learned: reducing single-use plastic, finding out what NZ researchers do at Scott Base, or learning about the Antarctic Treaty. | Student formulates a testable inquiry question connected to their programme and proposes a method for investigating it using at least two high-quality sources beyond what the IAC provided. Identifies one way NZ policy or personal behaviour connects to Antarctic outcomes. | Student produces a structured inquiry question, identifies three high-quality sources across primary, peer-reviewed, and institutional categories, and proposes a research method. Articulates one way the inquiry connects to a current NZ policy debate or to action the student can take. |