Students are at the actual rocky shore with aquarium educators. They observe crabs, sea snails, starfish, sea anemones, and fish in their real habitat. For each animal: note where exactly it is on the shore, what it is doing, and one question its presence gives you.
Different animals live at different heights on the shore. Students map which animals they find in the splash zone, the mid-tide zone, and the low-tide zone. The pattern is the data. Why are they distributed this way?
Students photograph every organism they identify, noting location on the shore. These photographs are the field dataset that AI will later help interpret. The organism seen in the field and the AI conversation in the classroom are not the same experience — both matter.
Students ask the educator: what is the biggest threat to this rocky shore community right now? The answer is the anchor for the AI layer. Students bring the educator's response to class alongside their own observations.
| Level | Years 0–6 | Years 7–10 | Years 11–13 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | I can describe one animal I found at the rocky shore or one thing I investigated in the plate boundary programme that I could not have encountered on a screen. | I can describe what direct encounter with the Hardinge Road rocky shore or the Life at the Boundary lab added that photographs, video, or AI descriptions could not replicate. | I can analyse why physical encounter with a real rocky shore ecosystem and hands-on plate boundary investigation produces qualitatively different scientific understanding from data, media, or AI-mediated access. |
| 2 | I can explain how one rocky shore animal is adapted to survive where it lives, and say one thing the Hikurangi Plate Boundary does to Hawke's Bay. | I can explain the ecological relationships in the rocky shore community I observed, and describe how the Hikurangi subduction zone drives the geological events — earthquakes, tsunami, liquefaction — that affect the Hawke's Bay coast. | I can situate the rocky shore community I observed within the broader ecological context of the Hikurangi subduction zone's effects on marine habitat, upwelling, and biodiversity along the Hawke's Bay coast. |
| 3 | I can say one thing AI told me about rocky shore animals or earthquakes and whether it matched what I found and investigated on the visit. | I can identify where AI's account of rocky shore ecology and Hikurangi plate boundary processes matched what I observed and investigated, and where the real encounter added evidence AI's account didn't provide. | I can critically evaluate AI's account of Hikurangi subduction zone processes and rocky shore ecology against the field evidence I collected and the experimental design opportunities the aquarium provided, identifying where AI generalises and where local specificity matters. |
| 4 | I can say why being at the rocky shore or in the plate boundary lab gave me something I could not have got from a screen. | I can explain what kneeling at the Hardinge Road rocky shore and investigating liquefaction in the lab adds to scientific understanding that no digital resource or AI description provides. | I can articulate the difference between knowing about rocky shore ecology and plate boundary processes, modelling them digitally, and encountering them directly at the actual site — and explain what each produces that the others cannot. |
| 5 | I can say one question my visit gave me that I still want answered. | I can identify a scientific question raised by the rocky shore visit or the plate boundary programme and propose what investigation — at the aquarium, in the field, or through further research — would help me answer it. | I can propose a research question arising from the visit, identify appropriate sources and methodologies, and explain what the Student Research Possibilities programme at the aquarium could contribute to a well-designed NCEA investigation. |