Move · Think · Write
Move · Think · Write is a free, student-facing toolkit that helps ākonga communicate their PE thinking in writing. Writing is one way of showing understanding, and it is the one this toolkit supports. It is not the only way the standards allow, and this guide is explicit about where the alternatives sit. Designed to be used inside your PE programme, not instead of one.
The concept
Why Physical Education needs its own literacy support
Movement is where learning begins in Physical Education. Through movement, ākonga explore ideas, make decisions and solve problems. What the standards then ask for is evidence of that thinking. Writing is the most common way schools gather it, and it is the mode this toolkit supports, but it is one option among several rather than a requirement. The section below sets out what else the standards allow.
Every subject communicates differently, and PE is unusual: students argue from their own moving bodies, then explain what happened using biophysical, sociocultural and te ao Māori knowledge. That is disciplinary literacy, and it is why generic essay advice only gets students so far. This toolkit builds that thinking through PE content, in PE contexts, with PE vocabulary. Because the thinking is the same whichever mode a student uses, most of what is here transfers straight to a spoken or recorded response.
One pattern, three levels
Almost every NCEA PE standard rewards the same three depths of thinking. The toolkit calls it the thinking ladder: three depths of thinking, not three grades. Teach it once and students reuse it in every standard. What shifts by level is how much depth is expected before the understanding counts as shown, and the section below sets out exactly how.
Where students actually get stuck
Students who plateau are almost never short of knowledge. They stop after describing. The single highest-value teaching move in PE literacy is training the habit of the second and third sentence: asking "why did that happen?" and "so what?" of their own experience.
Before you start
Writing is one way of showing understanding, not the required one
This matters enough to say before anything else. No Physical Education achievement standard requires writing. Across all twenty-three standards at Levels 1 to 3, the criteria ask ākonga to demonstrate understanding, explain, examine, analyse, evaluate, devise or perform. Not one of them says "write". Writing is the mode most schools choose, and it is the mode this toolkit supports, but it is a choice rather than a rule.
What NCEA guidance actually says
"Collection of evidence for the internally assessed Standards could include, but is not restricted to, an extended task, an investigation, digital evidence (such as recorded interviews, blogs, photographs, or film), or a portfolio of evidence."NCEA guidance, Physical Education conditions of assessment
Evidence for Level 1 internal assessment may also be presented in te reo Māori, English, or New Zealand Sign Language. Since Levels 2 and 3 are entirely internally assessed, that flexibility covers every standard at those levels.
Where oral and visual modes fit well
Some ākonga think far more clearly aloud than on paper, and forcing the written mode can hide understanding rather than reveal it. A recorded interview, a spoken explanation over video of their own performance, a filmed coaching conversation, or a photo sequence with commentary can all carry the same reasoning.
This is especially worth considering for ākonga who are still building written fluency in English, for those with identified learning support needs, and for standards where the thinking is easier to show while moving than while sitting.
Why this toolkit is still worth using
The moves are the same whichever mode a student chooses. A claim still needs context, evidence, an explanation of how it works, and a judgement, whether it is written down or said out loud. The thinking ladder is a structure for thinking, not for writing.
Used as a speaking plan, the paragraph builder gives a student the shape of a spoken answer before they record it. Many ākonga find planning in writing and then delivering aloud is the combination that works best for them.
Two things to check before you offer a mode
The externals are different. 92018 and 92019 are externally assessed, and their submission format is set by NZQA rather than by your school. Check the current assessment specifications for those two before telling students what they may submit.
Your assessment resource may narrow it. The standard sets the requirement; the assessment activity your school uses sets the task. If your resource specifies a written response, that is a school decision and can usually be adapted, but it is worth checking with whoever holds assessment sign-off first.
The single most important thing to teach
What deeper understanding looks like at each level
This is the point kaiako and ākonga most often get wrong
It is tempting to teach that describing sits at the bottom, explaining in the middle and evaluating at the top, each mapped neatly onto a grade. That mapping only holds at Level 1. At Levels 2 and 3 the task verb never changes. What changes is how much depth of understanding a student has to show, and at those levels the starting point is already high. A Level 2 student who only describes has not shown a thinner version of the understanding required. They have not yet shown it at all.
| Level | Showing understandingAchieved | Showing it in depthMerit | Showing it criticallyExcellence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Level 1 The verb changes with the grade |
Demonstrate understanding Describing how something happens, or the reason for it, using examples. |
Explain Discussing how and why. |
Evaluate Drawing conclusions about how and why. |
| Level 2 The verb stays fixed |
The task verb alone Examine, Analyse, Evaluate or Demonstrate understanding. In 91328 and 91329 this already means explaining how and why. |
+ in-depth Explain fully, and show the interrelationship between the ideas. 91327, 91328, 91329 and 91331 use that word. |
+ comprehensive / critically Evaluate and judge. In 91327 this means identifying assumptions, naming who is advantaged and disadvantaged, and backing the judgement with evidence. |
| Level 3 Verb fixed, higher starting point |
The task verb alone Evaluate, Analyse, Examine or Devise. Judgements and conclusions are part of Achieved, not a bonus. |
+ in depth Go further into the same thinking, and show how the ideas inter-relate. 91499 and 91504 use that word; the others ask for judgements that are coherent. |
+ critically Question and challenge the assumptions behind the evidence and the viewpoints, including their own, then defend a judgement. |
Four Level 3 standards ask students to design, not just explain
91498, 91504 and 91789 require students to devise strategies, and 91499 requires feedback or feed-forward to the performer. In every case that step is part of Achieved, not an Excellence extra. A brilliant analysis that stops before the strategy does not yet meet the standard. The paragraph builder adds a sixth move for these.
Updated August 2026
What changed in this version
The toolkit was reviewed against the NZQA achievement standards following feedback from a national moderator. If you used an earlier version of this guide, these are the points worth re-teaching.
Achieved is describing how something happens, or the reason for it. "How and why" is the Merit marker, not the Achieved one. Earlier guidance blurred these.
Merit is not simply "more". Several standards require the knowledge to inter-relate, and use that exact word. The toolkit now teaches it.
The marker is questioning and challenging assumptions, which is the wording used across seven of the eight Level 3 standards.
The verb list is now filtered so that only verbs that genuinely appear in the standards at that level are shown. Devise has been added. Describe, Explain and Discuss no longer show at Level 3, and Compare and contrast has been removed at every level because it appears in no PE standard.
Every exemplar now carries a standing statement that these are single paragraphs, not whole submissions. Students were reading one strong paragraph as the complete requirement.
91330 and 91501 now correctly show no writing demand. 92016 and 91334 note that the standard does not prescribe whether evidence is written or spoken.
Personal evidence has been broadened beyond training data to include games and competition, outdoor activities, practical performances, kapa haka and cultural festival performances.
The guide is now explicit that writing is one way of showing understanding, not the required one. Oral, recorded and visual evidence are permitted for every internally assessed standard.
A citation generator in section 7, a guided revise and edit session in section 8, and a feedback form so you can tell us what needs work.
Worth knowing
Not every PE standard has a writing demand
Beyond the general point that writing is optional, five standards deserve specific mention. Three are assessed on performance and two leave the mode of evidence open. Pointing ākonga at a writing toolkit for these is unhelpful, and can create work the standard never asked for.
| Standard | What it actually requires |
|---|---|
| 91330 2.4 | Performance only. Perform a physical activity in an applied setting. Nothing in the standard asks the student to write. |
| 91501 3.4 | Performance only. Demonstrate quality performance in an applied setting. Same as above. |
| 92016 1.1 | Mostly practical. Students must identify the strategies they used, but the standard does not say how, so this can be written or spoken. |
| 91334 2.8 | Requires ongoing reflection and self-direction inside a social responsibility model. The standard does not say the reflection must be written. |
| 91333 2.7 | Analysis must occur before, during and after the activity. That timing is a requirement, not a suggestion. |
The toolkit, section by section
Ten sections, one router
The site opens by asking "what are you working on right now?" and routes students to the right tool. Here is what each section does, and the best way to use it in class.
Start here
The concept, and a task router that sends students to the section they actually need.
First visit: let students choose their own route. It builds ownership of the tool.
The thinking ladder
Describe, then how and why, then so what, with a level selector showing exactly how much depth of understanding each level expects before it counts as shown.
Teach this first, whole class. Everything else refers back to it. Switch the level selector to your level before you project it.
Paragraph builder
Students fill five moves (claim, context, evidence, how it works, judgement) with sentence starters under each, and a live meter shows the depth they are working at. A sixth move appears for the devise standards. Drafts save in the browser. It doubles as a planning frame for a spoken or recorded response.
Model it on the board first, then pairs, then solo. The meter makes depth visible. Withdraw the builder after a fortnight and keep the five questions.
Assessment verbs
Every NCEA verb with its meaning and its common trap, filtered by level so only the verbs that appear in the standards at that level are shown.
Task decoding ritual: underline the verb in the task, look it up with the level filter on, say the trap aloud.
Word bank
89 searchable terms with a model sentence for each: technical PE vocabulary plus the academic words the standards themselves are written in.
Word of the week, and trade-up drills on students' own draft sentences.
Exemplars
Three tasks (L1 hauora, L2 training, L3 sociocultural) each written at three depths with numbered annotations, and a standing note that these are single paragraphs rather than whole submissions.
Read and argue with them as a class before students write. Never during an external task.
Evidence & sources
Two avenues, kept visually distinct: the student's own experience, which is not cited, and other people's work, which is. Includes a citation generator and guidance on crediting mātauranga Māori respectfully.
Pair with any research task, especially the Level 2 and Level 3 sociocultural standards.
Revise & edit
A guided session with four one-focus editing passes and a self-check that diagnoses the draft's depth and names the next step.
Only on drafts that still have time to change. Build revision time into the task.
NCEA Literacy
The two separate requirements students confuse: the co-requisite needed for NCEA at any level (reading 32403, writing 32405, numeracy 32406), and University Entrance literacy. Includes a minute-by-minute plan for the 60-minute writing assessment.
Run a timed practice using PE prompts in the weeks before the assessment window.
Standards map
Every PE standard at Levels 1 to 3 with the specific writing demand it makes, including the ones that make none.
Course planning, and helping students see what kind of writing each unit is building toward.
Your feedback
A short form that goes to the PENZ team. Tell us what is unclear, what is missing, or what your students got stuck on.
Worth a minute after you first run it with a class. This version exists because kaiako sent feedback.
The pedagogy
Six practices that make PE literacy work
The toolkit is built on a consistent evidence base about what improves adolescent writing. Each practice names the principle, the research behind it, and the concrete move in a PE classroom.
Teach writing inside PE, not beside it
Each subject reads, writes and reasons differently. Literacy support works best through the discipline's own content and thinking, not as a bolt-on essay skills lesson.
Shanahan & Shanahan (2008, 2012), disciplinary literacy
Model explicitly, then fade
Named, memorable procedures for planning and revising produce among the largest effects in writing research. Scaffolds work when they are gradually withdrawn.
Graham & Perin (2007); Rosenshine (2012); Pearson & Gallagher
Study models before writing
Students cannot aim at quality they have never seen. Annotated exemplars show what the moves look like when they land, and what separates one depth from the next.
Worked examples; Writing Next recommendation: study of models
Teach vocabulary in use
Technical vocabulary is not decoration. A student who can write "my base of support was too narrow" has named something they can then explain. Terms stick when met in context with model sentences.
Beck, McKeown & Kucan; Quigley (2018)
Make feedback answer "where to next"
Feedback lifts writing when it names the next move, not just the current quality. A grade with no direction changes nothing.
Hattie & Timperley (2007)
Write little and often, from movement
Fluency comes from frequency. Short, regular, low-stakes writing tied to fresh experience beats occasional high-stakes essays, and it captures evidence while it is still vivid.
EEF, Improving Literacy in Secondary Schools (2019)
Ready to use
Three routines, one boundary, one habit
The warm-down write
- Move: finish the practical five minutes early.
- Think: one prompt on the board, tied to today's activity and one named concept.
- Write: three sentences. What happened, why it happened, what it means. The ladder in miniature.
- Date it. A term of these is a bank of authentic evidence.
The exemplar autopsy
- Open the matching exemplar set (section 6) on the projector.
- Read the Depth 1 response. Ask: "accurate, specific, so what is it still missing?"
- Reveal Depth 2, then Depth 3. Students name the added moves using the annotations.
- Class writes its own version on a different context. Own moment, own numbers.
The ladder lift
- Students run the self-check (section 8) honestly on their own draft.
- Each student finds one place they stopped after describing.
- They write the missing "why" sentence, then the "so what" sentence.
- Pair share: does the new ending land somewhere new, or just summarise?
The boundary: authenticity on assessed work
All of these are teaching moves. They belong before assessed work begins. For the Level 1 externally assessed portfolios (92018 and 92019), conditions of assessment limit the guidance and feedback you can give once the task is underway, and all submitted work must be the student's own. The exemplars are models of moves, never content to reuse. Copying them, or submitting AI-generated writing, risks the whole standard. Set this expectation explicitly, early, and in writing.
Do
- Use the ladder language (describe, how and why, so what) in verbal feedback during practicals, not only on paper
- Write from movement the class just experienced, while it is vivid
- Give revision time; the self-check only works on drafts that can still change
- Set the level selector to your class's level before projecting the ladder or the verbs
- Ask how each ākonga shows understanding best before defaulting to a written task; the standards allow more than writing
- Keep dated quick-writes; consistency of evidence is itself a criterion in some standards
Avoid
- Teaching the toolkit as a one-off library lesson divorced from movement
- Using exemplars as templates to fill in rather than models to argue with
- Teaching "describe equals Achieved" above Level 1, where it is not true
- Telling students writing is required; it is the common mode, not the mandated one
- Grading quick-writes; they are for fluency, not judgement
- Assuming vocabulary transfers untaught; require the terms in context
One section, one lesson
Ten lesson seeds
Each section as a 15 to 20 minute teachable moment: what students are learning to do, and the activity that gets them there. Slot each one in where the writing demand actually falls in your unit.
| Section | We are learning to | The activity |
|---|---|---|
| 1 · Start here | See the ways understanding can be shown | List every way you could show what you understood about today's session. Compare the list with what the standards actually allow: written, spoken, recorded, visual. Students then pick their own route into the toolkit and report back. |
| 2 · Thinking ladder | Spot three depths of thinking | Sort one anonymised student sentence: Depth 1, 2 or 3? Then switch the level selector to your level and read how much depth that level expects. |
| 3 · Paragraph builder | Build a paragraph from movement | Straight after a practical, build one together on the projector. Then pairs. Then solo. Withdraw the builder in a fortnight, keep the five questions. |
| 4 · Assessment verbs | Decode what the task asks | Hand out the real task. Underline the verb, look it up with the level filter on, write one sentence on what it demands that you had not planned to do. |
| 5 · Word bank | Name it in PE, not general English | Trade up five anonymised weak sentences from last week's drafts. Finish on the academic words: which appear in your standard? |
| 6 · Exemplars | See what lifts one depth to the next | Read Depth 1 aloud. Ask what is missing. Reveal Depth 2, then Depth 3. Students name the added moves, then write their own Depth 2 sentence. |
| 7 · Evidence & sources | Tell strong evidence from vague claims | Use the weak-versus-specific reflection table. Students rewrite three of their own diary entries into the specific column. |
| 8 · Revise & edit | Improve a draft one focus at a time | Run the depth pass only: find every place you stopped after describing, write the next sentence. Then the self-check. Drafts must still be changeable. |
| 9 · NCEA Literacy | Plan a piece of writing in five minutes | A PE-flavoured prompt with a stated purpose and audience. Five minutes planning only, then compare plans. Full 60 minutes closer to the window. |
| 10 · Standards map | See the writing each standard needs | Students find their own course's standards and name the writing demand of each. Useful at the start of a year and when choosing options. |
If you only have time for three
Run seeds 2, 3 and 6, in that order. The ladder gives students the shared language, the builder gives them the procedure, and the exemplars show them what it looks like when it lands. Everything else refines those three moves.