Compare texts from different times with similar purposes and audiences to identify similarities and differences in their depictions of events

Compare how events are presented across time

Learning intention: I can compare texts from different times with similar purposes and audiences, using details to explain similarities and differences in how events are depicted.

A text’s purpose is what it is trying to do. Its audience is who it is for. Depiction means the way it presents an event through selected words, details, order, images or sounds. Medium is the form used, such as a letter, news page or video.

Success: identify dates, check a useful purpose/audience match, compare the same feature in both texts, and support a similarity and difference with evidence. A new medium may add ways of communicating while a family or reporting purpose stays similar.

Set up a fair comparison

1. Label each text’s date and the event it describes. A text can be made long after its event; do not confuse the two dates.
2. Check purpose and audience. Two family updates to grandparents are a useful match; a private greeting and a ticket advertisement have different purposes.
3. Compare a shared feature: event details, starting emphasis, feelings, images or sounds. Do not compare A’s audience with B’s colour scheme as if they were the same feature.
4. Write “Both…” for a supported similarity and “A…, whereas B…” for a supported difference. A detail missing from an extract was not necessarily absent from the entire event.

You can compare accounts of the same event from different times, or comparable events such as different Olympic Games. A repeated sporting event is not automatically the same race with the same people.

Similar family purpose, different ways to share

Official elaboration: comparing the texts used to communicate between family members, noting similarities and differences as a result of changing technology.

These are original fictional teaching texts, not historical records. Their dates belong to the imagined accounts.

Original fictional letter, 6 April 1950: Dear Gran, We arrived at the lake after lunch. I helped Dad launch our little boat. I was nervous at first but smiled when it floated. I wish you had been there. Love, Alex.

Original fictional message, 6 April 2024: Hi Gran! We launched our little boat at the lake after lunch. Here is a photo of Dad and me smiling beside it. I was nervous before it floated! Wish you were here. Love, Casey.

Model comparison: Both writers share a boat launch with Gran and wish she were there. The letter describes the change from nerves to a smile in words. The message also offers a photo of the writer with Dad. The actual picture is not supplied here, so we cannot invent its colours or judge its image quality.

Quick check: Does the message prove Gran read it immediately? No: no reading time is supplied. Technology makes features possible; the account must show which were used.

The same details can be placed differently

Original fictional teaching accounts: Original fictional children’s newsletter, 10 September 1982: The school fair opened with the drum group. The report describes the drummers keeping a steady beat, then the crowd waving.

Original fictional children’s news page, 10 September 2024: Waving families greeted the school fair’s opening drum group. The report describes the crowd first, then the drummers’ steady beat.

Both report a fair opening for children and include drumming and waving. A puts the performers first, whereas B starts with the families’ response. That gives B an initial focus on the audience’s excitement. It does not prove the earlier crowd was less excited.

Try: Write one sentence comparing the shared purpose and another comparing the starting focus. Use details from both accounts. If you only say “one is older”, name a choice the writer made.

Two genuine BTN reports before the Olympics

Official elaboration: viewing documentaries and news footage from different periods, comparing the purpose and audience; for example, coverage of major sporting events.

ABC BTN: Olympic Preparations, Nathan Bazley, 24 July 2012; London Games. ABC BTN: Paris Olympics, Jack Evans, 23 July 2024; Paris Games.

Both are children’s news reports introducing a coming Olympics. View the teacher-selected planning portions: in the 2012 report, begin with the party planner’s advice about getting people to the event and continue through accommodation and food, before the next discussion of unexpected problems. In the 2024 report, choose the section on venues, accommodation and environmental plans, before the river-pollution discussion. The teacher uses these transcript cues to locate the portions; exact cut times depend on the player. Use captions or the official transcripts as needed. The full reports also discuss other issues; this comparison focuses on preparations.

Short source-based model: Both explain preparations to young viewers. The 2012 report presents practical arrangements through a playful party-planning exchange. The 2024 report also discusses places for people to stay, while highlighting environmental ambitions. These are different emphases in the selected reports, not proof that only one Games needed transport or cared about the environment.

Viewing task: Record one actual image or sound from each chosen portion, with a time or clear location. Explain how each helps depict preparations. Compare the same feature in both. Do not write that you watched if you only read a transcript; label that accessible route as transcript comparison.

Notice the audience before extending a comparison

The NFSA hosts Nearing the Melbourne Olympics (1956), a documentary about preparations. A teacher can show the selected broadcasting-preparation footage and compare its practical preparation focus with the BTN reports.

The documentary’s broader public audience differs from BTN’s child audience. Record that difference; it makes this an extension about source selection rather than the strongest same-audience pair. Use the two BTN reports for the main matched comparison.

Task: Describe one actual preparation visible in the documentary. Then name the documentary’s broad informative purpose and explain the audience difference. A source caption or description can support access, but it does not count as viewing the original moving footage.

Read or view, compare and support

1. Model: use the family table to separate purpose, event details and medium. Explain how “Both” requires evidence in A and B.
2. We do — guided analysis: compare the fair reports. Highlight shared drumming/waving, then identify which detail comes first.
3. Collaborate and practise: view the selected BTN portions, record a matched feature with a partner and check each other’s evidence. Then write your own comparison.
4. Check: independently compare a new dated pair, naming audience/purpose, one similarity and one difference with exact clues.

Materials/time: supplied texts, paper or writing device, and teacher-controlled access to the linked footage. Allow about 15 minutes for the written models and a further 15–20 minutes for selected viewing and discussion.

Keep claims within the evidence

• “Newer means more accurate or better.” A date alone does not establish quality or truth; inspect the actual account.
• “Different medium means different purpose.” A letter and a message can both share an experience with family.
• “Mentioning something first means the other detail never happened.” Writers select and order details; omission in an extract is not proof of absence.
• “A photo or short clip shows everything.” It selects a moment or view. Do not invent what is outside it.
• “A transcript proves I heard or watched it.” A written representation supports comparison but is different evidence from actual sound or moving images.

Use the evidence you can access

Support: read the pair aloud; fill a two-column table using dates, audience and one shared event detail. Dictate a comparison if needed.

Core: write a short comparison covering purpose/audience, a similarity and a difference in depiction, supported by both texts.

Extend: compare a third text and explain whether its purpose/audience makes it a fair match. Distinguish text date from event date where supplied.

Boundary: compare concrete wording, selected details, sequence, images and sound. Formal historical source theory is not the target. Use invented supplied family accounts; no pupil needs to disclose private family messages.

Access: captions, official transcripts, a teacher description of selected visuals and oral responses can support participation. Record the form actually used. If a film cannot load, complete the written comparison and leave actual moving-image evidence pending.

Questions that improve a comparison

Must the two texts describe exactly the same event? No. Comparable events from different years can work if purposes and audiences are similar.

What does “Both” require? A detail or feature supported by each text; one text alone is insufficient.

Can an older text express feelings? Yes. The fictional letter’s nerves and wish for Gran show feelings clearly.

How can I explain emphasis? Name what is selected or placed first, then explain where it directs attention in this account.

Why label the family examples fictional? They teach comparison through clear supplied evidence and must not be mistaken for genuine archived records.

Compare a fresh pair

Original fictional A, school news for children, 8 June 1985: Volunteers built the fair stalls on Friday. On Saturday, families played games there.

Original fictional B, school news for children, 8 June 2024: Families enjoyed the fair games on Saturday. The account then thanks the volunteers who built the stalls on Friday.

Task: Name the similar audience/purpose, a shared event detail and a different starting focus.

Expected response: Both report a fair to children. Both mention volunteers building stalls before families use them. A starts with preparation, while B starts with families’ experience. Hint: compare the same feature in both, rather than simply naming the dates.

Review: If the student claims A has no happy families, ask whether the extract gives enough evidence for that claim.

Make an evidence-based comparison

Choose one new dated pair from Practice or the worksheet. Write three or four sentences covering: text dates; similar purpose and audience; one shared event detail; one difference in depiction and its likely effect.

Adult looks for: accurate evidence from both texts, a genuine comparable dimension and a limited supported interpretation. Accept alternative wording and supported interpretations. A date or medium label on its own is not an explanation.

Also retain one actual viewing comparison from the selected news footage and the documentary activity, labelled with sources and observed clues. If only transcripts were used, record the reading comparison accurately and assess viewing through an accessible planned opportunity.

Identify originals and source material

All family messages, school/community extracts and assessment passages labelled fictional are original SkillrHub teaching texts. They are not evidence about how every person communicated in a historical period.

Authentic viewing sources are linked to their owners: ABC BTN (2012 and 2024) and NFSA (1956 documentary). The brief teaching comparison is SkillrHub’s source-based interpretation; source footage remains on the original sites. The Australian Curriculum v9.0 is the authority for AC9E4LY01.

Curriculum equivalents for Texts from different times with similar purposes and audiences to...

Mapped skill: compare texts from different times with similar purposes and audiences to identify similarities and differences in their depictions of events

These references identify matching or closely related learning. Curriculum sequence, terminology and depth vary, so teachers should use the mapped skill and lesson difficulty to confirm suitability.

Australian Curriculum v9.0 is the canonical source for this SkillrHub lesson. Victoria and NSW entries name the closest published state codes or outcomes; international entries are planning references rather than claims of identical curricula.

Teach this topic step by step

Explore optional teaching slide packs for classroom lessons and explanations at home.

Browse Teach & Explain · Browse Print & Go

Teachers: follow SkillrHub on TPT, then email us to request a free sample before buying. Include the year, subject and topic or curriculum code.

Request a free sample

After trying the sample, honest feedback is welcome. A TPT review is optional, where available, and does not need to be positive.