Lesson 5: Source-Bound Digital Futures
Seminar focus: reflect and commit
Ākonga revisit their first ethical position, explain how evidence changed it, and choose one realistic step within their role. Reflection must acknowledge uncertainty, permission, and who holds the next decision.
- Scaffold: Before-and-after reflection and action-planning conference
- Seminar outcome: Personal ethics framework and permission-aware next-step commitment
Learning Intentions & Success Criteria
Learning Intentions
- Build a possible future from one named Māori-led project source
- Separate source evidence, design speculation, uncertainty, and authority
- Backcast a pathway with permission and stop conditions
Success Criteria
- Every cultural or community claim remains attached to its source and scope
- Backcasting steps name decision-holders, permissions, evidence gaps, and stop conditions
- Presentation labels evidence, speculation, and unresolved authority clearly
Kupu / Vocabulary: scenario, backcasting, Māori data sovereignty, provenance, speculation, permission, governance, stop condition.
🎯 Learning Objectives
Students will be able to:
- Synthesise learning from Unit 7 into a source-bound future scenario
- Explain which possibility comes from evidence and which is the learner’s speculation
- Identify accountable steps from the present without presuming community permission
- Present a bounded proposal that names who may shape, approve, change, or stop it
📚 Key Concepts
- Speculative scenario: A clearly labelled possibility used to test consequences, not a claim about what a community wants
- Māori data sovereignty: Use the requirements stated in the named Māori-led source; do not turn them into an iwi-neutral classroom definition
- Backcasting: Starting with desired future and working backward to identify steps to get there
- Evidence boundary: The line between what a source establishes, what is inferred, and what remains for an authority to decide
🚀 Lesson Structure
Part 1: Source and Scope Check - 10 minutes
Opening rule: A future scenario may explore consequences; it cannot claim to speak for Māori, an iwi, hapū, whānau, or project.
Provocation: Read or preview Papa Reo’s account of its language-technology work:
- Te Hiku Media — Papa Reo: A Māori-led project developing speech-recognition and natural-language-processing capability beginning with te reo Māori, with community data sovereignty and direct community benefit central to its stated mission. Primary source: Papa Reo.
Evidence anchor: Papa Reo says language communities should retain sovereignty over their data and receive the benefits produced from it. Keep that statement attached to Papa Reo; do not present it as one universal model for all Māori or Indigenous communities.
Question: How do community authority, data kaitiakitanga, and direct benefit change what a technology is for and who may make decisions about it? Which parts of your answer come from Papa Reo’s source, and which are your own speculation?
Part 2: Assumption Audit - 15 minutes
Think-Pair-Share Activity: Students compare two explicitly fictional project scenarios. Neither is evidence of what Māori communities want.
Scenario 1: Governance requirements ignored
Fictional prompt: A language-technology project expands without recording provenance, consent, decision rights, or benefit-sharing.
- Which risks follow from the missing controls?
- Which consequences are plausible but still need evidence?
- Who would be affected and who could stop the project?
- Which claim must remain “not verified”?
Scenario 2: Source requirements govern the project
Fictional prompt: The same project makes provenance, consent, decision rights, benefit-sharing, review, and withdrawal visible.
- Which safeguard comes directly from the named source?
- What outcome is still speculative?
- How could affected people inspect, change, or stop the system?
- What evidence would be needed before claiming benefit?
Class Discussion: Identify which statements are evidence, design assumptions, uncertainties, or decisions held by the project or relevant authority.
Part 3: Vision Creation - 30 minutes
Major Project: Students work individually or in pairs to create a possible 2050 scenario anchored to one named Māori-led project’s published goal or governance requirement. The scenario must distinguish published evidence, the student’s own speculation, and decisions that remain with the project or relevant Māori authority.
Format Options (student choice):
- Written Narrative: Short story or news article from 2050
- Visual Art: Illustration, digital art, or storyboard depicting future scenes
- Video/Audio: Mock documentary, podcast episode, or TikTok from the future
- Tech Prototype: Sketch of future app/system with explanation
- Policy Draft: Classroom draft with evidence, permission, and authority limits visible
Required Components:
- Source basis: Which named Māori-led source or project informs this scenario, and whose perspective does it carry?
- The scenario: What possibility does it explore without claiming to speak for a community?
- Key technologies: What technologies exist, and what evidence supports their proposed use?
- Authority and consent: Who controls the data and decisions? Who can approve, change, or stop the system?
- Impact: Who may benefit, who may be harmed, and what remains uncertain?
- Pathway: What three to five accountable steps could move from the present to this scenario?
- Next consultation: Which authority or affected group must shape the idea before it could become a real proposal?
Part 4: Gallery Walk / Presentations - 15 minutes
Share and critique: Students present their scenarios inside the class
Format:
- Visual projects: Gallery walk with students explaining their work to peers who stop by
- Narrative/Performance projects: 2-3 minute presentations
Peer Evidence Check: Students leave feedback identifying:
- One claim that is accurately supported and scoped
- One assumption, missing permission, or authority boundary that should change the next draft
Part 5: Permission-Aware Next Step - 10 minutes
Discussion: What can a learner responsibly do now, and what requires invitation or approval?
Individual Commitment: Students record:
- One evidence task: verify a claim or locate a stronger primary source
- One school-level question: ask, through the kaiako, how a classroom AI tool stores and uses data
- One permission check: identify who must review any cultural, language, or community-facing material
- One stop condition: name when the idea must not proceed
Part 6: Whakamutunga (Closing) - 5 minutes
Final Reflection: "How has Unit 7 changed the way I think about technology and my role in shaping digital futures?"
Exit check: “One source I can cite; one uncertainty I must retain; one decision that is not mine.”
📊 Assessment
Formative: Assumption-audit contributions, accurate source use, and visible authority boundaries
Summative Options:
- Option A: Digital Futures Vision Project (described above) - Creative, narrative-focused
- Option B: Guided Inquiry Research Project - Students use AI tools to investigate an AI ethics question using the guided inquiry method:
- Phase 3 Version (Years 7-8) - More scaffolded, simpler hypothesis and analysis
- Phase 4 Version (Years 9-10) - More independent, deeper critical analysis required
Rubric for Vision Projects (Option A):
- Imagination & Creativity: Compelling, detailed vision of future possibilities
- Source, scope, and authority: Uses a named Māori-led source accurately, distinguishes evidence from speculation, and identifies who holds the next decision
- Technical Understanding: Demonstrates learning from unit (AI, data, digital systems)
- Pathway Thinking: Realistic steps from present to envisioned future
- Presentation Quality: Clear, engaging communication of ideas
Note: Rubrics for Guided Inquiry Projects (Option B) are included in the respective handouts.
🎓 Teacher Notes
Preparation:
- Prepare one named Māori-led project’s public primary source and verify every factual claim used
- Set up space for creative work (art supplies, tech access, quiet areas)
- Prepare vision project template/guide
Differentiation:
- Support: Provide more structured template with specific prompts for each vision component
- Extension: Students create full multimedia presentation or functional prototype
- Choice: Multiple format options accommodate diverse strengths (writing, visual, audio, tech)
Cultural Considerations:
- Invite every student to choose how they contribute; do not require Māori or Indigenous students to speak as cultural authorities
- Keep scenarios hopeful or critical without claiming a community-endorsed future
- Do not publish, exhibit, or send cultural scenarios outside class without source-holder and school approval
- Assess evidence, scope, and design reasoning—not cultural authenticity
Extension:
With explicit learner, school, and relevant source-holder permission, compile selected scenarios into a clearly labelled classroom speculative-futures collection. Otherwise keep the work in class.
🔗 Connections to NZC
- Te Mātaiaho (2025) · Technology · Phase 4 (Years 9–10) · Knowledge: “Analysing AI applications in different sectors and predicting impacts on people and work”
💬 Whānau Connection
Students may share their evidence map with whānau and ask: “Which part is supported, which part is speculation, and whose permission would be needed before this went further?” Sharing is optional and does not seek cultural validation.
🎉 Unit Celebration
This is the final lesson of Unit 7! Consider celebrating student learning with:
- In-class exhibition of source-bound scenarios
- External sharing only by invitation and with explicit learner, school, and relevant source-holder permission
- Unit reflection circle: "One thing I learned, one thing I'll remember, one thing I'll do"