Two rubrics ship with this unit, and they set different contracts. This is the lighter guided-inquiry version — ākonga pick evidence that fits their context. If you want a single prescribed evidence bundle per rōpū, use the unit's Core Evidence Trail rubric. Pick one and say which at the start; running both halfway is what makes assessment feel arbitrary to a class.
Project-based learning rubric for research, community engagement, ethical practice, action, and reflection
This rubric assesses skills and evidence, not identity. It is designed to uphold mana, build whanaungatanga (relationships), and support learner agency (rangatiratanga) while keeping community engagement ethical and respectful.
Levels: Level 4 Kairangi (exemplary), Level 3 Pakari (strong), Level 2 E tipu ana (developing), Level 1 Kua tīmata (beginning).
| Criteria | Level 4 Kairangi |
Level 3 Pakari |
Level 2 E tipu ana |
Level 1 Kua tīmata |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Understanding the issue | Clearly explains root causes and impacts, shows multiple perspectives, and makes a strong case for why the issue matters. | Explains the issue clearly with evidence and considers more than one perspective. | Describes the issue with some evidence but analysis is limited or one-sided. | Gives a basic description with little evidence or unclear reasoning. |
| 2) Research and source quality | Uses high-quality sources, evaluates credibility/bias, and references information accurately. | Uses a range of sources and mostly checks reliability; information is mostly accurate. | Uses a small range of sources with limited checking; some inaccuracies or missing context. | Relies on minimal/unclear sources; major gaps in accuracy or context. |
| 3) Ethical community engagement | Engagement is respectful and reciprocal; consent and representation are clear; community feedback meaningfully shapes the project. | Engagement is respectful; consent is considered; some feedback is used to improve the project. | Engagement happens but is limited; consent/representation is unclear or inconsistent. | Little or no genuine engagement; ethical considerations are missing. |
| 4) Planning and project management | Plan is realistic and detailed; roles/timeline are managed well; adapts effectively when obstacles appear. | Plan is clear; timeline is mostly followed; some adaptation occurs when needed. | Plan is partial or unrealistic; progress is uneven; limited adaptation. | Plan is unclear or missing; project lacks structure and follow-through. |
| 5) Action and impact | Action is well-executed and appropriate; shows clear evidence of impact and learns from outcomes. | Action is completed and mostly effective; includes some evidence of impact. | Action is completed but impact is unclear or limited; evidence is thin. | Action is incomplete or not connected to the issue; little evidence provided. |
| 6) Communication and advocacy | Communication is persuasive, audience-aware, and well-designed; message is clear across formats. | Communication is clear and organised; shows awareness of audience and purpose. | Communication is understandable but lacks structure, clarity, or audience focus. | Communication is unclear or incomplete; message and purpose are hard to follow. |
| 7) Reflection and learning | Reflection is honest and specific; identifies learning growth, ethical considerations, and realistic next steps. | Reflection explains key learning and what could improve next time. | Reflection is brief or general; limited connection to evidence or next steps. | Reflection is missing or very minimal. |
These are scaffolding tiers, not curriculum phases. Pick the tier that matches the class in front of you.
Students will engage in authentic, inquiry-driven learning through a community action project — identifying a real need in their community, researching it deeply, and designing and implementing a meaningful response. This unit develops student agency, collaboration, and the capacity for kaitiakitanga in action.
Scaffold support: Provide project planning frameworks with entry-level prompts at each stage. Offer extension tasks requiring students to present their project findings to a real community audience and evaluate its impact beyond the classroom.
ELL / ESOL: Support students to identify community issues connected to their own cultural communities. Allow bilingual planning documents and presentations. Community knowledge in multiple languages is an asset, not a barrier.
Inclusion: Project-based learning allows students to contribute their unique strengths. Neurodiverse learners benefit from structured milestones, regular check-ins, and choice in how they contribute to group work. Ensure all roles in group projects are genuinely valued.
Mātauranga Māori lens: Frame community action through the concept of mahi tahi — working together in solidarity for collective wellbeing. Connect to taha whānau in Te Whare Tapa Whā, Sir Mason Durie's model of hauora, in which the health of the individual is inseparable from the health of the whānau and community. (Durie presented the model at the 1984 Hui Taumata and published it as "A Māori perspective of health", Social Science & Medicine 20(5):483–6, 1985.) Explore how historical and contemporary Māori community action — kōhanga reo, marae restoration, hīkoi — embodies project-based problem solving grounded in tikanga and whanaungatanga.
Tikanga boundary. Kōhanga reo, marae restoration and hīkoi are living kaupapa belonging to specific whānau, hapū and iwi, not case studies to be handled at a distance. Before teaching them, take the framing to kaiako Māori in your kura, and to mana whenua where a local kaupapa is involved. Do not ask ākonga to speak for a hapū, and do not require any ākonga to disclose their own whakapapa or their whānau's involvement.
Prior knowledge: Best used as a capstone experience after substantive content learning. Connects to any curriculum area.
Understand how people participate individually and collectively in response to community challenges.
NZC 2007 · Social Sciences · Level 4 · statement 90765. Quoted verbatim.
⚠️ Corrected 2026-08-16. This section previously read "Students understand how individuals and groups can contribute to and influence the communities in which they live" with no curriculum, level or statement id attached. That sentence is a paraphrase and matches no achievement objective in either curriculum — checked against the live statement set, which does contain NZC 2007. A plausible-sounding paraphrase presented as an alignment is the fabricated-alignment defect this estate is carrying, so it has been replaced with the real objective rather than tidied.