Reading Mauri Impacts

Overview

Students are introduced to the Mauri Model as a framework for considering how human actions affect the life force, wellbeing and vitality of an environmental or social system. They use evidence to make and justify a judgement, while recognising that mātauranga Māori is a living knowledge system with its own concepts, values and relationships—not simply a simplified Western assessment tool.

Prior knowledge: students should understand that people depend on healthy environments and that human actions can create positive and negative consequences. Explain that “mauri” is often translated as life force, but translations cannot capture all of its meaning. Avoid claiming to speak for Māori communities; use respectful, localised resources where available and acknowledge that interpretations may differ between iwi and hapū.

Learning intentions

• WALT explain the four Mauri Model states: enhancing, maintaining, degrading and destroying.
• WALT use evidence to assess the effects of a human action on an environmental or social system.
• WALT justify a judgement respectfully, acknowledging different perspectives and missing voices.
• WALT recognise mātauranga Māori as a holistic knowledge system, not merely a Western scientific tool.

Success criteria

• I can describe each of the four states in my own words.
• I can identify evidence about an action’s effects on a system’s mauri.
• I can make a reasoned judgement and explain why the evidence supports it.
• I can identify whose knowledge or perspective is included and whose may be missing.

Curriculum links

• Social Sciences Years 9–10: exploring governance, human rights, power, ethics, inequality and the significance of te Tiriti o Waitangi.
• Social Sciences Years 9–10: understanding how societies function and change, including Aotearoa New Zealand’s place in a globalised world.
• Social Sciences practices: analysing sources and data, making decisions, and evaluating significant challenges.
• Researching in social sciences: using a wide range of sources, considering bias and identifying missing voices, with particular attention to mātauranga Māori.

Key vocabulary

Mauri — life force or wellbeing of a system; system — connected people, places, species or processes; evidence — information supporting a judgement; perspective — a way of seeing an issue; mātauranga Māori — Māori knowledge, wisdom and ways of understanding; kaitiakitanga — guardianship and care for the natural world; impact — an effect or consequence.

Lesson structure (60 minutes)

1. 0–5 min · Hook and positioning. Display a photograph of a local stream, harbour, park or community space before and after human activity using the hook image and opening question; ask, “What might tell us whether this place is thriving?” Students silently note two visible clues, then share with a partner. State that today’s focus is learning one framework while respecting the deeper knowledge traditions from which the concept comes.

2. 5–15 min · Explain the framework. Use the Mauri Model explanation slides and model that the four states describe the direction and degree of change in a system’s mauri:

• Enhancing: the action strengthens vitality, relationships, wellbeing or future potential.
• Maintaining: the action protects the existing condition without significant improvement or decline.
• Degrading: the action weakens vitality, health, relationships or resilience.
• Destroying: the action causes severe or irreversible loss of the system’s ability to function or sustain life.

Emphasise that the model invites holistic thinking about people, ecosystems, culture, responsibilities and future generations. It should not be treated as a universal scoring scale or detached from Māori contexts. Students record brief definitions on the Mauri Model notes and evidence organiser.

3. 15–23 min · Worked example. Present a hypothetical example: a town restores a wetland by removing rubbish, planting native species and restricting vehicle access. Think aloud using the worked-example slides: identify the system, list evidence, consider who benefits and decide that the action is likely enhancing the wetland’s mauri. Model cautious language: “The evidence suggests…” and “This judgement could change if…” Students suggest one further source or perspective, such as mana whenua, local residents, scientists or regular users.

4. 23–43 min · Collaborative case study. Place students in groups of four and distribute the case-study evidence cards and organiser. Assign each group one case: a new cycleway through a reserve, intensive farming near a river, restoration of a local wetland, or a community housing development. Students identify the system and human action, sort the evidence into effects, select the most relevant Mauri Model state, and write a justification using: “We judge the action to be ___ because ___.” They must also record one possible benefit, one concern, and a perspective or source that is missing. Roles: facilitator, evidence reader, recorder and spokesperson.

5. 43–53 min · Share and challenge. Groups give a one-minute report supported by the case-study discussion prompts. Listening groups ask one evidence-based question, such as “Which evidence most strongly supports your judgement?” or “Whose perspective might alter this conclusion?” Accept different judgements where reasoning is supported. Reinforce that context, relationships and values matter, and that a single label cannot represent every dimension of mauri.

6. 53–60 min · Reflection and exit assessment. Students complete the final section of the individual reflection and exit response: define one state, classify a new action—a school replaces concrete with a native planting area—and justify the judgement with two possible pieces of evidence. Invite students to share one idea they will carry forward about respectful use of mātauranga Māori.

Resources

• the Mauri Model teaching deck
• the Mauri Model notes, case-study organiser and exit response
• Projector or interactive display
• Four case-study scenario sets
• Pens, highlighters and A3 paper
• Local environmental or community photographs, if available
• Timer

Assessment

• Listen for accurate use of the four states during questioning and check students’ definitions in the organiser.
• During group work, assess whether students distinguish evidence from opinion, justify a judgement and identify missing perspectives.
• Use the individual exit response to check understanding of the framework and respectful, evidence-based reasoning; reteach any state that is confused with a simple positive/negative scale.

Differentiation

• Provide a word bank, definitions, a completed example and sentence starters: “The system is…”, “The evidence shows…”, and “A missing voice could be…”.
• Give groups fewer evidence items or pre-highlight relevant details for students needing support; allow oral recording or speech-to-text.
• Extend confident students by asking them to compare two plausible states, explain uncertainty, and propose evidence from mātauranga Māori, scientific, community and historical sources without treating them as interchangeable.
• Use mixed-support groups and explicitly teach respectful discussion: listen without interrupting, avoid generalising about Māori views, and distinguish a local iwi or hapū perspective from “the Māori perspective”.