Sharing Maramataka Findings

Overview

In the final lesson of the six-part unit, ākonga present their findings about the relationship between lunar phases and local ecology. They use evidence gathered during the unit, connect scientific explanations with mātauranga Māori and local Marau ā-Kura, and give respectful feedback to their peers.

Learning intentions

• WALT organise scientific evidence into a clear presentation or poster.
• WALT explain relationships between lunar phases and observed patterns in local ecology.
• WALT communicate findings using appropriate scientific language and visual information.
• WALT listen respectfully and respond to others’ ideas using evidence.

Success criteria

• I can clearly state my investigation question and main finding.
• I can use observations, recorded data or reliable information as evidence.
• I can explain a possible relationship between maramataka, lunar phases and local ecology without claiming that correlation proves causation.
• I can present clearly, share the speaking role, and give helpful feedback.

Curriculum links

• Pūtaiao: connects ākonga to te taiao through mātauranga Māori and contemporary scientific method; communicates evidence-based explanations.
• Te Ao Māori: recognises mātauranga Māori, tikanga, whakapapa and connections to whenua, local narratives and ecological knowledge.
• Marau ā-Kura: invites the use of local iwi, hapū, marae, pūrākau, te reo ā-iwi and community aspirations where appropriate.
• Science capabilities: gathering and interpreting evidence, communicating explanations, and evaluating patterns and limitations.

Lesson structure (45 minutes)

1. 0–5 min · Reconnect and hook. Teacher opens the opening question and unit recap slides and asks, “What can the maramataka help us notice, and what still needs scientific investigation?” Students quietly recall one finding, then share with a partner. Emphasise that maramataka knowledge is valuable, while scientific claims should be supported by evidence and clearly acknowledge uncertainty.

2. 5–10 min · Presentation expectations. Teacher displays the presentation criteria slide and models a 30-second example: question, evidence, finding, connection to local ecology, and limitation or next question. Students check their group’s presentation or poster against the criteria and identify any missing information. Remind students to use local knowledge respectfully, name sources where appropriate, and avoid treating mātauranga Māori as something to “prove” or reduce to a scientific test.

3. 10–20 min · Prepare and rehearse. Teacher gives each group the Maramataka findings presentation planner and conferences briefly with the four groups of three. Students complete or refine their plan, select their strongest evidence, prepare a labelled visual or poster, and rehearse so every member has a meaningful speaking role. Encourage groups to include lunar phase names, dates or observations from the unit, ecological examples, and a statement about the limits of their evidence.

4. 20–35 min · Group presentations. Teacher uses the presentation timer and audience question slides to keep each group to three minutes, followed by one minute for questions. Students present in groups of three while the audience records one evidence-based strength and one thoughtful question for each group. The teacher notes accuracy, clarity, use of evidence, respectful treatment of mātauranga Māori and participation.

5. 35–41 min · Synthesis discussion. Teacher displays the comparison and discussion prompt slides and facilitates a class discussion: “Which patterns appeared across groups?”, “Where did findings differ?”, and “What further observations would make our conclusions stronger?” Students compare findings, distinguish observation from explanation, and suggest a follow-up investigation, such as collecting data across more lunar cycles or checking environmental factors such as tide, temperature, rainfall or light levels.

6. 41–45 min · Individual reflection and close. Teacher returns to the learning intentions and asks students to complete the final two prompts on the Maramataka findings presentation planner: “My strongest evidence was…” and “A limitation or next question is…”. Students share one sentence with a partner before handing in the planner. Close by acknowledging the class as kaitiaki who can observe, ask questions and care for te taiao through both mātauranga and scientific inquiry.

Resources

• the complete Maramataka presentation deck
• the Maramataka findings presentation planner
• Completed observation tables, research notes and group data from lessons 1–5
• A3 paper or card for posters
• Coloured pens, pencils, rulers and sticky notes
• Timer
• Display screen or interactive whiteboard
• Optional student-created photographs, diagrams or locally relevant maps

Assessment

• During preparation, check that each group has a focused question, relevant evidence, an accurate explanation and an identified limitation.
• During presentations, use observation notes to assess scientific communication, interpretation of evidence, connections to local ecology, respectful engagement with mātauranga Māori and equitable participation.
• Collect the individual reflection to check whether students can distinguish evidence, finding, limitation and next question.

Differentiation

• Provide sentence starters: “Our question was…”, “Our evidence shows…”, “This may relate to…”, and “We cannot be certain because…”. Offer a word bank and allow students to present from cue cards.
• For dyslexia-friendly access, use a clear sans-serif font, short lines, strong contrast, uncluttered slides, read instructions aloud, and allow audio-recorded rehearsal or supported reading. Students may use diagrams and labelled visuals instead of dense text.
• Allocate roles flexibly—speaker, evidence interpreter, visual designer, question responder—and rehearse in a quiet space or with the teacher before presenting. Allow a student to co-present with a peer if speaking to the whole class is a barrier.
• Advanced learners should compare two or more ecological variables, evaluate whether the evidence supports correlation or causation, identify confounding factors, and design a follow-up investigation that includes repeated observations and controlled variables.