Year 8 Critical Thinking Unit | 45 minutes
Argument mapping & persuasive techniques in real NZ contexts
Key Vocabulary:
Resources Needed:
Display this simple argument:
Student Task (Pairs):
CONCLUSION: We should ban single-use plastic bags
PREMISES:
Context: Māori wards in local government have been a significant debate across NZ councils. Some councils support establishing dedicated Māori representation, others oppose it. Let's analyze both sides.
"Māori wards ensure tangata whenua voices are heard in local decisions that affect their communities. Treaty obligations require genuine partnership in governance. Māori perspectives bring valuable cultural and environmental knowledge to council decisions. Under-representation has persisted despite general elections - targeted representation addresses this systemic issue."
"All citizens should have equal voting rights regardless of ethnicity. Māori can already participate through general elections like everyone else. Creating separate representation could divide communities rather than unite them. Local issues affect all residents equally and shouldn't be determined by race-based voting."
Student Investigation Process (Groups of 3-4):
Discussion Points:
Key Concept: In traditional settings, the goal was often consensus (kotahitanga) rather than winning debates - finding solutions that honored all perspectives.
Individual Task: Record 60-90 second video presenting your group's argument analysis
Video Structure:
Assessment Focus:
Names: _________________________________ Date: ___________
Position Analyzing: ☐ Support for Māori Wards ☐ Opposition to Māori Wards
1. What is the main conclusion (what is being argued for/against)?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
2. List all the premises (supporting reasons) you can identify:
a) _____________________________________________________________________
b) _____________________________________________________________________
c) _____________________________________________________________________
d) _____________________________________________________________________
3. Which premise has the strongest evidence? Why?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
4. Which premise is weakest or most questionable? Why?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
5. What type of evidence supports each premise? (Mark: F=Fact, V=Value/Opinion, E=Example)
Premise a) _____ Premise b) _____ Premise c) _____ Premise d) _____
6. What would someone from the opposing side say in response?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
7. Which counter-argument is strongest? Why?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
8. What additional evidence would strengthen this position?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
9. What questions would you ask to test the strength of this argument?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
10. After analyzing both sides, what aspects of this issue seem most important to consider?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
11. How did mapping the argument visually help your understanding?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
12. When might you use argument mapping in your own life?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Argument Analysis (4 points):
Counter-Argument Recognition (4 points):
Digital Presentation (4 points):
Students will engage with this resource to develop te whakaaro māramatanga — critical and analytical thinking skills — examining claims, evaluating evidence, identifying bias, and constructing reasoned arguments. This unit frames critical thinking through both Western analytical traditions and the kōrero-based reasoning of Te Ao Māori.
Scaffold support: Provide argument frames (claim → evidence → reasoning → counter-argument) for entry-level access. Use structured controversy activities where students argue assigned positions. Offer extension tasks requiring students to analyse a real media article or policy document using the lesson's critical framework.
ELL / ESOL: Pre-teach argumentative language structures ("I argue that…", "The evidence suggests…", "However, one might counter…"). Allow oral argument as a first step before written production. Sentence frames and argument maps lower the language barrier while maintaining cognitive demand.
Inclusion: Structured debate and discussion formats benefit all learners — particularly neurodiverse students who thrive with explicit rules and clear roles. Affirm that disagreement done respectfully is a high-value academic and civic skill. Allow quiet processing time before group discussion. Offer written alternatives for students who find oral argument challenging.
Mātauranga Māori lens: Te whakaaro māramatanga — enlightened thinking — reflects a long tradition of reasoned debate in Te Ao Māori. The whare (meeting house) is a place of kōrero, where multiple perspectives are heard before decisions are made. Tikanga requires that arguments be made with integrity and respect (mana). Māori oratory (whaikōrero) is a sophisticated critical tradition — whakataukī encode compressed wisdom that often challenges surface-level thinking.
Prior knowledge: Best used within a sequence building critical thinking skills progressively. No specialist knowledge required for entry-level engagement with structured tasks.