📚Unit Plans → 📝Final Inquiry
Year 10 Tikanga-ā-Iwi / Social Sciences

Final Inquiry

The culminating Year 10 inquiry: how did Māori activism contribute to the Māori resurgence of the 1970s and 1980s? Task, success criteria, rubric and kaiako expected-response notes.

Te Pātai — The Question

How did Māori activism contribute to the Māori resurgence of the 1970s and 1980s?

You may argue for any of these, or any combination — but you must take a position and defend it:

“All of them were important” is not an answer unless you can name a specific point where one made another possible.

Te Mahi — What You Produce

This is a source-supported inquiry, not a long essay. Length is not the point; evidence is.

Required parts

  1. Your thesis — one sentence that answers the question and takes a position.
  2. Three evidence paragraphs — each built on one row of your matrix, from at least two different case studies. Each must contain an exact date, name or figure.
  3. One objection — the strongest argument against your thesis, and your answer to it.
  4. One limit — a sentence naming something your evidence cannot establish.

Suggested length: 500–700 words, or the equivalent as a recorded presentation, a structured slide set, or a documented poster. The format is negotiable with your teacher; the four parts are not.

Non-negotiables

  • Named people and organisations. The phrase “Māori activists” scores nothing.
  • Every claim about the past carries a date, a name or a figure.
  • You say where a fact came from. “It says in the lesson” is not a source; the sources block at the foot of each lesson names the actual institution.
  • You do not invent quotations. If you cannot find what someone said, write what they did.
  • Tino rangatiratanga is not used as a synonym for “Māori rights”, “sovereignty” or “independence”.

Paearu Angitu — Success Criteria and Rubric

Criterion Not yet Achieved Merit Excellence
Position Describes events without answering the question. States a position that answers the question. Position is specific and is sustained through every paragraph. Position is precise, sustained, and shows why the obvious answer is not quite right.
Evidence General statements; few or no exact facts. Three paragraphs, each with at least one exact date, name or figure, from two or more case studies. Evidence is chosen because it is the strongest available, and it is explained rather than listed. Evidence from different case studies is set against itself to build the argument.
Named actors “Māori activists”, “protesters”, “the government”. Names the people and organisations involved, correctly. Names them and explains what each specifically did. Distinguishes between actors who wanted different things, rather than treating a movement as one voice.
Kind of claim Uses “rights” as one undifferentiated word. Correctly identifies the kind of claim in at least one case study. Distinguishes kinds of claim across case studies and shows it mattered. Shows how the kind of claim shaped the response it received, and holds tino rangatiratanga apart from the other four.
Objection and limit Neither present. An objection and a limit are both stated. The objection is genuinely the strongest one, and it is answered. Answering the objection makes the thesis stronger and more precise than it was.

He Kōrero mā te Kaiako — Expected Responses

What a strong response looks like

The strongest Year 10 answers usually do one of three things. They (a) argue that institution-building outran law — one kōhanga reo in April 1982 became more than 300 within three years, while the petition took from 1972 to 1987 to reach legislation; (b) argue that protest changed what could be heard, using Takaparawhau, where the occupation was defeated in 1978 and the claim was upheld in 1987; or (c) find a genuine hinge — the strongest available is that Joe Hawke’s Ōrākei claim was rejected in 1977 and upheld in 1987 because the Tribunal’s jurisdiction had been extended back to 1840 in the meantime.

One hinge to correct if a student reaches for it: the jurisdiction extension did not make the Wai 11 te reo claim possible. Wai 11 was lodged and heard in 1985, before the extension took effect on 6 January 1986 — it could be heard under the original jurisdiction because it alleged an ongoing failure to protect te reo, not a historical grievance. That contrast with the Ōrākei claim is a better answer than the one the student was reaching for, so redirect rather than mark wrong.

Common weak moves, and the feedback

  • “All factors were important.” → “Name one point where one made another possible.”
  • Chronology instead of argument. → “You have told me what happened. Which of these caused the others?”
  • “Māori activists fought for their rights.” → “Which activists? Which rights? Claimed on whom?”
  • Invented or half-remembered quotations. → stop it immediately. Write what people did; the record of actions is strong and checkable.
  • “New Zealand’s civil rights movement.” → this is the comparison error the unit trains against. Ask which of the five kinds of claim the American movement was making, and which ones Aotearoa has that it does not.

Moderation notes

  • Judge the argument, not the word count. A tight 500 words with three exact facts beats 900 words of narrative.
  • A student who changes position because of evidence encountered during the inquiry should be rewarded, not penalised — note it in feedback.
  • Alternative formats (recorded presentation, slide set, documented poster) are assessed against the same rubric. Do not create a second standard.
  • Cultural safety: no student is assessed on their own or their whānau’s relationship to this history. If a student draws on a family kōrero, assess the argument it supports, and do not require them to evidence the kōrero itself.

Ngā Rauemi — What Students Need