Lesson 8: Pūrākau, Authority, and Responsible Adaptation
Distinguish analysis, response, retelling, and adaptation before deciding whether a writer has authority to proceed.
Ngā Whāinga Akoranga | Learning intentions
We are learning to: analyse purpose and audience while respecting the authority and provenance of culturally located narratives.
Success evidence: I can classify a proposed use, identify missing authority, draft a respectful request, and choose a safer alternative when permission or guidance is unavailable.
Te Whakatakotoranga | Run of show
- Notice — name the intended act 6 min
- Model — pause before producing 10 min
- Guided test — compare safer pathways 13 min
- Independent writing — write the authority request 20 min
- Reader evidence and revision — audit what the email assumes 8 min
- Exit — the decision boundary 3 min
Total: 60 minutes.
Tirohanga whānui | Teaching focus
Pūrākau are not a generic store of plots, metaphors, or “Māori myths.” The writing skill here is ethical decision-making before composition. Local iwi and hapū determine the status and appropriate use of their narratives; a public webpage alone does not confer authority to adapt.
You’ll need
- Workshop 8 learner page, printed or open digitally.
- Display the fictional student-magazine scenario only; do not substitute an unsourced pūrākau.
- If a local authorised text is already part of the school programme, follow its stated permissions rather than this fictional case.
Original mentor material
Fictional scenario: “A student magazine team finds a two-paragraph retelling of a local pūrākau on an anonymous tourism blog. They plan to modernise the characters and publish it as ‘our version’. No local source or permission is named.”
Notice — name the intended act 6 min
Run it
- Sort four labels: analysis, personal response, retelling, and adaptation.
- Identify which wording in the proposal signals a transformation and publication, not private analysis.
- Ask what the anonymous blog can establish; separate availability from authority.
Model — pause before producing 10 min
Run it
- Think aloud through a provenance check: named source, relationship to the kōrero, permissions, intended audience, and publication context.
- Draft a brief pause notice that does not accuse the students but makes the missing authority visible.
- Model a request to an authorised local contact that asks for guidance without demanding private or restricted knowledge.
Guided test — compare safer pathways 13 min
Run it
- Groups evaluate three options: continue, pause and seek guidance, or choose a wholly original fictional narrative.
- For each option, identify who bears the decision and what information is still missing.
- Reject the idea that changing names or adding te reo Māori automatically makes an adaptation respectful.
Independent writing — write the authority request 20 min
Run it
- Draft a 180–230 word email describing the proposed use, source found, intended audience, and exact guidance requested.
- Include an explicit willingness not to proceed and a viable original-writing alternative.
- Do not claim whakapapa, permission, or local endorsement you do not have.
Reader evidence and revision — audit what the email assumes 8 min
Run it
- A reader circles every statement that presumes access, authority, identity, or consent.
- The writer removes the presumption or turns it into a respectful question.
- Retain the before-and-after sentence as evidence of ethical revision.
Exit — the decision boundary 3 min
Run it
- Complete: “If authorised guidance is unavailable, the writer should ___ because ___.”
Ngā huarahi ako | Differentiation
Tautoko / Support
- Use the email frame: context, proposed act, source, question, boundary, alternative.
- Allow learners to analyse the scenario orally and submit bullet points rather than a polished email.
Toitoi / Extension
- Compare how audience and publication scale change the permissions question.
- Develop an original narrative concept without borrowing culturally located characters, events, symbols, or authority.
Mana, safety, and writer choice
No learner identifies iwi, narrates whakapapa, shares whānau knowledge, or performs cultural expertise. Local authority is never simulated by the teacher, class, or an AI-generated summary.
Hononga marautanga | Curriculum
"Considering an audience involves analysing its characteristics (e.g. age, interests, background knowledge) and anticipating its expectations, which informs decisions about tone, content, structure, and mode of delivery."
"Clarifying purpose means recognising the communicative intention of a text (e.g. to argue a position, analyse a literary text, narrate an experience) and making deliberate choices about structure, language, and style that suit the form and disciplinary context."
Learners clarify whether the intended text analyses, responds, retells, or adapts, then adjust content, structure, tone, and mode for an authorised audience.
Sources and authority
- Curriculum wording: active Te Mātaiaho Phase 4 English corpus; statement IDs are embedded above.
- The scenario is fictional. Any real local teaching must use sources and permissions named by the relevant iwi, hapū, mana whenua, or authorised publisher.