📊 Years 9–10 Critical Thinking

Source Evaluation Matrix

Te Aratohu Aromatawai Pūtake • The Guide for Evaluating Sources

"He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata."

What is the greatest thing in the world? It is people, people, people.

When evaluating sources, we consider not just the information, but the people who created it—their expertise, motivations, and perspectives.

🌿 Connecting to Mātauranga Māori

In te ao Māori, knowledge (mātauranga) is valued based on:

📋 The TAIAO Evaluation Framework

Use this Aotearoa-adapted framework to evaluate any source:

Criterion Questions to Ask Strong (5) Moderate (3) Weak (1)
Timeliness
When was this published? Has it been updated? Is currency important for this topic? Published within relevant timeframe; recently updated Somewhat dated but still relevant Very outdated; no updates
Authority
Mana
Who created this? What are their qualifications? Is the publisher reputable? Expert author; recognised organisation (e.g., .govt.nz, university) Some credentials; established source Unknown author; no credentials
Intent
Kaupapa
Why was this created? To inform, persuade, sell, or entertain? Educational purpose; balanced presentation Some bias but acknowledges other views Heavy bias; propaganda; advertising
Accuracy
Tika
Is the information correct? Are sources cited? Can it be verified elsewhere? Facts verified; citations provided; matches other sources Mostly accurate; some sources cited Errors found; no sources; contradicts known facts
Objectivity
Tōkeke
Is this fair and balanced? Does it present multiple perspectives, including Māori views? Multiple perspectives; includes diverse voices Somewhat balanced; limited perspectives One-sided; excludes important voices

⚡ Quick Reference: Source Types

🏛️ Government Sites

.govt.nz domains

Usually High

Official, authoritative, but may reflect policy position

🎓 Academic Sources

Universities, journals

Usually High

Peer-reviewed, expert-written, but may be complex

📰 News Media

RNZ, Stuff, NZ Herald

Variable

Check author, distinguish news from opinion

📱 Social Media

TikTok, Instagram, X

Usually Low

Verify claims elsewhere; check original source

📖 Wikipedia

Community-edited

Starting Point

Good for overview; check cited sources

🌿 Māori Sources

Te Ara, TPK, Iwi sites

High for Māori topics

Essential for cultural accuracy and perspective

📝 Source Evaluation Worksheet

Student Name: Date:

Source Information

Title/URL:

Author/Organisation:

Publication Date:

TAIAO Evaluation

Timeliness (Wā) Score: ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5 Notes:
Authority (Mana) Score: ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5 Notes:
Intent (Kaupapa) Score: ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5 Notes:
Accuracy (Tika) Score: ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5 Notes:
Objectivity (Tōkeke) Score: ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5 Notes:

Total Score: / 25

Overall Assessment:

Reflection

What perspective might be missing from this source?

How does this source connect to (or differ from) Māori perspectives on the topic?

👩‍🏫 Teacher Notes

Curriculum Links: NZC Level 4 Social Studies, English (Critical Literacy)

Differentiation:

  • Support: Provide pre-selected sources with varying reliability; use think-alouds
  • Extension: Compare same story across multiple outlets; investigate media ownership in NZ

Key Aotearoa Sources: Te Ara (encyclopedia.govt.nz), RNZ, NZHistory.govt.nz, Te Puni Kōkiri, Stats NZ

Curriculum alignment

📋 Teacher Planning Snapshot

Ngā Whāinga Ako — Learning Intentions

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.

Ngā Paearu Angitū — Success Criteria

  • ✅ Students can identify a claim, evaluate the evidence supporting it, and detect potential bias or fallacy.
  • ✅ Students can construct a reasoned argument using evidence, acknowledging counter-perspectives.

Differentiation & Inclusion

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.

Curriculum alignment