Community Science Project - Assessment Rubric

Unit 3: STEM Through Mātauranga Māori

Project Overview

Assessment Type: Summative (Group Project + Individual Report)

Total Marks: 50 (Group: 30 marks, Individual: 20 marks)

Curriculum Level: 4-5 (Years 9-10)

NZC Alignment: Science (Living World, Nature of Science), Social Studies (Resources & Environment)

PART A: Group Investigation & Presentation (30 marks)

Criterion Excellent (5) Proficient (4) Developing (3) Beginning (1-2) Score
1. Dual Knowledge Integration
(How well does the project integrate mātauranga Māori and Western science?) 		Seamlessly weaves both knowledge systems throughout. Clear examples of how each contributes unique insights. Māori knowledge respected as equal authority. Both knowledge systems present. Generally respectful integration with some good examples of complementary insights. Both mentioned but not well integrated. One system dominates or mātauranga treated as supplementary. Single knowledge system only, or mātauranga used superficially/disrespectfully. ___ /5
2. Scientific Investigation Quality
(Research question, methodology, data collection, analysis) 		Clear research question. Systematic data collection. Appropriate methodology. Thoughtful analysis of findings. Reasonable research question and methodology. Data collected but analysis could be deeper. Vague question or inconsistent methods. Limited data or superficial analysis. No clear question or methodology. Insufficient data collection. ___ /5
3. Community Engagement
(Partnership with kaitiaki, kaumātua, local community) 		Meaningful collaboration with community. Proper protocols followed. Community perspectives genuinely integrated. Good community connection. Protocols generally followed. Community input considered. Minimal community engagement or tokenistic consultation. Some protocol errors. No community engagement or disrespectful approach. ___ /5
4. Environmental Understanding
(Demonstrates understanding of ecosystem, environmental science concepts) 		Sophisticated understanding of ecosystem relationships. Correct use of scientific concepts. Shows deep environmental literacy. Solid understanding of key concepts. Generally accurate scientific knowledge. Basic understanding with some misconceptions. Limited environmental science knowledge. Significant misunderstandings. Inaccurate or missing scientific concepts. ___ /5
5. Presentation Quality
(Clarity, organization, visual aids, engagement) 		Exceptionally clear and engaging. Excellent visual aids. Professional delivery. Responds well to questions. Clear presentation with good organization. Adequate visual aids. Handles questions reasonably. Somewhat unclear or disorganized. Weak visual aids. Struggles with questions. Confusing presentation. Missing or poor visual aids. Cannot answer questions. ___ /5
6. Community Benefit
(Does project serve community needs? Actionable findings?) 		Clear community benefit. Actionable recommendations. Findings shared with relevant stakeholders. Identifies community benefit. Some actionable ideas. Intention to share findings. Vague community benefit. Recommendations not actionable. Unclear if shared. No clear community benefit. Academic exercise only. ___ /5

GROUP COMPONENT TOTAL: _____ / 30 marks

PART B: Individual Reflection Report (20 marks)

Criterion Excellent (5) Proficient (4) Developing (3) Beginning (1-2) Score
7. Personal Learning Reflection
(What did I learn about dual knowledge systems?) 		Deep, specific insights. Clear articulation of changed thinking. Metacognitive awareness of own learning. Good reflection with some specific examples. Shows learning growth. Surface-level reflection. Vague statements about learning. Minimal or no meaningful reflection. ___ /5
8. Process Documentation
(How well did I document our investigation process?) 		Thorough documentation of all phases. Includes challenges, decisions, adaptations. Evidence of systematic approach. Good documentation of main phases. Some detail on process decisions. Basic documentation. Missing key phases or decisions. Minimal or incomplete documentation. ___ /5
9. Critical Analysis
(Analyzes what worked, what didn't, and why) 		Insightful analysis of successes and challenges. Identifies specific reasons. Suggests improvements. Analyzes key successes and challenges with reasonable depth. Identifies some successes/challenges but limited analysis of why. No meaningful analysis of project outcomes. ___ /5
10. Written Communication
(Clarity, structure, grammar, academic writing) 		Exceptionally clear writing. Well-organized. Minimal errors. Appropriate academic tone with personal voice. Clear writing with good structure. Some minor errors. Generally appropriate tone. Understandable but unclear at times. Multiple errors. Inconsistent tone. Difficult to understand. Numerous errors. Inappropriate tone. ___ /5

INDIVIDUAL COMPONENT TOTAL: _____ / 20 marks

OVERALL PROJECT GRADE: _____ / 50 marks (____%)

Grade Conversion Guide

  • Excellence (A): 42-50 marks (84-100%)
  • Merit (B): 35-41 marks (70-83%)
  • Achieved (C): 25-34 marks (50-69%)
  • Not Achieved: 0-24 marks (0-49%)

šŸ“‹ Project Requirements Checklist

Group Components:

  • ā–” Research question clearly stated
  • ā–” Investigation methodology documented (both mātauranga and Western science approaches)
  • ā–” Data collection completed and recorded
  • ā–” Evidence of community partnership (photos, interview notes, correspondence)
  • ā–” Analysis of findings using both knowledge systems
  • ā–” Recommendations for community action
  • ā–” Presentation to class/community (15-20 minutes)
  • ā–” Visual aids (posters, slides, or physical demonstration)

Individual Components:

  • ā–” Personal reflection (2-3 pages written)
  • ā–” Process documentation (what we did, when, why)
  • ā–” Critical analysis (what worked, what didn't, why)
  • ā–” Learning reflection (how has my understanding of knowledge systems changed?)
  • ā–” Proper citations and references

šŸ“ Teacher Guidance

Moderation Notes:

  • This rubric supports formative feedback throughout the project, not just final grading
  • Share rubric with students at project start - use as planning tool
  • Consider checkpoints: proposal (week 2), progress report (week 5), final presentation (week 8)
  • Group mark should reflect collective work; individual mark reflects personal contribution and learning

Differentiation:

  • Support: Provide project scaffolds, weekly check-ins, sentence starters for reflections
  • Extension: Expect deeper scientific analysis, more sophisticated community partnership, publication of findings
  • EAL: Allow bilingual reports, oral presentations with visual support, pair with strong English speakers

Cultural Considerations:

  • Ensure Māori students have leadership in community engagement aspects
  • Provide support for students to access kaumātua/kaitiaki connections
  • Be mindful of sensitive cultural knowledge - some things should not be shared in presentations
  • Consider inviting whānau and community to final presentations

šŸŒŸ What "Excellence" Looks Like

Example: Wetland Restoration Project

  • Research Question: "How can mātauranga Māori about traditional wetland species guide contemporary restoration efforts in our local awa?"
  • Mātauranga Integration: Interviews with 3 kaumātua about traditional plant species, seasonal harvesting, historical bird populations. Analysis of place names revealing ecosystem history.
  • Western Science: Water quality testing (pH, nutrients, dissolved oxygen). Biodiversity survey using iNaturalist. Statistical analysis of native vs invasive species ratios.
  • Community Partnership: Presented findings to local hapÅ«, received permission to implement recommendations, worked with DOC rangers on native planting plan.
  • Synthesis: Recommendations combine scientific data with traditional knowledge to create restoration plan that serves both ecological and cultural goals.

This project demonstrates how dual knowledge systems create more comprehensive and culturally-grounded solutions than either system alone.