Community Action Project: Assessment Rubric

Project-based learning rubric for research, community engagement, ethical practice, action, and reflection

šŸŒæ Mana-Enhancing Assessment

This rubric assesses skills and evidence, not identity. It is designed to uphold mana, build whanaungatanga (relationships), and support learner agency (rangatiratanga) while keeping community engagement ethical and respectful.

Use With

Suggested Evidence (Pick What Fits Your Context)

Research + Understanding

  • Issue map (causes, impacts, who is affected)
  • Source log (where information came from, what is credible)
  • Perspective notes (including Māori perspectives where relevant)

Community Engagement

  • Engagement plan (who, how, why, consent)
  • Meeting notes / interview summaries
  • Feedback received and how it shaped the project

Action + Impact

  • Action plan and timeline
  • Outputs (campaign, prototype, event, resource, submission)
  • Impact evidence (photos, counts, reflections, responses)

Reflection + Next Steps

  • What changed and why (in thinking and action)
  • Ethical reflection (representation, consent, unintended impacts)
  • Next steps (sustainability, handover, ongoing relationships)

Rubric

Levels: Level 4 Kairangi (exemplary), Level 3 Pakari (strong), Level 2 E tipu ana (developing), Level 1 Kua tīmata (beginning).

Criteria Level 4
Kairangi		 Level 3
Pakari		 Level 2
E tipu ana		 Level 1
Kua tīmata
1) Understanding the issue Clearly explains root causes and impacts, shows multiple perspectives, and makes a strong case for why the issue matters. Explains the issue clearly with evidence and considers more than one perspective. Describes the issue with some evidence but analysis is limited or one-sided. Gives a basic description with little evidence or unclear reasoning.
2) Research and source quality Uses high-quality sources, evaluates credibility/bias, and references information accurately. Uses a range of sources and mostly checks reliability; information is mostly accurate. Uses a small range of sources with limited checking; some inaccuracies or missing context. Relies on minimal/unclear sources; major gaps in accuracy or context.
3) Ethical community engagement Engagement is respectful and reciprocal; consent and representation are clear; community feedback meaningfully shapes the project. Engagement is respectful; consent is considered; some feedback is used to improve the project. Engagement happens but is limited; consent/representation is unclear or inconsistent. Little or no genuine engagement; ethical considerations are missing.
4) Planning and project management Plan is realistic and detailed; roles/timeline are managed well; adapts effectively when obstacles appear. Plan is clear; timeline is mostly followed; some adaptation occurs when needed. Plan is partial or unrealistic; progress is uneven; limited adaptation. Plan is unclear or missing; project lacks structure and follow-through.
5) Action and impact Action is well-executed and appropriate; shows clear evidence of impact and learns from outcomes. Action is completed and mostly effective; includes some evidence of impact. Action is completed but impact is unclear or limited; evidence is thin. Action is incomplete or not connected to the issue; little evidence provided.
6) Communication and advocacy Communication is persuasive, audience-aware, and well-designed; message is clear across formats. Communication is clear and organised; shows awareness of audience and purpose. Communication is understandable but lacks structure, clarity, or audience focus. Communication is unclear or incomplete; message and purpose are hard to follow.
7) Reflection and learning Reflection is honest and specific; identifies learning growth, ethical considerations, and realistic next steps. Reflection explains key learning and what could improve next time. Reflection is brief or general; limited connection to evidence or next steps. Reflection is missing or very minimal.

Adaptation Notes (Different Year Levels / Phases)