91920 · Science in society

• Every local issue has a science side and a people side

  Issues in this standard mix science with values. The science tells you what is likely to happen - for example, sediment smothering shellfish. The values tell you what people think should happen. A strong response needs both: science alone cannot decide what a community should value, and values alone are not enough without evidence.

• Evidence, not opinion

  "Science-informed" means your reasons are backed by data, observation or established science ideas - not just what someone feels. "The water looks dirty" is a loose observation; "nitrate rose from 2 to 11 mg/L over five years" is evidence. Aim to support every claim you make with evidence.

• Different groups hold different perspectives

  The people affected by an issue rarely agree, because they value different things - income, health, recreation, culture or the environment. Naming a group (farmers, a hapū, residents, a conservation group) and explaining how they see the issue is central to this standard. A perspective is not "right" or "wrong"; it is a point of view shaped by what that group cares about.

• Mātauranga Māori and tiakitanga

  Mātauranga Māori is the knowledge, values and practices developed by Māori over generations, including detailed understanding of local ecosystems. Tiakitanga (also expressed as kaitiakitanga) is the responsibility to care for and protect a place for the future. Many issues involve taonga - treasured species or places - and mana whenua who act as kaitiaki. Recognising these perspectives is part of a full response, not an add-on.

• A balanced, justified response

  The strongest responses do not simply pick a side. They weigh the benefits against the risks, take account of more than one perspective, and explain why the chosen action is reasonable. To justify a response is to give the reasons and evidence behind your judgement - and to say what monitoring would check that it is actually working.

• One existing response, not a campaign you design

  The job of this standard is to understand a science-informed-response that already exists — an action decision-makers have already taken or are already trialling, informed by a science idea. You identify it. You do not invent a wetland, a petition, or a “better balanced scheme”, and you do not answer “should they”. A civic essay that designs the future is a different task. Later pages first-teach how to lock the issue slot and how to recognise an existing action. This page’s test is whether the whole write-up is still about that one identified response.

• Four objects have to travel in one paragraph

  A complete piece of work names a local-issue (a topic people disagree about), a science-idea that is a transferable Level 6 concept, two perspectives held by named groups, and an existing response, with tiakitanga attached to that response. Weak writing uses one noun for all of them: “cars are the issue, cars are the science, so they should ban cars.” Stronger writing keeps the slots: kerbside air that people disagree about; combustion producing nitrogen oxides that affect respiratory surfaces; a named public-health unit and a named retailers’ association; a published bus-lane trial that already exists. The later pages own each slot. Here you check that a reader can point to four different things in the same case.

• The second view may support the science view for different reasons

  A perspective is a way of regarding the issue shared by a named group — a named council unit, a named company, a named hapū the resource actually supplies. The second perspective need not oppose the science-perspective. The two can support the same outcome with different considerations, or they can pull in different directions. Either shape is allowed. “Teenagers think” and “the Māori perspective” are not named groups. The skill of naming a group, and of outlining a second view that does not have to fight, is first-taught on the perspectives page. This page’s job is to keep that second view inside the same existing response, not parked as decoration.

• Tiakitanga sits in the response at every grade

  Tiakitanga is taking care, ownership or responsibility in response to the issue. It is assessed at Achieved, Merit and Excellence. It is not an Excellence garnish and not a te reo synonym for being nice. Attach it to the identified action: the bus-lane trial that keeps monitoring kerbside air; the filter that is already installed and checked. Kaitiakitanga may appear in a sourced iwi or hapū context as that group’s guardianship practice. The assessed meaning on this standard is care, ownership or responsibility in the response. The next 91920 page unpacks weighing and residual risk. Do not wait until Excellence to mention care.

• In Whetū the pack is the research record

  In the real internal, evidence is the student’s research record — interviews, site notes, published data the student actually gathered. Whetū cannot observe that. The constructed pack is what you may use. Quote the published decision, the named groups the pack gives you, the monitoring that is already in the trial. Do not invent a Ngāti X voice, a hapū position, or a conversation with a living iwi so the page looks complete. A missing second perspective is a gap in the pack, not a licence to write one. Practice estimates here are not an official NCEA grade.

Internal · marked per part.

This is an internal achievement standard. Whetū does not offer a sit-down Exam paper for it. Learn and Practise stay available.

4 authored Learn units for this standard.

• Science-informed responses

  This standard is one piece of work about an existing science-informed response to a local-issue, with tiakitanga sitting inside that response. It is not a civic essay about what you would do, and it is not 91923: you are not critiquing how a claim’s language supports a product. You identify a response that already exists, and you show how a science-idea and two perspectives already sit in it.

• Issues, responses and science ideas

  This page teaches three objects you have to keep in different slots: the local-issue, the science-idea, and the science-informed-response. The issue is the topic people disagree about. The response is an action already taken, or already being trialled, because of that topic. The science idea is a transferable Level 6 concept that informs a science perspective on the issue. Collapse any two of those and the sentence stops doing the work this standard asks for.

• Perspectives and the groups who hold them

  This page is about whose way of regarding a local issue you are looking at, and how you write that down. In this standard a perspective is a particular way of regarding an issue that is shared by a group. It is not one person's opinion, not a measurement you can tick as true or false, and not the action someone has already taken. The first job is to hear a shared view and name the named group that holds it.

• Tiakitanga and weighing a response

  This page is the last 91920 move: an existing science-informed response, tiakitanga inside that response, and why both named perspectives matter in it. You already have a local issue, a Level 6 science idea, and two groups. Here you point to what decision makers are already doing, show who is taking care of people or the resource, and at Excellence discuss what the response would lose if either perspective were missing.

36 Practise questions in “Science-informed responses”. Feedback here is formative and is not an official NCEA grade.

• Identifying the issue

  Spot the decision a community faces where science matters.

• Claims vs evidence

  Tell a claim that needs backing from the evidence that backs it.

• Judging evidence

  Weigh how strong and relevant a piece of evidence is.

• Perspectives

  Recognise the different points of view groups hold.

• Stakeholder interests

  Identify the groups with a real stake in a decision.

• Mātauranga Māori & tiakitanga

  Include mana whenua, kaitiakitanga and taonga appropriately.

• Evidence in reasoning

  Use evidence to link a cause to a conclusion.

• A balanced response

  Weigh benefits and risks across more than one perspective.

• Spotting weak reasoning

  Notice unsupported or one-sided reasoning.

• Improving a response

  Turn a thin answer into a stronger, justified one.

Sample questions

1. In this standard, what is a “local issue”?
2. Which of these is the local issue, in this standard's sense?
3. In a sentence, state the local issue here - name the decision to be made and the science or environment at stake.
4. Which of these is a claim that would need backing up with evidence?
5. Match each term to what it means in a science-informed response.
6. A student writes, “the water looks dirtier than it used to.” In a science-informed response, this is best treated as…
7. A student claims the lowland lake's water quality is getting worse. Which statement is the strongest evidence for that claim?
8. Which piece of evidence is most relevant to that claim?

Practise 91920 in Whetū