AI, Assessment, and Academic Integrity ⏱️ 40 minutes

This section is designed for those who want to explore assessment integrity through kaupapa Māori principles in depth.

🪶 Section 7: Kaupapa Māori Deep Dive — Mana and Assessment in the Age of AI

For educators wanting to ground assessment design in te ao Māori

This section is designed for those who want to explore assessment integrity through kaupapa Māori principles in depth. You don’t need to be Māori or fluent in te reo to engage — these are invitations to deepen culturally responsive practice.

Building on Module 1: In Module 1, we explored six tikanga principles (manaakitanga, ako, whakapapa, kaitiakitanga, whanaungatanga, tino rangatiratanga). This deep dive focuses specifically on mana — because assessment is fundamentally about protecting and strengthening the mana of learners and of learning itself.

1. Kaupapa | Understanding Mana in Assessment

What is mana?

Mana is the enduring, spiritual authority inherited from ngā atua at birth — a generational force encompassing authority, influence, prestige, and power that gives life and legitimacy to people, places, and creations. Mana is never self-generated but conferred, upheld, and sustained through right relationships with whānau, society, the natural environment, and the divine. Through whakapapa (genealogy), mana demonstrates intrinsic connections and reciprocal responsibilities that bind individuals to their ancestors, communities, and the living world.

In assessment contexts

When we talk about “academic integrity”, we are really talking about protecting mana:

  • Mana o te ākonga – the authority and dignity of the learner
  • Mana o te mātauranga – the integrity of knowledge itself
  • Mana whakahaere – the authority to decide how AI serves us

Core question:
“How do we design assessment that protects and strengthens mana in the age of AI?”

Assessment is not about surveillance. It is about honouring the mauri (life force) of learning and ensuring every ākonga retains their tino rangatiratanga (self-determination) in their own learning journey.

2. Five Mana Principles for AI Assessment Design

These principles guide us in creating assessments that honour mana while thoughtfully integrating AI.

Principle 1: Te Tiaki i te Mana | Protecting Mana

AI should support human thinking, not replace it. Every assessment must include a human layer that AI cannot complete — personal reflection, cultural lens, decision-making, critique.

Ngā Mahi | In Practice

  • 💭 Reflection: “Does this task allow the learner’s mana to shine through?”
  • Teaching moment: “AI can help you explore ideas, but the assessment is looking for YOUR thinking, YOUR cultural perspective, YOUR decision-making.”

Principle 2: Te Pūtaketanga o te Mātauranga | Tracing the Origins of Knowledge

Every piece of knowledge has origins. AI’s origins are often hidden.

Help students understand the origins of their ideas — including AI use — to build critical consciousness and maintain intellectual honesty.

Ngā Mahi | In Practice

Ask students to create a visual Pūtaketanga map showing:

  • Sources consulted (AI tools, books, whānau conversations, lived experience, mātauranga Māori)
  • How ideas connected and evolved
  • What AI missed (cultural knowledge, context, nuance)
  • Their own unique contribution

This makes AI use visible without shame — it becomes part of the learning story, not something to hide.

Critical questions to teach:

  • “Where does this AI’s knowledge come from?”
  • “Whose voices are included? Whose are missing?”
  • “What cultural perspectives has AI overlooked?”
  • “How do I know this information is trustworthy?”

Practical example:
“Before submitting your essay, create a Pūtaketanga map. Show: who/what influenced your thinking, where AI helped, where your own analysis took over, and what cultural lens you brought that AI couldn’t.”

Connection to Module 1: Extends the pūtaketanga / whakapapa principle from Module 1, now applied specifically to assessment design.

Principle 3: Te Mana o te Ākonga | The Learner’s Authority

When learners can question and reframe AI, they exercise tino rangatiratanga.

Position ākonga as critics and decision-makers, not passive consumers. This returns agency and builds confidence.

Assessment strategies

  1. AI Critique Assignment
    “Here’s what ChatGPT produced for this kaupapa. Analyse it critically: What did it get wrong? What cultural perspectives are missing? How would you improve it with your knowledge and values?”

  2. Mana-Centred Authority Declaration
    Rather than asking students to prove they didn’t use AI, invite them to claim authority over their thinking and choices.

    Te Tauākī Mana | Authority Declaration

    • I used AI in these ways: [describe tools and how]
    • The decisions I made were: [explain your choices]
    • My unique contribution was: [what only YOU could add — your voice, culture, whakapapa, insight, lived experience, analysis]
    • I hold the mana whakahaere (authority and responsibility) for this work.

  3. 💭 Reflection: How does claiming authority feel different from proving innocence?

Why this works:

  • Returns agency to the learner
  • Encourages metacognition (thinking about thinking)
  • Makes AI use a learning conversation, not a misconduct issue
  • Honours that students are kaitiaki of their own learning journey

Connection to Module 1: Builds on tino rangatiratanga from Module 1, now applied directly to learner agency in assessment.

Principle 4: Te Kaitiakitanga o te Ao Matihiko | Guardianship in Digital Spaces

We become stewards of digital taonga — data, stories, language, knowledge.

Teach students to be kaitiaki (guardians), not just users, of AI in academic contexts.

Assessment integration – “Ethical AI Audit” Assignment

Students choose an AI tool and evaluate:

  • Cultural representation: How does it honour te reo Māori and mātauranga Māori?
  • Bias and inclusion: Whose voices are centred? Whose are marginalised?
  • Source transparency: Can you trace where knowledge comes from?
  • Tikanga alignment: How would you use this tool with integrity?
  • Recommendations: What would you tell other students about this tool?

Guiding questions for students

  • Does this AI tool represent my culture/community accurately?
  • Is te reo used appropriately, or is it tokenistic?
  • Who created this tool? Who benefits from my use of it?
  • Am I using this tool in a way that honours tikanga and academic integrity?

Teaching moment:
“You’re not just learning to use AI — you’re learning to be guardians of knowledge in digital spaces. That’s kaitiakitanga, and it’s a responsibility we all carry.”

Connection to Module 1: Deepens kaitiakitanga from Module 1, focused now on academic integrity and assessment contexts.

Principle 5: Te Hononga o te Mana me te Tapu | Sacred Boundaries

Mana and tapu exist in balance. Some knowledge is tapu and should not be processed by AI.

Not all knowledge or assessments are appropriate for AI assistance. Some carry mana and tapu that require human-only engagement.

Explaining Level 1 (tapu) to students:
“Some assessments ask you to share your whakapapa, your cultural experiences, your deeply personal reflections. These carry mana and tapu. AI has no place here — this is human-only space. We honour these boundaries together.”

Practical application

  • At the start of term, review your assessments and clearly mark which level each one sits at.
  • Explain why to students — not just “the rules”, but the values behind them.

Connection to Module 1: Introduces and deepens the concept of tapu in assessment, extending beyond Module 1’s general tikanga framework.

Building Integrity Through Whanaungatanga, Not Surveillance

Assessment integrity isn’t built through policing — it’s built through relationship and trust.

Instead of just writing an “Integrity Policy”, hold a wānanga.

Opening questions for class discussion

  • “What does integrity mean in your culture?”
  • “How do you honour knowledge in your whānau or community?”
  • “When does AI help learning? When might it harm it?”
  • “What responsibilities do we carry as learners in this digital age?”

Why this works

  • Builds whanaungatanga (relationships and shared values)
  • Makes integrity a collective commitment, not a top-down rule
  • Respects diverse cultural perspectives on knowledge-sharing
  • Creates psychological safety for honest conversations

Co-creating class agreements
After the wānanga, co-create agreements with students:

  • “We agree that …”
  • “We will support each other by …”
  • “If we’re unsure about AI use, we will …”

Connection to Module 1: Applies whanaungatanga and manaakitanga from Module 1 directly to assessment integrity.

Why AI Detection Tools Harm Mana

The problem
AI detection software may seem helpful, but it:

  • Breaks tika (justice) — assumes guilt before innocence
  • Creates whakamā (shame) — damages trust and belonging
  • Erodes manaakitanga — treats learners with suspicion, not care

Our commitment
We build integrity through whanaungatanga, ako, and manaakitanga — not through suspicion and surveillance.

If we are concerned about a student’s work, we:

  • Talk with them
  • Ask questions
  • Seek to understand
  • Offer support

Practical alternative
When work seems inconsistent with a student’s usual performance:

  • Have a kōrero — curious, not accusatory
  • Ask about their process: “Talk me through how you approached this.”
  • Look for learning opportunities: “What was challenging? How can I help?”
  • Build skills: “Let’s work on this together.”

Practical Tools and Templates

Template 1: Mana-Centred Assessment Rubric

CriterionDescription
Mana MotuhakeDoes the work demonstrate the learner’s unique voice, perspective, and authority?
Whakapapa MātaurangaCan the learner trace the genealogy of their ideas and articulate their learning journey?
Āta WhakaaroIs there evidence of deep, careful thinking and critical engagement?
KaitiakitangaDoes the work demonstrate responsible, ethical use of sources and tools?

Template 2: Te Tauākī Pono | My Learning Journey Declaration

Ko te pūtaketanga o aku whakaaro | The origins of my ideas:

In completing this assessment, I drew on:

  • AI tools: [list and describe how used]
  • Readings/sources: [list]
  • Conversations with: [whānau, classmates, tutors]
  • Personal experience: [describe]

Ngā whakatau i hanga au | The decisions I made:
[Explain how you evaluated information, what you chose to include/exclude, and why]

Taku ake āhuatanga | My unique contribution:
[What did you add that only YOU could add — your voice, cultural lens, critical analysis, lived experience?]

Te kawenga | My responsibility:
I hold mana whakahaere (authority and accountability) for this work as part of my learning journey.

Signature: ____________ Date: ____________

Case Studies: Mana-Centred Assessment in Action

Case Study 1: The Foundation Writing Course

  • Context: Mixed-ability adult learners, many with literacy challenges and past educational trauma.
  • Challenge: How to assess writing skills when students have varying AI access and confidence?

Mana-centred approach — What they did:

  • Level 1 assessment: Personal reflection on “My learning journey” — no AI permitted, explained as honouring mana and tapu of personal story
  • Level 3 assessment: Research task where AI use was permitted with a declaration
  • Wānanga at start of term about integrity as mana, not punishment
  • Individual kōrero when work seemed inconsistent — supportive, not accusatory

Outcome:

  • Students felt safe to be honest about AI use
  • Conversations about AI became learning opportunities
  • Writing skills improved because feedback focused on thinking, not just grammar
  • No cases of “cheating” — instead, collaborative growth

What protected mana: Trust, clear communication, focus on process over product.

Case Study 2: The Business Programme

  • Context: Undergraduate business students asked to develop a marketing strategy.
  • Challenge: Students were submitting AI-generated strategies with no critical analysis.

Mana-centred redesign:

  • Original assessment: Submit a 2000-word marketing strategy
  • Redesigned assessment:
    • Use AI to generate 3 marketing strategies
    • Critique each one — what’s good, what’s missing, what’s culturally inappropriate?
    • Create your own strategy informed by AI but grounded in your cultural lens and business knowledge
    • Submit: AI outputs + your critique + your final strategy + reflection on process

What changed:

  • Students engaged critically with AI instead of copying
  • They demonstrated mana motuhake — authority over their learning
  • Cultural perspectives became visible and valued
  • Learning deepened because students had to think, not just generate

Reflection and Next Steps

Uiui | Big Questions

  • Which of my current assessments are vulnerable to thoughtless AI use?
  • How can I redesign them to surface mana — authentic thinking, cultural lens, decision-making?
  • What wānanga do I need to have with my students about integrity and mana?
  • Where are the tapu spaces in my teaching that should remain AI-free?

Mahi Tahi | Practical Actions — choose ONE to try next term:

  • Option 1: Pūtaketanga Mapping

    • Add a requirement to one assessment: create a visual map of your learning journey
    • Include all sources (AI, readings, conversations, lived experience)

  • Option 2: Mana Declaration

    • Replace standard academic integrity statement with a mana-centred declaration
    • Pilot with one class and reflect on how it changes student engagement

  • Option 3: Assessment Audit

    • Review all your assessments
    • Mark each one with an AI Assessment Level (1–5)
    • Redesign ONE assessment to strengthen the “human layer”

  • Option 4: Classroom Wānanga

    • Hold a 30-minute discussion about mana / integrity, and AI
    • Co-create class agreements and revisit throughout the term

Tohatoha Wheako | Shared Experiences
Share your experiences with colleagues:

  • What worked well?
  • What was challenging?
  • How did students respond?
  • What would you do differently?

Resources for Continued Learning

Aotearoa-Specific

Kaupapa Māori Scholarship

Digital Kaitiakitanga

💭 Whakataukī
“Nāu te rourou naku te rourou, ka ora ai te iwi”
“With your food basket and my food basket, the people will thrive”

AI fluency is a learning journey that requires mutual trust — students showing integrity in how they use AI, educators showing care in how they guide it. When both baskets are brought with aroha and honesty, everyone grows.

🌿 He Kupu Whakakapi | Closing Reflection

“Designing for integrity means designing for humanity.”

We cannot go back to a world before AI — but we can choose how we move forward. What we can do is lead with courage, values, and creativity.

This module has offered tools to rethink assessment with:

  • Trust, not fear
  • Process, not just product
  • Integrity, not detection

Ngā Pātai Whakaaro | Reflection Prompts

  • Which of the Five Mana principles do you feel most confident practicing? Which needs more attention?
  • How has this module shifted your thinking about assessment and academic integrity?
  • What is one concrete action you can take this week to protect student mana in your practice?
  • Who in your learning community could you partner with to strengthen mana-centered approaches to AI?

He Kupu Whakamutunga | Closing Words

Assessment redesigned to protect mana is not lenient — it is rigorous in its humanity. It asks more of us, not less. It demands that we see our students whole, trust their integrity, and create conditions where mana can flourish alongside genuine learning.

This work is not easy. But it is tika. It is pono. And it is necessary.

As you move forward, remember:

  • Integrity grows from relationship, not restriction
  • Mana is strengthened through trust, not surveillance
  • Your role is kaitiaki — guardian of learning and dignity

Kia kaha, e hoa. You are shaping a future where assessment serves our rangatahi, our communities, and te ao Māori.

Nāku noa, nā.