This site has two distinct curriculum layers running simultaneously: geothermal science and living Māori culture. Before the visit, prepare one question for each. Both layers deserve attention. Neither should be used to explain the other.
Pōhutu erupts when it erupts. Students note what they observe: the sound, the scale, the interval, the steam. These field observations are what AI will later extend. The geyser is the data. Students carry it back in their own words.
The generational guides carry knowledge from their tūpuna. Students note one thing they heard from a guide that AI is unlikely to know. That observation is the most valuable thing they bring back from the visit.
Students bring their geothermal observations and cultural notes to AI separately. AI extends the science inquiry. It does not interpret the cultural knowledge the guides carry. Those are different kinds of knowing and AI handles only one of them reliably.
| Level | Years 0–6 | Years 7–10 | Years 11–13 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | I can describe one thing I experienced at Te Puia — at the geyser, the mud pools, the marae, or the carving school — that I could not have encountered on a screen. | I can describe what the direct encounter with the geothermal valley and the cultural experience at Te Puia added that photographs, video, or AI descriptions could not replicate. | I can analyse why physical encounter with an active geothermal system and a living cultural site produces qualitatively different understanding from data, media, or AI-mediated access to either. |
| 2 | I can say one thing I learned about geothermal science and one thing I learned about Māori culture at Te Puia. | I can explain the geothermal processes behind at least two features I observed at Te Puia, and describe one aspect of Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao's relationship with this land that I encountered through the guides. | I can situate the Whakarewarewa geothermal field within the plate tectonic context of the Taupo Volcanic Zone, and identify what is distinctive about Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao's relationship with geothermal land compared with how geothermal resources are managed elsewhere in Aotearoa. |
| 3 | I can say one thing AI told me about geysers or Māori carving and whether it matched what I saw and heard at Te Puia. | I can identify where AI's account of geothermal processes matched my field observations and where it differed, and I can explain why the guide's cultural knowledge sits outside what AI can reliably provide. | I can critically evaluate AI's account of geothermal geology against the field evidence I collected at Te Puia, and explain the distinction between what AI can extend (geothermal science) and what it cannot interpret (the cultural knowledge the guides carry from their tūpuna). |
| 4 | I can say why being at Te Puia — near Pōhutu, at the marae, watching the carvers — gave me something I could not have got from a screen. | I can explain what standing near an active geyser, observing the mud pools, and experiencing the pōhiri at Te Aronui-a-rua Marae adds to understanding that no classroom resource provides. | I can articulate the difference between knowing about geothermal systems and living Māori culture, reading accounts of each, and being physically present at Te Puia — and explain what each encounter produces that the others cannot. |
| 5 | I can say one question my visit to Te Puia gave me that I still want answered. | I can identify a question raised by the visit — about geothermal science, resource management, or the cultural life of Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao — and propose what source or experience would help me answer it. | I can develop a research question arising from the visit, identify appropriate sources — including geological data, iwi voices, and resource management frameworks — and explain what additional knowledge would be needed for a well-founded response. |