Present a summary of developing a digital outcome

DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES | LEVEL 2 | AS 91899 (2.10) | 3 CREDITS

This external is a Digital Technologies (DT) common assessment tasks (CATs) and is completed online. This DCAT asks you to respond to a series of prompts or questions drawn from the achievement standards.

You should aim to write between 800 and 1500 words in total, in about 1.5hrs.

In each following year, the questions, prompts and range of samples may change.

Candidates must present a summary of developing a digital outcome. The digital outcome must have been developed by the candidate, within the past 12 months.

Except as stated below, only work directly keyed by the candidate into their computer or device during the assessment session will be used in the assessment response.

The candidate will not use hard-copy course resources or online resources, or notes of any type, to complete this assessment. The candidate will not access internet resources, except the CAT.

Digital outcomes developed in an electronics context: in addition, candidates may access digital copies of schematics and digital images of the outcome produced during the development of the outcome.

Candidates will be required to respond in short and/or extended answers (800–1500 words in total) to questions relating to a digital outcome they have developed within the past 12 months. This digital outcome must be based on Level 7 of The New Zealand Curriculum (see the Teaching & Learning Guide for digital technologies).

Questions will require the candidate to discuss:  

• the process of developing the digital outcome, including researching, designing, testing, getting and using feedback, and evaluating 

• decisions made during the development of the digital outcome, which may relate to:  

  • the choice of tools and techniques  o consultation with subject-matter experts  

  • testing and trialling with particular people or groups.  

• the digital outcome that was developed, and what could have been different based on experiences.  

The discussion will require candidates to focus on how the aesthetics, functionality, cultural and / or ethical, sustainability and / or future-proofing, usability, and end-user considerations were considered during development of the digital outcome.  

Candidates must prepare up to THREE images (JPG or PNG) in advance to include in the assessment: 

• a single image of the digital outcome (e.g. a website, a magazine spread, an electronic device) 

• a single sample image showing a relevant digital component of the outcome in the software used to create it, for example: 

  • the HTML / CSS for a website in a text editor (e.g. VS Code, Notepad++) 

  • the ‘layers’ view of a vector or raster graphic (e.g. in Inkscape / Illustrator, GIMP / Photoshop) 

  • the source code for controlling an electronic device (e.g. in Arduino C, PBasic)  

  • the CAD / CAM file for a 3D model (e.g. in Blender, Fusion 360, SketchUp) 

  • the source code for an application in a suitable text editor (e.g. VS Code, Replit).  

• a single image of their development process (e.g. agile development, a planning chart).  

Candidates will only have access to their three images. They will NOT have access to their digital outcome or any other online or paper resources.

The school may be required to provide a link to the candidate’s digital outcome.

By saving an assessment response at the end of the assessment session, the candidate verifies the work is their own. NZQA may digitally sample the candidate’s work to test its authenticity. 

Task 3 - Sort out your Images

You need to prepare THREE images in advance to include in the assessment and make sure they are READABLE:

• a single image of the digital outcome (e.g. a website; a 3D model; an electronic device, the dinosaur toy etc)

  If you have an outcome with multiple pages put together a montage with 2/3 pages i.e. home & gallery page

• a single image of the planning process (e.g. agile development; a planning chart)

  pick a key stage or like above a montage

• a single image of the digital components of the outcome (e.g. the HTML / CSS for a website; the “layers” view of image editing; the code for an electronic device, the working file of a 3D model like Blender/Inkscape/Fusion360).

as above pick some of the key parts, don't put pages and pages of code

Should be saved as JPG or PNG file formats

How to do this

If you need to show a couple for each:

• Use this google Slide to help you make a montage (read the help comments and then make a copy)

• Insert the images in

• Snipping tool each 'montage' giving you a total of 3 files

Once you have the images:

• Save these images (3 max) in your H-drive in a folder called DCAT Images

• At the start of the exam you will drag and drop this folder onto the desktop

You will sit a derived grade exam on the 29th of August at Break 2

Instructions for DCAT Exam

You will not access internet resources, except the CAT.

You may include images (up to three) in your response that have been prepared. 

Only work directly keyed by the candidate into their computer or device during the assessment session will be used in the assessment response. 

You will not use hard copy, online course resources, or notes of any type, to complete this assessment. 

You should aim to write between 800 and 1500 words in total, in about 1.5hrs.

By saving an assessment response at the end of the assessment session, the candidate verifies the work is their own. NZQA may digitally sample the candidate’s work to test its authenticity.

You must save the file in the following format:

[SchoolCode]-[NSN Number]-91899.pdf

Nothe the NSN Number is a 9 Digit number if your nsn starts with 0 omit it e.g.

0123456789 becomes 123456789

e.g.

0049-123456789-91899

*** We will run a practice DCAT to help prepare you during class ***

--- COMMENTS FROM 2024 ---

Examination 

Candidates who prepared well for their assessments tended to do well. It is important to read the previous year’s Assessment Report and the current year’s Assessment Specifications as part of this preparation. Each year what is being assessed changes, and the information in these helps guide candidates in their preparation. 

This standard requires candidates to present a summary of developing a digital outcome. When the candidate has produced a physical outcome, they need to make sure they discuss the digital component of it. 

Candidates should be working at Level 7 of the New Zealand Curriculum. Outcomes should be advanced and the skill level evident. Candidates who completed a digital outcome at this level enjoyed success in this standard, and those who attained a higher grade had a project that had sufficient depth for them to show their knowledge, understanding, and process, to meet the requirements. Often this was through a larger project that used a range of the standards to work through a design / development process. Their understanding of developing an outcome was often extensive, and this allowed them to reach the Merit and Excellent criteria. Where projects were not at this level, responses were often repetitive or lacked detail. 

In general, responses were at a surface level and didn’t give a well-rounded insight into the outcome developed. For example, there were a high number of responses focused on having a navigation bar, using a good colour palette, having no bugs, making sure links were working, etc. There is so much more that can be discussed, and by using better examples this will allow students to go into the depth required. 

There were a number of responses that used software not suitable or the outcome was not at  Level 7 of the NZ Curriculum, for example: Wix, Thunkable, Adobe XD, Canva, a poster, brochure, simple program, 3D model with no purpose, or NFT. 

Candidates who had freedom to complete a project based on their own choices and interests had a project where they understood the choices and decisions they made. 

Candidates whose projects followed: 

• a class-given brief such as Maunga Club, Pizza Program, Pupuke Kāhui Ako, Julies Party Hire, a number of School Booklets), or 

• a tight template or an existing step-by-step resource, or 

• the completion of one of the internal outcome standards (in particular the database, programming, or electronics) 

showed little understanding of the development process. They were unable to demonstrate their own personal decision-making and meet requirements, because they were ‘told what to do’. Their outcome was based on a prescribed context and there was no room for candidate voice and choice. 

The cultural and ethical responses demonstrated that candidates understood what these considerations are and why they are important. Some candidates struggled to apply them authentically within their own project. 

Whilst it was great, the candidates could say what they didn’t include. More successful candidates were able to discuss what was included in their outcome to meet the cultural / ethical considerations. For example, instead of stating how the text or imagery wasn’t racist, sexist, discriminatory, etc, they discussed and gave specific examples of the language or images used to make sure it was inclusive and suitable to the context of their outcome. 

In particular, one question that should be asked when students are choosing their own direction is ‘Just because you can, should you?’. Often when candidates created a first-person shooter game, the ethical discussion was around not showing gore or blood to make it okay to create / play, rather than around the type of game they had chosen. 

The development process can include research, design, and the development, or just the ‘sprints’ of the development. 

Candidates who worked as part of a team / group should ensure their report focuses clearly on the digital component they individually contributed to the project. 

Teachers and candidates need to understand the intent of “explain”, “address”, “discuss”, and “evaluate” as used in the Achievement Standard, noting that these words may not be used in the assessment itself. 

Grade awarding Candidates who were awarded Achievement commonly: 

• summarised how they developed a digital outcome 

• described the outcome they created and its actual purpose 

• used suitable software to develop their outcome 

• explained how they used a software tool and the technique to create a component of their digital outcome 

• explained how undertaking research and / or design led to a decision about the development of the digital outcome 

• lacked in-depth discussion of requirements and gave specific examples 

• defined cultural and / or ethical factors, rather than giving an explanation of how they were considered in the outcome or didn’t understand what these were in the context they chose 

• focused on working as part of a team or group; candidates focused on the project as a whole and used terminology like “we” / “us”, rather than focusing on the digital component they individually contributed to the project 

• followed a very structured program of teaching and learning, with a common theme / topic and everyone developing the same outcome.

Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Merit commonly: 

• stated an authentic contextual requirement that created an opportunity for an in-depth discussion with specific examples relating to the digital components, rather than simply stating the requirement as ‘Functionality’ or ‘Aesthetics’ 

• stated one requirement that was important and discussed what was implemented in their digital outcome to meet this requirement 

• stated one requirement that was influenced by feedback and discussed the digital component as it related to the requirement, who gave feedback, the feedback received, and the changes made to the component based on the feedback 

• discussed how their digital outcome addressed relevant implications of cultural and / or ethical factors, what needed to be considered, and how this was included within their outcome, rather than what wasn’t included. 

Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Excellence commonly: 

• worked through a structured development process to create an authentic outcome that they were genuinely interested in 

• identified a digital component that was tested, and evaluated the impact testing had on the digital outcome 

• evaluated the overall performance of the final outcome and supported this conclusion with specific examples 

• made links between the satisfaction of the end users and the use of materials / tools / software / testing / feedback, and the performance and / or quality of the outcome 

• included examples that related back to the digital outcome and how they had created it, supported by specific examples. 

Candidates who were awarded Not Achieved commonly: 

• omitted evidence that related to one or more of the assessment criteria for Achievement 

• did not produce an outcome where they created the digital components themselves 

• produced a digital outcome that used suitable software, but was not at Level 7 of the  NZ Curriculum 

• produced an outcome that breached legal / copyright laws 

• chose to write about a digital outcome that had limited scope 

• produced an outcome that was a class task, heavily scaffolded with a fake client and brief 

• described the non-digital part of an outcome, but not the digital part 

• did not describe the digital outcome they created and / or the purpose 

• did not write about a software tool and the technique used to create a digital component 

• did not do any research and / or designing, and so the decision didn’t relate to the direction of the outcome and its development. 

Check out the Assessment Specifications for info of what is expected in the exam this year.

--- EXEMPLARS ---

91899 Exemplar Excellence 2023

91899 Exemplar Merit 2023

91899 Exemplar Achieved 2023

91899 Exemplars 2022

91899 Exemplars 2021