Present a reflective analysis of developing a digital outcome

DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES | LEVEL 3 | AS 91909 (3.10) | 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.

A common assessment task (CAT) is developed and marked by NZQA, and administered by a school in a single session during a period of assessment specified by NZQA. 

Candidates can only attempt the digital technologies common assessment activity once.  

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. 

Candidates must have developed the outcome themselves. It must not be selected or sourced from AI, the internet, or anyone else’s digital product or work. 

The digital outcome must be based on Level 8 of The New Zealand Curriculum (see the Teaching and Learning Guide for Digital Technologies). 

The questions will require candidates to discuss the decisions and considerations made during the development of the digital outcome, and evaluate both the outcome and the development process (see Explanatory Notes 4 and 5 of the standard). 

The discussion will require candidates to focus on how the following considerations were considered during development of the digital outcome: 

• selection of tools and techniques 

• influence of stakeholder feedback 

• aesthetics 

• functionality 

• cultural and / or ethical OR sustainability and / or futureproofing 

• usability 

• intellectual property.  

Candidates must prepare up to THREE images in advance to include in the assessment:

• a single image of the digital outcome (e.g. a website; a poster; an electronic device)

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

• a single sample image showing a relevant digital component of the outcome in the software used, 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 (in e.g. Inkscape / Illustrator, GIMP / Photoshop)

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

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

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

Candidates may NOT access their digital outcome (they may not copy / paste information into the assessment response).

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

Teachers are encouraged to help their students to develop answering techniques to ensure they are able to respond clearly and concisely within the total recommended word limit. Responses that exceed this may not be considered for assessment past the 1500-word limit.

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. 

--- COMMENTS FROM 2024 ---

Candidates undertook a good range of digital technology concepts, consistent with Level 8 of the New Zealand Curriculum, to develop complex outcomes. Responses that demonstrated a thorough grasp of the chosen context, addressing it, and incorporating insights beyond the standard resources, achieved at higher levels. Successful candidates distinguished themselves through their ability to integrate stakeholder feedback, justify decisions with clarity, and critically reflect on the development and impact of their outcomes. Overall, candidates who displayed technical understanding, applied stakeholder feedback effectively, and demonstrated critical analysis, achieved at higher levels. Minor errors did not hinder success if the overall understanding was clear. However, candidates who failed to provide comprehensive, detailed responses often struggled to meet the standard. Encouraging deeper reflection, broader stakeholder engagement, and iterative development will help students reach their full potential in this standard. 

Candidates are encouraged to test and evaluate their prototypes to gain feedback to further improve the outcome.

Candidates must ensure that the outcomes they are developing allow enough scope for personal decision-making, for example, using a drag-and-drop environment, such as WIX, to design a website minimises the scope of tools and techniques that can be effectively used and thus is not an effective outcome.

Candidates whose outcome is not itself digital must focus on the digital components of the outcome. 

For 3D printing they must focus on the 3D modelling and design, rather than on material selections (unless these have a direct influence upon the digital design process). 

For electronics, responses on the programming and electronics circuits are valid, but responses on mechanisms or case materials are not (unless they can show how these influenced the software or circuits design). 

Candidates must have been able to identify and effectively utilise stakeholder feedback and make clear how this contributed to the development process. 

Candidates who developed a project in a team environment are not disadvantaged, but they must have identified and explained clearly and concisely which aspects of the project they contributed to. For example, if three candidates worked on an outcome, then each must explain their own input and not refer to the group. 

In that case, each candidate would have independent decisions to make, would seek and receive unique stakeholder feedback, and would be able to clearly show what development work they did themselves. 

Candidates who were awarded Achievement commonly: 

• explained what they had done, but provided only limited reflection or reasoning for their decisions

• presented a project context that involved some genuine interactions with end-users and stakeholders 

• demonstrated links between decisions made based on stakeholder and end-user interactions and the final outcome, although these links were often shallow or lacked depth 

• discussed specific decisions that directly contributed to the outcome, avoiding vague or overly broad comments 

• provided evidence of at least one planning decision, though this was often described with limited depth 

• if working in a team, presented clear evidence of their individual responsibilities and decisionmaking within the group. 

Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Merit commonly: 

• undertook projects with sufficient complexity, allowing for deeper analysis of decisions and clear connections to the development process 

• demonstrated genuine engagement with stakeholders and end-users through multiple, impactful interactions that informed their decisions 

• showed evidence of project management, consistently referencing iterative development processes 

• linked project management tools or screenshots to specific methodologies, enabling detailed discussion of their application in development 

• discussed tools or techniques that made significant contributions to their outcomes, explaining why these were critical in addressing the identified issue, opportunity, or need 

• if working in a team, ensured that their individual contributions were clearly identifiable and thoroughly explained, with in-depth reflections on their role in the project.

Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Excellence commonly: 

• delivered a report based on a complex, non-trivial outcome requiring substantial development and decision-making 

• demonstrated a deep understanding of stakeholders and end-users, building strong relationships and using their input to guide the project meaningfully 

• provided insightful reasons for their decisions, showcasing a thorough knowledge of the practice 

• evaluated decisions in fine detail, explaining the rationale behind their choices and identifying ways to improve both the outcome and the process 

• critiqued their project comprehensively, suggesting relevant, non-trivial improvements and drawing connections to broader considerations such as future-proofing, accessibility, Mātauranga Māori, or cultural impacts 

• when working in a team, clearly delineated their responsibilities and demonstrated effective collaboration in project management and decision-making 

• offered critical, reflective analysis grounded in earlier research and project progression, drawing insightful conclusions that surpassed basic expectations. 

Candidates who were awarded Not Achieved commonly: 

• did not fully attempt or complete the presented questions 

• failed to explain their individual roles or responsibilities in team projects 

• showed a limited understanding of the questions, often providing unexpected or incorrect answers 

• focused on unrelated aspects, such as art skills or cinematography, rather than addressing the core development process 

• pursued predetermined project ideas by merely following tutorials or templates, with minimal attention to iterative development 

• provided responses lacking the required breadth or depth 

• discussed unrelated software or tools not directly connected to developing their outcome 

• mentioned end-users or stakeholders without providing specific details about their feedback or its impact on the project 

• focused on materials (e.g. 3D printing) rather than software processes used in developing the outcome 

• presented static images without sufficient description of the tools and techniques used to meet the standard 

• did not address copyright implications at the required level 

• overall, failed to demonstrate the expectations of Level 8 of the New Zealand Curriculum. 

Check out the 91909 Assessment Report 2022 and 91909 Assessment Report 2023 if you want some more specifics about what was done to meet each level of achievement.

Check out the Assessment Specifications for 2024 here

--- EXEMPLARS ---

91909 Past exam Paper (A) 2023

91909 Past exam Paper (B) 2023

91909 Excellence Exemplar 2022

91909 Merit Exemplar 2022

91909 Achieved Exemplar 2022

91909 Excellence Exemplar 2019

Additional instructions for exam

Only work directly keyed by the candidate into their computer or device during the assessment session will be used in the assessment response. You may copy and paste screenshots from the resources provided for DT CAT 91886. You will not use hard copy, online course resources, or notes of any type, to complete this assessment. You will not access internet resources, except the CAT.

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.

*** We will run a practice DCAT to help prepare you during class *** - Friday 29th August Start of Break 2 - Till class finishes or you finish

Task 2 - Practice Your Answers

To help pull together clear examples of your project to use in the exam make a copy of this g.doc Gathering Project Information for 91909

Use your planning, design and development documentation to help you find this information. You can copy and paste info in but make sure you edit it so that it is specific, to the point and most importantly answers the question

Think about what images might be helpful to support 

Task 3 - Sort out your Images (required)

You must 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