Te Kete Ipurangi Navigation:

Te Kete Ipurangi

Te Kete Ipurangi user options:

Ministry of Education.
Kaua e rangiruatia te hāpai o te hoe; e kore to tātou waka e ū ki uta

Ask an expert

You can search for questions and answers by using keywords and/or refine your search by selecting from the options below. 

There are 137 results.

  • Question

    I have a colleague who has developed a unit focused on the level 3 AS91629 'resolve a spatial design' standard. In this unit rather than having actual stakeholders he has pretended to actually be the stakeholder. In this instance they are making playgrounds. He has critiqued the work from the perspective of being a kid playing on that playground, giving them his own reaction to the design as if he were a child. Students in his class have then taken his feedback and responded to it. They are aware that he is not the kid. I am curious as to whether this is acceptable practice? Can we simply pretend to be all of our students' potential stakeholders?


    Rather than pretending to be the actual stakeholder, the teacher could play a critical role in supporting students' understanding of the needs associated with playgrounds.  

    The focus in this achievement standard is based on the resolution of a spatial design.

    To resolve the spatial design the students could consider, for example children’s likes and dislikes, ergonomic and anthropometric information, existing outcomes, new materials, shapes and facility interactivity, the physical needs of children when they are playing and the regulations and policies about safety.

  • Question

    In the assessment schedule of Tech scholarship it says students must present a reflective report. Can this reflective report be their A3 visual portfolios? (30 pages)


    Some student’s produce a reflective portfolio that needs little to add to it. The reflective report can be anything that the candidate chooses to submit within specifications. However, the panel leaders' report this year supports the notion that successful reports have been specifically produced with the criteria from the scholarship standard in mind.

    Individual test results and individual questionnaire responses do not need to be in a report. It is more important to provide a summary of the results of these and the student includes in their report how these results informed the outcome.

    You will find an assessment schedule on New Zealand Technology Scholarship. Under Technology resources and Assessment materials – the most recent assessment materials has an assessment schedule as one of the files in the zip file. 

  • Question

    For Level 2 (AS91356) and Level 3 (AS91610) Concept Design standard, can the teacher act as the primary client stakeholder? And give students stakeholder feedback on their concept designs?


    The following definition is given in the Technology Online glossary for a stakeholder:


    A person or groups of people (families, whānau, communities, iwi, organisations, businesses) with a vested interest in a technological outcome, and/or its development.

    Key stakeholders are those people that are directly influential or will be directly impacted on by the Technological Practice itself and/or its resulting outcomes (including the Technological Outcome and any other by-products).

    Wider (community) stakeholders are those people that are less directly influential for or impacted on by the practice or outcome. They can, nonetheless, be identified as having some level of influence, often through others, and/or they may be affected by the project or its outcome in the future.

    If the outcome were being developed for the teacher then they would be a key stakeholder.

    The feedback needs to come from the person or groups of people that the outcome is being made/designed for to ensure authentic technological practice. The teacher may be guiding and supporting the students on how they respond to stakeholder feedback as they develop their outcome.

  • Question

    For the standard: AS91623 Implement complex procedures to create an applied design for a specified product Would students be able to use patchwork as an applied design medium?


    The standard requires students to interpret a complex design to determine an applied design medium.

    Patchwork can be interpreted as a Complex Technique (EN5) and could be applied using any mediums listed in EN3. However, the design to be patch worked should be complex. See Ex 7 for definitions of a complex design. Students could trial and test their complex patchwork design with different mediums to determine the medium suited to their design. 

    Alternatively, students could trial different complex techniques using different mediums to select a technique, medium, equipment, and materials.

  • Question

    AS91345. L2 textiles students have just completed cheer leading dresses, tees, harem pants and skorts for a stage production. I would like to know if the following can count as 'advanced procedures'. Fabrics combined were all stretch knits including lycra, scuba knit, pro-mesh, and tee shirting. Style features included bound neck and arm, overlocked fluted rolled hem, lining, pattern adaptations of new seam lines as style features, applique to bodice, screen printed logo, twin needling, and industrial over locking. All testing was completed prior to use in final garment.


    To achieve 91345, students need to show evidence of selecting and performing the technique. That is, students could be trialling several different ways to achieve a desired result, and selecting the best method. Students also need to devise an order of construction or a production sequence to achieve their special features (see Explanatory Notes 5 and 6).

    This standard is about making a garment with special features.

    Explanatory Note 7 defines special features as those that rely on the application of advanced skills.  These include style features (for example, set in sleeve, fly front, tailored collars and cuffs, welt pockets) and/or decorative features (for example, pin tucking, embroidery, and shirring) and/or structural features (for example, 3D felting and combining different fibres in felting and different materials, for example, nuno felting). That is, the focus is on features, rather than on the fabric used.

    Some of the procedures that these students applied as described sound more basic (and therefore better suited to NCEA Level 1) rather than advanced. For example, an over locked fluted rolled hem requires limited scheduling and basic skills and would therefore not be considered to be an advanced procedure.

    The applique to bodice and screen printed logos could be considered special features if they required advanced skills and scheduling. If the designs that these students applied were reasonably elaborate, then these may well be considered advanced procedures.   

    Industrial over locking and twin needling are finishing technique, rather than special features. For example, an advanced technique constitutes more than using a different machine or a different needle.

    A pattern adaptation in itself may not achieve a special feature. At level 2, students can also be assessed against AS 91626 Draft a pattern to interpret a design for a garment.

  • Question

    Our school has decided to look at Generic Technology 1.12 as a guiding document on the development of process in a manufacturing context. This works well under Construction and Food Technology. However, I am trying to figure out how to put this in a Digital Technologies context to help meet the Generic Technology that this is under and provide guidance for my students to develop the ideas http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/nqfdocs/ncea-resource/achievements/2015/as91055.pdf The standard talks about a large number of manufacturing processes, one being an electronics focus. Yet there is little or no other coverage of other Digital Technologies strands. Can there be some guidance on how this can fit within the Generic context for Digital Technologies? Can guidance also be provided for describing the yield of a manufacturing process and the role of quality control in a digital technologies - programming context?


    Learning programme design in Technology should be driven by multiple factors. Guidance is provided in the Senior secondary teaching and learning guidelines - Learning programme design.

    It is not ideal to have the assessment tool driving the programme design. The purpose of the assessment for this achievement standard is for students to demonstrate they have an understanding about the complexities of manufacturing (often multiple).

    There are lots of digital technologies context examples students could refer to. For example, the manufacturing of cell phones, tablets etc. The Owens Design website states, “The challenge of manufacturing cell phones, tablets, and other mobile devices continues to grow more complex. The trends of increasing device complexity, miniaturization, and customization are driving a revolution in manufacturing process.” This website includes a range of case studies. See Mobile devices

    Students could look at the role of programming/computer science in relation to production lines and robotics.  Most equipment on a production line has an element of computer programming that enables it to perform a specific task. For example, Howard Wright use a computer-generated production line to manufacture their beds. They have programmed robotic equipment to move at an optimal pace to retain precision and maximise yield.

  • Question

    I'm struggling to find clear definitions and examples of the following three concepts: - Key Planning Decisions - Review Points - The difference between Review Points and Critical Review Points. So far I have vague notions about them all, but nothing concrete that I can explain to my class. My guesses are: - Key Planning Decisions - any decisions that we make as part of our planning...or maybe only decisions about the planning - I can't think of an example though. - Review Points - when we look over our planning and check that we are keeping up, altering dates if needed. Or maybe when we put an entry in our journal, saying what we've worked on in the past week? -The difference between Review Points and Critical Review Points - a small look-over vs a major look-over of our planning?


    Key Planning Decisions are usually established at the beginning of the project. For a website this could include plans to carry out stakeholder interviews, plans to research, and selecting imagery.

    Review Points are the times you review plans for this week and look at what may have changed in terms of time and other resources. It is important that planning is not just a mere record of what has been done, but rather is about planning to keep moving the practice forward.

    Critical review points are those where the student makes major decisions about the direction of the project –e.g. following the collation of stakeholder feedback on the imagery it is clear that images xy and z are the preferred option. The student can then go ahead and embed these in the website. Selecting the correct images is critical to the success of the website.

  • Question

    For AS91340, the achievement criteria "describes the way elements of design are used within the selected design movement/era", do student have to describe both function and aesthetics of the design movement or is it functions and/or aesthetics?


    Explanatory note 5 of the standard states:

    "Elements of design are derived from the key design principles of aesthetics and function. These may include but are not limited to: shape, form, rhythm, balance, proportion, colour and contrast, durability, stability, and flexibility/rigidity." 

    It therefore seems that, to adequately describe the way elements of design are used, students should be considering a range of elements that relate to both aesthetics and function. It is suggested that a request for clarification form is submitted to NZQA for further clarification on this query. 

  • Question

    I notice that the DVC standard 91064 (orthographic drawings) says that the drawings should comply with NZS1100.101 Technical Drawing Principles. However, according to Standards New Zealand this standard has been withdrawn. Can someone please clarify for me whether I can still use this standard or, if not, which standard I should be using instead? P.S. I am new to teaching this subject so apologies if the answer is obvious! Thanks very much.


    This status means that it has been withdrawn without replacement. If a document is superseded, then it means that there is a more up to date relevant version of that standard. 

    However, this is not the case for the NZS/AS 1100.101:1992. You can still purchase and follow the document, but due to the age of the standard, we cannot list it as "current" as the all of the information contained may not be 100% correct now due to the publication date.

  • Question

    I am planning to do this tech standard 91643 but am ambivalent about doing cream puffs. I could do the pies but what restrictions are there on the processes. For example, could we make Mexican enchiladas from scratch – tortilla making to sauces and chili usage? Or is it restrictive?


    The advice given to teachers in the TKI assessment resource for product selection for assessment against this standard is:

    For the purposes of this resource the product is a cream puff with custard filling (made using eggs) and chocolate enrobing. However, you could specify any product that requires complex procedures to make a product by combining and/or manipulating materials. Take into account cost, timing, and safety considerations when selecting a product.

    Other suitable food products include:

    • a product using student-made flaky pastry (for example, a vegetarian/meat pie)
    • a product using student-made filo pastry (such as spanakopita or baklava)
    • a boiled confectionery, for example, pulled toffee, Turkish delight made with starch rather than gelatine, a Rocky Road bar (including making the marshmallows and fruit jellies); pain au chocolate; a baked Alaska (including making the ice cream and sponge base).

    The product should initially be unfamiliar to the student and include diverse processing operations with the potential to fail if incorrectly processed. 

    Explanatory note 7 states "Complex procedures are those that require a diverse range of processing operations to be performed in a particular order based on knowledge of techniques, operations, and testing feedback."

    The purpose of this standard is to assess the student’s ability to set up a process and the associated testing in a similar way to that which would be expected in industrial food processing however in a classroom setting.

    The product needs to require the student to manage a diverse range of processing operations. Making tortillas is generally a 3–4 step operation (for example, Simply Recipes, How to make corn tortillas).

    The sauce processing is generally a straightforward operation and the specifications for a successful meat sauce can have a broad range for acceptability, which is not likely to often lead to incorrect processing and failure. Students may also already be familiar with making a meat sauce for similar types of products.

    The amount of chili added to a recipe is a decision required about the quantity of an ingredient that is required for the product and is not considered a process.

    It is suggested that you consider other products as outlined in the resource.

    There are 3 other ask an expert question that provide extensive advice on the teaching, learning, and assessment required to assess against this standard.



Return to top ^