NZQA encourages innovative ways of collecting student evidence that may be used for assessment purposes. This could include evidence that contributes to multiple standards (integrated assessment), or different modes of collecting evidence such as blogs, video clips, etc.
Teachers are reminded that students submitting evidence beyond the requirements of a standard may impact on student workload. Additionally, a succinct response addressing standard criteria is preferable to a large volume of student evidence that may not necessarily deliver evidence of all the criteria of the standard(s) in question.
For more information, please refer to Gathering evidence of achievement.
Several standards require that students describe, explain or address “relevant implications”. Examples of relevant implications are provided in the standards. For a given outcome, there may well be more than two relevant implications. For example, it may be appropriate for the developer of a web page to consider aesthetics, legal, ethical, moral, accessibility, and usability.
The student needs to describe, explain or address each of the relevant implications at an appropriate depth for the curriculum level.
“Describe” requires some documentation. For example, the student might describe issues related to privacy when storing personal information in a database.
“Explain” requires some documentation. For example, the student might explain why consistency of navigation, layout and icons enhance usability in a web site.
“Address” may be evident from naturally occurring evidence, e.g. the use of ALT tags, or might be given in documentation, e.g. students may indicate that they have chosen colours which make the web site accessible for colour-blind end-users.
In 91879 and 91881, to obtain Excellence, iterative improvement is required throughout the development and testing process; for Excellence in 91880, iterative improvement is required throughout the design, development, and testing process.
Iterative improvement in 91879, 91880, and 91881 requires that the student further develop a functional outcome using documented cycles of improvement. This may include adding further features to the outcome.
Iterative improvement is more than just debugging or correcting errors in a non-functioning outcome. It is expected that the student will produce a functioning outcome for an Achieved grade. Iterative improvement should be aimed at making a better product. This evidence needs to be provided for moderation.