AS 92012 Annotated exemplars

This annotated exemplar is intended for teacher use only. Annotated exemplars consist of student evidence, with commentary, to explain key parts of a standard. These help teachers make assessment judgements at the grade boundaries.

Download all exemplars and commentary [PDF, 7.8 MB]

Level 1 MPT assessment resources (external link) - NCEA.education

For Achieved, the standard requires the student to develop a Materials and Processing Technology outcome in an authentic context. This involves creating a fit-for-purpose outcome for a person, whānau, or community, using a brief with specifications.

The student has used a brief that identifies the purpose, end user, and the actual environment, and which explores the concept of a person’s identity in a textile technology context.

Technological practice is evident in the use of research, ideation, materials and technique testing, and manufacturing. The outcome has been taken to the place it will be used, to see how it works.

As the student undertook technological practice, they were making decisions related to the outcome’s fitness for purpose. Fitness for purpose is also demonstrated in the final photograph taken in the intended environment. The evidence also reveals how the requirements of the brief, and the physical and functional specifications, were addressed.

To attain Merit, the standard requires stakeholder feedback from more than one stakeholder, at more than one stage during technological practice, to inform the development of the outcome. For example, the student could have applied feedback from the end user and from people with expertise while developing the outcome.

A Merit grade also requires the student to explain the decisions that inform the improvement of the outcome’s fitness for purpose.

At 18 pages, this student folio is within the suggested range.

For Merit, the standard requires the student to refine a Materials and Processing Technology outcome in an authentic context. Feedback is needed from more than one stakeholder at more than one stage during the technological practice to inform the development of the outcome. An explanation of the decisions that inform the improvement of the outcome's fitness for purpose is also required.

This student has used a brief that identifies the purpose, end user, and the intended or actual environment, and which explores the concept of identity for whānau. They have applied technological practice in a Processing Technology context.

Stakeholder feedback is used to inform the development of the spring roll, and has been documented in writing and sourced first-hand as the recipes were tested. The final outcome was then presented to the whānau. More than one stakeholder has been consulted at more than one stage during development.

The student has explained their development decisions and how these decisions have informed the improvement of their outcome. In this example, the decisions that inform the outcome’s improvement have generated successful results, e.g. crunchier pastry, more palatable filling, and less vinegary dipping sauce.

For Excellence, the student could have analysed, explained, and interpreted (rather than just applied) the stakeholder feedback and how it informed the development of the outcome. The final evaluation of the outcome against the brief could also have more specifically assessed how the specifications were met (or not met), and also how the outcome could be considered as fit for purpose.

For Excellence, the standard requires the student to evaluate a Materials and Processing Technology outcome in an authentic context. This involves

analysing how stakeholder feedback informed the development of the outcome, and

evaluating the outcome against the brief with specifications for fitness for purpose, in the actual or modelled intended environment.

This student has used a brief that explores the context of manaakitanga and applied technological practice in a hard materials context.

Technological practice is evident as the design develops, and the student has made clear decisions about improving the outcome’s fitness for purpose at key design and construction stages. These decisions are evident in the student’s sketches, mock-ups, and photographs, and have been explained in the written descriptions.

Feedback has been sourced first-hand on Post-it Notes, and more than one stakeholder has been consulted at more than one stage of development. The student has analysed individual feedback and taken relevant suggestions on board, revealing that feedback has clearly informed the development of the storage box at key decision-making stages.

The final stage of the technological practice was the evaluation of the finished outcome. The student has evaluated the outcome firstly against the brief, including physical and functional specifications, and then for fitness for purpose when tested in the actual intended environment.

At 19 pages, this student folio was within the suggested range.