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, 21 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.

These examples are partial extracts taken from two student folios. Both students have worked in processing technology contexts (food and electronics).

Student 1 has cooked a range of outcomes for whānau members, focusing on trialling and evaluating different recipes. To meet the standard, they need to expand the technological practices used to develop the food outcome. This can be achieved by experimenting with different ingredients, equipment, and techniques. For instance, they could test various cooking methods and coatings for the mozzarella stick to develop clear and measurable physical and functional specifications.

Student 2 has developed a conceptual design for a processing technology outcome, primarily focusing on research into the function of different electronic components. While they have used suitable equipment and designed a solution, there is insufficient evidence of development to meet the standard. 

For Achieved, the student should move beyond research and a single conceptual design to actual development, which could involve building models and testing them. It is essential to also explain and evaluate the specifications such as waterproofing, cooling efficiency, and the sustainability of materials, which requires the outcome to actually be fabricated. 

Both students should aim to produce a tangible, fit-for-purpose outcome with measurable specifications resulting from the use of a range of technological practices. The evidence in both samples presents as incomplete.

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 developed a processing technology outcome to demonstrate manaakitanga towards a treasured family member.

Basic technological practices have been followed, including conducting a stakeholder questionnaire, researching and trialling various suitable recipes, and testing ingredients for the pie filling. The physical and functional specifications of the pie have been broadly evaluated as either met or not met, and the pies have been consumed in the intended environment.

For a more secure Achieved, further evidence is needed to show how the idea for the pie developed from the initial mood board and recipe trials. This includes detailing the ideas gathered during the modelling phases and explaining how these ideas were used to develop measurable physical and functional specifications for the product.

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.

These examples are partial extracts taken from two student folios. Both students have developed and ultimately created fit for purpose outcomes using technological practice.

In the first sample, the student has tailored the brief by identifying four end-users and exploring the concept of cultural identity within a resistant materials context. Technological practice is demonstrated through research, ideation, mock ups, technique testing, and manufacturing, with the outcomes used to assess fitness for purpose. The physical and functional specifications were broadly addressed. However, additional evidence on the measurability of the physical and functional specifications would enhance the documentation.

The second student has used a brief that identifies the purpose, end-user, and actual environment, and explores the concept of identity for a person in a Textile Technology context. A range of technological practices have been used to develop the garment with applied design, and the finished 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 physical and functional specifications were addressed.

In both examples, additional evidence of stakeholder feedback gathered from another stakeholder during the technological practice is needed. For instance, the first student could have incorporated feedback from other recipients of the heru or individuals with expertise (such as teachers) as the outcome evolved.  The second student allowed the end-user to make some decisions during development, but the feedback from this person, or any other stakeholder, is not seen in the evidence.

A Merit grade also requires that the student explains the decisions that guided the improvement of the outcome.

For Merit, the standard requires the student to refine a Materials and Processing Technology outcome in an authentic context. This requires feedback from more than one stakeholder at more than one stage during 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.

The student has taken a brief provided by the teacher and customised the specifications to suit their own social and physical environment. They have applied Technological Practice within a Materials Technology context.

From the beginning, the student has gathered and described feedback from stakeholders. At various stages, this feedback has been used to inform the development of the light’s function and aesthetics. These decisions are broadly described and contribute to improving the light’s fitness for purpose, such as making it more visually appealing and ensuring the switch is easily accessible.

For a more secure Merit, the student should go beyond merely describing the feedback verbatim. They should more clearly demonstrate the reasoning behind the decisions made based on stakeholder opinions. 

For Merit, the standard requires the student to refine a Materials and Processing Technology outcome in an authentic context. This requires feedback from more than one stakeholder at more than one stage during 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.

The student has utilised a brief that identifies the purpose, end-user, and intended or actual environment, while exploring the concept of identity for whānau. They have applied Technological Practice in a Processing Technology context.

Stakeholder feedback has been used to inform the development of the spring roll, documented in writing, and sourced first-hand as the recipes were tested and the final outcome was presented to the whānau. Multiple stakeholders were consulted at various stages during development.

The student has explained the decisions made during development and how these decisions informed the improvement of their outcome. These decisions have led to successful improvements, such as a crunchier pastry, more palatable filling, and less vinegary dipping sauce.

To achieve Excellence, the student could analyse, explain, and interpret (rather than just apply) the stakeholder feedback and how it informed the development of the outcome. The final evaluation of the outcome against the brief could also be more specific about how the specifications were met (or not met) and how the outcome can be considered 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.

These examples are partial extracts from three student folios. All students have worked within different technological areas to develop a fit for purpose authentic outcome that meets all criteria for Excellence. 

The first partial extract reveals how the student has considered and then applied relevant stakeholder feedback to inform the development of the shoe rack for the whānau. 

To secure the grade, the final evaluation could more explicitly assert the outcome’s fitness for purpose. For instance, it would be beneficial to demonstrate the measurability of the physical and functional specifications by providing detailed information on the exact materials used, weight, construction methods, adjustability, and ventilation.

The second extract also effectively demonstrates the creation of an authentic technological outcome, guided by analysis of relevant stakeholder feedback.

The student has continuously assessed the outcome's fitness for purpose throughout the process and upon its completion. Additionally, the student has provided sufficient detailed information about the materials used and the sensory toy's physical and functional specifications, ensuring it fully meets the criteria for an Excellence grade.

The final extract shows ongoing analysis of how stakeholder feedback informed the development of a food outcome to be included in a hamper