- Home
- Qualifications and standards
- NCEA
-
Māori and Pasifika
- Field Māori Assessment Support Materials
- Field Māori programme development support
- Mātauranga Māori qualifications and assessment standards
- Te Hono o Te Kahurangi quality assurance
- Māori providers
- Te Kōkiritanga 2020-2023
- Māori and the Future State
- Pasifika
- Ngā Kete Mātauranga
- Equity in STEM Symposium
-
Providers and partners
- About education organisations
- NZQA's quality assurance system for tertiary education organisations
- Guidelines and forms
- Consistency of graduate outcomes
- Approval, accreditation and registration
- Monitoring and Assessment
- Self-assessment
- External evaluation and review
- Assessment and moderation of standards
- Submitting results and awarding qualifications and micro-credentials
- Interim domestic Code of Practice (current)
- International Code of Practice (current)
- Tertiary and International Code of Practice (from 1 January 2022)
- Offshore use of qualifications and programmes
- Reform of Vocational Education
- International Education planning
- International
- About us
Level 1
Computing/digital technologies clarifications
Show: Computing/digital technologies homepage | All Computing/digital technologies clarifications | Judgements for Implement standards
Iterative improvement
Updated December 2019. This is a new document to address new issues that have arisen from moderation.
For Excellence in 91879, 91880, and 91881, iterative improvement requires that the learner develop a functional outcome using documented cycles of improvement. This may include adding features to the outcome.
This needs to be shown through deliberate cycles of improvement based on testing and trialling rather than just incremental development.
Iterative improvement is more than just debugging or correcting errors in a non-functioning outcome. It is expected that students 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.
Students may be able to provide sufficient evidence of the development of the outcome using, for example, annotated screenshots, ‘commit’ messages, commenting within the source files of the outcome. They may not need to submit all the previous versions of the outcome.