National Moderator's Reports

Mar 2019

Show: Technology Homepage
Download PDF: Technology National Moderator's Report (PDF, 52KB)

The following report gives feedback to assist assessors with general issues and trends that have been identified during external moderation of the internal Technology standards in 2018.

It does not clarify specific standards but provides further insights from moderation material viewed throughout the year.


Volume of Evidence Produced

Back to contents

Some students produce an excessive volume of evidence. Students are not required to submit evidence beyond the criteria of the standard. It is appropriate for teachers to guide students to produce succinct evidence in response to the achievement criteria of the standard.

This is mostly evident in Technology where students document irrelevant information such as unconnected research related materials and trials. For example, recording tests that do not add depth to the design thinking or the selection of techniques for construction.

Students who critically select evidence for documentation are concise and achieve at higher levels. These students document alternatives that are significant in making informed design decisions.

Many submissions use templates and writing frames to manage the volume of student evidence. These have been mostly successful for the skills-based standards (commonly known as implement standards). Templates enabled students to capture enough evidence for all aspects of the standard. For example, 2-3 significant tests, techniques, and health and safety procedures. This allows for more time and effort to make the specified outcome.

Most effective templates for skills-based standards have been as little as 1-2 A3 pages, with relevant text and photographs or audio/video inserted by the student and/or annotations from the assessor. It is preferred that the length of each audio/video is limited to 1.5 minutes.

When using templates and writing frames, assessors need to ensure that they allow students to record evidence for all aspects of the standard. For example, some level 2 and 3 implement standards require students to select techniques and/or create production process.

Excellence at Level 3

Back to contents

There is some inconsistency in awarding Excellence. When making assessor decisions regarding Excellence, consideration needs to be given to the overall quality of the evidence. This is critical when making a judgement at the Merit/Excellence boundary.

Consideration of ‘fitness for purpose in the broadest sense’ is a major step up in Level 3 technological practice standards. Successful students only considered issues that were meaningful in their design. These students considered broadest-sense issues throughout the design development rather than an evaluation at the end of design. Producing concise and connected information provided students with better opportunity to demonstrate Excellence.

Students who reached Excellence in skills-based standards implemented complex procedures independently, accurately and economically for a sustained period of the assessment. Where assessors attest student a grade at Excellence, evidence was provided of how the student implemented complex procedures with independence, accuracy and economy.

Group Work

Back to contents

Group work is an acceptable form of assessment, if appropriate to the standard. When submitting group work for moderation, the teacher needs to ensure there is evidence that each student has met the standard.

The contribution of each student can be tracked and presented in a variety of ways, such as written record of teacher observation, the division of workload into clearly defined tasks, a student worklog or video diary, recordings of teacher/student conferences, etc.

Group work is a common approach in Technology. Students usually share information from activities such as research, trials and tests to avoid repetition and reduce workload. The results from group findings are used to make design decisions for their own projects. Submissions which involve group work provide better opportunities for students to spend more time on creative, innovative and realistic outcomes. Group work also enhances students project management skills.

Group work is also evident in larger projects. Successful submissions ensured that students took responsibility for a significant part of the project. For example, a go-kart project being divided into steering wheel frame, back wheel frame and body. These students showed evidence of design developments for their own component of the project.

Integrated Assessment of Standards

Back to contents

This refers to assessing multiple standards via one submission of student evidence. The assessment of standards may be integrated either within a subject or across subjects.

For external moderation, if the assessment is across subjects and the student evidence is physical, it can be sent on to the next subject moderator/s if required. If it is an online submission, the student evidence can be uploaded for each standard being moderated.

Assessors generally integrate multiple generic standards or a generic standard with a skills-based standard. Integrated submissions usually demonstrate more depth and enhanced student opportunity to achieve with higher grades. For example, the integration of conceptual design and prototyping standards in a project means that research, stakeholder consultations, trials and tests, mock-ups and models supplement evidence for both standards.

Students need to ensure that the intent of all standards is met. For example, the focus of conceptual design is on creating design ideas, while prototyping involves selection of materials, techniques and processes.

Some submissions integrated standards across different technology contexts. For example, textile students using influential designers or a design era (Design and Visual communication) to design their garment. Students who succeeded ensured that the requirements and graphic intent of DVC was met.

The integration of Technology with other subjects is rarely seen. Some examples include integrating Art and Construction & Mechanical Technologies to create a sculpture, Science and Processing Technology to make hand cream. Projects that worked well provided enough opportunities for students to meet the requirements for basic/advanced and complex procedures in the Technology standards.

For large portfolios, it is recommended that assessors indicate the sections that contribute evidence for the achievement criteria of the standard being moderated.

Implement Procedures to Make a Specified Product

Back to contents

At all levels, moderators are seeing a lack of evidence for Merit and Excellence grades. Successful student evidence showed assessor verification/attestation and/or student generated evidence clearly indicating how the student was independent and accurate (Merit) and economical (Excellence). Assessors need to ensure that evidence of all three areas of time, effort and materials is recorded and submitted for moderation.

Students should be encouraged to integrate visual and audio/video evidence rather than written work only. This will provide students with more time to spend on the production of a quality outcome.

Where students include other techniques than those specified in the standard, assessors need to ensure that they are comparable to those listed in the standard in terms of depth of techniques required.

Skip to main page content Accessibility page with list of access keys Home Page Site Map Contact Us