Log in

Breaking down Digital Technology progress outcomes for CT and DDDO 

We’ve recently posting regular updates about revision to the Technology learning area. We also think wherever you are in this journey, you and your learning community will no doubt want to unpack possibilities for designing programmes of learning, that align with the digital technologies progress outcomes.

In this Technology Online webinar, Getting started with Years 9 and 10 digital technologies programmes Cheryl Pym (Accredited Curriculum and Learning facilitator, Otago University) recommends teachers start with what they’re doing well and see what can be strengthened when designing programmes to meet your student’s needs.

Important to note: the strands are compulsory, but realistically not all AOs and POs will fit or can be taught in a given lesson, topic or theme. The focus becomes more on learning about digital technologies and becoming creators/innovators, rather than just users and consumers.

Here’s a brainstorm on some ways to unpack Progress Outcome 1 (PO1) for both computational thinking and designing and developing digital outcomes. We invite you to add to the shared Google docs and add your own ideas. 

PLEASE NOTE: This is a crowd-sourced resource, more specific support for schools to implement and integrate the achievement objectives and progress outcomes will be rolled out in Kia Takatū ā-Matihiko, the national digital readiness programme toolkits and meet ups.

Progress outcome 1: Computational thinking

Please note: to edit these, go straight to the Google docs themselves.

Progress outcome 1: Designing and developing digital outcomes

1. In regards to differences between digital technologies and e-learning/ICT capabilities, how many of these examples are e-learning in action and how many are creating solutions by learning about digital technologies (digital technologies in action)?

2. As Anne Robertson shares connecting gadgets in the curriculum, she also reflects that, they could be used to enhance a project, so that they are integrated into the learning. That is more of a challenge!  What kinds of concepts and contexts can you see tying these processes together with other areas of the Technology learning area and the wider NZC curriculum?

If you’re wanting more specific support examples and discussions around progress outcomes, moderation around internal/external tasks and assessment, please subscribe to DTTA (Digital Technologies Teachers Aotearoa) network - where specialised teachers are open to sharing ideas and resources with each other.

Also see:


  • Tessa Gray (View all users posts) 09 Jan 2019 4:11pm ()

    It's been rewarding taking some time to get more familiar with the Pīkau (online toolkits) hosted in Kia Takatū ā-Matihiko (National Digital Readiness Programme) this week and I've particularly enjoyed exploring the language, intention andlesson sequences to teach Progress Outcome 1 for CT:

    In authentic contexts and taking account of end-users, students use their decomposition skills to break down simple non-computerised tasks into precise, unambiguous, step-by-step instructions (algorithmic thinking). They give these instructions, identify any errors in them as they are followed, and correct them (simple debugging).

    The examples shared use 'kids and a grid' to follow simple instructions/movements (forward, left, right) to achieve a certain goal or solve a problem. Students take on roles - programmer, tester, kidbot to trial, test and fix instructions to get the programming right for any user. Using exercise of moving around a grid helps introduce ideas about programming without devices which isn’t necessary at Progress outcome 1.
    This easy to follow Pīkau (online course) goes on to make direct references to programming language for teachers such as;
    • Commands in sequence (algorithm)
    • Decomposition (breaking things down into smaller pieces/steps), same as decomposing, except less smelly than compost
    • Bug (term came from historical first bug found) and debugging (fix an issue)
    New learning for students includes the understanding that commands in sequence require precision and when these work, this becomes a 'complete' language. The exciting thing for students is that, often there are multiple solutions using different programmes (or commands), that can ultimately achieve the same results (some faster than others).
    This is a great way to demonstrate how different ‘complete’ digital programming languages do the same thing.
    Different programme languages
    The examples shared, exemplify sequence and decomposition at PO1 where students use the grid exercise to spell out names and put words in order to make a sentence (Literacy), shapes (Maths) programme boat to go on the river, elements on periodic table, life cycles, water cycle, sending rocket to mars (Science). 
    Have you used 'kids on grids' exercise before? If so, what contexts or problems have you presented so that students can create simple programming language (L, R, F) to achieve a goal?
    I'm off to find out more about Designing and Developing Digital Outcomes (DDDO) for PO1...
  • Tessa Gray (View all users posts) 16 Jan 2019 12:41pm ()

    I love it when teachers in NZ share! Thank you Amy Coker for this shared Google doc (Primary Teachers Facebook group). Also see, Exploring Progress outcomes 2 for CT and DDDO thread for more ideas. Does anyone else have anything to add? 


Join this group to contribute to discussions.

e-Learning: Technologies

e-Learning: Technologies

Where we explore how different technologies can support learning.