Digital Technologies modelling, conceptual designing and prototyping

A programme of teaching Digital Technologies modelling, conceptual designing and prototyping plus the external generics – Julie McMahon & Melinda Stevenson


  • How can we put these together – DT and generics.
  • Now can combine DT and generics as it suits our programmes. Can just focus on the bits that fit your programme.
  • Session 1 – internal focus / Session 2 – external and how fits with internal (L2 & 3)
  • EduAlert – video
  • Technology is all around us.  As teachers we do all the 21st century skills – a lot of the time.
  • Context – authenticity and meaningful to student
  • Content
    • integrate, external, internal
  • Continuity
    • junior progamme should support NCEA levels
    • each NCEA level should provide a foundation for next level in knowledge and skill (scaffolding)
  • Example pathway
  • Level 1
    • planning template – table
      • @WGC one project, postcard – 1.43, P & S
    • Y11 DT @ Sacred Heart
      • glossary around room of all the terms – what about in Moodle?? Glossary of Terms
      • (programming into course maybe under prototyping if not confident assessing against programme standard)
      • term by term projects
      • (L2 InDesign for mock ups for websites)
      • WHAT? SO WHAT? NOW WHAT? (from Adventure Based Learning) poster on Melinda’s wall
        • what? light blue background – identify
        • So what does this mean I have to do now – explain / justify
        • now what / then what is my next step – give 2 -3 examples for every level / justify
        • justify, refine – for excellence
      • info also on LMS, in visual diary
      • students using Screenr to record justification of what changing things following stakeholder feedback
      • stakeholders that are accessible – friends, family – simple project
        • games examples – chemistry quiz, netball umpire quiz, game for use at school at lunch time – students within the school (stop use of bandwidth at lunch time), Y9, 10, 11s are testers (L1)
        • L2 – class brief – found outside stakeholders, 1 or 2, stakeholders giving feedback (artist and yoga teachers)
          • vet clinic, girls took own photos
        • teacher is NOT the major stakeholder!!
        • stakeholder feedback – sign and photos (the ‘pretend’ stakeholder)
        • PMI chart + physical and functional attributes (interesting or implications – what will i use / not use in my own game?)
      • prototyping
        • testing log, usability, prototyping log
        • data integrity of digital outcome!! testing for
        • can formliase the testing by using prototyping standard
        • because it is authentic they take ownership of it, enjoy making things when it is real and when will be used
        • photographic evidence
        • (Y9 – scratch game for junior school, speed dating testing, make a poster of what did, storyboard, code, testing)
    • L1 Columbia College
      • game making
      • do 1.41
      • scaffolding digital media skills in earlier years – students have lots of skills in software – Photoshop, InDesign etc
      • detailed storyboards of game in brief development, which help them code their code – becomes their flow chart, use to help them guide their programming
      • focus on brief development
      • make something that works and enjoy the journey, enjoy actually making stuff, don’t get focused on assessment! not everything needs to be assessed
      • in gamemaker can add comments in code
      • (use quad paper instead of visual diary – better for screen size)

2.5 Technological Modelling and Risk Management

  • Internal and externals together
  • Exemplars – food / furniture, scanned ones from Julie and Melinda – 4 or 5 Excellence’s – from Digital context
  • not an unmanageable standard, embedding it all throughout the year and if it fits within your programme
  • lots of jargon – speakers actually use the jargon terms
  • Google Glass youtube
    • rapid prototyping
  • Technological Modelling Stages.pdf – internal standard
    • iplotz / go mockingbird – wire-frames – low fidelity
    • indeisgn – hotspot – high fidelity
    • could do for databases really well
  • external standard – go/no go decisions, making decisions in conceptual design
  • design mock ups
    • PMI
    • pencil sktech – measurements
    • wireframes
    • use for mock ups: InDesgin – master page, make pages, hyper link pages – high fidelity, banner – can see if too big
    • (InDesign from Level 1: interactive book – master pages, hyperlinks, layers etc)
    • Dreamweaver: split screen, put coding in – testing
    • perfect colour palettes – hexidecimal
    • use Notepad++ for coding properly
    •– tells if errors
    • W3C – for validation (
    • focus is on mock ups – low fidelity / high fidelity
  • conceptual design has helped with the level of quality of websites
  • start early in the year
  • girls got in head that if do not plan out code for programme, it won’t work (Python)
  • pick speakers that made sense to you, not all, use own and put together in report
  • doesn’t have to be in a digital context e.g. engineer, furniture maker
  • makes it real, as people do it all the time, real purpose
  • Big Little Bang case study
  • pod-casts of technologists (speakers) that come in, for helping writing a report
  • sentence starters for report
  • pick one or two of the speakers that have come in and talk about yourself – demonstrating understanding
  • meant that students didn’t make exactly the same report – helped with authenticity
  • email speakers questions ahead of time, after speaker, debrief the next day, share on whiteboard
  • use lots of different strategies to help students
  • modelling table – for use after having a speaker in
  • foundation standard for scholarship in Level 3
  • 3 examples – 3 or 5, case study and their own – Excellence. 2 to 3 for achieved.
  • Making of Avatar – good example Tech online
  • Big Little Bang Technology Online

Technological Modelling 3.5

  • Competing and contestable factors – main step up for Level 3
  • how factors inform decision making and can defend decision making
  • highly recommended that use case study, don’t have to talk about own work
  • (only scholarship students who may have done enough to write about own work)

Level 3 Brief Development and Conceptual Design Development Guide
(AS 3.1) & (AS 3.3) using 3.4


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s