Better clarity leads to better judgments.
NZQA is working more closely with subject associations to improve assessment clarity and better support teachers across Aotearoa. Strengthening these relationships means we can collectively meet the needs of our ākonga more effectively. One recent collaboration has resulted in a new teacher guidance statement.
NZQA Marking Approach – top-down or bottom-up – Teacher Guidance from NZQA
Teachers have sought guidance from NZQA about differing approaches to making assessment judgements against standards. NZQA uses two distinct approaches for internally and externally assessed standards. We have developed advice for teachers, explaining the reasons behind these differences and providing guidelines for teachers assessing against internally assessed standards.
Why This Matters for Technology Teachers
Teachers across the sector have raised questions about the different approaches to making assessment judgment, especially the differences between how internal and external standards are marked. NZQA has now produced a clear explanation of these differences, along with practical guidelines to help teachers make more effective and consistent assessment judgments.
At the heart of the guidance is the difference between top-down and bottom-up marking approaches.
Key Takeaways from NZQA’s Teacher Guidance
Externally assessed standards use a top-down approach:
- Markers start by looking for evidence of Excellence, then work down to Merit, and finally Achievement.
- This is suitable for external assessments which are centrally marked and need to apply consistent expectations across the country.
Internally assessed standards require a bottom-up approach:
- Begin with ensuring all Achievement requirements are met before considering Merit and Excellence.
- This ensures the full intent of the standard is met and helps avoid overestimating student performance.
- It’s particularly important because internally assessed standards allow flexibility in evidence types and task design, making teacher judgment a critical component.
Understanding and applying the correct approach ensures valid, reliable judgments and avoids over- or under-awarding grades, especially where evidence may be open to interpretation or vary in form.
What You Can Do? Practical Strategies for Teachers
Reframe Your Internal Judgement Process
- Start with Achievement: Before you even consider whether work is at Merit or Excellence, confirm that every requirement for Achievement is clearly met. Look for the subject-specific knowledge or process evidence outlined in the standard.
- Build Up: Only once you’ve confirmed Achievement should you consider if Merit is met—then Excellence. Think of it as building a staircase, not jumping to the top.
Avoid Applying the External Model to Internal Work
- Using a top-down approach internally can result in over-awarding, especially when a student demonstrates flashes of higher-level thinking but hasn’t yet met foundational expectations.
- NZQA has highlighted this risk explicitly: “Avoid using a top-down approach for internal assessments, as it may result in awarding higher grades without sufficient foundational evidence.”
Use moderation meetings to review student work collectively, ask yourselves:
“Are we agreeing on what “clearly meets Achievement” looks like?” “Are we tempted to leap to Merit or Excellence based on polish, rather than progression?”
Develop shared marking templates or checklists that structure discussion from the ground up. Use one or two exemplars to map against the standard descriptors, identifying evidence together at each level.
Integrate Into Your Systems by building the bottom-up approach into your Google Forms, moderation tracking sheets, or marking rubrics. Structure your rubrics or marking criteria to start with:
- “Has the student met Achievement?”
- Then: “Do they meet additional criteria for Merit?”
- And finally: “Is there sufficient evidence for Excellence?”
When you are marking, document as you go by keeping brief annotation notes on how a student has demonstrated Achievement before ticking higher levels. This supports transparency in moderation, and helps you discuss your decision if queried later.
Use NZQA Language in Feedback to reinforce understanding with students by using the same phrasing from the standard: e.g. “To meet Achievement, you must show an understanding of X by doing Y…”This helps students scaffold their evidence clearly too.
