Open gwang1224 opened 1 year ago
Week 18
Student #1
Category | Checklist | Score | College Board Score | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
Program Purpose and Function |
|
0 | 0 | The video included all elements but the student did not explain the purpose and function of their program well. Instead, they were switched. |
Data Abstraction |
|
0 | 0 | They student shows a list called animalImages and animalList. However, why are there images in a list? They do not show how to list is used to fulfill the program's purpose. |
Managing Complexity |
|
0 | 0 | Although the student included a list, they do not actually meet the first requirement because a list is not used to manage complexity. Thus, the student does not meet any of the requirements for this criteria. |
Procedural Abstraction |
|
1 | 0 | The student did not meet the second criteria. They do not describe how the procedure contributes to the overall functionality but rather only describe what the function does. |
Algorithm Implementation |
|
0 | 0 | The student includes sequencing, iteration, and selection, but does not explain robustly. |
Testing |
|
1 | 1 | Meets all the requirements. Tested with 'dog' and 'mouse. |
Total | 2/6 | 1/6 |
Student #2
Category | Checklist | Score | College Board Score | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
Program Purpose and Function |
|
1 | 1 | The student includes input and output of the code through pixels on the screen. They also specify the purpose and functionality correctly. |
Data Abstraction |
|
1 | 1 | Student makes a list of variables that gets an input from the user, this makes it easier to store user input. All requirements are met |
Managing Complexity |
|
1 | 1 | The student included code that manages a list of inputs and is effective in doing so. This manages complexity as it is much easier rather than having to ask for input each time. |
Procedural Abstraction |
|
1 | 1 | Includes student developed procedure with parameters, nList, vList, aLIst, aSetting. All requirements met. |
Algorithm Implementation |
|
1 | 1 | Algorithm includes sequencing, selection, and iteration. All requirements are met. |
Testing |
|
1 | 1 | Meets all the requirements. Different parameters ("and" and "the") are inputted to see if all requirements are met before the user generates a poem. |
Total | 6/6 | 6/6 |
Student #3
Category | Checklist | Score | College Board Score | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
Program Purpose and Function |
|
1 | 0 | The student described the function of the program and not the purpose. The purpose should instead be for entretainment. |
Data Abstraction |
|
1 | 1 | Student uses firstCharacterList to store data about power rankings. All requirements met. |
Managing Complexity |
|
1 | 1 | Meets all requirements. Uses findWinner function and firstCharacterList to manage complexity. |
Procedural Abstraction |
|
1 | 1 | Student includes 2 parameters and their function of them in the code is clearly stated. Also describes the functionality of the function throughly. |
Algorithm Implementation |
|
1 | 1 | Meets all requirements. Includes sequencing, selection, and iteration. |
Testing |
|
1 | 1 | Meets all the requirements. The code runs with "vision" on both sides of the powerranking and shows "tie". |
Total | 6/6 | 5/6 |
Student #4
Category | Checklist | Score | College Board Score | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
Program Purpose and Function |
|
1 | 1 | The student includes input and output of the code. They also specify the purpose and functionality correctly. |
Data Abstraction |
|
1 | 0 | Although the student included two code segments, in the second code segment, the data stored in the list is not being used and only the length is accessed. Does not meet all requirements. |
Managing Complexity |
|
0 | 0 | The list is not used to manage complexity. The list can be replaced. The response also does not say how complexity is managed. |
Procedural Abstraction |
|
1 | 1 | Includes student developed procedure with parameters. All requirements met. |
Algorithm Implementation |
|
1 | 1 | Algorithm isitcorrect includes sequencing, selection, and iteration. All requirements are met. |
Testing |
|
0 | 0 | The student only describes the result, which is the color changing to green or yellow and does not give specific inputs, which would be the words. |
Total | 4/6 | 3/6 |
Most of my grading was consistent with collegeboard's grading. One of the main issues student makes is mixing up purpose and function. Although their code all worked well, the most important thing in College Board Computer Science grading is accurate descriptions of the code. I will be sure to explain my code well when I do my performance task and to not mix up function and program like the other students.
Week 19
Student #1
Category | Checklist | Score | College Board Score | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
Program Purpose and Function |
|
1 | 1 | The student demonstrated the output, input, and functionality in the video. They also described the function and purpose accurately. |
Data Abstraction |
|
0 | 0 | The student included a list called RPS with the list items of rock, paper, and scissors. They do not show how the list is used in the program. Instead, they use a string for comparison in the if statement. |
Managing Complexity |
|
0 | 0 | The list is not used to manage complexity. The code is still quite repetitive since for every possibility of playing rock, paper, or scissors, a different elif statement is written. |
Procedural Abstraction |
|
0 | 0 | The student did not meet the second criteria. They do not describe how the procedure contributes to the overall functionality but rather only says it makes it function smoothly. |
Algorithm Implementation |
|
1 | 1 | The student includes sequencing, iteration, and selection, and explains it well |
Testing |
|
1 | 1 | Meets all the requirements. Inputs that were not "rock", "paper", or "scissors" and inputs that where with the computer user as well. |
Total | 3/6 | 3/6 |
Student #2
Category | Checklist | Score | College Board Score | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
Program Purpose and Function |
|
1 | 1 | The student includes input and output of the code through inputs of letters. They also specify the purpose and functionality correctly. |
Data Abstraction |
|
1 | 1 | Data is being stored in a list and then it is being looped for each play of the game. |
Managing Complexity |
|
1 | 1 | The list manages complexity by storing letters of the words to be guessed and the code scand the list based on its length so a longer word can be inplemented |
Procedural Abstraction |
|
1 | 1 | Includes student-developed procedure with parameters,in the function guessWords, and describes the functionality. All requirements met. |
Algorithm Implementation |
|
1 | 1 | Algorithm includes sequencing, selection, and iteration. All requirements are met. |
Testing |
|
1 | 1 | Meets all the requirements. The game is run and tested. The user guesses the word and then doesn't guess the word and the appropriate output is made. |
Total | 6/6 | 6/6 |
Student #3
Category | Checklist | Score | College Board Score | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
Program Purpose and Function |
|
1 | 1 | The student described the function of the program. Inputs, outputs, and functionality is demonstrated through selection of a state and output information. |
Data Abstraction |
|
0 | 0 | Makes a list but does not include how the list is used. |
Managing Complexity |
|
0 | 0 | Student shows how code is used to manage complexity but does not explain how they would write it if complexity was not managed |
Procedural Abstraction |
|
0 | 0 | The student wrote a procedure but it doesn't have a parameter. |
Algorithm Implementation |
|
0 | 0 | The algorithm does not include iteration. |
Testing |
|
0 | 0 | The testing doesn't actually test the functionality of the code. Instead of describing how the code is called, he/she should test by selecting different states. |
Total | 1/6 | 1/6 |
Student #4
Category | Checklist | Score | College Board Score | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
Program Purpose and Function |
|
1 | 1 | The student includes input and output of the code. They also specify the purpose and functionality correctly. |
Data Abstraction |
|
1 | 1 | The student created to code segments where the list, fishtypes, is stored and the second type shows how the fishtypes are accessed. |
Managing Complexity |
|
1 | 1 | The list is used to manage complexity and describes how it is easier to add different fish to the list to make it more complex. |
Procedural Abstraction |
|
1 | 1 | Includes student developed procedure with parameters. All requirements met. |
Algorithm Implementation |
|
1 | 1 | Algorithm isitcorrect includes sequencing, selection, and iteration. All requirements are met. |
Testing |
|
1 | 0 | The student actually did not test the algorithm. The response doesn't describe specific arguments passed through parameters but describes the conditions being tested. |
Total | 6/6 | 5/6 |
All of my grading except for 1 was different from college board's grading. I have a stronger grasp of what the difference between purpose and functionality is. For example in the first example, the purpose is to provide entertainment while the function is to choose rock, paper, or scissors and play with a game with the computer. The grading I got wrong on was in the testing section when I thought the student had described conditions for testing the algorithm but they actually described the arguments that were passed through the functions. It seems that other students, such as student 3 also made the same mistake when they did not know what they were testing. According to the rubric, the conditions being tested is by each call to the procedure.
Week 17
Student #1
Most of my scoring was consistent to Collegeboard's scoring. The project was simple, but most of the requirements could be fulfilled except for the managing complexity. If the student had described the function right, they could have gotten a better score. I also need learn about the difference between function and purpose as they are very similar and I want to avoid making the same mistakes as this student did in the project.
Student #2
My scoring compared to Collegeboard scoring was the same. I thought this student's project was very cool. I don't know how to use Scratch but it may be useful for me if I used it in my performance task. Also, since this student was able to describe the function and purpose right, I understand how to describe the function and purpose now.