sarahliu2006
commented
1 year ago 
realethantran
commented
1 year ago Period 4 Mortensen Ethan Tran's Blog Post
safinsingh
commented
1 year ago Safin Singh Period 4 Mortensen Blog Post
vivianknee
commented
1 year ago | Testing Category | Student 1: 4/6 | Student 2: 6/6 | Student 1 Notes | Student 2 Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Program Purpose and Function |
|
|
Video does not even use up half of 1 min and I think there was more to show. Could have demonstrated the classification of other types of triangles. In addition, the person only states what the program does, not what other purpose it can serve so the response could be more detailed | |
| Data Abstraction |
|
|
Very descriptive captions and photos are provided in the writeup | |
| Managing Complexity |
|
|
The list example they provided doesn't actually manage the complexity of the program because it could be replaced and the code would be just as manageable | this shows how they used multiple lists to manage a lot of information |
| Procedural Abstraction |
|
|
||
| Algorithm Implementation |
|
|
Code does show the use of conditionals and loops for iteration but theses features are not shown in the video. Video was only 14s long so this is something that could have been demonstrated | |
| Testing |
|
|
Overall, I think that my scoring and collegeboard's were pretty much the same. When I create my own create task I think it will be very important to not only meet every criterion but also to have a little more than what is required. This way, if collegeboard thinks that one of the lists (example) I have doesn't manage complexity, I will still have other lists that could fill this gap. In addition, I think that I will have to be very specific in my write-up and answer the questions precisely.
ClaireChen3
commented
1 year ago 
JonathanWuz
commented
1 year ago Jonathan Wu Period 3 Mortenson
Submission 1
Check List
- [x] describes the overall purpose of the program demonstrated in the video.
- [x] describes what functionality of the program is demonstrated in the video
- [x] describes the input and output of the program
- [x] one program code that shows how data has been stored in this list (or another collection type).
- [x] one program code that shows the data in this same list being used as part of fulfilling the program’s purpose.
- [x] identifies the name of the variable representing the list being used in this response.
- [x] describes what the data contained in this list is representing in the program
- [ ] includes a program code segment that shows a list being used to manage complexity in the program
- [ ] explains how the named, selected list manages complexity in the program code by explaining why the program code could not be written, or how it would be written differently, without using this list.
- [x] one program code showing a student-developed procedure with at least one parameter that has an effect on the functionality of the procedure
- [x] one program code showing where the student-developed procedure is being called.
- [x] describes what the identified procedure does and how it contributes to the overall functionality of the program
- [x] includes a program code segment of a student-developed algorithm that includes sequencing, selection, and iteration
- [x] explains in detailed steps how the identified algorithm works in enough detail that someone else could recreate it
- [x] describes two calls to the selected procedure identified in written response 3c. Each call must pass a different
- [x] argument(s) that causes a different segment of code in the algorithm to execute.
- [x] describes the condition(s) being tested by each call to the procedure.
- [x] identifies the result of each call
| Category | Student Score | Comments | CB Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Row 1 Program Purpose and Function | 1/1 | Program purpose and general idea is clearly revealed through the running code. | 0/1 |
| Row 2 Data Abstraction | 1/1 | Full fills all criteria; clearly shows how data is abstracted and used | 1/1 |
| Row 3 Managing Complexity | 0/1 | doesn't show any lines that show management of complexity | 0/1 |
| Row 4 Procedural Abstraction | 1/1 | The response describes the functionality and procedure shown in the video. | 1/1 |
| Row 5 Algorithm Implementation | 1/1 | There is a clear input and output. Additionally, the calculations that occur behind the scenes are shown relatively well | 1/1 |
| Row 6 Testing | 1/1 | The video demonstrates user inputs of the side lengths and program outputs of side lengths | 1/1 |
Submission 2
Check List
- [x] describes the overall purpose of the program demonstrated in the video.
- [x] describes what functionality of the program is demonstrated in the video
- [x] describes the input and output of the program
- [x] one program code that shows how data has been stored in this list (or another collection type).
- [x] one program code that shows the data in this same list being used as part of fulfilling the program’s purpose.
- [x] identifies the name of the variable representing the list being used in this response.
- [x] describes what the data contained in this list is representing in the program
- [x] includes a program code segment that shows a list being used to manage complexity in the program
- [x] explains how the named, selected list manages complexity in the program code by explaining why the program code could not be written, or how it would be written differently, without using this list.
- [x] one program code showing a student-developed procedure with at least one parameter that has an effect on the functionality of the procedure
- [x] one program code showing where the student-developed procedure is being called.
- [x] describes what the identified procedure does and how it contributes to the overall functionality of the program
- [x] includes a program code segment of a student-developed algorithm that includes sequencing, selection, and iteration
- [x] explains in detailed steps how the identified algorithm works in enough detail that someone else could recreate it
- [x] describes two calls to the selected procedure identified in written response 3c. Each call must pass a different
- [x] argument(s) that causes a different segment of code in the algorithm to execute.
- [x] describes the condition(s) being tested by each call to the procedure.
- [x] identifies the result of each call
| Category | Student Score | Comments | CB Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Row 1 Program Purpose and Function | 1/1 | Program's purpose and function is clearly shown. | 1/1 |
| Row 2 Data Abstraction | 1/1 | The captions help show program's components as well as abstraction of data. | 1/1 |
| Row 3 Managing Complexity | 1/1 | Lists are used to manage complexity. | 1/1 |
| Row 4 Procedural Abstraction | 1/1 | 1/1 | |
| Row 5 Algorithm Implementation | 1/1 | Code use iteration and other tools which signifies good Algorithm Implementation. | 1/1 |
| Row 6 Testing | 1/1 | 1/1 |
T-Dev-CCM
kaiden-dough
commented
1 year ago 
alexac54767
commented
1 year ago 
raisinbran25
commented
1 year ago 
avac54765
commented
1 year ago 
lydia-c2
commented
1 year ago 
Henerystone
commented
1 year ago 
ADVAYS16
commented
1 year ago 
A1234l
commented
1 year ago Alan Liu-Sui Per 3 Mortensen Scoring Blog Post
sreejagangapuram
commented
1 year ago 
TheGerbil21
commented
1 year ago Jeffrey Lee Period 3 Mortensen
SRIHITAKOTT1213
commented
1 year ago 
DavidVasilev1
commented
1 year ago Submission 1
| Category | Criteria | Notes | Student Score | Collegeboard Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Program Purpose and Function |
|
In this category, all criteria are met, however I think that there could've been more examples shown in order to show that the program works in all instances. | 1 | 0 |
| Data Abstraction |
|
I think that all of the criteria here are met, however there could've been explanations of the code along with the screenshots provided. There could've also been comments in the code to label everything. | 1 | 1 |
| Managing Complexity |
|
None of the criteria were met in this section. The list only has classifications for the type of triangle, not data to manage complexity. The explanations are also inaccurate. | 0 | 0 |
| Procedural Abstraction |
|
All requirements here are met and explained well. | 1 | 1 |
| Algorithm Implementation |
|
All requirements here are met again. | 1 | 1 |
| Testing |
|
All requirements are met. | 1 | 1 |
Reflection: I think that my scoring is pretty similar to Collegeboard's except for the first section of the rubric. This is my first time grading so I may need some more practice grading to see what is a good program and what isn't based on Collegeboard's wants. Based on what I have seen, I think it is good to have extra things in order to show Collegeboard that you know what you are doing and not just trying to pass the class. On this first one I gave the student a 5/6 while Collegeboard gave a 4/6, the only difference being on the first section of the rubric where Collegeboard considered there to not be a good enough description of one of the sections.
Submission 2
| Category | Criteria | Notes | Student Score | Collegeboard Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Program Purpose and Function |
|
Everything here is met very well and there is good, simple description of the program. | 1 | 1 |
| Data Abstraction |
|
Everything is shown here again, not in code but in blocks, which is still fine. There are good comments in the code as well, showing explanations. | 1 | 1 |
| Managing Complexity |
|
Everything here is met. There are multiple examples of the required items and they are all described well. | 1 | 1 |
| Procedural Abstraction |
|
Everything here is described well and all the criteria are met. | 1 | 1 |
| Algorithm Implementation |
|
All the criteria are met and everything is described well. | 1 | 1 |
| Testing |
|
Everything is described well and organized. | 1 | 1 |
Reflection: Here, I graded the same as Collegeboard. I think that this program was very well made and described and it met all of the criteria that was needed by Collegeboard. For my program I think that I will need to have good comments in my code, as well as good explanations of all the things that Collegeboard wants to see. I need to have a good program, but also multiple examples of what Collegeboard needs to see so that if one thing doesn't meet criteria, I still have other examples that might meet the standards.
yuricoder07
commented
1 year ago Period 3: Mort Yuri S
akshat122805
commented
1 year ago | Submission 1 | Reporting Category | Requirements | Student Score | College Board Score | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Program Purpose and Function |
|
1 | 0 | Everything here is met very well and there is good, simple description | |
| Data Abstraction |
|
1 | 1 | All of the criteria here are met, however there are no explanations of the code along with the screenshots provided. There could've also been comments in the code to label everything. | |
| Managing Complexity |
|
0 | 0 | None of the criteria were met in this section. The list only has classifications for the type of triangle, not data to manage complexity. The explanations are also inaccurate. | |
| Procedural Abstraction |
|
1 | 1 | Everything here is described well and all the criteria are met. | |
| Algorithmic Implementation |
|
1 | 1 | Everything is well describes, algorithms are implemented and explained well, code segments are included too with sequencing, iteration, and selection | |
| Testing |
|
1 | 1 | All is well and organized, testing is efficient |
Student 1 Reflection: The student reflected on their comparison of their own scoring of a program to the College Board's AP scoring. They gave the student a 5 out of 6 for the Program Purpose and Function category, while the College Board gave a 4 out of 6. The student realized that they had given the student a point for correctly describing the program purpose, but the student had actually only described the program functionality. The student's own program will need to include a list to manage complexity in order to avoid missing this point. The student did not get the point in the Program Purpose and Function category because they did not describe the program purpose, and therefore received a 0 out of 1 for this category with no possibility for partial credit.
| Submission 2 | Reporting Category | Requirements | Student Score | College Board Score | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Program Purpose and Function |
|
1 | 1 | Everything here is met very well and there is good, simple description of the program. | |
| Data Abstraction |
|
1 | 1 | Everything is shown here again, not in code but in blocks, which is still fine. There are good comments in the code as well, showing explanations. | |
| Managing Complexity |
|
1 | 1 | Everything here is met. There are multiple examples of the required items and they are all described well. | |
| Procedural Abstraction |
|
1 | 1 | Everything here is described well and all the criteria are met. | |
| Algorithmic Implementation |
|
1 | 1 | All the criteria are met and everything is described well. | |
| Testing |
|
1 | 1 | Everything is described well and organized. |
Student 2 Reflection: The student's grading of the program was consistent with the College Board's grading. They believe that the program was high quality and met all of the necessary criteria. To ensure success, the student plans to include thorough comments and explanations in their own program and provide multiple examples to demonstrate that they meet the standards set by the College Board. This will ensure that even if one aspect of their program does not meet the criteria, they have other examples that may be accepted.
clairehzhao
commented
1 year ago 
Azeem-Khan1
commented
1 year ago Azeem Khan (Mr. Mortensen Period 3)
BLOG POST HERE
kalanicabralomana
commented
1 year ago Kalani Cabral-Omana Period 3
Submission 1
| Reporting Category | Requirements | Student Score | College Board Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Program Purpose and Function |
|
1 | 0 |
| Data Abstraction |
|
1 | 1 |
| Managing Complexity |
|
0 | 0 |
| Procedural Abstraction |
|
1 | 1 |
| Algorithm Implementation |
|
1 | 1 |
| Testing |
|
1 | 1 |
Reflection
I scored this submission a 5 out of 6 in the Program Purpose and Function category, while the College Board gave them a 4 out of 6. I thought that the student had correctly described the purpose of the program, but it turns out that they only described its functionality. The student did not receive a point in this category because they did not explain the purpose of the program, but they did meet all the other requirements. As a result, they received a score of 0 out of 1 because there is no partial credit. In order to improve their score, they should include a code segment that utilizes a list to manage complexity, such as iterating through a list to check or change something.
Submission 2
| Reporting Category | Requirements | Student Score | College Board Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Program Purpose and Function |
|
1 | 1 |
| Data Abstraction |
|
1 | 1 |
| Managing Complexity |
|
1 | 1 |
| Procedural Abstraction |
|
1 | 1 |
| Algorithm Implementation |
|
1 | 1 |
| Testing |
|
1 | 1 |
Reflection
There were no discrepancies between my scoring and the College Board's AP scoring for this student. Both of us gave them a score of 6 out of 6. I believe that the student was very thorough in including all the necessary requirements and in the descriptions of the code segments in the relevant categories. In order to receive a point for Procedural Abstraction in my own program, I need to include a procedure that has at least one parameter and plays an important role in the program. I should also aim to include all the other elements that this student included in their submission, as they received full marks in the scoring. It is important to carefully follow the specific criteria for each category and make sure that all the requirements are met in my own performance task. This student did not miss the standard.
TheoH32
commented
1 year ago | Reporting Catergory | Student Score | College Board Score | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Program Purpose and Function | 0 | 0 | Didn't fully explain what the function did, "provides information" does not give me detail of what the output is going to be. |
| Data Abstraction | 1 | 1 | Stores user inputed data in sideIndex and provides the list back along with explanations back. |
| Managing Complexity | 1 | 0 | I thought the list of the inputted side lengths would count but College Board explains how the way the coder managed complexity was inefficient and uneccesary |
| Procedural Abstraction | 1 | 1 | Describes and shows the function of the user made procedure |
| Algorithm Implementation | 1 | 1 | Uses sequencing, iteration, and selection while also meeting the other requirements |
| Row 6 Testing | 1 | 1 | Identifies results, has two calls to ratioCalculate, and checks ABC values |
| Reporting Catergory | Student Score | College Board Score | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Program Purpose and Function | 1 | 1 | Shows input, output, and describes functionality and purpose |
| Data Abstraction | 1 | 1 | Shows both data storing and usage in two functions, and fulfilling variable names |
| Managing Complexity | 0 | 1 | I was confused on the list functionality and how it managed complexity |
| Procedural Abstraction | 1 | 1 | Describes and shows usage of both code segments |
| Algorithm Implementation | 1 | 1 | Self made algorithm that uses iteration, selection, and sequencing |
| Row 6 Testing | 1 | 1 | Descries and identifying results and segments |
1905047
commented
1 year ago Submission 1: 4/6 Gets objective done but there is not much creativity or anything extra added to project.
Submission 2: 6/6 Gets objective done but goes above and beyond by added user control to project.
yashakhoshini
commented
1 year ago Yasha Khoshini Period 4
STUDENT 1 GRADE
| Catergory | Student Grades | College Board Grades | Commentary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Program Purpose and Function | 1 | 0 | The function provides detailed information and meets most of the requirements. It gives a clear understanding of what the output will be. |
| Data Abstraction | 1 | 1 | The function stores the data input by the user in a variable called sideIndex and returns the list and explanations to the user. |
| Managing Complexity | 0 | 0 | The list of the side lengths input by the user is alright however I agree with college board when they talked about the way the code handles complexity is inefficient and unnecessary. |
| Procedural Abstraction | 1 | 1 | The statement describes and demonstrates the function of the user-defined procedure. |
| Algorithm Implementation | 1 | 1 | The code employs sequencing, iteration, and selection techniques while also satisfying the other requirements. |
| Row 6 Testing | 1 | 1 | The code recognizes the results, calls the ratioCalculate function twice, and verifies the values of ABC. |
STUDENT 2 GRADE
| Reporting Catergory | Student Grades | College Board Grades | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Program Purpose and Function | 1 | 1 | The statement demonstrates the input, output, and explains the purpose and functionality of the code. |
| Data Abstraction | 0 | 1 | The code does not adequately demonstrate the storing and use of data and fails to meet the requirements for naming variables. |
| Managing Complexity | 1 | 1 | The list function was effective and the code effectively explained how it managed complexity. |
| Procedural Abstraction | 1 | 1 | The statement describes and illustrates the use of both code segments. |
| Algorithm Implementation | 1 | 1 | The self-created algorithm employs iteration, selection, and sequencing techniques. |
| Row 6 Testing | 1 | 1 | The statement describes and identifies the results and segments of the code. |
AlexKumar19
commented
1 year ago Alex Kumar Period 4 Mortensen
Link To my issue!
mmaxwu
Unlqsting
commented
1 year ago Noor Bijapur's Issue link
amayadvani
commented
1 year ago 
JishnuS420
commented
1 year ago Student 1 Submission:
| Category | Personal Grading Score | Collegeboard's Score | Comments | Reflection |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Program Purpose and Function | 1 | 0 | The video was clear and the code was visibly functional and the writing part clearly describes the input and the wanted output. Seems to have a clear purpose. | The purpose described is just describing the process of the program rather than its uses to the user and its purpose outside of the code |
| Data Abstraction | 1 | 1 | All the criteria was met here, the only thing that I would add just to secure this point just in case is maybe an in-depth explanation of the code since lots of time was still remaining so it would have been a good idea to add something more | Same as the comment I left, just add some more in-depth explanations |
| Managing Complexity | 0 | 0 | The list doesn't actually manage the complexity of the program so no points given | Still the same comment, the list doesn't manage the complexity so they lose the point for this category |
| Procedural Abstraction | 1 | 1 | All the requirements were met and are explained/shown well | Still agree with the comment I had earlier |
| Algorithm Implementation | 1 | 1 | The code segment shows sequencing, selection, and iteration with the for loop and also meets all the other requirements that were listed in the rubric | Agree with the comment I left first time around |
| Testing | 1 | 1 | Once again, all of the requirements were met and the code is in fact working and meets the expectations of the rubric | The same as the comment I left |
| Final Score | 5/6 | 4/6 | N/A | I thought the purpose applied to the the code only but you have to look more to how it can help other people and the purpose it presents outside of the code, Otherwise, I think that I did a decent job of grading this Student, but yeah, I need to think less vaguely and think more about what collegeboard is going to be grading like and how they would judge these students |
Student 2 Submission:
| Category | Personal Grading Score | Collegeboard's Score | Comments | Reflection |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Program Purpose and Function | 1 | 1 | The video was clear and the code was visibly functional and the writing part clearly describes the input and the wanted output. Seems to have a clear purpose. It meets all the requirements mentioned by collegeboard in my opinion | The code met all the criteria, and is a pretty code example of the first category |
| Data Abstraction | 1 | 1 | Everything is shown and is in the project although in the form of blocks, the explanations and comments make sense and explain the code well | Same as the comment I left, remember to include comments in code and other parts for my own CPT |
| Managing Complexity | 1 | 1 | Everything in here is met and are often even repeated to secure the point even further, everything was yet again well described | Same as the comment, good example of a good Managing Complexity |
| Procedural Abstraction | 1 | 1 | All the requirements were met and are explained/shown well | Same as the comment, nothing too special but met all the criteria in the rubric and was good |
| Algorithm Implementation | 1 | 1 | The code segment shows sequencing, selection, and iteration with the for loop and also meets all the other requirements that were listed in the rubric | Agree with the comment |
| Testing | 1 | 1 | Everything is described well and organized. | The code really shows organization and is easy to understand and follow |
| Final Score | 6/6 | 6/6 | N/A | I graded the same as collegeboard, but I also learnt a lot of things from this persons submission, the amount of comments and the organizations and explanations all make the video really easy to follow along with and the. This person was very organized and it shows their interest in the CPT and it also shows how they weren't just doing it to do it but put in a lot of thoughts and work into making this work. |
sachitcode
commented
1 year ago Sachit Prasad Period 4 Yeung Blog Post: Link
1908901
dashpen
commented
1 year ago https://github.com/dashpen/blog/issues/17 Period 3 Mortenson Dashiell penning
TaiyoI
AniCricKet
commented
1 year ago 
Tirth-Thakkar
commented
1 year ago EX. Submission 1
| Reporting Category | Scoring | Criteria | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Program Function & Purpose | 0/1 | Video
Written
|
The video showcases the program running with two different inputs and outputs. Then they are subsequently described in the write up along with a description of the program’s function but not the purpose. |
| Data Abstraction | 1/1 |
|
List SideIndex then used to fulfill the function of the program and used to store data with the name correctly identified and the data the names of the triangles as a result of their side lengths is also correctly identified |
| Managing Complexity | 0/1 |
|
The list SideIndex doesn’t not manage any complexity as it doesn't store data that could not be done in a way without the use of the list and the description of how the program couldn’t be written |
| Procedural Abstraction | 1/1 |
|
Made the function ratioCalculate with three required parameters and function was properly described in the manner in which it functioned |
| Algorithm Implementation | 1/1 |
|
Function has sequencing iteration and selection. Also described the program with enough detail that it was possible to remake. |
| Testing | 1/1 |
|
Describes the two different classes with different arguments. Then says what is being tested in the function calls. |
Submission 2
| Reporting Category | Scoring | Criteria | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Program Function & Purpose | 1/1 | Video
Written
|
Shows the program running and shows the output for the program. Also showcases the purpose and function of the program. |
| Data Abstraction | 1/1 |
|
Two different code segments and how they are state how the data is stored and the name of the list startGrid. Also says what data is being stored in the list. |
| Managing Complexity | 1/1 |
|
Says how the list manages the complexity of being able to store the status of many items. Also described how it would not be able to be made without a list. |
| Procedural Abstraction | 1/1 |
|
There is a student made function with 2+ parameters and a description of the program functions and a description that falls in line with its purpose |
| Algorithm Implementation | 1/1 |
|
Has a student developed function that has iteration and selection also states how the algorithm works to the ability that anyone can recreate it. |
| Testing | 1/1 |
|
Describes two different function calls with different parameters and then the function also correctly described the conditions test and the results were properly identified. |
Nathan-Capule
commented
1 year ago 
lunaiwa
commented
1 year ago Period 4 Mortenson Luna Iwazaki
DeDuva4
commented
1 year ago 
zeen1717
commented
1 year ago Zeen Deng Period 4 Yeung https://zeen1717.github.io/zeeeeen/2023/01/04/Submmisions.html
NavanYatavelli
commented
1 year ago Navan Yatavelli Period 4 Yeung https://navanyatavelli.github.io/fastpages/markdown/2023/01/08/performancetaskscoring.html
nikhilc3
commented
1 year ago 
gigtieup
commented
1 year ago | Reporting Catergory | Student Score | College Board Score | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Program Purpose and Function | 0 | 0 | Didn't fully explain what the function did, "provides information" does not give me detail of what the output is going to be. |
| Data Abstraction | 1 | 1 | Stores user inputed data in sideIndex and provides the list back along with explanations back. |
| Managing Complexity | 1 | 0 | I thought the list of the inputted side lengths would count but College Board explains how the way the coder managed complexity was inefficient and uneccesary |
| Procedural Abstraction | 1 | 1 | Describes and shows the function of the user made procedure |
| Algorithm Implementation | 1 | 1 | Uses sequencing, iteration, and selection while also meeting the other requirements |
| Row 6 Testing | 1 | 1 | Identifies results, has two calls to ratioCalculate, and checks ABC values |
| Reporting Catergory | Student Score | College Board Score | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Program Purpose and Function | 1 | 1 | Shows input, output, and describes functionality and purpose |
| Data Abstraction | 1 | 1 | Shows both data storing and usage in two functions, and fulfilling variable names |
| Managing Complexity | 0 | 1 | I was confused on the list functionality and how it managed complexity |
| Procedural Abstraction | 1 | 1 | Describes and shows usage of both code segments |
| Algorithm Implementation | 1 | 1 | Self made algorithm that uses iteration, selection, and sequencing |
| Row 6 Testing | 1 | 1 | Descries and identifying results and segments |
kushsirohi123
commented
1 year ago 
Ethan2806
commented
1 year ago Submission 1
Reporting Catergory | Student Score | College Board Score | Comments -- | -- | -- | -- Program Purpose and Function | 1 | 0 | It explained what the output was going to be Data Abstraction | 1 | 1 | The function saves the data input by the user in a variable called "sideIndex," and then returns both the list of data and accompanying explanations. Managing Complexity | 1 | 0 | The initial expectation was that the list of inputted side lengths would be sufficient, however, the College Board determined that the method used by the coder to handle complexity was not efficient and could have been avoided. Procedural Abstraction | 1 | 1 | Describes and clearly shows the procedure that the user made Algorithm Implementation | 1 | 1 | Uses sequencing, iteration, and selection while meeting other requirements on the rubric as well Row 6 Testing | 1 | 1 | It checks all ABC values in the function.Submission 2
Reporting Catergory | Student Score | College Board Score | Comments -- | -- | -- | -- Program Purpose and Function | 1 | 1 | Shows input, output, and describes the purpose of the function Data Abstraction | 1 | 1 | The program utilizes two functions, one for storing data input by the user in a variable, and another for utilizing the stored data and returning it along with variable names or explanations. Managing Complexity | 1 | 1 | The program effectively manages the complexity of storing the status of multiple items through the use of a list data structure. This would not have been possible without the use of such a data structure. Procedural Abstraction | 1 | 1 | Describes the code segments and shows use of them Algorithm Implementation | 1 | 1 | The algorithm was developed in-house and utilizes the concepts of iteration, selection, and sequencing to accomplish its task. Row 6 Testing | 1 | 1 | Identifies all results and describes them
jesa06
commented
1 year ago Joselyn Anda Period 4 Yeung Blog Post CPT Scoring
ahadb63
commented
1 year ago Ahad Biabani Mr. Mort Period 3 CPT GRADING 1
Performance Task Scoring 1 | APCSP
Students looks at scoring rubric to determine scoring for the performance task
https://nighthawkcoders.github.io/APCSP/ptscoring/1