iskapoor
commented
2 years ago Total: 3.5/4.5
Breakdown:
[1/1] MCQ live results > 50%, (1 or 0) [0.5/1] FRQs live results > 50% (1 or 0), There is something on paper and effort was made but it looks rushed and none of the code works. [0.75/1] Ticket, GH Pages, Corrections, REPL, running FRQs, There is a effort made and ticket + GH Pages + corrections are ok but the FRQs aren't running and REPL is not where it should be. [1/1] Participation: participation is ok. [0.25/0.5] point, Quality of work, They have everything required and seemed to have tried to fix their FRQs beyond what was required but overall the quality of work after initial submission didn't change much so 0.25. Notes on github pages look good and show effort to try to learn and prepare for AP exam.
points: 3.5/4.5
points with extra credit: 4.5/4.5
Extra Credit for Acting/Skit/Improv ASI: 0 to +2 in Seed, -1 for not participating.
GH Indi Page, Review Ticket, Crossover graded MCQ results > 50%, (1 or 0) 1/1 FRQs results > 50% (1 or 0) 0/1 Ticket, GH Pages, Corrections, REPL, running FRQs: partial, extreme effort, completed objective (0, .5, .75, 1). This score is to represent review session(s) . 1/1 https://shekark642.github.io/Shekar-Github-Page/
Scoring guidelines for crossover graders 4.5/5.0 maximum
3 points, use bullets as indicated above, 1 point per sub-bullet 1 point, Participation: .20 for classroom presence and participation each day 1/1
Teacher evaluation, Last .5 added to Crossover 4.5/5
Reviewing work, providing feedback and obtaining inspiration from others work is a key skill in Computer Science. Seeing evidence of this in evaluation is critical to success in receiving credit from Teacher. Make sure when I am looking at your Ticket it is easy to find Ticket you evaluated. As an individual, I will be looking at how you follow canvas and csacoders weekly posts. As an individual, I will always be evaluating your engagement and participation.