CPT Scoring 2
Week 18 CPT scoring
Submission 1
| Category | My Score | Collegeboard Score | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Program purpose and function | 0 | 0 | While a brief description was given for the function, no clear purpose was defined |
| Data Abstraction | 0 | 0 | Two code segments shown, but both show the list and it’s values, but not its use toward the program purpose |
| Managing Complexity | 0 | 0 | no thorough explanation on how the list manages complexity |
| Procedural Abstraction | 0 | 0 | once again, no explanation that is well and explanatory |
| Algorithm Implementation | 0 | 0 | no included program code |
| Testing | 1 | 1 | good testing, explaining each test |
Descrepencies: None
Submission 2
| Category | My Score | Collegeboard Score | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Program purpose and function | 1 | 1 | A throrough explanation of the program purpose and function with all the required parts is present |
| Data Abstraction | 1 | 1 | clear code segments shown with explanation of contribution toward program purpose |
| Managing Complexity | 1 | 1 | explanation on use of list and how the code owuld change if not for a list |
| Procedural Abstraction | 1 | 1 | Good descriptions, clearly explaining the procedure and all of the details |
| Algorithm Implementation | 0 | 1 | Iteration is present, but only 3 items are iterated through, so it seemed trivial |
| Testing | 1 | 1 | good testing, explaining each test |
Descrepencies: I gave the Algorithm implementation a 0, as collegeboard gave it a 1. This is because I assumed iteration through a small list would be considered trivial, but apparently now I know 3 is an okay number for useful iteration.
Submission 3
| Category | My Score | Collegeboard Score | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Program purpose and function | 1 | 0 | The purpose was good, but the function of the program, while elaborated later on in the written response, was not included in that section |
| Data Abstraction | 1 | 1 | Good evidence and explanation of the list(same applies below) |
| Managing Complexity | 1 | 1 | thorough explanation of the use of lists to contribute toward the purpose and how the program would be with the absence of lists |
| Procedural Abstraction | 0 | 1 | The procedure seemed overly simple and lacked the complexity I sayw in others’ |
| Algorithm Implementation | 0 | 1 | no separate code, and all 3 algorithmic apporach didn’t seem to be present |
| Testing | 1 | 1 | Well explained tests, testing different types of inputs. |
Descrepencies: I gave a 1 while collegeboard gacve a 0 on program purpose and funtion, as I initially thought the purpose statement was good, but forgot to look at the function part, which wasn’t as stellar. For Procedural abstraction and algorithm implementation, I gave a 0 while collegeboard gave a 1. As a coder with a bit of a more algorithmic background, I was probably expecting a little bit more than the scope of the course from the people I graded.
Submission 4
| Category | My Score | Collegeboard Score | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Program purpose and function | 0 | 1 | The program purpose given seemed more like a program function, and didn’t really show the problem or creative intent |
| Data Abstraction | 0 | 0 | Two code segments shown, but lacked depth and undestanding of the way lists work |
| Managing Complexity | 0 | 0 | same as above, but adding that the explanation wasn’t thorough |
| Procedural Abstraction | 1 | 1 | Well done procedure and explanation of that procedure, with clearly defined parameters, use, and sub-procedures. |
| Algorithm Implementation | 1 | 1 | Procedure incuded searching and iteration algorithmic techniques. |
| Testing | 1 | 0 | Not amazing test cases, but were still passable, but weren’t that varied |
Descrepencies: I gave a 0 as collegeboard gave a 1 for program purpose and function. This was becuase I thought that the purpose sounded like a function, but collegeboard didn’t think so. In addition, I thought the testing was bad but passable, but collegeboard said it was a zero.
Reflection:
Notes for my own create performance task
- Don’t put as much emphasis on the Algorithmic implementation, and focus more on the abstraction
- Be sure to explain each section well in an easy to read format for the graders
- The program purpose should be a purpose and not describe the function
- it should either explain the problem being solved or the createve idea behind making the program.
A submission can fail to meet the requirements in 2 ways.
- The evidence with the code example is overly simple or not present
- a poor explanation exists, not connecting with the code much.