Submission 1

Category My Score Collegeboard Score Comments
Program purpose and function 1 1 While the descriptions were short, the program functionality was technically described. I would have explained the purpose better, and mentioned that the computer choice was random, but all the requirements were still met
Data Abstraction 0 0 Two code segments shown, clearly explaining the list’s name and representation, with clear code explanation of how the list is used. However, it only shows code for how the list is inderectly used, as opposed to showing the code which actually generates the random choice from the list
Managing Complexity 0 0 Good explanation of the list managing complexity, and clearly explaining a method which could be used as an alternative to the list. Howver, future changes to the size of the list will not work with the if statements, which will only account if the choice was rock, paper, or scissors
Procedural Abstraction 1 0 all requirements present, with solid explanations of the procedure’s use in the program
Algorithm Implementation 1 1 clearly dscribed algorithm with good code shown
Testing 1 1 good testing, explaining each of the calls

Descrepencies: While I gave a 1 on procedural abstraction, collegeboard gave a 0. This is because I neglected the fact that the program did not explain how the procedure contributed to the overall program

Submission 2

Category My Score Collegeboard Score Comments
Program purpose and function 1 1 Clear difference between the program purpose, which is enteretainment on a boring day,a nd the program’s fucntion, which is to play a hangman hgame with the user, where the user has to guess letters.
Data Abstraction 1 1 Use of lists to show words and abstract the data. Two good code segments, with good explanations
Managing Complexity 1 1 Strong explanations on how the list manages complexity, and gives a plausible explanation of how the program would operate without a list, by generating a random number and using if statements instead, which would increase the complexity and make the program harder to use.
Procedural Abstraction 1 1 Good descriptions, clearly explaining the procedure and all of the details. It also shows how the “check” function inteegrates into the overall program
Algorithm Implementation 1 1 Good use of iteration, conditionals, and testing, with good explanation of how it all comes together,
Testing 1 1 good testing, explaining each test case,a nd how it tests something different

Descrepencies: None

Submission 3

Category My Score Collegeboard Score Comments
Program purpose and function 1 1 solid explanation of the program’s purpose,which is informatory, and the program’s function, which is to give the user state and website information.
Data Abstraction 0 0 2 code segments and a name for the list are present, but no details on how they are integrated. Also, the initializatied lists, and the list shown are different.
Managing Complexity 0 0 Explains taht the program complexity would increase without a list, but fails to mention how, and fails to mention how the program would be executed without a list.
Procedural Abstraction 0 0 An extremely basic and repetitive procedure, which was much more complex than it needed to be, if all the states were just stored in a list rather than using 50 if statements. No use of searching or iteration
Algorithm Implementation 1 0 while being a very bad version of it, some sort of search is present, so there is some algorithm
Testing 0 0 Only one test shown in the video, with one state and one wibsite name, and not showing what the program would do in different outputs

Descrepencies: I gave a 1 while collegeboard gacve a 0 on Algorithm Implementation. I assumed that a sign of algorithmic implementation was good enough to get the point, but now I know that the algorithm must be intuitive, and complete the task in the most efficient was possible.

Submission 4

Category My Score Collegeboard Score Comments
Program purpose and function 0 1 The program purpose was very minimal, and lacked the depth that others had. Also, some of the purpose was written with the function
Data Abstraction 1 1 Two code segments were shown, and it clearly shows the functional use of them.
Managing Complexity 0 1 Good explanation of how the program would be more complex without lists, but not through enough explanation of how the list manages complexity. It says theat it keeps all the data, but fails to specify what kind of data and so on
Procedural Abstraction 1 1 The touching procedure is clear and clearly returns true whent he hook and whatever kind of fish are touching
Algorithm Implementation 1 1 The algorithm is not intensive and long, but iteration is used to keep track of the fish caught. The algorithm also has a really cool portion when touching the fish
Testing 0 0 While the hard level was shown, the user did not show how the easy level worked. He also didn’t show what would happen in specific cases when the fishing hook was dropped

Descrepencies: I gave a 0 as collegeboard gave a 1 for program purpose and function, as well as managing complexity. This is because I keep making the assumption that this will be graded in the english way, with emphasis on the explanation, and I always forget how the emphasis is on the code and its purpose.

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.
    1. The evidence with the code example is overly simple or not present
    2. a poor explanation exists, not connecting with the code much.