Performance Task Scoring 1

Submission 1

Video
Written Response
College Board Scoring

Most of my scoring was the same as College Board, but on some categories I gave the student a point whereas College Board did not, such as the Managing Complexity row. The student missed the categories Program Purpose and Function and Managing Complexity. They did not include a correct program purpose, instead describing the function. When grading, I was hesitant on marking off the program purpose, so I will also have to work on differentiating program purpose and functionality. They included a list, however, it was not necessary for the program, so it did not manage complexity. I will have to work on knowing what lists are actually effective in managing complexity, as the student’s did not, and I thought it did.

Submission 2

Video
Written Response
College Board Scoring

My scoring was the same as College Board, the student met all of the requirements. The written response was very detailed and concise, with all the requirements met and specified. What helped me the most in grading this student was his program purpose and function, through their response, it is very clear the difference between purpose and function. Also, it is clear how his list managed complexity, so that helped me understand more.

Performance Task Scoring 2

Submission 1

Video
Written Response
College Board Scoring

The student missed most of the requirements. I thought that the game itself was made very well, with great features and a great design, but the written response did not do it justice. The student explained everything in very vague and incorrect ways. It sounded like they did not know what they were talking about. So, I know that for my CPT I will have to be very knowledgeable about the code I made to be successful in making a good write-up.

Submission 2

Video
Written Response
College Board Scoring

My scoring was the same as College Board, the student met all of the requirements. The written response was very detailed and concise, with all the requirements met and specified. The video was also clear in functionality, and executed well. The students program was very simple but effective. This could act as a great reference for my future CB CPT.

Submission 3

Video
Written Response
College Board Scoring

For Row 1, I scored the student a 1 while College Board scored them a 0. The program purpose was not identified correctly, which I was surprised at. I thought that they identified it correctly, so I will work on identifying the difference between purpose and functionality more. This was another simple but effective project. However, the written response sort of felt like the student was meeting the bare minimum. It meets all the requirements, but it lacks detail in most if not all of the descriptions. This was a high-scored project, but I wouldn’t use it as a reference.

Submission 4

Video
Written Response
College Board Scoring

The row that I scored differently than College Board was row 2. I thought that the list and code segments were specified correctly, but apparently the data stored in the list is not even used. Therefore, it doesn’t contribute to the functionality of the program. I will have to learn how to read code better, to be able to tell how lists and data is truly being used. Besides this row, I scored all the same as College Board. I was able to tell if the list managed complexity, which is an improvement for me. I was also able to tell that the calls were not correctly specified. Still, from this response, I can tell that College Board is very harsh with what they expect from the CPTs.

Performance Task Scoring 3

Submission 1

Video
Written Response
College Board Scoring

I gave a 5/6 and College Board gave a 3/6. I incorrectly gave the student points for Row 3 (Managing Complexity) and Row 4 (Procedural Abtraction). I thought that the list described managed complexity, but CB says that the results of the program would have been just as easy to develop or maintain without the list. I thought that the student correctly described the procedure, but CB says that the response does not contribute to the overall program. I will work on determining what is and isn’t a good list for a program. I thought that this program was a little bit too simple in terms of functionality as well as code.

Submission 2

Video
Written Response
College Board Scoring

I thought that this project was very cool and detailed. Both College Board and I scored this student with a full score. All requirements are met, clear, and specified. The functionality works very well, and the code and written response are both very in detail. This project could be a good reference for my own CPT.

Submission 3

Video
Written Response
College Board Scoring

My score matched College Board’s with a 1/6. I think that the program itself is a good idea and detailed, but the written response was not. The written response was vague and specified a lot of the wrong things, or nothing at all. I still checked more boxes than CB though, such as in Row 4, I did not notice that the procedure did not include a parameter, so I checked that box off. And in Row 6, College Board says results were not specified correctly, but I thought they were, so I will work on correctly identifying calls and results.

Submission 4

Video
Written Response
College Board Scoring

I thought that this project was so cute and creative, and pretty well done. I scored it a 6/6 and College Board scored it a 5/6. The only thing this student got wrong, and also what I graded wrong, was Row 6. They incorrectlly described calls. The student describes code segments rather than input and output. I will work on identifying real input and output of code. Other than this portion, I think this is a good project that I could reference for my CPT.