Performance Task Scoring 1

Submission #1

My Score: 6/6

Link to my rubric

Collegeboard Score: 4/6

Link to their rubric

Reflection

  • I was surprised to see the score that collegeboard gave this student. Looking through the written response, I believed that the project fit all the critera.
  • Row 1 (Program Purpose and Function): The student didn’t get the point for row 1 since they fit 5 of the 6 critera. Collegeboard believes that the student didn’t describe the function’s purpose (rather explained its functionality)
    • this was eye-opening, especially since the student response seemed alright to me, and like something I would possibly write. Now I realize that I need to be much more careful and detail oriented to ensure I am going to hit all 6 critera
  • Row 3 (Managing Complexity): The student also didn’t get the point for row 3 since he met none of the critera.
    • This score was shocking to me. This entire class I have seen lists as easier and usually always helpful. When I looked at this project, I believed that the list was very smart and effective. However, apparently it doesn’t contribute to managing complexity. This was also a good warning to me that I need to make sure that my list is actually helping to manage complexity (not all lists are useful)

Submission #2

My Score: 5/6

Link to my rubric

Collegeboard Score: 6/6

Link to their rubric

Reflection

  • Row 5 (Algorithm Implentation): I scored differently than college board on one the the critera here. I thought that the student didn’t describe the code enough that one would be able to re-create it. However, that probably just reflects my current abilities in coding (especically compared to an expert working for collegeboard.)
  • I believe that this student did a wonderful job. I really love how they put text boxes within the images of code to describe it as they went. It made it much more organized and easier to follow.
  • The student was also very thorough with all their explanations. It’s good to keep in mind that quality really matters here (have more than you need)

Performance Task Scoring 2

Submission #1

My Score: 3/6

Link to my rubric

Collegeboard Score: 1/6

Link to their rubric

Reflection

  • Row 1 (Program Purpose and Function): Both Collogeboard and I gave a 0 for this section.
    • The student incorrectly identifies the input and output, and descrived the functionality as the purpose. Thier given purpose was incorrect.
  • Row 2 (Data Abstraction): The student recieved a 0 on this section from Collegeboard, but I gave it a 1.
    • They did have images of lists and identified a name, however, the name did not correleate to the images provided.
    • When I do my project, I need to make sure I spend careful attention to details, and make sure every description matches my images.
  • Row 3 (Managing Complexity): Both Collogeboard and I gave a 0 for this section.
    • The images did not show a list being used, and the code was not complex.
    • the sudent did not explain how the list manages complexity
    • I need to make sure that my project will have a list that actually manges complexity and is useful
  • Row 4 (Procedural Abstraction): The student recieved a 0 on this section from Collegeboard, but I gave it a 1.
    • the response does not describe how this procedure contributes to the overall functionality
  • Row 5 (Algorithm Implentation): Both Collogeboard and I gave a 0 for this section.
    • the description of the program was brief and doesn’t allow for someone to recreate it
  • What I’ve learned with this project and scoring is that I will need to follow the directions completely when I do my project.

Submission #2

My Score: 6/6

Link to my rubric

Collegeboard Score: 6/6

Link to their rubric

Reflection

  • This submission got a perfect score from both me and Collegeboard
  • All the descriptions were well thought-out and detailed, with correct corresponding images.
  • It is a great example to use as reference in the future for my project.

Submission #3

My Score: 6/6

Link to my rubric

Collegeboard Score: 5/6

Link to their rubric

Reflection

  • Row 1 (Program Purpose and Function): The student recieved a 0 on this section from Collegeboard, but I gave it a 1.
    • The student described the function of the program but not its purpose
    • This one surprised me because when I read the purpose, it satisfied what I thought was the critera. However , it must not actually define a purpose
  • other than the purpose, this is another good example to go back to and use as reference for my project

Submission #4

My Score: 6/6

Link to my rubric

Collegeboard Score: 3/6

Link to their rubric

Reflection

  • Row 2 (Data Abstraction): The student recieved a 0 on this section from Collegeboard, but I gave it a 1.
    • data stored in the list is not being used in the second image
    • once again this shows how specific my images must be in order to recieve credit
  • Row 3 (Managing Complexity): The student recieved a 0 on this section from Collegeboard, but I gave it a 1.
    • the list is not used to manage complexity (acts as a counter, so it can be replaced with a single counter variable)
    • like other examples, I need to make sure that my list is actually managing complexity and is useful
  • Row 6 (Testing): The student recieved a 0 on this section from Collegeboard, but I gave it a 1.
    • The response gives the conditions being tested rather than two different arguments that cause a different segment of code to execute. Arguments should be specific values used in the call to the procedure.
    • this is the first time I’ve seen this score for section 6. I need to make sure to follow Collegeboard’s critera for what an argument is (and not just test conditions)

Performance Task Scoring 3

Submission #1

My Score: 5/6

Link to my rubric

Collegeboard Score: 3/6

Link to their rubric

Reflection

  • Row 2 (Data Abstraction): The student recieved a 0 on this section from Collegeboard, but I gave it a 1.
    • data stored in the list is mot being used in the second image
    • this seems to be a common mistake to make, so I need to make sure I am careful to follow the directions exactly
  • Row 3 (Managing Complexity): Both Collogeboard and I gave a 0 for this section.
    • the student does use a list, but it doesn’t really manage any complexity.
    • they wrote about how the use of randomly generated numbers could work as well (just as simple)
    • this also seems to be common among projects that don’t get great scores: I need to make sure that my list will actually simplify my program
  • Row 4 (Procedural Abstraction): The student recieved a 0 on this section from Collegeboard, but I gave it a 1.
    • the response does not describe how this procedure contributes to the overall functionality
    • this statement is too brief: “allows for the program to execute smoothly.”
    • it is better to have detail with Collegeboard

Submission #2

My Score: 6/6

Link to my rubric

Collegeboard Score: 6/6

Link to their rubric

Reflection

  • this student recieved a perfect 6/6 from both Collegeboard and I
  • this project is a great example of a project to refrence in the future
  • the student was very thorough and made sure to answer every question with detail

Submission #3

My Score: 4/6

Link to my rubric

Collegeboard Score: 1/6

Link to their rubric

Reflection

  • Row 2 (Data Abstraction): Both Collogeboard and I gave a 0 for this section.
    • the first image does not show the provided list, only the second image
    • the description of what the list stores is inaccurate
  • Row 3 (Managing Complexity): The student recieved a 0 on this section from Collegeboard, but I gave it a 1.
    • the list does manage complexity, but the student didn’t explain how it could be written withot it
    • the description is very breif and needs to be more detailed
  • Row 4 (Procedural Abstraction): The student recieved a 0 on this section from Collegeboard, but I gave it a 1.
    • the image of code provided does not contain a parameter and is also never called in the second image
    • the student also inaccurately described the functionality of the code
  • Row 5 (Algorithm Implentation): Both Collogeboard and I gave a 0 for this section.
    • this program includes sequencing and selection, but does not use iteration
    • the student forgot to mention a key part of the program when describing how it works
  • Row 6 (Testing): The student recieved a 0 on this section from Collegeboard, but I gave it a 1.
    • the two calls are not specific, and are from the procedure (not to the procedure)
    • the conditions provided aren’t actully being tested, but instead are operations done by the user
    • student didn’t provide what the acutal results would be with the calls, only what would appear on the screen
  • I have learned a lot from this example. I need to b e very specific ith my descriptions, but I also have to be careful that they are correct. I need to understand my code completely to ensure that I am answering every question thoroughly and correctly.

Submission #4

My Score: 5/6

Link to my rubric

Collegeboard Score: 5/6

Link to their rubric

Reflection

  • Collegeboard and I both gave this student a 5/6.
  • Row 6 (Testing): Both Collegeboard and I gave scored this section a 0
    • the student was not specific in the arguments that are passed through the parameters
    • the conditions the student provided don’t match the parameters in the program
    • described the code rather than the result
  • this student did a great job on their project. Beside not understanding the testing section (make sure to understand exactly what they are asking for), this is a good example to reference in the future.