| Submission 1 Grading |
Student Scoring |
CB Grading |
Additional Comments |
| Program Purpose and Function |
1 |
0 |
At first, I thought the student earned the point because they were able to articulate the function, the purpose, and the input and output. Following an examination of the college board scores, I found that the student had not complied with the requirements for explanation since their explanations of the function and purpose appeared to be inconsistent, and their input and output were incorrect. |
| Data Abstraction |
0 |
0 |
The information in animalList is not explained in the response. |
| Managing Complexity |
0 |
0 |
The student illustrates how the complexity and lack of a list will change the code. |
| Procedural Abstraction |
0 |
0 |
The user includes a parameter, but they are unable to describe how the operation works in general. |
| Algorithm Implementation |
0 |
0 |
The user offers a brief overview but doesn’t clarify how the algorithm can be duplicated. Sequencing, selection, and iteration are among the information offered. |
| Testing |
1 |
1 |
Inputs of various types are provided, and the submission describes the results that follow, explaining any differences. |
| Submission 2 Grading |
Student Scoring |
CB Grading |
Additional Comments |
| Program Purpose and Function |
1 |
1 |
The program’s goal, to “discover creativity,” is explained by the student, who also explains how it works. As a result of user input, they also describe how the outcome will change. all requirements are met. |
| Data Abstraction |
1 |
1 |
A list is named and its purpose and usefulness are described by the student (nounList). |
| Managing Complexity |
1 |
1 |
In response, it is explained in detail how complexity is handled and how the software would be altered. |
| Procedural Abstraction |
1 |
1 |
The response identifies the createPoems process and describes how it enhances the overall functioning. |
| Algorithm Implementation |
1 |
1 |
Response provides full reasoning for selection, sequencing, and iteration. |
| Testing |
1 |
1 |
Response outlines the circumstances and demonstrates how various inputs lead to various results. |
| Submission 3 Grading |
Student Scoring |
CB Grading |
Additional Comments |
| Program Purpose and Function |
0 |
0 |
Fails to thoroughly explain the function |
| Data Abstraction |
1 |
1 |
Defines and explains a list (findCharacterList). Describes the operation and goal. |
| Managing Complexity |
1 |
1 |
Regulates complexity. The solution explains how the character can be kept in a single variable rather than seven, making the code more effective and compact. |
| Procedural Abstraction |
1 |
1 |
Describes how the function is used and how it works. |
| Algorithm Implementation |
1 |
1 |
The response demonstrates how the algorithm could be reproduced and explains iteration, sequencing, and selection. Additionally, two parameters have been established. |
| Testing |
1 |
1 |
This response describes two separate situations and provides examples to show how different inputs lead to different outputs. satisfies all demands. |
| Submission 4 Grading |
Student Scoring |
CB Grading |
Additional Comments |
| Program Purpose and Function |
1 |
1 |
Response satisfies all requirements and includes input and output justifications, a goal (to test critical thinking), and an overall function. |
| Data Abstraction |
0 |
0 |
The student has named a list (guesses) and described its items, but she has not explained the list’s general function or goal. The Collegeboard claims that because this response simply indicates that the list’s data is not being used and that just its length is accessed, its purpose is not made clear and hence it does not meet their criteria. |
| Managing Complexity |
0 |
0 |
The response is unsatisfactory because it doesn’t discuss alternative ways the code could have been constructed. The list, according to Collegeboard, is merely being utilized as a counter and could be swapped out for a single counter variable. This would imply that the learner is not entirely aware of the code’s concept or how it may be improved. |
| Procedural Abstraction |
1 |
1 |
The answer is well-informed since it describes how the function operates and how it adds to the program’s overall functioning. Additionally, the student created a procedure (isitcorrect) using a parameter. This demonstrates that the student has a solid grasp of the code and its functionality within the application. |
| Algorithm Implementation |
1 |
1 |
Because the response offers justifications for iteration, sequencing, and selection, I agree with the Collegeboard’s conclusion that it is a good response. |
| Testing |
1 |
0 |
Instead than responding to two different parameters that result in different code execution, the response described the criteria being tested. CB added that the procedure call’s arguments should have particular values. |
Make sure to fulfill every condition since if you just fulfill 5 of the 6 requirements, you will receive a 0. I should evaluate my code and be as explicit as I can in my written response to ensure this. A majority of the marks are awarded for the ability to describe the intent and functioning of one’s code, thus avoid writing much or too little.