CPT Grading 3
| Submission 1 Grading | Student Scoring | CB Grading | Additional Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Program Purpose and Function | 1 | 1 | The result of the rock paper scissors game is either Win, Lose, or Draw, which makes the program’s goal extremely obvious and its output simple to comprehend. |
| Data Abstraction | 0 | 0 | The list RPS has a variable linked with it, but the list being used to achieve the project’s goal isn’t existent, therefore none of the conditions are satisfied here. |
| Managing Complexity | 0 | 0 | Although the lists function is described, it is not stated what would occur if the list is not utilized in the application. |
| Procedural Abstraction | 0 | 0 | The remaining components of the function rpsGame() match the requirements, however the function’s overall usage within the program is not specified. |
| Algorithm Implementation | 1 | 1 | Here, it is evident that sequencing, iteration, and selection are being employed, and the user’s input results in a clearly defined output. |
| Testing | 1 | 1 | Each call’s requirements and every call’s output are specified in detail, along with the expected outcome. |
Reflection 1
The results and grades matched with mine. As there are more projects, I am better able to fully understand the standards set by Collegeboard and am better able to determine whether or not something earns points. Overall, this CPT project has some strong components, but the list and code are where they really fell short because of how lacking they were and how they neglected to include key crucial components.
| Submission 2 Grading | Student Scoring | CB Grading | Additional Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Program Purpose and Function | 1 | 1 | The goal of the program for a word game is made clear, and the game’s intended outcome is also specified. |
| Data Abstraction | 0 | 1 | The list is given a name, but it is not specified what is stored there. |
| Managing Complexity | 1 | 1 | The list is obviously providing a purpose in the code block, which explains why it is necessary for the program to function properly. |
| Procedural Abstraction | 1 | 1 | The procedure’s purpose is stated, and it specifies that it is used to compare the user’s inputted letters to a random word. |
| Algorithm Implementation | 1 | 1 | The explanation of the technique is very detailed, explaining each step so that it can be repeated. |
| Testing | 1 | 1 | The output is tagged with the calls so that it may be easily located and compared. |
Reflection 2
Between the grade I gave the project and the grade College Board assigned it, there was only one difference. I believed the list wasn’t being stored properly because it originated in the data abstraction section. Collegeboard thought it was being saved properly.
| Submission 3 Grading | Student Scoring | CB Grading | Additional Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Program Purpose and Function | 1 | 1 | The show’s goal is to inform viewers about a specific American state. This provides a sufficient amount of context for the program’s goal, which is why it merits points. |
| Data Abstraction | 0 | 0 | The list’s name is provided, but it is absent and its purpose is not disclosed. |
| Managing Complexity | 0 | 0 | Based on the justification provided in the written response, the lists’ relationship to the programs’ objective isn’t stated and is quite unclear. |
| Procedural Abstraction | 0 | 0 | Without the list, the program would be extremely inefficient and challenging, as mentioned in the clear statement that the program’s demise, but the code segment containing the procedure is not included in the written response. |
| Algorithm Implementation | 0 | 0 | The algorithm is incredibly inefficient because it checks each state individually by hand, which is why it doesn’t receive points for this part. |
| Testing | 1 | 0 | The calls have a clear definition of the required output. All of the calls are included along with any potential influences. |
Reflection 3
The only difference between my results and those of Collegeboard is the testing. Although Collegeboard thinks the Testing doesn’t meet the requirements to earn points, I granted the Testing section the points because it contained all the calls required to do so.
| Submission 4 Grading | Student Scoring | CB Grading | Additional Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Program Purpose and Function | 1 | 1 | The program’s declared goal of simulating a time-fish game can be found. |
| Data Abstraction | 1 | 1 | How the data is saved and what kinds of data are displayed in the list of “fishtype” |
| Managing Complexity | 1 | 1 | Without the list, numerous variables would be required to store a lot of data, making the code challenging to understand. |
| Procedural Abstraction | 1 | 1 | The near movement technique satisfies the requirements for getting points because it plays a significant role in the functionality of the code. |
| Algorithm Implementation | 1 | 1 | Because of the thorough explanation, anyone can accurately duplicate the algorithm and follow its steps. |
| Testing | 0 | 0 | The calls are well specified, however the documentation makes no mention of potential program errors. |
Reflection 4
My score matches the college board’s score identically. Due to its simplicity, this contribution was simple to understand how it operated and simple to score. Because I can now accurately score the full project, which I have definitely improved upon, my overall rating is improving.
Overall Reflection
I think my score is on par with those obtained by these instances on the CollegeBoard. I have a basic understanding of the specifications and what my project needs to succeed. To satisfy everyone’s needs, my project must be broad and have a variety of features and abstractions. One of the most obvious reasons a contribution would not have passed the standards in one area was a lack of a thorough explanation of how something functions. I’ll keep that in mind and make sure to include as much information as I can to show how my project meets the criteria.