Week One

Collegeboard Grading Methods

Collegeboard uses this rubric to grade. Read the guidelines in order to plan your project and/or grade other projects.

Submission Number One

Submission Video Submission Written Response

My Score: 5/6 Click here to see my rubric

Collegeboard’s Score: 6/6 Click here to see Collegeboard’s rubric

Reflection

Why Did a Section(s) Not Recieve Points?

  • I scored the Program Purpose and Function Row a 0/1 due to the description of the program’s purpose. The description of the purpose seemed to describe what the program does more than why a user would use the program. I think the purpose should involve the user’s needs for needing the program like helping a user efficiently find information about triangles.
    • Collegeboard also scored this section a 0/1. They wrote: The response does not specify the program’s purpose. Instead, it describes the function of the program, “to provide information about a triangle based on inputted side lengths.” The response does not meet this criteria.
  • Collegeboard also scored the section, Managing Complexity, a 0/1 due to meeting none of the criteria. They said that the list was not necessary for the program, and does not manage complexity. They also said that they inaccurately described a different way to not use lists.
    • I graded this section a 1/1 because I thought putting all of the classifications in one place was managing complexity. Additionally, I figured that their explanation of deleting the list fit the rubric.

Submission Number Two

Submission video Submission Written Response

My Score: 5/6 Click here to see my rubric

Collegeboard’s Score: 6/6 Click here to see Collegeboard’s rubric

Reflection

Why Did a Section(s) Not Recieve Points?

  • I decided to score the section, Algorithim Implementation, a 0/1 because I thought they did not explain how they program code worked enough for someone to recreate it. I believe that I thought this due to my lack of experience of coding. As someone who hasn’t coded very many projects yet, I would need more detailed instructions than a person grading for Collegeboard.
    • Collegeboard graded this project a 6/6. I was surprised to see this score becauase I feel like Collegeboard grades on the scrict side. It seems that this group explained with excess on how to recreate this project. They described, ““The algorithm uses nested if-else statements to identify which list will be copied from, by looking at the first parameter. Inside the if statement matching that parameter, are another set of if statements to determine where the list should be copied over to. This could be adapted to any number of lists, but is in this case just three, meaning two if statements within each of three nested if-else, as of course a list cannot be copied to itself.” This seems complicated to me so maybe I just didn’t understand it enough to recreate it.

Week Two

Submission One

Submission Video Submission Written Response

My Score: 4/6 Click here to see my rubric

Collegeboard’s Score: 1/6 Click here to see Collegeboard’s rubric

Reflection

  • I was very surprised to see the score for this project. I scored this project much higher than collegeboard did. This is because this project often only met one of two requirements for a row, resulting in a zero for that section. This makes me realize how easy it is to lose a point for a section by not meeting all the requirements.
  • What was different?
    • I scored rows one and five as 0/1, unlike collegeboard, who scored rows 1-5 zeroes. I believe this is because I was more lenient on the requirements than they were.
    • When looking at the code segments, I didn’t think to look at the list names and check that they list names matched when being implemented. Apparently, this group showed a list being defined in one code segment, but then used a different list being implemented in the code.
    • Looking at their code segments, I figured that the code looked simple due to managing complexity, but collegboard said that their code was simple to begin with, with little complexity managing.

Submision Two

Submission Video Submission Written Response

My Score: 6/6 Click here to see my rubric

Collegeboard’s Score: 6/6 Click here to see Collegeboard’s rubric

Reflection

  • I am not surprised that this project received a 6/6 by both collegeboard and me.
  • The written response was very well done and explained. I can take this project as an example for my project on how to correctly explain things in my written response. For example, this person explained how their project benefited the user and how the user would use it. It had very concise code segments with explanations that explained the lists being used, the functions being used, and their functions in terms of the program’s function/purpose.

Submission Three

Submission Video Submission Written Response

My Score: 5/6 Click here to see my rubric

Collegeboard’s Score: 5/6 Click here to see Collegeboard’s rubric

Reflection

  • I agree with Collegeboard that this project deserves a 5/6.
  • This group did not describe the purpose of their project correctly. Instead of mentioning how the project would benefit the user, they described the function. Although, I thought that they did not describe the function of the project as well, but collegeboard disagrees. I thought that the function must describe how the program chooses a winner, but instead it just said that it uses buttons to choose screens. I guess that this does describe how the program works.
  • This project did a great job with complex code segments and describing their code. I will look to this project when I need to check how to manage complexity. I also learned from this project that you can use a list in a code segment but it can be used under the parameter of a function. If you do so though, you need to describe what the name of the parameter and the list are.

Submission Four

Submission Video Submission Written Response

My Score: 3/6 Click here to see my rubric

Collegeboard’s Score: 3/6 Click here to see Collegeboard’s rubric

Reflection

  • I feel that I am getting better at grading these projects. Both Collegeboard and I graded this project a 3/6.
  • Where did they go wrong?
    • This person did not use their list in their code segment. I did not see the name of the list in their code, but apparently they used the length of the list in the code. I learned that using the length of a list in your project does not satisfy using the contents of the list.
    • I thought that this project did not explain how to write the code of the list without the list, although collegeboard says that this project doesn’t even manage complexity with the list. I need to remember when creating my project, a simple list than can easily be replaced does not count as a list that manages complexity.
    • This person did not describe specific values that were being called, but just described the “conditionals”. When I write my written response, I need to be specific about what is being called.

Week Three

Submission One

Submission Video Submission Written Response

My Score: 5/6 Click here to see my rubric

Collegeboard’s Score: 3/6 Click here to see Collegeboard’s rubric

Reflection

  • What was different?
    • In row two, I figured that the person used the data from their list in their function, although Collegeboard said that the data is not being accessed from the list. If this were my project, I would clarify in the description of the name that the data is being accessed through a parameter.
    • In row 4, I gave this person a point because I thought that they showed their procedure being called and explained it well, but they missed explaining how their project contributes to the overall program. I need to make sure I address this in this question instead of just explaining how the procedure works.

Submission Two

Submission Video Submission Written Response

My Score: 6/6 Click here to see my rubric

Collegeboard’s Score: 6/6 Click here to see Collegeboard’s rubric

Reflection

  • I agree with Collegeboard that this project earned a 6/6. This project was very detailed in their descriptions and hit every requirement spot-on. When I am writing my written portion for my project, I will refer to this project and try to follow this format.
  • In this project, it was a lot easier for me to see the data being stored in a list and being used. The calls that were described were also easy to follow and allowed me to understand more what the different parts of a call are.

Submission Three

Submission Video Submission Written Response

My Score: 2/6 Click here to see my rubric

Collegeboard’s Score: 1/6 Click here to see Collegeboard’s rubric

Reflection

I feel like if I were able to give half points, this project would have earned a much higher score. This person was always close with their written responses, but was never specific enough. Collegeboard gave a lot less half credit for requirements than I did.

  • I did not realize that the list they have does not hold all the information they said, but just the state name.
  • I gave this project a point for managing complexity, but it turns out Collegboard said they met neither of the criteria. They do not have iteration (because it doesn’t loop through) and they did not describe the algorithim completely.
  • This project did not make any calls TO their procedure due to the parameter being assigned after the call. They also just described what happens to the screen from these calls instead of specific results from the calls.

Submission Four

Submission Video Submission Written Response

My Score: 6/6 Click here to see my rubric

Collegeboard’s Score: 5/6 Click here to see Collegeboard’s rubric

Reflection

  • I thought that this project was very well done. They explained very clearly in accordance to the Collegeboard standards.
  • I was very off with the final criteria for row six of this project. Collegeboard states that, “The response did not earn the point for this row, meeting none of the three criteria.” I thought that they should have earned the point for this, but it turns out they got none of the criteria. This person described more of the code rather than specific parameters, what is being tested from these parameters, and the results of these parameters.