Submission 1

Reporting Category My Scoring College Board Scoring Comments
Program Purpose and Function 1 0 The student did not meet this requirement because rather than actually stating the purpose of the program, the student simply describes the functionality of it.
Data Abstraction 1 1 The student met the requirement because they provide two code segments: one showing data being stored and the other showing data being accessed. They also specify what is stored in the list.
Managing Complexity 0 0 The student did not meet the requirement because their use of the list does not manage complexity and they give an inaccurate explanation on how the program would be different without lists and how lists are more efficient.
Procedural Abstraction 1 1 The student met the requirement because they show a student-developed procedure and describes the functionality of the procedure.
Algorithm Implementation 1 1 The student met the requirement because the algorithm includes sequencing, selection, and iteration and describes how the algorithm in the procedure works.
Testing 1 1 The student met the requirement because both calls of the procedure are clearly different, they describe the conditions being tested for each call, and they describe the results of each call.

Discrepancies Between my scoring and CollegeBoard Scoring

For the most part, I gave the same score to the submission on each category as Collegeboard did; however, there was one instance in which we did not agree with each other’s scoring. For the reporting category Program Purpose and Function, I gave the student the point, as I thought that they included enough detail and that they fulfilled the requirement of knowing what the program does and what problems it solves. However, Collegeboard did not award the point because rather than actually specifying the purpose of the program, they simply describe its functionality, which is not the same thing. I likely made this mistake because I simply thought that describing the functionality of the program could also somehow be used to describe its purpose, but now when I look back at the rubric, it clearly states that the person looking at the code does not want the student to describe the program’s functionality.

For all of the other categories, however, I my scoring matched Collegeboard’s scoring for the same reasons as stated by Collegeboard.

Submission 2

Reporting Category My Scoring College Board Scoring Comments
Program Purpose and Function 1 1 The student met the requirement because they demonstrate the running of the program, specify the program’s purpose, and describes the functionality of the program.
Data Abstraction 1 1 The student met the requirement because they provide two distinct code segments (one showing data being stored, one showing data being accessed) and identifies what is stored in the list.
Managing Complexity 0 1 The student met the requirement because their program includes a list that accesses and stores the status of a large number of items. They also give an accurate explanation for how the code could not be made without a list.
Procedural Abstraction 1 1 The student met the requirement because they include a student-developed procedure and describes its functionality.
Algorithm Implementation 1 1 The student met the requirement because they include a student-developed algorithm and explains how the algorithm in the procedure works so that one could recreate it.
Testing 1 1 The student met the requirement because they demonstrate two different calls of the program, describes the conditions being tested, and describes the two different results.

Discrepancies Between my scoring and CollegeBoard Scoring

Similar to the last submission, my scoring matched Collegeboard’s scoring for most of the categories. The only category in which my scoring did not agree with Collegeboard’s scoring was the Managing Complexity row. I did not award the student the point, as I thought that saying in their written response that a list on its own manages complexity would not be enough for them to earn the point; however, this is not the same conclusion Collegeboard came to. Collegeboard awarded the point to the student because of how their list is able to store and access the status of many items, thus making the process of running and executing the program much more efficient. Now when I look at Collegeboard’s commentary, I realize why the student earned the point and understand how their program manages complexity.

What my CPT Program Will Need + Criteria

To recap, below are the six criteria that Collegeboard will be looking for in my Create Performance Task:

  • Program Purpose/Function
  • Data Abstraction
  • Managing Complexity
  • Procedural Abstraction
  • Algorithm Implementation
  • Testing

In order for me to get a full score on the CPT, my submission needs to meet all six of these criteria. While I do not have any finalized ideas for what I am going to for my CPT (yet), below are a few that I have brainstormed and thought about for quite some time:

  • Some kind of fun game that can also help the user learn something
  • Program that allows a user to track their daily activity, water intake, food intake, etc.
  • Maybe a program that takes a data set and calculates the mean, median, mod, standard deviation, etc.

Regardless of what I end up doing, my program needs to meet these six criteria

Why a Submission Might Not Meet a Standard

While the program not functioning as it should can be a reason that a submission fails to meet a standard, what the student includes in their written response can also be the reason. If the student is not being specific about the program purpose, function, algorithms, etc., it is likely that Collegeboard cannot award them the point for being vague. Another reason could be that the submission shows that the student did not thoroughly look at the rubric themselves to make sure that they met all the criteria. Without reading the rubric, one cannot be for certain if they have met a standard, which is why it is always important to review the rubric before getting started on the project. This way, you will not have to start from scratch if you find out that it does not meet the criteria on the rubric.