SCORING NUMBER 3

</tr> </tr> </tr> </tr> </tr>

Reporting category

program purpose and function

data abstraction

managing complexity

procedural abstraction

algorithm implementation

testing

Student score

0

0

0

0

0

1

College board score

0

0

0

0

0

1

Comments

I did not think that the student should earn any points for this category because the answer was incredibly nonspecific and barely described the program at all. Collegeboard agreed.

I did not think they deserved the point because what they were describing wasn't even being used in the code (AnimalList) so it made no sense to provide an explanation of it. Collegeboard agreed.

I did not think this category deserved the point because there is no code segment managing complexity and (subsequently) there is no explanation of how the code manages complexity, which is the entire premise of this section. Collegeboard agreed.

I did not think the student deserved points for this because there was only one parameter named guess instead of the two that are necessary and the functionality description does not give a "so what?" (why it matters for the rest of the program functioning). Collegeboard agreed.

I did not think the student deserved points for this because while there was iteration, sequencing, and selection, the description was vague and hard to follow. Collegeboard agreed.

I thought the student deserved points for this because it was specific and showed two calls as well as a parameter and what was tested by each individual call and the results of the calls. It describes the conditions and differing results. Collegeboard agreed with my analysis.

SCORING NUMBER 4

</tr> </tr> </tr> </tr> </tr>

Reporting category

program purpose and function

data abstraction

managing complexity

procedural abstraction

algorithm implementation

testing

Student score

1

1

1

1

1

1

College board score

1

1

1

1

1

1

Comments

I thought the student deserved points for this because everything was described very thoroughly and the video is effectively connected with the written response. Collegeboard also awarded the student with a 1.

I thought that the student deserved points for this because it includes the two segments and meets all other criteria for this section. Collegeboard agreed.

I thought that the person deserved the point for this category. It talks about managing complexity and how the code NEEDS this complexity managed in order to be efficient.

I think the person deserved the points for this because it had more parameters than were even required and gives a good description of functionality.

They deserve the point for this because there was sequencing, selection, and iteration and the algorithm is described in extreme detail so it is definitely possible for it to be recreated by someone else. Collegeboard agreed.

I thought the student deserved points for this because it was specific and showed two calls as well as a parameter and what was tested by each individual call and the results of the calls. It describes the conditions and differing results. Collegeboard agreed with my analysis.

SCORING NUMBER 5

</tr> </tr> </tr> </tr> </tr>

Reporting category

program purpose and function

data abstraction

managing complexity

procedural abstraction

algorithm implementation

testing

Student score

1

1

1

1

1

1

College board score

0

1

1

1

1

1

Comments

I thought the student deserved points for this because everything was described very thoroughly and the video is effectively connected with the written response. Collegeboard thought that one of the criteria was not met- the purpose of the program- and did not give the student a point.

I thought that the student deserved points for this because it includes the two segments and meets all other criteria for this section. Collegeboard agreed.

I thought that the person deserved the point for this category. It talks about managing complexity and how the code NEEDS this complexity managed in order to be efficient.

I think the person deserved the points for this because it had more parameters than were even required and gives a good description of functionality.

They deserve the point for this because there was sequencing, selection, and iteration and the algorithm is described in extreme detail so it is definitely possible for it to be recreated by someone else. Collegeboard agreed.

I thought the student deserved points for this because it was specific and showed two calls as well as a parameter and what was tested by each individual call and the results of the calls. It describes the conditions and differing results. Collegeboard agreed with my analysis.

SCORING NUMBER 6

</tr> </tr> </tr> </tr> </tr>

Reporting category

program purpose and function

data abstraction

managing complexity

procedural abstraction

algorithm implementation

testing

Student score

1

1

1

1

1

1

College board score

1

0

0

1

1

0

Comments

I thought the student deserved points for this because everything was described very thoroughly and the video is effectively connected with the written response. Collegeboard agreed that all criteria was met and also gave the student the point.

I thought that the student deserved points for this because it includes the two segments and meets all other criteria for this section. Collegeboard disagreed because only one of the lists is being used, the other one is just having the length accessed, and did not give a point.

I did not think the person deserved the point for this one because the complexity part was not explained and the list itself doesnt even manage complexity in the first place. Collegeboard agreed.

I think the person deserved the points for this because it had more parameters than were even required and gives a good description of functionality.

They deserve the point for this because there was sequencing, selection, and iteration and the algorithm is described in extreme detail so it is definitely possible for it to be recreated by someone else. Collegeboard agreed.

I thought the person should earn the point for this because the conditions being tested and the results were described, but collegeboard disagreed because it gives the conditions being tested instead of 2 distinct arguments.