Submission 1
| Row 1 | 1 |
| Row 2 | 0 |
| Row 3 | 0 |
| Row 4 | 1 |
| Row 5 | 0 |
| Row 6 | 1 |
| Final Score | 3/6 |
1: I would give this submission a 1 on this row of the grading because this shows that when you input something into the game, theiir is an output that shows up which says if you got a point or not. It also shows the program functionally running smoothly.
2: I would give this submission a 0 on this row because there is only one list is mentioned in this written response and we need more than one to get the point. The list also doesn’t help the program function any better or more efficient.
3: I would give this submission a 0 in this row because it does provide a list, but very minimal information as to how it works or what it is. It needs to have more explantation for how and what the list is.
4: I would give this submission a 1 in this row because it has two program code segments one showing a student-developed procedure Requirements for program code segments with at least one parameter that has an effect on the functionality of the procedure. Also one showing where the student-developed procedure is being called.
5: I would give this submission a 0 on this row because the student-developed algorithm within procedure, evaluateGuess, includes sequencing, and iteration and selection. Also their was very minimal description included.
6: I would give this submission a 1 on this row because the response describes two different calls to the specific procedure to result in different code being executed. Also The response describes the conditions being tested.
Submission 2
| Row 1 | 1 |
| Row 2 | 1 |
| Row 3 | 0 |
| Row 4 | 0 |
| Row 5 | 1 |
| Row 6 | 1 |
| Final Score | 4/6 |
1: I would give this submission a 1 because The video demonstrates the running of the program, showing input into the program through keyboard typing. Also describes the input and output of the program demonstrated in the video.
2: I would give this submission a 1 because the respone has two code segments, one that shows how the data and program works and stored in a list. Also one segment that shows the data in the same list being used to make the program work.
3: I would give this submission a 0 because the code segment lists are not separtely included in the written response. The written response also doesn’t name the list being used. Their could be more of an explantation included too.
4: I would give this submission a 0 because the code segment consisting of the procudure is not included in the written response. The written response describes what the procedure does independently without relating it to the overall function of the program.
5: I would give this submission a 1 because the code segment includes sequencing, selection, and iteration. Also the explantation is in depth and very detailed on how the algorithm works.
6: I would give this submission a 1 because the program describes two calls to the selected procedure identified in written response 3c. Also the program describes the conditions being tested by each call to the procedure.
Submission 3
| Row 1 | 0 |
| Row 2 | 1 |
| Row 3 | 0 |
| Row 4 | 0 |
| Row 5 | 1 |
| Row 6 | 1 |
| Final Score | 3/6 |
1: I would give this submission a 0 on this row because the program did not show input and out well and the program functionally doesn’t show clearly. Also the response describes the input and the output. For input, the response states that “the different button clicks to change the screens and the character names selected from each drop-down box.” Could use more explantation.
2: I would give this submission a 1 on this row because the program includes code segments that shows how the data is stored in the list. Also how the data is the same list being used to help the program run better.
3: I would give this submission a 0 on this row because the code segments are not separetly included in the written response. Also the use of the list is irrelevant to teh programs functionally.
4: I would give this submission a 0 on this row because The procedure is a built-in or existing procedure or language structure, such as an event handler or main method, where the student only implements the body of the procedure rather than defining the name, return type, and parameters.
5: I would give this submission a 1 on this row because the written response includes code segments of a student developed program that has sequencing and iteration, etc …
6: I would give this submission a 1 on this row because The response describes two calls to the procedure with different arguments that lead to different results from the procedure. Also it describes the conditions that being tested by each call to the procedure.
Submission 4
| Row 1 | 1 |
| Row 2 | 0 |
| Row 3 | 0 |
| Row 4 | 1 |
| Row 5 | 1 |
| Row 6 | 0 |
| Final Score | 3/6 |
1: I would give this submission a 1 on this row because the video shows the running of the program and the collecting if input using a text field and displaying output results on the screen.
2: I would give this submission a 0 on this row because even though the response had to code segments, the response didn’t get the point because the lis was not being used.
3: I would give this submission a 0 on this row because the response does include a list, but the list is not used to its purpose and doesn’t help benefit the program functionally any better. The response doesn’t also explain how the list manages complexity.
4: I would give this submission a 1 on this row because the response describes the functionality of the procedure. Also the response includes a student developed procedure.
5: I would give this submission a 1 on this row because the response has a student developed algorithm that includes selection, sequencing and iteration. Also the response explain in depth how the algorithm works.
6: I would give this submission a 0 on this row because the response meet 2 out of 3 for the criteria. The response gives the condidtions being tested rather than two different arguments. So this section gets 0 out of 1 even though it met most of requirments.