Student 1 Submission:

| Category | Personal Grading Score | Collegeboard’s Score | Comments | Reflection | | — | — | — | — | — | | Program Purpose and Function | 1 | 0 | The video was clear and the code was visibly functional and the writing part clearly describes the input and the wanted output. Seems to have a clear purpose. | The purpose described is just describing the process of the program rather than its uses to the user and its purpose outside of the code | | Data Abstraction | 1 | 1 | All the criteria was met here, the only thing that I would add just to secure this point just in case is maybe an in-depth explanation of the code since lots of time was still remaining so it would have been a good idea to add something more | Same as the comment I left, just add some more in-depth explanations | | Managing Complexity | 0 | 0 | The list doesn’t actually manage the complexity of the program so no points given | Still the same comment, the list doesn’t manage the complexity so they lose the point for this category | | Procedural Abstraction | 1 | 1 | All the requirements were met and are explained/shown well | Still agree with the comment I had earlier | | Algorithm Implementation | 1 | 1 | The code segment shows sequencing, selection, and iteration with the for loop and also meets all the other requirements that were listed in the rubric | Agree with the comment I left first time around | | Testing | 1 | 1 | Once again, all of the requirements were met and the code is in fact working and meets the expectations of the rubric |The same as the comment I left | | Final Score | 5/6 | 4/6 | N/A | I thought the purpose applied to the the code only but you have to look more to how it can help other people and the purpose it presents outside of the code, Otherwise, I think that I did a decent job of grading this Student, but yeah, I need to think less vaguely and think more about what collegeboard is going to be grading like and how they would judge these students |

Student 2 Submission:

| Category | Personal Grading Score | Collegeboard’s Score | Comments | Reflection | | — | — | — | — | — | | Program Purpose and Function | 1 | 1 | The video was clear and the code was visibly functional and the writing part clearly describes the input and the wanted output. Seems to have a clear purpose. It meets all the requirements mentioned by collegeboard in my opinion | The code met all the criteria, and is a pretty code example of the first category | | Data Abstraction | 1 | 1 | Everything is shown and is in the project although in the form of blocks, the explanations and comments make sense and explain the code well | Same as the comment I left, remember to include comments in code and other parts for my own CPT | | Managing Complexity | 1 | 1 | Everything in here is met and are often even repeated to secure the point even further, everything was yet again well described | Same as the comment, good example of a good Managing Complexity | | Procedural Abstraction | 1 | 1 | All the requirements were met and are explained/shown well | Same as the comment, nothing too special but met all the criteria in the rubric and was good | | Algorithm Implementation | 1 | 1 | The code segment shows sequencing, selection, and iteration with the for loop and also meets all the other requirements that were listed in the rubric | Agree with the comment | | Testing | 1 | 1 | Everything is described well and organized. | The code really shows organization and is easy to understand and follow | | Final Score | 6/6 | 6/6 | N/A |I graded the same as collegeboard, but I also learnt a lot of things from this persons submission, the amount of comments and the organizations and explanations all make the video really easy to follow along with and the. This person was very organized and it shows their interest in the CPT and it also shows how they weren’t just doing it to do it but put in a lot of thoughts and work into making this work |