It appears there are some questions regarding the rubric and marked samples for the “Algorithms and Control Structures” section, specifically concerning the “Extensive Evidence” band within the context of a Lesson 14 Project Guide. Let’s address these points to provide clarity for educators.
Regarding the third band, “Algorithms and Control Structures,” the “Extensive Evidence” descriptor states: “Uses multiple conditionals inside the draw loop, at least one of which is triggered by a variable or sprite property.” The question arises why Sample 4 might not be considered to meet this criterion, despite containing four “if” statements, with the last one seemingly triggered by “guitar_plays > 300”.
Similarly, for Sample 2 within the same band, it’s noted that there are two conditionals, one of which is triggered by the variable “clicked_present.”
This raises a broader question about the essential nature of the “triggered by variables or sprite properties” component within the “Conditionals” band. Many students may indeed use multiple conditionals, often for diverse user input mechanisms, but not necessarily triggered by variables or sprite properties. In such cases, they might be automatically categorized as “Developing” in terms of conditionals. It’s important to clarify if triggering by variables or sprite properties is indeed a critical element for achieving higher bands in “Conditionals.”
Expanding on this, there’s a point about the project guide’s support for variable usage in student projects. It’s observed that many students might only utilize variables for sprite labeling, which doesn’t appear to be recognized in the marked samples (e.g., samples 3 and 6). Consequently, these students might fall into the “No Evidence” category. Further confusion arises when comparing Sample 1, which is marked as using “Multiple variables” (specifically, “shake_count”), and Sample 4, which uses “guitar_plays” in what seems like a similar manner, yet receives a “Convincing Evidence” mark. Understanding the distinction in assessment between these samples regarding variable usage is crucial.
Another point of inquiry concerns Sample 6 and its “No Evidence” designation for the first band. The “Limited Evidence” statement for this band is: “At least one sprite, with at least one property updated after sprite creation.” Sample 6 seemingly updates properties like bike.scale, alien.scale, guitar.rotation, and guitar.scale. Even using sprite.setAnimation could be considered as changing a sprite’s property. Clarification is needed on why Sample 6 is assessed as “No Evidence” in this context.
Finally, regarding “Position and Movement,” there’s a question about whether rotation is considered “movement” or if movement is exclusively defined by changes in the x and/or y directions. Understanding the scope of “movement” within the rubric is important for accurate assessment.
In summary, these questions highlight the need for clearer guidance on the rubric, particularly concerning the interpretation of conditionals triggered by variables or sprite properties, the recognition of variable usage beyond sprite labeling, the criteria for sprite property updates, and the definition of “movement” in the context of sprite behavior within the Lesson 14 project guide and its assessment rubrics. Addressing these points will ensure more consistent and equitable evaluation of student projects.
