The last step of the dress rehearsal: answer the Create PT’s written-response questions about your own program, under time pressure — then peer-score with the real guidelines. The grade is gentle; the calibration is the point.
Last day of Programs and of Unit 3. Your program and PPR are done (3.22–3.24). Now you do the part that actually earns most of the writing points: explaining your own code precisely, on the clock. Every “how my conditional works” paragraph since 2.17 was training for this.
The written responses are open-PPR: you’re explaining code that’s right in front of you. The whole skill is precision — using the exact terms for the exact lines. Do it timed today so it’s automatic in May.
The written responses come down to two jobs. Answer both about your own program and PPR.
Prompt (in short). Describe the overall purpose of your program, and explain how your student-developed procedure works — including what its parameter does and the algorithm inside it.
Write it now for your program. Three to five sentences. Then open the checklist.
□ States the program’s purpose — what problem it solves or what it’s for.
□ Names the procedure and its parameter, and says how the parameter affects the result.
□ Describes the algorithm inside using the words iteration and selection for the actual loop and if.
□ Says what the procedure returns and how the program uses it.
Prompt (in short). Explain how your list (or collection) manages complexity, and describe how you developed and tested the program — including a bug or difficulty and how you resolved it.
Write it now. Three to five sentences. Then open the checklist.
□ Explains how the list manages complexity — why the program would be harder or worse without it (imagine 30 separate variables).
□ Describes a real step in development — something you built, tested, then improved.
□ Names a specific bug or difficulty and how you found and fixed it — precisely, not “it didn’t work so I fixed it.”
□ Uses correct terms and refuses to over-claim — the recurring skill all year.
After the timed write, score against the guidelines — first your own, then swap with a partner. Check every point the response truly earns. Be strict; that’s the gift.
An unchecked box is a specific, fixable gap — the most useful feedback you can get. On a first attempt, three or four of six is normal; the calibration is what you keep.
Code that no one can explain is code no one can trust, maintain, or build on. Writing a clear, precise account of what you built and why — naming the parts, owning the bugs, not overselling — is a huge part of real engineering: pull requests, design docs, incident write-ups. The PT’s written responses train exactly that, and it will serve you far past this exam.