Retrospective and MCQ Review
A look back at Sprints 1 and 2, our PVO plans, and my MCQ results.
My work so far
| Experience | Main takeaway |
|---|---|
| Setting up tools and my portfolio | Build a reliable workflow and keep work organized. |
| Teaching a Sass inputs lesson | Use clear examples and explain ideas from a learner’s perspective. |
| Planning for Poway Veterans Organization (PVO) | Understand users and priorities before choosing features. |
| Programming and Sass exercises | Connect logic, abstraction, and interface design. |
| Team collaboration | Share responsibilities, listen, and communicate progress. |
| College Board MCQ practice | Use results to identify strengths and areas to improve. |
Sprint 1 and 2 retrospective
The CSP course timeline frames Sprint 1 around tools and work habits and Sprint 2 around full stack foundations. My portfolio, programming exercises, and Sass work helped me connect those goals to practical work.
Setting up my tools and portfolio taught me patience and troubleshooting. I became more comfortable organizing a project and documenting progress. Working with variables, lists, conditionals, loops, and procedures helped me see how individual concepts fit together in a program, while Sass exercises made me think about the user’s experience.
Teaching the Sass inputs lesson pushed me to organize my understanding and explain it clearly. I learned that completing an exercise and helping someone else understand it require different skills. I want to use better examples and check for understanding as I teach.
Our group chose to help Poway Veterans Organization (PVO). Ideation reminded me to understand the audience and problem before deciding on features. Our next step is to confirm PVO’s priorities and choose a realistic first feature, then plan its interface, logic, and data needs.
Personal and team growth
I am becoming more patient, adaptable, and willing to revise my work after feedback. When something fails, I want to understand the cause and improve my approach. Teaching and group discussions have also helped me express ideas and consider other perspectives.
Our team is learning to connect individual contributions to a shared goal. We can improve by clarifying responsibilities early, documenting decisions, and checking in consistently. My next step is to communicate progress sooner and ask for feedback while there is still time to act on it.
AI and the development process
I want to use AI to brainstorm, explain concepts, and troubleshoot while checking its suggestions through testing and my own reasoning. Being able to explain a solution myself is how I will judge whether it helped me learn.
The software development life cycle connects to our work: plan around PVO’s needs, design the interaction, build the feature, test its behavior, share progress through GitHub and our portfolios, and improve from feedback. These stages repeat as we discover problems or refine an idea.
MCQ results and review
I completed the 2018 Practice Exam MCQ with 46/66 (69.7%), missing 20 questions.
Strengths and weaknesses from CB Analytics
Strengths: I earned full credit on debugging (4/4), variables (3/3), conditionals, iteration, and simulations (2/2 each). These results suggest I can follow basic program logic and identify errors.
Weaknesses: Developing procedures and algorithmic efficiency (0/2 each) were my weakest areas. Calling procedures (2/5) and safe computing (1/3) also need review, especially tracing parameters and understanding encryption.
| Review priority | Correct / questions | What I need to improve |
|---|---|---|
| Developing procedures | 0/2 | Explain abstraction and how procedures reduce complexity. |
| Algorithmic efficiency | 0/2 | Compare operation counts as input size grows. |
| Undecidable problems | 0/1 | Understand the limits of what algorithms can solve. |
| Safe computing | 1/3 | Distinguish symmetric and public key encryption. |
| Calling procedures | 2/5 | Trace parameters, calls, and results. |
| Extracting information from data | 4/7 | Separate supported conclusions from predictions. |
Big Idea breakdown
| Big Idea | Correct / questions | Performance |
|---|---|---|
| 1 — Creative Development | 5/5 | 100% |
| 2 — Data | 10/16 | 62.5% |
| 3 — Algorithms and Programming | 19/30 | 63.3% |
| 4 — Computer Systems and Networks | 4/4 | 100% |
| 5 — Impact of Computing | 8/11 | 72.7% |
Strengths and weaknesses by Big Idea
Strengths: Creative Development and Computer Systems and Networks were my strongest tested Big Ideas (100% each), especially debugging, Internet concepts, and fault tolerance. In Impact of Computing (72.7%), effects and ethical concerns were stronger than encryption and crowdsourcing.
Weaknesses: Data (62.5%) and Algorithms and Programming (63.3%) need the most work. I need to improve data interpretation, procedures, abstraction, and efficiency. Big Idea 3 accounts for 11 of my 20 missed questions, so it is my main review priority. Small question sets limit these conclusions, and topics marked NA were not assessed.
I will revisit missed questions, trace procedures by hand, compare algorithm growth, and practice data interpretation and encryption. Then I will try a fresh mixed set, aiming for 80% or higher. My procedure homework and exam results show that completing practice is only a first step; I also need to apply the concepts to unfamiliar problems.
Applying the review to my project
For the Create Performance Task, I plan to demonstrate a clear purpose, input and output, a list that manages complexity, and a procedure with a meaningful parameter and an algorithm using sequencing, selection, and iteration. I will use the College Board student handouts to check the required evidence.
Our PVO planning gives this learning a practical direction. I want to choose a useful feature, test normal and unexpected inputs, and clearly explain my contribution. This will strengthen both our project and my understanding of procedures and abstraction.