Create PT - Individual code for 2C and 2D


I was at a W4 workshop this past weekend and a discussion about what is and isn’t allowed in the create task, specifically pertaining to 2C and 2D, came up. Both 2c and 2d state the code must be developed individually. I interpret this as this code cannot be the code that was identified in 2b as one they collaborated with their coding partner in resolving their difficulty. The other facilitator disagreed. Who is correct?


@carmichaelc it seems like this is a great question for the College Board forum. I read (and re-read) the task directions and admit it felt unclear to me too. There were many times when I read it and thought “I think they can get feedback from a peer on that code”, but there was one line that really stuck out to me (on page 9 of the student handout):

That last sentence sure makes it sound like it needs to be individual. YET, when I look at the rubric there is nothing about independent development for 2C and 2D in the rubric. In fact, row 8 on the rubric says students shouldn’t be penalized if their abstraction isn’t even “theirs” - it could be created by someone else and they would still get the point if they explained how it managed complexity appropriately.

When I think about how the Explore task has directions that are mis-aligned to the rubric (like 2b in the Explore when students have to describe how they made their artifact, but that is never on the rubric…), it could be a case that you are both right - it just depends on what document you follow. That, of course, is just my personal opinion after doing research.

I think the College Board would be able to give you the best direction on their forum.

Thanks for your attention to detail! This is a tricky one!


Thanks, Katie. Yes, I posted there too. This really makes a big difference when telling students what they can and cannot do. Yes, I agree. It says nothing in the rubric about independent work for 2c or 2d. I would love to hear if the graders look at 2b and compare to 2c and 2d to see but I doubt they do. I have 4 sections and I never do when I am grading their projects after they turn them in. But I have been telling them their algorithms must be done independently. I also know about all the differences between the directions and rubric for the explore too.


There are definitely rules students need to follow that are not spelled out on the rubrics, so I would be careful about using the rubric as the end-all-be-all. Also, checking what graders in the past have actually graded on is also chancy since there’s no guarantee the way they graded in the past is how they’ll grade in the future.

It’s safest to follow all rules on all the official documents. Yes, it’s definitely possible to get by with less, but at that point you’re taking your chances.


This is my first year of AP CSP while its clear that 2c 2d must be individually created. I didn’t think there was a problem with students expanding on a ‘clicker’ type game. But now I am getting nervous that it will be considered plagiarism. Anyone have any comments or experience of this. I told students to cite the projects in comments.


It looks like you cross posted on this topic and Frank answered your question here. FAQs for AP Exam Season 2019 .

I totally understand that it feels fuzzy! But Frank’s answer seems appropriate. This is also a great question for the College Board forum.


I agree but at the same time, look at the examples on the College Board website. They used a clicker game as an example.