(What did you set out to accomplish this module?)
Fill in how you would grade yourself from 1-4 in the following categories this module:
- A: End-of-Module Assessment: X
- B: Individual Work & Projects: X
- C: Group Work & Projects: X
- D: Professional Skills: X
- E: Feedback & Community Participation: X
(Notes & scores from your assessment rubric)
(Intro)
This project is super fun as you are making a basic drum machine program. The drum machine plays sounds from commands initiated at the Terminal. To complete the project, knowledge of linked lists is needed.
Assessed By: Nate
Notes:
4: Application fulfills all base expectations and the one extension
4: Application is broken into components which are well tested in both isolation and integration using appropriate data
3: Application effectively breaks logical components apart but breaks the principle of SRP
3: Application shows strong effort towards organization, content, and refactoring
4: Application makes excellent use of loop/recursion techniques
The goal is to create a terminal version of the board game Battleship. This project has a lot of moving pieces and required me to break down the porject into very small pieces and connect a lot of moving pieces. Unfortunately, I started the project on a weak base and tried to restart it and failed to complete it. I'm hoping to come back and finish it.
Assessed By: Nate
Notes:
- Wasn't able to get through a game. Crashed at laying out my ships.
- Love the pirate speak.
- Good code, it's just not all there
- Able to speak about process and logic like a real developer.
- 4: Application demonstrates excellent knowledge of Ruby syntax, style, and refactoring
- 3: Application demonstrates comfortable use of several Enumerable techniques
- 3: Application is well tested but does not balance isolation and integration tests
- 4: Application's REPL goes above and beyond expectations to improve the gameplay
- 3: Application effectively breaks logical components apart with clear intent and usage
- 2: Application runs, but does not work properly, or does not meet specifications.
(Intro)
(description)
Assessed By: Ilana
Notes:
- got through crack and an extension
- talked about division of responsibility
- tests are working but only if code is commented out (we talked about commented out code to make things work)
- tests need to be more robust
- 4: Application follows the complete spec and one extension
- 3: Application shows some effort toward organization but still has 6 or fewer long methods (> 8 lines) and needs some refactoring.
- 3: Application uses tests to exercise core functionality, but has some gaps in coverage or leaves edge cases untested.
- 2: Application has some logical components but divisions of responsibility are inconsistent or unclear and/or there is a "God" object taking too much responsibility
(feedback to me)
(description)
(evaluation comments)
(evaluation scores)
(feedback to me)
(Intro)
The first at Turing will probably one of the hardest one. We are being thrown in a new environment, trying to learn as much as we can while feeling lost the whole time. This gear up was everything we needed: an assurance that the feeling was normal, that we are not "ready yet" to move to the next steps and that other students have been in our shoes and that they survived and thrived. The concept of rewiring our brains to tell us that we don't fail that we are just not ready to move to the next phase is absolutely brilliant and one that I will continue to apply in my life and I will teach others that concept.
(takeaways from session)
(feedback from me)
(feedback to me)
(ways you supported the larger Turing community)
( Leave blanks for reviewers )
( Leave blanks for reviewers )