Computer Science Standards
Results
Showing 1 - 10 of 12 Standards
Standard Identifier: K-2.AP.16
Grade Range:
K–2
Concept:
Algorithms & Programming
Subconcept:
Program Development
Practice(s):
Testing and Refining Computational Artifacts (6.2)
Standard:
Debug errors in an algorithm or program that includes sequences and simple loops.
Descriptive Statement:
Algorithms or programs may not always work correctly. Students use various strategies, such as changing the sequence of the steps, following the algorithm in a step-by-step manner, or trial and error to fix problems in algorithms and programs. For example, when given images placed in a random order, students could give step-by-step commands to direct a robot, or a student playing a robot, to navigate to the images in the correct sequence. Examples of images include storyboard cards from a familiar story (CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy RL.K.2, RL.1.2, RL.2.2) and locations of the sun at different times of the day (CA NGSS: 1-ESS1-1). Alternatively, students could "program" the teacher or another classmate by giving precise instructions to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich or navigate around the classroom. When the teacher or classmate doesn't respond as intended, students correct their commands. Additionally, students could receive a partially completed soundboard program that has a variety of animals programmed to play a corresponding sound when the user touches them. Students correct any sounds that don't match the animal (e.g., if the cat moos, students change the moo sound to meow).
Debug errors in an algorithm or program that includes sequences and simple loops.
Descriptive Statement:
Algorithms or programs may not always work correctly. Students use various strategies, such as changing the sequence of the steps, following the algorithm in a step-by-step manner, or trial and error to fix problems in algorithms and programs. For example, when given images placed in a random order, students could give step-by-step commands to direct a robot, or a student playing a robot, to navigate to the images in the correct sequence. Examples of images include storyboard cards from a familiar story (CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy RL.K.2, RL.1.2, RL.2.2) and locations of the sun at different times of the day (CA NGSS: 1-ESS1-1). Alternatively, students could "program" the teacher or another classmate by giving precise instructions to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich or navigate around the classroom. When the teacher or classmate doesn't respond as intended, students correct their commands. Additionally, students could receive a partially completed soundboard program that has a variety of animals programmed to play a corresponding sound when the user touches them. Students correct any sounds that don't match the animal (e.g., if the cat moos, students change the moo sound to meow).
Standard Identifier: 3-5.AP.10
Grade Range:
3–5
Concept:
Algorithms & Programming
Subconcept:
Algorithms
Practice(s):
Recognizing and Defining Computational Problems, Testing and Refining Computational Artifacts (3.3, 6.3)
Standard:
Compare and refine multiple algorithms for the same task and determine which is the most appropriate.
Descriptive Statement:
Different algorithms can achieve the same result, though sometimes one algorithm might be more appropriate for a specific solution. Students examine different ways to solve the same task and decide which would be the better solution for the specific scenario. For example, students could use a map and create multiple algorithms to model the early land and sea routes to and from European settlements in California. They could then compare and refine their algorithms to reflect faster travel times, shorter distances, or avoid specific characteristics, such as mountains, deserts, ocean currents, and wind patterns. (HSS.4.2.2) Alternatively, students could identify multiple algorithms for decomposing a fraction into a sum of fractions with the same denominator and record each decomposition with an equation (e.g., 2 1/8 = 1 + 1 + 1/8 = 8/8 + 8/8 + 1/8). Students could then select the most efficient algorithm (e.g., fewest number of steps). (CA CCSS for Mathematics 4.NF.3b) Additionally, students could compare algorithms that describe how to get ready for school and modify them for supporting different goals including having time to care for a pet, being able to talk with a friend before classes start, or taking a longer route to school to accompany a younger sibling to their school first. Students could then write an opinion piece, justifying with reasons their selected algorithm is most appropriate. (CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy W.3.1, W.4.1, W.5.1)
Compare and refine multiple algorithms for the same task and determine which is the most appropriate.
Descriptive Statement:
Different algorithms can achieve the same result, though sometimes one algorithm might be more appropriate for a specific solution. Students examine different ways to solve the same task and decide which would be the better solution for the specific scenario. For example, students could use a map and create multiple algorithms to model the early land and sea routes to and from European settlements in California. They could then compare and refine their algorithms to reflect faster travel times, shorter distances, or avoid specific characteristics, such as mountains, deserts, ocean currents, and wind patterns. (HSS.4.2.2) Alternatively, students could identify multiple algorithms for decomposing a fraction into a sum of fractions with the same denominator and record each decomposition with an equation (e.g., 2 1/8 = 1 + 1 + 1/8 = 8/8 + 8/8 + 1/8). Students could then select the most efficient algorithm (e.g., fewest number of steps). (CA CCSS for Mathematics 4.NF.3b) Additionally, students could compare algorithms that describe how to get ready for school and modify them for supporting different goals including having time to care for a pet, being able to talk with a friend before classes start, or taking a longer route to school to accompany a younger sibling to their school first. Students could then write an opinion piece, justifying with reasons their selected algorithm is most appropriate. (CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy W.3.1, W.4.1, W.5.1)
Standard Identifier: 3-5.AP.15
Grade Range:
3–5
Concept:
Algorithms & Programming
Subconcept:
Program Development
Practice(s):
Fostering an Inclusive Computing Culture, Creating Computational Artifacts (1.1, 5.1)
Standard:
Use an iterative process to plan and develop a program by considering the perspectives and preferences of others.
Descriptive Statement:
Planning is an important part of the iterative process of program development. Students gain a basic understanding of the importance and process of planning before beginning to write code for a program. They plan the development of a program by outlining key features, time and resource constraints, and user expectations. Students should document the plan as, for example, a storyboard, flowchart, pseudocode, or story map. For example, students could collaborate with a partner to plan and develop a program that graphs a function. They could iteratively modify the program based on feedback from diverse users, such as students who are color blind and may have trouble differentiating lines on a graph based on the color. (CA CCSS for Mathematics 5.G.1, 5.G.2) Alternatively, students could plan as a team to develop a program to display experimental data. They could implement the program in stages, generating basic displays first and then soliciting feedback from others on how easy it is to interpret (e.g., are labels clear and readable?, are lines thick enough?, are titles understandable?). Students could iteratively improve their display to make it more readable and to better support the communication of the finding of the experiment. (NGSS.3-5-ETS1-1, 3-5-ETS1-2, 3-5-ETS1-3)
Use an iterative process to plan and develop a program by considering the perspectives and preferences of others.
Descriptive Statement:
Planning is an important part of the iterative process of program development. Students gain a basic understanding of the importance and process of planning before beginning to write code for a program. They plan the development of a program by outlining key features, time and resource constraints, and user expectations. Students should document the plan as, for example, a storyboard, flowchart, pseudocode, or story map. For example, students could collaborate with a partner to plan and develop a program that graphs a function. They could iteratively modify the program based on feedback from diverse users, such as students who are color blind and may have trouble differentiating lines on a graph based on the color. (CA CCSS for Mathematics 5.G.1, 5.G.2) Alternatively, students could plan as a team to develop a program to display experimental data. They could implement the program in stages, generating basic displays first and then soliciting feedback from others on how easy it is to interpret (e.g., are labels clear and readable?, are lines thick enough?, are titles understandable?). Students could iteratively improve their display to make it more readable and to better support the communication of the finding of the experiment. (NGSS.3-5-ETS1-1, 3-5-ETS1-2, 3-5-ETS1-3)
Standard Identifier: 3-5.AP.17
Grade Range:
3–5
Concept:
Algorithms & Programming
Subconcept:
Program Development
Practice(s):
Testing and Refining Computational Artifacts (6.2)
Standard:
Test and debug a program or algorithm to ensure it accomplishes the intended task.
Descriptive Statement:
Programs do not always run properly. Students need to understand how to test and make necessary corrections to their programs to ensure they run properly. Students successfully identify and fix errors in (debug) their programs and programs created by others. Debugging strategies at this level may include testing to determine the first place the solution is in error and fixing accordingly, leaving "breadcrumbs" in a program, and soliciting assistance from peers and online resources. For example, when students are developing a program to control the movement of a robot in a confined space, students test various inputs that control movement of the robot to make sure it behaves as intended (e.g., if an input would cause the robot to move past a wall of the confined space, it should not move at all). (CA NGSS: 3-5-ETS1-3) Additionally, students could test and debug an algorithm by tracing the inputs and outputs on a whiteboard. When noticing "bugs" (errors), students could identify what was supposed to happen and step through the algorithm to locate and then correct the error.
Test and debug a program or algorithm to ensure it accomplishes the intended task.
Descriptive Statement:
Programs do not always run properly. Students need to understand how to test and make necessary corrections to their programs to ensure they run properly. Students successfully identify and fix errors in (debug) their programs and programs created by others. Debugging strategies at this level may include testing to determine the first place the solution is in error and fixing accordingly, leaving "breadcrumbs" in a program, and soliciting assistance from peers and online resources. For example, when students are developing a program to control the movement of a robot in a confined space, students test various inputs that control movement of the robot to make sure it behaves as intended (e.g., if an input would cause the robot to move past a wall of the confined space, it should not move at all). (CA NGSS: 3-5-ETS1-3) Additionally, students could test and debug an algorithm by tracing the inputs and outputs on a whiteboard. When noticing "bugs" (errors), students could identify what was supposed to happen and step through the algorithm to locate and then correct the error.
Standard Identifier: 6-8.AP.15
Grade Range:
6–8
Concept:
Algorithms & Programming
Subconcept:
Program Development
Practice(s):
Fostering an Inclusive Computing Culture, Collaborating Around Computing (1.1, 2.3)
Standard:
Seek and incorporate feedback from team members and users to refine a solution that meets user needs.
Descriptive Statement:
Development teams that employ user-centered design processes create solutions (e.g., programs and devices) that can have a large societal impact (e.g., an app that allows people with speech difficulties to allow a smartphone to clarify their speech). Students begin to seek diverse perspectives throughout the design process to improve their computational artifacts. Considerations of the end-user may include usability, accessibility, age-appropriate content, respectful language, user perspective, pronoun use, or color contrast. For example, if students are designing an app to teach their classmates about recycling, they could first interview or survey their classmates to learn what their classmates already know about recycling and why they do or do not recycle. After building a prototype of the app, the students could then test the app with a sample of their classmates to see if they learned anything from the app and if they had difficulty using the app (e.g., trouble reading or understanding text). After gathering interview data, students could refine the app to meet classmate needs. (CA NGSS: MS-ETS1-4)
Seek and incorporate feedback from team members and users to refine a solution that meets user needs.
Descriptive Statement:
Development teams that employ user-centered design processes create solutions (e.g., programs and devices) that can have a large societal impact (e.g., an app that allows people with speech difficulties to allow a smartphone to clarify their speech). Students begin to seek diverse perspectives throughout the design process to improve their computational artifacts. Considerations of the end-user may include usability, accessibility, age-appropriate content, respectful language, user perspective, pronoun use, or color contrast. For example, if students are designing an app to teach their classmates about recycling, they could first interview or survey their classmates to learn what their classmates already know about recycling and why they do or do not recycle. After building a prototype of the app, the students could then test the app with a sample of their classmates to see if they learned anything from the app and if they had difficulty using the app (e.g., trouble reading or understanding text). After gathering interview data, students could refine the app to meet classmate needs. (CA NGSS: MS-ETS1-4)
Standard Identifier: 6-8.AP.17
Grade Range:
6–8
Concept:
Algorithms & Programming
Subconcept:
Program Development
Practice(s):
Testing and Refining Computational Artifacts (6.1)
Standard:
Systematically test and refine programs using a range of test cases.
Descriptive Statement:
Use cases and test cases are created to evaluate whether programs function as intended. At this level, students develop use cases and test cases with teacher guidance. Testing should become a deliberate process that is more iterative, systematic, and proactive than at lower levels. For example, students test programs by considering potential errors, such as what will happen if a user enters invalid input (e.g., negative numbers and 0 instead of positive numbers). Alternatively, in an interactive program, students could test that the character cannot move off of the screen in any direction, cannot move through walls, and can interact with other characters. They then adjust character behavior as needed.
Systematically test and refine programs using a range of test cases.
Descriptive Statement:
Use cases and test cases are created to evaluate whether programs function as intended. At this level, students develop use cases and test cases with teacher guidance. Testing should become a deliberate process that is more iterative, systematic, and proactive than at lower levels. For example, students test programs by considering potential errors, such as what will happen if a user enters invalid input (e.g., negative numbers and 0 instead of positive numbers). Alternatively, in an interactive program, students could test that the character cannot move off of the screen in any direction, cannot move through walls, and can interact with other characters. They then adjust character behavior as needed.
Standard Identifier: 9-12.AP.18
Grade Range:
9–12
Concept:
Algorithms & Programming
Subconcept:
Program Development
Practice(s):
Fostering an Inclusive Computing Culture, Creating Computational Artifacts (1.1, 5.1)
Standard:
Systematically design programs for broad audiences by incorporating feedback from users.
Descriptive Statement:
Programmers use a systematic design and review process to meet the needs of a broad audience. The process includes planning to meet user needs, developing software for broad audiences, testing users from a cross-section of the audience, and refining designs based on feedback. For example, students could create a user satisfaction survey and brainstorm distribution methods to collect feedback about a mobile application. After collecting feedback from a diverse audience, students could incorporate feedback into their product design. Alternatively, while developing an e-textiles project with human touch sensors, students could collect data from peers and identify design changes needed to improve usability by users of different needs.
Systematically design programs for broad audiences by incorporating feedback from users.
Descriptive Statement:
Programmers use a systematic design and review process to meet the needs of a broad audience. The process includes planning to meet user needs, developing software for broad audiences, testing users from a cross-section of the audience, and refining designs based on feedback. For example, students could create a user satisfaction survey and brainstorm distribution methods to collect feedback about a mobile application. After collecting feedback from a diverse audience, students could incorporate feedback into their product design. Alternatively, while developing an e-textiles project with human touch sensors, students could collect data from peers and identify design changes needed to improve usability by users of different needs.
Standard Identifier: 9-12.AP.20
Grade Range:
9–12
Concept:
Algorithms & Programming
Subconcept:
Program Development
Practice(s):
Testing and Refining Computational Artifacts (6.3)
Standard:
Iteratively evaluate and refine a computational artifact to enhance its performance, reliability, usability, and accessibility.
Descriptive Statement:
Evaluation and refinement of computational artifacts involves measuring, testing, debugging, and responding to the changing needs and expectations of users. Aspects that can be evaluated include correctness, performance, reliability, usability, and accessibility. For example, after witnessing common errors with user input in a computational artifact, students could refine the artifact to validate user input and provide an error message if invalid data is provided. Alternatively, students could observe a robot in a variety of lighting conditions to determine whether the code controlling a light sensor should be modified to make it less sensitive. Additionally, students could also incorporate feedback from a variety of end users to help guide the size and placement of menus and buttons in a user interface.
Iteratively evaluate and refine a computational artifact to enhance its performance, reliability, usability, and accessibility.
Descriptive Statement:
Evaluation and refinement of computational artifacts involves measuring, testing, debugging, and responding to the changing needs and expectations of users. Aspects that can be evaluated include correctness, performance, reliability, usability, and accessibility. For example, after witnessing common errors with user input in a computational artifact, students could refine the artifact to validate user input and provide an error message if invalid data is provided. Alternatively, students could observe a robot in a variety of lighting conditions to determine whether the code controlling a light sensor should be modified to make it less sensitive. Additionally, students could also incorporate feedback from a variety of end users to help guide the size and placement of menus and buttons in a user interface.
Standard Identifier: 9-12S.AP.18
Grade Range:
9–12 Specialty
Concept:
Algorithms & Programming
Subconcept:
Modularity
Practice(s):
Developing and Using Abstractions, Creating Computational Artifacts, Testing and Refining Computational Artifacts (4.2, 5.3, 6.2)
Standard:
Demonstrate code reuse by creating programming solutions using libraries and APIs.
Descriptive Statement:
Code reuse is critical both for managing complexity in modern programs, but also in increasing programming efficiency and reliability by having programmers reuse code that has been highly vetted and tested. Software libraries allow developers to integrate common and often complex functionality without having to reimplement that functionality from scratch. Students identify, evaluate, and select appropriate application programming interfaces (APIs) from software libraries to use with a given language and operating system. They appropriately use resources such as technical documentation, online forums, and developer communities to learn about libraries and troubleshoot problems with APIs that they have chosen. For example, students could import charting and graphing modules to display data sets, adopt an online service that provides cloud storage and retrieval for a database used in a multiplayer game, or import location services into an app that identifies points of interest on a map. Libraries of APIs can be student-created or publicly available (e.g., common graphics libraries or map/navigation APIs).
Demonstrate code reuse by creating programming solutions using libraries and APIs.
Descriptive Statement:
Code reuse is critical both for managing complexity in modern programs, but also in increasing programming efficiency and reliability by having programmers reuse code that has been highly vetted and tested. Software libraries allow developers to integrate common and often complex functionality without having to reimplement that functionality from scratch. Students identify, evaluate, and select appropriate application programming interfaces (APIs) from software libraries to use with a given language and operating system. They appropriately use resources such as technical documentation, online forums, and developer communities to learn about libraries and troubleshoot problems with APIs that they have chosen. For example, students could import charting and graphing modules to display data sets, adopt an online service that provides cloud storage and retrieval for a database used in a multiplayer game, or import location services into an app that identifies points of interest on a map. Libraries of APIs can be student-created or publicly available (e.g., common graphics libraries or map/navigation APIs).
Standard Identifier: 9-12S.AP.21
Grade Range:
9–12 Specialty
Concept:
Algorithms & Programming
Subconcept:
Program Development
Practice(s):
Testing and Refining Computational Artifacts (6.2)
Standard:
Identify and fix security issues that might compromise computer programs.
Descriptive Statement:
Some common forms of security issues arise from specific programming languages, platforms, or program implementation choices. Students read a given a piece of code that contains a common security vulnerability, explain the code's intended function or purpose, provide and explain examples of how a specific input could exploit that vulnerability (e.g., the program accessing data or performing in unintended ways), and implement a change in the code to mitigate this vulnerability. For example, students could review code that takes a date as input, recognize that the code doesn't check for appropriate last days of the month, and modify the code to do that. Alternatively, students could review code that supports entry of patient data (e.g., height and weight) and doesn't prompt users to double check unreasonable values (e.g., height at 6 feet and weight at 20 pounds).
Identify and fix security issues that might compromise computer programs.
Descriptive Statement:
Some common forms of security issues arise from specific programming languages, platforms, or program implementation choices. Students read a given a piece of code that contains a common security vulnerability, explain the code's intended function or purpose, provide and explain examples of how a specific input could exploit that vulnerability (e.g., the program accessing data or performing in unintended ways), and implement a change in the code to mitigate this vulnerability. For example, students could review code that takes a date as input, recognize that the code doesn't check for appropriate last days of the month, and modify the code to do that. Alternatively, students could review code that supports entry of patient data (e.g., height and weight) and doesn't prompt users to double check unreasonable values (e.g., height at 6 feet and weight at 20 pounds).
Showing 1 - 10 of 12 Standards
Questions: Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division |
CFIRD@cde.ca.gov | 916-319-0881