Search the California Content Standards

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.

Standard:
Document programs in order to make them easier to use, read, test, and debug.

Descriptive Statement:
Documentation allows creators, end users, and other developers to more easily use and understand a program. Students provide documentation for end users that explains their artifacts and how they function (e.g., project overview, user instructions). They also include comments within code to describe portions of their programs and make it easier for themselves and other developers to use, read, test, and debug. For example, students could add comments to describe functionality of different segments of code (e.g., input scores between 0 and 100, check for invalid input, calculate and display the average of the scores). They could also communicate the process used by writing design documents, creating flowcharts, or making presentations. (CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy SL.6.5, SL.7.5, SL.8.5)

Standard:
Explain the limitations of licenses that restrict use of computational artifacts when using resources such as libraries.

Descriptive Statement:
Software licenses include copyright, freeware, and open-source licensing schemes. Licenses are used to protect the intellectual property of the author while also defining accessibility of the code. Students consider licensing implications for their own work, especially when incorporating libraries and other resources. For example, students might consider two software libraries that address a similar need, justifying their choice of one over the other. The choice could be based upon least restrictive licensing or further protections for their own intellectual property.

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.

Standard:
Document decisions made during the design process using text, graphics, presentations, and/or demonstrations in the development of complex programs.

Descriptive Statement:
Complex programs are often iteratively designed as systems of interacting modules, each with a specific role, coordinating for a common overall purpose. Comments are included in code both to document the purpose of modules as well as the implementation details within a module. Together these support documentation of the design process. Students use resources such as libraries and tools to edit and manage parts of the program and corresponding documentation. For example, during development of a computational artifact students could comment their code (with date, modification, and rationale), sketch a flowchart to summarize control flow in a code journal, and share ideas and updates on a white board. Students may document their logic by explaining the development process and presenting to the class. The presentation could include photos of their white board, a video or screencast explaining the development process, or recorded audio description.

Standard:
Describe the design characteristics of the Internet.

Descriptive Statement:
The Internet connects devices and networks all over the world. Large-scale coordination occurs among many different machines across multiple paths every time a web page is opened or an image is viewed online. Through the domain name system (DNS), devices on the Internet can look up Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, allowing end-to-end communication between devices. The design decisions that direct the coordination among systems composing the Internet also allow for scalability and reliability. Students factor historical, cultural, and economic decisions in their explanations of the Internet. For example, students could explain how hierarchy in the DNS supports scalability and reliability. Alternatively, students could describe how the redundancy of routing between two nodes on the Internet increases reliability and scales as the Internet grows.

Standard:
Compare and contrast security measures to address various security threats.

Descriptive Statement:
Network security depends on a combination of hardware, software, and practices that control access to data and systems. The needs of users and the sensitivity of data determine the level of security implemented. Potential security problems, such as denial-of-service attacks, ransomware, viruses, worms, spyware, and phishing, present threats to sensitive data. Students compare and contrast different types of security measures based on factors such as efficiency, feasibility, ethical impacts, usability, and security. At this level, students are not expected to develop or implement the security measures that they discuss. For example, students could review case studies or current events in which governments or organizations experienced data leaks or data loss as a result of these types of attacks. Students could provide an analysis of actual security measures taken comparing to other security measure which may have led to different outcomes. Alternatively, students might discuss computer security policies in place at the local level that present a tradeoff between usability and security, such as a web filter that prevents access to many educational sites but keeps the campus network safe.

Standard:
Describe how artificial intelligence drives many software and physical systems.

Descriptive Statement:
Artificial intelligence is a sub-discipline of computer science that enables computers to solve problems previously handled by biological systems. There are many applications of artificial intelligence, including computer vision and speech recognition. Students research and explain how artificial intelligence has been employed in a given system. Students are not expected to implement an artificially intelligent system in order to meet this standard. For example, students could observe an artificially intelligent system and notice where its behavior is not human-like, such as when a character in a videogame makes a mistake that a human is unlikely to make, or when a computer easily beats even the best human players at a given game. Alternatively, students could interact with a search engine asking various questions, and after reading articles on the topic, they could explain how the computer is able to respond to queries.

Standard:
Demonstrate the flow of execution of a recursive algorithm.

Descriptive Statement:
Recursion is a powerful problem-solving approach where the problem solution is built on solutions of smaller instances of the same problem. A base case, which returns a result without referencing itself, must be defined, otherwise infinite recursion will occur. Students represent a sequence of calls to a recursive algorithm and show how the process resolves to a solution. For example, students could draw a diagram to illustrate flow of execution by keeping track of parameter and returned values for each recursive call. Alternatively, students could create a video showing the passing of arguments as the recursive algorithm runs.

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).