Search the California Content Standards

Standard:
Compare tradeoffs between allowing information to be public and keeping information private and secure.

Descriptive Statement:
While it is valuable to establish, maintain, and strengthen connections between people online, security attacks often start with intentionally or unintentionally providing personal information online. Students identify situations where the value of keeping information public outweighs privacy concerns, and vice versa. They also recognize practices such as phishing and social engineering and explain best practices to defend against them. For example, students could discuss the benefits of artists and designers displaying their work online to reach a broader audience. Students could also compare the tradeoffs of making a shared file accessible to anyone versus restricting it to specific accounts. (CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy SL.6.1, SL.7.1, SL.8.1) Alternatively, students could discuss the benefits and dangers of the increased accessibility of information available on the internet, and then compare this to the advantages and disadvantages of the introduction of the printing press in society. (HSS.7.8.4)

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.

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:
Design and develop computational artifacts working in team roles using collaborative tools.

Descriptive Statement:
Collaborative tools can be as complex as a source code version control system or as simple as a collaborative word processor. Team roles in pair programming are driver and navigator but students can take on more specialized roles in larger teams. Teachers or students should choose resources that aid collaborative program development as programs grow more complex. For example, students might work as a team to develop a mobile application that addresses a problem relevant to the school or community, using appropriate tools to support actions such as: establish and manage the project timeline; design, share, and revise graphical user interface elements; implement program components, track planned, in-progress, and completed components, and design and implement user testing.

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:
Create data visualizations to help others better understand real-world phenomena.

Descriptive Statement:
People transform, generalize, simplify, and present large data sets in different ways to influence how other people interpret and understand the underlying information. Students select relevant data from large or complex data sets in support of a claim or to communicate the information in a more sophisticated manner. Students use software tools or programming to perform a range of mathematical operations to transform and analyze data and create powerful data visualizations (that reveal patterns in the data). For example, students could create data visualizations to reveal patterns in voting data by state, gender, political affiliation, or socioeconomic status. Alternatively, students could use U.S. government data on criticially endangered animals to visualize population change over time.

Standard:
Explain the beneficial and harmful effects that intellectual property laws can have on innovation.

Descriptive Statement:
Laws and ethics govern aspects of computing such as privacy, data, property, information, and identity. Students explain the beneficial and harmful effects of intellectual property laws as they relate to potential innovations and governance. For example, students could explain how patents protect inventions but may limit innovation. Alternatively, students could explain how intellectual property laws requiring that artists be paid for use of their media might limit the choice of songs developers can use in their computational artifacts.

Standard:
Explain the privacy concerns related to the collection and generation of data through automated processes.

Descriptive Statement:
Data can be collected and aggregated across millions of people, even when they are not actively engaging with or physically near the data collection devices. Students recognize automated and non-evident collection of information and the privacy concerns they raise for individuals. For example, students could explain the impact on an individual when a social media site's security settings allows for mining of account information even when the user is not online. Alternatively, students could discuss the impact on individuals of using surveillance video in a store to track customers. Additionally, students could discuss how road traffic can be monitored to change signals in real time to improve road efficiency without drivers being aware and discuss policies for retaining data that identifies drivers' cars and their behaviors.

Standard:
Evaluate the social and economic implications of privacy in the context of safety, law, or ethics.

Descriptive Statement:
Laws govern many aspects of computing, such as privacy, data, property, information, and identity. International differences in laws and ethics have implications for computing. Students make and justify claims about potential and/or actual privacy implications of policies, laws, or ethics and consider the associated tradeoffs, focusing on society and the economy. For example, students could explore the case of companies tracking online shopping behaviors in order to decide which products to target to consumers. Students could evaluate the ethical and legal dilemmas of collecting such data without consumer knowledge in order to profit companies. Alternatively, students could evaluate the implications of net neutrality laws on society's access to information and on the impacts to businesses of varying sizes.