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:
Create computational artifacts using modular design.

Descriptive Statement:
Computational artifacts are created by combining and modifying existing computational artifacts and/or by developing new artifacts. To reduce complexity, large programs can be designed as systems of interacting modules, each with a specific role, coordinating for a common overall purpose. Students should create computational artifacts with interacting procedures, modules, and/or libraries. For example, students could incorporate a physics library into an animation of bouncing balls. Alternatively, students could integrate open-source JavaScript libraries to expand the functionality of a web application. Additionally, students could create their own game to teach Spanish vocabulary words using their own modular design (e.g., including methods to: control scoring, manage wordlists, manage access to different game levels, take input from the user, etc.).

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:
Analyze a large-scale computational problem and identify generalizable patterns or problem components that can be applied to a solution.

Descriptive Statement:
As students encounter complex, real-world problems that span multiple disciplines or social systems, they need to be able to decompose problems and apply already developed code as part of their solutions. Students decompose complex problems into manageable subproblems that could potentially be solved with programs or procedures that can be reused or already exist. For example, in analyzing an Internet radio app, students could identify that users need to create an account and enter a password. They could identify a common application programming interface (API) for checking and displaying password strength. Additionally, students could recognize that the songs would need to be sorted by the time last played in order to display the most recently played songs and identify a common API for sorting dates from most to least recent. Alternatively, in analyzing the problem of tracking medical treatment in a hospital, students could recognize that patient records need to be stored in a database and identify a database solution to support quick access and modification of patient records. Additionally, they could recognize that records in the database need to be stored securely and could identify an encryption API to support the desired level of privacy.

Standard:
Construct solutions to problems using student-created components, such as procedures, modules, and/or objects.

Descriptive Statement:
Programmers often address complex tasks through design and decomposition using procedures and/or modules. In object-oriented programming languages, classes can support this decomposition. Students create a computational artifact that solves a problem through use of procedures, modules, and/or objects. This problem should be of sufficient complexity to benefit from decomposition and/or use of objects. For example, students could write a flashcard program in which each card is able to show both the question and answer and record user history. Alternatively, students could create a simulation of an ecosystem in which sprites carry out behaviors, such as consuming resources.

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).

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).