Search the California Content Standards

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:
Compare tradeoffs associated with licenses for computational artifacts to balance the protection of the creators' rights and the ability for others to use and modify the artifacts.

Descriptive Statement:
Using and building on the works of others allows people to create meaningful works and fosters innovation. Copyright is an important law that helps protect the rights of creators so they receive credit and get paid for their work. Creative Commons is a kind of copyright that makes it easier for people to copy, share, and build on creative work, as long as they give credit for it. There are different kinds of Creative Commons licenses that allow people to do things such as change, remix, or make money from their work. As creators, students can pick and choose how they want their work to be used, and then create a Creative Commons license that they include in their work. For example, students could create interactive animations to educate others on bullying or protecting the environment. They then select an appropriate license to reflect how they want their program to be used by others (e.g., allow others to use their work and alter it, as long as they do not make a profit from it). Students use established methods to both protect their artifacts and attribute use of protected artifacts.

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:
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:
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:
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.

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:
Compare multiple programming languages, and discuss how their features make them suitable for solving different types of problems.

Descriptive Statement:
Particular problems may be more effectively solved using some programming languages than other programming languages. Students provide a rationale for why a specific programming language is better suited for a solving a particular class of problem. For example, students could explain how a language with a large library base can make developing a web application easier. Alternatively, students could explain how languages that support particular programming paradigms (e.g., object-oriented or functional) can make implementation more aligned with design choices. Additionally, students could discuss how languages that implement garbage collection are good for simplicity of memory management, but may result in poor performance characteristics.