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:
Systematically apply troubleshooting strategies to identify and resolve hardware and software problems in computing systems.

Descriptive Statement:
When problems occur within computing systems, it is important to take a structured, step-by-step approach to effectively solve the problem and ensure that potential solutions are not overlooked. Examples of troubleshooting strategies include following a troubleshooting flow diagram, making changes to software to see if hardware will work, checking connections and settings, and swapping in working components. Since a computing device may interact with interconnected devices within a system, problems may not be due to the specific computing device itself but to devices connected to it. For example, students could work through a checklist of solutions for connectivity problems in a lab of computers connected wirelessly or through physical cables. They could also search for technical information online and engage in technical reading to create troubleshooting documents that they then apply. (CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy RST.6-8.10) Alternatively, students could explore and utilize operating system tools to reset a computer's default language to English. Additionally, students could swap out an externally-controlled sensor giving fluctuating readings with a new sensor to check whether there is a hardware problem.

Standard:
Collect data using computational tools and transform the data to make it more useful.

Descriptive Statement:
Data collection has become easier and more ubiquitous. The cleaning of data is an important transformation for ensuring consistent format, reducing noise and errors (e.g., removing irrelevant responses in a survey), and/or making it easier for computers to process. Students build on their ability to organize and present data visually to support a claim, understanding when and how to transform data so information can be more easily extracted. Students also transform data to highlight or expose relationships. For example, students could use computational tools to collect data from their peers regarding the percentage of time technology is used for school work and entertainment, and then create digital displays of their data and findings. Students could then transform the data to highlight relationships representing males and females as percentages of a whole instead of as individual counts. (CA CCSS for Mathematics 6.SP.4, 7.SP.3, 8.SP.1, 8.SP.4) Alternatively, students could collect data from online forms and surveys, from a sensor, or by scraping a web page, and then transform the data to expose relationships. They could highlight the distribution of data (e.g., words on a web page, readings from a sensor) by giving quantitative measures of center and variability. (CA CCSS for Mathematics 6.SP.5.c, 7.SP.4)

Standard:
Justify the selection of specific control structures by identifying tradeoffs associated with implementation, readability, and performance.

Descriptive Statement:
The selection of control structures in a given programming language impacts readability and performance. Readability refers to how clear the program is to other programmers and can be improved through documentation. Control structures at this level may include, for example, conditional statements, loops, event handlers, and recursion. Students justify control structure selection and tradeoffs in the process of creating their own computational artifacts. The discussion of performance is limited to a theoretical understanding of execution time and storage requirements; a quantitative analysis is not expected. For example, students could compare the readability and program performance of iterative and recursive implementations of procedures that calculate the Fibonacci sequence. Alternatively, students could compare the readability and performance tradeoffs of multiple if statements versus a nested if statement.

Standard:
Iteratively design and develop computational artifacts for practical intent, personal expression, or to address a societal issue by using events to initiate instructions.

Descriptive Statement:
In this context, relevant computational artifacts can include programs, mobile apps, or web apps. Events can be user-initiated, such as a button press, or system-initiated, such as a timer firing. For example, students might create a tool for drawing on a canvas by first implementing a button to set the color of the pen. Alternatively, students might create a game where many events control instructions executed (e.g., when a score climbs above a threshold, a congratulatory sound is played; when a user clicks on an object, the object is loaded into a basket; when a user clicks on an arrow key, the player object is moved around the screen).

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.