Computer Science Standards
Results
Showing 11 - 12 of 12 Standards
Standard Identifier: 9-12.AP.22
Grade Range:
9–12
Concept:
Algorithms & Programming
Subconcept:
Program Development
Practice(s):
Communicating About Computing (7.2)
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.
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 Identifier: 9-12S.AP.26
Grade Range:
9–12 Specialty
Concept:
Algorithms & Programming
Subconcept:
Program Development
Practice(s):
Communicating About Computing (7.2)
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.
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.
Showing 11 - 12 of 12 Standards
Questions: Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division |
CFIRD@cde.ca.gov | 916-319-0881