Search the California Content Standards

Standard:
Design modifications to computing devices in order to improve the ways users interact with the devices.

Descriptive Statement:
Computing devices can extend the abilities of humans, but design considerations are critical to make these devices useful. Students suggest modifications to the design of computing devices and describe how these modifications would improve usabilty. For example, students could create a design for the screen layout of a smartphone that is more usable by people with vision impairments or hand tremors. They might also design how to use the device as a scanner to convert text to speech. Alternatively, students could design modifications for a student ID card reader to increase usability by planning for scanner height, need of scanner device to be connected physically to the computer, robustness of scanner housing, and choice of use of RFID or line of sight scanners. (CA NGSS: MS-ETS1-1)

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:
Create more generalized computational solutions using collections instead of repeatedly using simple variables.

Descriptive Statement:
Computers can automate repetitive tasks with algorithms that use collections to simplify and generalize computational problems. Students identify common features in multiple segments of code and substitute a single segment that uses collections (i.e., arrays, sets, lists) to account for the differences. For example, students could take a program that inputs students' scores into multiple variables and modify it to read these scores into a single array of scores. Alternatively, instead of writing one procedure to find averages of student scores and another to find averages of student absences, students could write a single general average procedure to support both tasks.

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:
Describe ways in which abstractions hide the underlying implementation details of computing systems to simplify user experiences.

Descriptive Statement:
An abstraction is a representation of an idea or phenomenon that hides details irrelevant to the question at hand. Computing systems, both stand alone and embedded in products, are often integrated with other systems to simplify user experiences. For example, students could identify geolocation hardware embedded in a smartphone and describe how this simplifies the users experience since the user does not have to enter her own location on the phone. Alternatively, students might select an embedded device such as a car stereo, identify the types of data (e.g., radio station presets, volume level) and procedures (e.g., increase volume, store/recall saved station, mute) it includes, and explain how the implementation details are hidden from the user.

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:
Compare and contrast fundamental data structures and their uses.

Descriptive Statement:
Data structures are designed to provide different ways of storing and manipulating data sets to optimize various aspects of storage or runtime performance. Choice of data structures is made based on expected data characteristics and expected program functions. Students = compare and contrast how basic functions (e.g.., insertion, deletion, and modification) would differ for common data structures including lists, arrays, stacks, and queues. For example, students could draw a diagram of how different data structures change when items are added, deleted, or modified. They could explain tradeoffs in storage and efficiency issues. Alternatively, when presented with a description of a program and the functions it would be most likely to be running, students could list pros and cons for a specific data structure use in that scenario.

Standard:
Demonstrate the flow of execution of a recursive algorithm.

Descriptive Statement:
Recursion is a powerful problem-solving approach where the problem solution is built on solutions of smaller instances of the same problem. A base case, which returns a result without referencing itself, must be defined, otherwise infinite recursion will occur. Students represent a sequence of calls to a recursive algorithm and show how the process resolves to a solution. For example, students could draw a diagram to illustrate flow of execution by keeping track of parameter and returned values for each recursive call. Alternatively, students could create a video showing the passing of arguments as the recursive algorithm runs.

Standard:
Illustrate ways computing systems implement logic through hardware components.

Descriptive Statement:
Computing systems use processors (e.g., a central processing unit or CPU) to execute program instructions. Processors are composed of components that implement the logical or computational operations required by the instructions. AND, OR, and NOT are examples of logic gates. Adders are examples of higher-leveled circuits built using low-level logic gates. Students illustrate how modern computing devices are made up of smaller and simpler components which implement the logic underlying the functionality of a computer processor. At this level, knowledge of how logic gates are constructed is not expected. For example, students could construct truth tables, draw logic circuit diagrams, or use an online logic circuit simulator. Students could explore the interaction of the CPU, RAM, and I/O by labeling a diagram of the von Neumann architecture. Alternatively, students could design higher-level circuits using low-level logic gates (e.g., adders).