Search the California Content Standards

Standard:
Compare tradeoffs associated with computing technologies that affect people's everyday activities and career options.

Descriptive Statement:
Advancements in computer technology are neither wholly positive nor negative. However, the ways that people use computing technologies have tradeoffs. Students consider current events related to broad ideas, including privacy, communication, and automation. For example, students could compare and contrast the impacts of computing technologies with the impacts of other systems developed throughout history such as the Pony Express and US Postal System. (HSS.7.8.4) Alternatively, students could identify tradeoffs for both personal and professional uses of a variety of computing technologies. For instance, driverless cars can increase convenience and reduce accidents, but they may be susceptible to hacking. The emerging industry will reduce the number of taxi and shared-ride drivers, but may create more software engineering and cybersecurity jobs.

Standard:
Discuss issues of bias and accessibility in the design of existing technologies.

Descriptive Statement:
Computing technologies should support users of many backgrounds and abilities. In order to maximize accessiblity, these differences need to be addressed by examining diverse populations. With the teacher's guidance, students test and discuss the usability of various technology tools, such as apps, games, and devices. For example, students could discuss the impacts of facial recognition software that works better for lighter skin tones and recognize that the software was likely developed with a homogeneous testing group. Students could then discuss how accessibility could be improved by sampling a more diverse population. (CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy SL.6.1, SL.7.1, SL.8.1)

Standard:
Collaborate with many contributors when creating a computational artifact.

Descriptive Statement:
Users have diverse sets of experiences, needs, and wants. These need to be understood and integrated into the design of computational artifacts. Students use applications that enable crowdsourcing to gather services, ideas, or content from a large group of people. At this level, crowdsourcing can be done at the local level (e.g., classroom, school, or neighborhood) and/or global level (e.g., age-appropriate online communities). For example, a group of students could use electronic surveys to solicit input from their neighborhood regarding an important social or political issue. They could collaborate with a community artist to combine animations and create a digital community collage informing the public about various points of view regarding the topic. (VAPA Visual Art 8.5.2, 8.5.4)

Standard:
Model the role of protocols in transmitting data across networks and the Internet.

Descriptive Statement:
Protocols are rules that define how messages between computers are sent. They determine how quickly and securely information is transmitted across networks, as well as how to handle errors in transmission. Students model how data is sent using protocols to choose the fastest path and to deal with missing information. Knowledge of the details of how specific protocols work is not expected. The priority at this grade level is understanding the purpose of protocols and how they enable efficient and errorless communication. For example, students could devise a plan for sending data representing a textual message and devise a plan for resending lost information. Alternatively, students could devise a plan for sending data to represent a picture, and devise a plan for interpreting the image when pieces of the data are missing. Additionally, students could model the speed of sending messages by Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or cellular networks and describe ways errors in data transmission can be detected and dealt with.

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.