Search the California Content Standards

Standard:
Distribute tasks and maintain a project timeline when collaboratively developing computational artifacts.

Descriptive Statement:
Collaboration is a common and crucial practice in programming development. Often, many individuals and groups work on the interdependent parts of a project together. Students assume pre-defined roles within their teams and manage the project workflow using structured timelines. With teacher guidance, they begin to create collective goals, expectations, and equitable workloads. For example, students could decompose the design stage of a game into planning the storyboard, flowchart, and different parts of the game mechanics. They can then distribute tasks and roles among members of the team and assign deadlines. Alternatively, students could work as a team to develop a storyboard for an animation representing a written narrative, and then program the scenes individually. (CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy W.6.3, W.7.3, W.8.3)

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:
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:
Plan and develop programs for broad audiences using a specific software life cycle process.

Descriptive Statement:
Software development processes are used to help manage the design, development, and product/project management of a software solution. Various types of processes have been developed over time to meet changing needs in the software landscape. The systems development life cycle (SDLC), also referred to as the application development life cycle, is a term used in systems engineering, information systems, and software engineering to describe a process for planning, creating, testing, and deploying an information system. Other examples of common processes could include agile, spiral, or waterfall. Students develop a program following a specific software life cycle process, with proper scaffolding from the teacher. For example, students could work in teams on a common project using the agile development process, which is based on breaking product development work into small increments. Alternatively, students could be guided in implementing sprints to focus work on daily standup meetings or scrums to support efficient communication.

Standard:
Develop programs for multiple computing platforms.

Descriptive Statement:
Humans use computers in various forms in their lives and work. Depending on the situation, software solutions are more appropriate or valuable when available on different computational platforms or devices. Students develop programs for more than one computing platform (e.g. desktop, web, or mobile). For example, students could develop a mobile app for a location-aware software product and a different program that is installed on a computer. Alternatively, students could create a browser-based product and make it accessible across multiple platforms or computers (e.g., email).

Standard:
Identify and fix security issues that might compromise computer programs.

Descriptive Statement:
Some common forms of security issues arise from specific programming languages, platforms, or program implementation choices. Students read a given a piece of code that contains a common security vulnerability, explain the code's intended function or purpose, provide and explain examples of how a specific input could exploit that vulnerability (e.g., the program accessing data or performing in unintended ways), and implement a change in the code to mitigate this vulnerability. For example, students could review code that takes a date as input, recognize that the code doesn't check for appropriate last days of the month, and modify the code to do that. Alternatively, students could review code that supports entry of patient data (e.g., height and weight) and doesn't prompt users to double check unreasonable values (e.g., height at 6 feet and weight at 20 pounds).

Standard:
Develop and use a series of test cases to verify that a program performs according to its design specifications.

Descriptive Statement:
Testing software is a critically important process. The ability of students to identify a set of important test cases communicates their understanding of the design specifications and potential issues due to implementation choices. Students select and apply their own test cases to cover both general behavior and the edge cases which show behavior at boundary conditions. For example, for a program that is supposed to accept test scores in the range of [0,100], students could develop appropriate tests (e.g, a negative value, 0, 100, and a value above 100). Alternatively, students developing an app to allow users to create and store calendar appointments could develop and use a series of test cases for various scenarios including checking for correct dates, flagging for user confirmation when a calendar event is very long, checking for correct email address format for invitees, and checking for appropriate screen display as users go through the process of adding, editing, and deleting events.

Standard:
Modify an existing program to add additional functionality and discuss intended and unintended implications.

Descriptive Statement:
Modularity and code reuse is key in modern software. However, when code is modified, the programmer should consider relevant situations in which this code might be used in other places. Students create and document modifications to existing programs that enhance functionality, and then identify, document, and correct unintended consequences. For example, students could take an existing a procedure that calculates the average of a set of numbers and returns an integer (which lacks precision) and modify it to return a floating-point number instead. The student would explain how the change might impact multiple scenarios.