Search the California Content Standards

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:
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:
Evaluate the ways computing impacts personal, ethical, social, economic, and cultural practices.

Descriptive Statement:
Computing may improve, harm, or maintain practices. An understanding of how equity deficits, such as minimal exposure to computing, access to education, and training opportunities, are related to larger, systemic problems in society enables students to create more meaningful artifacts. Students illustrate the positive, negative, and/or neutral impacts of computing. For example, students could evaluate the accessibility of a product for a broad group of end users, such as people who lack access to broadband or who have various disabilities. Students could identify potential bias during the design process and evaluate approaches to maximize accessibility in product design. Alternatively, students could evaluate the impact of social media on cultural, economic, and social practices around the world.

Standard:
Identify impacts of bias and equity deficit on design and implementation of computational artifacts and apply appropriate processes for evaluating issues of bias.

Descriptive Statement:
Biases could include incorrect assumptions developers have made about their users, including minimal exposure to computing, access to education, and training opportunities. Students identify and use strategies to test and refine computational artifacts with the goal of reducing bias and equity deficits and increasing universal access. For example, students could use a spreadsheet to chart various forms of equity deficits, and identify solutions in existing software. Students could use and refine the spreadsheet solutions to create a strategy for methodically testing software specifically for bias and equity.

Standard:
Demonstrate ways a given algorithm applies to problems across disciplines.

Descriptive Statement:
Students identify how a given algorithm can be applied to real-world problems in different disciplines. For example, students could demonstrate how a randomization algorithm can be used to select participants for a clinical medical trial or to select a flash card to display on a vocabulary quiz. Alternatively, students could demonstrate how searching and sorting algorithms are needed to organize records in manufacturing settings, or to support doctors queries of patient records, or to help governments manage support services they provide to their citizens.

Standard:
Study, discuss, and think critically about the potential impacts and implications of emerging technologies on larger social, economic, and political structures, with evidence from credible sources.

Descriptive Statement:
For example, after studying the rise of artifical intelligence, students create a cause and effect chart to represent positive and negative impacts of this technology on society.

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.