Search the California Content Standards

Standard:
Seek and incorporate feedback from team members and users to refine a solution that meets user needs.

Descriptive Statement:
Development teams that employ user-centered design processes create solutions (e.g., programs and devices) that can have a large societal impact (e.g., an app that allows people with speech difficulties to allow a smartphone to clarify their speech). Students begin to seek diverse perspectives throughout the design process to improve their computational artifacts. Considerations of the end-user may include usability, accessibility, age-appropriate content, respectful language, user perspective, pronoun use, or color contrast. For example, if students are designing an app to teach their classmates about recycling, they could first interview or survey their classmates to learn what their classmates already know about recycling and why they do or do not recycle. After building a prototype of the app, the students could then test the app with a sample of their classmates to see if they learned anything from the app and if they had difficulty using the app (e.g., trouble reading or understanding text). After gathering interview data, students could refine the app to meet classmate needs. (CA NGSS: MS-ETS1-4)

Standard:
Incorporate existing code, media, and libraries into original programs, and give attribution.

Descriptive Statement:
Building on the work of others enables students to produce more interesting and powerful creations. Students use portions of code, algorithms, digital media, and/or data created by others in their own programs and websites. They give attribution to the original creators to acknowledge their contributions. For example, when creating a side-scrolling game, students may incorporate portions of code that create a realistic jump movement from another person's game, and they may also import Creative Commons-licensed images to use in the background. Alternatively, when creating a website to demonstrate their knowledge of historical figures from the Civil War, students may use a professionally-designed template and public domain images of historical figures. (HSS.8.10.5) Additionally, students could import libraries and connect to web application program interfaces (APIs) to make their own programming processes more efficient and reduce the number of bugs (e.g., to check whether the user input is a valid date, to input the current temperature from another city).

Standard:
Systematically test and refine programs using a range of test cases.

Descriptive Statement:
Use cases and test cases are created to evaluate whether programs function as intended. At this level, students develop use cases and test cases with teacher guidance. Testing should become a deliberate process that is more iterative, systematic, and proactive than at lower levels. For example, students test programs by considering potential errors, such as what will happen if a user enters invalid input (e.g., negative numbers and 0 instead of positive numbers). Alternatively, in an interactive program, students could test that the character cannot move off of the screen in any direction, cannot move through walls, and can interact with other characters. They then adjust character behavior as needed.

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:
Document programs in order to make them easier to use, read, test, and debug.

Descriptive Statement:
Documentation allows creators, end users, and other developers to more easily use and understand a program. Students provide documentation for end users that explains their artifacts and how they function (e.g., project overview, user instructions). They also include comments within code to describe portions of their programs and make it easier for themselves and other developers to use, read, test, and debug. For example, students could add comments to describe functionality of different segments of code (e.g., input scores between 0 and 100, check for invalid input, calculate and display the average of the scores). They could also communicate the process used by writing design documents, creating flowcharts, or making presentations. (CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy SL.6.5, SL.7.5, SL.8.5)

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:
Explain potential security threats and security measures to mitigate threats.

Descriptive Statement:
Cybersecurity is an important field of study and it is valuable for students to understand the need for protecting sensitive data. Students identify multiple methods for protecting data and articulate the value and appropriateness for each method. Students are not expected to implement or explain the implementation of such technologies. For example, students could explain the importance of keeping passwords hidden, setting secure router administrator passwords, erasing a storage device before it is reused, and using firewalls to restrict access to private networks. Alternatively, students could explain the importance of two-factor authentication and HTTPS connections to ensure secure data transmission.

Standard:
Apply multiple methods of information protection to model the secure transmission of information.

Descriptive Statement:
Digital information is protected using a variety of cryptographic techniques. Cryptography is essential to many models of cybersecurity. At its core, cryptography has a mathematical foundation. Cryptographic encryption can be as simple as letter substitution or as complicated as modern methods used to secure networks and the Internet. Students encode and decode messages using encryption methods, and explore different levels of complexity used to hide or secure information. For example, students could identify methods of secret communication used during the Revolutionary War (e.g., ciphers, secret codes, invisible ink, hidden letters) and then secure their own methods such as substitution ciphers or steganography (i.e., hiding messages inside a picture or other data) to compose a message from either the Continental Army or British Army. (HSS.8.1) Alternatively, students could explore functions and inverse functions for encryption and decryption and consider functions that are complex enough to keep data secure from their peers. (CA CCSS for Mathematics 8.F.1)

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.