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:
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.

Standard:
Document decisions made during the design process using text, graphics, presentations, and/or demonstrations in the development of complex programs.

Descriptive Statement:
Complex programs are often iteratively designed as systems of interacting modules, each with a specific role, coordinating for a common overall purpose. Comments are included in code both to document the purpose of modules as well as the implementation details within a module. Together these support documentation of the design process. Students use resources such as libraries and tools to edit and manage parts of the program and corresponding documentation. For example, during development of a computational artifact students could comment their code (with date, modification, and rationale), sketch a flowchart to summarize control flow in a code journal, and share ideas and updates on a white board. Students may document their logic by explaining the development process and presenting to the class. The presentation could include photos of their white board, a video or screencast explaining the development process, or recorded audio description.

Standard:
Compare levels of abstraction and interactions between application software, system software, and hardware.

Descriptive Statement:
At its most basic level, a computer is composed of physical hardware on which software runs. Multiple layers of software are built upon various layers of hardware. Layers manage interactions and complexity in the computing system. System software manages a computing device's resources so that software can interact with hardware. Application software communicates with the user and the system software to accomplish its purpose. Students compare and describe how application software, system software, and hardware interact. For example, students could compare how various levels of hardware and software interact when a picture is to be taken on a smartphone. Systems software provides low-level commands to operate the camera hardware, but the application software interacts with system software at a higher level by requesting a common image file format (e.g., .png) that the system software provides.

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.