Search the California Content Standards

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:
Design algorithms to solve computational problems using a combination of original and existing algorithms.

Descriptive Statement:
Knowledge of common algorithms improves how people develop software, secure data, and store information. Some algorithms may be easier to implement in a particular programming language, work faster, require less memory to store data, and be applicable in a wider variety of situations than other algorithms. Algorithms used to search and sort data are common in a variety of software applications. For example, students could design an algorithm to calculate and display various sports statistics and use common sorting or mathematical algorithms (e.g., average) in the design of the overall algorithm. Alternatively, students could design an algorithm to implement a game and use existing randomization algorithms to place pieces randomly in starting positions or to control the "roll" of a dice or selection of a "card" from a deck.

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.