Search the California Content Standards

Standard:
Propose ways to improve the accessibility and usability of technology products for the diverse needs and wants of users.

Descriptive Statement:
The development and modification of computing technology is driven by people’s needs and wants and can affect groups differently. Students anticipate the needs and wants of diverse end users and propose ways to improve access and usability of technology, with consideration of potential perspectives of users with different backgrounds, ability levels, points of view, and disabilities. For example, students could research a wide variety of disabilities that would limit the use of traditional computational tools for the creation of multimedia artifacts, including digital images, songs, and videos. Students could then brainstorm and propose new software that would allow students that are limited by the disabilities to create similar artifacts in new ways (e.g., graphical display of music for the deaf, the sonification of images for visually impaired students, voice input for those that are unable to use traditional input like the mouse and the keyboard). (CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy W.3.7, W.4.7, W.5.7) Alternatively, as they anticipate unique user needs, students may consider using both speech and text to convey information in a game. They may also wish to vary the types of programs they create, knowing that not everyone shares their own tastes. (CA NGSS: 3-5-ETS1-1, 3-5-ETS1-2, 3-5-ETS1-3)

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:
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:
Evaluate computational artifacts with regard to improving their beneficial effects and reducing harmful effects on society.

Descriptive Statement:
People design computational artifacts to help make the lives of humans better. Students evaluate an artifact and comment on aspects of it which positively or negatively impact users and give ideas for reducing the possible negative impacts. For example, students could discuss how algorithms that screen job candidates' resumes can cut costs for companies (a beneficial effect) but introduce or amplify bias in the hiring process (a harmful effect). Alternatively, students could discuss how turn-by-turn navigation tools can help drivers avoid traffic and find alternate routes (a beneficial effect), but sometimes channel large amounts of traffic down small neighborhood streets (a harmful effect). Additionally, students could discuss how social media algorithms can help direct users' attention to interesting content (a beneficial effect), while simultaneously limiting users' exposure to information that contradicts pre-existing beliefs (a harmful effect).

Standard:
Evaluate the impact of equity, access, and influence on the distribution of computing resources in a global society.

Descriptive Statement:
Computers, computation, and technology can help improve the lives of humans and support positive developments in society, economy, and/or culture. However, access to such resources is not the same for everyone in the world. Students define and evaluate ways in which different technologies, applications, or computational tools might benefit all people in society or might only benefit those with the greatest access or resources. For example, students could describe ways in which groups of people benefit, do not benefit, or could benefit better by access to high-speed Internet connectivity. Alternatively, students could describe educational impacts of children not having access to a computer in their home.