Search the California Content Standards

Standard:
Decompose problems into smaller subproblems through systematic analysis, using constructs such as procedures, modules, and/or classes.

Descriptive Statement:
Decomposition enables solutions to complex problems to be designed and implemented as more manageable subproblems. Students decompose a given problem into subproblems that can be solved using existing functionalities, or new functionalities that they design and implement. For example, students could design a program for supporting soccer coaches in analyzing their teams' statistics. They decompose the problem in terms of managing input, analysis, and output. They decompose the data organization by designing what data will be stored per player, per game, and per team. Team players may be stored as a collection. Data per team player may include: number of shots, misses, saves, assists, penalty kicks, blocks, and corner kicks. Students design methods for supporting various statistical analyses and display options. Students design output formats for individual players or coaches.

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:
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:
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.

Standard:
Analyze a large-scale computational problem and identify generalizable patterns or problem components that can be applied to a solution.

Descriptive Statement:
As students encounter complex, real-world problems that span multiple disciplines or social systems, they need to be able to decompose problems and apply already developed code as part of their solutions. Students decompose complex problems into manageable subproblems that could potentially be solved with programs or procedures that can be reused or already exist. For example, in analyzing an Internet radio app, students could identify that users need to create an account and enter a password. They could identify a common application programming interface (API) for checking and displaying password strength. Additionally, students could recognize that the songs would need to be sorted by the time last played in order to display the most recently played songs and identify a common API for sorting dates from most to least recent. Alternatively, in analyzing the problem of tracking medical treatment in a hospital, students could recognize that patient records need to be stored in a database and identify a database solution to support quick access and modification of patient records. Additionally, they could recognize that records in the database need to be stored securely and could identify an encryption API to support the desired level of privacy.

Standard:
Compare multiple programming languages, and discuss how their features make them suitable for solving different types of problems.

Descriptive Statement:
Particular problems may be more effectively solved using some programming languages than other programming languages. Students provide a rationale for why a specific programming language is better suited for a solving a particular class of problem. For example, students could explain how a language with a large library base can make developing a web application easier. Alternatively, students could explain how languages that support particular programming paradigms (e.g., object-oriented or functional) can make implementation more aligned with design choices. Additionally, students could discuss how languages that implement garbage collection are good for simplicity of memory management, but may result in poor performance characteristics.