Search the California Content Standards

Standard:
Debug errors in an algorithm or program that includes sequences and simple loops.

Descriptive Statement:
Algorithms or programs may not always work correctly. Students use various strategies, such as changing the sequence of the steps, following the algorithm in a step-by-step manner, or trial and error to fix problems in algorithms and programs. For example, when given images placed in a random order, students could give step-by-step commands to direct a robot, or a student playing a robot, to navigate to the images in the correct sequence. Examples of images include storyboard cards from a familiar story (CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy RL.K.2, RL.1.2, RL.2.2) and locations of the sun at different times of the day (CA NGSS: 1-ESS1-1). Alternatively, students could "program" the teacher or another classmate by giving precise instructions to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich or navigate around the classroom. When the teacher or classmate doesn't respond as intended, students correct their commands. Additionally, students could receive a partially completed soundboard program that has a variety of animals programmed to play a corresponding sound when the user touches them. Students correct any sounds that don't match the animal (e.g., if the cat moos, students change the moo sound to meow).

Standard:
Describe basic hardware and software problems using accurate terminology.

Descriptive Statement:
Problems with computing systems have different causes. Accurate description of the problem aids users in finding solutions. Students communicate a problem with accurate terminology (e.g., when an app or program is not working as expected, a device will not turn on, the sound does not work, etc.). Students at this level do not need to understand the causes of hardware and software problems. For example, students could sort hardware and software terms on a word wall, and refer to the word wall when describing problems using "I see..." statements (e.g., "I see the pointer on the screen is missing", "I see that the computer will not turn on"). (CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy L.K.5.A, L.1.5.A, SL K.5, SL1.5, SL 2.5) (Visual Arts Kinder 5.2) Alternatively, students could use appropriate terminology during collaborative conversations as they learn to debug, troubleshoot, collaborate, and think critically with technology. (CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy SL.K.1, SL.1.1, SL.2.1)

Standard:
Work respectfully and responsibly with others when communicating electronically.

Descriptive Statement:
Electronic communication facilitates positive interactions, such as sharing ideas with many people, but the public and anonymous nature of electronic communication also allows intimidating and inappropriate behavior in the form of cyberbullying. Responsible electronic communication includes limiting access to personably identifiable information. Students learn and use appropriate behavior when communicating electronically (often called "netiquette"). For example, students could share their work on a classroom blog or in other collaborative spaces online, taking care to avoid sharing information that is inappropriate or that could personally identify themselves to others. (CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy W.K.6, W.1.6, W.21.6) Alternatively, students could provide feedback to others on their work in a kind and respectful manner. They could learn how written words can be easily misinterpreted and may seem negative when the intention may be to express confusion, give ideas, or prompt further discussion. They could also learn to identify harmful behavior on collaborative spaces and intervening to find the proper authority to help. (CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy W.K.5, W.1.5, W.2.5) (HSS 1.1.2)

Standard:
Compare and refine multiple algorithms for the same task and determine which is the most appropriate.

Descriptive Statement:
Different algorithms can achieve the same result, though sometimes one algorithm might be more appropriate for a specific solution. Students examine different ways to solve the same task and decide which would be the better solution for the specific scenario. For example, students could use a map and create multiple algorithms to model the early land and sea routes to and from European settlements in California. They could then compare and refine their algorithms to reflect faster travel times, shorter distances, or avoid specific characteristics, such as mountains, deserts, ocean currents, and wind patterns. (HSS.4.2.2) Alternatively, students could identify multiple algorithms for decomposing a fraction into a sum of fractions with the same denominator and record each decomposition with an equation (e.g., 2 1/8 = 1 + 1 + 1/8 = 8/8 + 8/8 + 1/8). Students could then select the most efficient algorithm (e.g., fewest number of steps). (CA CCSS for Mathematics 4.NF.3b) Additionally, students could compare algorithms that describe how to get ready for school and modify them for supporting different goals including having time to care for a pet, being able to talk with a friend before classes start, or taking a longer route to school to accompany a younger sibling to their school first. Students could then write an opinion piece, justifying with reasons their selected algorithm is most appropriate. (CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy W.3.1, W.4.1, W.5.1)

Standard:
Test and debug a program or algorithm to ensure it accomplishes the intended task.

Descriptive Statement:
Programs do not always run properly. Students need to understand how to test and make necessary corrections to their programs to ensure they run properly. Students successfully identify and fix errors in (debug) their programs and programs created by others. Debugging strategies at this level may include testing to determine the first place the solution is in error and fixing accordingly, leaving "breadcrumbs" in a program, and soliciting assistance from peers and online resources. For example, when students are developing a program to control the movement of a robot in a confined space, students test various inputs that control movement of the robot to make sure it behaves as intended (e.g., if an input would cause the robot to move past a wall of the confined space, it should not move at all). (CA NGSS: 3-5-ETS1-3) Additionally, students could test and debug an algorithm by tracing the inputs and outputs on a whiteboard. When noticing "bugs" (errors), students could identify what was supposed to happen and step through the algorithm to locate and then correct the error.

Standard:
Perform different roles when collaborating with peers during the design, implementation, and review stages of program development.

Descriptive Statement:
Collaborative computing is the process of creating computational artifacts by working in pairs or on teams. It involves asking for the contributions and feedback of others. Effective collaboration can often lead to better outcomes than working independently. With teacher guidance, students take turns in different roles during program development, such as driver, navigator, notetaker, facilitator, and debugger, as they design and implement their program. For example, while taking on different roles during program development, students could create and maintain a journal about their experiences working collaboratively. (CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy W.3.10, W.4.10, W.5.10) (CA NGSS: 3-5-ETS1-2)

Standard:
Determine potential solutions to solve simple hardware and software problems using common troubleshooting strategies.

Descriptive Statement:
Although computing systems vary, common troubleshooting strategies can be used across many different systems. Students use troubleshooting strategies to identify problems that could include a device not responding, lacking power, lacking a network connection, an app crashing, not playing sounds, or password entry not working. Students use and develop various solutions to address these problems. Solutions may include rebooting the device, checking for power, checking network availability, opening and closing an app, making sure speakers are turned on or headphones are plugged in, and making sure that the caps lock key is not on. For example, students could prepare for and participate in a collaborative discussion in which they identify and list computing system problems and then describe common successful fixes. (CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy SL.3.1, SL.4.1, SL.5.1) Alternatively, students could write informative/explanatory texts, create a poster, or use another medium of communication to examine common troubleshooting strategies and convey these ideas and information clearly. (CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy W.3.2, W.4.2, W.5.2)

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:
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)