Search the California Content Standards

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:
Construct solutions to problems using student-created components, such as procedures, modules, and/or objects.

Descriptive Statement:
Programmers often address complex tasks through design and decomposition using procedures and/or modules. In object-oriented programming languages, classes can support this decomposition. Students create a computational artifact that solves a problem through use of procedures, modules, and/or objects. This problem should be of sufficient complexity to benefit from decomposition and/or use of objects. For example, students could write a flashcard program in which each card is able to show both the question and answer and record user history. Alternatively, students could create a simulation of an ecosystem in which sprites carry out behaviors, such as consuming resources.

Standard:
Demonstrate code reuse by creating programming solutions using libraries and APIs.

Descriptive Statement:
Code reuse is critical both for managing complexity in modern programs, but also in increasing programming efficiency and reliability by having programmers reuse code that has been highly vetted and tested. Software libraries allow developers to integrate common and often complex functionality without having to reimplement that functionality from scratch. Students identify, evaluate, and select appropriate application programming interfaces (APIs) from software libraries to use with a given language and operating system. They appropriately use resources such as technical documentation, online forums, and developer communities to learn about libraries and troubleshoot problems with APIs that they have chosen. For example, students could import charting and graphing modules to display data sets, adopt an online service that provides cloud storage and retrieval for a database used in a multiplayer game, or import location services into an app that identifies points of interest on a map. Libraries of APIs can be student-created or publicly available (e.g., common graphics libraries or map/navigation APIs).

Standard:
Identify and fix security issues that might compromise computer programs.

Descriptive Statement:
Some common forms of security issues arise from specific programming languages, platforms, or program implementation choices. Students read a given a piece of code that contains a common security vulnerability, explain the code's intended function or purpose, provide and explain examples of how a specific input could exploit that vulnerability (e.g., the program accessing data or performing in unintended ways), and implement a change in the code to mitigate this vulnerability. For example, students could review code that takes a date as input, recognize that the code doesn't check for appropriate last days of the month, and modify the code to do that. Alternatively, students could review code that supports entry of patient data (e.g., height and weight) and doesn't prompt users to double check unreasonable values (e.g., height at 6 feet and weight at 20 pounds).

Standard:
Develop and use a series of test cases to verify that a program performs according to its design specifications.

Descriptive Statement:
Testing software is a critically important process. The ability of students to identify a set of important test cases communicates their understanding of the design specifications and potential issues due to implementation choices. Students select and apply their own test cases to cover both general behavior and the edge cases which show behavior at boundary conditions. For example, for a program that is supposed to accept test scores in the range of [0,100], students could develop appropriate tests (e.g, a negative value, 0, 100, and a value above 100). Alternatively, students developing an app to allow users to create and store calendar appointments could develop and use a series of test cases for various scenarios including checking for correct dates, flagging for user confirmation when a calendar event is very long, checking for correct email address format for invitees, and checking for appropriate screen display as users go through the process of adding, editing, and deleting events.

Standard:
Modify an existing program to add additional functionality and discuss intended and unintended implications.

Descriptive Statement:
Modularity and code reuse is key in modern software. However, when code is modified, the programmer should consider relevant situations in which this code might be used in other places. Students create and document modifications to existing programs that enhance functionality, and then identify, document, and correct unintended consequences. For example, students could take an existing a procedure that calculates the average of a set of numbers and returns an integer (which lacks precision) and modify it to return a floating-point number instead. The student would explain how the change might impact multiple scenarios.

Standard:
Evaluate key qualities of a program through a process such as a code review.

Descriptive Statement:
Code reviews are a common software industry practice and valuable for developing technical communication skills. Key qualities of code include correctness, usability, readability, efficiency, and scalability. Students walk through code they created and explain how it works. Additionally, they follow along when someone else is explaining their code and ask appropriate questions. For example, students could present their code to a group or visually inspect code in pairs. Alternatively, in response to another student's presentation, students could provide feedback including comments on correctness of the code, comments on how code interacts with code that calls it, and design and documentation features.

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.

Standard:
Illustrate ways computing systems implement logic through hardware components.

Descriptive Statement:
Computing systems use processors (e.g., a central processing unit or CPU) to execute program instructions. Processors are composed of components that implement the logical or computational operations required by the instructions. AND, OR, and NOT are examples of logic gates. Adders are examples of higher-leveled circuits built using low-level logic gates. Students illustrate how modern computing devices are made up of smaller and simpler components which implement the logic underlying the functionality of a computer processor. At this level, knowledge of how logic gates are constructed is not expected. For example, students could construct truth tables, draw logic circuit diagrams, or use an online logic circuit simulator. Students could explore the interaction of the CPU, RAM, and I/O by labeling a diagram of the von Neumann architecture. Alternatively, students could design higher-level circuits using low-level logic gates (e.g., adders).

Standard:
Categorize and describe the different functions of operating system software.

Descriptive Statement:
Operating systems (OS) software is the code that manages the computer’s basic functions. Students describe at a high level the different functions of different components of operating system software. Examples of functions could include memory management, data storage/retrieval, processes management, and access control. For example, students could use monitoring tools including within an OS to inspect the services and functions running on a system and create an artifact to describe the activity that they observed (e.g., when a browser is running with many tabs open, memory usage is increased). They could also inspect and describe changes in the activity monitor that occur as different applications are executing (e.g., processor utilization increases when a new application is launched).