Search the California Content Standards

Standard:
Compare tradeoffs between allowing information to be public and keeping information private and secure.

Descriptive Statement:
While it is valuable to establish, maintain, and strengthen connections between people online, security attacks often start with intentionally or unintentionally providing personal information online. Students identify situations where the value of keeping information public outweighs privacy concerns, and vice versa. They also recognize practices such as phishing and social engineering and explain best practices to defend against them. For example, students could discuss the benefits of artists and designers displaying their work online to reach a broader audience. Students could also compare the tradeoffs of making a shared file accessible to anyone versus restricting it to specific accounts. (CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy SL.6.1, SL.7.1, SL.8.1) Alternatively, students could discuss the benefits and dangers of the increased accessibility of information available on the internet, and then compare this to the advantages and disadvantages of the introduction of the printing press in society. (HSS.7.8.4)

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:
Develop guidelines that convey systematic troubleshooting strategies that others can use to identify and fix errors.

Descriptive Statement:
Troubleshooting complex problems involves the use of multiple sources when researching, evaluating, and implementing potential solutions. Troubleshooting also relies on experience, such as when people recognize that a problem is similar to one they have seen before and adapt solutions that have worked in the past. For example, students could create a list of troubleshooting strategies to debug network connectivity problems such as checking hardware and software status and settings, rebooting devices, and checking security settings. Alternatively, students could create troubleshooting guidelines for help desk employees based on commonly observed problems (e.g., problems connecting a new device to the computer, problems printing from a computer to a network printer).

Standard:
Refine computational models to better represent the relationships among different elements of data collected from a phenomenon or process.

Descriptive Statement:
Computational models are used to make predictions about processes or phenomena based on selected data and features. They allow people to investigate the relationships among different variables to understand a system. Predictions are tested to validate models. Students evaluate these models against real-world observations. For example, students could use a population model that allows them to speculate about interactions among different species, evaluate the model based on data gathered from nature, and then refine the model to reflect more complex and realistic interactions.

Standard:
Study, discuss, and think critically about the potential impacts and implications of emerging technologies on larger social, economic, and political structures, with evidence from credible sources.

Descriptive Statement:
For example, after studying the rise of artifical intelligence, students create a cause and effect chart to represent positive and negative impacts of this technology on society.

Standard:
Use collaboration tools and methods to increase connectivity with people of different cultures and careers.

Descriptive Statement:
Increased digital connectivity and communication between people across a variety of cultures and in differing professions has changed the collaborative nature of personal and professional interaction. Students identify, explain, and use appropriate collaborative tools. For example, students could compare ways that various technological collaboration tools could help a team become more cohesive and then choose one of these tools to manage their teamwork. Alternatively, students could use different collaborative tools and methods to solicit input from not only team members and classmates but also others, such as participants in online forums or local communities.

Standard:
Explain the beneficial and harmful effects that intellectual property laws can have on innovation.

Descriptive Statement:
Laws and ethics govern aspects of computing such as privacy, data, property, information, and identity. Students explain the beneficial and harmful effects of intellectual property laws as they relate to potential innovations and governance. For example, students could explain how patents protect inventions but may limit innovation. Alternatively, students could explain how intellectual property laws requiring that artists be paid for use of their media might limit the choice of songs developers can use in their computational artifacts.