Computer Science Standards
Results
Showing 1 - 10 of 16 Standards
Standard Identifier: K-2.AP.16
Grade Range:
K–2
Concept:
Algorithms & Programming
Subconcept:
Program Development
Practice(s):
Testing and Refining Computational Artifacts (6.2)
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).
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 Identifier: K-2.CS.3
Grade Range:
K–2
Concept:
Computing Systems
Subconcept:
Troubleshooting
Practice(s):
Testing and Refining Computational Artifacts, Communicating About Computing (6.2, 7.2)
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)
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 Identifier: 3-5.AP.10
Grade Range:
3–5
Concept:
Algorithms & Programming
Subconcept:
Algorithms
Practice(s):
Recognizing and Defining Computational Problems, Testing and Refining Computational Artifacts (3.3, 6.3)
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)
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 Identifier: 3-5.AP.17
Grade Range:
3–5
Concept:
Algorithms & Programming
Subconcept:
Program Development
Practice(s):
Testing and Refining Computational Artifacts (6.2)
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.
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 Identifier: 3-5.CS.3
Grade Range:
3–5
Concept:
Computing Systems
Subconcept:
Troubleshooting
Practice(s):
Testing and Refining Computational Artifacts (6.2)
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)
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 Identifier: 6-8.AP.17
Grade Range:
6–8
Concept:
Algorithms & Programming
Subconcept:
Program Development
Practice(s):
Testing and Refining Computational Artifacts (6.1)
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.
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 Identifier: 6-8.CS.3
Grade Range:
6–8
Concept:
Computing Systems
Subconcept:
Troubleshooting
Practice(s):
Testing and Refining Computational Artifacts (6.2)
Standard:
Systematically apply troubleshooting strategies to identify and resolve hardware and software problems in computing systems.
Descriptive Statement:
When problems occur within computing systems, it is important to take a structured, step-by-step approach to effectively solve the problem and ensure that potential solutions are not overlooked. Examples of troubleshooting strategies include following a troubleshooting flow diagram, making changes to software to see if hardware will work, checking connections and settings, and swapping in working components. Since a computing device may interact with interconnected devices within a system, problems may not be due to the specific computing device itself but to devices connected to it. For example, students could work through a checklist of solutions for connectivity problems in a lab of computers connected wirelessly or through physical cables. They could also search for technical information online and engage in technical reading to create troubleshooting documents that they then apply. (CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy RST.6-8.10) Alternatively, students could explore and utilize operating system tools to reset a computer's default language to English. Additionally, students could swap out an externally-controlled sensor giving fluctuating readings with a new sensor to check whether there is a hardware problem.
Systematically apply troubleshooting strategies to identify and resolve hardware and software problems in computing systems.
Descriptive Statement:
When problems occur within computing systems, it is important to take a structured, step-by-step approach to effectively solve the problem and ensure that potential solutions are not overlooked. Examples of troubleshooting strategies include following a troubleshooting flow diagram, making changes to software to see if hardware will work, checking connections and settings, and swapping in working components. Since a computing device may interact with interconnected devices within a system, problems may not be due to the specific computing device itself but to devices connected to it. For example, students could work through a checklist of solutions for connectivity problems in a lab of computers connected wirelessly or through physical cables. They could also search for technical information online and engage in technical reading to create troubleshooting documents that they then apply. (CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy RST.6-8.10) Alternatively, students could explore and utilize operating system tools to reset a computer's default language to English. Additionally, students could swap out an externally-controlled sensor giving fluctuating readings with a new sensor to check whether there is a hardware problem.
Standard Identifier: 6-8.DA.9
Grade Range:
6–8
Concept:
Data & Analysis
Subconcept:
Inference & Models
Practice(s):
Developing and Using Abstractions, Testing and Refining Computational Artifacts (4.4, 6.1)
Standard:
Test and analyze the effects of changing variables while using computational models.
Descriptive Statement:
Variables within a computational model may be changed, in order to alter a computer simulation or to more accurately represent how various data is related. Students interact with a given model, make changes to identified model variables, and observe and reflect upon the results. For example, students could test a program that makes a robot move on a track by making changes to variables (e.g., height and angle of track, size and mass of the robot) and discussing how these changes affect how far the robot travels. (CA NGSS: MS-PS2-2) Alternatively, students could test a game simulation and change variables (e.g., skill of simulated players, nature of opening moves) and analyze how these changes affect who wins the game. (CA NGSS: MS-ETS1-3) Additionally, students could modify a model for predicting the likely color of the next pick from a bag of colored candy and analyze the effects of changing variables representing the common color ratios in a typical bag of candy. (CA CCSS for Mathematics 7.SP.7, 8.SP.4)
Test and analyze the effects of changing variables while using computational models.
Descriptive Statement:
Variables within a computational model may be changed, in order to alter a computer simulation or to more accurately represent how various data is related. Students interact with a given model, make changes to identified model variables, and observe and reflect upon the results. For example, students could test a program that makes a robot move on a track by making changes to variables (e.g., height and angle of track, size and mass of the robot) and discussing how these changes affect how far the robot travels. (CA NGSS: MS-PS2-2) Alternatively, students could test a game simulation and change variables (e.g., skill of simulated players, nature of opening moves) and analyze how these changes affect who wins the game. (CA NGSS: MS-ETS1-3) Additionally, students could modify a model for predicting the likely color of the next pick from a bag of colored candy and analyze the effects of changing variables representing the common color ratios in a typical bag of candy. (CA CCSS for Mathematics 7.SP.7, 8.SP.4)
Standard Identifier: 9-12.AP.20
Grade Range:
9–12
Concept:
Algorithms & Programming
Subconcept:
Program Development
Practice(s):
Testing and Refining Computational Artifacts (6.3)
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.
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 Identifier: 9-12.CS.3
Grade Range:
9–12
Concept:
Computing Systems
Subconcept:
Troubleshooting
Practice(s):
Testing and Refining Computational Artifacts (6.2)
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).
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).
Showing 1 - 10 of 16 Standards
Questions: Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division |
CFIRD@cde.ca.gov | 916-319-0881