PapersSIGCSE TS 2024
Papers describe an educational research project, classroom experience, teaching technique, curricular initiative, or pedagogical tool in the computing content domain. All papers submitted to the SIGCSE TS should be original work that complies with the ACM authorship policies. SIGCSE TS considers papers in three distinct tracks, each with their own unique expectations. See further details below.
Paper Tracks
Please ensure that you submit your paper to the correct paper track by reading the the Reviewing Guidelines. Papers will be reviewed for the track they are submitted to and will not be moved between tracks. Any submissions made to more than one track will be desk rejected from both tracks.
- Computing Education Research. The primary purpose of Computing Education Research (CER) papers is to advance what is known about the teaching and learning of computing. CER papers are reviewed relative to the clarity of the research questions posed, the relevance of the work in light of prior literature and theory, the soundness of the methods to address the questions posed, and the overall contribution. Both qualitative and quantitative research is welcomed, as are replication studies and papers that present null or negative results.
- Experience Reports and Tools. The primary purpose of Experience Reports and Tools (ERT) papers is observational in nature, and ERT papers should carefully describe the development and use of a computing education approach or tool, the context of its use including the formative data collected, and provide a rich reflection on what did or didn’t work, and why. ERT contributions should be motivated by prior literature and should highlight the novelty of the experience or tool presented. ERT papers differ from CER papers in that they frame their contributions to enable adoption by other practitioners, rather than focusing on the generalizability or transferability of findings, or threats to validity.
- Position and Curricula Initiative. The primary purpose of Position and Curricula Initiative (PCI) papers is to present a coherent argument about a computing education topic, including, but not limited to curriculum or program design, practical and social issues facing computing educators, and critiques of existing practices. PCI papers should substantiate their claims using evidence in the form of thorough literature reviews, analysis of secondary data collected by others, or another appropriate rhetorical approach. In contrast to CER papers, PCI papers need not present original data or adhere to typical qualitative or quantitative research methods. PCI papers differ from ERT papers in that they do not necessarily report on individual experiences, programs or tools, but rather they may focus on broader concerns to the community.
Papers submitted to all tracks should address one or more computing content topic. Authors will be asked to select between 3 and 7 topics from this list at the time of submission. Papers deemed outside the scope of symposium by the program chairs will be desk rejected without review.
Authors submitting work to SIGCSE TS 2024 are responsible for complying with all applicable conference authorship policies and those articulated by ACM. If you have questions about any of these policies, please contact program@sigcse2024.sigcse.org for clarification prior to submission.
New for 2024: ACM has made a commitment to collect ORCiD IDs from all published authors (https://authors.acm.org/author-resources/orcid-faqs). All authors on each submission must have an ORCiD ID (https://orcid.org/register) in order to complete the submission process. Please make sure to get your ORCiD ID in advance of submitting your work.
Presentation Modality
Papers at SIGCSE TS 2024 can be presented either in-person using a traditional paper session or online via a synchronous Zoom session with Q/A. Pre-recorded videos will NOT be required. The online zoom presenters will be scheduled to present synchronously during the conference days just like the in-person presenters. Authors of accepted submissions must commit to one of these two presentation modalities in a timely manner to facilitate conference planning. Registration rates for online presenters are likely to be comparable to those for in-person attendees and higher than that of online-only attendees, which will help offset the additional costs of supporting online presentation. Further instructions and information will be provided in acceptance notifications.
Thu 21 MarDisplayed time zone: Pacific Time (US & Canada) change
10:45 - 12:00 | |||
10:45 25mTalk | Broadening Participation in Adult Education: A Literature Review of Computer Science EducationGlobalCC Papers Friday Joseph Agbo Willamette University DOI | ||
11:10 25mTalk | Curricular and Pedagogical Considerations in Computer Science Education: The Role of Community Colleges for the Next DecadeCC Papers Christian Servin El Paso Community College, Elizabeth Hawthorne Rider University, Lori Postner Nassau Community College, Cara Tang Portland Community College, Cindy Tucker Bluegrass Community and Technical College DOI | ||
11:35 25mTalk | Understanding California's Computer Science Transfer PathwaysCC Papers Jinya Jiang University of California, San Diego, Richa Kafle University of California, San Diego, Christa Lehr University of Southern Connecticut, Simone Wright University of California, San Diego, Clarissa Guitierrez-Godoy University of California, San Diego, Christine Alvarado University of California San Diego DOI | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | |||
10:45 25mTalk | Foot in the Door: Developing Opportunities for Computing Undergraduates to Gain Industry ExperienceMSI Papers Nimmi Arunachalam Florida International University, Stephanie Lunn Florida International University, Mark Weiss Florida International University, Jason Liu Florida International University, Giri Narasimhan Florida International University DOI | ||
11:10 25mTalk | Industry Mentoring and Internship Experiences at a Community College Baccalaureate Program in Software DevelopmentMSI Papers Kendrick Hang Green River College, Tyler Schrock Green River College, Tina Ostrander Green River College, Roseann Berg Green River College, Tyler Menezes CodeDay, Kevin Wang Mentors in Tech DOI | ||
11:35 25mTalk | Institutional Perspectives on Formal Work-Based Learning Programs in the UKGlobal Papers DOI | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | |||
10:45 25mTalk | A Global Survey of Introductory Programming CoursesOnlineGlobalIn-Person Papers Raina Mason Southern Cross University, Simon , Brett Becker University College Dublin, Tom Crick Swansea University, James H. Davenport University of Bath DOI | ||
11:10 25mTalk | How We Manage an Army of Teaching Assistants: Experience Report on Scaling a CS1 CourseOnlineGlobalIn-Person Papers Ildar Akhmetov Northeastern University, Sadaf Ahmed University of Alberta, Kezziah Ayuno University of Alberta DOI | ||
11:35 25mTalk | Mining jewels together: debating about programming threshold concepts in large classesOnlineGlobalIn-Person Papers DOI | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | Assessment & GradingPapers at Meeting Rooms B110-112 Chair(s): Amanpreet Kapoor University of Florida, USA | ||
10:45 25mTalk | Diverging assessments: What, Why, and ExperiencesGlobal Papers Amin Sakzad Monash University, David Paul University of New England, Judy Sheard Monash University, Ljiljana Brankovic University of New England, Matthew P. Skerritt RMIT University, Nan Li University of Wollongong, Australia, Sepehr Minagar Monash University, Simon , William Billingsley University of New England DOI | ||
11:10 25mTalk | Mechanical TA 2: Peer Grading With TA and Algorithmic SupportGlobal Papers DOI | ||
11:35 25mTalk | Rubric for the Quality of Answers to Student Queries about CodeGlobal Papers Svana Esche Technical University of Darmstadt DOI | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | |||
10:45 25mTalk | Trust in Generative AI among Students: An Exploratory Study Papers Matin Amoozadeh University of Houston, David Daniels University of Houston, Daye Nam Carnegie Mellon University, Aayush Kumar IIT Kanpur, stella chen University of Houston, Michael Hilton Carnegie Mellon University, Sruti Srinivasa Ragavan Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kanpur, Amin Alipour University of Houston DOI | ||
11:10 25mTalk | Attitudes Towards the Use (and Misuse) of ChatGPT: A Preliminary Study Papers Michael Rogers University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, Hannah Hillberg University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, Christopher Groves University of Wisconsin Oshkosh DOI | ||
11:35 25mTalk | Instructor Perceptions of AI Code Generation Tools – A Multi-Institutional Interview StudyGlobal Papers Judy Sheard Monash University, Paul Denny The University of Auckland, Arto Hellas Aalto University, Juho Leinonen Aalto University, Lauri Malmi Aalto University, Simon DOI | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | |||
10:45 25mTalk | DOJO: Applied Cybersecurity Education In The Browser Papers DOI | ||
11:10 25mTalk | PWN Lessons Made Easy With Docker: Toward an Undergraduate Vulnerability Research Cybersecurity Class Papers TJ O'Connor Florida Institute of Technology, Alex Schmith Florida Institute of Technology, Chris Stricklan Florida Institute of Technology, Marco Carvalho Florida Institute of Technology, Sneha Sudhakaran Florida Institute of Technology DOI | ||
11:35 25mTalk | PWN The Learning Curve: Education-First CTF Challenges Papers DOI | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | |||
10:45 25mTalk | Book Club Model for Engaging with Data Science and Ethics: Using Weapons of Math Destruction Papers Tammy Vandegrift University of Portland DOI | ||
11:10 25mTalk | Digging Data: Using archaeology to teach responsible data practices in a study abroad context Papers Michelle Trim UMass Amherst, Anthony Tuck University of Massachusetts Amherst, Matthew Rattigan University of Massachusetts Amherst, Cole Reilly University of Massachusetts Amherst DOI | ||
11:35 25mTalk | Learning Big Data Systems via Emulation Papers Wensheng Wu University of Southern California DOI | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | Accessibility - NeurodiversityPapers at Oregon Ballroom 204 Chair(s): Ellen Spertus Northeastern University | ||
10:45 25mTalk | A History of BPC: Lessons from our Past Informing our Future Directions Papers DOI | ||
11:10 25mTalk | Experiences of Undergraduate Computer Science Students Living with Mental Health Conditions Papers Jie Ji Bryn Mawr College, Christian Murphy Swarthmore College, Brianna Blaser University of Washington, Jennifer Akullian Growth Coaching Institute DOI | ||
11:35 25mTalk | Neurodiverse Programmers and the Accessibility of Parsons Problems: An Exploratory Multiple-Case Study Papers Carl Haynes-Magyar Carnegie Mellon University DOI | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | Big Picture CS EdPapers at Meeting Room D135 Chair(s): Julie Smith Institute for Advancing Computing Education | ||
13:45 25mTalk | Confidence vs insight: Big and Rich Data in Computing Education Research Papers DOI | ||
14:10 25mTalk | Discourse Practices in Computer Science EducationK12 Papers Yvonne Kao WestEd, David McKinney WestEd, Samuel Berg Oakland Unified School District, Brenda Tuohy Oakland Unified School District, Courtney Ortega Oakland Unified School District DOI | ||
14:35 25mTalk | To be or not to be. . . an algorithm: the notion according to students and teachersGlobal Papers Carlo Bellettini University of Milan, Violetta Lonati University of Milan, Mattia Monga Università degli Studi di Milano, Anna Morpurgo Università degli Studi di Milano DOI | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | |||
13:45 25mTalk | Experiences Using Research Processes in an Undergraduate Theory of Computing Course Papers Ryan Dougherty United States Military Academy DOI | ||
14:10 25mTalk | Participatory Governance in the Computer Science Theory Classroom Papers Tim Randolph Columbia University DOI | ||
14:35 25mTalk | Teaching Formal Languages through Programmed Instruction Papers DOI | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | |||
13:45 25mTalk | Effect of Deadlines on Student Submission Timelines and Success in a Fully-Online Self-Paced Course Papers Meng-Chieh Chiu UMass Amherst, Eliot Moss University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Timothy Richards University of Massachusetts Amherst DOI | ||
14:10 25mTalk | Implementation of Split Deadlines in a Large CS1 Course Papers Hongxuan Chen University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Ang Li University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Geoffrey Challen University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Kathryn Cunningham University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign DOI | ||
14:35 25mTalk | Student Perspectives on Assignment Deadline Policies in Computer Science Courses Papers DOI | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | Accessibility - FairnessPapers at Meeting Rooms B113-114 Chair(s): Justice Walker University of Texas at El Paso | ||
13:45 25mTalk | Crafting Disability Fairness Learning in Data Science: A Student-Centric Pedagogical Approach Papers Pax Newman Western Washington University, Tyanin Opdahl Western Washington University, Yudong Liu Western Washington University, Scott Wehrwein Western Washington University, Yasmine Elglaly Western Washington University DOI | ||
14:10 25mTalk | From Awareness to Action: Teaching Software Accessibility for Neurodiverse Users Papers Devorah Kletenik Brooklyn College, City University of New York, Rachel Minkowitz Cornell Tech, Aleksandra Peric Northeastern Illinois University, Mehmet Sahin Brooklyn College, Rachel F. Adler University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign DOI | ||
14:35 25mTalk | Motivated by Inclusion: Evaluating the Impact of Games on Students’ Motivation to Design Accessibly Across a Spectrum of Disabilities Papers Devorah Kletenik Brooklyn College, City University of New York, Rachel F. Adler University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign DOI | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | Software EngineeringPapers at Meeting Rooms B117-119 Chair(s): Hanieh Shabanian Western New England University | ||
13:45 25mTalk | Taxonomy-Based Human Error Assessment for Senior Software Engineering Students Papers Benjamin S. Meyers Rochester Institute of Technology, Andrew Meneely Rochester Institute of Technology DOI | ||
14:10 25mTalk | ``Working with Large Code Bases:'' A Cognitive Apprenticeship Approach to Teaching Software Engineering Papers Anshul Shah University of California, San Diego, Jerry Yu University of California, San Diego, Adalbert Gerald Soosai Raj University of California, San Diego DOI | ||
14:35 25mTalk | Automating Source Code Refactoring in the Classroom Papers Eman Abdullah AlOmar Stevens Institute of Technology, Mohamed Wiem Mkaouer University of Michigan - Flint, Ali Ouni ETS Montreal, University of Quebec DOI | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | |||
13:45 25mTalk | ClearMind Workshop: An ACT-based Intervention Tailored for Academic Procrastination among Computing Students Papers Yunyi She University of California, San Diego, Korena Klimczak Utah State University, Michael Levin Utah State University, Soohyun Liao University of California in San Diego DOI | ||
14:10 25mTalk | Procrastination vs. Active Delay: How Students Prepare to Code in Introductory Programming Papers Elizabeth B. Cloude University of Pennsylvania, Jiayi Zhang University Pennsylvania, Ryan Baker University of Pennsylvania, Eric Fouh University of Pennsylvania DOI | ||
14:35 25mTalk | Learners Teaching Novices: An Uplifting Alternative AssessmentGlobal Papers Ali Malik Stanford University, Juliette Woodrow Stanford University, Chris Piech Stanford University DOI | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | LLM - Teaching CS1/CS2Papers at Oregon Ballroom 204 Chair(s): Suzanne Matthews United States Military Academy | ||
13:45 25mTalk | Teaching CS50 with AI: Leveraging Generative Artificial Intelligence in Computer Science EducationGlobalMSICC Papers Rongxin Liu Harvard University, Carter Zenke Harvard University, Charlie Liu Yale University, Andrew Holmes Harvard University, Patrick Thornton Harvard University, David J. Malan Harvard University DOI | ||
14:10 25mTalk | Prompt Problems: A New Programming Exercise for the Generative AI EraGlobalCC Papers Paul Denny The University of Auckland, Juho Leinonen Aalto University, James Prather Abilene Christian University, Andrew Luxton-Reilly The University of Auckland, Thezyrie Amarouche University of Toronto Scarborough, Brett Becker University College Dublin, Brent Reeves Abilene Christian University DOI | ||
14:35 25mTalk | CS1 with a Side of AI: Teaching Software Verification for Secure Code in the Era of Generative AICC Papers DOI | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | Communication & Help in Large CoursesPapers at Meeting Room D136 Chair(s): Sara Hooshangi Virginia Tech | ||
15:45 25mTalk | HelpMe: Student Help Seeking using Office Hours and Email Papers Kevin Shukang Wang The University of British Columbia, Ramon Lawrence The University of British Columbia DOI | ||
16:10 25mTalk | Experience Report: Meet the Professor - A Large-Course Intervention for Increasing Rapport Papers William Griswold UC San Diego DOI | ||
16:35 25mTalk | Student Interaction with Instructor Emails in Introductory and Upper-Year Computing CoursesGlobal Papers Angela Zavaleta Bernuy University of Toronto, Runlong Ye University of Toronto, Naaz Sibia University of Toronto Mississauga, Rohita Nalluri University of Toronto Scarborough, Joseph Jay Williams University of Toronto, Andrew Petersen University of Toronto, Eric Smith University of Texas at Austin, Bogdan Simion University of Toronto Mississauga, Michael Liut University of Toronto Mississauga DOI | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | Pedagogy - Flexible ModalitiesPapers at Meeting Room E145 Chair(s): Jesse Ha Montclair State University | ||
15:45 25mTalk | Do Behavioral Factors Influence the Extent to which Students Engage with Formative Practice Opportunities? Papers Ashish Aggarwal University of Florida, Manas Adepu University of Florida, Alex Garcia-Marin University of Florida, Christina Gardner-McCune Herbert Wertheim College of Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA DOI | ||
16:10 25mTalk | EIT: Earnest Insight Toolkit for Evaluating Students’ Earnestness in Interactive Lecture Participation Exercises Papers Mihran Miroyan UC Berkeley, Shiny Weng UC Berkeley, Rahul Shah UC Berkeley, Lisa Yan University of California, Berkeley, Narges Norouzi University of California, Berkeley DOI | ||
16:35 25mTalk | Traditional vs. Flexible Modalities in a Data Structures Class Papers Shanon Reckinger University of Illinois at Chicago, Joe Hummel Northwestern University, Sarah Heckman North Carolina State University DOI | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | Miscellaneous onlinePapers at Meeting Room E146 Chair(s): Zhikai Gao North Carolina State University | ||
15:45 25mTalk | An Accessible Blocks-based Programming Language for Students with and without Visual ImpairmentsOnlineIn-Person Papers Moumita Tabassum University of Alabama, Jeff Gray University of Alabama, Derrick Smith University of Alabama in Huntsville DOI | ||
16:10 25mTalk | Hint Cards for Common Ozobot Robot Issues: Supporting Feedback for Learning Programming in Elementary SchoolsK12OnlineGlobalIn-Person Papers Luisa Greifenstein University of Passau, Ute Heuer Universität Passau, Gordon Fraser University of Passau DOI | ||
16:35 25mTalk | Investigating Students' Usage of Self-regulation of Learning Scaffoldings in a Computer-Based Programming Learning EnvironmentOnlineGlobalIn-Person Papers Leonardo Humberto Silva IFNMG-Salinas, Anabela Gomes University of Coimbra, António Mendes University of Coimbra DOI | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | GlobalPapers at Meeting Rooms B110-112 Chair(s): Joël Porquet-Lupine University of California, Davis | ||
15:45 25mTalk | Computer Science Education - What Can We Learn from Japan?Global Papers Markus Sprenger TU Dresden, Nadine Bergner RWTH Aachen University, Thiemo Leonhardt TU Dresden, Ryuta Yamamoto Shizuoka University DOI | ||
16:10 25mTalk | [CANCELLED] NaijaCoder: Participatory Design for Early Algorithms Education in the Global SouthCancelledGlobalMSI Papers Daniel Alabi Columbia University, Atinuke Adegbile Global Integrated Education Volunteers Association (GIEVA), Lekan Afuye Cornell University, Philip Abel Twilio, Inc., Alida Monaco ICF International DOI | ||
16:35 25mTalk | AI Teaches the Art of Elegant Coding: Timely, Fair, and Helpful Style Feedback in a Global CourseGlobal Papers Juliette Woodrow Stanford University, Ali Malik Stanford University, Chris Piech Stanford University DOI | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | Accessibility - Inclusive DesignPapers at Meeting Rooms B113-114 Chair(s): Jaromir Savelka Carnegie Mellon University | ||
15:45 25mTalk | Accessible to Whom? Bringing Accessibility to Blocks Papers Andreas Stefik University of Nevada at Las Vegas, USA, Willliam Allee University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Gabriel Contreras University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Timothy Kluthe University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Alex Hoffman University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Brianna Blaser University of Washington, Richard Ladner University of Washington DOI | ||
16:10 25mTalk | Beyond HCI: The Need for Accessibility Across the CS Curriculum Papers Yasmine Elglaly Western Washington University, Catherine Baker Creighton University, Anne Ross Bucknell University, Kristen Shinohara Rochester Institute of Technology DOI | ||
16:35 25mTalk | From Workshops to Classrooms: Faculty Experiences with Implementing Inclusive Design Principles Papers Pankati Patel Kean University, Dahana Moz-Ruiz Kean University, Rosalinda Garcia Oregon State University, Amreeta Chatterjee Oregon State University, Patricia Morreale Kean University, Margaret Burnett Oregon State University DOI | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | Internships & DiversityPapers at Meeting Rooms B117-119 Chair(s): Miracle Etim-Andy University of Maryland | ||
15:45 25mTalk | Micro-internships and Career Focused Programs as Mechanisms for Diversifying Computing Papers Kristina Kramarczuk University of Maryland, College Park, Kate Atchison University of Maryland, College Park, Monica Hilliard University of Maryland, Jandelyn Plane University of Maryland, College Park / Ripon College, Sally Bond The Program Evaluation Group-LLC, Caitlin Rudy University of Maryland, David Weintrop University of Maryland DOI | ||
16:10 25mTalk | Sealing the Deal: Factors That Promote Computing Interns’ Interest in Computing Careers Papers Kathleen Lehman University of California, Los Angeles, Kaitlyn N. Stormes Momentum, UCLA School of Education and Information Studies, Katie Smith Temple University, Julia Lapan University of Virginia DOI | ||
16:35 25mTalk | The Diversity-Hire Narrative in CS: Sources, Impacts, and Responses Papers Christopher Perdriau University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Vidushi Ojha University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Kaitlynn Gray Harvey Mudd College, Brent Lagesse University of Washington Bothell, Colleen M. Lewis University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign DOI | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | |||
15:45 25mTalk | Adopting Foundational Data Science Curriculum with Diverse Institutional ContextsMSI Papers Vandana P. Janeja University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Maria Sanchez University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Yi Xuan Khoo University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Claudia Von Vacano University of California, Berkeley, Lujie Karen Chen University of Maryland, Baltimore County DOI | ||
16:10 25mTalk | Seeing the Whole Elephant --- A Comprehensive Framework for Data Education Papers Iain Cruickshank Army Cyber Institute, Nathaniel Bastian United States Military Academy, Jean Blair United States Military Academy, Christa Chewar United States Military Academy, Edward Sobiesk United States Military Academy DOI | ||
16:35 25mTalk | Student Motivations and Expectations for an Introductory Programming Course in Biology Papers Austin Zuckerman UC San Diego & SDSU, Math & Science Education, Lily Vo UC San Diego, Psychology, Ashley Juavinett UC San Diego, Neurobiology DOI | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | New Approaches to CS1Papers at Oregon Ballroom 204 Chair(s): Pedro Guillermo Feijóo-García Georgia Institute of Technology | ||
15:45 25mTalk | CS1 Instructors: Flexibility in Content Approaches is Justified, and can Enable More Cross-University CooperationCC Papers Frank Vahid UC Riverside / zyBooks DOI | ||
16:10 25mTalk | Experiences Teaching a CS1 Common Course across 7 InstitutionsCC Papers DOI | ||
16:35 25mTalk | When Coding Meets Biology: The tension between access and authenticity in a contextualized coding classCC Papers Austin Zuckerman UC San Diego & SDSU, Math & Science Education, Ashley Juavinett UC San Diego, Neurobiology DOI | ||
Fri 22 MarDisplayed time zone: Pacific Time (US & Canada) change
10:45 - 12:00 | Persistence in CS and RetentionPapers at Meeting Room D135 Chair(s): Jennifer Wong-Ma University of California, Irvine | ||
10:45 25mTalk | What factors influence persistence in project-based programming courses at community colleges? Papers Chris Bogart Carnegie Mellon University, Marshall An Carnegie Mellon University, Eric Keylor Carnegie Mellon University, Pawanjeet Singh Carnegie Mellon University, Jaromir Savelka Carnegie Mellon University, Majd Sakr Carnegie Mellon University DOI | ||
11:10 25mTalk | A Longitudinal Study of the Relationship between Early Undergraduate Research and Academic Outcomes in Computer Science Papers Kamen Redfield University of California, San Diego, Sukham Sidhu University of California, San Diego, Zackary Glazewski University of California, Santa Barbara, Cynthia Lee Stanford University, Diba Mirza University of California Santa Barbara, Christine Alvarado University of California San Diego DOI | ||
11:35 25mTalk | Exploring Computing Students' Sense of Belonging Before and After a Collaborative Learning Course Papers Morgan Fong University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Shan Huang University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Abdussalam Alawini University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Mariana Silva University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Geoffrey Herman University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign DOI | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | K-12 Big PicturePapers at Meeting Room D136 Chair(s): Bill Siever Washington University in St. Louis | ||
10:45 25mTalk | Bringing Teachers and Researchers together through Participatory Design and Cooperative Prototyping in Computing EducationGlobal Papers Line Have Musaeus Center for Computational Thinking & Design, Aarhus University, Marianne Graves Petersen Aarhus University, Clemens Nylandsted Klokmose Aarhus University DOI | ||
11:10 25mTalk | Piloting a Diagnostic Tool to Measure AP CS Principles Teachers' Knowledge Against CSTA Teacher Standard 1 Papers Monica McGill Institute for Advancing Computing Education, Joseph Tise Institute for Advancing Computing Education, Adrienne Decker University at Buffalo DOI | ||
11:35 25mTalk | Small Steps, Big Progress: Analyzing District Led Goals to Advance CS EducationGlobal Papers Alexis Cobo CSforALL, Stephanie Wortel-London CSforALL, Leigh Ann Delyser CSforALL, Darius Ellis James CodeCrew DOI | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | Generative AIPapers at Meeting Room E146 Chair(s): Andreas Stefik University of Nevada at Las Vegas, USA | ||
10:45 25mTalk | Use of AI-driven Code Generation Models in Teaching and Learning Programming: a Systematic Literature Review Papers DOI | ||
11:10 25mTalk | Exploring the Impact of Generative AI for StandUp Report Recommendations in Software Capstone Project DevelopmentOnlineIn-Person Papers Andres Neyem Computer Science Department, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Juan Pablo Sandoval Computer Science Department, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Marcelo Mendoza Computer Science Department, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Leonardo Centellas Computer Science Department, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Luis Armando Gonzalez Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Carlos Paredes Computer Science Department, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile DOI | ||
11:35 25mTalk | ChatGPT in the Classroom: An Analysis of Its Strengths and Weaknesses for Solving Undergraduate Computer Science QuestionsOnlineIn-Person Papers Ishika Joshi Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Delhi, Ritvik Budhiraja Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Delhi, Harshal Dev Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Delhi, Jahnvi Kadia Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Delhi, M. Osama Ataullah Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Delhi, Sayan Mitra Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Delhi, Harshal D. Akolekar Indian Institute of Technology, Jodhpur, Dhruv Kumar Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Delhi DOI | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | K-12: AI, NLP, and Data LiteracyPapers at Meeting Rooms B110-112 Chair(s): Ke Yang University of Texas at San Antonio | ||
10:45 25mTalk | ChemAIstry: A Novel Software Tool for Teaching Model Training in K-8 EducationK12 Papers Fred Martin University of Texas at San Antonio, Vaishali Mahipal University of Massachusetts Lowell, Garima Jain University of Massachusetts Lowell, Srija Ghosh University of Massachusetts Lowell, Ismaila Temitayo Sanusi University of Eastern Finland DOI | ||
11:10 25mTalk | Integrating Natural Language Processing in Middle School Science Classrooms: An Experience Report Papers Gloria Ashiya Katuka University of Florida, Srijita Chakraburty Indiana University, Hyejeong Lee Indiana University, Sunny Dhama University of Florida, Toni Earle-Randell University of Florida, Mehmet Celepkolu University of Florida, Kristy Elizabeth Boyer University of Florida, Krista Glazewski North Carolina State University, Cindy Hmelo-Silver Indiana University, Tom McKlin The Findings Group DOI | ||
11:35 25mTalk | Empowering Digital Natives: InstaClone - a Novel Approach to Data Literacy Education in the Age of Social MediaGlobal Papers Anna Hartl Technical University of Munich, Elena Starke Technical University of Munich, Angelina Voggenreiter Technical University of Munich, Doris Holzberger Technical University of Munich, Tilman Michaeli TU Munich, Jürgen Pfeffer Technical University of Munich DOI | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | Quantitative Approaches to Understanding BPC EffortsPapers at Meeting Rooms B113-114 Chair(s): Paul Tymann Rochester Institute of Technology | ||
10:45 25mTalk | Evaluating Identity and Belonging in Computer Science Students: Instrument Adaptation and AnalysisGlobalMSI Papers Stephanie Werner University of Illinois, Illinois Workforce and Education Research Collaborative (IWERC), Ying Chen University of Illinois, Illinois Workforce and Education Research Collaborative (IWERC) DOI | ||
11:10 25mTalk | A Quantitative Methodological Review of Research on Broadening Participation in Computing, 2005-2022MSI Papers Linda Sax UCLA, Chantra Nhien Momentum, UCLA School of Education and Information Studies, Kaitlyn N. Stormes Momentum, UCLA School of Education and Information Studies DOI | ||
11:35 25mTalk | Does Curricular Complexity in Computer Science Influence the Representation of Women CS Graduates? Papers Albert Lionelle Khoury College of Computer Sciences, Northeastern University, McKenna Quam Northeastern University, Carla Brodley Northeastern University, Center for Inclusive Computing, Catherine Gill Northeastern University DOI | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | Cybersecurity - crosscutting and diversityPapers at Meeting Rooms B117-119 Chair(s): Madison Thomas North Carolina State University | ||
10:45 25mTalk | A Critical Review of Cybersecurity Education in the United States Papers James Crabb Washington State University, Chris Hundhausen Oregon State University, USA, Assefaw Gebremedhin Washington State University DOI | ||
11:10 25mTalk | Cybersecurity as a Crosscutting Concept Across an Undergrad Computer Science Curriculum: An Experience ReportGlobal Papers Azqa Nadeem University of Twente, Netherlands DOI | ||
11:35 25mTalk | Remote Controlled Cyber: Toward Engaging and Educating a Diverse Cybersecurity WorkforceMSI Papers Curtice Gough Florida Institute of Technology, Carl Mann Florida Institute of Technology, Cherrise Ficke Florida Institute of Technology, Maureen Namukasa Florida Institute of Technology, Meredith Carroll Florida Institute of Technology, TJ O'Connor Florida Institute of Technology DOI | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | CS1 Mental ModelsPapers at Meeting Rooms C120-122 Chair(s): Svana Esche Technical University of Darmstadt | ||
10:45 25mTalk | Analogies and Active Engagement: Introducing Computer ScienceCC Papers Jennifer Parham-Mocello Oregon State University, Martin Erwig Oregon State University, Margaret Niess Oregon State University DOI | ||
11:10 25mTalk | Conceptual Metaphor Theory in Action: Insights into Student Understanding of Computing ConceptsCC Papers Colton Harper University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Keith Tran North Carolina State University, Steve Cooper University of Nebraska, Lincoln DOI | ||
11:35 25mTalk | The Correctness of the Mental Model of Arrays After Instruction for CS1 StudentsCC Papers Syeda Fatema Mazumder University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Manuel A. Pérez-Quiñones University of North Carolina Charlotte DOI | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | |||
10:45 25mTalk | Need a Programming Exercise Generated in Your Native Language? ChatGPT’s Got Your Back: Automatic Generation of Non-English Programming Exercises Using OpenAI GPT-3.5 Papers Mollie Jordan North Carolina State University, Kevin Ly University of California, San Diego, Adalbert Gerald Soosai Raj University of California, San Diego DOI | ||
11:10 25mTalk | GitKit: Learning Free and Open Source Collaboration in ContextGlobal Papers Grant Braught Dickinson College, Stoney Jackson Western New England University, Cam Macdonell MacEwan University, Lori Postner Nassau Community College, Wesley Shumar Drexel University, Karl Wurst Worcester State University DOI | ||
11:35 25mTalk | Idea Builder: Motivating Idea Generation and Planning through Storyboarding Papers Wengran Wang North Carolina State University, Ally Limke North Carolina State University, Mahesh Bobbadi North Carolina State University, Amy Isvik North Carolina State University, Veronica Catete North Carolina State University, Tiffany Barnes North Carolina State University, Thomas Price North Carolina State University DOI | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | LLM - toolsPapers at Oregon Ballroom 204 Chair(s): Geoffrey Herman University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign | ||
10:45 25mTalk | Evaluating Automatically Generated Contextualised Programming ExercisesGlobal Papers Andre del Carpio Gutierrez The University of Auckland, Paul Denny The University of Auckland, Andrew Luxton-Reilly The University of Auckland DOI | ||
11:10 25mTalk | A Fast and Accurate Machine Learning Autograder for the Breakout Assignment Papers Evan Liu Stanford University, David Yuan Stanford University, Syed Ahmed Oakland University, Elyse Cornwall Stanford University, Juliette Woodrow Stanford University, Kaylee Burns Stanford University, Allen Nie Stanford University, Emma Brunskill Stanford University, Chris Piech Stanford University, Chelsea Finn Stanford University DOI | ||
11:35 25mTalk | Beyond Traditional Teaching: Designing a virtual teaching assistant using LLMs for CS educationGlobal Papers DOI | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | |||
13:45 25mTalk | Breaking Stereotypes and Feeding the STEM Pipeline Papers Naja Mack Morgan State University, Michael Adeleke Morgan State University, Elijah Ballou Morgan State University, Destiny Davis Morgan State University, Vincent Ingram Morgan State University, Katlyn Cox Morgan State University DOI | ||
14:10 25mTalk | CATCHing CS Equity: Counselors, Administrators, and Teachers Collaborating Holistically for Systemic Change Papers Manee Ngozi M Nnamani Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Salome Otero Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Teaching Systems Lab, Julie Smith Institute for Advancing Computing Education, Josh Sheldon Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Teaching Systems Lab, Deborah Boisvert CSforMA, Inc., Justin Reich Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Teaching Systems Lab DOI | ||
14:35 25mTalk | Multi-Pronged Pedagogical Approaches to Broaden Participation in Computing and Students’ Computing Persistence: A robustness analysis of the STARS Computing Corps’ impact on students’ intentions to persist in computingMSI Papers Lauren Wyatt Kent State University, Susan Fisk Kent State University, Clarissa Thompson Kent State University, Jamie Payton Temple University, Veronica Catete North Carolina State University, Audrey Rorrer UNC Charlotte, Tiffany Barnes North Carolina State University, Tom McKlin The Findings Group DOI | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | |||
13:45 25mTalk | Artificial Intelligence in Compulsory K-12 Computer Science Classrooms: A Scalable Professional Development Offer for Computer Science TeachersGlobal Papers DOI | ||
14:10 25mTalk | Harmonizing Scratch Encore: Scaffolding K-8 Teachers in Customizing Culturally Responsive Computing Materials Papers Minh Tran University of Chicago, Heather Killen University of Maryland, Jen Palmer University of Chicago, David Weintrop University of Maryland, Diana Franklin University of Chicago DOI | ||
14:35 25mTalk | Programming-Integrated Mathematics Learning for Future Elementary Teachers and non-STEM Majors Papers DOI | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | |||
13:45 25mTalk | A Peer Grading Approach for Open-ended Programming Projects Based on Binary System and Swiss SystemOnlineIn-Person Papers Liang Zhang Beihang University, Tianyi Chen Beihang University, Yue Zong Beihang University, Xiaopeng Gao Beihang University DOI | ||
14:10 25mTalk | Clearn: a cost-conscious student-led online judge for a large programming courseOnlineGlobalIn-Person Papers Valeria Herskovic Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Jorge Munoz-Gama Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Fernando Balladares Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Pablo Flores Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Nicolas Quiroz Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile DOI | ||
14:35 25mTalk | Attribution of Work in Programming Teams with Git ReporterOnlineIn-Person Papers Michael Guttmann Graz University of Technology, Aleksandar Karakaš Graz University of Technology, Denis Helic Modul University Vienna GmbH DOI | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | |||
13:45 25mTalk | Application of Collaborative Learning Paradigms within Software Engineering Education: A Systematic Mapping StudyGlobal Papers Rita Garcia Unity and Victoria University of Wellington, Christoph Treude Singapore Management University, Andrew Valentine The University of Melbourne DOI | ||
14:10 25mTalk | Improving Software Engineering Teamwork with Structured Feedback Papers Victor Huang Weiqi Carnegie Mellon University, Kori Krueger Morgan State University, Taya Cohen Carnegie Mellon University, Michael Hilton Carnegie Mellon University DOI | ||
14:35 25mTalk | The Development of Students' Professional Competencies on a Work-Based Software Engineering ProgramGlobal Papers Matthew Barr University of Glasgow, Oana Andrei University of Glasgow, Alistair Morrison University of Glasgow, Syed Waqar Nabi University of Glasgow DOI | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | Physical Computing in K-12 EducationPapers at Meeting Rooms B113-114 Chair(s): Julio Bahamon UNC Charlotte | ||
13:45 25mTalk | Cultural-Centric Computational Embroidery Papers Megumi Kivuva University of Washington, Seattle, Jayne Everson University of Washington, Camilo Montes De Haro University of Washington, Seattle, Amy Ko University of Washington DOI | ||
14:10 25mTalk | Failure Artifact Scenarios to Understand High School Students’ Growth in Troubleshooting Physical Computing Projects Papers Luis Morales-Navarro University of Pennsylvania, Deborah Fields Utah State University, Deepali Barapatre University of Pennsylvania, Yasmin Kafai University of Pennsylvania DOI | ||
14:35 25mTalk | The Integration of Computational Thinking and Making in the Classroom Papers David Magda University of Florida, Christina Gardner-McCune Herbert Wertheim College of Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA, Yerika Jimenez University of Florida, Sharon Chu University of Florida, Abhishek Kulkarni University of Florida DOI | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | LLMs, Debugging, and DetectionPapers at Meeting Rooms B115-116 Chair(s): John Edwards Utah State University | ||
13:45 25mTalk | Can Language Models Employ the Socratic Method? Experiments with Code DebuggingGlobalCC Papers Erfan Al-Hossami UNC Charlotte, Razvan Bunescu UNC Charlotte, Justin Smith UNC Charlotte, Ryan Teehan New York University DOI | ||
14:10 25mTalk | Detecting ChatGPT-Generated Code Submissions in a CS1 Course Using Machine Learning ModelsCC Papers Muntasir Hoq North Carolina State University, Yang Shi North Carolina State University, Juho Leinonen Aalto University, Damilola Babalola North Carolina State University, Collin Lynch North Carolina State University, Thomas Price North Carolina State University, Bita Akram North Carolina State University DOI | ||
14:35 25mTalk | Towards Comprehensive Metrics for Programming Cheat DetectionCC Papers Frank Vahid UC Riverside / zyBooks, Ashley Pang UC Riverside, Benjamin Denzler University of California, Riverside DOI | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | Active LearningPapers at Meeting Rooms B117-119 Chair(s): Shanon Reckinger University of Illinois at Chicago | ||
13:45 25mTalk | Putting the Service into Service Learning: A Report on a Survey of CS Faculty Papers Avery Harrell University of Colorado Boulder, Sidney Lentz University of Colorado Boulder, Fujiko Robledo Yamamoto University of Colorado Boulder, Amy Voida University of Colorado Boulder, Lecia Barker University of Colorado Boulder DOI | ||
14:10 25mTalk | A Review of Cognitive Apprenticeship Methods in Computing Education Research Papers Anshul Shah University of California, San Diego, Adalbert Gerald Soosai Raj University of California, San Diego DOI | ||
14:35 25mTalk | Bite-Sized Experiential Education for Computer and Information Science Papers Julia Dean CU Boulder, Lecia Barker University of Colorado Boulder, Amy Voida University of Colorado Boulder DOI | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | |||
13:45 25mTalk | Disentangling the Learning Gains from Reading a Book Chapter and Completing Proof Blocks Problems Papers Seth Poulsen Utah State University, Yael Gertner University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Hongxuan Chen University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Benjamin Cosman University of California San Diego, Matthew West University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign , Geoffrey Herman University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign DOI | ||
14:10 25mTalk | Solving Proof Block Problems Using Large Language ModelsGlobal Papers Seth Poulsen Utah State University, Sami Sarsa Aalto University, James Prather Abilene Christian University, Juho Leinonen Aalto University, Brett Becker University College Dublin, Arto Hellas Aalto University, Paul Denny The University of Auckland, Brent Reeves Abilene Christian University DOI | ||
14:35 25mTalk | Using Worked Examples for Engaging in Epistemic Programming ProjectsGlobal Papers Sven Hüsing Paderborn University, Carsten Schulte University of Paderborn, Sören Sparmann Paderborn University, Mario Bolte Paderborn University DOI | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | Ethics & Social JusticePapers at Oregon Ballroom 204 Chair(s): Emanuelle Burton College of Engineering, University of Illinois at Chicago | ||
13:45 25mTalk | Do Embedded Ethics Modules Have Impact Beyond the Classroom?Global Papers Diane Horton University of Toronto, David Liu University of Toronto, Sheila McIlraith University of Toronto, Nina Wang University of Toronto, Steven Coyne University of Toronto DOI | ||
14:10 25mTalk | Teaching Ethics and Activism in a Human-Computer Interaction Professional Master's Program Papers DOI | ||
14:35 25mTalk | The Need for More Justice-Oriented Courses in Undergraduate Computer Science Curricula Papers Sukanya Kannan Moudgalya University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Amanda Zeller University of Tennessee, Knoxville DOI | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | Socially Relevant Computing for Middle-School StudentsPapers at Meeting Room D135 Chair(s): Tyler Menezes CodeDay | ||
15:45 25mTalk | Investigating Middle School Students’ Early Experience in Learning Computer Science Through Creating Apps for Social GoodK12 Papers Gillian Bausch University at Albany, Lijun Ni University at Albany, Elizabeth Thomas-Cappello University at Albany, SUNY, Fred Martin University of Texas at San Antonio, Bernardo Feliciano University of Massachusetts Lowell, Foozieh Mirderikvand University of Massachusetts Lowell DOI | ||
16:10 25mTalk | Iterative Design of a Socially-Relevant and Engaging Middle School Data Science UnitK12 Papers David McKinney WestEd, Chloe Morton WestEd, Brenda Tuohy Oakland Unified School District, Samuel Berg Oakland Unified School District, Audrey Karlstad Oakland Unified School District, Courtney Ortega Oakland Unified School District, Zelda Allison Oakland Unified School District, Griifin Munzel Oakland Unified School District, Max Washburn Oakland Unified School District, Yvonne Kao WestEd DOI | ||
16:35 25mTalk | Talking Techquity: Teaching the Equity and Social Justice Impacts of Computing in Middle School ClassroomsK12 Papers DOI | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | |||
15:45 25mTalk | Software Engineering Education Must Adapt and Evolve for an LLM EnvironmentOnlineGlobalIn-Person Papers Vassilka Kirova Nokia Bell Labs, Cyril S. Ku William Paterson University, Joseph Laracy Seton Hall University, Thomas Marlowe Seton Hall University DOI | ||
16:10 25mTalk | From Degree to Developer: the Creation and Evolution of a CS Course Designed to Bridge the Academia-Industry GapOnlineIn-Person Papers Jonathan Cazalas Florida Southern College, Christian Roberson Florida Southern College, Zeeshan Furqan Discovery Inc DOI | ||
16:35 25mTalk | Exploring Student Motivation in Integration of Soft Skills Training within Three Levels of Computer Science ProgramsOnlineGlobalIn-Person Papers En-Shiun Annie Lee University of Toronto, Luki Danukarjanto FOCUS.inspired, Sicong Huang University of Toronto, Sadia Sharmin University of Toronto, Shou-Yi Hung University of Toronto, Tong Su University of Toronto DOI | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | Testing and Academic IntegrityPapers at Meeting Rooms B110-112 Chair(s): Kim Titus North Carolina State University | ||
15:45 25mTalk | Comparing the Security of Three Proctoring Regimens for Bring-Your-Own-Device Exams Papers Rishi Gulati University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Matthew West University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign , Craig Zilles University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Mariana Silva University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign DOI | ||
16:10 25mTalk | "I didn't know": Examining Student Understanding of Academic Dishonesty in Computer ScienceGlobal Papers Michael Liut University of Toronto Mississauga, Anna Ly University of Toronto Mississauga, Jessica Jia-Ni Xu University of Toronto, Justice Banson Western Washington University, Paul Vrbik The University of Queensland, Caroline Hardin Western Washington University DOI | ||
16:35 25mTalk | One Solution to Addressing Assessment Logistical Problems: An experience setting up and operating an in-person testing center Papers Kelly Downey UC Riverside, Kris Miller University of California, Riverside, Mariana Silva University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Craig Zilles University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign DOI | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | Social Justice and EquityPapers at Meeting Rooms B113-114 Chair(s): Carl Haynes-Magyar Carnegie Mellon University | ||
15:45 25mTalk | Designing for Equity in Education Via Computational Thinking: A Case Study Papers Ryoko Yamaguchi Plus Alpha Research and Consulting, Cyntrica Eaton Eaton Technologies Consulting Group DOI | ||
16:10 25mTalk | "It Can Relate to Real Lives'': Attitudes and Expectations in Justice-Centered Data Structures & Algorithms for Non-Majors Papers Anna Batra University of Washington, Iris Zhou University of Washington, Suh Young Choi University of Washington, Chongjiu Gao University of Washington, Yanbing Xiao University of Washington, Sonia Fereidooni University of Washington, Kevin Lin University of Washington, Seattle DOI | ||
16:35 25mTalk | Undergraduate Student Attitudes towards a Social Justice Context in a Programming Project Papers Aadarsh Padiyath University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Kyle Ashburn University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Barbara Ericson University of Michigan DOI | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | |||
15:45 25mTalk | Challenges and Approaches to Teaching CS1 in Prison Papers Emma Hogan University of California, San Diego, Ruoxuan Li Columbia University, Adalbert Gerald Soosai Raj University of California, San Diego, William Griswold UC San Diego, Leo Porter University of California San Diego DOI | ||
16:10 25mTalk | Community Action Computing: A Data-centric CS0 Course Papers Ayaan M. Kazerouni California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, Jane Lehr California Polytechnic State University, Zoë Wood California Polytechnic State University DOI | ||
16:35 25mTalk | Socially Responsible Computing in an Introductory Course Papers Aakash Gautam University of Pittsburgh, Anagha Kulkarni San Francisco State University, Sarah Hug Colorado Evaluation & Research Consulting, Jane Lehr California Polytechnic State University, Ilmi Yoon San Francisco State University DOI | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | |||
15:45 25mTalk | Advancing Automated Assessment Tools — Opportunities for Innovations in Upper-level Computing Courses: A Position PaperGlobal Papers Steffan Hooper University of Auckland, Burkhard Wünsche University of Auckland, Andrew Luxton-Reilly The University of Auckland, Paul Denny The University of Auckland, Haoran Feng University of Auckland DOI | ||
16:10 25mTalk | Generating Multi-Part Autogradable Faded Parsons Problems From Code-Writing Exercises Papers Serena Caraco University of California, Berkeley, Nelson Lojo University of California, Berkeley, Michael Verdicchio The Citadel, Armando Fox UC Berkeley DOI | ||
16:35 25mTalk | Learning with Style: Improving Student Code-Style Through Better Automated FeedbackGlobal Papers Liam Saliba The University of Melbourne, Elisa Shioji The University of Melbourne, Eduardo Araujo Oliveira The University of Melbourne, Shaanan Cohney University of Melbourne, Jianzhong Qi The University of Melbourne DOI | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | CS1 - Planning Before CodingPapers at Meeting Rooms C120-122 Chair(s): Gustavo Rodriguez-Rivera Purdue University | ||
15:45 25mTalk | Improving Knowledge of CS1 Terminology Through a Peer Reviewed Translation Activity: Results and FeedbackGlobalCC Papers DOI | ||
16:10 25mTalk | Growth in Knowledge of Programming Patterns: A Comparison Study of CS1 vs. CS2 StudentsCC Papers Sara Nurollahian University of Utah, Anna Rafferty Carleton College, Noelle Brown University of Utah, Eliane Wiese University of Utah DOI | ||
16:35 25mTalk | Observations on the Design of Program Planning Notations for StudentsCC Papers Elijah Rivera Brown University, Shriram Krishnamurthi Brown University, Kathi Fisler Brown University DOI | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | LLMs - Error message and Coding strugglesPapers at Oregon Ballroom 204 Chair(s): Celine Latulipe University of Manitoba | ||
15:45 25mTalk | A Large Scale RCT on Effective Error Messages in CS1 Papers Sierra Wang Stanford University, John C. Mitchell Stanford University, Chris Piech Stanford University DOI | ||
16:10 25mTalk | dcc --help: Transforming the Role of the Compiler by Generating Context-Aware Error Explanations with Large Language ModelsGlobal Papers Andrew Taylor University of New South Wales, Sydney, Alexandra Vassar University of New South Wales, Sydney, Jake Renzella University of New South Wales, Sydney, Hammond Pearce University of New South Wales, Sydney DOI | ||
16:35 25mTalk | Exploring Novice Programmers' Testing Behavior: A first step to define coding struggle Papers Gabriel Silva de Oliveira North Carolina State University, Zhikai Gao North Carolina State University, Sarah Heckman North Carolina State University, Collin Lynch North Carolina State University DOI | ||
Sat 23 MarDisplayed time zone: Pacific Time (US & Canada) change
10:45 - 12:00 | K12 - Elementary SchoolPapers at Meeting Room D135 Chair(s): Jean Salac University of Washington, Seattle | ||
10:45 25mTalk | Gender, Social Interactions and Interests of Characters Illustrated in Scratch and Python Programming Books for ChildrenK12Global Papers Shirley de Wit Delft University of Technology, Felienne Hermans Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Marcus Specht Delft University of Technology, Efthimia Aivaloglou Delft University of Technology DOI | ||
11:10 25mTalk | Novel insights into elementary girls’ experiences in physiological computingK12 Papers Feiya Luo University of Alabama, Ruohan Liu University of Virginia, Idowu David Awoyemi University of Alabama, Chris Crawford University of Alabama, Fatema Nasrin University of Alabama DOI | ||
11:35 25mTalk | Making Abstraction Concrete in the Elementary ClassroomK12 Papers Eping Hung Southern Oregon University, Maggie Vanderberg Southern Oregon University, Gladys Krause William & Mary, Eva Skuratowicz Southern Oregon University DOI | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | Culturally Relevant K-12 ComputingPapers at Meeting Room D136 Chair(s): Satabdi Basu SRI International | ||
10:45 25mTalk | Developing Culturally Sustaining Elementary Computer Science Education with Indigenous CommunitiesK12MSI Papers Kathryn M. Rich American Institutes for Research, Marissa Spang American Institutes for Research, Jill Bowdon American Institutes for Research, Joseph Wilson American Institutes for Research, Heather Cunningham Boot Up Professional Development, Mckay Perkins Boot Up Professional Development DOI | ||
11:10 25mTalk | Scaffolding Minority High School Students’ Computer Science Learning: Culturally Relevant Summer CampK12MSI Papers DOI | ||
11:35 25mTalk | Worker-Driven Computing Education: A Proof-of-Concept Study for K12 Culturally Responsive ComputingK12 Papers Michael Lachney Michigan State University, Brian Ferguson Bey Henry Ford High School, Detroit Public Schools, Samuela Mouzaoir Michigan State University, Christa Robinson Michigan State University DOI | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | Understanding CS EducatorsPapers at Meeting Room E145 Chair(s): Rasika Bhalerao Northeastern University | ||
10:45 25mTalk | A Measurement Invariance Analysis of the Motivation to Teach Computer Science (MTCS) Scale among Female and Male Educators Papers Zhuoying Wang The University of Texas at Austin, Nicole D. Martin The University of Texas at Austin, Stephanie N. Baker The University of Texas at Austin, Madeline Haynes The University of Texas at Austin DOI | ||
11:10 25mTalk | Students Investigating Pedagogy: A Project for Learning about Learning in CSGlobal Papers DOI | ||
11:35 25mTalk | Unpacking the Unique Role of Black Women Computer Science EducatorsMSI Papers DOI | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | |||
10:45 25mTalk | A Self-Regulated Learning Framework using Generative AI and its Application in CS Educational Intervention DesignOnlineGlobalIn-Person Papers DOI | ||
11:10 25mTalk | Improvement in Program Repair Methods using Refactoring with GPT ModelsOnlineGlobalIn-Person Papers Ryosuke Ishizue NTT DATA Group Corporation / Waseda University, Kazunori Sakamoto WillBooster Inc. / Tokyo Online Unicersity / Waseda University, Hironori Washizaki Waseda University, Yoshiaki Fukazawa Waseda University DOI | ||
11:35 25mTalk | Using GPT-4 to Provide Tiered, Formative Code FeedbackOnlineIn-Person Papers DOI | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | Experiential & Guided LearningPapers at Meeting Rooms B110-112 Chair(s): Chunming Gao Central Washington University | ||
10:45 25mTalk | Analyzing Differences in Student Engagement Between a Single Narrative Game Intervention and Multiple Narrative Games Intervention in an Undergraduate Computer Organization and Architecture Class Papers DOI | ||
11:10 25mTalk | Exploring the Effects of a Collaborative Guided Inquiry Learning Approach on Performance and Retention of Underrepresented Minority Students across Multiple Sections in an Introductory Programming CourseMSI Papers DOI | ||
11:35 25mTalk | Fixing Your Own Smells: Adding a Mistake-Based Familiarisation Step When Teaching Code RefactoringGlobal Papers DOI Pre-print | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | |||
10:45 25mTalk | Fostering Race-Conscious Literacies in Computer Science Teacher EducationMSI Papers Sukanya Kannan Moudgalya University of Tennessee, Knoxville DOI | ||
11:10 25mTalk | Intersectional Biases Within an Introductory Computing AssessmentMSI Papers Miranda Parker San Diego State University, He Ren University of Washington, Min Li University of Washington, Chun Wang University of Washington DOI | ||
11:35 25mTalk | U.S. Latines in Computing: A Literature ReviewMSI Papers Ismael Villegas Molina University of California, San Diego, Audria Montalvo University of California, San Diego, Adalbert Gerald Soosai Raj University of California, San Diego DOI | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | Networking and SecurityPapers at Meeting Rooms B117-119 Chair(s): Ghita Amor-Tijani Northeastern University | ||
10:45 25mTalk | Designing and Delivering a Post-Quantum Cryptography Course Papers Thomas J. Borrelli Rochester Institute of Technology, Monika Polak University of Rochester, Stanislaw Radziszowski Rochester Institute of Technology DOI | ||
11:10 25mTalk | ALAN: Assessment-as-Learning Authentic tasks for NetworkingGlobal Papers Sepehr Minagar Monash University, Amin Sakzad Monash University, Guido Tack Monash University, Carsten Rudolph Monash University, Judy Sheard Monash University DOI | ||
11:35 25mTalk | How do Computing Students Conceptualize Cybersecurity? Survey Results and Strategies for Curricular Integration Papers Noah Q. Cowit University of Colorado, Boulder, Vidushi Ojha University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Casey Fiesler University of Colorado Boulder DOI | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | CS1 ToolsPapers at Meeting Rooms C120-122 Chair(s): Sergio Gago-Masague University of California, Irvine | ||
10:45 25mTalk | A Framework that Explores the Cognitive Load of CS1 Assignments Using Pausing BehaviorCC Papers DOI | ||
11:10 25mTalk | Hearing Iterative and Recursive BehaviorGlobalCC Papers DOI | ||
11:35 25mTalk | PyodideU: Unlocking Python Entirely in a Browser for CS1GlobalCC Papers Thomas Jefferson Stanford University, Chris Gregg Stanford University, Chris Piech Stanford University DOI | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | Equitable GradingPapers at Oregon Ballroom 204 Chair(s): Kevin Lin University of Washington, Seattle | ||
10:45 25mTalk | Evaluating mastery-oriented grading in an intensive CS1 courseGlobal Papers Igor dos Santos Montagner Insper, Rafael Corsi Ferrao Insper , Andrew Kurauchi Insper, Mariana Silva University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Craig Zilles University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign DOI | ||
11:10 25mTalk | Specifications and Contract Grading in Computer Science EducationGlobal Papers Brian Harrington University of Toronto Scarborough, Abdalaziz Galal University of Toronto, Rohita Nalluri University of Toronto Scarborough, Faiza Nasiha University of Toronto, Anagha Vadarevu University of Toronto Scarborough DOI | ||
11:35 25mTalk | Transforming Grading Practices in the Computing Education Community Papers Adrienne Decker University at Buffalo, Stephen Edwards Virginia Tech, Brian McSkimming University of Oklahoma, Bob Edmison Virginia Tech, Audrey Rorrer UNC Charlotte, Manuel A. Pérez-Quiñones University of North Carolina Charlotte DOI | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | High-School Camps, Courses, and CommunityPapers at Meeting Room D135 Chair(s): Lauren Bricker University of Washington | ||
13:45 25mTalk | A High School Camp on Algorithms and Coding in a Small Island Developing StateK12GlobalMSI Papers Daniel Fokum The University of the West Indies, Zaria Chen Shui The University of the West Indies, Mona Campus, Kerene Wright The University of the West Indies, Mona, Orr Paradise University of California, Berkeley, Gunjan Mansingh The University of the West Indies, Mona Campus, Daniel Coore University of the West Indies DOI | ||
14:10 25mTalk | Bringing Social Computing to Secondary School ClassroomsK12 Papers Kianna Bolante University of Washington, Kevin Chen Cleveland STEM High School, Quan Ze Chen University of Washington, Amy Zhang University of Washington, Seattle DOI | ||
14:35 25mTalk | Designing and Piloting a High School CS+X Topics CourseK12 Papers Kathleen Isenegger University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Max Fowler University of Illinois, Yael Gertner University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Raya Hegeman-Davis University of Wyoming, Leonard Pitt University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign DOI | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | Novel FeedbackPapers at Meeting Room D136 Chair(s): Bina Ramamurthy University at Buffalo, SUNY, USA | ||
13:45 25mTalk | Not Just Training, Also Testing: High School Youths’ Perspective-Taking through Peer Testing Machine Learning-Powered ApplicationsK12 Papers Luis Morales-Navarro University of Pennsylvania, Meghan Shah University of Pennsylvania, Yasmin Kafai University of Pennsylvania DOI | ||
14:10 25mTalk | Stump-the-teacher: using student-generated examples during explicit debugging instructionK12Global Papers Chris Kerslake Simon Fraser University DOI | ||
14:35 25mTalk | “Help Me Solve It” or “Solve It For Me”: Effects of Feedback on Children Building and Programming RobotsK12Global Papers Luisa Greifenstein University of Passau, Isabella Graßl University of Passau, Ute Heuer Universität Passau, Gordon Fraser University of Passau DOI | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | |||
13:45 25mTalk | Writing between the lines: how novices construct Java programsGlobal Papers Neil Brown King's College London, Victoria Mac King's College London, Pierre Weill-Tessier King's College London, Michael Kölling King's College London DOI | ||
14:10 25mTalk | Comparing Cognitive Load Among Undergraduate Students Programming in Python and the Visual Language AlgotGlobal Papers Sverrir Thorgeirsson ETH Zurich, Theo B. Weidmann ETH Zurich, Karl-Heinz Weidmann University of Applied Sciences Vorarlberg, Zhendong Su ETH Zurich DOI | ||
14:35 25mTalk | Recognizing Patterns in Productive FailureGlobal Papers Phil Steinhorst University of Münster, Germany, Christof Duhme University of Münster, Xiaoyi Jiang University of Münster, Jan Vahrenhold Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster DOI | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | |||
13:45 25mTalk | Scratch-NB: A Scratch Extension for Introducing K-12 Learners to Supervised Machine LearningK12Global Papers Patricio Quiroz Department of Computer Science, University of Chile, Francisco J. Gutierrez Department of Computer Science, University of Chile DOI | ||
14:10 25mTalk | Artificial Intelligence Unplugged: Designing Unplugged Activities for a Conversational AI Summer CampK12 Papers Yukyeong Song University of Florida, Xiaoyi Tian University of Florida, Nandika Regatti University of Florida, Gloria Ashiya Katuka University of Florida, Kristy Elizabeth Boyer University of Florida, Maya Israel University of Florida DOI | ||
14:35 25mTalk | Teaching AI to K-12 Learners: Lessons, Issues, and Guidance Papers Shuchi Grover Looking Glass Ventures / Stanford University DOI | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | Training Teachers and TutorsPapers at Meeting Rooms B115-116 Chair(s): Matthias Hauswirth USI Lugano | ||
13:45 25mTalk | Brief, Just-in-Time Teaching Tips to Support Computer Science Tutors Papers Alan Y. Cheng Stanford University, Ellie Tanimura Stanford University, Joseph Tey Stanford University, Andrew C. Wu Stanford University, Emma Brunskill Stanford University DOI | ||
14:10 25mTalk | Experiences in Delivering Online CS Teacher Professional Development Papers Jina Wilde University of Texas at San Antonio, Emiliano Beltran University of Texas at San Antonio, Michael Zawatski University of Texas at San Antonio, Amanda Fernandez University of Texas at San Antonio, Priya Prasad University of Texas at San Antonio, Timothy Yuen University of Texas at San Antonio DOI | ||
14:35 25mTalk | Towards Establishing a Training Program to Support Future CS Teaching-focused Faculty Papers DOI | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | Pedagogy - Projects and Capstone Papers at Meeting Rooms B117-119 Chair(s): Dianna Xu Bryn Mawr College | ||
13:45 25mTalk | An Experience Report: Integrating Oral Communication and Public Speaking Training in a CS Capstone CourseMSI Papers Shirin Haji Amin Shirazi University of California, Riverside, Mariam Salloum Univeristy of California Riverside, Annika Speer University of California, Riverside, Neftali Watkinson University of California, Riverside DOI | ||
14:10 25mTalk | How Pre-class Programming Experience Influences Students’ Contribution to Their Team Project: A Statistical Study Papers Jialin Cui North Carolina State University, Runqiu Zhang University of Virginia, Ruochi Li North Carolina State University, Fangtong Zhou North Carolina State University, Yang Song University of North Carolina Wilmington, Edward Gehringer North Carolina State University DOI | ||
14:35 25mTalk | Pairing Ungrading with Project-Based Learning in CS1 for Inherently Flexible Course Design Papers Gillian Smith Worcester Polytechnic Institute DOI | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | CS1 - Engagement and RetentionPapers at Meeting Rooms C120-122 Chair(s): Xi Chen Utah Valley University | ||
13:45 25mTalk | Applying CS0/CS1 Student Success Factors and Outcomes to Biggs’ 3P Educational ModelCC Papers Adrian Salguero University of California, San Diego, Ismael Villegas Molina University of California, San Diego, Lauren Margulieux Georgia State University, Quintin Cutts University of Glasgow, UK, Leo Porter University of California San Diego DOI | ||
14:10 25mTalk | Examining Intention to Major in Computer Science: Perceived Potential and ChallengesGlobalCC Papers Naaz Sibia University of Toronto Mississauga, Giang Bui University of Toronto Mississauga, Bingcheng Wang University of Toronto, Yinyue Tan University of Toronto, Angela Zavaleta Bernuy University of Toronto, Christina Bauer University of Vienna, Joseph Jay Williams University of Toronto, Michael Liut University of Toronto Mississauga, Andrew Petersen University of Toronto DOI | ||
14:35 25mTalk | The First Five Years of a Dual Track Programming Series: A Retrospective AnalysisCC Papers DOI | ||
Accepted Papers
Deadlines and Submission
Papers submitted to SIGCSE TS 2024 follow a two-step submission process. The first step requires that authors submit all paper metadata and a plain text abstract in EasyChair no later than Friday, 11 August 2023. This data is used to allow reviewers to bid on potential papers to maximize the match of reviewer expertise to paper content. To help the bidding and reviewing process, please submit an abstract that is as close to the finished version as possible. The Program Chairs reserve the right to desk reject abstracts that do not contain content that can help a reviewer during bidding.
The second step of the paper submission process is to upload the final anonymized PDF of the full paper for review. This must be completed no later than Friday, 18 August 2023. Authors who fail to submit an abstract by the first deadline will not be permitted to submit a full PDF.
Important Dates
| Abstact Due Date | Friday, 11 August 2023 | |
| Abstract Due Time | 23:59 AoE (Anywhere on Earth, UTC-12h) | |
| Due Date | Friday, 18 August 2023 | |
| Due Time | 23:59 AoE (Anywhere on Earth, UTC-12h) | |
| Submission Limits | 6 pages + 1 page only for references | |
| Notification to Authors | Monday, 2 October 2023 tentative | |
| Submission Link | https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sigcsets2024 | |
| Session Duration | 20 minutes | |
Instructions for Authors
Authors may find it useful to read the Instructions for Reviewers and the Review Forms to understand how their submissions will be reviewed. Also note that when submitting, you will need to provide between 3-7 related topics from the Topics list under Info.
Abstracts
All papers must have a plain-text abstract of up to 250 words. Abstracts should not contain subheadings or citations. The abstract should be submitted in EasyChair along with paper metadata, and the same text should be included in the PDF version of the full paper at the appropriate location.
Submission Templates
SIGCSE TS 2024 is NOT participating in the new ACM TAPS workflow, template, and production system.
All paper submissions must be in English and formatted using the 2-column ACM SIG Conference Proceedings format and US letter size pages (8.5x11 inch or 215.9 x 279.4mm).
Here is an annotated PDF example that has some notes/tips and shows the required sections.
Page Limits: Papers are limited to a maximum of 6 pages of body content (including all titles, author information, abstract, main text, tables and illustrations, acknowledgements, and supplemental material). One additional page may be included which contains only references. If included, appendix materials MUST NOT be present on the optional references page.
MS Word Authors: Please use the interim Word template provided by ACM.
LaTeX Authors:
- Overleaf provides a suitable two-column sig conference proceedings template.
- Please do not use the
anonymousdocument class option, as counter-intuitive as that sounds. We’d like to ensure that author blocks appear in the submission, and that option removes them. - Other LaTeX users may alternatively use the ACM Primary template, adding the “
sigconf” format option in thedocumentclassto obtain the 2-column format. (ACM has recently changed the ACM template and we have not yet had a chance to verify that the new version works correctly.) - NOTE: The default LaTeX template text shows appendix materials following the references. SIGCSE TS 2024 does not permit appendices on the optional page allotted for references. Authors must include all relevant content within the 6 body pages of the paper. References are the ONLY thing that can be added on page 7.
Requirements for Double Anonymous Review Process: At the time of submission all entries must include blank space for all anonymous author information (or anonymized author name, institution, location, and email address), followed by an abstract, keywords, CCS Concepts, placeholders for the ACM Reference Format and copyright blocks, and references. For anonymized submissions, all blank space necessary for all author information must be reserved under the Title, or fully anonymized text can take its place (e.g. 4 lines containing Author1, Author1Institution, Author1Location, anon1@university.edu). In addition, please leave enough blank space for what you intend to include for Acknowledgements but do not include the text, especially names and granting agencies and grant numbers. Acknowledgements should be included in the first 6 pages.
Other requirements: Please provide a separate block for each author, including name, email, institution, location, and country, even if authors share an institution.
Desk Rejects: Papers that do not adhere to page limits or formatting requirements will be desk rejected without review.
Accessibility: SIGCSE TS 2024 authors are strongly encouraged to prepare submissions using these templates in such a manner that the content is widely accessible to potential reviewers, track chairs, and readers. Please see these resources for preparing an accessible submission.
Double Anonymized Review
Authors must submit ONLY an anonymized version of the paper. The goal of the anonymized version is to, as much as possible, provide the author(s) of the paper with an unbiased review. The anonymized version must have ALL mentions of the authors removed (including author’s names and affiliation plus identifying information within the body of the paper such as websites or related publications). However, authors are reminded to leave sufficient space in the submitted manuscripts to accommodate author information either at the beginning or end of the paper. LaTeX/Overleaf users are welcome to use the anonymous option, but are reminded that sufficient room must exist in the 6 body pages to include all author blocks when that option is removed. Authors may choose to use placeholder text in the author information block, but we encourage authors to use obviously anonymized placeholders like “Author 1”, “Affiliation 1”, etc.
Self-citations need not be removed if they are worded so that the reviewer doesn’t know if the writer is citing themselves. That is, instead of writing “We reported on our first experiment in 2017 in a previous paper [1]”, the writer might write “In 2017, an initial experiment was done in this area as reported in [1].
As per ACM guidelines, authors may distribute a preprint of their work on ArXiv.org. However, to ensure the anonymity of the process, we ask that you not publish your work until after you receive the accept/reject notice. If particular aspects of your paper require earlier distribution of the preprint, please consider changing the title and abstract so that reviewers do not inadvertently discover your identity.
Submissions to the Papers tracks are reviewed with the dual-anonymous review process. The reviewers and meta-reviewers (i.e. associate program chairs or APCs) are unaware of the author identities, and reviewers and APCs are anonymous to each other and to the authors.
The reviewing process includes a discussion phase after initial reviews have been posted. During this time, the reviewers and APC can examine all reviews and privately discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the work in an anonymous manner through EasyChair. Following discussion, the APC shall draft a meta-review that holistically captures the group position on the paper, incorporating views raised in the reviews and during the discussion phase.
The SIGCSE TS 2024 review process does not have a rebuttal period for authors to respond to comments, and all acceptance decisions are final.
ACM Policies
By submitting your article to an ACM Publication, you are hereby acknowledging that you and your co-authors are subject to all ACM Publications Policies, including ACM’s new Publications Policy on Research Involving Human Participants and Subjects (https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/research-involving-human-participants-and-subjects). Alleged violations of this policy or any ACM Publications Policy will be investigated by ACM and may result in a full retraction of your paper, in addition to other potential penalties, as per ACM Publications Policy.
ORCiD ID
ACM has made a commitment to collect ORCiD IDs from all published authors (https://authors.acm.org/author-resources/orcid-faqs). All authors on each submission must have an ORCiD ID (https://orcid.org/register) in order to complete the submission process. Please make sure to get your ORCiD ID in advance of submitting your work. (If EasyChair does not request the ORCiD ID for your coauthors, you do not need to find a way to enter one.)
Author Checklist
Additional details are in the instructions for authors.
Getting ready
- Make sure that all authors have obtained an ORCiD identifier. These identifiers may be required for paper submission.
- Identify at least one author who is willing to review for the symposium. Have that author or those authors sign up to review at https://bit.ly/review-SIGCSE2024. (If they’ve done so already, there is no need to fill out the form a second time.)
- Download the appropriate template. Check this annotated PDF example that has some notes/tips and shows the required sections.
- Select the appropriate paper track for your submission.
- Review the additional resources for the track.
- Review the instructions for reviewers and the review forms to see what reviewers will be looking for in your submission.
- Look at the list of topics in the Info menu on this site or on EasyChair and pick 3-7 appropriate topics for your submission. This helps in matching reviewers’ expertise with submissions and is different from the next item.
- Make certain that you have entered CCS concepts in your paper by choosing them from the ACM Computing Classification System site.
- Look at the EasyChair submission page to make sure you’ll be prepared to fill everything out. Note that you are permitted to update your submission until the deadline, so it is fine to put draft information there as you get ready.
The abstract on EasyChair
Note: EasyChair does not let you save incomplete submission forms. Please fill out all of the fields in one sitting and save them. After that, you can continue to update the information in the fields and your submission until the deadline.
- Select the appropriate paper track for your paper
- Submit a 250-word abstract by 11:59 p.m. AOE, Friday, 11 August 2023.
- IMPORTANT: as you enter the author names in EasyChair consider the order. Author lists can NOT be modified (this includes add/remove/reorder)
The paper on EasyChair
- Use an appropriate template.
- Ensure that your submission is appropriately anonymized.
- Ensure that your submission is accessible. See accessibility tips for authors for further details.
- Ensure that your submission is no more than six pages (plus an additional page for references ONLY).
- If you add Acknowledgements, anonymize the text and include them in the six pages. (they can NOT be on the additional page)
- Submit the final version of your paper by 11:59 p.m. AOE, Friday, 18 August 2023.
Post-Acceptance and Presentation Information
Presentation Details
In-person presentations
TLDR: Each talk is in a session containing three talks. Please check the schedule in the Program menu for when and where your talk will be presented. Please arrive at the beginning of the session. Your talk should be 20 minutes with 5 minutes for questions. You will need to bring your own laptop and an HDMI connector (e.g., an HDMI dongle for your laptop).
Presentation Room & Technology
All presentation rooms will have a podium with a microphone, 16:9 (aspect ratio) projectors and screens, with a single HDMI cable for video, and speakers.
You must bring your own laptop or plan to use someone else’s, the symposium will NOT provide one for you. Please bring with you the appropriate dongle to connect your laptop to HDMI.
Due to technical limitations in the convention center, paper presentations on-site in Portland will not be live streamed for virtual attendance. Nor will those attending the symposium virtually be able to present live in a physically scheduled paper session.
Presentation Session
There will be three paper presentations in each of the in-person paper sessions. Each paper presentation is a 25-minute block, which is a presentation of 20-minutes followed by 5-minutes for questions and answers. The session chair will introduce the session, and then prior to each paper presentation, will introduce you (the presenter), keep track of time, and provide you with five-minute, two-minute, and one-minute warnings before the question and answer period begins. Please note that the full paper presentation has a 25-minute limit and this is a hard stop time.
Speakers’ Lounge - Rm D133/134
In-person authors will have access to a speaker’s lounge room throughout the conference. This is a quiet space for you to grab a cup of coffee, meet with your co-authors, prepare for your presentation, or log in to a Zoom call without going back to your hotel room. You will find the speaker’s lounge in rooms D133/134 of the convention center.
Online presentation modality
The authors for the Online Papers will present their papers ONLINE over a Zoom Session, which will be streamed live in Rm. E146 in the Portland Convention Center. Therefore, the presentations of the Online Papers can be attended by both In-person Attendees (Rm E146) and Online Attendees (over Zoom).
The Zoom links will be sent to the online paper presenters on the day of their presentation.
Format of Online Presentation Sessions:
There will be three paper presentations in each of the Online Paper sessions. Each paper presentation is a 25-minute block, which is a presentation of 20-minutes followed by 5-minutes for questions and answers. A Session Chair will manage the session with the help of a Student Volunteer.
Session Chair and Student Volunteer Responsibilities:
There will be a wired laptop logged into Zoom at the front of the room E146. The Session Chair, the Student Volunteer (and possibly a Hybrid Chair) will also be physically in the room and logged into Zoom to make sure that the online audience is muted and the online presenters are made co-hosts and can share their screens.
The Session Chair will introduce the presenter(s) before their presentations. To help presenters manage their time effectively, Session Chairs will use the Zoom Chat option to provide five-minute, two-minute, and one-minute warnings before the question and answer period begins. Please note that each full paper presentation has a 25-minute limit, and this is a hard stop time.
Session Chairs and Student Volunteers will ensure that questions from in-person attendees are relayed to the online presenters. The Online audience can ask their questions by unmuting themselves or through the Zoom chat. The in-person attendees must ask questions by relaying their questions to the Student Volunteer or the Zoom Chat.
Presentation Modality: Due Friday, 13 October 2023
Authors for all accepted papers must select a mode for presenting at the symposium (online or in-person). The first corresponding author on each paper should receive a survey by email shortly after acceptance notifications are sent. This survey should be completed only once per accepted paper.
Presentation modality selection is required by 13 October 2023. If authors do not submit a modality choice by the deadline, the paper will default to online presentation modality and will not be assigned to an in-person session.
Registration:
In order for your paper to be presented at the symposium and included in the proceedings, at least one author must register for the conference. Please let us know immediately if you or your co-authors are unable to present your paper at the symposium so we can withdraw it.
Camera-Ready: Due Wednesday, 14 December 2023
Authors should carefully consider the reviews when preparing final CAMERA-READY submissions. A camera-ready PDF must be submitted to Sheridan Communications for inclusion in the conference proceedings.
- Authors can find initial instructions for preparing final camera-ready documents here: http://www.scomminc.com/pp/acmsig/sigcse2023.htm
- We also remind authors to review the accessibility tips to ensure the symposium content is widely usable for all parties.
Optional Video Presentations
Authors opting to provide the OPTIONAL video for the ACM DL as described in the camera-ready instructions, must check “YES” for being recorded on the ACM rights review form. If that option is not checked, the video will not be included in the ACM DL. Those who check “YES” will be asked to provide a video file for the ACM DL for the conference proceedings.
Resources
Selecting a Track
There are many resources for writing high quality papers for submission to the SIGCSE Technical Symposium. We encourage authors to read and evaluate papers from a prior SIGCSE Technical Symposium, especially those designated as best papers, which were selected both due to content and high quality reporting.
Here are the best papers from SIGCSE TS 2023 as examples that showcase the difference between the three paper tracks.
Computing Education Research (CER)
-
Geoffrey L. Herman, Shan Huang, Peter A. Peterson, Linda Oliva, Enis Golaszewski, and Alan T. Sherman. 2023. Psychometric Evaluation of the Cybersecurity Curriculum Assessment. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (SIGCSE 2023). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 228–234. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3545945.3569762
-
Rachel Harred, Tiffany Barnes, Susan R. Fisk, Bita Akram, Thomas W. Price, and Spencer Yoder. 2023. Do Intentions to Persist Predict Short-Term Computing Course Enrollments: A Scale Development, Validation, and Reliability Analysis. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (SIGCSE 2023). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1062–1068. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3545945.3569875
-
Eric J. Mayhew and Elizabeth Patitsas. 2023. Critical Pedagogy in Practice in the Computing Classroom. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (SIGCSE 2023). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1076–1082. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3545945.3569840
Experience Reports and Tools (ERT)
- Bailey Flanigan, Ananya A. Joshi, Sara McAllister, and Catalina Vajiac. 2023. CS-JEDI: Required DEI Education, by CS PhD Students, for CS PhD Students. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (SIGCSE 2023). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 87–93. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3545945.3569733
- Gloria Ashiya Katuka, Yvonika Auguste, Yukyeong Song, Xiaoyi Tian, Amit Kumar, Mehmet Celepkolu, Kristy Elizabeth Boyer, Joanne Barrett, Maya Israel, and Tom McKlin. 2023. A Summer Camp Experience to Engage Middle School Learners in AI through Conversational App Development. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (SIGCSE 2023). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 813–819. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3545945.3569864
- Lisa Zhang, Bogdan Simion, Michael Kaler, Amna Liaqat, Daniel Dick, Andi Bergen, Michael Miljanovic, and Andrew Petersen. 2023. Embedding and Scaling Writing Instruction Across First- and Second-Year Computer Science Courses. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (SIGCSE 2023). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 610–616. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3545945.3569729
Position and Curricula Initiative (PCI)
- Brett A. Becker, Paul Denny, James Finnie-Ansley, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, James Prather, and Eddie Antonio Santos. 2023. Programming Is Hard - Or at Least It Used to Be: Educational Opportunities and Challenges of AI Code Generation. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (SIGCSE 2023). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 500–506. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3545945.3569759
- Muwei Zheng, Nathan Swearingen, Steven Mills, Croix Gyurek, Matt Bishop, and Xukai Zou. 2023. Case Study: Mapping an E-Voting Based Curriculum to CSEC2017. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (SIGCSE 2023). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 514–520. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3545945.3569811
Authors will also likely find the paper review guidelines beneficial for identifying how reviewers will assess papers for each track. Below, we list additional resources that you may find useful as you write your papers, especially computing education research papers.
- Writing a research question (csedresearch.org)
- Reporting Tips (csedresearch.org)
- Checklist for Research Articles (csedresearch.org)
- Evaluation Instruments (csedresearch.org)
- What’s the difference between a research paper and an experience report? (Amy Ko)
Language Editing Assistance
ACM has partnered with International Science Editing (ISE) to provide language editing services to ACM authors. ISE offers a comprehensive range of services for authors including standard and premium English language editing, as well as illustration and translation services. Editing services are at author expense and do not guarantee publication of a manuscript.
Instructions for Reviewers
This page captures the reviewing policies of the papers tracks at SIGCSE TS. Please email the Program Chairs at program@sigcse2024.sigcse.org with comments or questions.
There are three different paper types at SIGCSE TS : Computing Education Research (CER), Experience Reports and Tools (ERT), and Position and Curricula Initiative (PCI). When authors submit a paper, they have to select to submit to one of the three different types of papers.
- Submission System
- Roles in the Review Process
- Timeline
- Paper Reviewing Guidelines (CER, ERT, and PCI)
- Review Process Steps
- Conflicts of Interest
- Recalcitrant Reviewers
Submission System
The review process for SIGCSE TS 2024 will be done using the EasyChair submission system (https://easychair.org/my/conference?conf=sigcsets2024) . Reviewers will be invited to join/login into EasyChair, update their profile, and select 3-5 topics that they are most qualified to review. To do so, reviewers select SIGCSE TS 2024 > Conference > My topics from the menu and select at most 5 topics. More topics make it harder for the EasyChair system to make a good set of matches. Reviewers also identify their Conflicts of Interest by selecting SIGCSE TS 2024 > Conference > My Conflicts.
Roles in the Review Process
- Reviewers write reviews of their assigned submissions, evaluating them against the review criteria.
- Associate Program Chairs (APCs) write meta-review for their assigned submissions and provide a recommendation (accept/reject) and feedback to the Program Chairs.
- Program Chairs make the final decisions on the program based on recommendations from the APCs (for papers) and from track chairs (for other tracks).
SIGCSE TS has three Program Chairs, each of whom serves a two-year term. Nominations for Program Chairs are solicited by the SIGCSE TS steering committee, which makes recommendations to the SIGCSE Board. Program Chairs are appointed by the SIGCSE board.
The Program Chairs invite and appoint the Reviewers and APCs. The number of submissions per Reviewer/APC depends on the number of volunteers and the size of the submissions pool.
The goals is for each paper submission to receive at least three reviews and a meta-review. All reviews are submitted through the submission system. In EasyChair, Reviewers are considered “Ordinary PC members” and APCs are considered “Senior PC members”.
Timeline
| Reviewing Phase | Start Date | End Date |
|---|---|---|
| Bidding | Saturday, 12 August 2023 | Wednesday, 16 August 2023 |
| Reviewing | Saturday, 19 August 2023 | Wednesday, 6 September 2023 |
| Discussion & Recommendations | Thursday, 7 September 2023 | Saturday, 16 September 2023 |
Note: Associate Program Chair (APC) Recommendation and Meta-Review Deadline: 11:59 p.m. Friday, 16 September 2023 anywhere on earth (AOE)
Paper Reviewing Guidelines (CER, ERT, and PCI)
There are three different paper types at SIGCSE TS : Computing Education Research (CER), Experience Reports and Tools (ERT), and Position and Curricula Initiative (PCI). Reviewers are assigned to a specific paper track (e.g. a reviewer in the CER track will only be assigned to review papers in that track). This is to avoid confusion and for reviewers to get familiar with the guidelines for their specific paper track.
All papers will be considered relative to criteria for motivation, use of prior/related work, approach, evidence, contribution/impact, and presentation. Each track has guidance about how reviewers should consider these criteria relative to the goal of the track, and each paper must be evaluated using the criteria for the track to which it is submitted. A paper will not be moved between the three paper tracks.
The following table illustrates how to interpret the review criteria for each of the three tracks of papers. Please refer to this table to help better understand the emphases or characteristics of the track for which you will be reviewing. For convenience, you may also download a PDF copy of the paper review criteria.
| Criteria | Computing Education Research (CER) | Experience Reports & Tools (ERT) | Position & Curricula Initiative (PCI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motivation
Evaluate the submissions clarity of purpose and alignment with the scope of the SIGCSE TS. |
|
|
|
| Prior and Related Work
Evaluate the use of prior literature to situate the work, highlight its novelty, and interpret its results. |
|
|
|
| Approach
Evaluate the transparency and soundness of the approach used in the submission relative to its goals. |
|
|
|
| Evidence
Evaluate the extent to which the submission provides adequate evidence to support its claims. |
|
|
|
| Contribution & Impact
Evaluate the overall contribution to computing education made by this submission. |
|
|
|
| Presentation
Evaluate the writing quality with respect to expectations for publication, allowing for only minor revisions prior to final submission. |
|
|
|
Review Process Steps
Step 1: Authors submit Abstracts of Papers
Authors submit a title and abstract one week prior to the full paper deadline. Authors are allowed to revise their title, abstract, and other information before the full paper submission deadline.
Step 2: Reviewers and APCs Bid for Papers
Reviewers and APCs select topics they feel most qualified to review. This helps the system prioritize papers.
Reviewers and APCs are then asked to select a set of papers for which they have sufficient expertise (we call this “bidding”). The Program Chairs assign papers based on these bids. The purpose of bidding is NOT to express interest in papers you want to read. It is to express your expertise and eligibility for fairly evaluating the work. These are subtly but importantly different purposes. We ask reviewers and APCs to select more papers than they plan to review so that we can best ensure that every paper has at least three reviewers.
- Make sure to specify all of your Conflicts of Interest.
- Bid on all of the papers you believe you have sufficient expertise to review.
- Do NOT bid on papers about topics, techniques, or methods that you oppose.
Step 3: Authors submit Full Papers
Submissions of the full papers are due one week after the abstracts are due. As indicated in the Instructions for Authors, submissions are supposed to be sufficiently anonymous so that the reviewer cannot determine the identity or affiliation of the authors. The main purpose of the anonymous reviewing process is to reduce the influence of potential (positive or negative) biases on reviewers’ assessments. You should be able to review the work without knowing the authors or their affiliations. Do not try to find out the identity of authors. When in doubt, please contact the Program Chairs.
Step 4: Program Chairs Decide on Desk Rejects
The Program Chairs will quickly review each paper submission to determine whether it violates anonymization requirements, length restrictions, or plagiarism policies. Authors of desk-rejected papers will be notified immediately. The Program Chairs may not catch every issue. If you see something during the review process that you believe should be desk rejected, contact the Program Chairs at program@sigcse2024.sigcse.org before you write a review. The Program Chairs will make the final judgment about whether something is a violation, and give you guidance on whether and if so how to write a review. Note that Program Chairs with conflicts of interest are excluded from deciding on desk-rejected papers, leaving the decision to the other Program Chairs.
Step 5: Program Chairs Assign Reviewers and APCs
Based on the bids and their judgment, the Program Chairs will collaboratively assign at least three Reviewers and one APC (meta-reviewer) for each paper submission. The Program Chairs will be advised by the submission system assignment algorithm, which depends on all bids being high quality. For the reviewer assignments to be fair and good, the reviewer bids should only be based on expertise and eligibility. Interest alone is not sufficient for bidding to review a paper. Reviewing assignments can only be made by a Program Chair without a conflict of interest.
Step 6a: Reviewers Review Papers
Assigned Reviewers submit their anonymous reviews by the review deadline, reviewing each of their assigned submissions against the Paper Reviewing Guidelines (CER, ERT, and PCI). We strongly recommend that you prepare your rationale in a separate document; EasyChair has been known to time out.
Note that Reviewers must NOT include accept or reject decisions in their review text. (They will indicate accept/reject recommendations separately.)
Due to the internal and external (publication) deadlines, we generally cannot give reviewers or APCs extensions. Note that reviewers, meta-reviewers, and Program Chairs with conflicts cannot see any of the reviews of the papers for which they have conflicts of interest during this process.
Step 6b: APCs and Program Chairs Monitor Review Progress
APCs and Program Chairs periodically check in to ensure that progress is being made. If needed, reminders are emailed to the reviewers with the expectations and timelines. If needed, the Program Chairs recruit emergency reviewers if any of the submissions do not have a sufficient number of reviews, if there is lots of variability in the reviews, or if an expert review is needed.
Step 7: Discussion between Reviewers and APCs
The discussion period provides the opportunity for the Reviewers and the APCs to discuss the reviews and reach an agreement on the quality of the submission relative to the expectations for the track to which it was submitted. The APCs are expected to take leadership role and moderate the discussion. Reviewers are expected to engage in the discussion when prompted by other Reviewers and/or by the APCs by using the Comments feature of EasyChair.
During the discussion period, Reviewers are able to revise their reviews but are NOT required to do so. It is important that at no point Reviewers feel forced to change their reviews, scores, or viewpoints in this process. The APC can disagree with the reviewers and communicate this to the Program Chairs if needed. Everyone is asked to do the following:
- Read all the reviews of all papers assigned (and re-read your own reviews).
- Engage in a discussion about sources of disagreement.
- Use the Paper Reviewing Guidelines (CER, ERT and PCI) to guide your discussions.
- Be polite, friendly, and constructive at all times.
- Be responsive and react as soon as new information comes in.
- Remain open to other reviewers shifting your judgments.
- Explicitly state any clarifying questions that could change your evaluation of the paper
At the end of the discussion period, the APCs should have enough feedback so that they can make a recommendation for acceptance or rejection to the Program Chairs. This recommendation should be based on their own reading of the reviews and discussion, not simply on the overall score.
Step 8: APCs Write Meta-Reviews
Toward the end of the discussion period, APCs use the reviews, the discussion, and their own evaluation of the submission to write a meta-review and a recommendation for the Program Chairs. A meta-review should summarize the key strengths and weaknesses of the submission, in light of the Paper Reviewing Guidelines (CER, ERT, and PCI) and explain how these led to their recommendation decision. The summary and explanation should help the authors in revising their work where appropriate. The meta-review must constructively summarize all reviews and the discussion as well as summarize any open questions and doubts. A generic meta-review (“After long discussion, the reviewers decided that the paper is not up to standards, and therefore rejected the paper”) is not sufficient.
APCs do not include their recommendation for acceptance or rejection of a paper in their meta-review because they only see a small portion of the submitted papers. Instead, the APCs are asked to make a recommendation of accept or reject to the Program Chairs via the submission system. If however, the Reviewers had differing views and a consensus could not be reached, then the APC captures the essence of all reviews and leaves their recommendation as neutral, and the submission is then further discussed by the Program Chairs.
Recommendations should NOT be based only on scores. For example, an APC may decide to recommend rejection for a paper with three weak accepts, but recommend acceptance for a paper with two accepts and one strong reject (or vice versa)
Step 9: Program Chairs Make Decisions & Notify Authors
Before announcing decisions, the Program Chairs go through all the submissions and read all the reviews and meta-reviews to ensure clarity and consistency with the review process and its criteria as possible. This is done via synchronous meetings of the Program Chairs. APCs are consulted if needed. The Chairs make decisions based on recommendations and their own expertise as well as a desire to provide an appropriately varied program.
The Program Chairs then notify all authors of the decisions about their papers via the submission system.
Step 10: Evaluation
The Evaluation Chairs send out surveys to authors, reviewers, and APCs. Please take the time to respond to these surveys, as they inform processes and policies for future SIGCSE Technical Symposia.
The Program Chairs also request feedback from the APCs on the quality of reviews as a metric to be used for future invitations to review for the SIGCSE Technical Symposium.
New for 2024: We will do our best to identify a small set of exceptional reviewers who will receive reviewing awards at the symposium.
Conflicts of Interest
SIGCSE TS takes conflicts of interest, both real and perceived, quite seriously. The conference adheres to the ACM conflict of interest policy (https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/conflict-of-interest) as well as the SIGCSE conflict of interest policy (https://sigcse.org/policies/COI.html). These state that a paper submitted to the SIGCSE TS is a conflict of interest for an individual if at least one of the following is true:
- The individual is a co-author of the paper
- A student of the individual is a co-author of the paper
- The individual identifies the paper as a conflict of interest, i.e., that the individual does not believe that they can provide an impartial evaluation of the paper.
The following policies apply to conference organizers:
- The Program Chairs are not allowed to submit to any track.
- The chairs of any track are not allowed to submit to that specific track.
- All other conference organizers are allowed to submit to any track.
- All reviewers (PC members) and meta-reviewers (APC members) are allowed to submit to any track.
No reviewer, meta-reviewer, or chair with a conflict of interest in the paper will be included in any evaluation, discussion, or decision about the paper. It is the responsibility of the reviewers, meta-reviewers, and chairs to declare their conflicts of interest throughout the process. The corresponding actions are outlined below for each relevant step of the reviewing process. It is the responsibility of the chairs to ensure that no reviewer or meta-reviewer is assigned a role in the review process for any paper for which they have a conflict of interest.
Recalcitrant Reviewers
Reviewers who don’t submit reviews, have reviews with limited constructive feedback, do not engage effectively in the discussion phase, or submit inappropriate reviews will be removed from the reviewer list (as per SIGCSE policy). Recalcitrant reviewers will be informed of their removal from the reviewer list. Reviewers with repeated offenses (two within a three-year period) will be removed from SIGCSE reviewing for three years.
Review Forms
The approximate text from the review form follows. We anticipate making some changes to CER to provide greater guidance on dealing with qualitative and mixed-methods papers.
Note that not all reviewer responses are available to authors.
Common Introductory Fields
Summary: Please provide a brief summary of the submission, its audience, and its main point(s), with respect to the review criteria of this track. Refer to the Table on the SIGCSE TS 2024 website (i.e., Instructions for Reviewers) to familiarize yourself with the review criteria for the appropriate track: (1) Computing Education Research, (2) Experience Reports and Tools, and (3) Position and Curricula Initiatives.
Familiarity: Rate your personal familiarity with the topic area of this submission in relation to your research or practical experience.
- None - I have never reviewed or written a paper or otherwise have experience in this area
- Low - I have read papers or otherwise have slight experience in this area
- Medium - I have reviewed papers or otherwise have some experience in this area
- High - I have written and reviewed papers or otherwise have moderate experience in this area
- Expert - I have written and reviewed many papers or otherwise have extensive experience in this area
Computing Education Research
Motivation (CER): Evaluate the submission’s clarity of purpose and alignment with the scope of the SIGCSE TS.
- The submission provides a clear motivation for the work.
- The submission states a set of clear Research Questions or Specific Aims/Goals.
Prior and Related Work (CER): Evaluate the use of prior literature to situate the work, highlight its novelty, and interpret its results.
- Discussion of prior and related work (e.g., theories, recent empirical findings, curricular trends) to contextualize and motivate the research is adequate.
- The relationship between prior work and the current study is clearly stated.
- The work leverages theory where appropriate.
Approach (CER): Evaluate the transparency and soundness of the approach used in the submission relative to its goals.
- Study methods and data collection processes are transparent and clearly described.
- The methodology described is a valid/sound way to answer the research questions posed or address the aims of the study identified by the authors.
- The submission provides enough detail to support replication of the methods.
Evidence (CER): Evaluate the extent to which the submission provides adequate evidence to support its claims.
- The analysis & results are clearly presented and aligned with the research questions/goals.
- Qualitative or quantitative data is interpreted appropriately.
- Missing or noisy data is addressed.
- Claims are well supported by the data presented.
- The threats to validity and/or study limitations are clearly stated.
Contribution & Impact (CER): Evaluate the overall contribution to computing education made by this submission.
- All CER papers should advance our knowledge of computing education.
- Quantitative research should discuss generalizability or transferability of findings beyond the original context.
- Qualitative research should add deeper understanding about a specific context or problem.
- For novel projects, the contribution beyond prior work is explained.
- For replications, the contribution includes a discussion on the implications of the new results–even if null or negative–when compared to prior work.
Presentation (CER): Evaluate the writing quality with respect to expectations for publication, allowing for only minor revisions prior to final submission.
- The presentation (e.g., writing, grammar, graphs, diagrams) is clear.
- Overall flow and organization are appropriate.
Experience Reports and Tools
Motivation (ERT) Evaluate the submission’s clarity of purpose and alignment with the scope of the SIGCSE TS.
- The submission provides a clear motivation for the work.
- Objectives or goals of the experience report are clearly stated, with an emphasis on contextual factors that help readers interpret the work.
- ERT submissions need NOT be framed around a set of research questions or theoretical frameworks.
Prior and Related Work (ERT) Evaluate the use of prior literature to situate the work, highlight its novelty, and interpret its results.
- Discussion of prior and related work to contextualize and motivate the experience report is adequate.
- The relationship between prior work and the experience or tool is clearly stated.
Approach (ERT): Evaluate the transparency and soundness of the approach used in the submission relative to its goals.
- For tool-focused papers: Is the design of the tool appropriate for its stated goals? Is the context of its deployment clearly described?
- For experience report papers: Is the experience sufficiently described to understand how it was designed/executed and who the target learner populations were?
- For all papers: To what extent does the paper provide reasonable mechanisms of formative assessment about the experience or tool?
Evidence (ERT): Evaluate the extent to which the submission provides adequate evidence to support its claims.
- The submission provides rich reflection on what did or didn’t work, and why.
- Evidence presented in ERT papers is often descriptive or narrative in format, and may or may not be driven by explicit motivating questions.
- ERT papers may include small-scale studies, but they need not be statistically significant.
- Claims about the experience or tool are sufficiently scoped within the bounds of the evidence presented.
Contribution & Impact (ERT): Evaluate the overall contribution to computing education made by this submission.
- Why the submission is of interest to SIGCSE community is clearly explained.
- The work enables adoption by other practitioners.
- The work highlights the novelty of the experience or tool presented.
- The implications for future work/use are clearly stated.
Presentation (ERT): Evaluate the writing quality with respect to expectations for publication, allowing for only minor revisions prior to final submission.
- The presentation (e.g., writing, grammar, graphs, diagrams) is clear.
- Overall flow and organization are appropriate.
Position Papers and Curricular Initiatives
Motivation (PCI): Evaluate the submission’s clarity of purpose and alignment with the scope of the SIGCSE TS.
- The submission provides a clear motivation for the work.
- Objectives or goals of the position or curricula initiative are clearly stated, and speak to issues beyond a single course or experience.
- Submissions focused on curricula, programs, or degrees should describe the motivating context before the new initiative was undertaken.
- PCI papers may or may not ground the work in theory or research questions.
Prior and Related Work (PCI): Evaluate the use of prior literature to situate the work, highlight its novelty, and interpret its results.
- Discussion of prior and related work to contextualize and motivate the position or initiative is adequate.
- The relationship between prior work and the proposed initiative or position is clearly stated.
Approach (PCI): Evaluate the transparency and soundness of the approach used in the submission relative to its goals.
- The submission uses an appropriate mechanism to present and defend its stated position or curriculum proposal (this may include things like a scoping review, secondary data analysis, program evaluation, among others).
- As necessary, the approach used is clearly described.
- PCI papers leveraging a literature-driven argument need not necessarily use a systematic review format, though it may be appropriate for certain types of claims.
Evidence (PCI): Evaluate the extent to which the submission provides adequate evidence to support its claims.
- PCI papers need not present original data collection, but may leverage other forms of scholarly evidence to support the claims made.
- Evidence presented is sufficient for defending the position or curriculum initiative.
- Claims should be sufficiently scoped relative to the type of evidence presented.
Contribution & Impact (PCI) Evaluate the overall contribution to computing education made by this submission.
- The work presents a coherent argument about a computing education topic, including, but not limited to curriculum or program design, practical and social issues facing computing educators, and critiques of existing practices.
- The submission offers new insights about broader concerns to the computing education community or offers guidance for adoption of new curricular approaches.
Presentation (PCI): Evaluate the writing quality with respect to expectations for publication, allowing for only minor revisions prior to final submission.
- The presentation (e.g., writing, grammar, graphs, diagrams) is clear.
- Overall flow and organization are appropriate.
Common Text: Recommendation
Overall evaluation: Please provide a detailed justification that includes constructive feedback that summarizes the strengths & weaknesses of the submission and clarifies your scores. Both the score and the review text are required, but remember that the authors will not see the overall recommendation score (only your review text). You should NOT directly include your preference for acceptance or rejection in your review.
Instructions for APCs
Forthcoming.
For the time being, please review the Instructions for Reviewers, which capture most of the Associate Program Chairs’ responsibilities.
| Fri 18 Aug 2023 Submission Deadline |
| Fri 11 Aug 2023 Mandatory Abstract Deadline |
