PapersSIGCSE TS 2023
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. 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 2023 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@sigcse2023.org for clarification prior to submission.
Presentation Modality
Papers at SIGCSE TS 2023 will be presented either in-person using a traditional paper session or online via a pre-recorded video and a synchronous group Q/A session (i.e., Authors’ Corner). If accepted, authors agree to commit to one of these two presentation modalities in a timely manner to facilitate conference planning. Further instructions will be provided in acceptance notifications.
This program is tentative and subject to change.
Thu 16 MarDisplayed time zone: Eastern Time (US & Canada) change
07:30 - 20:00 | |||
10:00 - 17:00 | |||
10:45 - 12:00 | |||
10:45 25mPaper | Evaluating Group Work in (too) Large CS Classes with (too) Few Resources: an Experience ReportIn-Person Papers Joël Porquet-Lupine University of California, Davis, Madison Brigham University of California, Davis | ||
11:10 25mPaper | Inclusive study group formation at scaleIn-Person Papers Sumer Kohli UC Berkeley, Neelesh Ramachandran UC Berkeley, Ana Tudor UC Berkeley, Gloria Tumushabe UC Berkeley, Olivia Hsu Stanford University, Gireeja Ranade UC Berkeley | ||
11:35 25mPaper | Student Perspectives on Optional GroupsIn-Person Papers Jonathan Calver University of Toronto, Jennifer Campbell University of Toronto, Michelle Craig University of Toronto | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | |||
10:45 25mPaper | CS0 vs. CS1: Understanding Fears and Confidence amongst Non-majors in Introductory CS CoursesIn-Person Papers Emma Hogan University of California, San Diego, Ruoxuan Li University of California, San Diego, Adalbert Gerald Soosai Raj University of California, San Diego | ||
11:10 25mPaper | Visual vs. Textual Programming Languages in CS0.5: Comparing Student Learning with and Student Perception of RAPTOR and PythonIn-Person Papers Joel Coffman United States Air Force Academy, Adrian de Freitas USAF Academy, Justin Hill United States Air Force Academy, Troy Weingart United Stated Air Force Academy Dept of Computer Science | ||
11:35 25mPaper | Validation of the Placement Skill Inventory: A CS0/CS1 Placement ExamIn-Person Papers | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | |||
10:45 25mPaper | Analyzing the effects of CTE grant funding on CS course offerings and enrollment in CaliforniaIn-Person Papers Mariam Saffar Perez University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Paul Bruno University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign | ||
11:10 25mPaper | The Brazilian School Computing StandardIn-Person Papers Leila Ribeiro Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Luciana Foss Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Simone André Da Costa Cavalheiro Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Marcia Cruz UNISC, Rozelma França UFRPE | ||
11:35 25mPaper | Toward a New State-level Framework for Sharing Computer Science ContentIn-Person Papers Bob Edmison Virginia Tech, Stephen Edwards Virginia Tech, Lujean Babb Virginia Tech, Chris Mayfield James Madison University, Nick Swayne James Madison University, Youna Jung Virginia Military Institute, Marthe Honts Virginia Military Institute, Margaret Ellis Virginia Tech | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | |||
10:45 25mPaper | CS-JEDI: Required DEI Education, by CS PhD Students, for CS PhD StudentsIn-Person Papers Bailey Flanigan Carnegie Mellon Univerity, Ananya Joshi Carnegie Mellon University, Sara McAllister Carnegie Mellon Universtiy, Catalina Vajiac Carnegie Mellon University | ||
11:10 25mPaper | Equitable student persistence in computing research through distributed career mentorshipIn-Person Papers | ||
11:35 25mPaper | Growing an Inclusive Community of K-12 CS Education ResearchersIn-Person Papers | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | |||
10:45 25mPaper | GILP: An Interactive Tool for Visualizing the Simplex AlgorithmIn-Person Papers Henry Robbins Cornell University, Samuel Gutekunst Bucknell University, David Shmoys Cornell University, David Williamson Cornell University | ||
11:10 25mPaper | Measuring the Impact of a Computational Linear Algebra Course on Students' Exam Performance in a Subsequent Numerical Methods CourseIn-Person Papers Hongxuan Chen University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Matthew West University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign , Sascha Hilgenfeldt University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Mariana Silva University of York, UK | ||
11:35 25mPaper | Students’ Perceptions on Engaging Database Domains and StructuresIn-Person Papers Daphne Miedema Eindhoven University of Technology, Toni Taipalus University of Jyväskylä, Efthimia Aivaloglou University of Leiden | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | |||
10:45 25mPaper | On Students' Usage of Tracing for Understanding CodeIn-Person Papers Mohammed Hassan University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Craig Zilles University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign | ||
11:10 25mPaper | Improving Long Term Performance Using Visualized Scope Tracing: A 10-Year StudyIn-Person Papers | ||
11:35 25mPaper | Stream Your Exam to the Course Staff: Assessment via Recorded Student Screencasts Tracing their Code SubmissionsIn-Person Papers Rachel S. Lim University of California San Diego, Joe Gibbs Politz University of California at San Diego, Mia Minnes UC San Diego | ||
12:00 - 13:45 | |||
12:00 1h45mLunch | Lunch Logistics | ||
12:30 60mKeynote | 2023 SIGCSE Award for Lifetime Service to the Computer Science Education Community Hybrid Keynotes Renée McCauley College of Charleston | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | |||
13:45 25mPaper | Cyber Arena: An Open-Source Solution for Scalable Cybersecurity Labs in the CloudIn-Person Papers Philip Huff University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Sandra Leiterman University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Jan Springer University of Arkansas at Little Rock | ||
14:10 25mPaper | Psychometric Evaluation of the Cybersecurity Curriculum AssessmentIn-Person Papers Geoffrey Herman University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Shan Huang University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Peter Peterson University of Minnesota Duluth, Linda Oliva University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Alan Sherman University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Enis Golaszewski University of Maryland, Baltimore County | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | |||
13:45 25mPaper | Challenges, Choice, & Change: Experiences and Reflections From the First Semester of a Technology and Human Futures CourseIn-Person Papers Briana Bettin Michigan Technological University | ||
14:10 25mPaper | Experiences Piloting a Diversity and Inclusion in Computing Innovations CourseIn-Person Papers | ||
14:35 25mPaper | Growing an Accessible and Inclusive Systems Design Course with PlantUMLIn-Person Papers Sarah Carruthers Vancouver Island University, Amber Thomas Athabasca University, Liam Kaufman-Willis Vancouver Island University, Aaron Wang Vancouver Island University | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | |||
13:45 25mPaper | A Wolf in Lamb’s Clothing: Computer Science in a Mathematics CourseIn-Person Papers Michelle Friend University of Nebraska Omaha, Andrew Swift University of Nebraska at Omaha, Betty Love University of Nebraska at Omaha, Victor Winter University of Nebraska at Omaha | ||
14:10 25mPaper | Leveraging Computational Science Students' Coding Strengths for Mathematics LearningIn-Person Papers Sarah Castle Michigan State University | ||
14:35 25mPaper | Theoretical Computer Science Education from Impossibility and Undecidability Problems in PhysicsIn-Person Papers Rafael del Vado Vírseda Universidad Complutense de Madrid | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | |||
13:45 25mPaper | Instructor Perspectives on Prerequisite Courses in ComputingIn-Person Papers Sophia Krause-Levy University of California, San Diego, Adrian Salguero University of California, San Diego, Rachel S. Lim University of California San Diego, Hayden McTavish University of California San Diego, Jelena Trajkovic California State University Long Beach, Leo Porter University of California San Diego, William G. Griswold University of California San Diego | ||
14:10 25mPaper | What is an Algorithms Course?In-Person Papers Michael Shindler University of California, Irvine, Matthew Ferland University of Southern California, Frederick Reiber Boston University, Varun Nagaraj Rao Princeton University, Arushi Arora University of California, Irvine, Randy Huynh University of California Irvine, Michael Luu University of California, Irvine, Jennifer Wong-Ma University of California, Irvine | ||
14:35 25mPaper | What is your biggest pain point? An investigation of CS instructor obstacles, workarounds, and desiresIn-Person Papers Samim Mirhosseini North Carolina State University, Austin Z. Henley Microsoft, Chris Parnin North Carolina State University | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | |||
13:45 25mPaper | Developing Machine Learning Algorithm Literacy with Novel Plugged and Unplugged ApproachesIn-Person Papers Ruizhe Ma University of Massachusetts Lowell, Ismaila Temitayo Sanusi University of Eastern Finland, Vaishali Mahipal University of Massachusetts Lowell, Joseph Gonzales University of Massachusetts Lowell, Fred Martin University of Massachusetts Lowell | ||
14:10 25mPaper | Make-a-Thon for Middle School AI EducatorsIn-Person Papers Daniella Dipaola MIT Media Lab, Katherine S. Moore MIT, Safinah Ali MIT, Beatriz Perret MIT, Xiaofei Zhou University of Rochester, Helen Zhang Boston College, Irene Lee Massachusetts Institute of Technology | ||
14:35 25mPaper | Towards Machine Learning Fairness Education in a Natural Language Processing CourseIn-Person Papers Samantha Dobesh Western Washington University, Tyler Miller Western Washington University, Pax Newman Western Washington University, Yudong Liu Western Washington University, Yasmine Elglaly Western Washington University | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | |||
13:45 25mPaper | CompSciConnect: A Multi-Year Summer Program to Broaden Participation in ComputingIn-Person Papers Kristina Kramarczuk University of Maryland, College Park, David Weintrop University of Maryland, Jandelyn Plane University of Maryland, College Park, Kate Atchison University of Maryland, College Park, Charlotte Avery University of Maryland, College Park | ||
14:10 25mPaper | Confidence is the Key: Unlocking Predictive Factors of Latinx Elementary Students on a Computational Thinking MeasureIn-Person Papers Leiny Garcia University of California, Irvine, Miranda Parker San Diego State University, Santiago Ojeda-Ramirez University of California, Irvine, Mark Warschauer University of California, Irvine | ||
14:35 25mPaper | Describing Elementary Students’ Spheres of Influence in Scratch ‘About me’ ProjectsIn-Person Papers Santiago Ojeda-Ramirez University of California, Irvine, Jennifer Tsan University of Chicago, Donna Eatinger University of Chicago, Sharin Jacob University of California, Irvine, Dana Saito-Stehberger University of California, Irvine, Diana Franklin University of Chicago, Mark Warschauer University of California, Irvine | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | |||
13:45 25mPaper | Experiences Teaching Coral Before C++ in CS1In-Person Papers Frank Vahid UC Riverside / zyBooks, Kelly Downey UC Riverside, Lizbeth Areizaga University of California, Riverside, Ashley Pang UC Riverside | ||
14:10 25mPaper | Foundations First: Improving C’s Viability in Introductory Programming Courses with the Debugging C CompilerIn-Person Papers Andrew Taylor University of New South Wales, Sydney, Jake Renzella University of New South Wales, Sydney, Alexandra Vassar University of New South Wales, Sydney | ||
14:35 25mPaper | Putting a Context in Context: Investigating the Context of Pencil Puzzles in Multiple Academic EnvironmentsIn-Person Papers Zack Butler Rochester Institute of Technology, Ivona Bezakova Rochester Institute of Technology, Angelina Brilliantova Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | |||
15:45 25mPaper | Developing Community Support for Computing Ethics Teaching AssistantsIn-Person Papers Robert MacDonald Georgia Tech, Cass Zegura University of California Irvine, Benjamin Shapiro Georgia State University, Jason Borenstein Georgia Tech, Ellen Zegura Georgia Institute of Technology | ||
16:10 25mPaper | Incorporating Ethics in Computing Courses: Barriers, Support, and Perspectives from EducatorsIn-Person Papers Jessie J. Smith University of Colorado, Boulder, Blakeley H. Payne University of Colorado, Boulder, Shamika Klassen University of Colorado, Boulder, Dylan Thomas Doyle University of Colorado, Boulder, Casey Fiesler University of Colorado Boulder | ||
16:35 25mPaper | “This applies to the real world”: Student Perspectives on Integrating Ethics into a Computer Science AssignmentIn-Person Papers Julie Jarzemsky University of Colorado Boulder, Joshua Paup University of Colorado Boulder, Casey Fiesler University of Colorado Boulder | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | |||
15:45 25mPaper | Executable Exams: Taxonomy, Implementation and ProspectsIn-Person Papers Chris Bourke University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Yael Erez Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Orit Hazzan Technion—Israel Institute of Technology | ||
16:10 25mPaper | Studying The Impact Of Auto-Graders Giving Immediate Feedback In Programming AssignmentsIn-Person Papers Joydeep Mitra Stony Brook University | ||
16:35 25mPaper | The Programming Exercise Markup Language: Towards Reducing the Effort Needed to Use Automated Grading ToolsIn-Person Papers | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | |||
15:45 25mPaper | A Social Threat Modeling Framework to Structure Teaching about Responsible ComputingIn-Person Papers | ||
16:10 25mPaper | Engagement Models in Education-Oriented H/FOSS ProjectsIn-Person Papers Steven Huss-Lederman Open Energy Dashboard, Grant Braught Dickinson College, Stoney Jackson Western New England University, Wes Turner Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Karl Wurst Worcester State University | ||
16:35 25mPaper | Humanitarian applications increase interest and motivation of women in computingIn-Person Papers Lori Postner Nassau Community College, Gregory W. Hislop Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA, Heidi J.C. Ellis Western New England University, Springfield, MA, USA | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | |||
15:45 25mPaper | A Climate-First Approach to Training Student TeachersIn-Person Papers | ||
16:10 25mPaper | Teaching Assistant Training: An Adjustable Curriculum for Computing DisciplinesIn-Person Papers | ||
16:35 25mPaper | Student Expectations of Tutors in Computing CoursesIn-Person Papers Rachel S. Lim University of California San Diego, Sophia Krause-Levy University of California, San Diego, Ismael Villegas Molina University of California San Diego, Leo Porter University of California San Diego | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | |||
15:45 25mPaper | Putting Computing on the Table: Using Physical Games to Teach Computer ScienceIn-Person Papers Jennifer Parham-Mocello Oregon State University, Martin Erwig Oregon State University, Margaret Niess Oregon State University, Jason Weber Oregon State University, Madalyn Smith Oregon State University, Garrett Berliner Oregon State University | ||
16:10 25mPaper | A New Functional-First Middle School CS CurriculumIn-Person Papers Dan Garcia UC Berkeley, Mary Fries EDC, Pamela Fox Microsoft, Michael Ball UC Berkeley, Deanna Gelosi University of Colorado Boulder, Delnavaz Dastur Stratford San Jose Middle School, Dave Briccetti The Athenian School, Bob Kahn Brentwood School, Lauren Mock University of California, Berkeley | ||
16:35 25mPaper | Virtual Summer Camp for High School Students with Disabilities -- An Experience ReportIn-Person Papers Wei Wang University of Texas at San Antonio, USA, Kathy Ewoldt The University of Texas at San Antonio, Mimi Xie The University of Texas at San Antonio, Alberto Mestas-Nunez The University of Texas at San Antonio, Sean Soderman The University of Texas at San Antonio, Jeffrey Wang Keystone School | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | |||
15:45 25mTalk | Discovering and quantifying misconceptions in formal methods using intelligent tutoring systemsIn-Person Papers Marko Schmellenkamp Ruhr University Bochum, Alexandra Latys Ruhr University Bochum, Thomas Zeume Ruhr University Bochum | ||
16:10 25mPaper | Learning gains of Proof Blocks versus Writing ProofsIn-Person Papers Seth Poulsen University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Yael Gertner University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Benjamin Cosman University of California at San Diego, USA, Matthew West University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign , Geoffrey Herman University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign | ||
16:35 25mPaper | Using Context-Free Grammars to Scaffold and Automate Feedback in Precise Mathematical WritingIn-Person Papers Jason Xia University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Craig Zilles University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | |||
15:45 25mPaper | Impact of Several Low-Effort Cheating-Reduction Methods in a CS1 ClassIn-Person Papers Frank Vahid UC Riverside / zyBooks, Kelly Downey UC Riverside, Ashley Pang UC Riverside, Chelsea Gordon Zybooks | ||
16:10 25mPaper | Plagiarism Deterrence in CS1 Through Keystroke DataIn-Person Papers Kaden Hart Utah State University, Chad Mano Utah State University, John Edwards Utah State University | ||
16:35 25mPaper | Programming Is Hard - Or at Least It Used to Be: Educational Opportunities And Challenges of AI Code GenerationIn-Person Papers Brett Becker University College Dublin, James Prather Abilene Christian University, Paul Denny The University of Auckland, Andrew Luxton-Reilly The University of Auckland, James Finnie-Ansley The University of Auckland, Eddie Antonio Santos University College Dublin | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | |||
15:45 75mPaper | Evolving a Programming CS2 Course: A Decade-Long Experience ReportOnline Papers Nasser Giacaman The University of Auckland, Partha Roop University of Auckland, Valerio Terragni University of Auckland | ||
15:45 75mPaper | Case Study: Mapping an E-Voting Based Curriculum to CSEC2017Online Papers Muwei Zheng University of California, Davis, Nathan Swearingen Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, Steven Mills Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, Croix Gyurek Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, Matt Bishop The University of California, Davis, Xukai Zou Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis | ||
15:45 75mPaper | Teaching Site Reliability Engineering as a Computer Science ElectiveOnline Papers | ||
15:45 75mPaper | Attracting Adults to Computer Programming via Hip HopOnline Papers Douglas Lusa Krug Virginia Commonwealth University, Chrystalla Mouza University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, W. Monty Jones Virginia Commonwealth University, Taylor Barnett Virginia Commonwealth University, David C. Shepherd Virginia Commonwealth University | ||
15:45 75mPaper | Assessing Peer Correction of SQL and NoSQL QueriesOnline Papers Wensheng Wu University of Southern California | ||
15:45 75mPaper | Use of an Anti-Pattern in CS2: Sequential if Statements with Exclusive ConditionsOnline Papers Sara Nurollahian University of Utah, Matthew Hooper University of Utah, Adriana Salazar University of Utah, Eliane Wiese University of Utah | ||
Fri 17 MarDisplayed time zone: Eastern Time (US & Canada) change
07:30 - 19:30 | |||
10:00 - 17:00 | |||
10:45 - 12:00 | |||
10:45 25mPaper | First Steps towards Predicting Novice Understanding of Programming Error MessagesIn-Person Papers James Prather Abilene Christian University, Paul Denny The University of Auckland, Brett Becker University College Dublin, Arisoa Randrianasolo Abilene Christian University, Robert Nix Oklahoma Christian University, Garrett Powell Abilene Christian University, Brent Reeves Abilene Christian University | ||
11:10 25mPaper | Scaffolding Progress: How Structured Editors Shape Novice Errors When Transitioning from Blocks to TextIn-Person Papers Majeed Kazemitabaar Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Viktar Chyhir Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, David Weintrop University of Maryland, Tovi Grossman University of Toronto | ||
11:35 25mPaper | Using Large Language Models to Enhance Programming Error MessagesIn-Person Papers Juho Leinonen Aalto University, Brett Becker University College Dublin, Paul Denny The University of Auckland, Arto Hellas Aalto University, James Prather Abilene Christian University, Brent Reeves Abilene Christian University, Sami Sarsa Aalto University | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | |||
10:45 25mPaper | A Literature Review Examining Broadening Participation in Upper Elementary CS EducationIn-Person Papers Umar Shehzad Utah State University, Mimi Recker Utah State University, Jody Clarke-Midura Utah State University | ||
11:10 25mPaper | Building upon the CAPE Framework for Broader Understanding of Capacity in K-12 CS EducationIn-Person Papers Monica McGill CSEdResearch.org, Angelica Thompson CSEdResearch.org, Isabella Gransbury North Carolina State University, Sarah Heckman North Carolina State University, Jennifer Rosato College of St. Scholastica, Leigh Ann Delyser CSforALL | ||
11:35 25mPaper | Proposing, Planning, and Teaching an Equity- and Justice-Centered Secondary Pre-Service CS Teacher Education ProgramIn-Person Papers Amy Ko University of Washington, Anne Beitlers University of Washington, Jayne Everson University of Washington, Brett Wortzman University of Washington, Dan Gallagher Shoreline Schools | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | |||
10:45 25mPaper | Computer Science with Theatricality: Creating Memorable Moments in CS50 with the American Repertory Theater during COVID-19In-Person Papers David J. Malan Harvard University | ||
11:10 25mPaper | Embedding and Scaling Writing Instruction Across First- and Second-Year Computer Science CoursesIn-Person Papers Lisa Zhang University of Toronto Mississauga, Bogdan Simion University of Toronto Mississauga, Michael Kaler University of Toronto Mississauga, Amna Liaqat University of Toronto Mississauga, Daniel Dick University of Toronto Mississauga, Andreas Bergen University of Toronto Mississauga, Michael Miljanovic University of Toronto Mississauga, Andrew Petersen University of Toronto | ||
11:35 25mPaper | Computer Science Curricular Guidelines: A New Liberal Arts PerspectiveIn-Person Papers Amanda Holland-Minkley Washington & Jefferson College, Jakob Barnard University of Jamestown, Valerie Barr Bard College, Grant Braught Dickinson College, Janet Davis Whitman College, David Reed Creighton University, Karl Schmitt Trinity Christian College, Andrea Tartaro Furman University, Jim Teresco Siena College | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | |||
10:45 25mPaper | A Flexible Formative/Summative Grading System for Large CoursesIn-Person Papers Albert Lionelle Khoury College of Computer Sciences, Northeastern University, Sudipto Ghosh Colorado State University, USA, Marcia Moraes Colorado State University, Tran Winick Colorado State University, Lindsey Nielsen Colorado State University | ||
11:10 25mPaper | Improving Student Motivation by UngradingIn-Person Papers Scott Spurlock Elon University | ||
11:35 25mPaper | Using Alternative Grading in a Non-Major Algorithms CourseIn-Person Papers Robbie Weber University of Washington | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | |||
10:45 25mPaper | Integrating Ethics into Computer Science Education: Multi-, Inter-, and Transdisciplinary ApproachesIn-Person Papers Trystan S. Goetze Harvard University | ||
11:10 25mPaper | Is More Better When Embedding Ethics in CS Courses?In-Person Papers Diane Horton University of Toronto, David Liu University of Toronto, Sheila McIlraith University of Toronto, Nina Wang University of Toronto | ||
11:35 25mPaper | Piloting an Interactive Ethics and Responsible Computing Learning Environment in Undergraduate CS CoursesIn-Person Papers Francisco Castro University of Massachusetts Amherst, Sahitya Raipura University of Massachusetts Amherst, Heather Conboy University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Peter Haas University of Massachusetts Amherst, Leon Osterweil University of Massachusetts Amherst, Ivon Arroyo University of Massachusetts Amherst | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | |||
10:45 25mPaper | Centering minoritized students’ perspectives: what makes CS learning consequential In-Person Papers Wei Wei University of California, Los Angeles, Jean Ryoo UCLA Computer Science Equity Project, Alicia Morris Los Angeles Unified School District | ||
11:10 25mPaper | Defining a “Computer Science Person” and the Pedagogical Practices Supporting Positive Identification for Minoritized YouthIn-Person Papers | ||
11:35 25mPaper | “I Can Do That Too”: Factors Influencing a Sense of Belonging for Females in High School Computer Science ClassroomsIn-Person Papers Jesse Moya Siena College, Robin Flatland Siena College, James Matthews Siena College, Pauline White Siena College, Stacey Hansen University at Albany, MaryAnne Egan Siena College | ||
10:45 - 12:00 | |||
10:45 25mPaper | An Undergraduate Consortium for Addressing the Leaky Pipeline to Computing ResearchIn-Person Papers | ||
11:10 25mPaper | Empowering First-Year Computer Science Ph.D. Students to Create a Culture that Values Community and Mental HealthIn-Person Papers | ||
11:35 25mPaper | Research Experience for Graduate Students (REGS): The Evolution of Computing Education Projects and Creation of a Virtual CommunityIn-Person Papers Stephanie Lunn Florida International University, Maíra Marques Samary , Alan Peterfreund SageFox Consulting Group | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | |||
13:45 25mPaper | Accurate Estimation of Time-on-Task While ProgrammingIn-Person Papers Kaden Hart Utah State University, Christopher Warren Utah State University, John Edwards Utah State University | ||
14:10 25mPaper | Providing a Choice of Time Trackers on Online AssessmentsIn-Person Papers Robbie Hott University of Virginia, Nada Basit University of Virginia, Ziyao Gao University of Virginia, Ella Truslow University of Virginia, Nour Goulmamine University of Virginia | ||
14:35 25mPaper | Understanding and Measuring Incremental Development in CS1In-Person Papers Anshul Shah University of California, San Diego, Michael Granado University of California, San Diego, Leo Porter University of California San Diego, William Griswold UC San Diego, Adalbert Gerald Soosai Raj University of California, San Diego | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | |||
13:45 25mPaper | Identifying different student clusters in functional programming assignments: From quick learners to struggling studentsIn-Person Papers Chuqin Geng McGill University, Wenwen Xu McGill University, Yingjie Xu McGill University, Brigitte Pientka McGill University, Xujie Si McGill University, Canada | ||
14:10 25mPaper | Investigating the Impact of Testing Frequency on Performance, Perceptions, and Behavior in CS1In-Person Papers David Smith University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Chinny Emeka University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Max Fowler University of Illinois, Matthew West University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign , Craig Zilles University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign | ||
14:35 25mPaper | Ultra-Lightweight Early Prediction of At-Risk Students in CS1In-Person Papers Chelsea Gordon Zybooks, Stanley Zhao University of California, Riverside, Frank Vahid UC Riverside / zyBooks | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | |||
13:45 25mPaper | How do Teaching Practices and Use of Software Features Relate to Computer Science Student Belonging in Synchronous Remote Learning Environments?In-Person Papers | ||
14:10 25mPaper | Mind the Gap: the Illusion of Skill Acquisition in Computational ThinkingIn-Person Papers | ||
14:35 25mPaper | Moving a Bootcamp-Style Computer Science Programme Online: An Experience ReportIn-Person Papers Andrew Meads University of Auckland, Yu-Cheng Tu The University of Auckland, Gill Dobbie The University of Auckland | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | |||
13:45 25mPaper | It's Never too Early to Learn About Code QualityIn-Person Papers Linus Östlund KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Niklas Wicklund KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Richard Glassey KTH Royal Institute of Technology | ||
14:10 25mPaper | Eastwood-Tidy: C Linting for Automated Code Style Assessment in Programming CoursesIn-Person Papers Rowan Hart Purdue University, Brian Hays Purdue University, Connor McMillin Purdue University, El Kindi Rezig Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Gustavo Rodriguez-Rivera Purdue University, Jeffrey Turkstra Purdue University | ||
14:35 25mPaper | Monitoring the Development of Programming Plans in a Beginner Web Programming CourseIn-Person Papers | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | |||
13:45 25mPaper | Community-driven Course and Tool Development for CS1In-Person Papers Boyd Anderson National University of Singapore, Martin Henz National University of Singapore, Kok-Lim Low National University of Singapore | ||
14:10 25mPaper | How Do I Get People to Use My Ideas? Lessons from Successful Innovators in CS EducationIn-Person Papers Christopher Lynnly Hovey University of Colorado Boulder, David Bunde Knox College, Zack Butler Rochester Institute of Technology, Cynthia Taylor Oberlin College | ||
14:35 25mPaper | Inter-institutional Resource Sharing in Undergraduate HPC Education : Interviews with University AdministratorsIn-Person Papers Abhimanyu Ghosh University of Wisconsin-Stout, William Kunkel University of Wisconsin-Madison, Sudeep Bhattacharyya University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, Ying Ma University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, Rahul Gomes University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, Molly Mohr University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, Isabella Doss University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, Jordan Hebert University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, Anthony Varghese University of Wisconsin-River Falls | ||
13:45 - 15:00 | |||
13:45 75mPaper | Desired Qualifications Sought in Entry Level Software EngineersOnline Papers Sid Stamm Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology | ||
13:45 75mPaper | Experience Report on Using WeBWorK in Teaching Discrete MathematicsOnline Papers Lijuan Cao University of North Carolina Charlotte, Michael Grabchak University of North Carolina Charlotte | ||
13:45 75mPaper | A Cloud-Based Technology for Conducting In-class Exercises in Data Science and Machine Learning CoursesOnline Papers | ||
13:45 75mPaper | Generation of Code Tracing Problems From Open-Source CodeOnline Papers Oleg Sychev Volgograd State Technical University, Artem Prokudin Volgograd State Technical University, Mikhail Denisov Volgograd State Technical University | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | |||
15:45 25mPaper | Implementation and Evaluation of Technical Interview Preparation Activities in a Data Structures and Algorithms CourseIn-Person Papers Amanpreet Kapoor University of Florida, USA, Sajani Panchal University of Florida, Christina Gardner-McCune Herbert Wertheim College of Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA | ||
16:10 25mPaper | Prior Programming Experience: A Persistent Performance Gap in CS1 and CS2In-Person Papers Giang Bui University of Toronto Mississauga, Naaz Sibia University of Toronto Mississauga, Angela Zavaleta Bernuy University of Toronto, Michael Liut University of Toronto Mississauga, Andrew Petersen University of Toronto | ||
16:35 25mPaper | Replication and Expansion Study on Factors Influencing Student Performance in CS2In-Person Papers | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | |||
15:45 25mPaper | Draw a Computing Student: Facilitating Semi-Structured Interviews Through DrawingIn-Person Papers Elliot Varoy The University of Auckland, Nasser Giacaman The University of Auckland, Andrew Luxton-Reilly The University of Auckland, Kerry Lee University of Auckland | ||
16:10 25mPaper | How K-12 CS Teachers Conceptualize CS Ethics: Future Opportunities and Barriers to Ethics Integration in K-12 CSIn-Person Papers | ||
16:35 25mPaper | The Role of Spatial Orientation in Diagram Design for Computational Thinking Development in K-8 TeachersIn-Person Papers Jean Salac University of Washington, Seattle, Donna Eatinger University of Chicago, Diana Franklin University of Chicago | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | |||
15:45 25mPaper | Discovering, Autogenerating, and Evaluating Distractors for Python Parsons Problems in CS1In-Person Papers David Smith University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Craig Zilles University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign | ||
16:10 25mPaper | Experiences from Using Code Explanations Generated by Large Language Models in a Web Software Development E-BookIn-Person Papers Stephen MacNeil Temple University, Andrew Tran Temple University, Arto Hellas Aalto University, Joanne Kim Temple University, Sami Sarsa Aalto University, Paul Denny The University of Auckland, Seth Bernstein Temple University, Juho Leinonen Aalto University | ||
16:35 25mPaper | FalconCode: A Multiyear Dataset of Python Code Samples from an Introductory Computer Science CourseIn-Person Papers Adrian de Freitas USAF Academy, Joel Coffman United States Air Force Academy, Michelle de Freitas Academy School District 20, Justin Wilson USAF Academy, Troy Weingart United Stated Air Force Academy Dept of Computer Science | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | |||
15:45 25mPaper | Analysis of Novices’ Web-Based Help-Seeking Behavior While ProgrammingIn-Person Papers James Skripchuk North Carolina State University, Neil Bennett North Carolina State University, Jeffrey Zheng University of Pittsburgh, Eric Li North Carolina State University, Thomas Price North Carolina State University | ||
16:10 25mPaper | Using Near-Peer Interviews to Support English Language LearnersIn-Person Papers Oluwakemi Ola University of British Columbia | ||
16:35 25mPaper | What Drives Students to Office Hours: Individual Differences and SimilaritiesIn-Person Papers | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | |||
15:45 25mPaper | Computing Specializations: Perceptions of AI and Cybersecurity Among CS StudentsIn-Person Papers Vidushi Ojha University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Christopher Perdriau University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Brent Lagesse University of Washington Bothell, Colleen M. Lewis University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign | ||
16:10 25mPaper | Towards Finding the Missing Pieces to Teach Secure Programming Skills to StudentsIn-Person Papers Majed Almansoori University of Wisconsin-Madison, Jessica Lam University of California, San Diego, Elias Fang University of California, San Diego, Adalbert Gerald Soosai Raj University of California, San Diego, Rahul Chatterjee University of Wisconsin-Madison | ||
16:35 25mPaper | Cybersecurity Education in the Age of AI: Integrating AI Learning into Cybersecurity High School CurriculaIn-Person Papers Shuchi Grover Looking Glass Ventures / Stanford University, Brian Broll Vanderbilt University, Derek Babb University of Nebraska Omaha | ||
15:45 - 17:00 | |||
15:45 25mPaper | Reflections of Cybersecurity Workshop for K-12 TeachersIn-Person Papers Chad Mourning Ohio University, Harsha Chenji Ohio University, Allyson Hallman-Thrasher Ohio University, Savas Kaya Ohio University, Nasseef Abukamail Ohio University, David Juedes Ohio University, School of EECS, Avinash Karanth Ohio University | ||
16:10 25mPaper | Evaluating the Effectiveness of CS Teacher Professional Development against CSTA K-12 Teacher Standards 2-5In-Person Papers Anni Reinking CSEdResearch.org, Monica McGill CSEdResearch.org, Amanda Bell CSTA, Jake Baskin Computer Science Teachers Association, Monica Sweet University of California San Diego CREATE | ||
16:35 25mPaper | K-12 Teacher Experiences from Online Professional Development for Teaching APCSAIn-Person Papers Nicole Shanley The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Manuel A. Pérez-Quiñones University of North Carolina Charlotte, Florence Martin North Carolina State University, David Pugalee The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Lynn Ahlgrim-Delzell The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Ellen Hart North Carolina Virtual Public School | ||
19:00 - 19:45 | |||
19:00 45mPaper | Exploring the Impact of Cognitive Awareness Scaffolding for Debugging in an Introductory Programming ClassOnline Papers Jiwon Lee California Polytechnic State University, Ayaan M. Kazerouni California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, Christopher Siu California Polytechnic State University, Theresa Migler California Polytechnic State University | ||
19:00 45mPaper | Detecting the Reasons for Program Decomposition in CS1 and Evaluating Their ImpactOnline Papers Charis Charitsis Stanford University, Chris Piech Stanford University, John C. Mitchell Stanford University | ||
19:00 45mPaper | Integrating Accessibility in a Mobile App Development CourseOnline Papers Jaskaran Singh Bhatia BITS Pilani KK Birla Goa Campus, Parthasarathy Pd BITS Pilani KK Birla Goa Campus, Snigdha Tiwari BITS Pilani KK Birla Goa Campus, Dhruv Nagpal BITS Pilani KK Birla Goa Campus, Swaroop Joshi BITS Pilani Goa campus | ||
19:00 45mPaper | G is for Generalisation: Predicting Student Success from KeystrokesOnline Papers Zac Pullar-Strecker The University of Auckland, Filipe Dwan Pereira Federal University of Roraima, Paul Denny The University of Auckland, Andrew Luxton-Reilly The University of Auckland, Juho Leinonen Aalto University | ||
19:00 45mPaper | Gaming together, coding together: Collaborative pathways to computational learningOnline Papers Brianna Dym University of Maine, Cole Rockwood University of Colorado Boulder, Casey Fiesler University of Colorado Boulder | ||
Sat 18 MarDisplayed time zone: Eastern Time (US & Canada) change
07:30 - 10:45 | |||
08:30 - 09:45 | |||
08:30 25mPaper | A’s for All (as Time and Interest Allow)In-Person Papers Dan Garcia UC Berkeley, Armando Fox UC Berkeley, Craig Zilles University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Matthew West University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign , Mariana Silva University of York, UK, Neal Terrell CSU Long Beach, Solomon Russell El Camino College, Edwin Ambrosio El Camino College, Fuzail Shakir UC Berkeley | ||
08:55 25mPaper | Mastery Learning with Specs Grading for Programming Courses In-Person Papers | ||
09:20 25mPaper | Who Attempts Optional Practice Problems in a CS1 Course? Exploring Learner Agency to Foster Mastery LearningIn-Person Papers Ashish Aggarwal University of Florida, Neelima Puthanveetil University of Florida, Christina Gardner-McCune Herbert Wertheim College of Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA | ||
08:30 - 09:45 | |||
08:30 25mPaper | Do Intentions to Persist Predict Short Term Computing Course Enrollments? A scale development, validation, and reliability analysis to aid research in Computer Science educationIn-Person Papers Rachel Harred NCSU, Tiffany Barnes North Carolina State University, Susan Fisk Kent State University, Bita Akram North Carolina State University, Thomas Price North Carolina State University, Spencer Yoder North Carolina State University | ||
08:55 25mPaper | Goal-Congruity Theory Predicts Students’ Sense of Belonging in Computing Across Racial/Ethnic GroupsIn-Person Papers Kathleen Isenegger University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Kari George University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Colleen M. Lewis University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Paul Bruno University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign | ||
09:20 25mPaper | Critical Pedagogy in Practice in the Computing ClassroomIn-Person Papers | ||
08:30 - 09:45 | |||
08:30 25mPaper | Artificial Intelligence Literacy Research Field: A Bibliometric Analysis from 1989 to 2021In-Person Papers Kamilla Tenório Freie Universität Berlin, Viktoriya Olari Freie Universität Berlin, Margarita Chikobava German Research Centre for Artificial Intelligence, Ralf Romeike Freie Universität Berlin | ||
08:55 25mPaper | Computer Education as a Translational TransdisciplineIn-Person Papers Evan Cole Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Yoshi Malaise Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Beat Signer Vrije Universiteit Brussel | ||
09:20 25mPaper | Decolonising Computer Science Education - A Global PerspectiveIn-Person Papers Mawera Karetai Te Whare Wananga o Awanuiarangi, Samuel Mann Otago Polytechnic, Dhammika (Dave) Guruge Otago Polytechnic, Sherlock A. Licorish University of Otago, Alison Clear EIT | ||
08:30 - 09:45 | |||
08:30 25mPaper | Community Embedded Computing Education: Shaping Young People’s Perceptions of Self-confidence and Personal Expression with Computer Science in a Youth Boxing GymIn-Person Papers Michael Lachney Michigan State University, Aman Yadav Michigan State University, Matt Drazin Michigan State University, Briana Green Michigan State University | ||
08:55 25mPaper | Increasing School Counselor Awareness of Computer ScienceIn-Person Papers Wendy Chi National Center for Women and Information Technology, Patricia Morreale Kean University, Jean Chu Kean Univeristy | ||
09:20 25mPaper | Intertwined: Enhancing K-12 Pair Programming Engagement Using Real-Time Collaboration with TwineIn-Person Papers | ||
08:30 - 09:45 | |||
08:30 25mPaper | Alumni as Teachers and Mentors for CS 1 Students: Solving the Staffing Shortage and Students' Reflections about Career and College AdviceIn-Person Papers Tammy Vandegrift University of Portland | ||
08:55 25mPaper | Storyteller: Guiding Students Through Code ExamplesIn-Person Papers Mark Mahoney Carthage College | ||
09:20 25mPaper | Conversing with Copilot: Exploring Prompt Engineering for Solving CS1 Problems using Natural LanguageIn-Person Papers Paul Denny The University of Auckland, Viraj Kumar Indian Institute of Science, Nasser Giacaman The University of Auckland | ||
08:30 - 09:45 | |||
08:30 25mPaper | Qupcakery: A Puzzle Game that Introduces Quantum Gates to Young LearnersIn-Person Papers Tianle Liu University of Chicago, David Gonzalez-Maldonado University of Chicago, Danielle Harlow University of California at Santa Barbara, Emily Edwards University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Diana Franklin University of Chicago | ||
08:55 25mPaper | On the Design and Implementation of a Quantum Architectures Knowledge Unit for the CS Undergraduate CurriculumIn-Person Papers Dan-Adrian German Indiana University Bloomington, Marcelo Pias Federal University of Rio Grande, Qiao Zhang Xiamen University | ||
09:20 25mPaper | Introduction to Quantum Computing for Everyone: Experience ReportIn-Person Papers | ||
09:45 - 12:30 | |||
Accepted Papers
Deadlines and Submission
Papers submitted to SIGCSE TS 2023 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, August 12, 2022. 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, August 19, 2022. Authors who fail to submit an abstract by the first deadline will not be permitted to submit a full PDF.
Important Dates
| Abstract Due Date | Friday, August 12, 2022 |
| Abstract Due Time | 23:59 AoE (Anywhere on Earth, UTC-12h) |
| Full Paper Due Date | Friday, August 19, 2022 |
| Full Paper Due Time | 23:59 AoE (Anywhere on Earth, UTC-12h) |
| Submission Limits | 6 pages + 1 page only for references |
| Notification to Authors | (tentative) Monday, October 3, 2022 |
| Submission Link | https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sigcsets2023 |
Topics
The SIGCSE Technical Symposium invites submissions addressing a wide range of topics in the domain of computing education for learners of all ages. When submitting a paper, authors will be asked to select between 3 and 7 topics from the list below as part of the submission metadata. Topics are arranged into the following groups:
- Computing Topics: These topics relate to different content areas within computing education.
- Education and Experience Topics: These topics relate to different pedagogical concerns in the teaching and learning of computing.
- Methods Topics: These topics allow authors to identify specific research methods applied in their work as applicable.
- Curriculum Topics: These topics address different programmatic themes.
Computing Topics
- Accessibility
- Algorithms
- Architecture/Hardware
- Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning
- Compilers/Programming Languages
- Computers and Society
- Cyber Security
- Data Science
- Data Structures
- Database/Data Mining
- Discrete Mathematics
- Distributed/Parallel Computing/HPC
- Ethics
- Games
- Graphics/Visualization
- History of Computing
- Human-Computer Interaction
- Information Systems
- Information Technology
- Mobile Apps
- Multimedia
- Networking
- Object-oriented Issues
- Open Hardware
- Open Source Software
- Operating Systems
- Privacy/Security
- Programming
- Real-Time/Embedded Systems
- Robotics
- Software Engineering
- Theory
- Web-Based Technology
Education and Experience Topics
- Active Learning
- API and Library
- Assessment
- Classroom Management
- Communication Skills
- Computational Thinking
- Course Management Systems
- Gender and Diversity
- Graduate Instruction
- Instructional Technologies
- K-12 Instruction
- Laboratory Experience
- Learning Environment
- Managing Enrollment Growth
- Outreach
- Problem Solving
- Teamwork and Collaboration
- Tools and Tool Use
- Undergraduate Instruction
Methods Topics
- Case Study
- Descriptive
- Experience Report
- Experimental
- Mixed Methods
- Qualitative
- Quantitative
- Quasi-Experimental
- Survey
Curriculum Topics
- ABET and Accreditation
- ACM and IEEE-CS Curricula
- AP Computer Science A Course/Exam
- AP Computer Science Principles Course/Exam
- AP/IB Courses & Curriculum
- Capstone Courses
- CS1/CS2
- Curriculum Addressing Gender and Diversity
- Curriculum Issues
- Distance/Online Education
- Faculty Development
- Graduate Studies
- HS Teacher Development
- Internships and Co-ops
- K-12 Curriculum
- New Degree Initiatives
- New Interdisciplinary Programs (CS + X)
- Non-majors
- Non-traditional Students
- Professional Practice
- Undergraduate Research
- Undergraduate Studies
Instructions for Authors
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 it should be included in the PDF version of the full paper at the appropriate location.
Submission Templates
SIGCSE TS 2023 is not participating in the new ACM 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).
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. NOTE: For anonymized submissions, space should be reserved so that each author can be defined separately for accurate metadata identification. Multiple authors may share one affiliation. Include space for authors’ e-mail addresses whenever possible on separate lines. Grouping authors’ names or e-mail addresses, or providing an ‘e-mail alias’ is not acceptable, e.g., {anon1,anon2,anon3}@university.edu or firstname.lastname@college.org
LaTeX Authors:
- Overleaf provides a suitable two-column sig conference proceedings template.
- Other LaTeX users may alternatively use the ACM Primary template, adding the “
sigconf” format option in thedocumentclassto obtain the 2-column format. - NOTE: The default LaTeX template text shows appendix materials following the references. SIGCSE TS 2023 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.
At the time of submission all papers should include space for all anonymized author information, an abstract, keywords, CCS Concepts, placeholders for the ACM Reference Format and copyright blocks, and references. Papers that do not adhere to page limits or formatting requirements will be desk rejected without review.
Accessibility: SIGCSE TS 2023 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 should 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].
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 2023 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.
Please ensure that you and your co-authors obtain an ORCID ID (https://orcid.org/register), so you can complete the publishing process for your accepted paper. ACM has been involved in ORCID from the start and we have recently made a commitment to collect ORCID IDs from all of our published authors (https://authors.acm.org/author-resources/orcid-faqs). The collection process has started and will roll out as a requirement throughout 2022. We are committed to improve author discoverability, ensure proper attribution and contribute to ongoing community efforts around name normalization; your ORCID ID will help in these efforts.
Post-Acceptance and Presentation Information
Presentation Modality: Due Oct 14, 2022
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 Qualtrics 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 October 14, 2022. 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: Tentatively Starts Nov 1, 2022
Information about registration, lodging, and international travel to Canada can be found here https://sigcse2023.sigcse.org/venue/sigcse-ts-2023-venue
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 Dec 14 2022
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.
Video Presentations: Tentatively Due Jan 2022
For SIGCSE TS 2023, authors of all accepted papers will be REQUIRED to submit a pre-recorded 20-minute video presentation for the symposium’s online WebEx conference platform. OPTIONALLY, the ACM Digital Library allows authors to provide a video to be archived to accompany the PDF in the conference proceedings. Authors may use two different videos or the same video for both purposes (SIGCSE TS 2023 and ACM DL).
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.
Presentation Details
More information will be posted here about preparing for in-person and online presentation as it becomes available.
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. 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)](https://csedresearch.org/reviewing-articles/)
- 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
SIGCSE Technical Symposium papers are reviewed using a dual-anonymous review process (see below) managed through EasyChair. There are four phases to the review process: bid, review, discussion, and recommendation. In addition to the Program Co-Chairs, two other types of volunteers contribute to this process:
- Reviewers provide high-quality reviews for submissions to provide authors with feedback so they may improve their work for presentation or future submission.
- Associate Program Chairs (APCs) meta-review each paper and provide a recommendation and feedback to the Program Chairs.
Each paper submission will receive 3 reviews and a meta-review.
All reviews are submitted through EasyChair. Reviewers are considered “Ordinary PC members” in EasyChair. APCs are considered “Senior PC members” in EasyChair.
Review Timeline
| Reviewing Phase | Start Date | End Date |
|---|---|---|
| Bidding | Saturday, August 13, 2022 | Wednesday, August 17, 2022 |
| Reviewing | Saturday, August 20, 2022 | Wednesday, September 7, 2022 |
| Discussion & Recommendations | Thursday, September 8, 2022 | Friday, September 16, 2022 |
Note: Associate Program Chair (APC) Recommendation and Meta-Review Deadline: Friday, September 16, 2022 anywhere on earth (AOE)
Overview
A paper describes 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.
Dual-Anonymous Review Process
Authors must submit ONLY an anonymized version of the submission. The goal of the anonymized version is to, as much as possible, provide the author(s) of the submission with an unbiased review. The anonymized version should have ALL mentions of the authors removed (including author’s names and affiliation plus identifying information within the body of the submission 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 submission. LaTeX/Overleaf users are welcome to use the anonymous option, but are reminded that sufficient room must exist in the submission 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]. Regular papers are reviewed with the dual-anonymous review process. The reviewers are unaware of the author identities, and reviewers 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 APCs can examine all reviews and privately discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the work in an anonymous manner through EasyChair. This discussion information can be used by the program co-chairs in addition to the content of the review in making final acceptance decisions.
The SIGCSE TS 2023 review process does not have a rebuttal period for authors to respond to comments, and all acceptance decisions are final.
EasyChair Reviewer Profile
When you receive your invitation to review for SIGCSE TS 2023, please take a few moments to update your profile and select 3-5 topics that you are most qualified for reviewing. To do so, select SIGCSE TS 2023 > My topics from the menu.
Please check at most 5 topics! More topics will make it harder for the EasyChair system to make a good set of matches.
Getting Started Reviewing
Before starting your review, you may be asked by the Track Chairs to declare conflicts with any submitting authors. Please do so in a timely manner so we can avoid conflicts during assignment.
After the submission deadline and before reviewing can begin, both Associate Program Chairs (APCs) and Reviewers will bid on submissions they are interested in reviewing. Please bid for submissions where the title and abstract are in your area of expertise. Bidding will help with assigning submissions for review that you’re qualified and interested in reviewing! If you do not bid within the allotted time window, we will use topics to assign submissions for review. In terms of workload, each reviewer is expected to review about 4 papers, while each APC is expected to oversee the reviews of about 8 papers.
To each Reviewer, we ask that you carefully read each submission assigned to you and write a constructive review that concisely summarizes what you believe the submission to be about. When reviewing a submission, consider:
- the strengths and weaknesses,
- the contribution to an outstanding SIGCSE TS 2023 program and experience for attendees, and
- how it brings new ideas or extends current ideas through replication to the field and to practitioners and researchers of computing education.
To each APC, we ask that you carefully read each submission assigned to you and inspect the Table under the Review Guidelines in this document for the track you are meta-reviewing. Additionally,
- Ensure that Reviewers are making progress on their tasks. Don’t wait to see all reviews entered at the last moment. Instead, encourage partial progress from the Reviewers along the way. Help Reviewers interpret the expectations of the track if there are questions or differences of view about the criteria within the reviews.
- Use EasyChair to send reminder messages to the Reviewers.
Paper Review Guidelines
Papers have three specific tracks. 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 tracks.
The following table illustrates how to interpret the review criteria for each of the three tracks of papers: Computing Education Research (CER), Experience Reports and Tools (ERT), and Position and Curricula Initiative (PCI). 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. |
|
|
|
Discussion
The discussion and recommendation period provides the opportunity for the APC to discuss reviews and feedback so they can provide the best recommendation for acceptance or rejection to the Program Chairs and that the submission is given full consideration in the review process. We ask that Reviewers engage in discussion when prompted by other reviewers and the APC by using the Comments feature of EasyChair. During this period you will be able to revise your review based on the discussion, but you are not required to do so.
If you are a Reviewer, we expect you to engage with the discussion on each paper during the discussion period. Read the reviews from the other Reviewers and engage in discussion using the Comments feature in EasyChair, until all Reviewers have come to a consensus on the recommendation for acceptance or rejection. During this period you will be able to revise your review based on the discussion, but you are not required to do so.
If you are an APC, we expect you to lead the discussion among the Reviewers to reach consensus on a recommendation about whether the paper should be accepted or rejected. You will submit your meta-review and recommendation through EasyChair.
- The goal is not to have Reviewers change or update their scores, though that might happen as a by-product of the discussion.
- The goal is to reach an agreement on the quality of the submission relative to the expectations for the track to which it was submitted. For example, one Reviewer might find objection with some premises of the paper and give the paper a low score. Another Reviewer might excuse that limitation and give the paper a high score due to the high quality of the results. Both reviews are valid, presumably, and thus their scores should not be updated. But their reviews (and possibly the meta-review) should highlight the trade-offs that result from this discussion, and come up with an agreeable decision to both Reviewers.
- In a few rare cases, the Reviewers will have opposite views and the meta-reviewer should capture the essence of all reviews and leave the recommendation as neutral.
Note: It is important that at no point Reviewers should feel forced to change their reviews, scores, or viewpoints in this process. The APC can disagree with them and communicate that to the Program Co-Chairs as needed, but the APC should NOT force Reviewers to change their review because of a difference in viewpoint.
Recommendation
After the discussion period, each APC will write a meta-review for each of their assigned papers that summarizes the reviews for the papers.
Please do not include your recommendation for acceptance or rejection of a paper in the meta-review. Instead, use the provided radio buttons to make a recommendation based on your meta-review and the discussion and provide any details in the confidential comments to the chairs (and APC). As an APC, you will only see a small portion of the submitted papers and a paper you recommend for acceptance may be rejected when considering the full set of submissions.
Additionally, the Program Chairs will request feedback from APCs on the quality of reviews for decisions about future invitations to review for the SIGCSE Technical Symposium.
Recalcitrant Reviewers
Reviewers who don’t submit reviews, have reviews with limited constructive feedback, or who 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.
Associate Program Chairs
For the paper tracks, we have Associate Program Chairs (APCs) that support the reviewing process. An APC’s responsibilities include facilitating discussions during the discussion phase, summarizing the different viewpoints documented in the reviews and discussions, writing the meta-reviews, and making paper acceptance recommendations to the program chairs.
Computing Education Research (CER)
- Meghan Allen (The University of British Columbia)
- Christine Alvarado (University of California San Diego)
- Julio Bahamon (University of North Carolina at Charlotte)
- Brett Becker (University College Dublin)
- Dennis Bouvier (Southern Illinois University Edwardsville)
- Kevin Buffardi (California State University - Chico)
- Steve Cooper (University of Nebraska - Lincoln)
- Paul Denny (The University of Auckland)
- Mohsen Dorodchi (University of North Carolina at Charlotte)
- Stephen Edwards (Virginia Tech)
- Allan Fowler (University of Auckland)
- Michelle Friend (University of Nebraska at Omaha)
- Rita Garcia (Victoria University of Wellington)
- David Joyner (Georgia Institute of Technology)
- Ayaan Kazerouni (California Polytechnic State University)
- Juho Leinonen (Aalto University)
- Nicholas Lytle (North Carolina State University)
- António Mendes (University of Coimbra)
- Craig S. Miller (DePaul University)
- Mattia Monga (Università degli Studi di Milano - Dip. di Informatica)
- Miranda Parker (San Diego State University)
- James Prather (Abilene Christian University)
- Thomas Price (North Carolina State University)
- Brian Railing (Carnegie Mellon University)
- Adalbert Gerald Soosai Raj (University of California San Diego)
- Kalpathi Subramanian (University of North Carolina at Charlotte)
- Cynthia Taylor (Oberlin College)
- Tammy Vandegrift (University of Portland)
- Eliane Wiese (University of Utah)
- Wensheng Wu (University of Southern California)
- Jeong Yang (Texas A&M University-San Antonio)
Experience Reports and Tools (ERT)
- Jennifer Albert (The Citadel)
- Marc Berges (Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg)
- Albert Chan (Fayetteville State University)
- Peter Clarke (Florida International University)
- James H. Davenport (University of Bath)
- Adrienne Decker (University at Buffalo)
- Leigh Ann Delyser (CSforALL)
- Matthew Forshaw (Newcastle University)
- Sarah Heckman (North Carolina State University)
- Cruz Izu (The University of Adelaide)
- Carsten Kleiner (University of Applied Science and Arts Hannover)
- Daniel Krutz (Rochester Institute of Technology)
- Viraj Kumar (Indian Institute of Science)
- David Malan (Harvard University)
- Bruce Maxim (University of Michigan)
- Lijun Ni (SUNY, Albany)
- Keith Nolan (TU Dublin, Tallaght Campus)
- James Paterson (Glasgow Caledonian University)
- Wendy Powley (Queen’s University)
- Saquib Razak (Carnegie Mellon University)
- Samuel Rebelsky (Grinnell College)
- Guido Rößling (TU Darmstadt)
- Swapneel Sheth (University of Pennsylvania)
- Amber Solomon (Army FUTURES Command)
- Sangho Suh (University of Waterloo)
- Anya Tafliovich (University of Toronto)
- Frank Vahid (UC Riverside)
- Charles Wallace (Michigan Technological University)
Position and Curricula Initiative (PCI)
- Mark Bailey (Hamilton College)
- Bradley Beth (Northern Vermont University)
- Brian Harrington (University of Toronto)
- Michael Nowak (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)
- Sagar Raina (Mount Saint Mary College)
- Stefan Robila (Montclair State University)
- Luther Tychonievich (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)
- Henry Walker (Grinnell College)
| Wed 14 Dec 2022new Camera Ready Submission Deadline |
| Fri 19 Aug 2022 Submission Deadline |
| Fri 12 Aug 2022 Mandatory Abstract Deadline |
