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.

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

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

back to top

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

back to top

Methods Topics

• Case Study
• Descriptive
• Experience Report
• Experimental
• Mixed Methods
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
• Quasi-Experimental
• Survey

back to top

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

back to top

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 the documentclassto 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.

By SIGCSE policy, at least one author of an accepted paper is required to register, attend, and present the paper. SIGCSE TS 2023 will allow for authors to present papers either in-person or online. Authors will be contacted to declare their presentation format upon acceptance.

Further details about post-acceptance processes and presentation logistics will be provided by the time acceptance decisions are sent out.

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.

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.	The submission provides a clear motivation for the work. The submission states a set of clear Research Questions or Specific Aims/Goals.	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.	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 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.	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	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 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.	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?	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 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	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. Claims about the experience or tool are sufficiently scoped within the bounds of the evidence presented.	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 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	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	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 Evaluate the writing quality with respect to expectations for publication, allowing for only minor revisions prior to final submission.	The presentation (writing, graphs, or diagrams) is clear Overall flow and organization are appropriate	The presentation (writing, graphs, or diagrams) is clear Overall flow and organization are appropriate	The presentation (writing, graphs, or diagrams) is clear Overall flow and organization are appropriate

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.