Write a Blog >>
ICER 2020
Sat 8 - Thu 13 August 2020

Preparing to Submit

Submission Deadlines

Friday, April 3, 2020 Anywhere on Earth (UTC-12) – Mandatory abstract/intent to submit uploaded to EasyChair

All authors intending to submit a research paper must first enter their author, affiliation, title, and text abstract information into EasyChair by this deadline. Your abstract will be used by potential reviewers to bid on papers that match their expertise. Ensure the best reviewer match by writing a clear abstract that describes your paper’s motivation, its theoretical grounding, and the research methods used along with a summary of your results. Authors failing to submit an abstract and associated meta-data by the due date (even if the EasyChair system accepts the abstract late) will not be eligible to upload full paper text.

Friday, April 10, 2020 Anywhere on Earth (UTC-12) – Full paper submission (anonymized) added to EasyChair

Authors have a week following the initial abstract deadline to complete final submission of the paper to be reviewed. This will be submitted as an update to the paper entry created during abstract submission. Please reduce file sizes when possible for ease of downloading, as long as this does not sacrifice the quality necessary for a fair review.

Friday, June 12, 2020 – Author notification

Sunday, June 28, 2020 – Final camera ready submission for accepted papers

Paper Formatting and Length Requirements

Papers submitted to ICER must conform to the style rules outlined on the ACM SIG Proceedings website.

  • LaTeX: use the ‘sigconf’ template for ICER submissions (\documentclass[sigconf]{acmart}). The easiest way to ensure that you have up-to-date versions and the correct fonts is to use Overleaf, but any reasonable LaTeX environment should suffice if you load the correct templates and install any needed packages.
  • Word: if you are using Word, use the Interim template at the link above. Do not use the “New workflow for ACM publications”; it’s still being evaluated. We strongly suggest that you use LaTeX for the time savings in formatting and formatting consistency, but if you must use Word, do your best to ensure consistent formatting. Reviewers will be instructed to ignore minor differences in formatting during review. Accepted papers will need to confirm exactly to the ACM Proceedings format.

Preparing for Anonymous Review

ICER paper submissions are reviewed using an anonymous process, where the authors do not know the identify of the reviews, and the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors. To ensure this:

  • Remove author names. Do not simply cover the details with a black box, as the text can easily be extracted from under the box by dragging the cursor over it. Remove affiliations.
  • Remove any identifying information in acknowledgements.
  • Avoid references to your affiliation, such as your college, university, or company. For example, rather than referring to your actual university, you might write “A Large Metropolitan University (ALMU)” rather than “Auckland University of Technology (AUT)”.
  • Avoid referring to yourself when citing your own work.
  • Avoid titles that indicate a clearly identifiable research project.
  • Omit author details from the PDF you generate, such as author name or the name of the source document.
  • The anonymization requirements hold for both abstracts and full papers.

Review process

The ICER research paper review process is designed to attempt to maximize the alignment between a paper and the expertise required to review it, minimize unconstructive critique, and completely avoid conflicts of interests.

New rules around conflict of interest are being trialled for ICER2020, as described below. The changes may or may not be adopted for subsequent conferences.

Roles

There are three roles in the review process:

  • Program chairs. Each year there are senior and junior program chairs. Junior program chairs participate in this year and the following year’s process. Two program chairs are appointed by the SIGCSE board to serve a two year term, based on nominations from the current conference co-chairs. One new appointment is made each year so that in any given year there is always a continuing program chair from the prior year and a new program chair. Appointment criteria include prior attendance and publication at ICER, past service on the ICER Program Committee, research excellence in Computing Education, collaborative and organizational skills to share oversight of the program selection process. The ICER Steering Committee solicits and selects candidates for future program chairs.
  • Meta-reviewers review the reviews authored by reviewers, ensuring that the review content constructive and aligned with the review criteria, as well as summarizing reviews and making recommendations for a paper’s acceptance and rejection. They also provide feedback on reviews if necessary, asking reviews to improve the quality of reviews. The program chairs invite and appoint meta-reviewers. The committee will be sized so that each meta-reviewer will handle 8-10 paper submissions. The program chairs are responsible for inviting new members of the committee and retiring longer serving members, balancing the need for intellectual diversity and expertise necessary for the pool of submissions. Program chairs will prioritize length of service on Review Committee, consistently high performance as reviewer, and history of prior publication in ICER or other computing education research venues. Together, the program chairs and meta-reviewers constitute the Program Committee (PC).
  • Reviewers write reviews of submissions, evaluating them against the review criteria. The program chairs also invite and appoint the reviewers. The committee will be sized so that each reviewer will serve for 4-6 paper submissions. Each reviewer will serve a one year term, with no limits on reappointment. Appointment criteria include expertise in relevant areas of computing education research and past reviewing experience in computing education research venues. Together, all reviewers constitute the review committee (RC).

Anyone interested in joining the RC or PC can write to the current program chairs expressing their interest.

Conflicts of interest

ICER takes conflicts of interest, both real and perceived, quite seriously. The conference adheres to the ACM conflict of interest policy as well as the SIGCSE conflict of interest policy (with the exception of ICER 2020, in which there will be a trial of allowing program chairs to submit). A paper submitted to the ICER conference is a conflict of interest for an individual if at least one of the following is true: 1) the individual is a co-author of the paper, 2) a student of the individual is a co-author of the paper, or 3) the individual identifies the paper as a conflict of interest, i.e. that the individual does not believe that he or she can provide an impartial evaluation of the paper. No reviewer, meta-reviewer, or program chair with a conflict of interest in the paper will be included in any evaluation, discussion, or decision about the paper. It is the responsibility of the reviewers, meta-reviewers, and program chairs to declare their conflicts of interest. It is the responsibility of the program chairs to ensure that no member of the Program or Review Committees is assigned a role in the review process for any paper for which he or she has a conflict of interest.

Review criteria

Reviewers comment on and score each paper against several criteria on a strongly disagree to strongly agree scale (-2 to 2):

  • The submission is grounded in relevant prior work.
  • The submission leverages available theory when appropriate.
  • The submission describes its methods and/or innovations sufficiently for others to understand how data was obtained, analyzed, and interpreted, or how the innovation works.
  • The submission’s methods and/or innovations soundly address its research questions.
  • The submission advances knowledge of computing education that is of interest to the computing education community.
  • Discussion of results clearly summarizes the submission’s contributions and implications.
  • The submission is written clearly enough to publish.
  • Based on the criteria above, this paper should be published at ICER.

Reviewers are trained on these criteria before reviewing.

Review process

ICER research papers are reviewed using an anonymous process managed through EasyChair. The process involves the following activities and conflict of interest management:

  • Abstracts. Authors initially submit an abstract by the abstract submission deadline, with the final deadline for full papers one week later.
  • Conflicts of interest. Authors are required to declare conflicts of interest with all reviewer, meta-rereviewers, and program chairs.
  • Bidding. Following the abstract submission deadline, review committee and program committee members bid on papers for which they have sufficient expertise to evaluate. These bids help the authors assign reviewers.
  • Conflicts of interest. All reviewers, meta-reviewers, and program chairs who have a conflict of interest with a paper must register that conflict in EasyChair, after which they are excluded excluded from all future evaluation, discussion, and decisions of that paper.
  • Submissions. Authors submit final versions of their submissions.
  • Desk rejects. The program chairs inspect all submissions for desk rejects, including papers that violate anonymization requirements, length restrictions, or plagiarism policies. Authors of desk rejected papers are notified immediately.
  • Conflicts of interest. Program chairs with conflicts are excluded from deciding on those papers, leaving the decision to the other program chair.
  • Assignments. Each paper is assigned to at least three reviewers and exactly one program committee member. Program chairs do all assignments together.
  • Conflicts of interest. Program chairs with conflicts are excluded from assigning reviewers to any papers for which they have a conflict. Assignments in EasyChair can only be made by the program chair without a conflict.
  • Reviews. Assigned reviewers submit their anonymous reviews through EasyChair by the review deadline, evaluating each of their papers against the review criteria listed above. Reviewers are not asked to make an accept/reject decision, only to evaluate the papers against the criteria. This ensures that there is still room for changing opinions through discussions.
  • Conflicts of interest. Reviewers, meta-reviewers, and program chairs with conflicts cannot see any of the reviews of their papers during this process.
  • Discussion. After the reviewing period, the program committee member assigned as meta-reviewer asks the reviewers to read the other reviewers’ reviews and begin a discussion about any disagreements that arise.
  • Conflicts of interest. Reviewers, meta-reviewers, and program chairs with conflicts cannot see any of the discussions of their papers during this process.
  • Recommendation. After the discussion, the meta-reviewer uses the reviews, the discussion, and their own evaluation of the work to write a recommendation of whether to accept or reject the work, or whether to discuss it at the PC meeting. Meta-reviewers also decide whether to nominate the paper for the Chair’s award.
  • Conflicts of interest. Reviewers, meta-reviewers, and program chairs with conflicts cannot see any of the recommendations or meta-reviews of their papers during this process.
  • PC meetings. “Borderline” submissions (those for which there is no clear outcome, accept or reject) will be discussed in a series of videoconference meetings of PC members. Meetings will be convened as required (a maximum of three meetings of three hours each) during the week of May 8th to May 15th, at times to be decided (so as to best to accommodate committee members). PC members will be expected to attend one or more of these meetings. The role of the meetings is to reach consensus (by vote if required) on the outcome for each borderline submission. After a decision is made in each case, the responsible PC member (meta-reviewer) will add a summary of the discussion at the end of their meta-review, explaining the rationale for the final decision.
  • Conflicts of interest. Because the discussion will happen in EasyChair, no meta-reviewers or program chairs conflicted on a paper will be able to see or participate in the discussion.
  • Decisions. After the PC meeting, the program chairs notify all authors of the decisions about their papers no later than the notification date listed in the CFP.
  • Conflicts of interest. Program chairs cannot change the outcome of a decision after the PC meeting.
  • Papers for which any program chair has a conflict of interest are not eligible for a Chair’s Award.

Publication

Once papers are accepted and finalized for publication, the official publication date is the date the proceedings are made available in the ACM Digital Library. This date will be up to two weeks prior to the first day of the conference. The official publication date affects the deadline for any patent filings related to published work.

The ACM has recently revised its authorship policy in a way that might impact some ICER authors. In summary, any person listed as an author on a paper must (1) have made substantial contributions to the work, (2) have participated in drafting/revising the paper, (3) be aware that the paper has been submitted, and (4) agree to be held accountable for the content of the paper. The revision is intended to allow enforcement of plagiarism sanctions, but it could impact people who work in large, collaborative research groups, and on postgraduate advisors who have not contributed directly to a paper. Prospective authors should read the new policy. You should also ensure that your submissions abide by the ACM Conflict of Interest Policy. Aligned with this is also the ACM Publications Policy on the Withdrawal, Correction, Retraction, and Removal of Works from ACM Publications and ACM DL.

Accepted Papers

Title
A Longitudinal Evaluation of a Best Practices CS1
Research Papers
A Quantitative Study of Faculty Views on the Goals of an Undergraduate CS Program and Preparing Students for Industry
Research Papers
Adaptive Immediate Feedback Can Improve Novice Programming Engagement and Intention to Persist in Computer Science
Research Papers
Affinity for Technology and Teenagers’ Learning Intentions
Research Papers
An Analysis of Use-Modify-Create Pedagogical Approach's Success in Balancing Structure and Student Agency
Research Papers
Analyzing Viscuit Programs Crafted by Kindergarten Children
Research Papers
Collaborative Learning in Computing Education: Faculty Perspectives and Practices
Research Papers
Comparison of Grade Replacement and Weighted Averages for Second-Chance Exams
Research Papers
Computing Education Research Landscape through an Analysis of Keywords
Research Papers
Construction of a Taxonomy for Tools, Languages, and Environments across Computing Education
Research Papers
Exploring Quantum Reversibility with Young Learners
Research Papers
Exploring Student Behavior using the TIPP&SEE Learning Strategy
Research Papers
Exploring the Enacted Computing Curriculum in K-12 Schools in South Asia: Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka
Research Papers
Hedy: A Gradual Language for Programming Education
Research Papers
How Secure are our Computer Systems Courses?
Research Papers
How do Graduating Students Evaluate Software Design Diagrams?
Research Papers
Learning Machine Learning with Personal Data Helps Stakeholders Ground Advocacy Arguments in Model Mechanics
Research Papers
Opening the Black Box: Investigating Student Understanding of Data Displays Using Programmable Sensor Technology
Research Papers
Programming versus natural language: on the effect of context on typing in CS1
Research Papers
Revisiting Self-Efficacy in Introductory Programming
Research Papers
Student Perceptions of Fairness and Security in a Versioned Programming Exam
Research Papers
Syntax exercises in CS1
Research Papers
Theories and Models of Affect in the Context of Programming Education
Research Papers
Understanding conceptual transfer for students learning new programming languages
Research Papers
Using Design Alternatives to Learn About Data Organizations
Research Papers
What Do We Think We Think We Are Doing?: Metacognition and Self-Regulation in Programming
Research Papers
Why do CS1 students think they’re bad at programming? Investigating self-efficacy and self-assessments at three universities
Research Papers

Call for Participation

https://conf.researchr.org/info/icer-2020/call-for-participation

Dates
Plenary
You're viewing the program in a time zone which is different from your device's time zone - change time zone

Mon 10 Aug
Times are displayed in time zone: Pacific Time (US & Canada) change

14:40 - 15:00
Serendipity BreakSocials at Discord Breakrooms
14:40
20m
Break
Break and Networking
Socials
15:00 - 15:40
Programming and AgencyResearch Papers at Zoom Webinar
Chair(s): Amy KoUniversity of Washington
15:00
20m
Research paper
What Do We Think We Think We Are Doing?: Metacognition and Self-Regulation in Programming
Research Papers
James PratherAbilene Christian University, Brett BeckerUniversity College Dublin, Michelle CraigUniversity of Toronto, Paul DennyThe University of Auckland, Dastyni LoksaUniversity of Washington, Lauren MargulieuxGeorgia State University
15:20
20m
Research paper
An Analysis of Use-Modify-Create Pedagogical Approach's Success in Balancing Structure and Student Agency
Research Papers
Diana FranklinUChicago STEM Education, Jen PalmerUniversity of Chicago, Merijke CoenraadUniversity of Maryland, Donna EatingerUniversity of Chicago, Anna ZippUniversity of Chicago, Marco AnayaUniversity of Chicago, Max WhiteUniversity of Chicago, Hoang PhamUniversity of Chicago, Ozan GokdemirUniversity of Chicago, David WeintropUniversity of Maryland
15:40 - 16:00
Serendipity BreakSocials at Discord Breakrooms
15:40
20m
Break
Break and Networking
Socials
16:00 - 16:40
Paper DiscussionResearch Papers at Discord Dolphin Room

Choose one of the five tables, discuss in #dolphin-room-discussion

16:00
40m
Research paper
Student Perceptions of Fairness and Security in a Versioned Programming Exam
Research Papers
Chinny EmekaUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Craig ZillesUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
16:00 - 16:40
Paper discussionResearch Papers at Discord Kiwi Room

Choose one of the five tables, discuss in #kiwi-room-discussion

16:00
40m
Research paper
Learning Machine Learning with Personal Data Helps Stakeholders Ground Advocacy Arguments in Model Mechanics
Research Papers
Yim RegisterUniversity of Washington, Amy KoUniversity of Washington
16:00 - 16:40
Paper DiscussionResearch Papers at Discord Penguin Room

Choose one of the five tables, discuss in #penguin-room-discussion

16:00
40m
Research paper
Theories and Models of Affect in the Context of Programming Education
Research Papers
Lauri MalmiAalto University, Judy SheardMonash University, Päivi KinnunenUniversity of Helsinki, Simon University of Newcastle, Jane SinclairThe University of Warwick
16:00 - 16:40
Paper DiscussionResearch Papers at Discord Skink Room

Choose one of the five tables, discuss in #skink-room-discussion

16:00
40m
Research paper
Affinity for Technology and Teenagers’ Learning Intentions
Research Papers
Fufen JinNorwegian University of Science and Technology, Monica DivitiniNorwegian University of Science and Technology
16:00 - 16:40
Paper DiscussionResearch Papers at Discord Weta Rooms

Choose one of the five tables, discuss in #weta-room-discussion

16:00
40m
Research paper
Comparison of Grade Replacement and Weighted Averages for Second-Chance Exams
Research Papers
Geoffrey HermanUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Zhouxiang CaiUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign , Timothy BretlUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Craig ZillesUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Matthew WestUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
17:00 - 18:00
17:00
60m
Social Event
Post-Conference Social
Socials

Tue 11 Aug
Times are displayed in time zone: Pacific Time (US & Canada) change

13:30 - 14:00
Day 2 OpeningLightning Talks and Posters at Zoom Webinar
Chair(s): Miranda ParkerUniversity of California, Irvine, Jacqui WhalleyAuckland University of Technology
13:30
30m
Day opening
Day 2 Welcome + Lightning Talks
Lightning Talks and Posters
Natalia ChitalkinaUniversity of Turku, Santiago Ojeda RamírezUniversidad de los Andes, Carola HernándezUniversidad de los Andes, Thuc Nhi LeLafayette College, Shokhzodbek SaidovLafayette College, Justin SmithLafayette College, Lariza de OliveiraUniversity of São Paulo and University Center Barão de Mauá, Melissa StangeLord Fairfax Community College, Umberto CostantiniUniversità degli Studi di Milano, Violetta LonatiUniversity of Milan, Anna MorpurgoUniversità degli Studi di Milano, C: Miranda ParkerUniversity of California, Irvine, C: Jacqui WhalleyAuckland University of Technology
14:00 - 14:40
K-12Research Papers at Zoom Webinar
Chair(s): Beth SimonUniversity of California San Diego
14:00
20m
Research paper
Exploring the Enacted Computing Curriculum in K-12 Schools in South Asia: Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka
Research Papers
Tehreem AnwarKnox College, Arturo JimenezKnox College, Arsalan Bin NajeebKnox College, Bishakha UpadhyayaKnox College, Monica McGillKnox College
14:20
20m
Research paper
Exploring Student Behavior using the TIPP&SEE Learning Strategy
Research Papers
Diana FranklinUChicago STEM Education, Jean SalacUniversity of Chicago, Zachary CrenshawUniversity of Chicago, Saranya TurimellaUniversity of Chicago, Zipporah KlainUniversity of Chicago, Marco AnayaUniversity of Chicago, Cathy ThomasTexas State University
14:40 - 15:00
Serendipity BreakSocials at Discord Breakrooms
14:40
20m
Break
Break and Networking
Socials
15:00 - 15:40
15:00
40m
Research paper
Computing Education Research Landscape through an Analysis of Keywords
Research Papers
Michail GiannakosNorwegian University of Science and Technology, Zacharoula PapamitsiouNorwegian University of Science and Technology , Simon University of Newcastle, Andrew Luxton-ReillyThe University of Auckland
15:00 - 15:40
15:00
40m
Research paper
A Quantitative Study of Faculty Views on the Goals of an Undergraduate CS Program and Preparing Students for Industry
Research Papers
Sander ValstarUniversity of California, San Diego, Caroline SihUniversity of California, San Diego, Sophia Krause-LevyUniversity of California, San Diego, Leo PorterUniversity of California San Diego, William GriswoldUC San Diego
15:00 - 15:40
15:00
40m
Research paper
Construction of a Taxonomy for Tools, Languages, and Environments across Computing Education
Research Papers
Monica McGillKnox College, Adrienne DeckerUniversity at Buffalo
15:00 - 15:40
15:00
40m
Research paper
Collaborative Learning in Computing Education: Faculty Perspectives and Practices
Research Papers
Sharon MasonRochester Institute of Technology
15:00 - 15:40
15:00
40m
Research paper
Exploring Quantum Reversibility with Young Learners
Research Papers
Diana FranklinUChicago STEM Education, Jen PalmerUniversity of Chicago, Woorin JangUniversity of Chicago, Elizabeth LehmanUniversity of Chicago, Randall LandsbergUniversity of Chicago, Jasmine MarckwordtUniversity of California, Santa Barbara, Alexandria MullerUniversity of California, Santa Barbara, Danielle HarlowUniversity of California at Santa Barbara
15:40 - 16:00
Serendipity BreakSocials at Discord Breakrooms
15:40
20m
Break
Break and Networking
Socials

Wed 12 Aug
Times are displayed in time zone: Pacific Time (US & Canada) change

13:30 - 14:00
Day 3 Welcome + Doctoral Consortium Lightning TalksDoctoral Consortium at Zoom Webinar
Chair(s): Katrina FalknerThe University of Adelaide, Lauren MargulieuxGeorgia State University
13:30
30m
Day opening
Day 3 Welcome + Doctoral Consortium Lightning Talks
Doctoral Consortium
C: Katrina FalknerThe University of Adelaide, C: Lauren MargulieuxGeorgia State University, Chathura PriyankaraVictoria University of Wellington, Simon LiénardyUniversity of Liège, Chamindi SamarasekaraUniversity of Otago, Jean SalacUniversity of Chicago, Koby MikeTechnion, Melissa PerezUniversity of Michigan, Samiha MarwanNorth Carolina State University, Meghan AllenUniversity of British Columbia, Lavendini SivaneasharajahThe University of Adelaide, Gayithri JayathirthaUniversity of Pennsylvania, Carl HaynesUniversity of Michigan School of Information, Oluwatoyin AdelakunUniversity of Ibadan, Jack ParkinsonUniversity of Glasgow, Lovisa SundinUniversity of Glasgow, Mia ShawUniversity of Pennsylvania, Anjali SinghUniversity of Michigan School of Information, Kathryn CunninghamGeorgia Institute of Technology, Lisa Anne FloydWestern University
14:00 - 14:40
Self-EfficacyResearch Papers at Zoom Webinar
Chair(s): Colleen LewisUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
14:00
20m
Research paper
Revisiting Self-Efficacy in Introductory Programming
Research Papers
Phil SteinhorstWestfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster , Andrew PetersenUniversity of Toronto, Jan VahrenholdDepartment of Computer Science, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster
14:20
20m
Research paper
Why do CS1 students think they’re bad at programming? Investigating self-efficacy and self-assessments at three universities
Research Papers
Jamie GorsonNorthwestern University, Eleanor O'RourkeNorthwestern University
14:40 - 15:00
Serendipity BreakSocials at Discord Breakrooms
14:40
20m
Break
Break and Networking
Socials
15:00 - 15:40
15:00
40m
Research paper
A Longitudinal Evaluation of a Best Practices CS1
Research Papers
Adrian SalgueroUniversity of California, San Diego, Julian McAuleyUniversity of California, San Diego, Beth SimonUniversity of California San Diego, Leo PorterUniversity of California San Diego
15:00 - 15:40
15:00
40m
Research paper
Adaptive Immediate Feedback Can Improve Novice Programming Engagement and Intention to Persist in Computer Science
Research Papers
Samiha MarwanNorth Carolina State University, Ge GaoNorth Carolina State University, Susan FiskKent State University, Thomas PriceNorth Carolina State University, Tiffany BarnesNorth Carolina State University
15:00 - 15:40
15:00
40m
Research paper
Programming versus natural language: on the effect of context on typing in CS1
Research Papers
John EdwardsUtah State University , Juho LeinonenUniversity of Helsinki, Chetan BirthareUtah State University, Albina ZavgorodniaiaAalto University, Arto HellasAalto University
15:00 - 15:40
15:00
40m
Research paper
Syntax exercises in CS1
Research Papers
John EdwardsUtah State University , Joseph DittonUtah State University, Dragan TrninicETH Zurich, Hillary SwansonUtah State University, Shelsey SullivanUtah State University , Chad ManoUtah State University
15:00 - 15:40
15:00
40m
Research paper
Understanding conceptual transfer for students learning new programming languages
Research Papers
Ethel TshukuduUniversity of Glasgow, Quintin CuttsUniversity of Glasgow, UK
15:40 - 16:00
Serendipity BreakSocials at Discord Breakrooms
15:40
20m
Break
Break and Networking
Socials

Thu 13 Aug
Times are displayed in time zone: Pacific Time (US & Canada) change

14:00 - 14:40
Artifacts, Design, and ToolsResearch Papers at Zoom Webinar
Chair(s): Jan VahrenholdDepartment of Computer Science, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster
14:00
20m
Research paper
Analyzing Viscuit Programs Crafted by Kindergarten Children
Research Papers
Takeshi WatanabeUniversity of Erectro-Communications, Yuriko NakayamaKagawa Fujimigaoka Kindergarten, Yasunori HaradaLLC. Digital pocket, Yasushi KunoUniversity of Electro-Communications
14:20
20m
Research paper
Using Design Alternatives to Learn About Data Organizations
Research Papers
Xingjian GuBrown University, Max HellerBrown University , Stella LiBrown University, Yanyan RenBrown University, Kathi FislerBrown University, Shriram KrishnamurthiBrown University, United States
14:40 - 15:00
Serendipity BreakSocials at Discord Breakrooms
14:40
20m
Break
Break and Networking
Socials
15:00 - 15:40
15:00
40m
Research paper
Hedy: A Gradual Language for Programming Education
Research Papers
Felienne HermansLeiden University
15:00 - 15:40
15:00
40m
Research paper
How Secure are our Computer Systems Courses?
Research Papers
Majed AlmansooriUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison, Jessica LamUniversity of California, San Diego, Elias FangUniversity of California, San Diego, Kieran MulliganUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison, Adalbert Gerald Soosai RajUniversity of California, San Diego, Rahul ChatterjeeUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison
15:00 - 15:40
15:00
40m
Research paper
How do Graduating Students Evaluate Software Design Diagrams?
Research Papers
Prajish PrasadIIT Bombay, Sridhar IyerIIT Bombay
15:00 - 15:40
15:00
40m
Research paper
Opening the Black Box: Investigating Student Understanding of Data Displays Using Programmable Sensor Technology
Research Papers
Alexandra Gendreau ChakarovUniversity of Colorado Boulder, Quentin BiddyUniversity of Colorado Boulder, Jennifer JacobsUniversity of Colorado Boulder, Mimi ReckerUtah State University, Tamara SumnerUniversity of Colorado Boulder
15:40 - 16:00
Serendipity BreakSocials at Discord Breakrooms
15:40
20m
Break
Break and Networking
Socials
16:00 - 17:00
Closing Award SessionPlenary at Zoom Webinar
Chair(s): Amy KoUniversity of Washington, Anthony RobinsUniversity of Otago
16:00
60m
Awards
Award Session
Plenary
C: Anthony RobinsUniversity of Otago, C: Amy KoUniversity of Washington, C: Adon MoskalOtago Polytechnic, C: Renée McCauleyCollege of Charleston, S: Adrienne DeckerUniversity at Buffalo
17:00 - 18:00
17:00
60m
Social Event
Post-Conference Social
Socials