Posts tagged ‘SIGCSE’

The first Critical Research Review at ICER 2014

My report on ICER 2014 is at Blog@CACM here. I also participated in the post-ICER Critical Research Review or Work-in-Progress Workshop (both titles have appeared at different times). Colleen Lewis organized it, based on the “functions” peer review that Education graduate students do at Berkeley. It was great, far better than I might have guessed.

I wanted to participate, in order to support and be part of this new kind of activity at ICER. I was expecting maybe a dozen people in a room, where one at a time a person would present for 15-20 minutes and then get feedback for a few minutes. Y’know — a “workshop.” Boy, was I wrong.

Instead, Colleen broke us up into two groups of five. (The small size was critical.) All of us presented some brief paper (couple pages preferred) that everyone read beforehand. Colleen gave each of us a writeup on the desired culture and tone for the event. “Don’t be mean” and “Don’t be defensive” and “Be nice” were some of the common themes in those directions. At the CRR, each of the five went off to a different room/space.

Over the course of five hours (two the first day, three the next), each participant had her or his turn to share their work. Sometimes we saw data (a video, or a bit of interview transcript), that the group was meant to help interpret. Sometimes we saw a student problem or a design problem, and we brainstormed theoretical perspectives that could help to gain leverage on understand the student’s issues or to improve the design.

It wasn’t a presentation, and it wasn’t an audience. It was (to use Colleen’s phrase) “borrowing four smart people’s brains to work on your problem for an hour.” I got a lot out of the feedback on my problem (related to the Constructionism for Adults post from awhile back). It was enormous fun digging into the others’ problems. Ben Shapiro of Tufts, Craig Miller from Depaul, Sara Esper of UCSD, and Kate Sanders from Rhode Island College were my teammates — it really felt more like a team, working together toward joint success than a presentation.

At the end, we evaluated the activity to figure out what worked and what didn’t. It really worked to have an easel for a note-taker (not the presenter/leader) to use to track all the discussion. The notes helped the group figure out where they were at, and were a wonderful artifact for the presenter afterward.

Overall, it was a huge success. I expect that we’ll see many future ICER (and other CER venue) papers coming out of the work we shared in Glasgow. I encourage others to participate in the CRR in future years.

August 27, 2014 at 8:25 am 2 comments

Call for Participation in ACM SIGCSE’s ICER 2014 Doctoral Consortium

Sally Fincher and I are organizing this year’s Doctoral Consortium for students working in computing education.  Do come join us in Glasgow!

ICER DC Call for Proposals

The ICER 2014 Doctoral Consortium provides an opportunity for doctoral students to explore and develop their research interests in a workshop environment with a panel of established researchers. We invite students to apply for this opportunity to share their work with students in a similar situation as well as senior researchers in the field. We welcome submissions from students at any stage of their doctoral studies.

Sally Fincher, University of Kent at Canterbury

Mark Guzdial, Georgia Institute of Technology

Contact us at: icerdc2014@gmail.com

 

What is the Doctoral Consortium? 

The DC has the following objectives:

  • Provide a supportive setting for feedback on students’ research and research direction
  • Offer each student comments and fresh perspectives on their work   from researchers and students outside their own institution
  • Promote the development of a supportive community of scholars
  • Support a new generation of researchers with information and advice on research and academic career paths
  • Contribute to the conference goals through interaction with other researchers and conference events

The DC will be held on Sunday, August 10 2014. Students at any stage of their doctoral studies are welcome to apply and attend. The number of participants is limited to 12. Applicants who are selected will receive a limited partial reimbursement of travel, accommodation and subsistence (i.e., food) expenses of $600 (USD).

Preparing and Submitting your Consortium Proposal Extended Abstract

Candidates should prepare a 2-page research description covering central aspects of your PhD work, which follows the structure, details and format specified in the ICER Doctoral Consortium submission template Word<http://icer.hosting.acm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ICER2013-dc-template.doc> / LaTeX<http://icer.hosting.acm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ICER2013_dc_template.zip>.

Key points include:

  • Your situation, i.e., the university doctoral program context in which your work is being conducted.
  • Context and motivation that drives your dissertation research
  • Miniature Background/literature review of key works that frames your research
  • Hypothesis/thesis and/or problem statement
  • Research objectives/goals
  • Your research approach and methods, including relevant rationale
  • Results to date and your argument for their validity
  • Current and expected contributions

Appendix 1. A letter of nomination from your primary dissertation advisor, that supports your participation in the DC, explains how your work connects with the ICER community, and describes the expected timeline for your completion of your doctorate.

Appendix 2. Your concise current Curriculum Vita (1–2 pages)

Once you have assembled – and tested – the PDF file, the entire submission file should be emailed to icerdc2014@gmail.com no later than 17:00 PDT on 21 May 2014. When submitting the applications, please put “ICER DC 2014 – <Last Name>” in the Subject line.

Process Timeline:

Friday 21st May – initial submission

Monday 2nd June – notification of acceptance

Monday 16th June – camera ready copy due

 

Doctoral Consortium Review Process

The review and decision of acceptance will balance many factors. This includes the quality of your proposal, and where you are within your doctoral education program. It also includes external factors, so that the group of accepted candidates exhibit a diversity of backgrounds and topics. Your institution will also be taken into account, where we are unlikely to accept more than two students from the same institution.  Confidentiality of submissions is maintained during the review process. All rejected submissions will be kept confidential in perpetuity. Upon Acceptance of your Doctoral Consortium Proposal Authors will be notified of acceptance or rejection on 2 June 2014, or shortly after.

Authors of accepted submissions will receive instructions on how to submit publication-ready copy (this will consist of your extended abstract only), and will receive information about attending the Doctoral Consortium, about preparing your presentation and poster, about how to register for the conference, travel arrangements and reimbursement details. Registration benefits are contingent on attending the Doctoral Consortium.

Please note that submissions will not be published without a signed form releasing publishing copyright to the ACM. Attaining permissions to use video, audio, or pictures of identifiable people or proprietary content rests with the author, not the ACM or the ICER conference.

Before the Conference

Since the goals of the Doctoral Consortium include building scholarship and community, participants will be expected to read all of the Extended Abstracts of your colleagues prior to the beginning of the consortium with a goal of preparing careful and thoughtful critique. Although many fine pieces of work may have to be rejected due to lack of space, being accepted into the Consortium involves a commitment to giving and receiving thoughtful commentary.

At the Conference

All participants are expected to attend all portions of the Doctoral Consortium. We will also be arranging an informal Welcome Dinner for participants and discussants on Saturday August 9, 2014 before the consortium begins. Please make your travel plans to join us this evening to get acquainted.

Within the DC, each student will present his or her work to the group with substantial time allowed for discussion and questions by participating researchers and other students. Students will also present a poster of their work at the main conference. In addition to the conference poster, each student should bring a “one-pager” describing their research (perhaps a small version of the poster using letter or A4 paper) for sharing with faculty mentors and other students.

After the Conference

Accepted Doctoral Consortium abstracts will be distributed in the ACM Digital Library, where they will remain accessible to thousands of researchers and practitioners worldwide.

———–

AUTHORS TAKE NOTE: The official publication date is the date the proceedings are made available in the ACM Digital Library. This date will be one week prior to the first day of the conference. The official publication date affects the deadline for any patent filings related to published work.

————

 

April 23, 2014 at 8:24 am 1 comment

Susan Rodger (SIGCSE Chair) wins ACM Karl V. Karlstrom Outstanding Educator Award

Congratulations, Susan!

Susan H. Rodger, recipient of the Karl V. Karlstrom Outstanding Educator Award for contributions to the teaching of computer science theory in higher education, and the development of computer science education in primary and secondary schools. She and her students developed JFLAP (Java Formal Languages and Automata Package), an interactive software tool that allows students to construct and test examples of automata and grammars. These concepts are foundational to the design of software components, such as compiler parts. Intended primarily for undergraduate students or as an advanced topic for high school, JFLAP is used worldwide in computer science theory, compiler, and discrete mathematics courses. Through workshops for faculty development, Rodger’s work contributed to the creation of a professional community around the use of visualizations to teach algorithms. She also leads efforts to introduce the programming language Alice in primary and secondary schools. Rodger is a professor of the practice of computer science at Duke University. Currently chair of the ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE), she is a board member of CRA-W and a member of the ACM Education Policy Committee. The Karlstrom Award recognizes educators who advanced new teaching methodologies; effected new curriculum development in Computer Science and Engineering; or contributed to ACM’s educational mission.

via ACM Honors Computing Innovators Who Are Changing the World — Association for Computing Machinery.

April 21, 2014 at 9:34 am Leave a comment

Interview with Friday SIGCSE 2014 Keynoter: Hadi Partovi

Hadi Partovi will be delivering the keynote today at SIGCSE 2014.  The interview they just had with him last month on ACM’s website has some nice bits:

As a tech industry veteran and visionary, what would you say to young people who may not realize that two-thirds of the jobs in software engineering are outside the technology sector?

I would say that the reason to study software isn’t because you want to get a job in technology. School teaches you how to dissect a frog, or how electricity works, even if you want to become a journalist or a lawyer. In the 21st century, it’s equally important, or more important even, to know how to “dissect an app” or learn how the Internet works, even if you want to become a doctor, a chemist, or the President of the United States. Maybe you’ll fall in love with it and decide to get a job in software, and if you do, you’ll be in one of the most creative, highest-paying careers in the world. Most students who study computer science in high school will go on to careers outside of computing — but they will still benefit from it. This is a fundamental, foundational science for the 21st century.

via February 6, 2014: People of ACM: Hadi Partovi — Association for Computing Machinery.

March 7, 2014 at 1:33 am 1 comment

SIGCSE Preview: Project Rise Up 4 CS: Increasing the Number of Black Students who Pass AP CS A — by paying them

I’m guessing that Barbara’s paper on Friday 1:45-3 (in Hanover FG – whole program here) is going to be controversial.  She’s working on a problem we’ve had in GaComputes for years.  Besides Betsy DiSalvo’s work on Glitch, we’ve made little progress in increasing numbers of Black students taking AP CS A and even less progress in getting more of them to pass the test.

She’s had significant progress this last year using an approach that NMSI used successfully in Texas and elsewhere.  She’s offering $100 to Black students who attend extra sessions to help them pass the exam and who do pass the exam.  She’s expanding the program now with a Google RISE grant.  Her approach is informed by Betsy’s work – it’s about going beyond interests to values and giving students help in navigating past their motivations to not-learn.  She does have aspects of the project in place to counteract the disincentives of cash payments for academic achievement. In the final interviews, students didn’t talk about the money.  It may be that the money wasn’t an incentive as much as a face-saving strategy.  (Barb’s preview talk was also recorded as part of a GVU Brown Bag.)

Project Rise Up 4 CS: Increasing the Number of Black Students who Pass Advanced Placement CS A

This paper describes Project Rise Up 4 CS, an attempt to increase the number of Black students in Georgia that pass the Advanced Placement (AP) Computer Science (CS) A exam. In 2012 Black students had the lowest pass rates on the AP CS A exam both in Georgia and nationally. Project Rise Up 4 CS provided Black students with role models, hands-on learning, competitions, a financial incentive, and webinars on AP CS A content. The first cohort started in January of 2013 and finished in May 2013. Of the 27 students who enrolled in the first cohort, 14 met all of the completion requirements, and 9 (69%) of the 13 who took the exam passed. For comparison, in 2012 only 22 (16%) of 137 Black students passed the exam in Georgia. In 2013, 28 (22%) of 129 Black students passed the exam in Georgia. This was the highest number of Black students to pass the AP CS A exam ever in Georgia and a 27% increase from 2012. In addition, students who met the completion requirements for Project Rise Up 4 CS exhibited statistically significant changes in attitudes towards computing and also demonstrated significant learning gains. This paper discusses the motivation for the project, provides project details, presents the evaluation results, and future plans.

March 5, 2014 at 1:28 am 3 comments

SIGCSE Preview: Measuring Demographics and Performance in Computer Science Education at a Nationwide Scale Using AP CS Data

Barbara and I are speaking Thursday 3:45-5 (with Neil Brown on his Blackbox work) in Hanover DE on our AP CS analysis paper (also previewed at a GVU Brown Bag). The full paper is available here: http://bit.ly/SIGCSE14-APCS  This is a different story than the AP CS 2013 analysis that Barbara has been getting such press for.  This is a bit deeper analysis on the 2006-2012 results.

Here are a couple of the figures that I think are interesting.  What’s fitting into these histograms are states, and it’s the same number of bins in each histogram, so that one can compare across.

Fitting this story into the six page SIGCSE format was really tough.  I wanted to make the figures bigger, and I wanted to tell more stories about the regressions we explored.  I focused on the path from state wealth to exam-takers because I hadn’t seen that story in CS Ed previously (though everyone would predict that it was there), but there’s a lot more to tell about these data.

Figure 1: Histograms describing (a) the number of schools passing the audit over the population (measured in 10K), (b) number of exam-takers over the population, and (c) percentage of exam-takers who passed. 

number-of-schools-passing-audit

Figure 2: Histograms describing (d) the percent of female exam-takers, (e) the number of Black exam-takers, and (f) the number of Hispanic exam-takers. 

females-and-minorities

Measuring Demographics and Performance in Computer Science Education at a Nationwide Scale Using AP CS Data

Abstract: Before we can reform or improve computing education, we need to know the current state. Data on computing education are difficult to come by, since it’s not tracked in US public education systems. Most of our data are survey-based or interview-based, or are limited to a region. By using a large and nationwide quantitative data source, we can gain new insights into who is participating in computing education, where the greatest need is, and what factors explain variance between states. We used data from the Advanced Placement Computer Science A (AP CS A) exam to get a detailed view of demographics of who is taking the exam across the United States and in each state, and how they are performing on the exam. We use economic and census data to develop a more detailed view of one slice (at the end of secondary school and before university) of computer science education nationwide. We find that minority group involvement is low in AP CS A, but the variance between states in terms of exam-takers is driven by minority group involvement. We find that wealth in a state has a significant impact on exam-taking.

 

March 4, 2014 at 1:23 am 3 comments

SIGCSE Preview: A BOF on State-Level Computing Education Policy Change

Please do consider coming to the Birds of a Feather session (#20) this Thursday (see SIGCSE 2014 Program) from 6:10-7:00 where Rick Adrion (my ECEP friend and co-PI) will be hosting a discussion on state-level change to education policy in support of computing education.  Here’s what we have in mind:

Agenda:

6:10-6:40 Choose Group that is most important to your state (or you). Complete short questionnaire and hand to Group Leader.

Groups:

- Making CS Count

- Getting Computing into K12: curricula, standards, promoting

- K12 Teacher Certification/Licensure

- Teacher Professional Development

- Creating/Expanding State-Based Alliances for CS Ed Reform

Groups will identify 3-4 Action Items and/or Best Practices (30 minutes)

6:40-6:55 Report Out (5 minutes each)

State-Level Advocacy for Computing Education Reform

While it is exciting to see an increasing number of national efforts to reform computing education, such as those led by CSTA, Computing in the Core, ACM, NCWIT, code.org and many others, real change at the state, district and school level requires the active participation of individuals and local organizations to engage policy makers, superintendents and communities. The U.S. education system is highly distributed, with critical decisions pushed more to the community level and less at the national (or even state) level – with large differences between neighboring states. The system is organized along pathways of elementary schools, middle and high schools, community colleges, four-year colleges, and universities. A reform process for improving computing education pathways will take place at multiple levels and state by state. This birds-of-a-feather session will bring together emerging leaders at the state level with representatives from national initiatives to share best practices for implementing change.

March 3, 2014 at 1:12 am Leave a comment

Older Posts


Recent Posts

September 2014
M T W T F S S
« Aug    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  

Feeds

Blog Stats

  • 950,031 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 3,058 other followers

CS Teaching Tips


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,058 other followers