search in ITiCSE2010


Participating in a Working Group

To apply to participate in a working group, please contact the leader(s) of the working group you would like to join, together with the working group coordinators. The deadline for application is March 26, 2010.

Please include the following information in your email:

1.Your name and contact information.

2.Any special requirements you have, for example accessibility, mobility, dietary etc, which we need to know about before and/or during the conference.

3.Why you are interested in participating in this particular working group.

4. What expertise in the area you bring to the working group. This should include background and prior contributions to the topic of the group.

5. If possible, include a short bibliography of your prior work in the area.

The working group leaders will select the group members based the perceived level of potential contribution they can make to the success of the working group.

Working Group Coordinators:

Alison Young (
Lori Russell Dag (

Accepted Working Groups:

WG1: Tools for Contributing Student Learning

In a 2008 ITiCSE working group report, a Contributing Student Pedagogy (CSP) is characterized as: a pedagogy that encourages students to contribute to the learning of, and to value the contributions of other students. As an approach to teaching and learning, such pedagogies are intended to foster both deep learning of subject material and collaborative work skills. The working group noted that “[w]hile it is possible to run some contributing student activities with minimal technological support, there are limits to what can be practically achieved, especially with large classes,” and “technology removes many of the pragmatic barriers to CSP, and opens new opportunities”. We propose to extend on this previous work by: identifying appropriate existing technologies to support CSP activities; noting gaps where new tools would be useful; and suggesting guidelines for tools integration. We will do this by surveying existing tools and reviewing the research literature.

Working Group Leaders:
John Hamer (
Helen Purchase (


WG2: Adapting Moodle to Better Support CS Education

Many universities use a learning management system (LMS) or learning content management system (LCMS) to support the courses offered. One of the most popular LMSs today is Moodle ( However, as a general LMS, Moodle does not specifically support the requirements of CS Education. This Working Group proposal aims to address this need by researching how Moodle can be adapted to better support CS education.

In general, we look for participants who possess at least one of the following backgrounds:

•  Experience in using Moodle as a (CS) educator;

•  Experience in developing Moodle extensions, ideally for CS education support

•  A good research background in CS Education and /or systems for supporting learning (LMSs, algorithm or program visualization, simulation, ...)

Working group leader:
Guido Roessling (


WG3: Motivating our Top Students

The working group proposal outlined here is a research study which addresses the course related area of classroom management. The aim of this working group is to explore the ways in which academics around the world enthuse their high achieving students and to create a repository of effective ideas. We propose to investigate current differentiation practices in Computer Science education. This includes determining the scope and usage of differentiated teaching techniques in educational institutions worldwide; the educational soundness of the techniques used, and the impact of these techniques on areas including student achievement, plagiarism, and staff workloads.

Working group leaders:
Janet Carter (
Su White (


WG4: Towards Information Assurance Curricular Guidelines

We propose a working group to continue the work of the 2009 working group on information assurance (IA) education. The focus of the 2010 working group is to examine the curricula of existing academic programs, as well as at the key academic governmental and industry IA education standards and guidelines identified by the 2009 IA working group in order to define the IA education space as a first step towards developing curricular guidelines.

Prior knowledge expected of participants: Participants should have an interest in, and experience with IA education.

Working group leader:
Stephen Cooper (

Christine Nickell (
Lance C. Pérez (
Brenda Oldfield (


WG5: What can we learn from Program Comprehension models for the teaching of Introductory Programming

The WG reviews popular models of program comprehension (PC), and relates them to the teaching and learning of programming. By comparing and contrasting how different models conceptualize PC, we hope to gain new insights on learning issues like content, sequence, learning obstacles, effective learning tasks and teaching methods, as well as on assessment of learning. The different results will be made comparable and accessible by using an educational model of PC as a kind of meta-model.

Potential participants should have some basic background in the area of program comprehension.

Working group leaders:
Carsten Schulte (
Jürgen Börstler (


WG6: Towards Standards In The Digital Forensics Curriculum

Digital Forensics has emerged as a separate, specialized field within Computer Science as evidenced by emerging but different curricula at the Baccalaureate and Master's level within the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom [1]. We propose a working group to discuss and establish educational and curricular standards for Digital Forensics degree programs in an attempt to provide support and guidance to emerging programs and promote consistency for the next generation of researchers and academics in this field.

Participants in the working group should have both experience and interest in digital forensics education. The working group may be of interest to a number of people currently engaged in digital forensics.

Working group leader:
Peter A. Cooper (


WG7: Strategies for Preparing Computer Science Students for the Multicore World

The recent shift to multicore computer architecture creates demand for all computer science students to learn about parallel computing, since software must now employ parallelism in order to take advantage of hardware performance improvements. This working group will explore strategies for introducing parallelism into CS courses and curricula, focusing on three aspects: what to teach about parallelism; how to get that material taught; and how to share materials and strategies respectively. The results of this study will hopefully spark research and further discussion within the international CS education community.

The ideal collection of participants for this working group will include persons with a variety of perspectives. Most would be CS educators interested in teaching topics in parallelism. Our discussions and conclusions will be enhanced by group members from different of types of institutions and different countries. It would be important to have someone with relevant experience in industry, and/or one or two educators with expertise in computer architecture and connections to industry, who could not only take a lead on technical issues but could also portray industrial viewpoints and trends. One or more group members with administrative experience would have valuable contributions to make, particularly with issues such as advocacy. Experience with web tools and social networking would greatly inform our discussions about strategies for sharing materials. These examples illustrate the diverse group members we seek.

Working group leaders:
Richard Brown (
Elizabeth Shoop (


WG8: The impact of IT on society; How we can address some of the issues in our courses.

The proposed working group would focus on the questions:

•  How do we persuade colleagues and committees that we should address societal impacts in "regular computing courses"?

•  At what level(s) do we include such content (bachelor's, master's, doctorate)?

•  Should the content be spread across many courses or concentrated in one or two?

•  Should the courses be compulsory or elective?

•  How do we decide what issues to address?

•  How to we facilitate learning in the course(s)?

•  How do we attract/involve/retain "techie" students?

The working group would conduct a survey to identify some of the different approaches being taken in various institutions, then carry out some in-depth case studies before meeting at ITiCSE.

Working group leaders:
Michael Goldweber (
Joyce Currie Little (


Last modified: June 27, 2010