skip to main content

Search for: All records

Award ID contains: 1738259

Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher. Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?

Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.

  1. The CSforALL movement to bring computational thinking to K-12 has been a boon for practitioners and language developers. This panel features three educators passionate about a particular lan- guage that has been successful with K-12 audiences. Each will demonstrate their language, describe what makes it unique, and share some of the fun and engaging projects students have created.
  2. Approximately 10% of computer science and engineering majors have a disability. Students with disabilities face a variety of challenges including those related to stigma around disability, inaccessible tools and instruction, disability disclosure, and a lack of mentors. This BOF will bring together individuals who are interested in increasing the representation of students with disabilities in computing and improving their success. Participants will share strategies to help each other do a better job of including these students in our classes and research projects. Resources related to accessible tools and instruction, universal design of learning, opportunities for students, and more will be shared.
  3. A major goal of AP Computer Science Principles (CSP) is equity, that is, that all students should have the opportunity to learn computer science at a basic level. In this experience report, we explore how well the version of AP CSP meets the needs of Deaf students. We report on a professional development workshop for 14 teachers that teach at schools for the Deaf or in Deaf programs in mainstream schools. These schools and programs use the bilingual approach to teaching with instruction in American Sign Language (ASL) and other resources (e.g., textbooks, workbooks, videos, websites, computer apps, exams) in English. Synthesizing the experiences and advice of the teachers and workshop staff, we offer lessons learned for CS teachers in schools for the Deaf and Deaf programs in mainstream schools, mainstream CS teachers who may have one or a few Deaf students in their classes, and AP CSP content providers. Index Terms—Computer Science Principles, Deaf, English Language Learners, Bilingual, Professional Development
  4. The College Board's AP Computer Science Principles (CSP) content has become a major new course for introducing K-12 students to the discipline. The course was designed for many reasons, but one major goal was to broaden participation. While significant work has been completed toward equity by many research groups, we know of no systematic analysis of CSP content created by major vendors in relation to accessibility for students with disabilities, especially those who are blind or visually impaired. In this experience report, we discuss two major actions by our team to make CSP more accessible. First, with the help of accessibility experts and teachers, we modified the entire CSP course to make it accessible. Second, we conducted a one-week professional development workshop in the summer of 2018 for teachers of blind or visually impaired students in order to help them prepare to teach CSP or support those who do. We report here on lessons learned that are useful to teachers who have blind or visually impaired students in their classes, to AP CSP curriculum providers, and to the College Board.
  5. Scientific computing has become an area of growing importance. Across fields such as biology, education, physics, or others, people are increasingly using scientific computing to model and understand the world around them. Despite the clear need, almost no systematic analysis has been conducted on how students in fields outside of computer science learn to program in the context of scientific computing. Given that many fields do not explicitly teach much programming to their students, they may have to learn this important skill on their own. To help, using rigorous quantitative and qualitative methods, we looked at the process 154 students followed in the context of a randomized controlled trial on alternative styles of programming that can be used in R. Our results suggest that the barriers students face in scientific computing are non-trivial and this work has two core implications: 1) students learning scientific computing on their own struggle significantly in many different ways, even if they have had prior programming training, and 2) the design of the current generation of scientific computing feels like the wild-wild west and the designs can be improved in ways we will enumerate.
  6. Using more than one programming language in the same project is common practice. Often, additional languages might be introduced to projects to solve specific issues. While the practice is common, it is unclear whether it has an impact on developer productivity. In this paper, we present a pilot study investigating what happens when programmers switch between programming languages. The experiment is a repeated measures double-blind randomized controlled trial with 3 groups with various kinds of code switching in a database context. Results provide a rigorous testing methodology that can be replicated by us or others and a theoretical backing for why these effects might exist from the linguistics literature.
  7. The report documents the program and outcomes of Dagstuhl Seminar 18061 "Evidence About Programmers for Programming Language Design". The seminar brought together a diverse group of researchers from the fields of computer science education, programming languages, software engineering, human-computer interaction, and data science. At the seminar, participants discussed methods for designing and evaluating programming languages that take the needs of programmers directly into account. The seminar included foundational talks to introduce the breadth of perspectives that were represented among the participants; then, groups formed to develop research agendas for several subtopics, including novice programmers, cognitive load, language features, and love of programming languages. The seminar concluded with a discussion of the current SIGPLAN artifact evaluation mechanism and the need for evidence standards in empirical studies of programming languages.