Collaboration Versus Cheating

We outline how we detected programming plagiarism in an introductory online course for a master's of science in computer science program, how we achieved a statistically significant reduction in programming plagiarism by combining a clear explanation of university and class policy on academic honesty reinforced with a short but formal assessment, and how we evaluated plagiarism rates before SIGand after implementing our policy and assessment.Comment: 7 pages, 1 figure, 5 tables, SIGCSE 201

What Are Cybersecurity Education Papers About? A Systematic Literature Review of SIGCSE and ITiCSE Conferences

Cybersecurity is now more important than ever, and so is education in this field. However, the cybersecurity domain encompasses an extensive set of concepts, which can be taught in different ways and contexts. To understand the state of the art of cybersecurity education and related research, we examine papers from the ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium and ACM ITiCSE conferences. From 2010 to 2019, a total of 1,748 papers were published at these conferences, and 71 of them focus on cybersecurity education. The papers discuss courses, tools, exercises, and teaching approaches. For each paper, we map the covered topics, teaching context, evaluation methods, impact, and the community of authors. We discovered that the technical topic areas are evenly covered (the most prominent being secure programming, network security, and offensive security), and human aspects, such as privacy and social engineering, are present as well. The interventions described in SIGCSE and ITiCSE papers predominantly focus on tertiary education in the USA. The subsequent evaluation mostly consists of collecting students' subjective perceptions via questionnaires. However, less than a third of the papers provide supplementary materials for other educators, and none of the authors published their dataset. Our results are relevant for instructors, researchers, and anyone new in the field of cybersecurity education, since they provide orientation in the area, a synthesis of trends, and implications for further research. The information we collected and synthesized from individual papers are organized in a publicly available dataset

What Do We Think We Think We Are Doing?: Metacognition and Self-Regulation in Programming

Metacognition and self-regulation are popular areas of interest in programming education, and they have been extensively researched outside of computing. While computing education researchers should draw upon this prior work, programming education is unique enough that we should explore the extent to which prior work applies to our context. The goal of this systematic review is to support research on metacognition and self-regulation in programming education by synthesizing relevant theories, measurements, and prior work on these topics. By reviewing papers that mention metacognition or self-regulation in the context of programming, we aim to provide a benchmark of our current progress towards understanding these topics and recommendations for future research. In our results, we discuss eight common theories that are widely used outside of computing education research, half of which are commonly used in computing education research. We also highlight 11 theories on related constructs (e.g., self-efficacy) that have been used successfully to understand programming education. Towards measuring metacognition and self-regulation in learners, we discuss seven instruments and protocols that have been used and highlight their strengths and weaknesses. To benchmark the current state of research, we examined papers that primarily studied metacognition and self-regulation in programming education and synthesize the reported interventions used and results from that research. While the primary intended contribution of this paper is to support research, readers will also learn about developing and supporting metacognition and self-regulation of students in programming courses

Toward Predicting Success and Failure in CS2: A Mixed-Method Analysis

Factors driving success and failure in CS1 are the subject of much study but less so for CS2. This paper investigates the transition from CS1 to CS2 in search of leading indicators of success in CS2. Both CS1 and CS2 at the University of North Carolina Wilmington (UNCW) are taught in Python with annual enrollments of 300 and 150 respectively. In this paper, we report on the following research questions: 1) Are CS1 grades indicators of CS2 grades? 2) Does a quantitative relationship exist between CS2 course grade and a modified version of the SCS1 concept inventory? 3) What are the most challenging aspects of CS2, and how well does CS1 prepare students for CS2 from the student's perspective? We provide a quantitative analysis of 2300 CS1 and CS2 course grades from 2013--2019. In Spring 2019, we administered a modified version of the SCS1 concept inventory to 44 students in the first week of CS2. Further, 69 students completed an exit questionnaire at the conclusion of CS2 to gain qualitative student feedback on their challenges in CS2 and on how well CS1 prepared them for CS2. We find that 56% of students' grades were lower in CS2 than CS1, 18% improved their grades, and 26% earned the same grade. Of the changes, 62% were within one grade point. We find a statistically significant correlation between the modified SCS1 score and CS2 grade points. Students identify linked lists and class/object concepts among the most challenging. Student feedback on CS2 challenges and the adequacy of their CS1 preparations identify possible avenues for improving the CS1-CS2 transition.Comment: The definitive Version of Record was published in 2020 ACM Southeast Conference (ACMSE 2020), April 2-4, 2020, Tampa, FL, USA. 8 page