Mapping the landscape: Peer review in computing education research

Peer review is a mainstay of academic publication – indeed, it is the peer-review process that provides much of the publications’ credibility. As the number of computing education conferences and the number of submissions increase, the need for reviewers grows. This report does not attempt to set standards for reviewing; rather, as a first step toward meeting the need for well qualified reviewers, it presents an overview of the ways peer review is used in various venues, both inside computing education and, for com- parison, in closely-related areas outside our field. It considers four key components of peer review in some depth: criteria, the review process, roles and responsibilities, and ethics and etiquette. To do so, it draws on relevant literature, guidance and forms associated with peer review, interviews with journal editors and conference chairs, and a limited survey of the computing education research community. In addition to providing an overview of practice, this report identifies a number of themes running through the discourse that have relevance for decision making about how best to conduct peer review for a given venue

The role of language paradigms in teaching programming

The purpose of this panel is to confront the wide variety of opinions on the role of language paradigms in teaching programming. We have selected four divergent opinions: . Armstrong says that concurrent programming is considered difficult because it is taught in the wrong paradigm, namely imperative or object-oriented programming. Instead, concurrency should be taught using a paradigm that makes it simple. . Flatt says that everyone should be taught how to program, not just computer science majors. Further, programming should be taught as an extension of what students already know, which is algebra. More important than a particular paradigm, however, is teaching students a design process. . Magnusson says that object-oriented programming must be the first and principal paradigm, because it is best for teaching how to analyze problems and structure solutions. Other paradigms can be taught after students have a solid understanding of OO. . Van Roy says that programming should be taught in terms of concepts, not paradigms. Common paradigms (functional, OO, etc.) then appear naturally, depending on the concepts used. The panel will confront these opinions to enrich our understanding of how to teach programming.Anglai