Blogs (1) >>

Panel sessions provide an opportunity for expert panelists to present their views on a specific topic, and then to discuss these views among themselves and with the audience. Usually, a panel session starts with a brief introduction of the panel topic and the participants, followed by short presentations by the panelists giving their views. Panel sessions are scheduled for 75 minutes total, but keep in mind that successful panels must allow sufficient opportunity (about 30 minutes) for an interactive question-and-answer (Q&A) period involving both the panelists and the audience.

When assembling a panel, we encourage authors to carefully consider ACM’s guidance for Building Diverse Teams. A typical panel will consist of four participants, including the moderator. Limiting a panel to four participants allows sufficient time for audience questions. Proposals with more than four panelists must convincingly show that all panelists will be able to speak, and the audience able to respond, within the session time.

Authors submitting work to SIGCSE TS 2024 are responsible for complying with all applicable conference authorship policies and those articulated by ACM. If you have questions about any of these policies, please contact program@sigcse2024.sigcse.org for clarification prior to submission.

Since 2023: A single author may appear on no more than four total panel and special session submissions combined. Should more than four submissions be received with a given author, only the first four will be reviewed and all others will be desk rejected. This interim policy is intended to promote greater diversity in authorship on these tracks.

New for 2024: ACM has made a commitment to collect ORCiD IDs from all published authors (https://authors.acm.org/author-resources/orcid-faqs). All authors on each submission must have an ORCiD ID (https://orcid.org/register) in order to complete the submission process. Please make sure to get your ORCID ID in advance of submitting your work.

Presentation Modality

Authors of accepted submissions in this track will present their work in-person at the conference. A limited number of Panels will be selected by the chairs for live streaming.

Dates

This program is tentative and subject to change.

You're viewing the program in a time zone which is different from your device's time zone change time zone

Thu 21 Mar

Displayed time zone: Pacific Time (US & Canada) change

10:45 - 12:00
Re-making CS Departments for Generation CSPanels at Oregon Ballroom 203
10:45
75m
Talk
Re-making CS Departments for Generation CSHybrid
Panels
Kathleen Lehman University of California, Los Angeles, Carla Brodley Northeastern University, Center for Inclusive Computing, Mark Guzdial University of Michigan, Paul Tymann Rochester Institute of Technology, Aman Yadav Michigan State University
13:45 - 15:00
Increasing the Participation of Black Women in Computer Science Education ResearchPanels at Oregon Ballroom 203
13:45
75m
Talk
An Ethical Imperative: Increasing the Participation of Black Women in Computer Science Education ResearchHybridMSI
Panels
Tamara Pearson Georgia Institute of Technology, Stefanie Marshall Michigan State University, Yolanda Rankin Emory University, Mia Shaw New York University
13:45 - 15:00
Managing Authority When Teaching Computing EthicsPanels at Portland Ballroom 251
13:45
75m
Talk
Managing Authority When Teaching Computing Ethics
Panels
Emanuelle Burton College of Engineering, University of Illinois at Chicago, Kristel Clayville University of Illinois Chicago, Stacy Doore Colby College, Michael Kirkpatrick James Madison University, Michael Goldweber Denison University
15:45 - 17:00
Interviewing the Teaching Faculty Hiring ProcessPanels at Oregon Ballroom 203
15:45
75m
Talk
Interviewing the Teaching Faculty Hiring ProcessHybrid
Panels
Geoffrey Challen University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Victoria Dean Olin College of Engineering, Nate Derbinsky Northeastern University, Matt Wang University of Washington, Jacqueline Smith University of Toronto

Fri 22 Mar

Displayed time zone: Pacific Time (US & Canada) change

10:45 - 12:00
Advancing LGBTQIA+ VoicesPanels at Oregon Ballroom 203
10:45
75m
Talk
Broadening Participation in Computing Education: Advancing LGBTQIA+ VoicesHybrid
Panels
Wendy Dubow NCWIT, Stephanie T. Jones Northwestern University, Amanda Menier SageFox Consulting Group, Stacey Sexton Sagefox Consulting Group, Sri Yash Tadimalla UNC Charlotte
10:45 - 12:00
Technology We Can’t Live WithoutPanels at Portland Ballroom 251
10:45
75m
Talk
Technology We Can’t Live Without!
Panels
Dan Garcia UC Berkeley, Della Dastur Stratford San Jose Middle School, Kimberly Hermans Troy High School, Nery Chapeton-Lamas MiraCosta College, Ariel Ortiz Tecnologico de Monterrey
13:45 - 15:00
Liberal Arts Computing CuriculaPanels at Oregon Ballroom 203
13:45
75m
Talk
A Panel for Distinctive Computing Curricula: Programs Aligned with Liberal Arts Institutional and Departmental IdentityHybrid
Panels
Andrea Tartaro Furman University, Amanda Holland-Minkley Washington & Jefferson College, Mario Nakazawa Berea College, David Reed Creighton University
13:45 - 15:00
Equitable Professional Learning for K12 Computer Science TeachersPanels at Portland Ballroom 251
13:45
75m
Talk
Equitable Professional Learning for K12 Computer Science Teachers
Panels
Shana V. White Kapor Center, Allison Scott Kapor Center for Social Impact, Aman Yadav Michigan State University, Diane Levitt Cornell Tech
15:45 - 17:00
Demystifying CS for Elementary TeachersPanels at Portland Ballroom 251
15:45
75m
Talk
Using Computational Thinking to Demystify Computer Science for Elementary Teachers
Panels
Diane Levitt Cornell Tech, Dylana Garfus-Knowles Ashland School District, Wyman Khuu KIPP NYC, Sara Siddappa NYC Dept. of Education, PS 89 Cypress Hills Community School

Sat 23 Mar

Displayed time zone: Pacific Time (US & Canada) change

10:45 - 12:00
Enduring Lessons from ‘Computer Science for All’ for AI Education in SchoolsPanels at Oregon Ballroom 203
10:45
75m
Talk
Enduring Lessons from ‘Computer Science for All’ for AI Education in SchoolsHybrid
Panels
Shuchi Grover Looking Glass Ventures / Stanford University, Deborah Fields Utah State University, Yasmin Kafai University of Pennsylvania, Shana V. White Kapor Center, Carla Strickland University of Florida
10:45 - 12:00
AI in Computing Education from Research to PracticePanels at Portland Ballroom 251
10:45
75m
Talk
AI in Computing Education from Research to Practice
Panels
Bita Akram North Carolina State University, Juho Leinonen Aalto University, Narges Norouzi University of California, Berkeley, James Prather Abilene Christian University, Lisa Zhang University of Toronto Mississauga
13:45 - 15:00
Data Science and Computer Science in K-12Panels at Portland Ballroom 251
13:45
75m
Talk
Computing in Data Science or Data in Computer Science? Exploring the Relationship between Data Science and Computer Science in K-12 EducationK12
Panels
David Weintrop University of Maryland, Zarek Drozda University of Chicago, Kathi Fisler Brown University, Justice Walker University of Texas at El Paso

Accepted Panels

Title
AI in Computing Education from Research to Practice
Panels
An Ethical Imperative: Increasing the Participation of Black Women in Computer Science Education ResearchHybridMSI
Panels
A Panel for Distinctive Computing Curricula: Programs Aligned with Liberal Arts Institutional and Departmental IdentityHybrid
Panels
Broadening Participation in Computing Education: Advancing LGBTQIA+ VoicesHybrid
Panels
Computing in Data Science or Data in Computer Science? Exploring the Relationship between Data Science and Computer Science in K-12 EducationK12
Panels
Enduring Lessons from ‘Computer Science for All’ for AI Education in SchoolsHybrid
Panels
Equitable Professional Learning for K12 Computer Science Teachers
Panels
Interviewing the Teaching Faculty Hiring ProcessHybrid
Panels
Managing Authority When Teaching Computing Ethics
Panels
Re-making CS Departments for Generation CSHybrid
Panels
Technology We Can’t Live Without!
Panels
Using Computational Thinking to Demystify Computer Science for Elementary Teachers
Panels

Deadlines and Submission

Panel submissions consist of a 2-page extended abstract about the work including a 250-word short abstract, additional content about the work, and references. Panel submissions to the SIGCSE TS 2024 must be made through EasyChair no later than Friday, 18 August 2024. The track chairs reserve the right to desk reject submissions that are incomplete after the deadline has passed.

Important Dates

Due Date Friday, 18 August 2023
Due Time 23:59 AoE (Anywhere on Earth, UTC-12h)
Submission Limits 2 pages (including a 250-word abstract)
Notification to Authors    Monday, 2 October 2023 tentative
Submission Link https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sigcsets2024
Session Duration 75 minutes

Authors may find it useful to read the Instruction for Reviewers and the Review Form to understand how their submissions will be reviewed. Also note that when submitting, you will need to provide between 3-7 related topics from the Topics list under Info.

Abstracts

All panel submissions must have a plain-text abstract of up to 250 words. Abstracts should not contain subheadings or citations. The abstract should be submitted in EasyChair along with the submission metadata, and it should be included in the PDF version of the submission at the appropriate location.

Submission Templates

SIGCSE TS 2024 is not participating in the new ACM workflow, template, and production system. All panel submissions must be in English and formatted using the 2-column ACM SIG Conference Proceedings format and US letter size pages (8.5x11 inch or 215.9 x 279.4mm).

Page Limits: Panel submissions are limited to a maximum of 2 pages of body content (including all titles, author information, abstract, main text, tables and illustrations, acknowledgements, and references).

Here is an annotated PDF example for Panel Submissions that has some notes/tips and shows the required sections.

MS Word Authors: Please use the interim Word template provided by ACM.

LaTeX Authors:

Requirement for Single Anonymous Review Process: At the time of submission all entries should include author information, an abstract, body content, references, and placeholders for the ACM Reference Format and copyright blocks. Each author should be defined separately for accurate metadata identification.

Other requirements: Include space for authors’ e-mail addresses whenever possible on separate lines. Even if multiple authors have the same affiliation, grouping authors’ names or e-mail addresses, or providing an ‘e-mail alias’ is not acceptable, e.g., {brian,lina,leenkiat}@university.edu or firstname.lastname@college.org. Panel submissions should include from the standard ACM template: keywords, CCS Concepts and ACM Reference Format.

Desk Rejects: Submissions that do not adhere to page limits or formatting requirements will be desk rejected without review.

Accessibility: SIGCSE TS 2024 authors are strongly encouraged to prepare submissions using these templates in such a manner that the content is widely accessible to potential reviewers, track chairs, and readers. Please see these resources for preparing an accessible submission.

Additional Format Instructions

Authors submitting to the panel track should use the standardized section names and additional formatting information when preparing their proposals.

  • When providing author information, indicate which of the panelists is the moderator by placing the word “Moderator” in parentheses after their name.
  • Abstract: Should provide a brief summary (up to 250 words) of your panel.
  • Summary: The first section should be titled Summary and should provide an expanded summary of the panel’s goals, intended audience, and relevance to the SIGCSE community.
  • Panel Structure: The section following the summary should explain the panel structure and plan for audience participation, and provide sufficient time for audience interaction and questions.
  • Position Statements: The subsequent sections should contain the position statements of each panelist and a brief description of their expertise and background as it relates to the panel. Title each section by identifying the panelist.
  • References: Citing relevant work where appropriate is encouraged, but not required. If references are included, they should be placed in a separate section titled References and should follow the ACM formatting guidelines.

Single Anonymized Review

Submissions to the panel track are reviewed with the single-anonymous review process. Submissions should include author names and affiliations. Thus, the author identities are known to reviewers, but reviewers are anonymous to each other and to the authors.

The reviewing process includes a discussion phase after initial reviews have been submitted. During this time, the reviewers can examine all reviews and privately discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the work in an anonymous manner through EasyChair. This discussion information can be used by the track chairs in addition to the content of the review in making final acceptance decisions.

The SIGCSE TS 2024 review process does not have a rebuttal period for authors to respond to comments, and all acceptance decisions are final.

ACM Policies

By submitting your article to an ACM Publication, you are hereby acknowledging that you and your co-authors are subject to all ACM Publications Policies, including ACM’s new Publications Policy on Research Involving Human Participants and Subjects (https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/research-involving-human-participants-and-subjects). Alleged violations of this policy or any ACM Publications Policy will be investigated by ACM and may result in a full retraction of your paper, in addition to other potential penalties, as per ACM Publications Policy.

ORCID ID

ACM has made a commitment to collect ORCiD IDs from all published authors (https://authors.acm.org/author-resources/orcid-faqs). All authors on each submission must have an ORCiD ID (https://orcid.org/register) in order to complete the submission process. Please make sure to get your ORCID ID in advance of submitting your work.

Additional details are in the instructions for authors.

Getting ready

  • Make sure that all authors have obtained an ORCiD identifier. These identifiers are required for paper submission.
  • Identify at least one author who is willing to review for the symposium. Have that author or those authors sign up to review at https://bit.ly/review-SIGCSE2024. (If they’ve done so already, there is no need to fill out the form a second time.)
  • Download an appropriate template, check the Instructions for Authors.
  • Check the annotated PDF example for Panel Submissions that shows the required sections.
  • Review Additional Format Instructions in Instructions for Authors to be sure you have included all required items.
  • Review the additional resources.
  • Review the instructions for reviewers and the Review Form to see what reviewers will be looking for in your paper.
  • Look at the list of topics in the Info menu on this site or on EasyChair and pick 3-7 appropriate topics for your submission.
  • Look at the EasyChair submission page to make sure you’ll be prepared to fill everything out. Note that you are permitted to update your submission until the deadline, so it is fine to put draft information there as you get ready.

The submission on EasyChair

Note: EasyChair does not let you save incomplete submission forms. Please fill out all of the fields in one sitting and save them. After that, you can continue to update the information in the fields and your submission until the deadline.

  • Use an appropriate template.
  • Ensure that your submission is accessible. See accessibility tips for authors for further details.
  • Ensure that your submission does not exceed the page limit.
  • Ensure that your submission contains author names and affiliations for the single anonymous review process.
  • Submit the final version by 11:59 p.m. AOE, Friday, 18 August 2023.
  • IMPORTANT: as you enter the author names in EasyChair consider the order. Author lists can NOT be modified (this includes add/remove/reorder)

What Gets Published?

The 2-page panel proposal for each accepted submission will be published in the SIGCSE TS 2024 proceedings.

Presentation Details

All named panelists for accepted panels must register for and attend the SIGCSE TS 2024 in person. Some Panels will be selected for live streaming.

Further details about post-acceptance processes and presentation logistics will be provided by the time acceptance decisions are sent out.

Sample panel proposals can be found here:

Language Editing Assistance

ACM has partnered with International Science Editing (ISE) to provide language editing services to ACM authors. ISE offers a comprehensive range of services for authors including standard and premium English language editing, as well as illustration and translation services. Editing services are at author expense and do not guarantee publication of a manuscript.

Review Timeline

Reviewing Phase Start Date End Date
Bidding Saturday, 19 August 2023 Wednesday, 23 August 2023
Reviewing Thurday, 24 August 2023 Wednesday, 6 September 2023
Discussion & Recommendations   Sunday, 10 September 2023   Friday, 15 September 2023

Table of Contents

Overview

Panel sessions provide an opportunity for expert panel members to present their views on a specific topic and then to discuss these views among themselves and with the audience. Usually a panel session starts with a brief introduction of the panel topic and the participants, followed by short presentations by the panelists giving their views. They are scheduled in standard conference spaces. The session must allow sufficient opportunity (about 30 minutes) for an interactive question and answer period involving both the panelists and the audience.

A typical panel will consist of four participants, including the moderator. Limiting a panel to four participants allows sufficient time for audience questions. Proposals with more than four panelists must convincingly show that all panelists will have time to speak, and the audience will have time to respond, within the session time.

Criteria used in reviewing the proposals include the likely level of interest in the topic, the presence of panel members with multiple perspectives on the topic, and the likelihood that the panel will leave sufficient time for audience participation.

If the proposal is accepted, all presenters listed in the panel description will be required to register for the conference and to participate in the session.

Submission and Review System

The review process for SIGCSE TS 2024 will be done using the EasyChair submission system (https://easychair.org/my/conference?conf=sigcsets2024). Reviewers will be invited to join/login into EasyChair, update their profile, and select 3-5 topics that they are most qualified to review. To do so, reviewers select SIGCSE TS 2024 > Conference > My topics from the menu and select at most 5 topics. More topics make it harder for the EasyChair system to make a good set of matches. Reviewers also identify their Conflicts of Interest by selecting SIGCSE TS 2024 > Conference > My Conflicts.

Single-Anonymous Review Process

Submissions to the Panels track are reviewed with the single-anonymous review process. Submissions should include author names and affiliations. Thus, the author identities are known to reviewers, but reviewers are anonymous to each other and to the authors. The reviewing process includes a discussion phase after initial reviews have been posted. During this time, the reviewers can examine all reviews and privately discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed slate anonymously through EasyChair. Information from the discussion be used by the track chairs in making final acceptance decisions.

The SIGCSE TS 2024 review process does not have a rebuttal period for authors to respond to comments, and all acceptance decisions are final.

New Panel Review Process for SIGCSE TS 2024

In response to issues identified in certain single-anonymous reviews, SIGCSE TS 2024 is introducing a new review process for Panels, Special Sessions, and Workshops. Reviewers will be asked to review approximately six proposals. Initial reviews will consist of a single rating (Recommend acceptance, Unsure, Do not recommend acceptance) and a short rationale for that rating. After the initial reviews, the track chairs will propose a slate to accept. In putting together the slate, the chairs will consider ratings, comments (and appropriateness thereof), and the balance of topics. Reviewers will then discuss both the slate of reviews and the complete set of submissions, proposing substitutions as appropriate. Track chairs will then make the determination of the final slate and will write meta-reviews for the authors, based on the initial comments and the discussion.

We expect that the broader discussion of the slate will provide a more equitable and transparent review process and that the replacement of individual reviews with meta-reviews will better address issues of potential bias in individual reviews.

Getting Started Reviewing

Before starting your review, you may be asked by the Track Chairs to declare conflicts with any submitting authors. Please do so in a timely manner so we can avoid conflicts during assignment.

After the submission deadline and before reviewing can begin, Reviewers will bid on submissions they are interested in reviewing. Please bid for submissions where the title and abstract are in your area of expertise. Bidding will help with assigning submissions for review that you’re qualified and interested in reviewing! If you do not bid within the allotted time window, we will use topics to assign submissions for review.

As a Reviewer, we ask that you carefully read each submission assigned to you and write a constructive review that concisely summarizes what you believe the submission to be about. When reviewing a submission, consider:

  • the strengths and weaknesses,
  • the contribution to an outstanding SIGCSE TS 2024 program and experience for attendees, and
  • how it brings new ideas or extends current ideas through replication to the field and to practitioners and researchers of computing education.

Panel Review Guidelines

Reviewers provide high-quality reviews for submissions to provide authors with feedback so they may improve their work for presentation or future submissions. While authors will not receive your comments directly, the Track Chairs are likely to use your comments from the rationale in providing advice to the authors. As such, please ensure that all criticism is phrased in a constructive manner.

In the initial phase of the review, you will be asked three questions.

Recommendation. Please enter your preliminary recommendation for this submission. After we gather the preliminary recommendations, we will propose a slate of proposals to accept and then ask reviewers to discuss that slate.

Rationale. Please give your rationale for your recommendation. Authors will NOT see your complete rationale. However, track chairs may use text from your rationale in providing feedback to authors.

Confidential remarks for the program committee. If you wish to add any remarks intended only for PC members please write them below. These remarks will only be seen by the PC members having access to reviews for this submission. They will not be sent to the authors. This field is optional.

We strongly recommend that you prepare your rationale in a separate document; EasyChair has been known to time out.

Please consider the issues below as you write your review.

  1. Relevance and Interest
    • Is the panel topic clearly stated?
    • Are the benefits to the SIGCSE audience clearly indicated?
    • Is the panel topic of interest to the SIGCSE community?
  2. Structure & Plan for Audience Participation
    • Is there an overview of the panel structure?
    • Does the proposed structure include time for a brief introduction of the topic and the panelists?
    • Does the proposed structure include time for panelists to present their views?
    • Does the proposed structure allow sufficient time (at least 30 mins) for an interactive question and answer period between the audience and panelists?
    • Could the panel still be effective if given a shorter session?
    • Do the panelists have a viable plan for a hybrid format?
  3. Panelist considerations
    • Does the proposal clearly identify the panelists (i.e., name and affiliation) and describe their expertise related to the topic?
    • Will the panel be well positioned to present multiple views on the topic, representing the diversity of perspectives within the SIGCSE community? Note: Please refer to “ACM’s definitions of diversity and inclusion”. Please also refer to “ACM’s recommended considerations when forming diverse teams” (or diverse panels in this case).
    • Does the proposal clearly identify no more than four panelists, including the moderator? Otherwise, are each of the panelists needed for representing a full range of perspectives on the panel topic?

While your review text should clearly support your scores and recommendation, please do not include your preference for acceptance or rejection of a submission in the feedback to the authors. Instead, use the provided radio buttons to make a recommendation (the authors will not see this) based on your summary review and provide any details that refer to your recommendation directly in the confidential comments to the APC or track chairs.

Discussion

The discussion and recommendation period provides the opportunity for the Track Chairs to discuss reviews and feedback so they can provide the best recommendation for acceptance or rejection to the Program Chairs. During this phase, a proposed slate of Panels will be discussed. The Track Chairs will make a final recommendation to the Program Chairs from your feedback. The Track Chairs will also prepare feedback for the authors based on your review and the discussion.

Recalcitrant Reviewers

Reviewers who don’t submit reviews, have reviews with limited constructive feedback, do not engage effectively in the discussion phase or submit inappropriate reviews will be removed from the reviewer list (as per SIGCSE policy). Recalcitrant reviewers will be informed of their removal from the reviewer list. Reviewers with repeated offenses (two within a three year period) will be removed from SIGCSE reviewing for three years.

We have instituted a new review process for round-one single-anonymous submissions (Panels, Special Sessions, and Workshops) for SIGCSE TS 2024. That process is described in Instructions for Reviewers. The questions on the pre-discussion form follow. They may change slightly before the review period.

Recommendation: Please enter your preliminary recommendation for this submission. After we gather the preliminary recommendations, we will propose a slate of proposals to accept and then ask reviewers to discuss that slate.

  • Recommended for inclusion in the slate of Panels at TS 2024
  • May be appropriate for inclusion in the slate of Panels at TS 2024
  • Not recommended for inclusion in the slate of Panels at TS 2024

Rationale: Please give your rationale for your recommendation. Authors will NOT see your complete rationale. However, track chairs may use text from your rationale in providing feedback to authors.

Confidential remarks for the program committee: If you wish to add any remarks intended only for PC members please write them below. These remarks will only be seen by the PC members having access to reviews for this submission. They will not be sent to the authors. This field is optional.

Questions? Use the SIGCSE TS Panels contact form.