The template below is provided to help guide reviewers and authors during the reviewing process. You may also find it helpful to review the tips for authors and reviewers.
NOTE: Actual reviews should be completed using the EasyChair system. Reviewers will receive a link via email when papers have been assigned.
- 1. Overall evaluation
- 6: I strongly support accepting this paper
- 5: I would argue for accepting this paper
- 4: Borderline, lean to accept
- 3: Borderline, lean to reject
- 2: I would argue to reject this paper
- 1: I strongly recommend rejecting this paper
- 2. Reviewer’s confidence
- 3: (high)
- 2: (medium)
- 1: (low)
- 3. Summary of Paper (*)
Provide a 1-2 sentence summary of the work in your own words. We use this to verify that reviews are entered for the correct submission.
- 4. Discussion of related work
- 5: all relevant work discussed and cited, and relationship to submission clearly and thoroughly described
- 4: covers key related work; its relationship to submission is described, but could be extended further
- 3: some references missing, or relationship to submission not clearly described
- 2: several important or key reference(s) missing, and relationship of references to submission not apparent
- 1: no discussion of related work
- 5a. Theoretical basis for the paper
- 5: clear and strong theoretical basis, well documented with citations and clearly applied in the research
- 4: theoretical basis obvious, with some citations and argument for how it is applied in the research
- 3: there is a theory there, but its relevance to the research is vague
- 2: maybe there’s a theory there, but it is vague and has no clear relevance to the research
- 1: no obvious theory being applied
- 5b. Use of Theory (*)
Discuss the appropriateness and quality of the theoretical framework for addressing the explored research topic.
- 6a. Research methodology
- 3: research approach and methods well-suited for the research questions/hypotheses
- 2: questionable choice of research approach and methods
- 1: research approach and methods inappropriate for research objectives
- 6b. Exposition of research methods
4: data collected and analyzed; methods clear and thoroughly described.
3: data collected and analyzed, but some aspects unclearly described.
2: data collected and analyzed, but unclear or inadequate description.
1: no empirical data collected
- 5: incisive interpretation of findings and limitations
- 4: good interpretation of findings; limitations considered
- 3: plausible interpretation of findings
- 2: questionable interpretation of findings
- 1: unjustifiable interpretation of findings
Discuss the appropriateness and quality of the chosen methodology. Evaluate the way authors have applied the research, interpreted their findings and drawn conclusions. Comment on whether the findings have been examined in the context of related work and the limitations of the research.
- 5: a major and significant contribution to the field that explicitly presents results in a manner directly applicable to international research contexts
- 4: a clear contribution to the field
- 3: minor contribution or contribution is bound to a local context, perhaps with the promise of more to come
- 2: no obvious contribution, but the promise of future value
- 1: contributes little or nothing to computing education research
Make a case for the importance of this finding for our community (or indicate your views if you believe it not so important). We hopefully have a number of high-quality papers, and your input on what is important for our community matters.
- 5: exemplary writing that enhances the quality of the paper
- 4: well written and expressed
- 3: not well written, but could probably be made acceptable
- 2: very poorly written; unlikely that it can be improved enough
- 1: extremely poorly written; hard to understand
If you would like to draw particular aspects of the writing to the authors’ attention and/or make any further recommendations, please do so here. If you have any further references to recommend, please add them here.