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.
Overall evaluation: 2: strong accept 1: accept 0: borderline -1: reject -2: strong reject Reviewer's confidence 5: expert 4: high 3: medium 2: low 1: none Relevance of the contribution for an international computing education research audience 5: highly relevant to ICER and explicitly presents results in a manner directly applicable to international computing education research contexts 4: appropriate and consistently focused on computing education research, and contribution speaks indirectly to issues of global relevance 3: appropriate and reasonably focused on computing education research, but limited in relevance to a specific locale, region, or country 2: marginally relevant to computing education research 1: not relevant/not focused on computing education research Contribution to the computing education research field 5: a major and significant contribution to the field 4: a clear contribution to the field 3: minor contribution, 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 Discussion of related work 5: all relevant work discussed and cited, and relationship to submission clearly described 4: covers key related work; its relation 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 Theoretical basis for the paper 5: clear and strong theoretical basis, well documented with citations and clearly applied in the research 4: theoretical basis, 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 Empirical basis for the paper 5: data collected with clear methodology, excellent analysis 4: data collected, good analysis 3: data collected, unclear analysis 2: not clear that there was a data collection methodology 1: no data collected Writing and expression 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 Likelihood of generating discussion at the conference that will benefit the field 5: extremely likely 4: likely 3: neutral 2: unlikely 1: extremely unlikely Written Review: Please provide a detailed review, including justification for your scores. Please include the following clearly labeled sections, but feel free to comment on other aspects of the work as appropriate. Summary of Paper: Provide a 1-2 sentence summary of the work in your own words. We use this to verify that reviews get entered for the correct submission. Methodology: Discuss the appropriateness and quality of implementation of the chosen methodology for the questions explored. Empirical Basis: Discuss the empirical data analyzed in the work, with your evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses. Use of Theory: Discuss the appropriateness and quality of the theoretical framework for addressing the explored research topic. Contributions/Results: Highlight the results found, and your interpretation of the strengths and weaknesses of them. Significance: 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.