Review form

THE SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL COMPUTING EDUCATION RESEARCH WORKSHOP

Providence, Rhode Island, USA, August 8-9, 2011
http://icer-conference.org/

This review form as a DOCX file

Note: for the first time this year, ICER will have two paper categories: research and discussion.

RESEARCH papers should position the research in relation to related and prior work, showing the need for a new or enhanced approach, have a sound theoretical and empirical structure in terms of identification of the problem, design of solution/investigation and methods for data collection.

The analysis of the results should be a good example of the chosen study approach and demonstrate appropriate rigour and reflective depth when developing and discussing the implications of the findings. Discussion of implication should also be linked to (progress in) current state of research.

DISCUSSION papers fail to meet one or more of the criteria for research papers, but have the potential to become exemplary ICER papers if given the opportunity to be presented to and discussed by the community.


For all papers

  1. Reviewer’s brief summary of the paper
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
  2. Should this paper be accepted or not?
    • Yes, research paper
    • Yes, discussion paper
    • No

You will now be asked to answer some multiple-choice questions regarding aspects of the paper and then to explain your overall recommendation (research/discussion/reject) in light of those answers.

  1. Relevance of the contribution for ICER: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest)
    1. (highly relevant to an international computing education research audience)
    2. (clearly appropriate to and consistently focused on international computing education research)
    3. (appropriate to and reasonably focused on international computing education research)
    4. (marginally relevant to international computing education research)
    5. (not really relevant to international computing education research)
  2. Contribution to international computing education research: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest)
    1. (a major and significant contribution to the field)
    2. (a clear contribution to the field)
    3. (minor contribution, perhaps with the promise of more to come)
    4. (no obvious contribution, but the promise of future value)
    5. (contributes little or nothing to international computing education research)
  3. Discussion of related work: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest)
    1. (all relevant work discussed and cited and relationship to submission clearly described)
    2. (some reference(s) missing or relationship to submission not clearly described)
    3. (some reference(s) missing and relationship to submission not clearly described)
    4. important reference(s) missing or all references included and relationship to submission not discussed at all
    5. (no related work)
  4. Theoretical basis for the paper: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest)
    1. (clear and strong, well documented with citations)
    2. (clear and strong theoretical basis, with some citations)
    3. (there is a theory there)
    4. (maybe there’s a theory there, but vague)
    5. (no obvious theory being applied)
  5. Empirical basis for the paper: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest)
    1. (data collected with clear methodology, excellent analysis)
    2. (data collected, good analysis)
    3. (data collected, unclear analysis)
    4. (not clear that there was a data collection methodology)
    5. (no data collected)
  6. Writing and expression: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest)
    1. (exemplary writing that enhances the quality of the paper)
    2. (well written and expressed)
    3. (not well written, but could probably be made acceptable)
    4. (very poorly written; unlikely that it can be improved enough)
    5. (extremely poorly written; hard to understand)
  7. Likelihood of generating discussion at the conference that will benefit the field: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest)
    1. (extremely likely)
    2. (likely)
    3. (neutral)
    4. (unlikely)
    5. (extremely unlikely)
  8. For discussion papers only: Potential to become an exemplary icer paper with feedback from conference: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest)
    1. (extremely likely)
    2. (likely)
    3. (neutral)
    4. (unlikely)
    5. (extremely unlikely)
  9. Briefly explain your overall recommendation for the paper. In particular, if your recommendation is inconsistent with your numerical ratings in the individual categories, please explain. Where you have given ratings of less than 4 in the individual categories, please include constructive suggestions for improvement. Remember: your comments may affect not only the acceptance of the paper to the current conference but also the researchers’ future work in this area. 
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
  10. If the paper is accepted, what (if any) changes should be made to the paper before publication?