SIGCSE Virtual 2026 - Working Groups

About
Working Group Applications

What is a working group?

A Working Group (WG) is a collaborative research project conducted by a team of typically five to ten researchers from around the world to produce a high-value report on a topic of interest in computing education. Membership or leadership in a WG is a nearly year-long commitment. WG membership is highly competitive, and not everyone who applies will secure a spot, despite the strength of their background and credentials.

Before the conference

A WG begins with a proposal written by up to four WG leaders on EasyChair (https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sigcsev2026). WG leaders should represent at least two institutions, with no more than two people stemming from the same institution. At least one WG leader must have prior WG experience as a member or leader of an ITiCSE, CompEd, or SIGCSE Virtual working group.

The WG co-chairs review proposals and, based on multiple criteria, decide which proposals can proceed to member recruitment. The selected WGs recruit members through the WG pages on the conference website and by other means. Regardless of how they were recruited, all potential members must submit an application through the official conference website membership recruitment form. Late applications will not be accepted. At this point, leaders of approved WGs are strongly encouraged to begin obtaining any required IRB approvals.

Recruitment takes place in two rounds. Once applications for the first round of recruitment close, the WG co-chairs send each WG leader a list of applicants for their group. The WG leaders select their group members from it and notify the WG co-chairs of their decision. There is a brief negotiation period during which the WG co-chairs work to resolve any oversubscribed or undersubscribed groups. At this point, WGs can begin work on their project with the members whose applications they’ve accepted.

If any of the approved WGs need additional members or are still seeking members with specific expertise, a second recruitment round of approximately two weeks follows. The second round is open to new applicants and applicants not approved during the first round who want to apply to another WG. The second round of recruitment is not guaranteed. The final WG comprises five to ten researchers, including the WG leaders. The viable groups (those that have recruited sufficient members) proceed with collaboration and work until the conference.

The WG will submit a 2-page extended abstract in early September (plus an optional additional page for references). Per ACM authorship rules, the abstract to be published in the conference proceedings should be something that the whole group, without exception, has contributed to.

Immediately before the conference

The draft of the working group needs to be ready and shared with the working group organizers.

During the conference

The conference will include a session during which each WG gives a brief presentation of their project and progress to conference attendees.

After the conference

Following the conference, the WG co-chairs will provide general feedback on the overall direction and scope of the work (the initial go/no go decision). Upon receiving the co-chairs’ feedback, the WGs have some time to continue their work and update the report, which is then submitted for rigorous external review. There is no time for major revisions, so WGs should aim to have a complete report submitted for review. Reports requiring major revision at this point will be rejected. Accepted reports are given a few weeks to respond to the reviewers’ suggestions, and if the response is deemed satisfactory, they will then be submitted for publication in a stand-alone Working Group Proceedings supplement to the conference proceedings.

Formatting the proposal & practical organisation plan

The list below summarizes the requirements for a Working Group proposal. Details follow the list. Carefully follow the outline and include all required information. Incomplete proposals will likely be rejected.

The proposal uses the same format as used for paper submissions
The proposal begins with a two-page ‘paper’ with these topics
background and related work
goals of the proposal
proposed methodology
expected deliverables
whether or not the research needs human subjects
references (which can exceed the 2-page limit)
The proposal also contains a two-page appendix that contains
an outline of inclusion criteria for member selection
a detailed proposed work-plan with meeting frequency and milestones
how the WG plans to incorporate members working in different time zones
estimation of good WG size for the project
for each of the proposers/leaders, a discussion of their prior ITiCSE/SIGCSE Virtual/CompEd Working Group experience as a leader or member of a WG

1. Proposal Body (2 pages + references)

The submission is not anonymous: it must include the authors’ names and affiliations. The remainder of the two-page proposal body should be used to explain the work background, goals, proposed methodology, and expected deliverables. This can, and should, read like the beginning of a research paper, as the working group should be conducting research.

A successful WG proposal will draw on existing literature and outline meaningful work that warrants a working group effort by a multicultural team. In addition, it should be clear that the methodology is appropriate, the expected results are both reasonable (achievable) and meaningful.

Note: The successful proposal can result in two publications: 1) an extended abstract published with the conference papers, and 2) the full final report published after the conference in the working group proceedings supplement. These two publications should have two different titles (reserve your preferred title for the full report). All accepted members are expected to contribute to the shape and direction of the working group and contribute to the extended abstract published at the time of the conference, as well as the final report published after the conference, as per the CM authorship policy.

2. Proposal Appendix (2 pages)

The proposal appendix has a maximum length of two pages and should include the following details:

Inclusion criteria for member selection, and how the leaders will encourage diversity of membership. The goal of WGs is to create new research collaboration opportunities, especially for people who are not yet well-connected within our community. We encourage WGs to consider at least one early-career academic / doctoral student / member with no previous WG experience.
Proposed work-plan that includes considerations for different time zones and collaboration technology (and alternatives), and how these choices will support engaged members.
Schedule of expected meetings prior to the conference and milestones or other progress points. Leaders are asked to report the WG progress to WG co-chairs on a monthly basis.
An estimation of the number of members that can contribute meaningfully to the project. The above-mentioned limit of 5-10 members can be flexible for justified reasons, and the group can also be larger if conditions on the ground allow.
A discussion of proposers’/leaders’ prior WG experience. We expect that at least one of the leaders has led or participated some prior ITiCSE/CompEd/SIGCSE Virtual WG due to the fact that, in the past, “no WG experience among the WG leaders” has been the strongest indicator for issues (and perhaps the final report being rejected). If you are proposing a WG but have no prior experience with ITiCSE, CompEd, or SIGCSE Virtual working groups, consider recruiting a co-leader who has that experience.
Recruitment ad. In the case that the WG proposal is approved, and in order to proceed to member recruitment in the fastest time possible, include the advertisement for your WG that will be published on the conference member recruitment page.

3 Submitting the proposal

Follow the instructions in the Submission Instructions page at the foot of the Call for Participation page.

The Full Working Group process

The working group process spans about 11 months, including time before and after the conference. The ‘phases’ of work include the following:

Proposal – The proposal process is described above.
Call for participation – Accepted proposals will be published on the conference site.
Recruitment – Leaders of accepted working groups and WG Co-Chairs advertise to recruit members.
Membership – WG co-chairs set up a web form for applicants to apply to WGs (1st and 2nd choice). In coordination with WG co-chairs, the leaders of each WG select members from the applicant pool in two phases based on their inclusion criteria. WG co-chairs monitor this process. If there is room in a given WG after the first phase, that WG can complete the group by also inviting applicants who didn’t fit in their first choice.
Pre-conference work – Working groups work during the months prior to the conference according to the work-plan submitted with the WG proposal.
Conference presentation – Working groups present their progress to conference attendees in one of the sessions during the conference.
Post-Conference feedback – WG co-chairs provide feedback and approval to continue.
Post-Conference work – Working groups continue work to complete the report for about two months and submit the final version. All WG members have the responsibility to continue their contributions to the paper after the conference. Leaders certify which members are eligible for authorship according to the ACM authorship policy before the paper is submitted to review.
Review – The final version is peer-reviewed by at least three external reviewers. The Working Groups are supposed to list at least 10 relevant possible reviewers for their work who have no Conflict of Interest with any of the WG members.
Decision – WG co-chairs decide which reports will be published based on detailed reviews and appropriate revisions. Reports that need major revisions are rejected at this phase.
Revisions – Working Groups respond to reviews to produce and submit camera-ready reports.
Publication – The reports are published.

Timeline

2026-05-08 (Fri): WG proposal abstracts due
2026-05-22 (Fri): Notification of which WGs proceed
2026-05-29 (Fri): WG member applications open
2026-06-12 (Fri): WG member applications close
2026-06-26 (Fri): WG notification to begin
2026-09-04 (Fri): WG 2-page abstract camera-ready due
2026-11-11: WG draft reports due
2026-12-11: WG initial feedback from WG chairs
2027-01-15 (tentative): WG reports sent out for external review
2027-02-15 (tentative): WG report external reviews due
2027-02-28 (tentative): WG report reviews and notifications sent to authors
2027-03-31 (tentative): WG camera-ready reports due

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 (https://sigcsevirtual2026.acm.org/info/authorship-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.

ACM’s New Open-Access Publishing Model

Please review details of ACM’s new open-access publishing model at https://sigcsevirtual2026.acm.org/info/information-on-acm-open.

Below are descriptions of the six Working Groups (WG) open for membership applications. Please read the descriptions below, and if you find a WG you are interested in, use the link (below) to apply to participate. If you have any questions about a WG, please email the leaders of that WG.

Application link: https://forms.gle/HKLwKUUHxJYHuaZC6

Teaching Assistants in Computing Education: Evolving Roles, Training, and Practices

Leaders: Matthew Forshaw, Maíra Marques Samary, and Farzana Rahman

Teaching assistants (TAs) play a central role in computing education, supporting instruction and student learning. However, the COVID-19 pandemic and the rise of Generative AI have significantly reshaped this landscape, raising questions about how TA roles are evolving and how training programs should adapt. This working group investigates teaching assistants in computing education, focusing on their roles, training, and practices in a post-pandemic, AI-enabled context. We will conduct a systematic literature review of TA-related research, complemented by a scoping review of publicly available TA training materials and a cross-institutional qualitative study using focus-group interviews with faculty, TA coordinators, and teaching assistants. Through this work, we aim to identify how TA responsibilities are changing, how training programs are currently structured, and what challenges and opportunities emerge with the integration of AI. The outcomes will include an updated synthesis of the literature, a cross-institutional report on TA training practices, evidence-informed recommendations for TA training, and a curated repository of tools and practices. Together, these contributions aim to support the design and improvement of TA training in modern computing education.

We seek up to 10 members to join our working group. We are actively looking for members from a diverse range of institutions in terms of both geography and size. We do not have any minimum qualification requirements and encourage first-time working group members to apply.

Members will participate in at least one of our three subgroups: literature review, evaluation of training programs, and surveying faculty and teaching assistants. We expect members to attend weekly meetings and contribute 3-4 hours of work starting in June and leading up to the conference.

It would be especially helpful to have members who are actively working with teaching assistants or can contact colleagues at their institution who are.

How, Why, and When Do Computing Education Researchers Use Generative AI for Research?

Leaders: Ryan Dougherty, Natalie Kiesler, Jaromir Savelka, and Hieke Keuning

Are you interested in how generative AI tools are used in computing education research? Do you want to explore how GenAI is perceived by researchers? Do you want to find out about the implications of GenAI tools on the epistemological process in computing education research? Join our working group to investigate and discuss these critical questions.

As GenAI becomes increasingly prevalent in computing education research, there is an urgent need to understand how researchers use such tools across the research process, the benefits, risks, and harms they perceive, and the tensions that arise due to these practices.

What we’ll do: We will systematically review the literature to understand the use of GenAI tools in computing education research, survey computing education researchers, and follow up through semi-structured interviews.

Who should join: We seek members with expertise or strong interest in one or more of the following areas: computing education research, GenAI/LLMs in research and/or education, and epistemology. We welcome applications from early-career academics and doctoral students, as well as senior researchers, and aim to represent various institutional contexts and geographic locations.

Development of a Concept Inventory on Computers and the Internet (CICI) for Secondary School Students. Important Concepts, Item Development, and Preliminary Evaluation.

Leaders: Tobias Bahr, Anna Yaghobová, Nils Pancratz and Eva Marinus

Motivation and Goals: Learners develop personal conceptions—mental models and beliefs—about computing systems and the internet that strongly shape how they understand and use technology. Although many studies have identified such conceptions, there is currently no quantitative tool to assess them at scale. At a time when computing education increasingly emphasizes emerging topics such as AI, understanding these foundations becomes even more important: students who do not understand what computers are, what is inside them, and how the internet works may struggle to meaningfully engage with more advanced topics as well. To address this gap, we invite researchers to join our SIGCSE Virtual 2026 Working Group to develop a Concept Inventory (CI) for secondary school students on computers and the internet.

Our goal is to translate existing research into an assessment instrument that identifies key concepts and conceptions, supporting both research and evidence-based teaching in computer science education.

Expected Outcomes: By the end of the WG, we aim to deliver: (1) an evidence based list of key concepts about computing systems and the internet, (2) an evidence based list of items assessing conceptions about computing systems and the internet, (3) a preliminary set of CI items assessing students’ understanding of computers and the internet, (4) initial empirical evidence from expert review, additional pilot classroom data where feasible, and (5) a manuscript summarizing our findings and methodology.

Work Plan and Commitment: The working group will run from mid-June to December, including both pre-and post-conference collaboration phases. Time commitment: Approximately 3–4 hours per week. Meetings: Weekly online meetings (around an hour) before the conference. Intensive collaboration: Multiple extended (ca.3-hour) sessions in August focused on item development. Post-conferencework: Continued contributions of 3–4 hours per week and participation in bi-weekly meetings until the completion of the final report draft.

Expectations of Working Group Members: We seek a small, focused group of up to 10 researchers (including leaders) with complementary expertise. Ideal candidates have backgrounds in one or more of the following areas: Students’ conceptions and learning processes, Concept Inventory or knowledge-based assessment development, Qualitative research (e.g., literature synthesis).

In addition, members are expected to: Contribute, where feasible, to data collection and analysis of expert reviews or local pilot testing. Actively participate in meetings and collaborative tasks. Contribute to an inclusive and friendly research environment.

We strongly encourage applications from early-career researchers and individuals new to the ITiCSE/SIGCSE/CompEd Working Group community to foster new collaborations and broaden participation.

Essential Computing Concepts: Identifying Foundational Underpinnings for Computing Curricula

Leaders: Janet Davis, Amanda Holland-Minkley, Megan Olsen, and Alyce Brady

Are you concerned about ensuring your computing curriculum can adapt to rapid changes in the field? Is your computing curriculum an uneasy fit to curricular guidelines such as ACM/IEEE/AAAI CS 2023 or the ABET Criteria for Computing Programs? Are you interested in a more flexible form of curricular guidance focused on a minimal shared foundation for all computing programs? Would you like to be part of developing a framework of Essential Computing Concepts to provide useful guidance for programs that are looking for new ways to meet student needs or don’t easily fit current curricular molds, such as small colleges, liberal arts colleges, and CS+X programs? If so, please join our SIGCSE Virtual Working Group on Essential Computing Concepts: Identifying Foundational Underpinnings for Computing Curricula.

Our group will refine a draft Essential Computing Concepts framework developed by faculty at 11 institutions during the prior academic year that focuses on the most essential topics and outcomes for undergraduate computing majors. The draft framework is designed to encourage space for interpretation and customization, grounded in the various goals of computing programs at different institutions.

Doctoral students and early-career faculty with an interest in understanding and shaping computer science curricula are strongly encouraged to apply. Prior experience with curriculum design is not required.

AI Can Do Your Homework—Now What? A Taxonomy of Computing Assessments That Accommodate GenAI Use

Leaders: Geoffrey Challen, Kevin Lin, Claudia Szabo, and Ranysha Ware

Coding agents can now complete many traditional computing assignments easily. Computing educators are responding by designing assessments that engage with AI rather than work around it: some leverage AI collaboration, some evaluate AI output, some use AI to provide feedback, and some take AI itself as their subject. This working group will collect, organize, and share that work. We will run a community survey, gather assignments, quizzes, and exams from contributing instructors, and host a one-day synchronous workshop in July at which authors of accepted submissions present their assessment redesigns. Working group members will help adjudicate the open workshop submissions, and a systematic literature review will set context for the work. We are looking for eight to ten members who teach computing at the tertiary level and are willing to share their assessments under an open license. We will prioritize applicants whose teaching falls outside introductory programming, applicants from underrepresented regions and institution types, and applicants who are early in their careers or have not previously participated in a working group. The commitment is roughly three to four hours per week from acceptance through the November SIGCSE Virtual conference, plus additional time during post-conference report writing.

Examining Physical Computing as a STEAM Pathway for Under-represented Learners

Leaders: Calkin Suero Montero, Megan Venn-Wycherley, and Sara Hooshangi

Physical computing and creative making have emerged as promising approaches for engaging school-level learners in STEAM, offering tangible, expressive, and socially-situated entry points into computing. Yet, questions remain about how these approaches shape learner identity, sense of belonging and progression into computing pathways, particularly for those from groups historically under-represented in the field. This Working Group will examine the current evidence base and guide educators, program developers, and researchers working at the intersection of physical computing, making, and STEAM education.

We are seeking 5-7 collaborators to join a SIGCSE Virtual 2026 Working Group examining how physical computing and creative making can broaden pathways into STEAM for school-level learners. The WG will produce i) a literature review synthesizing research on physical computing and creative making in school-level STEAM contexts; ii) a set of pedagogical guidelines to support educators in developing inclusive physical computing practices, and iii) recommendations for broadening participation, including considerations of identity, belonging and equitable access.

We particularly welcome applications from early-career researchers, members without prior WG experience, and members from regions under-represented in SIGCSE Virtual. Prospective members should have experience in one or more of the following areas: computing education, STEAM education, maker or design-based education, physical computing pedagogy, or literature review methods. Practitioner experience in formal or informal learning settings is equally valued alongside academic research experience. Meetings will be held fortnightly via Zoom, with meeting times rotated across time zones to accommodate participation from across the global community. Members will also be expected to contribute asynchronously between meetings, with workload distributed equitably across the group.

Working GroupsSIGCSE Virtual 2026