Menu Close
ACM Global Computing Education Conference
October 23-25, 2025. Gaborone, Botswana
(Working Groups: Oct 21 – 22)

Accepted Working Groups

Applying to join a working group

Application Form link: https://forms.gle/C4KfJjKZ7q6RZRTz5

Application Deadline: 9 May

Membership Decisions expected by: 23 May

Please email (potential) WG Leaders to ask questions about a specific WG (as listed below).
Please email WG Co-Chairs with any/all questions about the process: comped2025wg@easychair.org
Mikey Goldweber and Ismaila Sanusi
CompEd 2025 WG co-chairs

WG1 – Understanding the effect of native language on learning to program

Leaders:

Seán Russell sean.russell@ucd.ie
Ellie Lovellette lovelletteeb@cofc.edu
Dennis J Bouvier djb@acm.org

Participants

Shanon Reckinger (University of Illinois Chicago – USA)
Andre Henney (University of the Western Cape – South Africa)
Bedour Alshaigy (Uppsala University – Sweden)
Stan Kurkovsky (Central Connecticut State University – USA)
Bhagya Munasinghe (Wayamba University of Sri Lanka – Sri Lanka)
Olga Glebova (University of Connecticut – USA)
Suad Alaofi (Shaqra University – Saudia Arabia)
Fiona McNeill (University of Edinburgh – Scotland)
Jorge Silveyra (Lafayette College – USA)

Summary:
The English language dominates the fields of computer science and software engineering. Most programming languages use English based keywords in their syntax. An overwhelming portion of the technical documentation and examples for popular programming languages are provided only in English. Large numbers of students who speak English as a second language (ESL) undertake studies in computing, including international students attending universities in English-speaking countries and students in universities where English is not the native language but is the language of instruction. Previous research has identified the use of English-based languages and instruction as a barrier to non-native English speakers. This working group aims to improve our understanding of the scope and severity of this problem

Motivation:
The reasons that many students find themselves studying computing through the medium of English despite it not being their native language are numerous. The collection of these factors results in a large number of students studying computing in English when it is not their native language. In 2023 there were approximately 3.3 million international students in the USA, Canada, the UK, and Australia – collectively known as the “Big Four.” These students made up 13.22% of the total undergraduate and postgraduate student population across these countries. It is a much more difficult prospect to calculate the number of English as a second language students at institutions where the medium of instruction is English. A study by Study portals and the British Council identified 40,786 English-taught programs outside of the Big Four, compared to 142,476 programs within the Big Four.  While this is a much smaller number of programs, the percentage of students who are English as second language learners is likely to be much higher, up to 100% in some cases. The number of computing courses, including AI, Machine Learning, and Data Analytics, within these English-taught programs grew by 63% between 2019 and 2024. This highlights the large scale of the problem at universities across the world.

Goals:
This Working Group aims to:
1) Complete a thorough literature review of research that considers native language in an English Medium of Instruction (EMI) environment. This will serve to frame the context of the research as well as identify papers that can inform the other activities being carried out in parallel.


2) Conduct a survey of instructors teaching CS1/CS2 courses both at institutions with high and low numbers of international students. Through this we aim to gather instructors perspectives on the performance of ESL students within their classes as well as on policies related to the admission of these students and their suitability.


3) Improve the general understanding of language usage in introductory programming textbooks. This will involve the analysis of a number of textbooks, both open source and those highlighted in the instructor survey, to build a corpus for analysis to be compared against graduate word lists in English such as the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). This analysis aims to build subsets of the general corpus for individual contexts to enable more targeted and relevant identification of difficult words for easier use in instructor or author contexts.


4) Gain a wider understanding of students perceptions of studying to program in English. A survey will be distributed to students in introductory programming classes that are both native and non-native English speakers. Questions will include basic demographics as well as questions related to the use of English in textbooks, technical resources, assessments and interactions with faculty and classmates.

Methodology:
This working group will take a multi-faceted approach. The literature review will be carried out by following a systematic literature review process. Both surveys will contain closed and open style questions, this includes selection such as drop downs and Likert-scale questions that can be analyzed statistically. Open response questions will be analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s six-stage thematic analysis framework. Initial analysis of textbooks will be completed using the AntWordProfiler software, with decisions made about other techniques to be applied (such as stemming or lemmatization) to be made during the completion of the process. The precise reference word lists to be used as well as the contents of ignore lists will also be decided during the completion of the research.

WG 2 – Expanding Contextualized Computer Science Education in Africa

Leaders:

Participants

Kehinde Aruleba (University of Leicester – UK)
Cleverence Kombe (University of Botswana – Botswana)
Janet Shufor Bih Fofang (University of Pittsburgh – USA)
Joseph Kizito Bada Makerere (University Business School – Uganda)
Emmanuel Okyere Ekwam (Lagos State University – Ghana)
Nils Timm (University of Pretoria – South Africa)
Tessema Mengistu (Virginia Tech – USA)

Motivation:

Building on our prior study “Contextualizing Introductory Computer Science: Challenges, Benefits, and Opportunities from African Faculty Insights,” presented and published at ITiCSE-Working Group 2024, we propose an expanded initiative to refine and implement contextualized CS1 materials across multiple African institutions. Prior work demonstrated that integrating culturally relevant materials into CS1(Introduction to Computer Science) courses significantly enhances student engagement, critical thinking, and problem-solving. However, challenges persist in adapting these materials to diverse local contexts. This working group will evaluate, iterate, and co-design additional content that bridges local realities with global computing standards.

Goals:

  • Refine and expand the contextualized CS1 materials based on feedback from our initial study.
  • Co-design new case studies and activities that address local societal challenges
  • Establish a framework for integrating these materials into existing curricula, including faculty training and policy advocacy.
  • Foster cross-institutional collaboration and enhance inclusive pedagogies in African CS education.

Methodology:

This working group will engage researchers interested contextualised computer science education to:

  1. Phase 1: Collaborate on the refinement of existing CS1 materials and the development of new case studies and activities in the context of Africa. (May to June)
  2. Phase 2: Design and conduct mixed-methods research (surveys, classroom observations, focus groups) to assess the impact of the contextualized materials on student engagement and technical competency. (July-September)
  3. Phase 3: Design guidelines for integrating these materials into existing curricula (October-December)

The working group will focus on the local adaptation of these materials, ensuring that they meet the diverse needs of African students while aligning with global computing standards.

WG3 – Exploring the Effectiveness and Use of ACM Computing Curricular Recommendations

LEADERS

Alison Clear aclear@eit.ac.nz
John Impagliazzo john.impagliazzo@hofstra.edu

Participants

Zain Kazmi (Execusoft Solutions – Canada)
Ming Zhang (Peking University – China)
Daniel Fokum (The University of the West Indies, Mona – Jamaica)
Marcus Messer (King’s College London – UK)
Madison Thomas (North Carolina State University – USA)
Jose Antonio Pow-Sang Pontifical Catholic University of Peru – Peru)
Teresa Pereira (University of Minho – Portugal)
Mohammad Polash (University of Sydney – Australia)

ABSTRACT

Computing curricular guidelines often play a crucial role in shaping educational programs, ensuring they remain relevant to industry needs and technological advancements. This working group study examines the effectiveness of computing curricular guidelines by analyzing their adoption, adaptability, and effect on student learning. This work evaluates how well these frameworks align with employer expectations and emerging computing trends. The working group members will review existing guidelines, primarily those from ACM and IEEE, as well as related papers and studies. The findings intend to extract the strengths and limitations of curricular guidelines and explore the need for periodic vs. continuous updates to accommodate rapid technological changes. The recommendations from this working group, as well as these perspectives and experiences, may guide and support the efforts of global educators who are designing or redesigning their computing curricula. With many working group experiences behind them, the group leaders plan to leverage their expertise in ways that curricular guidelines produce competent graduates. Recommendations from this working group report intend to have practical and valuable applications in computing education.

1. MOTIVATION

Computing curricular guidelines are critical in promoting computing education at the undergraduate level. These guidelines, developed by organizations such as the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and other academic groups, serve as frameworks for institutions designing their computing programs. This working group will explore the effectiveness of these guidelines in meeting educational and industry needs and their role in addressing the evolving nature of computing disciplines. Curricular guidelines provide an adaptable foundation for computing education. They ensure a comprehensive education for students that aligns academic programs with industry needs and accreditation processes (e.g., ABET) while generating core computing competencies. Computing Educators and practitioners use these curricula recommendations to develop curricula in computing disciplines and build computing courses.

2. GOALS

  • Explore the effectiveness of the curricula recommendations
  • Determine the role of the curricula recommendations addressing the needs of computing disciplines
  • Discover how adaptable they are for the differing needs of computing education
  • Discover how adaptable they are in aligning academic programs with industry needs
  • Highlight exceptional computing guideline elements

3. WORKING GROUP OBJECTIVES

Building on the background and motivation, this working group seeks to attain the following objectives.

  1. Review computing curricula guidelines and explore their effectiveness in achieving meaningful attainment.
  2. Determine the parameters that identify meaningful measures to determine whether a curricular report had a helpful purpose in academia by surveying computing educators globally.
  3. Identify current approaches to assess the use and effectiveness of computing curricular guidelines.
  4. Explore how accrediting agencies such as ABET utilize computing curricular guidelines to develop standards for computing programs.
  5. Identify which computing curricular guidelines promote competency-based learning.
  6. Make recommendations for the computing education community on the effectiveness and use of computing curricular guidelines.

4. METHODOLOGY

This working group will examine the effectiveness and use of computing curricular guidelines by analyzing their adoption, adaptability, and effect on student learning. This work will evaluate how well these frameworks align with employer expectations and emerging computing trends. The working group members will review existing curricular guidelines, primarily those from ACM and IEEE, and related papers and studies. The recommendations, perspectives, and experiences from this working group should guide and support the efforts of global educators designing or redesigning their computing curricula.

WG4 – Exploring Computing Education Research as a Racialized Space

Leaders:

Tamara Pearson: tpearson30@gatech.edu
Yolanda Rankin: yrankin@emory.edu
Joshua Childs: joshuachilds@austin.utexas.edu
Stefanie Marshall: slmarsh@msu.edu

Participants

Christel Young (East Tennessee State University – USA)
Bodunrin Banwo (The University of Massachusetts, Boston – USA)
Ain Grooms (University of Wisconsin-Madison – USA)
Amos Oyelere Sunday (University of Eastern Finland – Finland)
Jaycee Holmes (Spelman College – USA)

Summary:

Systemic racism is so pervasive that it is often normalized. In recent years, we have seen a significant increase in explicit racism around the world. For example, whether in Ukraine, China or the United States, individuals of the African diaspora were denied sanctuary from the atrocities of war, suffered state-sanctioned police brutality, and grappled with lack of adequate housing and insufficient healthcare due to subjugation and marginalization as a result of anti-Black policies. Consequently, research production related to social inequities in computing education, specifically those addressing racial disparities in access and outcomes for marginalized communities, increased significantly. However, within the computing education research community, there is an ongoing debate about the global impact of racism. It is important to recognize that many of the projects focused on interrogating the role of race and racism in computing education are led by US-based researchers. However, long-term development of research at the intersection of race and computing education requires that we actively interrogate the extent to which racism has and continues to privilege dominant racial groups across the globe. In response to this dilemma, this working group seeks to identify how race explicitly and implicitly subjugates researchers of color and produces racial privilege with the field of computing education. We apply Battey and Levya’s framework for whiteness in mathematics education to explore two sites of power within computing education research: (1) organizational leadership and (2) dissemination and recognition of scholarship. Our findings will be critical in transforming the global computing education research community into one that values and uplifts non-dominant methodologies, expertise, and the lived experiences of those who have historically been relegated to the margins.

Motivation:

The myriad of ways that power is used to maintain racial hierarchy in computing education research is underexplored. A Google Scholar search using the phrase “equity in computing education research” returned hundreds of results. However, few search results examined how power structures within computing education research have created barriers that disadvantage Black researchers or practitioners in the larger computing ecosystem. One noted exception was an ITiCSE 2023 working group, which developed equity-focused guidelines for researchers and practitioners in computing education research. However, the project scope did not include an interrogation of the practices or policies that contribute to the racial disparities that disenfranchise Black scholars. As with any social structure, we posit that computing education research represents a racialized space. Racialization, first introduced by Frantz Fanon to conceptualize space, is used most often in the context of the design and development of housing communities. In this example, racialized space is conceived as a physical location. However, it can also be applied to a specific population such as the computing education research community, which consists of researchers, practitioners, K-16 students, and other stakeholders of diverse racial or ethnic identities. For the purpose of this working group, racialized space is defined as how race and ethnicity shape the lived experiences of Black scholars, practitioners, and students in the computing education research community.

Goals:

In the context of computing education research, we apply Battey and Levya’s framework for whiteness in mathematics education to identify the ways anti-Black racism: (1) manifests itself within the field of computing education research, (2) is used to subjugate Black scholars, and (3) produces racial privilege for some populations while disadvantaging others. Positioning computing education research as a racialized space, we apply Battey and Levya’s framework for whiteness in mathematics education to produce the following:

  • A comprehensive report detailing the specific ways power globally manifests itself within computing education research to maintain racial privilege, including answers to each proposed research question.
  • A list of recommendations to counteract the impacts of racial privilege within computing education research globally.
  • A list of recommendations for further study within each site of power.

Methodology:

This project focuses on two core sites of power within the field of computing education research: (1) organizational leadership and (2) dissemination and recognition of work. A critical component of unpacking these sites of power is the development of a comprehensive list of global computing education research professional organizations, publications, and conferences.

Using the comprehensive list, the first site of power will be explored by conducting an audit of the racial demographics of those holding leadership roles over the past ten years. In addition, a subset of “high prestige positions”, those positions with high visibility, decision-making power, and influence, will be identified, and the selection process for these positions will be analyzed. 

For the second site of power, there will be a review of authors and award recipients from years 2015 to 2025 based on the list of global computing education research professional organizations, publications, and conferences. Data collected will include racial demographics, research methodologies, populations of study, and the theoretical frameworks used. For research on racially minoritized groups, an audit will be performed to determine if there are correlations between the race of the authors and the use of deficit-based methodologies that denigrate racial groups.

WG 5 – Ethical and Societal Impacts of Generative AI in Higher Computing Education: An ACM Task Force Working Group to Develop a Landscape Analysis – Perspectives from the Global Souths and Guidelines for CS1/CS2/CS3

Leaders

Claudia Szabo, The University of Adelaide, Australia claudia.szabo@adelaide.edu.au
Nick Falkner, The University of Adelaide, Australia nickolas.falkner@adelaide.edu.au
Dr Munienge Mbodila, Walter Sisulu University, South Africa mbodila@gmail.com
Prof Judithe Sheard, Monash University, Australia judy.sheard@monash.edu

Participants

Mabberi Enock (University of Eastern Finland – Uganda)
Myles Joshua Toledo Tan (University of St. La Salle – Philippines)
Delali Kwasi Dake (University of Education, Winneba – Ghana)
Bimlesh Wadhwa (National University of Singapore – Singapore)
Tony Clear (Auckland University of Technology – New Zealand)
Oluwakemi Ola (University of British Columbia – Canada)
Tsholofetso Taukobong (University of Botswana – Botswana)
Omowumi Ogunyemi (Pan-Atlantic University, Lagos – Nigeria)

Motivation:

Generative AI has a wide range of impacts on how we access and use information, particularly as educational settings and perspectives differ greatly across different locations. These impacts extend to society and include impacts on intellectual and creative works and the potential infringement of authorship. Differences in institutional GenAI policies (and in funding) may create unequal access to AI tools, the potential disparity in student knowledge of AI tools, responsible uses of AI tools, ethical questions about AI tools, and uneven student knowledge of the benefits and limitations of AI tools. Generative AI introduces questions concerning academic integrity, bias, and data provenance. The training data’s source, reliability, veracity, and trustworthiness may be in doubt, creating broader societal concerns about the output of the Generative AI models.

This ACM working group, fitting within the broader remit of an ACM Task Force, aims to investigate the ethical and societal impacts of Generative AI tools within the higher computing education landscape within the Global South and to provide guidelines for the ethical incorporation of AI into teaching and assessment in CS1, CS2 and CS3, considering the desired learning outcomes at each level, student learning behaviour, validity of assessment and academic integrity, and local ethical frameworks. This working group will conduct a landscape analysis on Global South ethical questions related to the use of Generative AI tools in higher education contexts, identifying promising principles, challenges, and ways to navigate the implementation of Generative AI in ethical and principled ways. This working group builds on the ITiCSE working group with a similar name, and is developed under the guidance of two of that working group’s leaders, namely Alison Clear and Tony Clear. It focuses the lens on the Global South and specifically on CS1-3 perspectives within this space.

Goals:

This working group aims to contribute a landscape study to guide ACM as an organization in its work with higher education institutions and the research community.

  1. Assess the ethical and societal impacts of Generative AI in higher education with a focus on the Global South.
  2. Analyse how Generative AI affects the socio-technical dynamics of higher education institutions within the Global South.
  3. Identify the challenges, opportunities, limitations of integrating Generative AI in higher education with a focus on CS1/CS2/CS3 within the Global South.

Methodology:

This working group aims to analyse and review the literature on ethical and societal questions within the Global South around using Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT in higher education teaching and learning.

  1. We will derive a set of challenges and recommendations through the systematic analysis of universities’ policies and guidelines on using Generative AI in Computer Science education within the Global South.
  2. Hold community webinars on different case studies on implementing Generative AI guidelines, policies, and evaluation frameworks in higher educational institutions.
  3. Provide findings and recommendations to ACM’s Code of Ethics and institutional policies on Generative AI.

WG6 – Future Ready, Globally Relevant: Aligning Africa’s Tertiary Computer Science Education Objectives with Global Standards

Leaders:

Participants

Mohamed Essam Khedr (Arab Academy for Science Technology and Maritime Transport – Egypt)
Joseph Ahor Abandoh-Sam (Valley view University – Ghana)
Janet Liebenberg (North-West University – South Africa)
Costain Nachuma (Idaho State University – USA)
Oluwatoyin Adelakun-Adeyemo (Bingham University/Miva University – Nigeria)
Leonard Peter Binamungu (University of Dar es Salaam – Tanzania)
Engineer Bainomugisha (Makerere University – Uganda)
Jonathan Mwaura (Northeastern University – USA/Kenya)

Motivation: 

The African Union has a clear vision for the continent’s needs and achievable goals by 2063, as outlined in Africa Agenda 2063[1]. Central to this vision is fostering prosperity across all African nations, enhancing economic prospects, and improving the financial well-being of their populations. A promising avenue for achieving these objectives lies in the technology and software sector. However, not only have significant IT skills shortages  been reported in many African countries, but the state of computer science education across Africa also faces significant challenges. This raises questions about how best to align educational frameworks with the continent’s aspirations.

In 2024, the ACM/IEEE-CS/AAAI released the Computing Curricula Guidelines (CS2023)[2], which is intended to serve as a global roadmap for computer science education over the next decade. The guidelines depart from previous guidelines by adopting both knowledge content and competencies expected of a graduate. However, the development of these guidelines involved minimal African participation. While the professional societies may assume its universal applicability, it remains unclear how relevant or effective these guidelines are in the African context. Specifically, can they contribute meaningfully to realizing Africa’s Agenda 2063, particularly in addressing the unique challenges faced by the continent?

CS2023 also informs the curriculum criteria of accreditation bodies such as ABET. There are several accreditation agencies that accredit programs in various regions of the world. These include the Australian Computer Society, the British Computer Society}, ICACIT, and ASIIN among others. Several of these organizations recognize others as essentially functionally equivalent through the Seoul Accord. There is currently no Africa-wide accreditation body. Would accreditation be beneficial for the promotion of computer science within Africa?

Goals:

This workshop aims to explore the challenges of teaching computer science in Africa and assess whether adopting global curriculum frameworks like CS2023 can help address Africa’s IT skills shortages, whilst at the same time enhancing productivity and global market share in computing-related projects. The workshop also explores the role, if any, of accreditation in adoption of a global curriculum guideline, or if accreditation is even relevant. The following research questions will be addressed in the context of the diverse educational systems within the 54 African nations:

RQ1: Is the adoption of CS2023 feasible, practical, or even beneficial in the African context? 
RQ2: Could accreditation of the many African computing curricula by a recognised global accreditation board accelerate the uptake of IT qualifications across the continent?

RQ3: How can computer science education be tailored to support Africa’s long-term development goals specifically focusing on alleviating the shortages of relevant IT skills?

Methodology: 

  1. Through a systematic analysis of the CS curricula in various African universities, we will develop a generalised CS curriculum that follows the CS2023 guidelines.
  2. This generalised CS curriculum will be “vetted” by academics at African universities.
  3. Suggested changes will be made to accommodate known limitations as well as indications of skill development based on the curriculum.
  4. The challenges and benefits of accreditation of computer science programs in Africa will be explored.
  5. Our findings in terms of the generalised curriculum, accreditation, and potential skills development opportunities will be summarized in a publication.

WG 7 – Technology Adoption and Learning Preferences in Computing Science Higher Education

Leaders

Ouldooz Baghban Karimi, Simon Fraser University, ouldooz@sfu.ca
James Paterson, Glasgow Caledonian University, James.Paterson@gcu.ac.uk
Solomon Oyelere, University of Exeter, s.oyelere@exeter.ac.uk

Participants

Cruz Izu (The University of Adelaide – Australia)
Christian Basil Omeh (University of Nigeria Nsukka – Nigeria)
Wilson Nwankwo (Southern Delta University – Nigeria)
Abdullahi Abubakar Yunusa (Usman Danfodio University Sokoto – Nigeria)
Mercy Wairimu Gachoka (University of Eastern Finland – Finland)
Chelsie Dubay (East Tennessee State University – USA)

With a plethora of online content and technologies, an extensive range of learning choices are available to match student preferences. While offering extensive potential, the effective use and development of these resources are still hurdled by different factors. First, these options are not available to the same degree to all learners around the world, and the availability often determines adoption. Second, when available, effective adoption is hurdled by a variety of factors such as differences in educator and student experiences. Third, there are limited studies on adoption, factors impacting effectiveness, and shifting needs and preferences with emerging technologies.

In this working group, we plan to study the adoption of learning technologies to enable effective learning for different groups of learners. We plan to learn about effective outside-the-class methods and resources (e.g., YouTube videos, LLMs, etc.), student and educator preferences on their use, and strategies and tools to integrate these technologies to augment in-class learning. We expand on our findings for diverse learners and the adoption of emerging technologies (e.g., tutor robots, augmented reality, etc.) and possible integration to class strategies and learning management systems.

WG8 – Decolonizing Computer Education Spaces: Universities and Makerspaces as Sites of Technological Resistance

Leaders:

Candice Moore – candice.moore@wits.ac.za
Julian Brooks – j.brooks2@leeds.ac.uk
Justine Nasejje – justine.nasejje@wits.ac.za
Pierre-Philippe Dechant – p.p.dechant@leeds.ac.uk

Participants
Najmeh Nakhaeirad (University of Pretoria – South Africa)
Nobert Jere (University of Fort Hare – South Africa)
Samson Damilola Fabiyi (University of Leeds – UK)
Sílvia Amélia Bim (UTFPR: Federal University of Technology, Paraná – Brazil)
Rukia Nuermaimaiti (Imperial College London – United Kingdom)

Motivation:

Computational and data science education continues to be shaped by Western-centric approaches that often marginalise indigenous knowledge systems. This working group aims to examine how university computing departments and affiliated community makerspaces / tech incubators can function not merely as places of technological implementation but as sites of resistance to colonial knowledge structures.

Our approach builds on emerging scholarship at the intersection of decolonial theory and computing education, examining how spatial configurations, resource distribution, financial support and community access patterns can reinforce or challenge existing power structures for students. This work extends to examining how these educational spaces shape the development of graduate skills and professional identities that might differ from traditional Western professional norms.

Goals:

Our working group has four primary research questions:

  1. Do spatial configurations and resource allocation within computing education spaces reinforce or challenge colonial knowledge structures?
  • What pedagogical practices enable students to engage with indigenous perspectives and local contexts in computational education?
  • Which graduate skills emerge from decolonial educational environments that differ from those in traditional Western-centric computing education?
  • How do students describe their experiences in decolonial computing education spaces, particularly regarding technical identity and belonging?

Expected Outcomes

  • An analytical framework for evaluating decolonial aspects of computing education spaces
  • A collection of case studies documenting innovative approaches from diverse contexts
  • Practical guidelines for educators seeking to transform their educational spaces
  • Assessment tools for evaluating impacts on graduate skills development

Additional outcomes will include the final working group report for publication and an agenda for future research in this area.

Methodology & Process:

The working group will employ a structured, collaborative approach across three phases:

Pre-Conference Activities (July-October 2025)

  • Collaborative literature review mapping decolonial theory in computing education and pedagogic design
  • Collection of case studies from each working group member’s context
  • Development of draft analytical framework and evaluation instruments
  • Mapping the spectrum of computing education spaces from community makerspaces to university labs
  • Regular virtual meetings for coordination and sharing of preliminary findings

During Conference (October 2025)

  • Refinement of analytical tools based on collected cases – Potential visits to local educational spaces in Southern Africa – Engagement with local educators and students to gather Southern African perspectives – Cross-regional discussions about models for community-university partnerships – Structured analysis of collected data using the refined framework – Collaborative drafting of findings and recommendations

Post-Conference Follow-up (October 2025-January 2026)

  • Finalisation of analytical framework based on conference insights
  • Completion of working group report for publication
  • Development of practical resources for educators
  • Planning for dissemination of findings beyond the initial report
  • Potential future research agenda