2025 Working Group Proposals

Below are descriptions of the 8 Working Groups (WG) open for membership applications. Please read the descriptions below, and if you find one, or more, WG you are interested in, use the link (below) to apply to participate. You can apply for one, or two, WGs in one application and you are limited to one application.

Groups that attract a sufficient number of members to create a viable group will proceed and work on their project from late May to the end of the year to produce their research report. Pending satisfactory reviews of the report, it will be published in the Conference Proceedings. All members are expected to contribute to the shape and direction of the working group and contribute to the abstract published at the time of the conference (Vols 1-2), as per ACM authorship policy. Revisions in response to the external review of the final report and the camera-ready manuscript are due in December. Pending satisfactory reviews of the report, it will be published in the Conference Proceedings (Vol 3: CompEd WGR 2025). 

Participation

As a reminder, all members are expected to (a) participate in WG activities from May to October, as needed by your WG, (b) register for the conference (including the WG fee), and (c) be present at the 2025 CompEd Conference in Gaborone, Botswana. Also, there is a separate WG Conference fee that provides the work space (not lodging) for WGs in Gaborone as well as lunch and morning and afternoon breaks.

The Proposed Working Groups

• WG 1 – Understanding the effect of native language on learning to program
• WG2 – Expanding Contextualized Computer Science Education in Africa: A Collaborative Initiative
• WG3 – Exploring the Effectiveness and Use of ACM Computing Curricular Recommendations
• WG4 – Exploring Computing Education Research as a Racialized Space
• WG5 – 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
• WG6 – Could following global curriculum guidelines help alleviate the IT skills shortages in Africa?
• WG7 – Technology Adoption and Learning Preferences in Computing Science Higher Education
• WG8 – Decolonizing Computer Education Spaces: Universities and Makerspaces as Sites of Technological Resistance

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

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.

Expectations of members:
Participate in weekly online meetings from May through October.  Members will contribute by (a) reviewing literature, (b) reviewing textbooks and building the corpus, (c) designing instruments, (d) aiding in survey distribution, (e) performing thematic and statistical analysis of survey results, (e) actively participating in the writing and editing of the reports produced by the group, and (f) other activities the group decides to pursue.

Member selection criteria:
Any computing educator is welcome; however, if faced with choosing among ‘equally qualified’ members, the leaders will prioritize a team with diverse membership representing as many genders and geopolitical constituents as possible. Additionally, the WG will benefit from having members in a variety of educational contexts and/or teaching experience in common courses.

WG 2 – Expanding Contextualized Computer Science Education in Africa

Leaders:

• Sally Hamouda, sallyh84@vt.edu
• Ethel Tshukudu, ethel.tshukudu@sjsu.edu
• Linda Marshall, linda.marshall@up.ac.za

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.

Member Selection:

We seek at least 4-7 researchers and educators from across the globe including African institutions who have experience in one or more of the following areas:

• Computer Science education research
• Academics and educators interested in contextualisation in the African context and who have taught undergraduate computer science courses, or are currently teaching or plan to teach it
• Research in contextualisation of teaching and learning computer science
• Knowledge and experience of conducting empirical research

We welcome applications from diverse backgrounds to apply, especially those with experience in inclusive pedagogies and broadening participation in computer science education. 

Successful applicants will be expected to:

• Participate in bi-weekly online meetings (60 minutes) from mid-May through October.,
• Register for COMPED 2025 and attend the conference
• Attend and contribute to the full duration of the working group, including pre- and post-conference activities as listed above (approx 2 hours per week)
• Conduct empirical research in your own CS classroom based in Africa or collaborate with an educator based in Africa who can facilitate this research in their classroom.

We especially encourage applications from researchers and educators based in Africa, as well as those with expertise in implementing localized or culturally relevant educational strategies across the globe.

We look forward to working together to shape the future of Computer Science education in Africa!

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

LEADERS

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.

5. MEMBERSHIP

The successful applicants will need to:

• Participate in weekly online meetings, approx. 1 hour
• Contribute approximately 3-4 hours per week starting late in May 2025 until the conference in October
• Contribute to the literature review, data collection and analysis, and the written report
• Attend the Working Group two days prior to the CompEd conference
• Register for CompEd 2025 and attend the conference

We encourage applications from educators and researchers from all continents to enable a global perspective on the use of the curricula recommendations. So, come and join us! Make computing a more assertive discipline! With passion and commitment, you can make this essential effort an impactful and meaningful experience for teachers, practitioners, and students. This working group also plans to highlight exceptional computing guideline elements found in curricular reports. Be part of this worthwhile working group experience. We are planning this to be global, so let’s have representatives from everywhere, including Africa, Europe, and Asia.

WG4 – Exploring Computing Education Research as a Racialized Space

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.

Member Selection:

We seek at least 4-7 researchers and educators from across the globe who have expertise and experience in one or more of the following areas:

• Computing education research
• Critical frameworks and epistemologies
• The role of race in computing education

We specifically seek applicants who can offer an interdisciplinary lens by drawing on organizational literature.

Successful applicants will be expected to:

We expect all members to be involved in all phases of the project, including data collection, analysis, and report writing. Members will be expected to contribute approximately 3-4 hours per week on average for the duration of the working group (starting in June 2025). Working group meetings will be held every 2 weeks via a suitable collaboration platform such as Zoom or Microsoft Teams. All meetings will be recorded and the link to the recordings distributed so that those unable to attend for any reason are able to remain up-to-date and engaged. Meetings will be scheduled to accommodate members’ commitments and time zone differences.

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

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.

Practical Organisation Plan

Participation in this Working Group requires active engagement in various research activities, including:

1. Contribute to the literature scoping review. The working group will have members in two subgroups:
   1. academia literature review – Identify and examine literature on GenAI approaches and strategies applied in higher education environments,
   1. Policy – Identify and examine literature on GenAI policies and trends, particularly related to ethical and societal impacts focused on the Global South.
2. Contribute to the creation guidelines for the ethical incorporation of AI in teaching and assessment in CS1, CS2 and CS3, considering desired learning outcomes at each level, student learning behaviour, validity of assessment and academic integrity, and local ethical frameworks within the Global South.
3. Attend regular virtual meetings (monthly from June to October 2025) to discuss progress, coordinate tasks, and refine the final working group manuscript.
4. Applicants should be willing to actively contribute to the research process and attend CompEd 2025 in person to finalize the Working Group’s outcomes.

Member Selection Criteria:

We welcome group members with various backgrounds, and researchers, educators, and junior and senior academics alike, in particular from the Global South. We hope every member will bring their expertise, enthusiasm, and commitment to co-writing this working group landscape report to achieve meaningful results together. We seek working group members who are:

WG6 – Could following global curriculum guidelines help alleviate the IT skills shortages in Africa?

1. Academics and educators interested in this topic and who have taught courses in computing education, or are currently teaching or are interested in teaching in the future.
2. Academics who are currently teaching/researching or have taught/researched GenAI in higher education.
3. Researchers with interests in the ethical and societal impacts of GenAI.
4. Professionals and industry willing to contribute their expertise and insights on GenAI in Education.
5. Represent diverse geographical regions from across the world, with a preference for the Global South.

Leaders:

• Michael Oudshoorn, michael.oudshoorn@gmail.com
• Karen Bradshaw, k.bradshaw@ru.ac.za

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.

Expectations of Members:

Members will be expected to contribute approximately 3-4 hours per week on average for the duration of the working group (starting in late May 2025). Working group meetings will be held every 2-3 weeks via a suitable collaboration platform such as Zoom or Microsoft Teams. All meetings will be recorded and the link to the recordings distributed so that those unable to attend for any reason are able to remain up-to-date and engaged. Meetings will be scheduled to accommodate members’ commitments and time zone differences.

All members will need to register for CompEd 2025 and physically attend all conference sessions allocated to the working group.

Member Selection Criteria:

We aim to attract representatives from as many of the geographical regions within Africa as possible. We also encourage international participants that have served on the CS2023 steering committee or any of the knowledge area subcommittees, those with knowledge of computer science accreditation, or participants with extensive knowledge of CS education in Africa, even if no longer living in Africa.  Participants will be chosen based on the documents they submit about themselves, their interest in the subject, and the potential contributions they can make to the paper.

If you are unsure about applying, please reach out to the co-leads by email. We are happy to discuss any questions you may have, and we do hope you will join us! 

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

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.

Expectations

We are committed to allocating an average of 3-4 hours per week for this work throughout the pre- and post- conference period, including one hour of synchronized meeting time. We require the same level of commitment from the working group members.

Will employ mixed methods analysis through multiple phases. All members are expected to be involved in all phases of the research, including study design, data collection, refinement, and analysis. We also require all members to receive the required unified ethics approval and/or those from their host institutions.

Membership

We invite interested scholars from around world who would like to join us in this exploration. For the selection of members, we will be looking for experience or interest in online and emerging educational tool and platforms, motivation for performing high-quality research, and successful prior collaborations. We aim to build an inclusive team of diverse perspectives and backgrounds.

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

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)

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

Expectations of Members:

Working group members are expected to:

• Participate in regular virtual meetings (twice monthly) from July through October 2025
• Obtain ethical consent for any research involving human subjects
• Contribute to the collaborative literature review
• Document and share 1-2 examples of computing education spaces from your context
• Engage in collaborative analysis of collected cases
• Participate in intensive working sessions during the conference
• Contribute to the writing of the final report and resources

Members should expect to dedicate approximately 2-3 hours per week to the working group before the conference, intensive work during the pre-conference working group sessions, and additional weekly time for follow-up activities through to January 2026.

Member Selection Criteria:

We welcome participants with wide-ranging experience including:

• Computing education, particularly in diverse contexts
• How physical and virtual learning environments impact student experience
• Decolonial theory and its application to educational context
• Global South perspectives and regional expertise
• Makerspace/community computing education environments
• University-affiliated innovation hubs / startup incubators
• Economic models around sustainable communities
• Graduate skills development and professional competencies

Participants should have access to computing education spaces and be willing to document aspects of these spaces. We particularly welcome educators from contexts underrepresented in computing education research, especially those from throughout the Global South.

Feel free to reach out with any questions, we very much hope that you will join us…

---

[1] https://au.int/en/agenda2063/overview

[2] https://doi.org/10.1145/3664191doi:10.1145/3664191