tomcrick / educon2020 Goto Github PK

R1: If one of the key challenges (identified by the authors in Section IV.G) is
"educating the educators", it is fuzzy why it does not make part of the the 5
priority axes (previously described in Sections IV.B-F). Please clarify.

R1: At the beginning of Section V, I wonder if "ongoing work in progress" is a
pleonasm that could be avoided.

R1: The term "Institute of Coding" should appear in italic and an acronym could be
defined (IoC) used throughout the paper.

• the curriculum is not compared to other similar efforts in Europe

• The paper goes very much in details, lots of them which are particular to the UK. I would prefer authors focus more on general issues to computing education as they do in Section 4.

• With so much time devoted to the the UK issues in Sections 1, 2 and 3, there is not much space to cover the initiatives of the Institute of Coding, which I was expecting to read

ACM conf style uses full first name for references -- but not all bib entries have these.

R2: Good paper, with a significant theme, very appropriate to the conference and
well written. The only suggestion of correction is regarding the lack of
definitions for some acronyms such as: UK, OECD, UN, ICT, IT, MOOC.

• well-described context of the intervention...but it takes almost five pages

• With so much time devoted to the the UK issues in Sections 1, 2 and 3, there is not much space to cover the initiatives of the Institute of Coding, which I was expecting to read. At the end of the paper I had the feeling that there was something missing, especially the practical research trends that they are focusing on.

R1: The outline of the paper structure (at the end of I.B) is missing a reference
do Section V (Impact to Date).

Are they sufficiently different from the CEP 2019 paper?

R1: The Abstract and some paragraphs in the paper could be shortened.

• still early to see any impact, so how this could help further curricula recommendations?

• While the context is helpful, the institute remains young, so I am not sure how much there is to learn from it yet (Emphasis on the yet, this is a great initiative, but remains young.)

• There is no real assessment or evaluation of the initiative presented or discussion of its impact. I think this is probably because the initiative is still too young to have been meaningfully evaluated for impact. This does not mean that the initiative is not worthwhile – just that it is probably too early on in the project to be producing a paper for publication that tries to extend beyond a white paper or positioning piece.

• The weakness of this paper is that it is not clear to this author if their efforts will be successful: there is no question they are grounded in fact, but even the authors admit that the time frame and resources for this program are not sufficient to even evaluate ultimate outcomes. To that end, it is difficult to argue that this provides deeper insight into the effectiveness of the system that they have constructed.

Can we improve the quality of Fig.1 in the CEP 2019 paper?

R1: Please check if the acronym HE (Higher Education), which AFAIK is firstly used
in Section II.A, is previously defined.

• While the authors motivate the need for "something else", where the something else seems to essentially be an umbrella organization, they do not discuss existing alternatives such as microdegrees, moocs, university-industry collaborations, boot camps, coding universities (e.g. https://code.berlin/en/faq/) and so on. Similarly, little discussion on why universities etc should join the initiative is given -- this reviewer is left thinking "how do I take this into my own context?".

• Additionally with more room and given the context of CompEd, it would have been useful if the authors had compared and contrasted this initiative with other similar global initiatives.

R1: Table I is quite confusing in the sense that
some lines represent totals and should be differentiated some way (e.g. bold,
highlighted).

Should we number them (or have some numbering/annotation) for clarity?