Call for Working Groups

This page provides detailed information about working group proposal submissions to the ITiCSE 2027 conference. It is part of the general Call for Participation which you should read first, if you have not yet done so. 

If you have questions that neither this page nor the Call for Participation can answer, please contact the working group co-chairs. 

Important dates for working groups

What is a working group?

An ITiCSE working group (WG) is a collaborative research project conducted by a team typically between 8-12 researchers from around the world to produce a high-value report on a topic of interest in computing education. Membership or leadership of a WG is an almost year-long commitment. Working group membership is highly competitive and not everyone who applies will gain a spot in a WG despite the strength of their background and credentials.

Before the conference

A working group begins with a proposal written by up to four working group leaders. WG leaders should represent at least two institutions with no more than two people stemming from the same institution. At least one of the WG leaders must have prior WG experience as a member or a leader of an ITiCSE, CompEd or SIGCSE Virtual working group.  

Each WG leader can only be named as a leader on a single proposal as a leader. 

To give more researchers the opportunity to lead working groups, we are limiting leadership to three consecutive WG cycles. If you have led a WG in each of the past three cycles, you are not eligible to lead a group this cycle, but we encourage you to apply as a participant.

The proposals are reviewed by the working group co-chairs, who decide based on a multitude of criteria, including space available on the ground, which proposals can proceed to member recruitment. The selected working groups 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 start acquiring any necessary ethics/IRB approvals they require.  

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

If any of the approved WGs need more members, or are still seeking members with certain expertise, a second round of recruitment follows. The second round is open to new applicants and applicants not approved during the first round who want to apply to another WG alike. The second round of recruitment is not guaranteed. The final WG consists of approximately 8-12 researchers, including the WG leaders. The group number upper bound may fluctuate depending on the space available on the ground, the wishes of the WG leaders and other considerations. The viable groups (ones who have recruited sufficient members) move forward with collaboration and work until the time of the conference. 

The WG will submit a two-page extended abstract in mid-April. Per ACM authorship rules, the abstract to be published in the conference proceedings will list all WG leaders and members as authors, and should be something all WG members have contributed to.

Immediately before the conference

On the Thursday preceding the conference (July 8), working group leaders of all WGs will meet in person with the WG co-chairs and members of the local conference committee for an WG leaders kickoff and introduction session. For the next three days (Friday, Saturday, Sunday before the start of the main conference), working groups will meet for all-day collaboration and writing. At the end of the third day, Sunday July 11, WGs will submit three things to the WG co-chairs: 1) a draft of their final report, 2) a list of proposed external reviewers, and 3) an attestation from the WG leaders that members have satisfied the requirements of authorship based on their contributions and the ACM Policy on Authorship.

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. As for all other submissions, 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
  1. background and related work 
  2. goals of the proposal
  3. proposed methodology
  4. expected deliverables
  5. whether or not the research needs human subjects 
  6. references (which can exceed the 2 page limit) 
• The proposal also contains a two-page appendix that contains
  1. an outline of inclusion criteria for member selection  
  2. a detailed proposed work-plan with meeting frequency and milestones 
  3. how the WG plans to incorporate members working in different time zones 
  4. estimation of good WG size for the project 
  5. 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 (leaders) and affiliations. The remainder of the two-page proposal body should be used to explain the background of the work, the goals, the proposed methodology, and the expected deliverables. This can, and should, read like the beginning of a research paper as the working group should be conducting research. 

A successful working group proposal will be based on existing literature, and propose meaningful work worthy of a working group effort conducted by an international team of researchers. In addition, it should be clear the methodology is appropriate, the expected results are both reasonable (achievable) and meaningful. Given the current state of generative AI, a WG aiming to just conduct a systematic literature review may not be competitive.   

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 ACM authorship policy.. 

2. Proposal Appendix (2 page)

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

1. Inclusion criteria for member selection, and how the leaders will encourage diversity of membership. The goal of ITiCSE 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.
2. Proposed work-plan that includes considerations for different time zones and collaboration technology (and alternatives) and how these choices will support engaged members.
3. 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.
4. An estimation of the number of members that can contribute meaningfully to the project. If you propose a group of more than 12 members, please justify the requested size. Group size is subject to venue capacity, so we cannot guarantee that larger groups can be accommodated.
5. A discussion of leaders’ prior WG experience. We require that at least one of the leaders has led or participated in a prior ITiCSE, CompEd, or 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.
6. Recruitment ad. Include an advertisement for your WG to be published on the conference’s member recruitment page if your proposal is approved. If you need inspiration about what your recruitment ad should look like, please look at previous ITiCSE conference websites’ working group proposal pages.

3 Submitting the proposal

Follow the instructions on Submission process 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: 

1. Proposal – The proposal process is described above. 
2. Call for participation – Accepted proposals will be published on the conference site.
3. Recruitment – Leaders of accepted working groups as well as ITiCSE PC and WG Co-Chairs advertise to recruit members.
4. 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 that didn’t fit in their first choice.
5. Pre-conference work – Working groups work during the months prior to the conference according to the work-plan submitted with the WG proposal.
6. On-site work – There is a kick-off meeting on Thursday before the WGs start and at least one WG leader of each group is expected to attend. In the three days prior to the start of the conference (Friday to Sunday), WG will meet and work at the conference site preparing the preliminary report draft, which is delivered to the WG co-chairs Sunday night and before the main conference starts.
7. Conference presentation – Working groups present their progress to conference attendees at one of the sessions during the conference.  
8. Post-Conference feedback – WG co-chairs provide feedback and the approval to continue. 
9. 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.
10. Review – The final version is peer-reviewed by at least three external reviewers. The Working Groups will provide a list of at least 10 relevant possible reviewers for their work that have no Conflict of Interest with any of the WG members.
11. 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.
12. Revisions – Working Groups respond to reviews to produce and submit camera-ready reports.
13. Publication – The reports are published.

Questions

If you have questions about anything discussed above, please contact the Working Group chairs.