Our working group aims to better understand teamwork in undergraduate computing education through a systematic literature review and focus groups with instructors. Based on the strategies suggested and needs identified, we will also co-design instructional resources with the community to cultivate the skills, values, and virtues pertinent to teamwork. Through planned research and collaboration, we seek to inform and establish practical materials that can enhance teaming pedagogy and prepare graduates for the evolution of technology and the workforce.

A variety of factors, accelerated by rapid advances in generative AI, have prompted CS educators to reconsider traditional assessment methods. This year, our BoF expands beyond just oral assessment to consider broader alternative approaches such as oral exams, mastery assessment, assignment-specific evaluation, etc., and has expanded as the focus shifts toward measuring authentic proficiency while upholding academic integrity. This Birds of a Feather (BoF) session brings the CS education community together to share experiences, strategies, and concerns surrounding the evolution of assessment. Participation is encouraged from all experience levels, from those who have previously piloted novel alternative assessment methods, to those who are currently experimenting with the feasibility of non-traditional assessment, and especially those who are looking to engage in a conversation about the benefits and challenges of emerging practices. The BoF session will feature multiple ways for attendees to engage, including small-group discussion on topics such as scalability, academic integrity, oral assessment, and others. The goal of this BoF is to inspire future research (and connect active researchers) on alternative assessment methods, and create a community of practice around assessment in the age of AI. Results of the session will be compiled and shared with the community.

Evidence supports offering research experiences for undergraduate computing science students as a means of broadening participation in computing[7, 10, 11]. However, student perceptions about computing science research, how students become interested in these research experiences, and the details of effective design and delivery of programs capable of attracting and retaining this interest are less explored. In this study, we investigate the design and delivery of undergraduate research programs. We expand on and explore several factors, including but not limited to cultural relevance, the presence of a cross-disciplinary high-level view, task assignment, entry point, and support elements of a program.

Oral exams provide a compelling alternative to traditional evaluation methods, expanding or replacing traditional written work. Interest in oral exams is growing rapidly in computer science (CS) education due to shifts to remote learning and concerns around AI-supported programming. This Birds of a Feather (BoF) session is broadly applicable to many in the CS education community, whether they have previously tried oral exams, have concerns about the use of oral exams in CS education, or are curious to hear more about how oral exams might work. The BoF session will provide a forum to discover and discuss previous approaches to oral exams, dive into common themes of interest in small groups, and collectively identify promising future directions for oral exams in CS courses.

One of the less explored approaches to foster equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in Computer Science (CS) is through changes to the curriculum. Despite sporadic work on the adoption of Culturally Responsive Computing (CRC) and Universal Design for Learning (UDL), the inclusion of equity-minded courses, or modifications on specific elements of the curriculum such as introductory programming courses, there has never been a wide exploration or adoption of a successful equity-minded undergraduate CS curriculum.

This experience report presents results from a quasi-experiment comparing course performance and student-reported survey constructs between two groups of students. One group took a Data Structures course with traditional, in-person modality. The second group took the same course with flexible, online modality. The work was motivated by the rapid adjustments computer science instructors made due to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. In a response to these forced changes, this study was set up to investigate the differences between pre- and post- pandemic modalities. There are 212 students in the study, which took place in Fall 2021 at an R1, minority serving institution in the Midwestern United States. The study found that students in both groups performed similarly on common course components like projects, labs, homework, and a final Data Structures assessment. There were not significant differences in their self-reported ease of learning, enjoyment, belongingness, attitude, mindset, and self-efficacy. However, when taking into consideration gender, we found that women's performance was lower than men's in the traditional modality course. Women's performance in the flexible modality course was on par with men. Lastly, we present some feedback from students relating to assessments and modality.

This tip, technique, and courseware proposal is presenting the details the design of a problem solving competition. This is a competition concept that can be used in place of or to prepare for a traditional hackathon. This style of competition is more friendly to first and second year students, less competitive, less of a time commitment, and more collaborative. Two different competition formats are presented. The first is called "Problem Solving Speed Dating", which works by pairing upperclassmen and underclassmen in a speed dating type exercise. The second is called "Unwrapped Collaborative Problem Solving", where students work on a team but with very specific (and intentionally restrictive) roles. Both competition formats were tested in five different workshops over the course of several years involving around 250 undergraduate students. Students reporting receiving similar benefits to a hackathon including: problem solving skills, teamwork, building community, and networking with industry.

An oral exam is an assessment approach involving verbal explanations of key concepts or thought process to achieve a solution to a problem, sometimes accompanied by written or typed work. As a complement or refreshing alternative to standard written assessments, oral exams are being implemented in CS courses in a variety of formats. This Birds of a Feather (BoF) session will bring together the growing community of CS educators who have previously used oral exams and those interested in alternative assessment approaches to share ideas and discuss best practices. The discussion leaders represent a wide range of institutions and have varied previous expertise in the design, implementation, and study of oral exams in CS courses. The BoF session will involve (1) introduction to oral exams and previous approaches led by the discussion leaders, (2) small group discussions based on shared interests or concerns with oral exams, and (3) discussion of best practices for oral exams in CS courses.

Oral proficiency exams implemented in introductory programming courses at a public, research, minority-serving university provide a way to connect with students one-on-one, keep students accountable on the course material to improve their learning, and help improve feelings of belongingness in the learning environment. This study analyzes data disaggregated based on majority and underrepresented demographic groups by gender, race/ethnicity, and parental education level, to investigate the following three research themes across all groups: (1) to determine the impact of the oral exams on student motivation for independent learning; (2) to compare student stress levels related to the oral exams; and (3) to compare belongingness and final course performance. Student survey data was collected and analyzed following the oral exam intervention. For research theme (1), students across nearly all demographic groups reported that oral exams improved their understanding of the material and encouraged them to do more independent work. For research theme (2), students in some underrepresented groups reported higher stress levels than their majority group peers, and all groups reported a reduction in stress level after completing the oral exam. For research theme (3), students in some underrepresented groups reported lower sense of belonging and had lower final course performance than their majority group peers.

As the enrollment in computer science courses increases, faculty face the challenge of maintaining a standard of academic integrity in out of class programming assignments. One strategy to combat academic misconduct, is to incorporate more frequent in-class assessment. Traditional in-class assessment is often perceived as passive and taking away from valuable class time. Also, more in-class assessment could mean increasing the amount of test anxiety. Therefore, this paper presents results from a study that investigated the effectiveness of active, in-class programming assessment. The study was conducted in an introductory programming course with 93 undergraduate students at a mid-size, public university in the western United States. Three different assessment types were tested: collaborative, cooperative, and individual type assessments. A collaborative assessment is equivalent to pair programming. Cooperative assessments are partner quizzes where students must write their own code and are assessed individually, but may collaborative as much or as little as they like with their partner. Student performance was measured under multiple conditions including type of assessment and partner's active learning preference and factors like GPA, time in the semester, and section were controlled for. The results show that students perform better on both collaborative and cooperative type assessment than they do on individual type assessments. Also, the results show that students perform similarly on collaborative and cooperative assessments, which provides a nice alternative to pair programming for educators. Lastly, results show that most students prefer collaborative assessments over cooperative or individual. The majority of students prefer partner assessment to individual assessment.