In 2024 the ACM Education Board began a project to develop a ''Living curriculum'' (referred to as LiveC) where all current curricula will be updated on a regular basis. The new Living Curriculum model is based on three major principles - that it is (1) community-sourced, (2) moderated, and (3) on-going. The panel will provide a brief context of LiveC, present the various aspects of LiveC and invite the audience to provide comments and suggestions about its structure and function.

Agentic AI, where AI systems have their own forms of agency, will present some of the most critical challenges that computing education will face, including regulatory gaps and amplified cascading social and ethical impacts. This working group proposes a landscape analysis of the ethical and societal implications of using Agentic AI in higher computing education. By exploring emerging literature and use cases of Agentic AI, we aim to contribute a timely landscape study exploring 1) the emerging challenges and opportunities associated with Agentic AI, 2) how higher education is beginning to adopt and use Agentic AI and the resulting ethical and societal impacts, and 3) the implications (e.g. challenges, opportunities, limitations) of integrating Agentic AI in computing education. The expected outputs are: 1) a protocol and literature scoping review of Agentic AI in education, and 2) an analysis of current practices and use cases in computing education. Together, these outputs aim to identify emerging patterns, use cases, key challenges, and principles to support the ethical and responsible integration of Agentic AI in education.

Generative AI (GenAI) presents societal and ethical challenges related to equity, academic integrity, bias, and data provenance. This working group will consider the ethical and societal impacts of GenAI in higher computing education. In this paper, we outline the goals, methodology and expected deliverables of the working group. In particular, we will carry out a systematic literature review to address a wide set of issues and topics covering the rapidly emerging technology of GenAI from the perspective of its ethical and social impacts, we will provide an evaluation of university policies on the adoption and guidelines for use of GenAI for computing education and develop a framework to outline the ethical and societal impacts of GenAI in computing education. This work synthesizes existing research and considers the implications for educational and professional codes of ethics.

This research paper describes and extends the outcomes from an in- depth study investigating the difference in the expected skills requirements from junior software engineers to senior software engineers, and reflections on the findings from that study. It is a given that senior software engineers have more experience and skills than junior software engineers. However, a focus on their differing competencies and dispositions provides an enhanced mechanism for comparison. Gaps were identified in assessing “professional knowledge” as categorized by the IEEE/ACM Computing Curriculum Overview Report (CC2020), and in assessing “dispositions”. It appeared that the specific scenario of comparing the expected competencies between junior and senior software engineers, tested the framework for assessing competencies developed in the CC2020 project and applied in its mapping to the IEEE/ACM Computer Science (CS2013) approved curriculum. In this study into the difference between Junior and Senior Software Engineers, an initial review of relevant literature was conducted. The review found that research analyzing job requirements for software engineers of different levels was limited; “experience” as a keyword was seldom mentioned; and a common distinction was made between “soft” and “hard” skills - the latter being skills that were “technical”, such as programming languages, frameworks, libraries, and tools, whereas soft skills referred to skills such as personality traits, attitudes, and teamwork skills. In our extension of that work the notion of soft skills was unpacked into professional skills and dispositions. The process of mapping from the CC2020 competency framework to the CS2013 curriculum had deliberately modelled how to represent a competency-based rather than a knowledge-based curriculum. The critical deficiency identified here was the limitation imposed by adopting a skills framework based on the cognitive taxonomy, and thereby unwittingly omitting the crucial companion aspects addressed within the affective taxonomy. This paper explores that limitation and its implications, by extending the mapping methodology used in CC2020 assessing the development of professional skills and nurturing of dispositions. This methodology was employed to demonstrate how the software engineers moved in competency from junior roles to senior roles. A new approach that marries the cognitive and affective aspects of learning “professional knowledge” and developing “dispositions” for competency-based curricula is presented. An example and a strategy for its extension in assessing the development of software engineers' competencies are provided.

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) continues to make its presence felt in transforming workplaces around the world, and the Information Technology industry in particular, it is essential to understand its impact on the work practices of IT professionals, and the implications for computing students and curricula. This research project builds on work initiated jointly, in Sweden, New Zealand and Scotland, investigating concerns about the increasing impacts of Artificial Intelligence in IT Sector workplaces for employee work engagement and the implications for tertiary study, assessment and curricula in computing. "Work engagement", has been defined as the positive inner state where employees are fully present and engaged in their work, and is closely linked to motivation, learning, productivity, and accountability. Within the context of (Generative) AI at work, IT professionals have been noted as early adopters of AI. Their involvement in implementing and utilising AI technologies can provide valuable insights into the interplay between AI and work engagement. The implications for students are significant as future IT professionals, who must acquire and enhance competencies to adapt and thrive in digital workplaces.

There is an increasing recognition that computing education and the profession of computing has failed indigenous learners around the world. In this paper we argue for a reform of tertiary education's computing curricula so that they address the needs of both indigenous and non-indigenous learners. To achieve this, we must first consider the role of computing as a negative colonising force that continues to the present. This paper integrates traditional methods of storytelling to provide context for a reframing of computing as a decolonising force. A case study of the New Zealand context where Mori have been underserved by both computing education and the computing profession, is used to identify systemic barriers. We propose a process of partnership that empowers indigenous communities to work with industry and education to imagine a computing profession that positively contributes to thriving decolonised practice. And then how can computer science education contribute to that? We then canvas some potential directions a transformation of computing education might take. This paper is not intended to replace or pre-empt partnerships or indigenous self-determination, but to inspire computer science educators towards developing an approach that improves outcomes for all learners.

There is an increasing recognition that computing education and the profession of computing has failed indigenous learners around the world. ACM has responded to this through a focus on diversity, equity and inclusion. This Special Session progresses this work by bringing together diverse voices in panel and audience to look towards a decolonised future for CSEd. This Session integrates traditional methods of storytelling to provide context for a reframing of computing as a decolonising force. We start with sharing stories of the impact of colonised computing, then use these as motivation for envisioning the role and shape a transformation of computing education might take. The session concludes with an exercise on options for Indigenous communities and their allies such as ACM to form partnerships to empower Indigenous communities to work with industry and education to imagine a computing profession and CS education that positively contributes to thriving decolonised practice. This session is aimed at all who are interested in progressing the CS curriculum towards a thriving, equitable and inclusive CSEd experience for Indigenous and non-Indigenous learners.

The ACM/IEEE-CS Computing Curricula 2020 report was published in March 2021. The report is global in its attention and covers all aspects of the computing disciplines that had ACM/IEEE approved curricula: Computer Engineering, Computer Science, Software Engineering, Information Systems, Information Technology and Cyber Security.The CC2020 Steering Committee analysed all the approved curricula in the six discipline areas and looked for any overlaps. For example, all the areas have some aspect of programming but not all at the same level. Using a thematic analysis methodology, a "Landscape of Computing Knowledge" table was then developed with six main topic areas which included 34 subsections. Each computing discipline specified a minimum and maximum value for each subsection for that discipline, suggesting an importance range within which most degree programs are likely to fall.The CC2020 project then developed online visualisations of the knowledge areas, where stakeholders can assess a degree program with the values required and then match it against any of the current approved curricula. This tool enables users to compare individual degrees with the ACM/IEEE curricula recommendations, to collect the structure and focus of computing degrees globally and compare computing degrees across institutions globally. It also enables industry to understand the different areas and contribute to curriculum development. This tool has now been used to gather structure and variation of degree programs globally.This paper will describe and reflect on the development of the Landscape of Computing Knowledge table, and the development of the visualization tool. Insights from the first workshops that have investigated how to use the tool and its utility will be reviewed.

This special session will introduce the participants to the CC2020 Visualization Tool based on the Landscape of Computing Knowledge Table and its 34 topics areas. It will guide them through the process of assigning a minimum and maximum value to the discipline areas of their own degree programme, then enter them into the application and allow the participants to see where in the landscape of computing their own program fits. It will also allow participants to compare their own programme with any other programme entered into the application. We hope to populate the database with programmes from all over the world over the next few months to ensure a global reach for comparison. There has never been a tool to compare computing degrees and this tool not only allows for comparison with current approved curricula but also allows participants to compare their degree with each other. This tool also enables employers to develop a guideline for potential employees and compare with job definitions to help with alignment of qualifications and competencies.

A significant part of the recently published ACM and IEEE-CS report "Computing Curricula 2020: Paradigms for Global Computing Education" [1] was the development of visualizations of any computing degree and the comparison with the ACM and IEEE-CS approved curricula. This visualization covers discipline areas that have approved curricula: Computer Engineering, Computer Science, Software Engineering, Information Systems, Information Technology and Cyber Security. The CC2020 report developed a "Landscape of Computing Knowledge" table (see table 1) aggregating all the topic areas of all six approved curricula into 34 topic areas and then assigned a minimum and maximum value for each of topic areas. As part of the visualizations project an online application has been developed (see Figure 1) where stakeholders can assign a minimum and maximum value to each of the topic areas that are required in their degree program and then that program can be matched against the current ACM/IEEE-CS approved curricula and other degree programs globally. This will have significant importance for educators and other stakeholders of computing degree programs.

There are many excellent reasons for incorporating social good activities throughout our CS curricula. Possibly the most important are the large number of pressing local/global issues facing society (e.g. climate change and related issues)[8] which deserve the attention of the computing community, and in turn, demand the attention of computing educators. In addition, research suggests focusing on how computing can affect the social good can help broaden participation in computing [10, 11].

Competency is often associated with proficiency, expertise, capability, and performance. Professional schools such as those in dentistry and medicine generally require the practice of skills and knowledge within human environments for someone to become a competent professional in their respective fields. In computing, competency is a relatively new concept. For decades, computing curricula focused on knowledge. However, competency is much more than knowledge. The ACM/IEEE Computing Curricula 2020 (CC2020) project identifies competency as a combination of knowledge, skills, and human dispositions, in context or task. That is, knowledge alone is not enough to produce a competent graduate from a computing program. Industry expects graduates to perform competently from the first day of employment. While computing educators have been sharing computing knowledge for decades, can they do it better under the rubric of competency? The authors leverage on the current activities of the CC2020 project, their personal experiences, and outcomes from current research on computing competency and related topics. Future directions and strategies for transforming the current paradigm of knowledge-based learning toward a broad acceptance of competency-based learning are an important part of this work. The authors recommend several steps needed to achieve such a transformation over time. While universities are not training grounds for industry needs, it would be a mistake to ignore such influence within the rubric of competency-based learning. This work will be of interest to all computing and engineering educators.

Computing Curriculum models have been historically framed from a cognitive perspective. Typically, the focus has been on bodies of knowledge and increasingly the notion of supporting skills and abilities. More recent curriculum documents such as the IT2017 curriculum have moved towards a professional competency approach and have included the further important notion of dispositions.While these dispositions are seen as complementing and supporting the traditional elements of knowledge and skills, exactly how they are conceptualised and operationalised is still being developed. The ACM/IEEE-CS Computing Curriculum 2020 Overview Project (CC2020) has been working towards this goal, in part driven by the very practical purpose of enabling visualisation of the multiple components of the existing and differing curriculum reports, incorporating the notion of dispositions and enabling them to be mapped to clusters of knowledge and skills embodied in selected curriculum statements.This paper reports on progress to date towards conceptualising and operationalising the notion of dispositions within the CC2020 project, reviews the research challenges faced, the models adopted and the findings to date.

This Working Group aims to take the current approved Computer Science curricula document, CS2013, and redevelop it into competency statements. The CC2020 project has designed and built a prototype of a visualization tool to compare and contrast current computing curricula. Three basic approaches were taken to portray the base data that will be used for the tool: the first being expert-defined competencies, the second based on mining, and the third based on expert-defined knowledge areas. The visualization tool takes competency statements from each of the current approved computing curricula and visually represents them. Using competency to frame curricula and describe educational outcomes in computing is not new. Since the CC2005 report was published several additional curricula have appeared and the information technology, information systems, and software engineering communities have developed three approaches to defining computing competency in the context of developing their curricula reports. In future the CC2020 report advocates that all new curricula will be written as competency statements. Currently the CS2013 curricula is expressed in learning outcomes rather than the competency statements, so it is essential to be able to demonstrate Computer Science curricula in these new terms to accommodate the new direction and demonstrate Computer Science in the new visualization tool.

A Lifetime Service award suggests many years of being involved in Computer Science Education. Over these years I have gained numerous active caring insights to promote support and guide Computer Science Educators. Being a successful CS educator does not just involve gaining a qualification and teaching classes. There are so many exciting and rewarding aspects to this career that enhance the classroom experience for all and also add to the promotion and excitement of the discipline. These insights are gathered from over 40 years of teaching and supervising students, 25 years as a Chair of Department and some exciting and innovative research projects. From the villages in the high Andes to local diversity issues, from coding in binary and hex to apps on smart phones the revolution of the digital age has been a major part of my journey in computer science education.

The CC2020 project was charged with two main objectives, to produce a comprehensive report and a visualization tool to provide global guidance in an evolving computing environment as it affects computing baccalaureate degree programs worldwide. The report is now in draft form and has undergone four rounds of review. The other goal of the CC2020 project is to develop a set of visualization-based tools that will help users to explore questions they may have concerning curricular guidelines, as well as local computing curricula. A visualization tool has been scoped and a prototype built. This special session will unveil the prototype for the SIGCSE community who will have the opportunity to view and review the tool.

There are many excellent reasons for incorporating social good activities throughout our CS curricula. Possibly the most important are the large number of pressing local/global issues facing society (e.g. climate change and related issues)[7] which deserve the attention of the computing community, and in turn, demand the attention of computing educators. In addition, research suggests focusing on how computing can affect the social good can help broaden participation in computing[9, 10]. The problem is many CS educators both don't know where to start or how to create programming assignments around socially relevant themes, and believe that such activities can only be undertaken by advanced students in upper division courses, e.g. software engineering and capstone courses. The purpose of this special session is to equip participants with the easy to learn skills so they can begin incorporating socially relevant assignments/projects throughout the introductory computing sequence.

This birds-of-a-feather session discusses the global project Computing Curricula 2020 (CC2020), a joint project launched by professional computing societies worldwide. CC2020 is a priority of the ACM Education Council; its sponsors include ACM, IEEE Computer Society, and eight professional organizations from around the world. The project team consists of a task force of 38 members representing 16 countries and six continents. A steering committee of 13 members functions as an executive board to manage the project. CC2020 examines the current state of curricular guidelines for academic programs granting bachelor's degrees in computing and it provides a vision for the future of computing. Audience discussion encompasses new ways computing programs can prepare graduates both academically and professionally. Since computing competencies is an underlying theme of the project, this birds-of-a-feather session discusses competencies, their definition, and their inclusion into future curricular reports. Discussion surrounds competencies in computing, their effect, and the possible ways to visualize their meaning. This birds-of-a-feather session also allows the audience to provide comment on the elements of the project, to engage them to serve as potential project reviewers, and to provide a forum for lively interaction on a global and encompassing computing project.

This session presents an overview of the Computing Curricula 2020 (CC2020) project and provides a status report for the project. CC2020 seeks to generate a modern revision of the well-known CC2005 document by reflecting a more current view of computing, including the addition of new and emerging sub-disciplines like cybersecurity and data science. Further, CC2020 proposes a competency-based characterization of computing, as well as a bottom-up organization of computing into its sub-disciplines based on an analysis of competencies. This session imparts the results of the project to date and provides an opportunity for participants to infuse new ideas on the current computing disciplinary landscape, as well as input for the competency model it proposes.

What is Computing? This simple question has been surprisingly difficult to answer, resulting in confusion about what constitutes the core of Computing. This is particularly relevant when we consider curricula for various subdisciplines of computing. Examining various issues and voices, this paper lays out an informed case for defining the landscape of computing. This work proposes a Disciplinary Boundary Model, in contrast to a socially-constructed approach for defining computing subdisciplines. This model can be used to describe the computing landscape by examining the underlying “invariant” activity of human inquiry, and suggest that it be used for defining the landscape for various computing curricula.

This summary is an extension of a paper presented at the IEEE EduNine 2018 conference [1]. That paper contains much more detail than the content presented here.

SIGCSE members are part of a worldwide community of computing educators and professionals. This discussion provides participants an opportunity to share global differences in vocabulary and interpretation of idioms and assumptions that pervade teachers and researchers. Lack of cultural knowledge can hinder understanding meaning of terms; communication among colleagues can be confusing. Lack of understanding also inhibits the leveraging of scholarly work and cooperation among colleagues from different cultures. E.g., information technology in Australia means the field of computing, and the baccalaureate degree "Computer Science and Technology" in China is equivalent to a degree in computer engineering. Terminology that Americans use such as AP for Advance Placement or K-12 for pre-undergraduate education is meaningless in many parts of the world. This discussion is an outgrowth of an ad hoc subcommittee formed by the ACM Education Council on global issues. Serving as a reference for the discussion is the seminal article by Clear, A. et al. "What's in a Name?: International Interpretations of Computing Education Terminology," in The Proceedings of the 2015 ITiCSE on Working Group Reports. Attending this BOF should heighten awareness of what changes might lead to a truly global computing education community. In addition to Owens, Alison Clear from New Zealand, Ming Zhang from China, and John Impagliazzo from the USA have agreed to help lead the discussion.

International students are an important and desirable constituent in most computer science programs. These students help to enrich the programs, bring new perspectives into the classroom, diversify the student population, globalize the curriculum, broaden the perspective of domestic students, and generate revenue for the host institution. Each of these characteristics is desirable and increasingly important in today's highly connected world and job market. Most institutions invest resources in attracting international students and provide orientation sessions for them on arrival to help acclimate them to the new environment and to introduce them to other students. There are often clubs to provide support groups and social functions to help them meet and make friends with domestic students. However, challenges for international students, and for the faculty teaching them, persist at many institutions despite these efforts to help international students deal with culture shock, differing academic expectations and teaching methods, and different attitudes toward issues such as plagiarism.

This panel discusses the development of a global, futuristic computing overview curricular report called Computing Curricular 2020, also known as CC2020. This new document, which is an initiative of the ACM Education Council, published by ACM, will be a revision of one of the most cited curricula documents called Computing Curricula 2005, also known as CC2005 [1]. CC2020 will build on the attributes of the existing predecessor. It will encompass broad global inclusion by welcoming active participation from computing societies around the world such as the Information Processing Society of Japan (IPSJ). CC2020 will also be futuristic in its development. While the new document will include an update to reflect existing curricula reports for computer engineering, computer science, information systems, information technology, and software engineering, it will also describe ways in which new and emerging curricular areas would be included within the framework of the report. The working group of CC2020 will include approximately two dozen professionals from academia and industry who will engage in crafting the new document. Additionally, a subset of about ten people of the working group forms the executive or core operational unit of the CC2020 project. The panelists for this representation are members of this executive group. Their global origins and affiliations represent the diversity of interaction that is one of the hallmarks of this undertaking. The panelists will present their views on the future aspects of the CC2020 report from the perspective of their experiences and affiliations, as well as their countries. The panelists will also provide contrasting points of view on topics relevant to the project. Audience interaction and participation will consume approximately fifty percent of the time allocated to the presentation.

Quality assurance is a subject that has grown dramatically in importance in recent times. In previous work, we have described how the ACM Curricula can be used to support the Quality Assurance process of educational programs, using the Computer Science program at Reykjavik University as an example. Faculty members and employers of graduates participated in the process, that resulted in providing both detailed quantitative data and qualitative information. The assessment also raised awareness of how abstract topics and learning outcomes from an international standard can be used when revising the curricula of a particular course in a CS program. Quality assurance is indeed a continuous process, where the results of evaluations should be used to drive improvements. In this paper we focus on how a Database course was re-structured based on a recent quality assurance process.

Educational performance indicators are being considered or implemented in different ways by institutions and governments in different countries. What impact is this likely to have on computing education?

This year marks the 19th ITiCSE conference. This panel will provide conference delegates, both frequent attendees and those new to ITiCSE the opportunity to reflect on the conference's success as one of the premier international com- puter science education conferences and to discuss potential future directions for the conference.

The low numbers of female students in computing and computer science courses is still of concern. Initiatives to bring together women in technology to share their experiences, is an important aspect of increasing the numbers of female students entering the computing profession. A very successful celebration of Women in Technology was recently held in Australasia based on a tried and true US model. This model was adapted for the region and added to, other countries will be able to take the model and use it in their own environments and cultures. This poster will describe the recent event and give suggestions and models for other regions and countries to be able to replicate it.

Learning cycle models have long offered structure and ideas for how to teach using a range of activities. Unfortunately recent studies have shown the models of learning styles and learning cycles are poorly supported by scientific evidence. In order to explore the answer to the question, how people learn, Race (2010) has put forward a model to simplify the terminology used in other learning models. The first two ripples are the Want ripple where the student has some want to learn, and the Need ripple where the learner has established that there is a need to learn the subject. These two ripples are considered the motivation aspects of the course. This poster describes the ripple model and the analyses the first two ripples in the context of Computer Science/Software Engineering students.