Increasing student numbers in higher education, particularly in engineering and computer science, make it difficult for motivated lecturers to continue engaging in active teaching methods such as Flipped Classrooms and Work-Based Learning. In these settings, digital Peer Assessment can be one approach to provide effective and scalable feedback. In Peer Assessment, students assess each other’s performance whilst gaining useful reflection and judgment skills at the same time. This umbrella review of 14 review papers on the use of (digital) Peer Assessment in education provides a comprehensive overview of design choices and their consequences open to educational practitioners wishing to implement digital Peer Assessment in their courses, the type of tooling available and the possible effects of these choices on the learning outcomes as well as potential pitfalls and challenges when implementing Peer Assessment. The paper will inform and assist educators in finding or developing a tool that fits their needs.@en

Background: While research on Virtual Reality’s potential for education continues to advance, research on its support for Collaborative Learning is small in scope. With remote collaboration and distance learning becoming increasingly relevant for education (especially since the COVID-19 pandemic), an understanding of Virtual Reality’s potential for Collaborative Learning is of importance. To establish how this immersive technology can support and enhance collaboration between learners, this systematic literature review analyses scientific research on Virtual Reality for Collaborative Learning with the intention to identify 1) skills and competences trained, 2) domains and disciplines addressed, 3) systems used and 4) empirical knowledge established.Method: Two scientific databases—Scopus and Web of Science—were used for this review. Following the PRISMA method, a total of 139 articles were analyzed. Reliability of this selection process was assessed using five additional coders. A taxonomy was used to classify these articles. Another coder was used to assess the reliability of the primary coder before this taxonomy was applied to the selected articlesResults: Based on the literature reviewed, skills and competences developed are divided into five categories. Educational fields and domains seem interested in Virtual Reality for Collaborative Learning because of a need for innovation, communities and remote socialization and collaboration between learners. Systems primarily use monitor-based Virtual Reality and mouse-and-keyboard controls. A general optimism is visible regarding the use of Virtual Reality to support and enhance Collaborative LearningConclusion: Five distinct affordances of Virtual Reality for Collaborative Learning are identified: it 1) is an efficient tool to engage and motivate learners, 2) supports distance learning and remote collaboration, 3) provides multi- and interdisciplinary spaces for both learning and collaborating, 4) helps develop social skills and 5) suits Collaborative Learning-related paradigms and approaches. Overall, the reviewed literature suggests Virtual Reality to be an effective tool for the support and enhancement of Collaborative Learning, though further research is necessary to establish pedagogies.@en

Grounding the design of educational interventions and their analysis in theory allows us to understand and interpret results of interventions and advance educational theories. Moreover, building an understanding of which educational theories are used and how they are used can build a consensus among researchers and mature the research in a field. In this paper, we investigate the extent to which educational theories are used to ground the design, analysis, and evaluation of learning activities in engineering education. For this purpose, we developed a coding instrument to determine: (1) which educational theories are expressed in studies investigating learning activities and interventions, and (2) the extent to which these theories inform (a) the design of an intervention and (b) the analysis of that intervention. The instrument was applied to a sample of 12 studies from an existing literature review on collaborative engineering design activities to demonstrate the relevance of the developed framework. Results reveal that most studies refer to educational theory, primarily pedagogical approaches such as project-based learning. Furthermore, half of the time, the design of learning interventions is grounded in theory, however, the evaluation of those interventions is often not connected to educational theories.@en

Motivation. Many people interested in learning a programming language choose online courses to develop their skills. The concept of variables is one of the most foundational ones to learn, but can be hard to grasp for novices. Variables are researched, but to our knowledge, few empirical observations on how the concept is taught in practice exist. Objective. We investigate how the concept of variables, and the respective naming practices, are taught in introductory Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) teaching programming languages. Methods. We gathered qualitative data related to variables and their naming from 17 MOOCs. Collected data include connections to other programming concepts, formal definitions, used analogies, and presented names. Results. We found that variables are often taught in close connection to data types, expressions, and program execution and are often explained using the 'variable as a box' analogy. The latter finding represents a stronger focus on 'storing values', than on naming, memory, and flexibility. Furthermore, MOOCs are inconsistent when teaching naming practices. Conclusions. We recommend teachers and researchers to pay deliberate attention to the definitions and analogies used to explain the concept of variables as well as to naming practices, and in particular to variable name meaning. @en

This workshop is part of the ERASMUS+ project: RAPIDE: on Relevant Assessment and pedagogies for Inclusive Digital Education (https://rapide-project.eu) and is open to anyone who is interested in implementing or improving peer assessment in their courses. At the end of the workshop, participants will be able to make an informed decision on a suitable form of Peer Assessment for their courses. Over the past few years, many of us have faced operating in a frequently changing teaching environment which has made evaluating and assessing students’ learning outcomes and more importantly giving students feedback on their learning much more complicated. One pedagogical tool that has been increasingly used is that of peer assessments where students give each other feedback and assess each other’s work. In this workshop, participants will be introduced to many different types of peer assessment that can be used in engineering education, such as peer reviewing (each other’s work), peer grading(continuous feedback on mastery), and peer evaluation (group work) whether face-to-face, hybrid or in a fully online environment and how to do so in an inclusive way thus maintaining the important safe place that education should be. Participants will then in small groups discuss what types of peer evaluations they use or want to use in their courses and brainstorm on ideas for implementation in their own specific case or for one of the general cases that the facilitators will have available. At the end of the workshop participants will present their main findings back to the whole group so that they may also learn from each other. We aim for participants to leave feeling inspired at the end of the workshop to implement or improve peer assessment in their own courses. The aggregated main findings and ideas contrived in the workshop on how to implement peer assessment will also be shared with a wider audience through the conference proceedings and the RAPIDE project website. @en

Motivation. Variable naming practices are part of the software developer’s profession, influencing program comprehension and code quality. Yet, little is known about how variable naming practices are taught in beginner courses. Objective. This paper investigates naming beliefs, self-reported teaching practices, and observations regarding variable naming practices of teachers of introductory Python programming courses. Methods. We adopted an in-depth qualitative approach by interviewing ten teachers from secondary education and higher education and developed several themes in order to answer our research questions. Results. Among various opinions and practices, we found that teachers agree on using meaningful names, but have conflicting beliefs about what is meaningful. Moreover, the described teaching practices do not always match teacher’s views on meaningful names, and teachers rarely encourage students to use them. Instead, they express that naming practices should not be enforced and that students will develop them by example. Whereas some teachers report focusing solely on conventions, others deliberately dedicate time for students to engage with naming, create their own guidelines, provide continuous feedback, or include naming exercises on exams. Discussion. Naming practices do not seem to be deliberately taught, even though they influence program understanding and code quality. We also identified inconsistencies in teachers’ self-reported naming practices. As such, we encourage intentional conversations about naming practices in educational settings, specifically linking naming to code quality and readability. We see room for group and peer activities as a means to this end, as well as providing formative feedback dedicated to naming.@en

Motivation. Variable naming practices are part of the software developer’s profession, influencing program comprehension and code quality. Yet, little is known about how variable naming practices are taught in beginner courses. Objective. This paper investigates naming beliefs, self-reported teaching practices, and observations regarding variable naming practices of teachers of introductory Python programming courses. Methods. We adopted an in-depth qualitative approach by interviewing ten teachers from secondary education and higher education and developed several themes in order to answer our research questions. Results. Among various opinions and practices, we found that teachers agree on using meaningful names, but have conflicting beliefs about what is meaningful. Moreover, the described teaching practices do not always match teacher’s views on meaningful names, and teachers rarely encourage students to use them. Instead, they express that naming practices should not be enforced and that students will develop them by example. Whereas some teachers report focusing solely on conventions, others deliberately dedicate time for students to engage with naming, create their own guidelines, provide continuous feedback, or include naming exercises on exams. Discussion. Naming practices do not seem to be deliberately taught, even though they influence program understanding and code quality. We also identified inconsistencies in teachers’ self-reported naming practices. As such, we encourage intentional conversations about naming practices in educational settings, specifically linking naming to code quality and readability. We see room for group and peer activities as a means to this end, as well as providing formative feedback dedicated to naming.@en