Finally, the paper with my favourite diagrams has been accepted!

At Koli Calling 2024, which was many lifetimes ago in terms of my last 18 months, I was … well… ranting with Leo Leppänen and Juho Leinonen about the potential issues with the use of GenAI discussants in CS activities that use social constructivism, given the rapid adoption of Gen AI in chat/discursive situations. We caught up in Helsinki after Koli, sketched out a paper, actually then dedicated enough time to write it (shocking, I know), and started submitting it. And then it got rejected. And then we rewrote it and submitted it elsewhere. And then it got rejected. Rinse, repeat, until, finally, aha!

The paper that has just been accepted is a different paper from the one that started out and there has been a lot of useful reviewer feedback that has been part of it.

One of the big issues in CS Ed is always whether a paper that discusses education is sufficiently specific to CS Ed that it should be at a CS Ed conference. I am most definitely not an expert or oracle on that as many of my papers have walked a pretty fine line. But, twelve months later, we appear to have put together a sufficiently convincing argument, addressing a range of other issues along the way, and it will be presented this year. I am currently teaching a Foundations of Research course as part of the brand new Masters of Research course for the (also brand new) Adelaide University, and I was able to talk about the journey of this paper as part of the academic writing and publication section. Fortunately, it was a journey that ended with “they all lived happily ever after” (or at least until question time in the presentation session.)

I’m happy for several reasons about the acceptance.

• It’s great to work with interesting people and turn the useful discussions you have at conferences into publishable work.
• This has rewarded our persistence and willingness to incorporate feedback.
• Somewhat self-centredly, this paper has some diagrams in it that I really like and now I can finally share them.
• The paper was the result of some discussion that was quite sharp in some ways, but the final argument is a more positive and constructive presentation of our concerns.
• This is a positive event at a time when my health has not been great and my work has been quite busy. A needed lift!

On that matter of “constructive presentation”, as someone who used to be more involved in school management, I’ve been in far too many meetings where people are unhappy about something and they repeat the problem/complaint as if that is a pathway to solution. (I have done it myself far too often, as well.) Yes, the problem is important, but our role is often to work towards solutions, towards sharing information that can lead to better outcomes. I hope that when the paper is presented, it does come across as being more focused on “how can we do this well?” rather than “you can’t do this at all”.

I won’t be presenting it as, despite my intention to be in Europe over the major conferences, I have calendar clashes that prevent my attendance. The good news is that my co-authors will probably do a better job than I would, and I still get to be happy about my diagrams from wherever I am! Thank you for all of the hard work, enthusiasm, dedication, and patience, Leo and Juho!