View in EDS

Deconstructing Conceptions of Rigor in Computer Science Education

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Deconstructing Conceptions of Rigor in Computer Science Education
Language: English
Authors: Jayne Everson (ORCID 0000-0002-7090-7500), F. Megumi Kivuva (ORCID 0009-0002-8935-4472), Eman Sherif (ORCID 0009-0000-2736-2499), Alannah Oleson (ORCID 0000-0002-2164-365X), Amy J. Ko (ORCID 0000-0001-7461-4783)
Source: ACM Transactions on Computing Education. 2026 26(1).
Availability: Association for Computing Machinery. 1601 Broadway 10th Floor, New York, NY 10119. Tel: 800-342-6626; Tel: 212-626-0500; Fax: 212-944-1318; e-mail: acmhelp@acm.org; Web site: http://toce.acm.org/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 25
Publication Date: 2026
Sponsoring Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF)
Contract Number: 1539179
1703304
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Secondary Education
Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Computer Science Education, Difficulty Level, Teacher Attitudes, Student Attitudes, Secondary School Teachers, College Faculty, College Students, Postsecondary Education, Foreign Countries, Definitions
Geographic Terms: Canada, United States
DOI: 10.1145/3776542
ISSN: 1946-6226
Abstract: Objectives: In calls for excellent and equitable Computer Science (CS) education, the word "rigor" often appears, but it often goes undefined. The goal of this work is to understand how CS teachers, instructors, and students conceive of rigor. Research Questions: (1) What do CS instructors think rigor is? and (2) What do students think rigor is? Methods: Using the principles of phenomenological research, we conducted a semi-structured interview study with 10 post-secondary CS students, 10 secondary CS teachers, and 9 post-secondary CS instructors, to understand their conceptions of rigor. Results: Analysis showed that no participants had the same understanding of rigor. We found that participants had abstract "Principles of Rigor" which included: Precision, Systematic Thought Process, Depth of Understanding, and Challenge. They also had concrete "Observations of Rigor" that included Time and Effort, Intrinsic Drive, Productive Failure, Struggle, Outcomes, and Gatekeeping. Participants also shared "Conditions for Rigor" which included Expectations, Standards, Community Support, and Resources. Implications: Our data support prior work that educators are using different definitions of rigor. This implies that each educator holds different expectations for students, without necessarily communicating these expectations to their students. In the best case, this might confuse students; in the worst case, it reinforces hegemonic norms which can lead to gatekeeping which prevents students from fully participating in the CS field. Based on these insights, we argue that to commit to the idea of quality CS learning, the community must discard the use of this concept of rigor to justify student learning and re-imagine alternate benchmarks.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1497383
Database: ERIC
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1497383
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Deconstructing Conceptions of Rigor in Computer Science Education
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jayne+Everson%22">Jayne Everson</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7090-7500">0000-0002-7090-7500</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22F%2E+Megumi+Kivuva%22">F. Megumi Kivuva</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0002-8935-4472">0009-0002-8935-4472</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Eman+Sherif%22">Eman Sherif</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0000-2736-2499">0009-0000-2736-2499</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Alannah+Oleson%22">Alannah Oleson</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2164-365X">0000-0002-2164-365X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Amy+J%2E+Ko%22">Amy J. Ko</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7461-4783">0000-0001-7461-4783</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22ACM+Transactions+on+Computing+Education%22"><i>ACM Transactions on Computing Education</i></searchLink>. 2026 26(1).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Association for Computing Machinery. 1601 Broadway 10th Floor, New York, NY 10119. Tel: 800-342-6626; Tel: 212-626-0500; Fax: 212-944-1318; e-mail: acmhelp@acm.org; Web site: http://toce.acm.org/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 25
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: National Science Foundation (NSF)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: 1539179<br />1703304
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Science+Education%22">Computer Science Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Difficulty+Level%22">Difficulty Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+School+Teachers%22">Secondary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Definitions%22">Definitions</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Canada%22">Canada</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+States%22">United States</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1145/3776542
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1946-6226
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Objectives: In calls for excellent and equitable Computer Science (CS) education, the word "rigor" often appears, but it often goes undefined. The goal of this work is to understand how CS teachers, instructors, and students conceive of rigor. Research Questions: (1) What do CS instructors think rigor is? and (2) What do students think rigor is? Methods: Using the principles of phenomenological research, we conducted a semi-structured interview study with 10 post-secondary CS students, 10 secondary CS teachers, and 9 post-secondary CS instructors, to understand their conceptions of rigor. Results: Analysis showed that no participants had the same understanding of rigor. We found that participants had abstract "Principles of Rigor" which included: Precision, Systematic Thought Process, Depth of Understanding, and Challenge. They also had concrete "Observations of Rigor" that included Time and Effort, Intrinsic Drive, Productive Failure, Struggle, Outcomes, and Gatekeeping. Participants also shared "Conditions for Rigor" which included Expectations, Standards, Community Support, and Resources. Implications: Our data support prior work that educators are using different definitions of rigor. This implies that each educator holds different expectations for students, without necessarily communicating these expectations to their students. In the best case, this might confuse students; in the worst case, it reinforces hegemonic norms which can lead to gatekeeping which prevents students from fully participating in the CS field. Based on these insights, we argue that to commit to the idea of quality CS learning, the community must discard the use of this concept of rigor to justify student learning and re-imagine alternate benchmarks.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1497383
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1497383
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1145/3776542
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 25
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Computer Science Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Difficulty Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Secondary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Postsecondary Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Definitions
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Canada
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United States
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Deconstructing Conceptions of Rigor in Computer Science Education
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jayne Everson
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: F. Megumi Kivuva
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Eman Sherif
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Alannah Oleson
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Amy J. Ko
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1946-6226
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 26
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: ACM Transactions on Computing Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1