This week I spent an hour chasing down a pernicious error with a student. The student’s website included some social media icons in the footer with the following HTML:

<img src="icons/facebookicon.png" alt="facebook icon">
<img src="icons/instagramicon.png" alt="instagram icon">
<img src="icons/twittericon.png" alt="twitter icon">
<img src="icons/youtubeicon.png" alt="youtube icon">

When viewed on the local machine, the images showed up fine. But when the site was deployed to the student’s Digital Ocean droplet and served out with Apache, the images showed up broken. Trying to directly access the images through https://domain/icons/youtubeicon.png yielded a 404. We fiddled with permissions, we checked paths, we hosted the site in other locations, and we despaired.

Finally I did searched the web in desperation for “Apache and icons.” Much to my surprise, I discovered that Apache on Ubuntu has a mod that messes with the /icons path. The file /etc/apache2/mods-enabled/alias.conf contains this line:

Alias /icons/ "/usr/share/apache2/icons/"

Any URL whose path component starts with /icons will get redirected to a different directory on the system. Argh. The mod is enabled by default so that the directory listings that Apache sometime serves can use icons.

The student fixed the issue by renaming the directory.

This one’s going in the Catalog.

This second proposal has been reviewed and also was not funded. Apparently the proposal violates the solicitation: we cannot award scholarships only to women. I really wish I’d known that last year. I might not have resubmitted. Ahh, well. Below are the reviews.

Abstract

Madeup is a text- and blocks-based programming language for making things up—literally. Programmers write sequences of commands to move and turn through space, tracing out printable 3D shapes with algorithms and mathematical operations. The language is designed to teach computation from a tangible, first-person perspective and help students integrate computation back into the physical world. In this workshop, we empower educators to use the freely-available and browser-based Madeup programming environment in their classrooms. Participants should expect to learn actively.

Significance and Relevance

Madeup joins a crowd of existing teaching tools, including Scratch, Alice, and many others, all of which aim to make computing more accessible to new learners. What sets Madeup apart from existing projects is its physical product. The model that a programmer creates does not remain virtual. It can be printed, felt, carried in a pocket, and handed to a parent or friend—all of which may make computation real and relevant in the eyes of the programmer.

In using Madeup, programmers operate in the spatial domain, which we believe is of particular importance to STEM learning. In fact, two specific spatial cognitive processes have frequently been found to associate with successful participation in STEM: mental rotation and cross section inference, both of which play significant roles in Madeup.

Expected Audience

Target audience members fall into at least one of two proles: “outreachers” and “makers.” An outreacher is an educator who is helping people navigate the field of computer science for the first time. This person searches constantly for accessible metaphors to explain algorithms, experiments with visual languages and other learning tools, and thinks Logo is one of the best inventions ever. The maker is an educator who isn’t happy with virtual-only demonstrations and text-based output. This person loves Arduino and Raspberry Pis, but fears gadgets may overshadow learning—especially in the case of 3D printing, which this person hasn’t yet figured out how to integrate with computational thinking.

Space and Enrollment Restrictions

We impose no particular space or enrollment restrictions.

Expertise of Presenters

Dr. Chris Johnson graduated from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, where he spent his time visualizing high-dimensional volumetric data. He has worked at several Department of Energy laboratories, powering large display walls and building interactive molecular visualization tools. He has taught computer science courses for seven years, using digital media for many of his homeworks and lecture examples. In 2013, he began building Madeup.

Dr. Heather Amthauer turned from neuropharmacology to computer science at the University of Kansas, where she got her PhD. She has taught computer science courses first at Frostburg State University and now at the University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire. She coaches FIRST Robotics teams at local schools.

Dr. Ryan Hardt worked in the healthcare industry for a few years before he went back to get his Computer Science PhD from the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. He teaches mobile software development and software engineering courses.

Dr. Peter Bui teaches computer science at his alma mater, the University of Notre Dame, and is a co-developer of Madeup.

Rough Agenda

1. Hello, Madeup (1.5 hours)
   1. Learning Madeup via its blocks interface (30 minutes)
      1. body-syntonic learning and Logo
      2. programming constructs: expressions, control flow, abstraction
      3. thinking in 3D
      4. exercise
   2. Generating models (50 minutes)
      1. turning paths to solids with generators
      2. exercise
   3. show and tell (5 minutes)
   4. break (5 minutes)
2. A short history of 3D Printing (30 minutes)
   1. printing technologies
   2. limitations
   3. demonstration
3. Making computational artifacts (1 hour)
   1. gears, lidded boxes, ziggurats, etc.

Technology Requirements

Electricity will be needed for participant laptops, and we request a projector and screen that all may see our demonstrations. We will supply our own 3D printer.

Other Information

We have used Madeup in several workshops and summer camps in our local community, and it has been well-received by students, parents, and fellow educators. Its website will be made available to the public in fall 2015. Its source is also freely available on GitHub under the GNU GPLv3. A poster demonstration of Madeup appeared at SIGCSE 2015.

We received the following reviews:

Status: Accept

Reviewer 1:

Summary: A workshop that will demonstrate how to use a simple drag and drop language to program a 3D printer.

Strengths: The presenters put a lot of thought into who might take this workshop. It should definitely be publicized this way. I would not normally think of taking it, but when I read the target audience, I realized that I fall in to one of their catagories.

Author Comments: Try to include your target audience description in your abstract for the program. It may get people thinking about attending that otherwise might not.

Reviewer 2:

Summary: Workshop introduces the Madeup programming language for 3-D modeling and realization via 3-D printing.

Strengths: Madeup is a popular programming system, and 3-D printing has good track record of attracting students to computing. The set of open source supporting materials will be a positive asset participants can use following the workshop.

Author Comments: Description of audience would be strengthened by an explanation of how the the workshop will address the needs or interests of the “outreachers” and “makers”. These groups appear different enough, but the agenda does not appear to differentiate the take-aways for each group.

Reviewer 3:

Summary: Authors information shall be removed for fair evaluation.

Author Comments: Authors information shall be removed for fair evaluation.

Reviewer 4:

Summary: The workshop will present Madeup, a new computational environment for using Python-like code to create 3D objects that will be printed.

Strengths: The new Madeup tool is a great addition to our field! We need more computational approaches to making. I think this would be a popular workshop.

Author Comments: It would be good to cite related work — other beginners’ languages for 3D making.

Reviewer 5:

Summary: Presenters propose to present a hands-on workshop on 3-D printing using madeup. The workshop is mainly for participants interested in outreach activities for K-12 schools.

Strengths: With all the hoopla for 3-D printing and Makers culture, I think this workshop is perfectly timed. The presenters seems to be well qualified with lots of experience. I would myself consider attending this workshop.

Author Comments: I think it would be really beneficial if the presenters add a section where they cover tips on buying 3-D printers. There are so many printers out there with so many different capabilities and price tags, that it is really important to learn from other people’s experiences. I recently had to pick a 3-D printer, and sitting down with an experienced 3-D printer user was the most useful thing for me.

Thanks, reviewers, for your encouraging words. It’s nice to hear that my reviewers themselves would consider attending.

I serve as a reviewer for this conference and others, and I know reviewers don’t always understand the submission rules. In the case of workshops, authors are specifically told that reviews are not blind:

Workshop proposals undergo review but not blind review.

I don’t think Reviewer 3 understood this, so we missed out on this person’s comments. I’m curious if I know this person and if they intentionally recused themselves.

While workshops aren’t nearly as competitive as papers (35.4% of the submitted papers were accepted, and 48.6% of workshops), I am very happy to share Madeup in this three-hour long demonstration/tutorial format.

First is the panel summary which collects the reviews under one umbrella:

Section I: Intellectual Merit
Project description: Forty K-12 teachers (twenty each year) will participate in a fellowship program in which they will be trained in a four day session along with a cohort of pre-service teachers. They will leave with a 3D printer and the assignment to design at least two lesson plans. They will return mid-summer to lead a one-week Computing in 3D summer camp for middle and high schoolers, using lessons they designed. They will then implement similar lessons in their classes during the academic year.

Strengths:
The plan to integrate computing concepts into 3D printer-based activities is well thought out and innovative. It connects spatial reasoning with computational fluency in a novel way.

The fellowship program, which involves teachers as learners and summer camp facilitators, can be an effective way of empowering and supporting teachers as they learn ways to integrate computational thinking into their courses. It is a professional development model that has been used successfully by other programs in the past.

The proposal includes a sound review of the literature, particularly around spatial cognition. The project is inspired by Papert’s work with Logo.

Several panelists felt the proposal suggested multiple places in the regular curriculum where Madeup programming activities could be used to integrate computational thinking into the curriculum, for example, in areas of geometry, algebra, number, and proportional reasoning.

Weaknesses:
Some panelists felt the proposal did not adequately integrate technology into content that already exists in the regular math and science curriculum. The panel agreed that this goal might be better achieved if the focus was on a more narrow grade-level band, such as middle school, instead of the full K12 spectrum.

The questions listed in the Assessment and Evaluation section are essentially research questions. Regardless of whether they are considered research or evaluation questions, there is no detailed plan described for investigating them. Further, although a faculty member from another department is identified as the person who will serve as the external evaluator, nothing is included in the budget for this work. Methodology is not discussed.

It was suggested that the ITEST program might be another NSF program that would be appropriate for the project.

Prior NSF Work: No prior NSF support is listed.

Section II: Broader Impacts

Strengths:
The Madeup programming language might be a platform for teaching computation beyond current coupling with 3D printers.

Weaknesses:
The diversity of the group of teachers and students is not discussed.

Post-doctoral Mentoring Plan: Not applicable.

Data Management Plan: It was noted that the plan discusses secure data storage but not the protection of privacy. It also does not provide for making data available to other researchers.

Section III: Specific Review Criteria: Not applicable.

Section IV: Summary
The panel was divided on whether the project adequately integrates technology into content that already exists in the regular math and science curriculum, as is intended for the STEM+C program. Panelists agreed that there might be more success at integration if the project narrowed the band and focused on a few grades, perhaps middle school, rather than all grades K-12.

The panel felt that the proposal lacked a clear research plan and that the evaluation plan was not detailed. Further, evaluation was not included in the budget.

The panel has read and approved the panel summary.

Reviewer #1 rated the proposal very good:

In the context of the five review elements, please evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to intellectual merit.

Strengths:
This project has the potential to change K12 STEM teachers’ knowledge, dispositions and skills about computational thinking and provide the foundation for them to integrate computational aspects into their courses.

20 teachers evenly distributed over grade levels K-12 will be recruited in a fellowship program and trained in a four-day summer intensive along with a cohort or pre-service teachers. They then will lead a summer camp for students after a short interim period of self-exploration with the tools and technologies. This fellows model will serve to instruct, empower, confirm, support, and sustain the lead teachers as they travel through the program. During the school year, the teachers, now having received instruction, having developed and led activities with students in the summer, are ready to implement similar lessons in the classroom and share with their colleagues.

The content integrates computing concepts related to the syntax and language of coding to 3D printer-based activities (all teachers receive a 3D printer for their own classroom use). A specially developed coding language Madeup, already developed and trialed successfully in previous projects will be the basis of the computational aspects. There is a well thought out effort to embody both the cognitive (coding, representational objects) and physical domains (hands on manipulatives), which the proposers argue, the 3D-printer is good at connecting. The proposal clearly outlines how the language interfaces with STEM learning concepts and its extendibility to multiple subjects and levels. Curricular connections are clearly tied to CCSS. The rise in popularity and decreases in cost of 3D-printers, along with the cost-free Madeup programming language will help the program sustain and grow over time.

An external evaluation is described, conducted by a university faculty member outside the PI’s department. An evaluation plan includes a process and product evaluation that will document successes and detail how to replicate, if successful. Team seems to have the mix of expertise and experience (teacher training/cognition, technical, software) to carry out the design. There are letters of support from surrounding school districts. The budget is relatively low, with most funding going toward equipment (3D printers) and teacher support costs; there should be big bang-for-buck if the project succeeds.

Weaknesses:
There is no mention of the team having worked together (implied in section 4.5), would be good to hear of previous collaborations, particularly since they discuss building a community of practice (do they one themselves?). Nor any mention of previous NSF grants; would be good to note they have or have not received support.

While the research plan is detailed, the evaluation section is cursory, and while done by a qualified individual at the host institution (but a separate department), is not budgeted anywhere; this implies it will be done as either a favor, or an in-kind service, neither of which typically invests the time necessary to do a quality job. If considered for award, this element should be addressed.

There is no mention of how students will be recruited for summer camp, nor is there any budget reflection for the summer camp (perhaps it is an already existing camp at the campus?). Students will need transportation, support, food, materials. As this is a main component of the ongoing PD, its resources need be detailed.

In the context of the five review elements, please evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to broader impacts.

Strengths:
Research plan is detailed and asks questions that will help the team and field understand the impact of the work, both the organizational structure, the PD, and the value of the technologies as integrated into STEM learning. A thematic breakdown of research topics (p. 13) is very helpful to see what they intend on investigating. Instruments are implied, but seem specifically developed for this project; as an exploratory effort, the need for validated instruments is not as crucial, but this might be addressed if considered for award.

The results will be significant in how teachers are recruited, trained, and then deliver computationally-based STEM lessons in a multitude of contexts; the teachers co-learn in an intensive environment, together with pre-service teachers, then lead students in a summer camp, then take these new skills into the classroom for in-school implementation. This will bring computation to many students and colleague teachers. The 3D printer is a convenient and current platform that presents multiple access points for computation and will serve the purpose of inviting students to participate in these activities. It seems that Madeup can be used with whatever hardware might exist now or in the future, so the 3D printer might be considered a placeholder for the purpose of this grant, rather than the end-all object.

Weaknesses:
There is no mention of recruiting teachers or students from diverse communities. While perhaps implied, there is the possibility that teachers and students who will show interest in these topics will come from communities and populations that are already STEM-forward. These processes described are exactly the type that might appeal to those students and teachers less STEM-oriented and so it is suggested concerted efforts be made toward inclusion of the underrepresented communities.

Please evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to any additional solicitation-specific review criteria, if applicable

Data Management adequately describes and addresses multiple kinds of anticipated data, security, IRB, protection, access and confidentiality.

Summary Statement:
This exploratory effort by a team of qualified and new faculty will provide the field with a lot of information about models of integrating computation into STEM learning, developing computational skills that mix cognitive knowledge acquisition with physical, use of an innovative coding language, and how 3D printers and related technologies and products might be leveraged across multiple grade levels and topics. The proposal is clearly written; project design, research, PD all are carefully thought out.

The team is pledging to do quite a lot on a relatively low budget. This is an exciting proposal that should be funded if at all possible.

Reviewer #2 rated the proposal good:

In the context of the five review elements, please evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to intellectual merit.

Strengths:

• The investigators have an interesting design integrate technology into the STEM area working with 40 in-service and 40 per-service teachers as well as 150 campers and 2000 students from two states. The range of teachers and students using the platform is impressive.
• Investigators explain the Madeup model is a programming language that allows teachers to integrate in to a number of domains, namely mathematics.
• The PI has a good review of the literature particularly around spatial cognition and embodied learning.

Weaknesses:

• While the application is impressive this seems more like a scale-up of an application and less about developing research questions.
• It is not clear how Madeup is going to be integrated into the math and science content of the schools.
• Much of the work is focused on tinkering that it is integrating into content.

In the context of the five review elements, please evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to broader impacts.

Strengths:

• The range of teachers and students that are being targeted are impressive.

Weaknesses:

• The diversity of the group of teachers and students are not discussed.

Please evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to any additional solicitation-specific review criteria, if applicable

None

Summary Statement

A good proposal. Investigator may want to consider other NSF programs like ITEST.

Reviewer #3 rated the proposal very good:

In the context of the five review elements, please evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to intellectual merit.

This project connects spatial reasoning with computational fluency in a novel and transformative way. The Madeup programming language potential can help teachers make the connection and negotiate between 2D and 3D space. As described in the proposal, Madeup appears to be different from other language because of the potential negotiation. There is a strong geometric and language connection in this project. The examples provided Figures 1 & 2 and the Common Core Standards support the connections. The PIs described a clear project plan and research design.

In the context of the five review elements, please evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to broader impacts.

The research plan has the potential to impact mathematics teaching and learning by helping learners make connections between logic, mathematical properties and the negotiation between 2d and 3d space. The research questions are aligned with the project goals and Table 2 in the proposal suggests a clear connection between data collect and data analysis. Madeup potential can have an impact on geometry and spatial reasoning.

Please evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to any additional solicitation-specific review criteria, if applicable

Summary Statement:
This project connects spatial reasoning with computational fluency in a novel and transformative way. The Madeup programming language potential can help teachers make the connection and negotiate between 2D and 3D space. The research questions are aligned with the project goals and Table 2 in the proposal suggests a clear connection between data collect and data analysis.

Reviewer #4 rated the proposal very good:

In the context of the five review elements, please evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to intellectual merit.

Strengths:
The staff in the proposed project will collaborate with 40 teachers (20 per year) to integrate computation into their STEM courses. A primary tool will be Madeup, a programming language developed by the PI for generating printable 3D models using universal computational ideas, such as sequence, conditional logic, symbolic manipulation, and more. The proposal describes an innovative way to integrate computing into the K12 curriculum and seems to be very much in the spirit of the STEM+C program, as described in the Program Solicitation.

The Madeup programming language does not appear to have been widely tested, and therefore it might be risky to fund a project that depends on it. However, Madeup has been ‘informally validated in several areas,’ including with 100 students in an introductory programming class, so an exploratory project such as this is a very reasonable next step in its development, refinement, and dissemination.

The plan to use K12 teachers in summer camps is a strength of the proposal. Students will benefit from experienced teachers leading the classes, and it is reasonable to assume that the teachers will be more likely to implement their new lessons during the school year if they have had a chance to try them out in with project support during the summer.

There is a lot of interest in 3D printers lately, but not always a plan for activities that use such technology to support learning. In contrast, the developers of Madeup have designed activities that use a 3D printer to support the development of computational thinking
Weaknesses:
It is unclear how long teachers will meet in the intensive course. Page 1 says one week, but pages 5-6 says 4 days.

It might be unrealistic to assume teachers will spend a significant amount of time on their assigned task of designing several lessons plans during the month between the workshop and the summer camp. Is there time built in before the summer camp to review lessons and make adjustments if the lessons prepared are not of high quality?

Fellows will return home with a variety of cohort-reviewed lesson plans. It is not clear the process for this review or when it will occur.

In the context of the five review elements, please evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to broader impacts.

Strengths:
The project will impact in-service teachers, pre-service teachers, and students. It will explore specific activities that support computational thinking and will be a model to others of how computer learning can be implemented into the K12 curriculum. Middle-grade and high school students who participate in the computer summer camp might become excited about STEM and Computer Science.

Weaknesses:
The project expects that teachers will impact at least 50 students in their normal coursework. This might not be realistic for elementary school teachers, since they generally work with only one class of students, typically about 25, for the whole year.

Please evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to any additional solicitation-specific review criteria, if applicable

Summary Statement:
The proposal describes an innovative way to integrate computing into the K12 curriculum and seems to be very much in the spirit of the STEM+C program. Its primary tool is the programming language Madeup, which is developed by the PI and provides concrete ways to use 3D printers to support computational thinking. The project has the potential to benefit students, pre-service teachers, and in-service teachers.

With three very goods and one good, I’m thinking I should resubmit. Based on the reviewer’s comments, I will probably focus on middle and high school, I’ll make it clear that our external evaluator serves our campus full-time in this capacity, and I’ll need to strengthen the evaluation process.

The revolution will be screencast

Richard Gabriel and I are planning a workshop at SPLASH focused on screencast demos: The Future Programming Workshop. This will be a workshop in the sense of a writer’s workshop: the participants will present their talks/demos and the group will critique them. After the workshop people will revise their screencasts to be published on our website. Please signup at the website if you are interested.

I submitted a video of my Keystrokes project, a tool for recording and playing back text movies. However, I discovered too late that the content was to be generally on the future of programming, and the presentations just happened to done using screencasts as a medium. My proposal of rethinking screencasts was therefore very off-topic, and I’m slightly embarrassed that I submitted.

The reviewers found my video clever and not clever, and that it was too much of a demo.

Unfortunately your submission was not accepted by the program committee. I have included comments from the reviewers in the hope that they will help you to improve the presentation of your ideas. Rejection can be upsetting but I encourage you to press on with your work nevertheless. Thank you for submitting.

Reviewer 1
—————-
This is a poor movie about a decent idea. The idea is that instead of making “pixel movies” (screencasts) to provide online programming classes, one should instead make keystroke movies, with sound. What this does is that as the sound plays the editor gets driven into the desired state as the keystrokes are replayed. The advantage of this is that the student can pause the video and play with the editor in the corresponding state. This is great, **provided the student doesn’t break anything**. Because if they break something then the keystroke movie is going to get wedged pretty quickly.

What happens if the student moves the cursor to where the keystroke movie isn’t expecting it. This seems easy to solve. But what happens if the student breaks the code, so that perhaps it won’t even parse. Unless the student understands the error then they are going to be watching a fairly confusing keystroke movie. This ultimately is the reason people like pixel movies — the producer/director can guarantee what the student is watching. Another problem with this approach is that if students are not being forced to type along they may go into a more passive watching mode. Much of the experience in online programming courses is that you need to get students to learn by DOING, not just watching.

As for the bad movie part — starting with 2:30 of bad haikus, that don’t really explain what the idea is in any significant way, is not very good. If the PC chair had not mandated us to watch the first 5 minutes of every video this one wouldn’t have made it past 1:30. Maybe not past 1:00. This isn’t a subtle creative opening it’s not cute and it’s not clever. Use the time to do a better job of explaining the idea, what’s good about it, and what it’s weaknesses are too. One idea would be to start w/ a screencast of a pixel movie and then have the student say “but what if I do this, oh, I have to go type all this stuff to get me to exactly this place in the process and then I can experiment”.

Reviewer 2
—————-
There were many things to like about this video. It had a clever, somewhat mysterious introduction that pulled me in. There’s obviously not a lot of new technical contributions here, but I think the idea of a text movie being both watchable and immediately editable is a compelling one that I really haven’t seen in any other type of tutorial context before.

There are several unanswered questions about how to handle deviations from the recordings. My understanding is that we’re looking for kernels of interesting new ideas here, not finished solutions, and this seems like one that provokes a lot of interesting possibilities. For example, what if the deviations themselves were aggregated and made visible back to the author of the video? There could be all kinds of data mining opportunities to learn what viewers did or did not understand, or what they wanted to change. There are also many interesting social science questions about the potential impact of this kind of stream of consciousness on people’s understanding of design rationale in solutions.

This would have been an A if there were any clever technical contributions that provided other insights into programming language design.

Reviewer 3
—————-

I am puzzled and slightly annoyed by this demo. Whether or not you found the Haikus cute, what was the point of replaying them? And what was the point of changing 13 to 12? I feel like he is making some subtle ironic or meta point that is going over my head. The shifting viewpoint from teacher to student was confusing – I had to replay the video and stare at the little pause/play icon to understand what was happening. At only 9:20 long there was plenty of time to say something about how it works and what the limitations are but we are given nothing. E.g. he claims replay is independent of font size, but then how does scrolling get replayed? What if the student messes things up? Or what if the wrong versions of library packages are installed? I am left full of unanswered questions. This video was more a koan than a demo.

Thank you for applying for a SIGCSE Special Projects grant. We have finished the May round of proposal reviews, but unfortunately we aren’t able to fund your project “Keystrokes: A System for Capturing Textual Development in Video-Based Learning.” The reviewers found the proposed system interesting, but weren’t convinced that the problem it addresses can’t be adequately worked around in other ways or through other development environments. If you want to revise the proposal to discuss the need for the system and why alternatives don’t work in more detail though, we would be happy to review the revision in a future round.

Thanks again for your proposal, and I’m sorry I don’t have better news for you. Let me know if you have any questions.

Dear Chris Johnson,

On behalf of CCUMC and the CCUMC Research Committee, I want to thank you for all the work that you put in to your 2012 Donald A. Rieck Research Grant proposal submission.  Unfortunately, we are unable to fund your proposal this year.  CCUMC received an excellent response and unfortunately we only had funding available for one project.  We hope you will be successful in finding funding for your project, and of course you are invited to submit a proposal again in 2013.  Watch http://ccumc.org and http://facebook.com/ccumc for updates throughout the year.

Dear Chris:

We would like to thank you for submitting your proposal “Cycode: the software development lab as classroom for new undergraduate programmers” to our Google Research Awards Program. We appreciate your patience during the review process, as we conduct a thorough, consensus-driven review of all the submissions that we receive. Dozens of Google researchers and engineers form review committees along their areas of expertise and the research directions that Google is pursuing. Recommendations from these committees are compiled in order to find the best possible fit between proposals and the research directions that we are currently considering.

We regret to inform you that your proposal was not recommended for funding. Since we are always moving forward and new directions are constantly being considered, please visit the Google Research website, where you will find the most updated information about new research directions and programs at Google.

We appreciate the time you spent submitting your proposal, and we wish you great success in your research and your work.