Educational data mining and learning analytics promise better understanding of student behavior and knowledge, as well as new information on the tacit factors that contribute to student actions. This knowledge can be used to inform decisions related to course and tool design and pedagogy, and to further engage students and guide those at risk of failure. This working group report provides an overview of the body of knowledge regarding the use of educational data mining and learning analytics focused on the teaching and learning of programming. In a literature survey on mining students' programming processes for 2005-2015, we observe a significant increase in work related to the field. However, the majority of the studies focus on simplistic metric analysis and are conducted within a single institution and a single * Working group leaders Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the owner/author(s).

Context. Code quality is a key issue in software development. The ability to develop high quality software is therefore a key learning goal of computing programs. However, there are no universally accepted measures to assess the quality of code and current standards are considered weak. Furthermore, there are many facets to code quality. Defining and explaining the concept of code quality is therefore a challenge faced by many educators. Objectives. In this working group, we investigated code quality as perceived by students, educators, and professional developers, in particular, the differences in their views of code quality and which quality aspects they consider as more or less important. Furthermore, we investigated their sources for information about code quality and its assessment. Methods. We interviewed 34 students, educators and professional developers regarding their perceptions of code quality. For the interviews they brought along code from their own experience to discuss and exemplify code quality.Results. There was no common definition of code quality among * Working group co-leaders:

There is currently an ongoing, global race to develop, implement and make use of AI in both the private and public sector. How AI will affect responsibilities and public values to be upheld by government remains to be seen. This paper analyzes how AI is portrayed in Swedish policy documents and what values are attributed to the use of AI, based on an established e-government value framework. Statements are identified in policy documents and are coded into one of four value ideal, as well as being either a benefit, consideration, or risk. We conclude that there is discrepancy in the policy level discourse concerning AI between the different value ideals and that the discourse surrounding AI may be overly optimistic. A more nuanced view of AI in government is needed for creating realistic expectations.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is said to be the next big phase in digitalization. There is a global ongoing race to develop, implement and make use of AI in both the private and public sector. The many responsibilities of governments in this race are complicated and cut across a number of areas. Therefore, it is important that the use of AI supports these diverse aspects of governmental commitments and values. The aim of this paper is to analyze how AI is portrayed in Swedish policy documents and what values are attributed to the use of AI. We analyze Swedish policy documents and map benefits, considerations and risks with AI into different value ideals, based on an established e-government value framework. We conclude that there is a discrepancy in the policy level discourse on the use of AI between different value ideals. Our findings show that AI is strongly associated with improving efficiency and service quality in line with previous e-government policy studies. Interestingly, few benefits are highlighted concerning engagement of citizens in policy making. A more nuanced view on AI is needed for creating realistic expectations on how this technology can benefit society.

No abstract