Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Evaluating Performance Consistency in Competitive Programming: Educational Implications and Contest Design Insights

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Codeforces ratings outpredict every ICPC tier for World Finals ranks, under Kendall's tau.

desk verdict New dataset, useful descriptive results, but the flagship Codeforces-vs-World-Finals comparison pools across regions while the superregional comparison is within-region, so the headline claim is not supported as reported. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04143 v1 pith:IPDVV6UQ submitted 2025-05-07 cs.CY stat.AP

Zhongtang Luo , Ethan Dickey This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYstat.AP
keywords competitiveprogrammingICPCKendall'staurankcorrelationCodeforcesratingperformanceconsistencycontestdesigncomputerscienceeducation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that competitive programming contests at different levels are not interchangeable measures of algorithmic skill, and that some formats are much better than others at forecasting who will do well at the ICPC World Finals. Using ten years (2015–2024) of standings from five superregional championships and the World Finals, it measures how often teams that beat one another at one tier also beat one another at the next tier with Kendall's rank correlation $\tau$. The central finding is that superregional ranks predict World Finals ranks only moderately (weighted $\tau = 0.407$), while Codeforces ratings predict World Finals better ($\tau = 0.596$) than any single ICPC tier. The paper concludes that contest organizers could improve fairness and educational value by studying the Northern Eurasia model and well-curated online rounds.

What carries the argument

The central object is Kendall's tau rank correlation coefficient, computed from pairs of teams that competed in both contests in the same year. For each such pair, the team that placed higher in the first contest is compared with its placement in the second; concordant pairs agree, discordant pairs flip, and $\tau$ is the difference between concordant and discordant pair counts divided by the total number of pairs. Applied to overlapping contest editions, this coefficient does the work of quantifying 'performance consistency' between tiers without assuming a linear relationship between ranks. The paper interprets $\tau$ magnitudes using standard cutoffs (moderate at $0.26$, strong at $0.49$, very strong at $0.71$).

What would settle it

Recompute the superregional-to-World Finals taus after imputing the missing editions (Asia West 2021–2022, several Northern Eurasia regionals in 2019 and 2021, and any unreported local results) and compare the resulting values with the reported ones; if the Codeforces advantage over the superregional average ($\tau_{\mathrm{CF}} = 0.596$ versus weighted $\tau = 0.407$) shrinks to near zero or reverses, the paper's central predictive-validity claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Across five long-running ICPC superregionals, the rank ordering of teams at the superregional championship is only a moderate predictor of their rank ordering at that year's World Finals (weighted $\tau = 0.407$), and this consistency varies sharply by region: Northern Eurasia leads at $\tau = 0.521$, while Asia West trails at $\tau = 0.188$. Within-region consistency is stronger, with Northern Eurasia's local regionals versus its finals at $\tau = 0.666$ and North America's at $\tau = 0.577$. A team's average Codeforces rating before the contest correlates with World Finals placement at $\tau = 0.596$, higher than any single superregional predicts, and Northern Eurasia Finals also align closely with Codeforces ($\tau = 0.545$). The paper interprets this as evidence that contest format and problem style matter: frequent online rounds capture skill factors, particularly observation and ad-hoc problem solving, that many superregional sets do not.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the teams that appear in both contests in the available years are representative enough that missing results and the non-random selection of which teams advance do not bias the Kendall's tau estimates.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In Northern Eurasia, a team's regional standing is a reliable low-stakes forecast of its World Finals prospects, so coaches can use regional results to diagnose weaknesses and retest improvements across cycles.
  • In low-consistency regions such as Asia West ($\tau = 0.188$), regional feedback is noisy; teams there may gain more from high-frequency online contests than from interpreting local standings.
  • If the Northern Eurasian and Codeforces formats differentiate teams better, aligning regional problem style and selection rules with those formats should make advancement to the World Finals fairer and more predictable.
  • Codeforces ratings provide a practical, platform-based benchmark that correlates more strongly with World Finals performance than any single ICPC tier, suggesting online ratings can serve as an auxiliary training or selection signal.
  • Because internal regional-to-superregional consistency is high in North America and Northern Eurasia, changes in a team's regional rank are more likely to reflect genuine skill development rather than contest idiosyncrasy in those regions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same rank-alignment method could be applied to other online platforms such as AtCoder, LeetCode, or HackerRank to test whether Codeforces' predictive edge comes from contest frequency or from its particular problem style.
  • The paper's own data caveats suggest that filling missing regional results, such as Asia West 2021–2022 and several Northern Eurasia regionals in 2019 and 2021, could move the reported taus; the true regional ordering of consistency may shift once imputed data are included.
  • If a superregional held two rounds in different seasons, comparing each round's correlation with World Finals would directly test whether repeated high-stakes sampling, rather than format alone, explains Codeforces' higher predictive power.
  • The discrimination-factor idea proposed for future work could turn these pairwise correlations into a practical diagnostic: regions with low inversion rates among advancing teams could certify that their contest separates world-class teams on relevant skill dimensions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies the consistency of team rankings across tiers of the ICPC (regional, superregional, World Finals) and against Codeforces ratings. Using publicly available standings for 2015–2024 for five superregional championships, local regionals for North America and Northern Eurasia, and Codeforces rating data for 366 World Finals teams (2021–2024), the authors compute Kendall's tau between rank lists for pairs of teams that overlap between contests. They report a weighted superregional-to-World-Finals tau of 0.407, region-specific values from 0.188 (Asia West) to 0.521 (Northern Eurasia), strong regional-to-superregional consistency in North America (0.577) and Northern Eurasia (0.666), and a Codeforces-to-World-Finals tau of 0.596, which they interpret as evidence that high-frequency online contests capture skill factors that superregional contests miss. The paper concludes with recommendations for contest design and education, and releases code and data for replication.

Significance. If the headline comparisons are valid, the paper would offer a useful, data-driven benchmark for contest organizers and educators, and the public release of code and data is a strength that supports replication. The use of rank correlation is appropriate for the research question, and the authors are transparent about data gaps and about the correlational and non-causal nature of the design. However, the central RQ2 claim rests on comparing a global Codeforces correlation with within-region superregional correlations, and no uncertainty quantification is provided; these issues must be addressed before the comparative conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Table 5; §3.1, Table 4] The headline comparison that Codeforces ratings predict World Finals results better than any superregional (tau=0.596 vs 0.407) compares non-comparable quantities. The superregional-to-World-Finals taus in Table 4 are computed only on pairs of teams from the same superregional contest in the same year, so cross-region pairs are excluded by construction. The World Finals row in Table 5 is computed on pairs of all World Finals teams with Codeforces ratings in the same year, pooling teams across regions; this global tau includes between-region pairs. If Codeforces ratings differ systematically by region (as suggested by the range of region-specific CF correlations in Table 5, from 0.226 to 0.545) and regions differ in World Finals performance, the global CF-vs-WF tau is inflated by between-region signal that a within-region superregional rank cannot contain. The conclusion that online contests 'capture decisive skill factors that many superregional sets miss' therefore does not follow from the reported numbers. Please recompute the CF-vs-WF tau separately within each superregion (or otherwise condition on region) and compare those values with the corresponding superregional-vs-WF taus, or report a pooled analysis that is comparable across both settings.
  2. [§3.1–§3.4, Tables 4–9] No confidence intervals, standard errors, or hypothesis tests are reported for any of the Kendall's tau estimates, yet the Discussion (RQ1) states that Northern Eurasia correlates with World Finals 'at a significantly stronger scale' than other contests. With pair counts that overlap across years and the same teams appearing in multiple comparisons, the differences among the reported coefficients (e.g., 0.521 vs 0.407; 0.188 vs 0.521) may or may not be statistically meaningful. Please provide uncertainty estimates (e.g., bootstrap or analytic standard errors) and, where claims of difference are made, tests or intervals for the differences.
  3. [§2, Eq. (1)] The paper never states how tied ranks are treated. The formula in Section 2 defines tau as (concordant - discordant)/(# pairs), which assumes no ties; but Codeforces team ratings are averages of three integer ratings and can easily tie, and ICPC standings can contain ties depending on tie-breaking rules. If tied pairs are omitted from the denominator, the effective pair count changes; if instead tau-b or tau-c is used, the formula should be stated. Please specify the tie convention and, if it changes any reported values, update Tables 4–9.
  4. [§5.6, §5.7; Tables 4, 5] The manuscript acknowledges in Section 5.7 that missing data at the regional level may bias tau estimates downward and that imputation and sensitivity analysis are needed, and in Section 5.6 that the correlational design cannot separate selection effects from causal ones. These are not merely future work: they also bear on the current estimates, because the analyzed set of teams is a non-random subset of all participants and the exclusion counts are not reported. Please document the exact number of teams and pairs excluded at each step for the main comparisons, and include at least a basic sensitivity check (e.g., dropping years with known data gaps, or comparing against a restricted sample) to show that the reported rankings of regions are robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 8] The footnote and table list 'T ajikistan' and 'T auridia' with odd spacing; these should read 'Tajikistan' and 'Taurida'.
  2. [Discussion RQ1] The phrase 'more then .1 difference' should be 'more than .1 difference'.
  3. [Abstract and Table 1] The abstract says 'five long-running superregional championships,' but Table 1 lists ten entries including the European contests; please clarify the counting convention in the abstract or in Table 1.
  4. [Figure 4] The caption uses 'T au coefficient' where it should be 'tau coefficient'.
  5. [§3.2, Table 5] For the World Finals row, please state explicitly whether the 16,596 pairs are within-year pairs pooled across all regions, since this is central to the comparability issue raised in Major Comment 1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the rank-correlation results are computed from external contest data and independent Codeforces ratings, with no fitted parameters or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

The paper's core derivation is empirical and self-contained: it collects ICPC standings from public result pages and Codeforces ratings from external statistics pages, then computes Kendall's tau over pairwise same-year team overlaps (Sections 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2). No parameter is fitted to an outcome and then renamed as a prediction; no equation defines the reported tau in terms of the quantity it is claimed to explain. The central comparison (Codeforces tau = 0.596 vs. superregional weighted tau = 0.407) is a comparison of two observed correlations, not a derivation of one from the other. The paper's self-citations ([7] Dickey and [16] Luo) appear only in the educational-literature review and are not load-bearing for the empirical claim. One methodological caveat is real but is not circularity: the Codeforces-vs-World-Finals tau pools teams across regions, while each superregional-vs-World-Finals tau is computed within a single region, so the headline comparison may be inflated by between-region skill differences; this is a domain-comparability threat, not an equivalence-by-construction of inputs and outputs. The paper itself flags related limitations in Section 5.6 ('Our correlation design cannot disentangle selection effects from causal ones') and Section 5.7 (missing-data bias and imputation), which further shows the analysis is not concealing a fitted-input/prediction structure. The recommendation to emulate Northern Eurasia and Codeforces-style rounds is an interpretive step drawn from the correlations, not a restatement of how the correlations were built. Overall, no derivation step reduces to its own inputs, so circularity is minimal; score 1 reflects only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations and not any structural circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The empirical claims are self-contained in the data, but the interpretations and design recommendations rest on unverified domain assumptions about representativeness, missing data, and the causal attribution of rank consistency to contest design. The paper flags several of these in Sections 5.2, 5.6, and 5.7.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Kendall's tau on teams that overlap both contests in the same year is a valid measure of performance consistency between contests.
    This is the central methodological assumption; the paper uses it without testing whether overlapping teams are representative or whether rank correlation captures the intended construct.
  • domain assumption The overlapping teams are a representative sample of each region's competitive population.
    Only teams that advanced to both contests appear in the data; the paper acknowledges in Section 5.6 that selection effects cannot be disentangled.
  • domain assumption Missing contest-year observations do not systematically bias the tau estimates.
    Several years are missing for Asia West, some Northern Eurasia regionals, and other contests; Section 5.7 says sensitivity analysis and imputation are still needed.
  • domain assumption The Codeforces team rating (team members' average) is a comparable skill measure across the 2021-2024 World Finals.
    Ratings were taken from community blog posts, and the paper does not describe how ties or rating updates are handled across years.
  • domain assumption Differences in tau reflect contest design and problem style rather than participant strength or selection.
    The paper's educational recommendations depend on this attribution, which Section 5.2 explicitly calls anecdotal and Section 5.6 says is not causally identified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evaluating Performance Consistency in Competitive Programming: Educational Implications and Contest Design Insights." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IPDVV6UQ

@misc{pith2026250504143,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evaluating Performance Consistency in Competitive Programming: Educational Implications and Contest Design Insights},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IPDVV6UQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04143}
}
abstract

Competitive programming (CP) contests are often treated as interchangeable proxies for algorithmic skill, yet the extent to which results at lower contest tiers anticipate performance at higher tiers, and how closely any tier resembles the ubiquitous online-contest circuit, remains unclear. We analyze ten years (2015--2024) of International Collegiate Programming Contest (ICPC) standings, comprising five long-running superregional championships (Africa \& Arab, Asia East, Asia West, North America, and Northern Eurasia), associated local regionals of North America and Northern Eurasia, and the World Finals. For 366 World Finalist teams (2021--2024) we augment the dataset with pre-contest Codeforces ratings. Pairwise rank alignment is measured with Kendall's $\tau$. Overall, superregional ranks predict World Final ranks only moderately (weighted $\tau=0.407$), but regional-to-superregional consistency varies widely: Northern Eurasia exhibits the strongest alignment ($\tau=0.521$) while Asia West exhibits the weakest ($\tau=0.188$). Internal consistency within a region can exceed its predictive value for Worlds -- e.g., Northern Eurasia and North America regionals vs. superregionals ($\tau=0.666$ and $\tau=0.577$, respectively). Codeforces ratings correlate more strongly with World Final results ($\tau=0.596$) than any single ICPC tier, suggesting that high-frequency online contests capture decisive skill factors that many superregional sets miss. We argue that contest organizers can improve both fairness and pedagogical value by aligning problem style and selection rules with the formats that demonstrably differentiate teams, in particular the Northern-Eurasian model and well-curated online rounds. All data, scripts, and additional analyses are publicly released to facilitate replication and further study.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04143 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 1.2 ICPC Superregional Structure and Qualifications We provide a concise overview of each region’s structure and selection of World Finals teams as of Spring 2025. Using this information, we select 2 regions to analyze and com￾pare regional-to-superregional consistencies in Sections 3.3 and 3.4: the North America and Northern Eurasia regions. Africa & Arab (ACPC) • WF qualification: Only through the Africa & Arab Co… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Hierarchy of ICPC contests. • WF qualification: (2024-25 cycle2 ) Each APAC regional winner (after removing South Pacific and other super￾regions) earns an automatic World Finals slot. If the same university wins multiple regionals, it may ad￾vance only one team, chosen by the school or via the Championship (rules B1-B3). Remaining Asia-Pacific slots are filled by the highest-ranked universities in the Asia Pacific … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Team performance correlation of different contests. We list all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Rank correlation between Codeforces ratings and ICPC contests. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N., Machado, T

    Bandeira, I. N., Machado, T. V., Dullens, V. F., and Canedo, E. D. Competitive programming: A teaching methodology analysis ap- plied to first-year programming classes. In2019 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (2019), pp. 1–8

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    In Proceedings of the 47th ACM technical symposium on computing science education (2016), pp

    Bloomfield, A., and Sotomayor, B.A programming contest strat- egy guide. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM technical symposium on computing science education (2016), pp. 609–614

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Competitive programming participation rates: an exam- ination of trends in us icpc regional contests.Discover Education 2, 1 (2023), 11

    Blum,J.J. Competitive programming participation rates: an exam- ination of trends in us icpc regional contests.Discover Education 2, 1 (2023), 11

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    dePicanço,W.S.,deLucena,J.M.M.,deLira,A.F.,anddeLucena, V. F. Didactic framework for teaching c programming language: A proposal based on cooperative and competitive learning tech- niques. In2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (2018), pp. 1–9

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Olympiads in Informatics 10, 1 (2016), 207–222

    Di Luigi, W., Farina, G., Laura, L., Nanni, U., Temperini, M., Ver- sari, L., et al.oii-web: An interactive online programming contest training system. Olympiads in Informatics 10, 1 (2016), 207–222

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    A framework for personalized competitive programming training

    Di Mascio, T., Laura, L., and Temperini, M. A framework for personalized competitive programming training. In 2018 17th International Conference on Information T echnology Based Higher Edu- cation and T raining (ITHET)(2018), pp. 1–8

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Dickey, E.Removing the competition from competitive program- ming: A novel curriculum design.arXiv preprint arXiv:TBA(2025)

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    The learning curves of competitive programming

    Garcia,J.R.,andAguirre,V.E. The learning curves of competitive programming. In AIP Conference Proceedings (2014), vol. 1618, American Institute of Physics, pp. 934–937

    work page 2014

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Toward improving collaborative behaviour dur- ing competitive programming assignments

    Gonzalez-Escribano, A., Lara-Mongil, V., Rodriguez-Gutiez, E., and Torres, Y. Toward improving collaborative behaviour dur- ing competitive programming assignments. In 2019 IEEE/ACM Workshop on Education for High-Performance Computing (EduHPC) (2019), IEEE, pp. 68–74

    2019

  2. [10]

    Guerra, L. H. G., Juárez, G. H., Pérez-Lezama, C. V., González, E. G. Q., Campos-García, G. A., and Cacho, M. L. B.Enhancing problem-solving skills: The synergy of competitive programming and gamification strategy. In2024 IEEE Global Engineering Educa- tion Conference (EDUCON)...

    2024

  3. [11]

    ICPC beijing headquarter

    ICPC Beijing Headquarter. ICPC beijing headquarter. https://ic pc.pku.edu.cn. Accessed: May 5, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    The ICPC regional results

    icpc.foundation. The ICPC regional results. https://icpc.global/ regionals/results. Accessed: December 3, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    A., Candelas, F

    Jara, C. A., Candelas, F. A., Torres, F., Dormido, S., and Esquem- bre, F.Synchronous collaboration of virtual and remote laborato- ries. Computer Applications in Engineering Education 20 , 1 (2012), 124–136

    2012

  6. [14]

    Kurtz, C.The world’s smartest programmers compete: Acm icpc, Jul 2013

    2013

  7. [15]

    InApplication of Intelligent Systems in Multi- modal Information Analytics (Cham, 2021), V

    Luo, Y., and Zheng, H.An innovative teaching mode based on programming contest. InApplication of Intelligent Systems in Multi- modal Information Analytics (Cham, 2021), V. Sugumaran, Z. Xu, and H. Zhou, Eds., Springer International Publishing, pp. 469–477

    2021

  8. [16]

    Curriculum design of competitive programming: a contest-based approach

    Luo, Z. Curriculum design of competitive programming: a contest-based approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.00533 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    N., Silva, B., and Grueau, C.A methodology and a framework proposal for competitive learning in programming courses

    Madeira, R. N., Silva, B., and Grueau, C.A methodology and a framework proposal for competitive learning in programming courses. Research, Reflections and Innovations in Integrating ICT in Education 1 (2009), 315–319

    2009

  10. [18]

    Common mistakes in online and real-time contests

    Manzoor, S. Common mistakes in online and real-time contests. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students 14 , 4 (2008), 10–16

    2008

  11. [19]

    Private communication

    Meza, F., Apr 2025. Private communication

    2025

  12. [20]

    Moreno, J., and Pineda, A. F. Competitive programming and gamification as strategy to engage students in computer science courses. Revista Espacios 39, 35 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    F., and Balles- teros, R

    Moreno-Ger, P., Martínez-Ortiz, I., Gilmartin, V. F., and Balles- teros, R. H. Trivialcv: Competitive activities for the classroom integrated in a moodle virtual campus.IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de T ecnologias del Aprendizaje 8, 1 (2013), 31–38

    2013

  14. [22]

    nonparametric

    Newson, R. Parameters behind “nonparametric” statistics: Kendall’s tau, Somers’ D and median differences.The Stata Journal 2, 1 (2002), 45–64

    2002

  15. [23]

    The comprehensive handbook of constructivist teaching: From theory to practice

    Pelech,J. The comprehensive handbook of constructivist teaching: From theory to practice. IAP, 2010

    2010

  16. [24]

    Quijada, F. N. Teams going to ICPC WF 2021 (Dhaka 2022) — WIP list. https://codeforces.com/blog/entry/102593. Accessed: December 3, 2024

    2021

  17. [25]

    N.Teams going to ICPC WF 2023 (Egypt 2023, 2nd final) — WIP list

    Quijada, F. N.Teams going to ICPC WF 2023 (Egypt 2023, 2nd final) — WIP list. https://codeforces.com/blog/entry/117183. Accessed: December 3, 2024

    2023

  18. [26]

    N.Teams going to ICPC WF 2024 (Kazakhstan 2024) — WIP list

    Quijada, F. N.Teams going to ICPC WF 2024 (Kazakhstan 2024) — WIP list. https://codeforces.com/blog/entry/129887. Accessed: December 3, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Education and Information T echnologies 23 , 5 (2018), 1919–1932

    Raman, R., Vachharajani, H., and Achuthan, K.Students moti- vation for adopting programming contests: Innovation-diffusion perspective. Education and Information T echnologies 23 , 5 (2018), 1919–1932

    2018

  20. [28]

    A Self-determination Theory Perspective on Student Engage- ment

    Reeve, J. A Self-determination Theory Perspective on Student Engage- ment. Springer US, Boston, MA, 2012, pp. 149–172

    2012

  21. [29]

    Olympiads in Informatics 2 (2008), 149–162

    Ribeiro, P., and Guerreiro, P.Early introduction of competitive programming. Olympiads in Informatics 2 (2008), 149–162

    2008

  22. [30]

    Computer science educa- tion 13, 2 (2003), 137–172

    Robins, A., Rountree, J., and Rountree, N.Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer science educa- tion 13, 2 (2003), 137–172

    2003

  23. [31]

    SUA Competitive Pro- gramming Judges

    SUA Competitive Programming Judges. SUA Competitive Pro- gramming Judges. https://sua.ac/about.html. Accessed: May 5, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    Programming contest strategy

    Trotman, A., and Handley, C. Programming contest strategy. Computers & Education 50, 3 (2008), 821–837

    2008

  25. [33]

    Weak or strong? how to interpret a spearman or kendall correlation, Apr 2023

    Wicklin, R. Weak or strong? how to interpret a spearman or kendall correlation, Apr 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Constructivist approaches for teaching computer pro- gramming

    Wulf, T. Constructivist approaches for teaching computer pro- gramming. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Information T echnology Education (New York, NY, USA, 2005), SIGITE ’05, Association for Computing Machinery, p. 245–248

    2005

  27. [35]

    Yuen, K. K. F., Liu, D. Y. W., and Leong, H. V. Competitive programming in computational thinking and problem solving education. Computer Applications in Engineering Education 31 , 4 (2023), 850–866

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.