Reviewer Submission Form Reviewer Submission Form 2025 In order to inform our selection process, we ask that you grade each paper or proposal in relation to quality, fit, and innovation. Please also provide an overall recommendation, and an assessment of your expertise in relation to the paper and proposal. Finally, we offer space for open comments. The “comments to the author section” is for helpful feedback that will be shared anonymously with authors. Only the conference committee and staff will have access to the other portions of your review. We have had an overwhelming response to the call for proposals, so the selection process will be challenging. While the quality of the papers and proposals is the most important criteria, we are also committed to highlighting a diversity of perspectives and innovative work that speaks to core values of expanding access and progressive and catalytic innovation. We are hugely grateful for your service to our community and your candid assessments. Reviews must be completed by Monday, August 4. Reviewer's Name* First Last Reviewer's Email*Please use the email address we have on file for you (the email we use to contact you). Enter Email Confirm Email Select Paper Being Reviewed*Optimizing AI Deployment: Strategic Imperatives for Governmental Authorities to Catalyze Adoption of AI in Enterprises while Minimizing Job LossesResonate: Using VR and Computational Thinking to Enhance Inclusive EducationCollaborative Scratch-Based Robotics in Smart Classrooms: A Design-Based Approach to Developing Computational Thinking in Middle SchoolAsk or Outsource? What Drives Students to Use GenAI Strategically (or Reliantly)Narrative Design Thinking: Short Stories as Design Challenges in Children’s MakerspacesCreativity Without Borders: An Impact Study of Unstructured Studio’s Low-Cost Tinkering Approach to Student Learning in Rural IndiaFrom Makers to Mentors: Preparing and Supporting Educators in the Evolving Landscape of STEAM EducationEngaging Students in Computing Education through a Smart Greenhouse Project: An Exploratory StudyEfficacy and Impact of AI-Driven Training for Metaphor Comprehension: Automated by Humanoid Robot and Enhanced by Virtual Reality – A Pilot StudyAre We Tripping? The Mirage of AI HallucinationsEarly Insights on Promoting Critical Thinking with an AI Coach for Argumentative WritingHow Student-Led Virtual Discourse Shaped Civic Understanding of Affirmative Action After SFFA v. Harvard & UNCThe [project name withheld for anonymity] ‘Camp in a Box’: Creating an Inviting and Helpful Online Resource for EducatorsPeer Power: Innovations in Virtual Peer Networks for YouthInside the Black Box: Teaching Intuitions about Generative Artificial Intelligence through Designed ExperiencesInstructor-led Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) Interventions vs. unstructured student-initiated use in Post-Secondary Education: A Systematic Literature ReviewMapping Network Health in Rural Educational Collaborations: A Social Network Analysis MethodImproving Hand Hygiene with Interactive Training: DesignCritical reflections on interviewing children online about RobloxA children's rights audit of GenAI tools for learningImproving Hand Hygiene with Interactive Training: Evaluation“We didn't want a nice space that was empty”: Designing for Belonging in a Community MakerspaceProblematic Content, Social Media & Adolescent MalesA case for media go-alongs and losing the ‘script’ when investigating teens' digital media useTransformative World-Making as Critical Literacy: Youth Re-Designing Sociotechnical Systems to Imagine Alternative FuturesPersonal and Sociotechnical Tensions in Data Science: Mapping Indigenous Food Access in Middle School Social StudiesWhy We Should Listen to Teens, By Teens: Motivations and Conceptualizations of a Youth Advisory Board (YAB)Speculative Design for Imagining Futures: Embedding Community-Centered Data in a GIS Learning ModelReading So Lit: Accelerating Literacy Growth with a Reading Identity Development PlatformAdvancing Equity in STEM: Analyzing Survey Tools for Female High School Students Using the COSTAR Framework in Large Language ModelsDigital Wellbeing Workshops: Early Adolescent Girl’s STEM and Wellbeing Adaptive Framework and Program EvaluationTeen Safety and Governance in Popular Multiplayer Online GamesReview CriteriaQuality of Paper*Provide your overall rating of the quality of the research paper. Please consider the quality of the writing of the paper itself. (Hidden from authors). Exceptional - 5 Very Good - 4 Decent - 3 Below Average - 2 Poor - 1 Overall Quality of Proposal*Provide your overall rating of the quality of the proposal. Please consider the quality of the underlying research or project(s). (Hidden from authors). Exceptional - 5 Very Good - 4 Decent - 3 Below Average - 2 Poor - 1 Fit*Rate the fit with the CLS mission to “fuel a growing movement of innovators harnessing the power of emerging technology to expand access to participatory, playful, and creative learning.” (Hidden from authors). Perfect Fit - 5 Good Fit - 4 Mostly Aligned - 3 Lacks Alignment - 2 Conflicts with Mission - 1 Innovation*The CLS is committed to advancing new avenues for inquiry, action, and collaboration in order to foster progressive and catalytic innovation. We value innovation not only in technology and design but also in challenging assumptions and elevating underrepresented perspectives. Rate whether this paper or proposal provides fresh, fun, and innovative thinking and perspectives. (Hidden from authors). Radically Innovative - 5 Innovative - 4 Interesting/Fresh - 3 Familiar - 2 Conventional - 1 Recommendation*Provide your overall recommendation. (Hidden from authors). Definite accept: I would argue strongly for accepting this proposal - 5 Probably accept: I would argue for accepting this proposal - 4 Borderline: Overall I would not argue for accepting this proposal - 3 Probably reject: I would argue for rejecting this proposal - 2 Definite reject: I would argue strongly for rejecting this proposal - 1 Expertise*Provide your expertise in the topic area of this proposal. (Hidden from authors). Expert - 4 Knowledgeable - 3 Passing Knowledge - 2 No Knowledge - 1 Comments to Committee*Comments for internal review, which will be visible to CLS committee members (Hidden from authors):Comments to Author*Comments to be shared with the authors. Please provide feedback to the authors on the strengths of the submission and how it could be improved.Would you recommend this paper for a CLS Best Paper award? Yes Consider for a different format / Flag for further considerationFlag this submission for committee discussion because (for example) it might deserve special follow up with the submitter, or being considered for another format or an invited session in the main program. Yes What format or further consideration do you suggest for this submission?* Δ
