TEAL: Tools for Educational Activities in Logic
Dates
URL
TEAL welcomes work on tools for learning about logic. Tools can be of many forms: tutors, restricted versions of standard logic tools, and more. They can be used at many levels: university, industrial, and more. There are also many formats of submissions, as described below. The goal is to have a lively, interactive event that focuses on exchanging knowledge and helping grow this community.
Our goal is to take advantage of the many groups of people who will be coming together for FLoC. Our anti-goal is to create yet another publication venue. Our focus, instead, is on actvities that bring people together, show each other what we have, and to have engaging conversations. Therefore, we have many kinds of activities and corresponding submission formats.
TEAL will have multiple kinds of activities:
- Regular paper presentations
- Plenary demos, where the presenters shows their tool to all the attendees (there is limited time for these)
- Hands-on demos, akin to a poster session, where participants can visit several tools and interact with each one with the help of the demonstrators (there is time for many more of these)
- Discussions of challenges and opportunities in logic education, such as: designing usable interfaces, evaluating educational impact, adapting tools to diverse audiences, and integrating tools into curricula
In the submission form, please indicate what kind of activity you are proposing. (If you propose more than one, please submit each one separately, since they will be considered independently. You can submit the same work to more than one category, but please do so within limits!)
Research Papers: These should be in the usual form of a scientific paper. They must be original, unpublished work that has not been submitted for publication elsewhere. They must take the form of a proper research paper, e.g., with a proper evaluation; experience reports are not research papers. Accepted papers will receive a plenary presentation slot.
Experience Report: These are also for original, unpublished work that has not been submitted for publication elsewhere. They differ from resarch papers in not having a proper evaluation. While we are open to this format, these often prove to be unedifying, so we are less excited about such submissions. Accepted papers will receive a plenary presentation slot.
Repeat Papers: These are about works strongly tied to the theme of the workshop, have already been published elsewhere, but would be of real interest to the attendees. These submissions will not become part of the formal academic record of the workshop; their only trace will be a listing in the program. Authors are therefore welcome to submit an already-published paper whose copyright they may or may not own. The submission should be preceded by a cover page that describes why this paper is relevant, and indicates where and when it was published. The cover page must use the format below; you do not need to reformat the previously-published paper, and can instead just append its PDF. Accepted papers will receive a plenary presentation slot.
Plenary Demos: These should describe the artifact (software, website, book, etc.) to be demoed. The submission should explain what the presentation is likely to entail. Please note that we may have a very limited number of slots for these; we encourage people requesting plenary demos to also submit a hands-on demo proposal. Accepted submissions will receive a plenary demo slot.
Hands-On Demos: These should describe the artifact (software, website, book, etc.) to be demoed. The submission should make clear what a person visiting the demo might do. We recognize that not all of these will necessarily involve the visitor interacting with a computer (especially depending on the nature of the artifact itself); it may be a plenary-style demo but with much more opportunity for human interaction. Accepted submissions will receive a demo slot whose time is shared with other hands-on demos.
Discussions: These should crisply describe the topic and explain why it might lead to an interesting discussion. A topic might either be a statement of a position (asserting some claim) or a question (e.g., asking the community how it has managed to address some problem). Like a good research question, a good discussion topic should ideally not have a binary answer but instead allow for a range of views. Furthermore, a topic on which almost everyone might agree (e.g., that there is insufficient funding) is not likely to be interesting! Accepted submissions will receive a plenary discussion slot.
All accepted submissions (excluding Repeat Papers) will be made available through the conference site.
Novel submissions (excluding Repeat Papers) must be at most 15 pages (excluding bibliography and potential appendices). We anticipate that Discussion Topic submissions might be on the shorter end of this range, but all the others are likely to be at least 5 pages long and probably even longer. For submissions that have several screenshots, we recommend having 1–2 key ones in the main submission body and putting the remainder in an appendix.
Please use the Dagstuhl LIPIcs format format.
Please submit using FILL.
Please do not bother anonymizing submissions. It is anyway meaningless for Repeat Papers, and for many other kinds of submissions also, either hard or impossible. If, however, you feel the need to anonymize (e.g., you want to make a provocative submission), you may do so.
At least one of the authors of each accepted submission is required to attend and participate in the workshop. We would far prefer that people attend a good chunk of the day, not just come just in time to give a talk and then leave.
Extended Abstracts: FILL
Author Notification: FILL
Workshop Day: FILL
- Shriram Krishnamurthi, Brown University (co-chair)
- Thomas Zeume, Ruhr University Bochum (co-chair)