Coding for Integration – Best practices from Austria

CONFERENCE ”HOUSING AND INTEGRATING REFUGEES”: 12 - 13TH APRIL 2018. ARNOLD-BERGSTRAESSER-INSTITUT (FREIBURG) 1
Coding for Integration. Best practices from Austria
Daniela Wolf, FernFH Distance-Learning University of Applied Sciences, Wr. Neustadt,
Austria, Alexander Hartveld, Curriculum Development, refugees{code},
Abstract—Teaching coding to refugees as a measure of in-
tegration is currently gaining momentum all over the world.
Since 2016, numerous coding schools have been established, for
example Refugees on Rails, HackYourFuture, CodeYourFuture,
refugees{code}, among others. Such initiatives are aiming higher
than just filling the demands of the IT job market. They offer
their participants tools as well as a community to navigate
digital landscapes effectively and develop their technological
fluency. Although these coding schools share similar objectives as
educational institutions, their work is done by rapid and iterative
testing of ideas in a way that traditional education institutions
are not able to, possibly because of factors such as regulations,
internal processes or mere traditions. In Austria, refugees{code}
is the only coding school which offers a program specifically for
refugees. Participants are offered the opportunity to dedicate
themselves to coding during a time in which application for
employment or university is still difficult due to several reasons.
Learning to code is not only an efficient use of their time but
can give them focus and structure in a period of being in a state
of limbo.
To evaluate the impact of such approaches, the authors
pay attention to refugees{code} and share the lessons learned
in teaching programming to refugees based on an empirical
technique called action research. Therefore, this paper reports
on three programming courses for refugees and seeks to offer
practical advice for further research and the implementation of
such courses into the educational system.
Index Terms—Programming, Coding, Teaching, Refugees, In-
tegration, Austria, Europe.
I. INTRODUCTION
THIS paper describes how in 2016 an NGO coding school
was created and built a start-up coding school. Action
Research has been a guiding principle throughout its 1,5 years
of operations and we hope that our lessons learned and iterative
approach can benefit other similar initiatives around the world.
dw, ah
April 11, 2018
A. The Context of the Project
Beginning in 2015, hundreds of thousands of people sought
refuge all over Europe, the Middle East and North Africa,
fleeing from war, poverty, violence and persecution. Of the
1.2 million first-time asylum applications in Europe, 2015,
Austria is on the top recipients of asylum applications [1].
Due to the scale of the human tragedy, the high level of global
awareness and the coverage by the media, a novel and diverse
constellation of people, especially from the civic community,
responded extraordinarily quickly to this crisis and supported
refugees with many different measures and means [2].
Looking beyond providing basic services to newcomers,
questions of integration in the host society need to be ad-
dressed. For this, access to training and education proves
to be one of the main factors in response to these new
challenges. [3]–[5]. To mitigate the risk of a parallel so-
ciety, the Austrian government promoted language courses,
and ordered integration courses and competence checks [6].
While potential stakeholders in the refugee crisis, traditional
educational institutions like universities and schools were
not able to rise to the challenge nearly as quickly as self-
organized volunteers, groups and organizations. The lack of
flexibility due to the complexity of internal processes, the
strict requirements and the lengthy internal decision-making
processes of said educational institutions made it difficult
for them to act responsively to the exceptional situation. In
this context, civil society stepped in, organizing initiatives
for quick and direct integration of the newly arriving people,
regardless of age, gender and level of knowledge.
B. Learning to code
A subset of these initiatives was a substantial number of
learning and training programs, in search of meaning and
denominator with the newcomers. From classes of cooking
and knitting to ways to work with charitable organizations or
formal vocational training. With the question surfacing about
what skills may be most valuable to newcomers, technical
skills seem to be the most future-proof as an important factor
in work and society. We therefore look into a computer science
topic, namely programming. Classes teaching these skills have
therefore become an integral part of educational offers around
Europe.
Since 2016, numerous coding schools have been established,
for example Refugees on Rails, HackYourFuture, CodeYour-
Future, refugees{code}, among others. Such initiatives are
aiming higher than just filling the demands of the IT job
market. They offer their participants tools and a community
to navigate digital landscapes effectively and teach a way
of structured thinking and problem-solving skills. In Austria,
refugees{code} is the only coding school which offers a
program specifically for refugees. Participants are offered the
opportunity to dedicate themselves to coding during a time
in which application for employment or university is still
difficult, due to several reasons.
C. Structure of this Paper
In the following sections, we describe the approach taken by
refugees{code} and seek to formulate the several aspects and
key learnings from the iterative cycles we went through. For
this we will firstly introduce our method of action research,
and subsequently describe the case of refugees{code} and its
three programming courses. Thirdly, in the Discussion Section,
we present the results from our action-based research, and

Fig. 1. Phase of an AR cycle adapted from [10], [11]
finally formulate three key learnings that may be relevant to
other practitioners or researchers in the field.
II. RESEARCH DESIGN
In the run-up to the first course, we developed a short ques-
tionnaire for the applicants, and based on the results decided
to build our research and the course environment through a
collaborative approach. Due to the urgency of the situation,
the rapid kick-off date of the pilot program, and the large
uncertainty about the target group and effective approaches,
we needed to research and develop the program at the same
time. In such a context, a participatory method is most suitable,
by collaborating with the target group and feeding results of
the research directly back into practical application. Especially
the empirical technique called Action Research (AR). This
method is described as participative, cyclic research approach
directed towards both research and action [7]. The approach
allows for the creation of knowledge by means of directly
experienced innovation by developing strategies for achieving
an improvement in a particular situation. For the development
of this program, the formulation of critical hypotheses for each
iteration cycle was essential and allowed us to research the
fundamental success factors, while still allowing for practical
implementation and responsiveness to our participants.
Action Research thereby addresses the problem of division
between theory and practice by integrating the development
of practical application with research knowledge in a cyclical
process [8]–[10]. We worked with constant evaluation cycles
and used feedback for maintaining the current course and for
designing the next course cycle.
The model used in this research is outlined in Figure 1.
A. Our Implementation of Action Research.
During the planning phase, relevant issues with the current
situation were identified and ideas for improvement were de-
veloped. Interventions were discussed and planned in advance
of the action phase. During the activity phase, interventions
were carried out. Efforts in the intervention were documented,
and data was collected (observation notes, surveys, reflections,
interviews, etc.) and analyzed.
A thorough review of a given situation along with past
actions can enable a new implementation cycle to improve
the process. The end of one action research project may lead
to research on other situations, which enables new research
and implementation cycles to continue [12].
In terms of our research work, we applied the principles
of the AR as follows: Through our selection process we
collected data on demographic factors, expectations and past
experiences. Then in the middle and at the end of each
course, the participants were surveyed twice; and the student
teachers were interviewed once, at the end of each course. The
participants were closely observed over the entirely course,
with the findings being discussed and documented in the
refugees{code}-teams weekly ”jour fixe”. This data was col-
lected and analyzed within 2-3 weeks after the course ended,
in order to contrive interventions and improvements for the
next cycle.
We strongly benefited from the flexibility in this approach,
described by Dick [13] as a main advantage of AR. He
states that the research can start with quite imprecise re-
search questions. The cyclic structure allows refinements of
the research design during the research process, as deeper
insights into the situation are gained. When moving forward,
each cycle is required to become more precise. One of the
distinctive features of AR is the participatory nature of the
research. This requires that practitioners are participants in
the sense of being partners in the research [14]. One guiding
factor in our research was the clarity about our end-goal:
Integration through job placements, and this high standard
of professional development functioned as orientation for our
research approach. Furthermore, the level of pre-knowledge
of our participants was not known and past experiences not
available which led to appreciation for the flexibility in the
Action Research approach.
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE FIRST 3 COURSES
In Austria, ”refugees{code}” is (at the time of writing)
the only coding school which offers courses for refugees on
software development to subsequently find work in the IT
sector. ”refugees{code}” was established during the refugees
crises in 2016. So far, ”refugees{code}” has conducted two
groups in training refugees as programmers, whereby the
learning materials and mentoring from the first course to the
current third course significantly changed.
A. Course #1
The first course took place between September 2016 and
January 2017.
1) Participants: It started with 21 male and one female
refugees from five different nationalities (Syria, Iran, India,
Afghanistan, Bangladesh), all born between 1971 and 2001.
Participation was not bound to a legal prerequisite like the
persons asylum status. The only requirements for participants
were being proficient in the English language, being motivated
to learn how to code and having the time to attend.
Course 1 has been completed with five participants (all
male).

2) Course Format: The course focused on coding in Java.
All lessons were held in English as traditional face-to-face
classes. Therefore, each week three two hour-long lessons took
place at the computer labs of the University of Technology
Vienna. Each session was prepared held by a different group
of students, and usually separated into lecture and exercise
phases. In the beginning of each lesson there were short
recaps - the most important questions from the last sessions
so participants were reminded about the core concepts. All
lecturers were computer science students themselves, who
were awarded 3 ECTS for their efforts.
3) Hypotheses and Learnings: The first course was strongly
exploratory, since no information was available about the num-
ber of applicants and their level, expectations, or motivation to
continue. The goal was to learn about the target audience and
their needs for a programming course. Our inquiry into the
reasons for dropping out of the program gave us three main
reasons: Firstly, other job- or course requirements interfered
with our course. Two persons found a job, or had to work
in several minijobs. Three others were assigned to German or
other job-training programs. Secondly three candidates found
the level too high, too low, or not relevant enough. And some
others quit because of personal problems such as housing or
psychological problems.
B. Course #2
The second course took place between March 2017 and June
2017.
1) Participants: Course 2 started with 38 male and
two female refugees from 10 different nationalities (Syria,
Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Austria, Germany, India,
Yemen, Pakistan), between ages 19 and 35. 21 men (12 from
the ”Java” group and nine from the ”C” group) and two women
(from the ”Java” group) finished the course.
2) Course Format: Different than in the first course, the
participants were divided into two groups, namely ”Java” and
”C”. It was supposed that the ”Java” group gets face-to-face
lectures held by the students teachers (like in Course 1). Since
two of the four student teachers levels of sufficiency in English
were very rather limited, that concept was discarded and
replaced by a MOOC, namely the JAVA-MOOC by Udacity.
However, after the participation in this MOOC turned out to
be very low, the decision was made to switch back to face-to-
face lectures held by the student teachers. The ”C” course
was held as planned, using the ”Introduction to Computer
Science”-MOOC CS50x from Harvard University. Its goal and
structure was set ambitiously to finish with this intensive 12
week course, which taught C, Python and JavaScript with nine
problem sets.
In the second course we reduced the contact to two weekly
sessions of three hours, because the feedback from both sides
was that communication is difficult with and between three
different tutor groups.
3) Hypotheses and Learnings: The main hypothesis to
be tested was that participants would receive well that we
use a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) in class. We
assumed that English levels would be high enough, or at least
participants would learn better English for the programmer
context. Especially because almost all programming resources
online are written in English. Another hypotheses was that
building a relationship with teachers was important, something
we tested by having two instructor groups instead of three.
But the most important hypotheses was that there is demand
for a program like ours, which was confirmed by the 135
applications we received.
Dropout reasons were similar to the first course, with
personal problems, external obligations, and 3 participants of
the intensive ”C” group finding the workload too high or
intensive. However, another participant found the progress too
low and quit because of that. For the next course our goal was
to encourage the more advanced to support the slower ones
and thereby practice the skill of explaining: a useful skill for
senior developers.
When evaluating the levels, the ”C” group with only the
online course had progressed further than the other group. This
could be due to the ambitious but clear time-line, the quality
of the online course, and the structured learning platform that
was available now. One participant with previous experience
found a job as a developer, and a ”Java” participant started
an internship at a university supporting the mechatronics
department with his newly gained skillset.
Finally we organised some events about the real-life of
a programmer, and a Hackathon where a team of students,
participants and IT professionals finished a project in only 24
hours. Both were well received because of showing the real-
life value of these skills.
C. Course #3
The third course is still ongoing. It takes place between
October 2017 and June 2018.
1) Participants: It started with 18 male and three female
refugees from five different nationalities (Syria, Afghanistan,
Iraq, Iran, Austria). Communication was that it would be at
least 25 hours per week, and the clear goal would be a job
placement.
2) Course Format: The course format comply with the
second group within Course 2. By the end of January 2018
the participants learned by using the Introduction to Computer
Science-MOOC CS50x from Harvard University. The MOOC
is embedded in a blended learning setting and the participants
are supported personally from trainers of refugees{code} as
well as the student teachers, who supported them two times
each week at the computer labs of University of Technology
of Vienna from October 2017 until January 2018. In addition
to the face-to-face lectures for completing the MOOC, there
are additional offers that are divided into four categories:
Sessions are moderated and have a clearly specified purpose.
The purposes can be different though: Firstly, to offer course
support in a specific way, e.g. watching a lecture together or
introducing a problem set. Secondly, to work on a necessary
competence in a structured basis. And thirdly to respond to
their needs as expressed during the Monday morning coaching.
Coding Cafes was time spent coding with trainers walking
around and supporting the participants. Most learning how-

ever happened in peer groups and participants explained the
concepts to each other.
Coaching & Review: The coaching session at the beginning
of the week, and the ”360” review at the end of the week
are there to talk on a meta level with our participants. The
coaching in small groups are there to keep the (personal) goals
in sight, it’s a chance to listen to individual goals, needs,
and expectations. Also, it helps understand the participants
and give them the feeling of appreciation for their being,
another important factor in the learning process. The ”360”
review takes place at the end of the week where learnings,
achievements and thank you’s are shared. Thereby we touch
on the extrinsic motivation of people, while also inspiring,
learning, sharing, and finishing the week in a collective way.
Events: One-time lectures without a week-structure and
structured purpose are events.
3) Hypotheses and Learnings: From previous courses we
learned that only a full-time program can adequately prepare
for a job, and that providing a space for learning is a prerequi-
site. Participants need a place to go to study, because studying
at home proves difficult even though they realize that six hours
per week (as in Course 1 and 2) is not enough. We tested
this hypothesis using a self-build time-tracking device where
participants can check-in and check-out when they arrive or
leave the learning space.
Considerable effort was also put into developing a learning
environment that was stimulating for all participants. The
impression of new visitors who wanted to see what we are
doing was rather positive: 21 persons learning independently
or in small groups, spontaneous mini-lectures by participants
for each other, questions being raised and addressed together,
brainstorming on a whiteboard, all this became possible thanks
to our own space. Yet, it was a combination of factors that
made this successful, since we worked with all variables
known to us that could improve the engagement.
Furthermore, we were able to pay for another steady and
available trainer / mentor with rich experience. This lead to
better feedback on code, higher standards of code quality,
and another professional opinion about the program we were
setting up. Also, the students had their back
And finally, we opened the course for students at the
University of Technology Vienna, from where four persons
joined. All of them came from different disciplines and sought
an introduction to programming. Due to their other responsi-
bilities it was not possible for them to come to the physical
space, but still they learned a lot and were mostly able to keep
up with the rest of the group.
All in all, this course is currently still taking place and
a lot of learning has happened, both on the side of the
participants as well as the organizers. Currently, participants
learn four different languages: C, Python, JavaScript, and Java.
The goal is to train people who understand the paradigm of
programming and not just a language. Also this may give them
the self-confidence that they can learn and build anything they
want, because it is all based on the same fundamentals. In
contrast however, few of potential placement companies work
with C, so the additional month of practice with marketable
skills could be much needed. Indirectly, our participants are
TABLE I
A SUMMARY OF THE COURSES
Course Space & Hours Learning System Research
# 1 3x2 Hours Student Instructors
Who Applies?
What Happens?
# 2 2x3 Hours Students support MOOC
With MOOC?
Which Events?
# 3
24/7 Location
Part-time Trainers
Introductory MOOC
Specialisation Phase
Project Phase
3-month Internship
Learning Space?
Weekly Structure?
Feedback Loops?
competing with university graduates that had four years of
theory (and practice) so time may be the single most important
factor.
IV. DISCUSSION
A. From open-to all to profile-based selection.
While our first course received just a few applications, our
second course counted 135 total applications. With such a
large demand for a limited number of spaces, there was a
need for a fair and effective selection procedure. Through a
focus on competences, we structured personal questions, small
tasks, and some assignments in a form for all applicants. Can-
didates watched and answered questions about an introductory
online computer science course, wrote a few sentences about
themselves and their aspirations, solved maths/logic puzzles,
and created a first game with the visual programming language
Scratch. With some measurable indicators, participants were
selected. A similar process was used in Course #3 where
we received 140 applications. Here, also self-selection may
have been an important factor since approximately half of the
persons attended the three ”open coding sessions”. However,
by choosing for quality above quantity we have coordinated
our efforts on a small elite whereas the demand and thereby
real potential impact lies in the numbers that did apply but
ultimately did not make it. However, we again are moving
towards a more open-to-all program, building a scalable in-
frastructure and starting open pilot programs.
B. From experiment to structure.
Within 1,5 years we built a coding school from an idea
from an experiment to a functioning structure. This wouldn’t
have been possible without a strongly agile approach towards
curriculum creation. While we were guided by certain princi-
ples and a clear goal, it would simply not have been possible
to plan this project in a traditional way. This combination
of goals, principles, and a flexible methodology allowed for
iterative cycles. It is no wonder that Action Research itself
can be considered as a pillar of research in information
systems. Our principles were to use the best available tools
and technologies right from the beginning, to work with
agile principles, to learn from the best, solve solutions with
scalability in mind, and aim for innovative solutions. Our clear
goal of preparing for the open developer jobs in Austria also
was useful during discussions about the course of our school

and program. In the development of a new system, falling back
on principles, methods, and vision is what you need, the actual
structure is in our experience best built by experimentation
and dealing with problems. For example, the best way to
hand in code assignments could have been difficult to plan
in advance, but principles such as ”using professional tools
from the beginning” made our choice fall with GitHub. Then
the problem came up of tracking and grading the problem-sets,
where our Moodle LMS Platform came in handy. Also Moodle
then became useful as a platform for the actual instructions of
each assignment and for a research-based code quality grading
rubric [15]. To further improve this way of problem solving,
one can design certain to become self-improving, for example
enhance information and motivation sharing during an end-
of-week plenary ”360” review, or giving everyone a space-
improvement 20 Euro ”coin”, or adapting workshop topics
on the requests during small-group weekly coachings. By
responding fast to trouble communication and learning fast
and research-based, we were able to reach a certain degree of
anti-fragility [16].
C. Using Open Source technologies.
The first year until we had some proof of concept, we
were without any budget, spending 50 on a webhost for the
website, and many hours observing, interpreting and exper-
imenting around the most urgent hypotheses. What allowed
us to act on high quality but a low budget, was also the use
of open source technology, like Open Educational Resources
(OER), Server technologies, RaspberryPi’s and frameworks
and libraries especially during Hackathons. One problem we
solved this way was a NFC-Chip based check-in system which
is used for participants to track their attendance hours in our
space. During the third course this was supplemented with a
front-end that currently shows the status of every participant.
This allowed for scalable solutions, while learning from the
best. The way weeks, problem sets, lectures, and information
are structured in Harvard’s MOOC CS50, was also great. And
the many technical solution providers who provide free hobby
versions also helped. We truly are standing on the shoulders
of giants with technological projects in the 21st century.
D. Goal orientation: preparing professionals.
Some discussions and decisions are difficult in our context.
Are we exclusively open to a small number of talented
individuals or do we want to give as many capable people
as possible a chance? Do we allow for many personal projects
or do we only target the most popular technologies in industry.
How to balance between general paradigm understanding and
a specialization in a certain language. Having a shared vision
is important here, because these are serious dilemma’s for an
organization.
E. From low-density to high-density.
As a result of our goal-orientation to prepare for job
placements, we needed to introduce certain requirements such
as the workload through each course. Thereby we went from
low-density to high-density, moving from three times a week
for two-hours at university, towards a 24/7 available learning
space and a workload of 40-50 hours per week. To compete
with traditional 4-year university programs in just nine months,
participants needed to commit significant resources and moti-
vation to their learning journey. Through an agreement with
the Public Employment Service, we freed their ”backs” and
even received some financing which allowed us to be more
professional.
F. Iteratively working with variables.
With the requirements clear, we needed to find ways to
move towards the goals, while paying attention to the im-
portant factor in the view, and keeping a scientific approach.
Useful here were to distinguish the critical variables to work
with, which we distinguished to be Space, Community, Sys-
tem, Content. On these we were working iteratively, testing
new approaches to influence them in the desired direction.
How to create a space that facilitates learning, how to foster
support and collaboration networks, how to track progress and
give feedback, and what to learn from all those vast resources
available in the Internet. By setting incremental goals and
hypotheses about how to influence the status quo, we moved
forward.
Consciousness about the critical variables of a venture is
also something to be learned from the world of start-up
companies. One of the central books for new entrepreneurs
is called the Lean Start-up, used in many entrepreneurship
schools around the world [17]. In this, the teams of start-
ups are encouraged to formulate so-called ”leap-of-faith”
assumptions, on which the whole success stands. And then
test these as fast as possible with a Minimum Viable Product
(MVP), to gain user feedback and test these hypotheses with
data. Our focus through Action Research was also increased
consciousness about the different variables to address while
designing our Minimum Viable Course. This in total led to
more strategic thinking.
G. From single to multiple methods.
As we started as a university cooperation, we selected the
participants and relied on the Computer Science students from
Technical University Vienna to prepare the curriculum, which
was delivered purely through direct instruction. With our
ambitious goal of preparing for the jobmarket, and the Internet
available with online courses, and a number of volunteers, we
added other formats to support their development. Examples
are ”real-life of a programmer” workshops, to a Hackathon
and social events and involvement in the project. Also the
introduction of online courses to the curriculum, changing
the format from direct instruction to a more blended learning
experience. Furthermore, we relied on best practices from
Industry, such as Hackathon, GitHub or even an introduction
to agile project management. Then we added training in
social and inter-cultural awareness, company visits, even some
language cafes until the feedback was that it all became too
much and they were lacking the time for real coding. Later on
in the course we went back to a model of direct instruction,

when the more expert topics were introduced. Having collected
all these experiences will be useful for further curriculum
structuring, after finishing iterative cycles of Action Research
of the course.
H. From supply-oriented to demand-oriented.
As mentioned under the previous point, we started with
little resources and structured our curriculum around these.
Those first means were donated laptops for participants, and
university students preparing courses. Again our job-placement
goal made us listen to company requirements, and being in
direct contact with our participants regularly made us listen
and respond to their needs. It started with us and our ideas
and goals, and the program developed through listening to
participants, volunteering experts, and the market needs.
V. KEY LEARNINGS
A. Flexibility. Iterative. Working non-hierarchical.
Some things cannot really be planned appropriately in
advance and making peace with that is important. Yet, this
does not mean that a laissez-faire approach is better. With
dedication, teamwork, and a scientific approach, one can
execute the iterations with a plan, while keeping flexibility to
include new approaches. For this, direct communication with
participants and the team can support this process.
B. Zeitgeist is technology and migration.
Part of our success is certainly that both the migration topic
and the technology are very present in our time. Irrespective
of each other they can be considered sensible concepts: job
preparation for refugees, but also the innovative 9-month cod-
ing school. In combination, they allow for a strong opportunity
to highly motivated but displaced persons. This course is
also about empowerment through technology, because there
are tutorials and open-source libraries available for almost
anything: from climate control in greenhouses, to crypto-
currencies. Also, programming is about problem solving. We
teach this from day one and also the feedback from participants
was that this course has changed even the way they deal with
personal problems.
C. Awareness of Challenges.
Thirdly, an awareness of current challenges and variables
is important. Here, a scientific approach can help in keeping
these elements in focus. Exercising in taking a bird’s view
and a diverse team with several areas of awareness can help
here too. Responding to these challenges is an important
while keeping the goals and strategies in sight is essential
here. Currently our largest challenge is scalability because
a program for 21 participants is nice, but the real potential
social impact lies with the 140 applicants who expressed their
interest but did not make it. It may become the focus of coming
projects with our participants.
VI. CONCLUSION
We outlined in this paper our lessons learned in teaching
programming skills to refugees during a time when circum-
stances were changing quickly and constantly and the needs
of the target group were not well known. We hope that
our lessons learned can be useful for other initiatives, and
encourage a research-based.
As the great potential that initiatives like refugees{code}
have for education, there are also substantial challenges. As
we learned from the first course, course completion rates
were very low. Therefore, it is important to built a learning
environment around the course. This learning environment
includes providing mentoring and support, creating spaces
where participants can learn. It also involves treating partici-
pants like equals and creating a community that supports their
development
We believe in the potential of Action Research because
you’re working with the target group finding out what they
need faster and better than with conventional approaches. If
the purpose of research is to create knowledge and bring
humanity further, Action Research is doing this through a
hands-on approach. Through the research cycles it allows for
improvement
For the future, a vision is to build a gamified learning
platform together with our participants. Through this, self-
organized learning becomes possible and technology is used
to build solutions for our own school. Through these real-life
team projects, we believe our participants can get motivation
and learn more, while building a low-cost solution that can be
used together with Austrians. During our hackathons we have
already seen how natural it can be for Austrians and refugees
to work together on meaningful interdisciplinary projects.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Our approach has already won three awards, from the Social
Impact Award to the Forbes 30 under 30 to the HR Award
for Newcomer of the year. We seem not to be the only ones
thinking technology education and migration is a sensible
combination. And more than just preparing for a job, we
believe to enable emancipation by teaching problem solving,
abstract thinking, and a mentality that anything can be built.
Furthermore, developers are sought after almost anywhere in
the world, can work remotely, and have good incomes. We feel
honored with this recognition and will continue our efforts to
make a meaningful impact for our participants.
The authors would like to thank volunteers, organizations
partnered from providing laptops, CS50 for its inspiration and
openness to help, participants for going on this journey with
us.
REFERENCES
[1] E. Newsrelease, P. Juchno, and A. Bitoulas, Asylum in the EU Member
States - Record number of over 1.2 million first time asylum seekers
registered in 2015, ser. 44/2016. Eurostat, 2016.
[2] B. Mason, L. Schwedersky, and A. Alfawakheeri, “How civic tech
innovations are supporting refugees in germany,” 2017.
[3] M. Korac, “Integration and how we facilitate it: A comparative study
of the settlement experiences of refugees in italy and the netherlands,”
Sociology, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 51–68, 2003.

[4] D.-O. Rooth, “Refugee immigrants in sweden-educational investments
and labour market integration,” Lund Economic Studies, 1999.
[5] J. Stevenson and J. Willott, “The aspiration and access to higher
education of teenage refugees in the uk,” Compare, vol. 37, no. 5, pp.
671–687, 2007.
[6] O. Gruber, “refugees (no longer) welcome . asylum discourse and policy
in austria in the wake of the 2015 refugee crisis,” The Migrant Crisis:
European Perspectives and National Discourses, vol. 13, p. 39, 2017.
[7] K. Lewin, “Action research and minority problems,” Journal of social
issues, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 34–46, 1946.
[8] B. Somekh and K. Zeichner, “Action research for educational reform:
Remodelling action research theories and practices in local contexts,”
Educational action research, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 5–21, 2009.
[9] R. Popplewell and R. Hayman, “Where, how and why are action re-
search approaches used by international development non-governmental
organisations?’briefing paper 32, international ngo training and research
centre,” 2012.
[10] S. Rose, N. Spinks, and A. I. Canhoto, Management research: Applying
the principles. Routledge, 2014.
[11] J. Van den Akker, “Principles and methods of development research,”
in Design approaches and tools in education and training. Springer,
1999, pp. 1–14.
[12] M. Brydon-Miller, D. Greenwood, and P. Maguire, “Why action re-
search?” 2003.
[13] B. Dick, “Action research: action and research,” Accessed on Feb, vol. 3,
p. 2007, 2002.
[14] M. Denscombe, The good research guide: for small-scale social research
projects. McGraw-Hill Education (UK), 2014.
[15] M. Stegeman, E. Barendsen, and S. Smetsers, “Towards an empirically
validated model for assessment of code quality,” in Proceedings of
the 14th Koli Calling international conference on computing education
research. ACM, 2014, pp. 99–108.
[16] N. N. Taleb, Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder. Random
House Incorporated, 2012, vol. 3.
[17] E. Ries, The lean startup: How today’s entrepreneurs use continuous
innovation to create radically successful businesses. Crown Books,
2011.
Alexander Hartveld has recognized the potential
for disruptive innovation in the education sector as
a student at five universities on three continents,
seeking the most innovative course offers. He fin-
ished his B.Sc. in Economics and Business from the
University of Amsterdam with minors in Public Ad-
ministration, Spanish, and Computer Science. With
this knowledge he was able to conceptualize and
build an app-based language learning method, with
a combination of chatbot, mobile app, and real-life
challenges. Most relevantly, Alexander Hartveld is a
co-founder of refugees{code} and with Curriculum Development and Course
Facilitation as his responsibilities.
Daniela Wolf From holding positions in the fields
of IT, education, journalism and marketing, from
working in the training sector for many years to
becoming the department head of E-Learning and
Web-Support Center at Ferdinand Porsche FernFH
as well as the department head of Business Devel-
opment at Quofox, Daniela Wolf is bringing a wide
array of experiences to the table. Her educational
background is a bachelors degree in Computer Sci-
ence Management as well as a masters degree in
Applied Knowledge Management, eEducation and
Informatics Didactics in Vienna, Seville and Aix-en-Provence. She is currently
working on her PhD in Computer Science Education for Adults at the
University of Technology Graz, as well as a researcher at Ferdinand Porsche
FernFH. She is also one of the founding members of refugees{code} and
initiator of Austrian Edupreneurs.
View publication statsView publication stats

Coding for Integration – Best practices from Austria

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Coding for Integration – Best practices from Austria

Similar to Coding for Integration – Best practices from Austria (20)

More from Daniela Wolf

More from Daniela Wolf (16)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Coding for Integration – Best practices from Austria