Talk:Ringenberg Examples-as-Help

Interactive Communication Cluster: Wiki Page Reviews and Discussion

Date:March 5, 2007
Reviewer: Kirsten Butcher
Review:
Abstract: The abstract is succinct and clear, but there are a couple things that may help the reader understand the manipulation and its important.

First, it is easy to trip up on the term "completely justified example" (I wonder why you choose this term instead of the "annotated, worked examples" that appears in your paper title?) So, it was very helpful that you included a glossary entry for the term. But I still have some confusion. To what does "completely" refer to? Is it the number of steps shown, the inclusion of the explanation, or both? The explanations/rationale for the steps don't seem very complete (especially compared to the expanded text that one finds in standard hint sequences). So I assume the hints are "completely justified" in the sense that they give you all the steps for the problem (and add a bit of context by supplying a description). But it may help drive the point home to add a contrasting example to the glossary entry -- that is, to add a description of how the completely justified hints differ from standard hint sequences in the glossary entry. Also, adding a very brief description of each condition to the abstract text would help the reader understand the relevant comparisons more easily (as is, the reader must first follow glossary links to develop an understanding of each condition separately, then must infer the relevant contrasts).

Second, the abstract doesn't explain the theoretical rational for why these conditions were chosen/tested nor why differences might be expected. It would strengthen the impact of the study to include a brief description of these theoretical issues in the abstract, with perhaps a connection one or more of the Interactive Communication Cluster's main research questions.

Your results look very interesting! Makes me excited to read the rest of the study's wiki page!