Viewing of Reviewer Ratings and Comments for Authors and Reviewers
Paper130:
The Java Learning Machine: A Learning Management System Dedicated To Computer Science Education
Review Summary
| Anonymous Reviewer Code |
Organization |
Originality |
Technical Soundness |
Contribution |
Overall Score |
| A | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| B | 1 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 2 |
| C | 4 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 4 |
| D | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 |
| E | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| Avg. of 5 Revs. | 2.6 | 4 | 2.8 | 4.2 | 3.2 |
Author-Recommended Subjects:
Algorithms, CS1/2, Tools, Object-Oriented Issues, Compilers/Programming Languages & Paradigms
Reviews from Individual Reviewers Follow
| Reviewer-Recommended Subjects: |
CS1/2
Tools
Active Learning
Instructional Technologies
|
| Organization Score: |
1 |
Comments:
Writing style is very poor. The paper is a chore to read.
Word selection is often odd--for example "specificity" rather than something more straightforward such as "aspect". Other examples include:
- "the main referential is"
- "most of them only request a computer" (to what is "them" referring?)
The writing is often too informal for this conference. For example:
"when it comes down to"
"quite different to" (should be "quite different than")
"quite easy and cheap"
"quite a lot"
There are also typos and grammar errors, as in
- "physic", which should be "physics"
- "first course of our curricula" (unless there is more than one
curriculum, "curriculum" should be used)
- "bases of programming" should be "basics of programming"
There are many others, but I became tired of pointing them out.
It is clear that the authors are not native speakers of English. If the paper is accepted, I would urge the authors to have it edited by a native-English-speaking technical writer before publication.
|
| Originality Score: |
4 |
Comments:
It has a number of appropriate citations. However, the first paragraph claims that collabation has received much attention, but it does not contain a single citation to support the claim.
|
| Technical Soundness Score: |
2 |
Comments:
While the description of the tool is, I'm sure, sound, the authors spend too much describing the tool and its advantage, and little (if any) presenting evidence that the tool is useful in practice. How many faculty members have used it? What kind feedback have you gotten?
The paper is simply missing some important information.
|
| Contribution Score: |
2 |
Comments:
I am not sure whether this will contribute. The paper did not give me much of a feel for how I would go about setting up a world, nor did I get a feel for the range of worlds I might be able to produce, and how much effort creating a world would entail.
|
| Overall Score: |
2 |
Comments:
Writing needs to be improved significantly. Also, the focus needs to be changed so that the reader is convinced that the system is usable. Ideally, this should be based on the experience of a dozen or more instructors.
Part of Figure 1 is "fogged out". I am assuming that this is not intentional. |
| Oral Presentation Comments:
This should be obvious, but a demostration of the system would be appropriate. This should include a demonstration of building an system (as the instructor would do), as well as the use of the system (such as a student would do). |
<tr><td colspan = 2 ><b>Reviewer-Recommended Subjects:</b></td>
<td width="70%">
CS1/2
Tools
Instructional Technologies
<tr>
<td><b>Organization Score:</b></td>
<td align = center> 1 </td>
<td><b>Comments:</b>
This paper needs a serious proofreading by a native English speaker: it is rife with spelling and grammar mistakes, too numerous to list in this review.
Figure 1 is too small to be readable, and is therefore useless to the paper. If there is any way to incorporate a larger, readable version, that would be most helpful.
Figure 2 does not contribute much of anything to a reader's understanding of the paper. Figure 2 could be omitted and its space reallocated to figure 1.
| Originality Score: |
4 |
Comments:
The system described sounds very interesting. It appears to be original and does cite relevant prior work. I was surprised to not see any mention of Greenfoot (Kolling) as an example of a microworld environment. |
| Technical Soundness Score: |
2 |
Comments:
The paper does motivate the need for a system such as the JLM. After having completed the paper I did not feel I had a good understanding of what I gathered was a significant part of the tool: the ability to sequence exercises into "a coherent progression on [a] topic" (section 4.1). I was disappointed to not learn more, or have a concrete example of, the environment's demonstration mode (also discussed in 4.1). |
| Contribution Score: |
5 |
Comments:
The tool itself sounds very interesting, and I would be very interested to learn more about it. This environment appears to take pedagogical considerations seriously. I look forward to seeing continued work! |
<tr>
<td><b>Overall Score:</b></td>
<td align = center> 2 </td>
<td><b>Comments:</b>
Although the paper itself has significant problems, I believe the work reported is very valuable. I encourage the author(s) to polish their presentation, making sure to focus more on the capabilities of the JLM system (esp. expanding on section 4.1, but also section 4.2), and then resubmitting. </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan = 3 ><b>Oral Presentation Comments:</b>
Give a demonstration of its capabilities. </td>
</tr>
</table>
<tr><td colspan = 2 ><b>Reviewer-Recommended Subjects:</b></td>
<td width = "70%" >
CS1/2
Tools
<tr>
<td><b>Organization Score:</b></td>
<td align = center> 4 </td>
<td><b>Comments:</b>
Overall the material presented was dense and challenging to follow - probably the nature of the beast, however. </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>Originality Score:</b></td>
<td align = center> 5 </td>
<td><b>Comments:</b>
I can see the possibilities in this work, but it is hard to visualize from the text description. </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width = "25%" ><b>Technical Soundness Score:</b></td>
<td width = "5%" align = center> 3 </td>
<td><b>Comments:</b>
Very few "conclusions" are made; this is more of an work-in-progress report. </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>Contribution Score:</b></td>
<td align = center> 5 </td>
<td><b>Comments:</b>
I see the potential. </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>Overall Score:</b></td>
<td align = center> 4 </td>
<td><b>Comments:</b>
Overall an interesting paper, though a challenging read and a lack of experiential evidence. </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan = 3 ><b>Oral Presentation Comments:</b>
Demonstrate the software. </td>
</tr>
</table>
<tr><td colspan = 2 ><b>Reviewer-Recommended Subjects:</b></td>
<td width = "70%" >
CS1/2
Tools
Active Learning
<tr>
<td><b>Organization Score:</b></td>
<td align = center> 4 </td>
<td><b>Comments:</b>
The writing style is ok, but there are many typos reflecting a litteral translation. Nothing a good English speaking person would not be able to correct.
Apart from that aspect, the style is straigthforward and the reader gets the point. The various parts are well balanced in importance.
Some of the typos:
p2: can move performs tasks?
p2: learned the bases (a better expression?)
p2: is that puts
p2: it never exist a unique
p2: they do only provide
p2: each of them only provide one
p2: every microworld were developed
p3: add new kind of microworlds
p3: Hanoi tower problems lasts about
p3: To that extend
p3: to mask useless part of code
p3: to focus students attentiveness
p3: that the exercising
p3: can studied
p3: at different speed rate
p3: in most world
p3: teacher has to write
p3: teacher configure
p4: implement few Java classes
p4: provide a translated versions
p4: every translation remain up-to-date
p4: divide-to-conquer
p4: and compiles all the required classes
p4: the useless but inherent complexity???
p4: As an example of exercise
p4: make the buggles follows
p5: It use a
p5: that student can use
p5: tools that enables teacher
p5: detect whom of them
| Originality Score: |
5 |
Comments:
Previous work is well recognized. In fact, this work is a unification of many attemps to simplify the first approach to programming, so that the important part (decomposition, recursion, efficiency, etc.) is well isolated for the student. |
| Technical Soundness Score: |
4 |
Comments:
The paper does not pretend to prove that this reduction approach is better than another one (for example one which would use all the features of a given industrial language, like C++). It builds upon previous work, and presents a tool to introduce new paradigms.
However, it is not clear for the reader how easy it would be to create a new microworld from scratch, to add to this environment. |
| Contribution Score: |
5 |
Comments:
Many teachers are looking for a tool such as this one, which can help students concentrate on specific programming aspects. Having a framework to design new microworlds, and having a lot of existing examples, is a good way to help these teachers. It would encourage them to explore new ways of teaching algorithms and programming, and of sharing their experience. |
<tr>
<td><b>Overall Score:</b></td>
<td align = center> 5 </td>
<td><b>Comments:</b>
This paper will be of interest to participants in ITICSE who look for new ways to encourage students learning programming. It may also open the door to microworlds designed for specific groups, like girls, who may benefit from worlds designed for them, taking their interests in consideration. </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan = 3 ><b>Oral Presentation Comments:</b>
There are a lot of typos in the text. It should be reviewed by a competent English speaking computer scientist.
Explaning the creation of new microworlds, from scratch, by a newcomer to this tool, might be a good way to improve the presentation. As the paper now stands, it is difficult to evaluate how much energy such an endeavour would request.
</table>
<tr><td colspan = 2 ><b>Reviewer-Recommended Subjects:</b></td>
<td width = "70%" >
CS1/2
Tools
<tr>
<td><b>Organization Score:</b></td>
<td align = center> 3 </td>
<td><b>Comments:</b>
The paper could benefit from being proofread by a native English speaker, but is otherwise fine. My main issue is that I don't get much of a sense as to how the instructor can set up a world. I see Figure 1 shows a picture of the world. The description also states that the student can run the solution and enter their own code. However, I don't how easy it is for instructors to set this up or indeed if they are supposed to or just use pre-prepared worlds. </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>Originality Score:</b></td>
<td align = center> 2 </td>
<td><b>Comments:</b>
This paper describes a tool that seems very similar to Greenfoot, yet there is no mention of Greenfoot here. I'm not a user of that tool so don't know how to compare them, but if I am a reader interested in using tools like this, then I should be able to fairly easily compare the tool, Greenfoot, and, say, Alice. </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width = "25%" ><b>Technical Soundness Score:</b></td>
<td width = "5%" align = center> 3 </td>
<td><b>Comments:</b>
No evidence is provided of its success in the classroom, but instead that is mentioned as future work. Those results will be important for evaluating the tool. </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>Contribution Score:</b></td>
<td align = center> 4 </td>
<td><b>Comments:</b>
It appears to be a useful tool. I just don't know how hard it is to add new worlds, and I don't know how it compares to similar efforts like Greenfoot. </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>Overall Score:</b></td>
<td align = center> 3 </td>
<td><b>Comments:</b>
The paper needs more information on comparison to Greenfoot and some sort of evaluation of its effectiveness. With this info, the authors can likely produce a stronger paper. </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan = 3 ><b>Oral Presentation Comments:</b>
Show how the tool is used in the classroom </td>
</tr>