home > plop > 2006 > Papers > Notes > 31-notes.php

PLoP 2006 Shepherded Papers

Notes on Paper 31

Joe asked that there should be a shepherding recommendation for the PLoP paper and the latest version of the paper. Although you probably still have it in your inbox, I reattached it.

So, here's what I think about the paper:

I think that the material is not really bad. The pedagogical patterns that they provide are covering a section that is up to now only marginally addressed by other pedagogical patterns. The patterns seem to match the American style of taching. I'm still concerned if they are applicable in other contexts as well.

The weak point is that the paper did not really improve in the shepherding process. There is still a lot of work to do to make it a quality paper. Related patterns need to be revised, the whiole language structure needs to be rethought, and the patterns need additional evidence (although this may be complicated for social interaction patterns).

The sheep did not respond well. Only two of the four authors ever wrote some reply. We did not manage to get through a full iteration (and planned three). Some of my first comments were addressed (as changes of the paper) some were discussed (as a reply to my questions).

Several reminders when they would provide an updated version remained unanswered or were answered with the request for more time. I tried to give them some more hints even without seeing a finished second version of the paper but still wait for the reply.

At EuroPLoP, I would accept the paper for the writing group. For PLoP and the limited space, I tend to reject it since I'm not sure to what extend discussions at the writer's workshop will make the authors revise their work.

But please have a second look at the paper since I'm probably a bit biassed because of the shepherding experience.

Cheers,

Till
 

after carefully reading the paper and the shepherding e-mails I am a bit
less negative that Till.
I can fully understand the frustration in the lack of progress despite
Till's comments, and also because the paper
could have been really great with some more work. If they had followed up
on the advice of better justification the
contents would come out much stronger.

This said, the patterns are not bad at all. The intro is good in setting
the boundaries and reasons behind the work.
What is missing is to tie it in with research and other pedagogical
patterns. And the authors were not being unresponsive
in not wanting to modify their paper, but it looked as if time and the fact
that they had problems getting time together as
4 authors was a big hurdle.

So I would actually vote to accept the paper, although this is a weak
recommendation.

Cheers,
Lise

 

To keep up on the latest
PLoP information, subscribe to:
plop-announce-subscribe@hillside.net.