Lene, Saara, Trond! These are the comments from the reviewers. We add our notes to them, and mark here as we finish the paper. -t. #> -----Opprinnelig melding----- #> Fra: Nodalida-2009 [mailto:nodalida2009@easychair.org] #> Sendt: sø 22.03.2009 01:02 #> Til: Antonsen Lene #> Emne: Nodalida-2009 notification #> #> Dear author(s), #> #> Thank you for submitting to NODALIDA 2009. On behalf of #> the Program Committee, I am pleased to inform you that #> your submission has been selected for the regular paper #> program of NODALIDA 2009. Congratulations! #> #> The selection process was competitive. Out of 35 submitted #> papers, 27 were accepted for the regular paper program, #> to be presented as a regular talk or in a poster session. #> #> We need you to confirm your intention to come to NODALIDA #> and present the paper and have it published in the #> proceedings as soon as possible and no later than March 30. #> If we do not receive your confirmation, your place in the #> program may be offered to a reserve paper. Please note #> that papers published in the proceedings of NODALIDA cannot #> be presented at another conference with published proceedings. #> #> We include the reviews of your submission. The reviewers #> worked hard to review all the submitted papers. Please #> repay their efforts by following their suggestions when #> you revise your paper. #> #> To upload the final version of your paper, please follow #> the instructions that will be available shortly under #> "Information for authors -#> Final submission" at the #> NODALIDA 2009 website http://beta.visl.sdu.dk/nodalida2009/. #> #> We look forward to seeing you in Odense in May! #> #> Best regards, #> Kristiina Jokinen #> Program Chair of NODALIDA 2009 #> #> #> #> --------------------------------------------- #> #> Paper: 38 #> Title: Interactive pedagogical programs based on constraint grammar #> #> #> -------------------- review 1 -------------------- #> #> PAPER: 38 #> TITLE: Interactive pedagogical programs based on constraint grammar #> #> OVERALL RATING: -1 (weak reject) #> RELEVANCE: IS THE PAPER APPROPRIATE FOR NODALIDA 2009?: 5 (excellent) #> CORRECTNESS: IS THE PAPER SOUND TECHNICALLY AND METHODOLOGICALLY?: 2 #> (poor) #> SIGNIFICANCE: HOW IMPORTANT IS THE WORK?: 3 (fair) #> ORIGINALITY: HOW NOVEL IS THE APPROACH?: 3 (fair) #> EMPIRICAL GROUNDING: DOES THE PAPER CONTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT EVALUATION #> (OR OTHER RELEVANT EMPIRICAL GROUNDING)?: 1 (very poor) #> CLARITY: IS IT CLEAR WHAT WAS DONE?: 3 (fair) #> REFERENCES: IS THE BIBLIOGRAPHY RELEVANT AND EXHAUSTIVE?: 2 (poor) #> PRESENTATION FORMAT: IS THE PAPER MOST SUITABLE TO BE PRESENTED AS A #> SINGLE TALK OR AS A POSTER IN THE CONFERENCE?: 1 (poster) #> #> ----------------------- REVIEW -------------------- #> #> The paper presents an interactive CALL program for North Sami using #> the latest version of the vislcg compiler. The paper contains some #> interesting ideas but no motivation, apart from the authors own #> inspiration, and no evaluation with actual users. Thus, there is #> no evidence that the approach will work. I believe it could be #> expected from a paper of this kind to give some motivation from #> the CALL literature including other CALL programs developed with #> the VISL tools. ___TODO___ Needed to address is the following: - Call literature tt: Still largely not done. tt: Now read and read literature. I still have not found reference tt: to working systems, but somehow hesitate wrinting it. - evaluation of log (the game works) tt: Wrote a chapter on evaluation - evaluation with actual users --> tt: This we have not done. Did perhaps write a note on this. - Otherwise I am not so convinced by the reviewer: What does s/he miss? I posted a query on literature to the Corpora list, and got no relevant answers. #> In particular I am not sure that the idea of designing the pedagogical #> programs as additions within the visl analyzers is a good idea. While #> the ambition to handle relatively free input from learners is #> noteworthy, thus making a powerful analyser a necessity, the requirements #> of a program for language teaching and learning are not specified, #> so it is hard to know whether they can be met by the proposed #> approach. tt: This is a valid point. The requirements are: - able to reliably analyse input - able to detect errors - vislcg3 fulfils both these goals. #> But modularity is usually a good strategy. And, since no #> evaluation #> is presented, the success of the approach cannot be estimated either. What is needed here is a Sahka log. To bad it was not installed from the beginning. Our experience is that - the visl analyser is a good idea - no other analyser would have been a good idea. This we'd better state. (politeness and ignorance prohibits the second point, but the first is in the conclusion. #> The paper would gain much from relating itself to current research #> in the CALL field, in particular CALL with NLP-modules. tt: Nothing convincing so far. I thus simply do not agree with the reviewer. #> There are a number of typos, e.g. The dialogue gama (4.2 header), fixed. tt. #> 'each scenario has are underlying' (4.2 second paragraph). fixed.tt. #> #> -------------------- review 2 -------------------- #> #> PAPER: 38 #> TITLE: Interactive pedagogical programs based on constraint grammar #> #> OVERALL RATING: 2 (accept) #> RELEVANCE: IS THE PAPER APPROPRIATE FOR NODALIDA 2009?: 4 (good) #> CORRECTNESS: IS THE PAPER SOUND TECHNICALLY AND METHODOLOGICALLY?: 3 #> (fair) #> SIGNIFICANCE: HOW IMPORTANT IS THE WORK?: 4 (good) #> ORIGINALITY: HOW NOVEL IS THE APPROACH?: 3 (fair) #> EMPIRICAL GROUNDING: DOES THE PAPER CONTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT EVALUATION #> (OR OTHER RELEVANT EMPIRICAL GROUNDING)?: 3 (fair) #> CLARITY: IS IT CLEAR WHAT WAS DONE?: 4 (good) #> REFERENCES: IS THE BIBLIOGRAPHY RELEVANT AND EXHAUSTIVE?: 3 (fair) #> PRESENTATION FORMAT: IS THE PAPER MOST SUITABLE TO BE PRESENTED AS A #> SINGLE TALK OR AS A POSTER IN THE CONFERENCE?: 2 (talk) #> #> ----------------------- REVIEW -------------------- #> #> The paper presents a CALL tool for North Sami. The programme uses existing #> language resources - a finite-state transducer for morphological #> analysis/generation and a constraint grammar parser for morphological #> disambiguation /syntactic analysis. A user can easily access the system #> and get flexible feedback about errors. A question answering game is #> included. #> Some remarks: #> The introduction of the article should be expanded, the background and #> comparison with other CALL tools would be useful. tt: half a page for this is free. Now hopefully better. #> The title is '... programs ...' but you talk about a 'program' in the Fixed. tt. #> Spelling should be checked. #> #> #> -------------------- review 3 -------------------- #> #> PAPER: 38 #> TITLE: Interactive pedagogical programs based on constraint grammar #> #> OVERALL RATING: 1 (weak accept) #> RELEVANCE: IS THE PAPER APPROPRIATE FOR NODALIDA 2009?: 3 (fair) #> CORRECTNESS: IS THE PAPER SOUND TECHNICALLY AND METHODOLOGICALLY?: 3 #> (fair) #> SIGNIFICANCE: HOW IMPORTANT IS THE WORK?: 3 (fair) #> ORIGINALITY: HOW NOVEL IS THE APPROACH?: 3 (fair) #> EMPIRICAL GROUNDING: DOES THE PAPER CONTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT EVALUATION #> (OR OTHER RELEVANT EMPIRICAL GROUNDING)?: 2 (poor) #> CLARITY: IS IT CLEAR WHAT WAS DONE?: 3 (fair) #> REFERENCES: IS THE BIBLIOGRAPHY RELEVANT AND EXHAUSTIVE?: 2 (poor) #> PRESENTATION FORMAT: IS THE PAPER MOST SUITABLE TO BE PRESENTED AS A #> SINGLE TALK OR AS A POSTER IN THE CONFERENCE?: 1 (poster) #> #> ----------------------- REVIEW -------------------- #> #> The paper presents an interactive pedagogical suite of programs for North #> Sámi, which is based on finite state transducers and a constraint grammar #> analyser. The modules of these programs include lexicon, sentence #> generator, system for dialectical variation, system for feedback on #> morphology, syntactic analyser of the student's answer. #> #> The pedagogical programs in the suite are three: open question-answering #> game, dialogue game and web interface. #> #> In my opinion, the work presented in the paper is interesting and thus it #> should be accepted after the authors have make the corrections noted #> below, which will improve clarity. Also, the section on References it too #> short considering that there is a lot of free space. More references #> should be included in the final version of the paper. #> #> p. 1, Abstract: #> #> what does 'CALL program' stand for? Explained, albeit the result is far from elegant. tt. #> what is 'North Sámi'? After going into the paper, the reader knows that it #> is a language, but this should be clarified right from the start. Sigh. Again, explained. tt. #> p.1, Introduction, at the end: #> The paper says that he final section presents an evaluation. Where is this #> section concerned with the evaluation? The last section presents the #> conclusions, and nothing seems to be said there about evaluation. ___TODO___ This we must look into. tt: Done. #> p. 4, top: #> Section 3 describes the modules of the pedagogical programs. Hence, the #> title of Section 3.5 should be changed, e.g., to "3.5 Syntactic analyser #> of the student's answer" Done. tt. #> Typo #> p. 1, Introduction: #> "The final section present an evaluation" -#> "The final section presents #> an evaluation" Fixed tt. #> p. 7 #> "4.2 The dialogue gama" -#> "4.2 The dialogue game" Fixed tt.