thanks to IOP physics education to further edit it
|draft available soon! watch it on arxiv.org|
AQ11. page2, superscript 5 is actually superscript 3 and 4 combined. no sure if you want to remove 5 and replace it as 3,4.
if agreed, will need to change superscript 6 to renumber down as 5.
AQ12. page3, after figure8 that is a word "foster", i recommend removing the word "foster".
"correct answers our multiple-choice questions for"
"correct answers to our multiple-choice questions for"
options 5 (a) to (e).
5 options (a) to (e).
The survey results add to the existing
understanding of a need to design assessment
for learning through an input field
with customized feedback (figure 9) for
optimum cognitive loading. We postulate
that the act of thinking and deciding on a
measurement to key into the input field is
not only making the students’ thinking visible,
but allows self-assessment of learning,
which is not achievable using observable
hints and answers alone.
these text should be in normal font instead of italics as it is the author's paragraph and not part of the student's feedback.
for simple reading of the rules of (table 1).
for simple reading of the rules (table 1).
the reason is the table1 is not "of", but to refer to table1 for the data of results.
 http://www.colorado.edu/physics/EducationIssues/papers/PhET_JOLT.pdf & http://jolt.merlot.org/vol2no3/finkelstein.pdf
AQ4: page range is 1 to 11.
Caswell, Tom, Henson, Shelley, Jensen, Marion, & Wiley, David. (2008). Open content and open educational resources: Enabling universal education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(1), 11.
end and thank you!