cleaned up phrasing of fig 6 within-lecture results

Author: paxtonfitzpatrick

paper/main.pdf

@@ -655,22 +655,20 @@ \section*{Results}
 participants' quiz performance. On Quiz~3, after viewing both lectures, no
 participant answered more than three \textit{Four Fundamental Forces}-related
 questions incorrectly, and all but five participants (out of 50) answered two or
-fewer questions incorrectly. (This was the only subset of questions about either
-lecture, across all three quizzes, for which this was true.) Because of this,
-when we held out one incorrectly answered
-\textit{Four Fundamental Forces}-related question from a given participant's
-Quiz~3 responses and estimated their knowledge at its embedding coordinate using
-the remaining \textit{Four Fundamental Forces}-related questions they answered,
-for 90\% of participants, that estimate leveraged information about at most a
-single other question they were \textit{not} able to correctly answer. This
-homogeneity in participants' success on questions used to estimate their
-knowledge may have hurt our ability to accurately characterize the specific (and
-by Quiz~3, relatively few) aspects of the lecture content they did \textit{not}
-know about. Taken together, these results suggest that our knowledge estimates
-can reliably distinguish between questions about different content covered by a
-single lecture, provided there is sufficient diversity in participants' quiz
-responses to extract meaningful information about both what they know and what
-they do not know.
+fewer incorrectly. (This was the only subset of questions about either lecture, 
+across all three quizzes, for which this was true.) Because of this, for 90\% of 
+participants, our within-lecture estimates of their knowledge for \textit{Four 
+Fundamental Forces}-related questions that they answered incorrectly leveraged 
+information from at most a single other question they were \textit{not} able to 
+correctly answer. This likely hampered our ability to accurately characterize 
+the specific (and by the time they took Quiz~3, relatively few) aspects of the 
+lecture content these participants did \textit{not} know about, and successfully 
+distinguish them from the far more numerous aspects of the lecture content they 
+now \textit{did} know about. Taken together, these results suggest that our 
+knowledge estimates can reliably distinguish between questions about different
+content covered by a single lecture, provided there is sufficient diversity in 
+participants' quiz responses to extract meaningful information about both what 
+they know and what they do not know.
 
 Finally, when we estimated participants' knowledge for each question about one
 lecture using their performance on questions (from the same quiz) about the