QuILT-IK045-Diary

A Miau Wiki wikiből
QuILT-sitemap: https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/QuILT-content

These kind of diaries will always be created as a PLAN-version in a direct way. After each meetings, the FACTS will also be noticed either as a kind of correction series (c.f. page history: https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php?title=QuILT-IK045-Diary&action=history) or on the discussion page (https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/Vita:QuILT-IK045-Diary)...

1. Day (2019.II.13.)

Aims (see Moodle - course description):

  • shifting paradigms about knowledge from classic principles (like magic of words) towards big-data/data-mining/artificial-intelligence
  • shifting paradigms about evaluation from classic principles (like subjectivity) towards log-based objectivity
  • shifting paradigms about co-operation from classic principles (like verbal and declaration-oriented working) towards written communication forms with discursive characteristics
  • learning by doing (learning through own - alone/group-wise - practical experiments)
  • gamification (pure:-)
  • instead of classic teaching rather conducting (in jam session form - with more conductors parallel)

Agenda:

  • Introduction
    • Welcome
    • Moodle-view
      • Course title: Service Science & Knowledge Economy: Research Methods
      • Affected groups: Level / Type / Logistics: BSC (2 groups + ERASMUS Students) / Practice / Room: FR305, Wednesdays, 12.00-13.30
    • NEPTUN-view
      • Please, send an answer (basic information)
      • Tests of connections
    • Nicknames (offline and online = Please, send it to the course-forum in a parallel way)
      • Conductor(s) / Khon-Duck-Thor(s)
        • Teaching vs. Conducting
        • Learning (swotting/cramming) vs. Intuitive Deriving of conclusion
        • We will try to entertain you - but...
      • Free choosing
      • Offering default IDs
    • Instead of rules
      • rather offers, suggestions, recommendations, and customizing effects
      • yet: here and now - chances for asking - (but just in written form:-)
        • (video stream with an initial message)
        • offline
        • online (Moodle: Course-Forum)
  • Warming-up-games/tasks (see below)

A task is always a game (- if somebody want to see it so... :-)

Obligatory Task Nr.1 (OT1*)

Solutions should always be sent to the prepared forum in the Moodle system or in case of system error - each solution should be written down on a sheet of paper - as far as possible with block capitals (uppercase):

  • OT1a: Please, create a definition (being valid especially for you) about the keyword "KNOWLEDGE"!
  • OT1b: Please, create an other definition too (being valid in general or especially for somebody else in the team) about the keyword "KNOWLEDGE"!
Remarks for supporting operative interpretations of the task-layers: The expected definitions should be appropriate complex/long. Please, do not use any sources neither for the general definition nor for your personal definition! The probability (that all member in the team will create the same definition about the keyword "KNOWLEDGE") is never high. Therefore, the second task-layer about the general definition targets either a definition which could really be created by an other team-member or a definition created/creating by the so called "average people". Example: Please define the word "WATER"! Expert-definition = H2O / General definition (like definitions in Wikipedia - public opinion) = "Water is a transparent, tasteless, odorless, and nearly colorless chemical substance..."
  • OT1c: Please, create an evaluation rule set describing how somebody should evaluate/rank the quality of a lot of definitions (see above)!
  • OT1d: Please, create an evaluation rule set describing how somebody should evaluate/rank the quality of a lot of rule sets (evaluating definitions)! (c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F - Who will watch the watchmen?")
  • [FT1*: (unlimited task list: ...evaluation rule sets can always be expected to each creation level...:-) ]

Remarks for supporting operative interpretations of the task-layers: Without being capable of defining the term of the "Ideal/Good/Best/Target" and also the distance of solutions compared to these benchmarks or without being capable of deriving what objects are better than other ones, nobody can speak about rational planning/thinking/doing...
Remarks about didactic aspects in general: Without being capable of measuring the starting positions of Students, we can never speak about "learning/teaching" success - therefore in case of each task, the basic statements of each Student are always necessary to collect.

Facultative Task (FT*)

The following tasks need probably more time than available. But they could also be seen as relevant extensions in order to have a complex system of points of views supporting parallel divergent/convergent learning/teaching/problem-solving strategies:

  • Each definition (see OT1a, OT1b) should be evaluated in an instinctive way by at least 2-3 (or all) Students before OT1c and OT1d will be published at all...
  • Students should try to create a common definition based on the created definition (see OT1a and OT1b)...
  • Students should try to derive a methodology describing how a lot of definitions with totally different quality can be joined to a common definition being valid for each Student (created one or more definitions before)...
  • Each rule set (see OT1c, OT1d) should be evaluated in an instinctive way by at least 2-3 (or all) Students...
  • Students should try to create a common rule set based on the created rule set evaluating definitions (see OT1*)...
  • Students should try to derive a methodology describing how a lot of rule sets with totally different quality can be joined to a common rule set being valid for each Student (created one or more rule sets before)...
  • ...
Remarks in general: Without practical experiences about operative doing/handling in a given task, Students mostly remains Prisoners in the world of the magic of words where flexible terms can be created and used for covering massive lacks of experiences on the proved/observed fields... The Moodle system offers forums where each definition could be discussed as a kind of homework... 

Obligatory Task Nr.2 (OT2*)

After the own statements about the keyword "KNOWLEDGE", a knowledge-test should be used in order to have a probably new look to the definition of the keyword "KNOWLEDGE":

Source of an international validated online knowledge test: https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/mgkt.docx

  • OT2a: Please, choose the probably correct options in case of each question in the test!
  • OT2b: Please, make remarks - if any is available - about the content of the questions and/or their options!
Remarks for supporting operative interpretations of the task-layers: Please, send the chosen options in case of each question in the following test to the prepared Moodle-Forum (as far as possible in a chronological way)! (If the online communication should not be available, then please, write down the chosen options on the sheet of paper also in a chronological way!) Chronology means: the first position in your message/post should always be the option being selected at first and so on... [Extension possibilities for working offline: If somebody makes corrections during the selection of options, then it is enough here and now (unfortunately, without an appropriate IT-frame for logging each user activities) to strike through each option being evaluated later as an incorrect one and to follow the previous chronological way to notice new and newer options being selected as correct ones (+ these new-comers can also be stroke through if needed). A real log-based solution could detect each timestamp and event you made during the whole selection process...]

Obligatory and Facultative Task-layers Nr.3 (OT3*/FT3*)

Experiences should be collected in order to analyze them. The conclusions of these analyses could lead to new definitions/re-definitions:

  • OT3a: After closing the international knowledge test, the task-layer OT1a should be repeated...
  • FT3b: A re-definition would also be possible and useful in case of the general definitions... and these re-definitions could also be discussed...
Remarks for didactic aspects: The appropriate forum in the Moodle system makes possible to re-define general definitions too as a kind of homework... Each re-definition can be discussed in the Moodle system and especially the potential argumentation/comment-items are worth interpreting in details. The reasons of changes in the basic definitions could be interpreted as a kind of attribute for evaluation rule sets (see before)...

Obligatory and Facultative Task Nr.4 (OT4*, FT4*)

Extreme situations (like accidents) make it easier to create more complex/generalized interpretations about definitions:

Remarks for didactic aspects: Knowledge as term is mostly interpreted just from scientific point of view. Each other (c.f. insane-like, illness-oriented, extreme) aspect is not focused - in general...

Obligatory and Facultative Task-layers Nr.5 (OT5*/FT5*)

Experiences should be collected in order to analyze them. The conclusions of these analyses could lead to new definitions/re-definitions:

  • OT5a: After closing the video stream, the task-layer OT1a should also be repeated...
  • FT5b: A re-definition would also be possible and useful in case of the general definitions... and these re-definitions could also be discussed...
Remarks for didactic aspects: The appropriate forum in the Moodle system makes possible to re-define general definitions to as a kind of homework... Each re-definition can be discussed in the Moodle system and especially the potential argumentation/comment-items are worth interpreting in details.

Obligatory and Facultative Task-layers Nr.6 (OT6*/FT6*)

Students should always know in the most exact form and way how their performances will be evaluated. Potential declarations from teachers may always be discussed. But this kind of discussions always needs preparation works like imaginations about complex evaluation systems - at least about potential attributes being involved in an evaluation process...

  • OT6a: Please, collect appropriate attributes being capable of describing performance layers (especially such kind of layers where somebody seems to be rel. good)...
  • FT6b: Evaluation criteria can also be collected for general definitions and for comparison of personal and general definitions as a kind of homework...
Remarks for didactic aspects: Objectivity-driven evaluation is central phenomenon where somebody want to speak about knowledge, quality, science, research...

Basic game (CCR)

https://citycountryriver.net/new-game.xhtml (CCR)

  • Who is the best player?
  • Furthermore: What is knowledge?
  • What (kind of knowledge) can be measured based on the game "CCR"?

Introduction game (SCMT)

https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/QuILT_introduction_game (SCMT)

  • Central questions: Who is the best player? (Furthermore: What is knowledge? / )

Supplement/reserve/spare games

  • What kind of phenomena can not be seen as KNOWLEDGE? (c.f. IF THEN ELSE)
  • What is the definition of the phenomenon of NON-KNOWLEDGE? (c.f. https://www.google.com/search?ei=nt9fXKT9AYLXwALHnJ_QAQ&q="non-knowledge"+wikipedia&oq="non-knowledge"+wikipedia)
  • What is a source code?
  • Could be seen e.g. a knife as a kind of knowledge? (Can knowledge be materialized - c.f. slicing, cutting)?
  • Is (or can be seen) the principle of KNUTH about KNOWLEDGE/SCIENCE as a kind of source code?
  • What does mean fuzzy logic?
  • What is intelligence?
  • Please, read a rel. long sentence/quote alone, and try to explain its meaning for an other person - an so on including a lot of people... (The last sentence should be compared with the first one! Derive the level of the distortions of the original meanings!)
  • What is knowledge transfer?
  • How can be evaluated a knowledge-transfer-process? (c.f. distortion of meanings, speed of transfer, etc.)
  • How can be defined the expression "MAGIC OF WORDS"?
  • ...

2. Day (2019.II.20.)

New room: FR305
Parable for Newcomers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son + https://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Fisher/Topical/ch02.htm

Expected / potential activities (leading to digital finger/foot-prints as the single basis of the objective evaluations of Student's activities - c.f. expexted rule sets of the 1. day):

Already known tasks

  • sending the basic information (c.f. Neptun-message)
    • from now on only online
    • (earlier offline/online)
  • discussing customized offers based on the basic information units (like: hobby=writing/reading, or growing plants)
    • offer+:
      • Please, read the book KAZOHINIA (in English: http://www.kevius.com/kazohinia/)...
      • Please, try to derive definition for knowledge, information, intelligence, data, competence, etc. based on the book
    • offer++:
      • Please, collect your knowledge about your hobby in order to be capable of creating a manual-driven expert system
      • Please, try to check it whether the expert system is error-free
  • pay attention / presence / attendance
    • in general: offline
    • in case of written agreements: online!
      • creating questions about general/customized rules of the courses (Neptun-message)
        • online (Moodle)
        • online (email to:pitlik@my-x.hu)
      • creating offers from Student to conductor (online: email to:pitlik@my-x.hu)
        • an offer should contain a kind of CSR-oriented performance/achievement (CSR = in general useful)
        • an offer should have direct connection(s) to the course topics
  • remarks to the diary (1. day)
    • asap online based on access rights for the QuILT system
    • offline
  • remarks to the discussion site of diary (1. day) - conclusions
    • asap online based on access rights for the QuILT system
    • offline
  • remarks to the QuILT system in general (Neptun-message): https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/QuILT-content (incl. each URL)
  • remarks to the first paper: https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/Definitions_of_knowledge.docx ((WORD: SHIFT+CTRL+E - https://support.office.com/en-us/article/track-changes-in-word-197ba630-0f5f-4a8e-9a77-3712475e806a - see track changes function)
  • creating a lot of definitions
    • online (MOODLE)
    • (earlier offline)
  • creating a lot of re-definitions
    • online (MOODLE)
    • (earlier offline)
  • creating a lot of re-re-definitions
    • online (MOODLE)
    • (earlier offline)
  • creating a lot of evaluation rule sets for definitions
    • online (MOODLE)
    • (earlier offline)
  • creating a lot of evaluation rule sets for evaluation rule sets
    • online (MOODLE)
    • (earlier offline)
  • creating evaluation rule sets for scoring of Student's activities
    • in general
    • customized
Please, do not forget to interpret this list of the old and new tasks as a kind of set of potential attributes for evaluation of Student's activities

New tasks

  • chaos-detection-exercise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhMiuzyU1ag
    • when should be speak about chaos?
    • when might not be speak about chaos?
  • ideal data-visualization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo&t=3s
    • how could be made the visual effects more sophisticated?
    • where could still be used this kind of visualization?
  • could a joke be detected through chained translations?
  • creating a lot of chained translations alone
    • for the word of knowledge
      • in case of personal definitions
        • own definitions
        • definitions of other Students
      • in case of general definitions
        • own definitions
        • definitions of other Students
        • definitions from the Wikipedia
      • in case of re-definitions
        • own definitions
        • definitions of other Students
        • definitions from the Wikipedia based on language versions
    • for further keywords having close connections to the course
      • keyword-like expressions in the definitions of knowledge
      • new keywords of the title of the courses
      • keyword-like expressions in the definitions of the other keywords from the title of the courses
  • creating a lot of chained translations in team
    • searching for the longest chain leading to good approximations between the first and last text versions
    • searching for the most sensible languages
  • creating personal evaluations/conclusion for the 2. Day
    • asap online based on access rights for the QuILT-system
    • offline
  • creating remarks for the following video stream about a kind of ideal thinking methodology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo
    • asap online based on access rights for the QuILT system
    • offline
The exercises for chained translations can be seen as a kind of AWS (academic writing skills).
AWS-exercises needs always conductors. Chained translations can also be used/learned alone!
The above listed activities can be seen as a kind of rule set for evaluation of Students 
where the more activities can be detected in each channel the better is a Student.

3. Day (2019.II.27.)

Before each meeting: it would be useful

The 3. meeting makes possible to demonstrate operative ideals/patterns:

  • it is necessary to see detailed examples of one/more objective evaluations
  • it is necessary to demonstrate alternative ways for creating definitions
    • the definitions till now are maybe entirely useless
    • not even the quality assurance based on chained translation can support to achieve a higher level of the quality of definitions
    • till now, there is no valid rule system for evaluating definitions
    • let alone: there is no valid rule system for evaluating chained translations

Synchronicity Test Nr.1

https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/st1_ik045.docx

Demo: Evaluation of conductors

  • Operative evaluation of conductors: https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/logstore_standard_log.xlsx
    • Source: queried (valid) data from the MOODLE-system for a real conductor and a real course
    • Data for further conductors have just been generated in a randomized way.
    • There is a small set of potential useful reports based on the raw data from the MOODLE-system.
    • The question needing an answers is: Who is the best MOODLE-conductor?
    • Alternative answers (c.f. naive and objective)
    • The direction for each evaluation layers is: the more (is the amount of the specific activity) the better (should be the aggregated performance as such).

Demo and/or common task: Evaluation of Students

  • Operative evaluation of Students: ASAP (based on real but anonymous data from MOODLE and/or based on data being visible in MOODLE from point of view of a conductor: e.g. e-portfolio/forums):
    • The same analysis could be derived based on real data about Student's activities
    • The question needing an answers is: Who is the best Student?
    • Who would be agreed if: (the following example can be seen as the default rule set for the semester?!)
      • the first credit had the Student with the best objective performance?
      • the next credit had the Student, who is able to win the next objective performance evaluation phase
        • where each Student can deliver unlimited digital foot/fingerprint elements
        • therefore the winner can not be estimated in an instinctive way?
      • Would be necessary/useful to declare a minimum level for each variable? (e.g. at least one single activity in each evaluation category?)
      • Would be useful to have the possibility to declare new variables by Students? (e.g. sent emails to the conductors)
      • It is trivial for each affected person that the direction in case of each performance layer should always be: the more the better?!

Game: Barkochba = Twenty Questions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty_Questions
  • Documentation of the games:
    • each game should have a written version incl. each relevant remark from the players
    • the written games will be analyzed e.g. for the next learning material

Rules and/or antagonisms

4. Day (2019.III.06.)

5. Day (2019.III.13.)

To avoid language problems in the offline MS-Excel, it is possible to use the online Google-Spreadsheets: 
e.g.: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sEbStn1MlsfE4dlu5JOPPkZKKAALPZT6TQH-wtycKU4/edit#gid=0
(To edit an online Google-Spreadsheet, it is necessary to have a Google-Account!)
  • Parallel way (preparing the topic "service science" - a new offer got created for a particular Student in this course in order to have the initial steps concerning the task about the harmony-index (see: https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/QuILT-IK045-Diary#Synchronicity_Test_Nr.2)
  • Offer:
    • starting page: https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/QuILT-IK045-Diary
    • CTRL+F for harmony
    • basic quote = "For products and services to be successful, they need to harmonize seamlessly with the customers’ needs and perceptions. Service design is an instrument for achieving this harmony."
    • task = collecting data about customer's needs concerning a service where:
      • service = education (exactly this course)
      • customers = Students
      • needs = based on interviews/questionnaires (= variables and their values for each classmate)
    • result: a report where row-header = id-s for classmates, columns = variables, cell = estimated amount of needs
    • Example:
      • somebody (nr1) will say: I NEED scripts where the pages of the already prepared scripts = 100%, customized/estimated value for Student Nr.1 = 90% it means he/she would like to have 10 % MORE prepared scripts
      • the other Students (nr2-nr12) should also be asked whether they would need more or less scripts (where 120% would mean - the volume of the scripts is more then needed)
      • each Student should suggest at least one new variable (like scripts) about needs
      • each Student should formulate statements (estimations) for each variable!!!
      • matrix: rows = Students, columns = variables (needs), cells= estimated values (a far as possible in %)
      • description about data collection possibilities: https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/QuILT_introduction_game (this game got prepared in order to cover quasi exactly this kind of data-collection)

6. Day (2019.III.20.)

Synchronicity Test Nr.2

https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/st2_ik045.docx

Basic version (re-acting to learning materials)

Search: https://www.google.com/search?q=Service+Science

Advanced version

Testing competences

Analysis of offers

7. Day (2019.III.27.)

8. Day (2019.IV.03.)

Remark: (2019.IV.10.) no meeting (international week of the university)

Roles and responsibilities in the teamwork: https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/QuILT-teamwork

9. Day (2019.IV.17.)

Synchronicity Test Nr.3

Common task for each Student on the spot:

  • identifying statistics being informative enough to build models
  • identifying questions (what a robot politician should be able to answer - like https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/GDP_final_en.doc)
  • creating models
  • choosing the best model
  • creating data-visualization effects
  • creating a publication (at least 4-5 pages) on the spot at once
  • the publication should be uploaded via Moodle-ePortfolio-channel by the project leader
  • the name and the Neptun-Id of each project member should be part of the publication (c.f. authors)

Further information:

10. Day (2019.IV.24.)

Discussion about the common publications:

(URLs later - if the authors will agree with the publication of work-phases)

Discussion strategies:

  • completing publication in teamwork as planned
  • creating a ppt (e.g. in cartoon/movie-style where each step should be visualized and explained)
  • creating a doc/pdf (e.g. in cartoon/movie-style where each step should be visualized and explained)
  • common interpreting prepared MSC tasks (course-id: 057 and or 059)
  • common publishing prepared MSC-tasks (like before)
  • working totally alone on an own publication (c.f. week Nr12 - advanced test) - potential tasks: similar steps like in teamwork but for other years
  • preparing "just" detailed commands for the still not complete teamwork-publication for further subtasks including quality assurance rule sets - it means: when may be seen a subtask as solved in an ideal way?)

11. Day (2019.V.01.)

holiday (it is possible to define evaluation variables and ask for anonymous data for week Nr12 via email)

12. Day (2019.V.08.)

Synchronicity Test Nr.4

Basic version

Questions behind an evaluation

  • (default objects = Students)
  • What kind of attributes about the Students (about their performances) could be involved into the evaluation theoretically?
    • Name of each attribute = ...
    • Definition of each attribute = ...
      • Source = ...
      • Measuring details = ...
    • Unit/dimension of each attribute = ...
    • Direction of each attribute = ...
      • Code (0/1 based on Excel-logic) = ...
      • Rule for each direction with detailed description = ... (the more the more / the more the less)
    • Max-min values of each attribute (for creating RND-values of the OAM)
  • How should be processed this OAM?
    • Flow-chart-like description
    • with detailed argumentation (why is a step necessary?)
  • What kind of interpretation rules should be used in case of the results?

Advanced version

  • Own (alone planned-closed) publication within 90 minutes (on the spot)

13. Day (2019.V.15.)

Personal/team-consultations first of all for ERASMUS-Students

Demonstration materials about closed and/or still prepared publications: https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/?C=M;O=D

14. Day (2019.V.22.)

Personal/team-consultations for each Student

Demonstration materials about closed and/or still prepared publications: https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/?C=M;O=D


Everybody may offer new description layers and/or fine tune the above mentioned initial interpretations!