Vita:QuILT-IK059-Diary

A Miau Wiki wikiből

1. Day (2019.II.13)

Conclusions after the first meeting:

  • the potential/wished chained effect (the connection between two courses based on a little team having both courses) should be stopped because
    • the speed of a small group is faster
    • the reaction of a greater group of Students are partially different
  • the next meeting will be hold in a specific room with personal computers in order
    • to ensure the generation of digital finger/foot-prints for each Student
    • to ensure transparency (and therefore quality) for all details during the working together
  • the next task should be a task being capable of catalyzing personal confrontations with operative details because
    • on the surface, messages/phenomena seem to be evident
    • but the "devil" is in the details
  • the next tasks should support to finalize/catalyze already initialized topics like
    • creation of evaluation rule sets for arbitrary phenomena (definitions, co-operations, rule sets, etc.)
    • creation of re-definition-chains in a successive way demonstrating the potential of the complexity
  • the next task should also be capable of
    • approximating professional contents (like new keywords parallel to the basic keyword of knowledge)
    • deriving temporary winners (e.g. the best definitions and the appropriate rule set ensuring robotized evaluation processes)
  • Students should have more time for solutions of the next tasks in order
    • to confront with each relevant detail
    • but always being supervised by other Students and/or conductors during the whole time for solutions
Remarks: Students should also be more active (c.f. the history of the QuILT system demonstrates what can be seen later in an objective way...)
Remarks: Students could be more active in NEPTUN (through answering email's from the conductors) and/or in MOODLE (creating more definitions and re-definitions in frame of the appropriate forums).

Annexes:

  • Demo of rule sets for evaluation of definitions: https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/OT1c.xlsx
    • Facultative tasks:
    • What kind of additional information can be identified in the file compared to the information during the first meeting?
    • Why are the information units relevant?
  • Defintions of knowledge: https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/OT1a.docx
    • (each version will be analyzed in a separate way and in connection to each other)
    • (the results will be published as a kind of learning material)


2. Day (2019.II.20)

Conclusions after the second meeting:

Important questions: Why should we have definitions at all? Where should we use definitions at all? 
(An already known question: Which definition is better than an other definition?)


3. Day (2019.II.27)

Conclusions after the 3. meeting:

  • Central task of the meeting: 1. Test
  • Problems:
    • Following File-Name-Conversion
      • Not all file name is rule-oriented
      • The most file name contain the needed NEPTUN-ID
      • Not all file name contain the needed standard part (e.g. course_id)
    • Is more instruction and/or common examples are really needed in order to fill the test sheet?
      • Without more instructions, the test could also measure a kind of sovereignty
      • There were real instructions available
    • Quotes are not always quotes (it means: there are a lot of seemingly cited text versions from other sources as expected)
    • Not each Student has equipment for teleworking - it means: the whole meeting can be needed for a testing.
    • Not each Student has possibilities for homeworking - it means: Students would like to be active during the class.

Positive experiences:

  • The quoted/highlighted texts are mostly relevant enough! It means: the focus is given.
  • The same quote could be interpreted both from positive and from negative point of views what can be seen as a task with higher complexity.
  • Video-stream about rules, antagonisms, consistence:
    • https://www.facebook.com/682652555192499/videos/2034362689952015/?v=2034362689952015
    • Classic test question about understanding-quality:
      • What are potential correct answers/options?
        • The teacher could also have argued for 20.002.000 USD instead of 22.000 USD.
        • The teacher could also have argued for the basic rule (2+2=4) based on the salary-calculation.
        • The teacher could also have created a new (irrational) rule e.g. for units like USD+USD=GBP (2+2=22).
        • The teacher could also have used the new "rule" in other situations like banking processes.
  • Potential task for each Student:
    • Creating new classic test questions (with arguments for each answer-option).
      • In case of incorrect options, it is also relevant to have argumentation about the reason of the potential misunderstanding.
      • Correct options need also arguments - where the argument is a kind of explanation.
  • Conclusions:
    • We have a lot of
      • definitions e.g. about the word of knowledge
      • log-data about Student's activities
    • We do not have any
      • rule system for evaluation of definitions
      • rule system for evaluation of Student's activities

4. Day (2019.III.06)

Conclusions after the 4. meeting:

Harmony-index about service sciences
  • 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)

5. Day (2019.III.13)

Conclusions after the 5. meeting:

Expert system
  • The task to create the input view of combinatoric space based on classics (legal) texts
    • like "The student shall register for each semester, with the possibility of continuing his or her studies (active semester) or suspending his or her studies (passive semester). Registering for subjects automatically results in an active semester, while not registering for any subject automatically results in a passive semester. The student is allowed to have two passive semesters continuously. During his or her studies, one can not have more than four passive semesters, except in cases of equity, including accidents, illness, childbirth, or other reasons out of the student’s influence. In all such cases, the student shall request equity in written form. No exams can be completed during a passive semester."
    • source: http://hort.sziu.hu/node/2968
  • could not be solved at once without specific supports coming from the conductor see:
  • The conclusions for each input constellation could not be derived in an error-free way at once without specific supports coming from the conductor like:
    • options (typical texts) for conclusions (e.g. yes/no and/or number of the potential passive semesters and/or further interpretations like the situation can not be existing, etc.)
    • dependencies between input variables like
      • if somebody did not used any passive semester then a consecutive situation (2 passive semester continuously) can not be existing
      • if somebody did not have a consecutive situation then the question about the status after it can not be interpreted
    • the demo-solution (translated from Hungarian) should not be seen as an ideal solution
  • Homework till the next meeting (week Nr.6 - before testing):
    • to complete the offline draft both on the input side and on the conclusion (output) side
    • to digitize the complete solution (e.g. in form of an Excel-table)
    • to send the digital solution via e-portfolio channel (Moodle)
  • Evaluation aspects for the sent solutions:
    • correctness of the input view
    • correctness of the outputs in case of each inputs and compared to each other
    • changes and their arguments
      • changes concerning the input attributes
      • changes concerning the MAIN QUESTION and therefore the typical text-units in the column for consequences
Harmony-index
  • Interviews with Students about their needs concerning the education-SERVICE
  • Potential needs and institutional facts can be completed: https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/harmony_index.xlsx
  • Facultative tasks (for the week Nr.7):
    • What kind of steps will lead to a harmony-index (compared to the quote above)?
    • How should be designed the education-SERVICE to have a higher harmony-index?
For the meeting after the Test Nr.2 (from week Nr.7 till the end of the course) it would be important to have own laptops!

6. Day (2019.III.20)

Conclusions after the 6. meeting (Test Nr. 2):

  • File-names:
    • without expectation the previous file-name-convention (= file-name with neptun-id) got used by Students (ratio: 4/13 incl. standard and mixed forms where mixed forms means: the new convention and the old convention got used in a parallel way)
    • the new (prepared) file-name got changed (ratio: 4/13)
    • the new (prepared) file-name is unchanged (ratio: 5/13)
    • (checking the ratios: 4+4+5=13)
  • Impressions based on questions/problems during the testing:
    • Each learning material is not read week by week by each Student.
    • Therefore the time (90 minutes) for testing seemed to be rel. 'small'...
    • The free choice URL should be re-interpreted rel. frequently - although there were examples available.
    • The logic of the quote in case of spreadsheets as source should be re-interpreted rel. frequently - although there was a specific rule in the description of the test-document.
    • The interpretation-task of the spreadsheets seemed to be unexpected - although they present the (structured, numeric, objective) details of the learning materials (c.f. magic of words).
  • Strategies:
    • Nobody reacted to the neptun message before - it means: nobody had at least a partially ready test version at the beginning of the testing.
    • Nobody was dare to choose the advanced version of the test Nr2.
  • Content-oriented interpretations: see in form of a new learning material (https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/st2_all.docx)
  • Concerning Test Nr.3 (Week Nr.9):
    • It seems to be necessary to use the methodology of the first two tests. It means:
      • The necessity of reading the learning materials may not be changed.
      • The work-time (90 minutes) may not be shortened.
      • The neptun-message should be sent asap.
    • Advanced test-versions should be created again and again in order
      • to give signs about the practical potential of the (theoretical) course
      • to make possible for Students to shift towards higher levels...
  • Concerning Test Nr.4 (week Nr.12):
    • Test Nr.4 should be the evaluation of each Student by each Student (in case of each parallel course)
    • because education is a kind of service
    • and the effect of the principle 'the-ocean-in-a-drop' makes possible to lead theory to practice
  • Concerning week Nr.7-8
    • To have/present/discuss more and more details seems to be important.
    • To have the chance to reproduce details seems to be important.
    • Recommended literature (see URLs from the free-choice-task) should be evaluated in the new learning material in all of the details.
It is possible to complete/change the tests and to send them through the Moodle-e-portfolio channel...
It is possible to send previous tests being not written during the appropriate meetings...
The tests sent later for some reason can also be evaluated by Students during the last Test (Nr.4 - week Nr.12).

7. Day (2019.III.27)

Conclusions after the 7. meeting:

  • to support the team-oriented modelling challenges (c.f. week Nr.9 - 3. test)
  • it is necessary to prepare more and more models/robots together
  • based on real data/statistics
  • based on real questions (decision making scenarios)
  • where the results will be published at once
  • incl. appropriate data-visualization effects

8. Day (2019.IV.03)

Conclusions after the 8. meeting:

  • short introduction the prepared study and its background spreadsheet about the safety-index / crime-index
  • prompt decision by Students about cloning (a demo) or creating (a new project): result = new project preferred
  • searching for relevant new keywords
    • listing services
    • voting for hospitality
  • searching for relevant problems
    • Google search
    • identifying STAFF/HR-HIRING
  • demo-project: https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/HR.xlsx
  • the demo project can be completed with real data
    • the seemingly complete publication/spreadsheet will be discussed on the spot during the test period (90 minutes)
    • the answers to the prompt questions should be integrated into the publication/spreadsheet at once
    • the still not complete solution should be completed during the test period (90 minutes)
  • project-diary (created by the conductors): https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/Vita:QuILT-IK059-Diary

9. Day (2019.IV.17)

Conclusions after the 9. meeting:

  • Synchronicity Test Nr.3.
    • in teamwork
    • preparation activities are permitted e.g.
      • building teams
      • selecting keywords
      • searching for data
      • completing thinking experiment
        • descriptive questions
        • decision situations
      • preparing OAMs, reports, other data processing steps
      • planning visual effects
      • planning publication details
  • Preparation works 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)
Complex analyses: https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/Vita:QuILT-IK057-Diary#Complex_analyses

The abstract of the first article got discussed concerning

  • the risks of the magic of words
  • the completing of declared sets of phenomena like
    • independent variables
    • dependent variables
    • actions
    • goodness-variables, ...

10. Day (2019.IV.24)

Conclusions after the 10. meeting: