A lap 2019. március 14., 10:34-kori változata

1. Day (2019.II.13)

Conclusions after the first meeting:

• the small team of Students presented a high-level co-operation capability therefore
  • the chained conducting should be stopped at once (c.f. https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Vita:QuILT-IK057-Diary)
  • the already realized working speed should be ensured for the further meetings too
• the small team seems to be capable of
  • working on a more abstract level (c.f. more mathematics can be involved into the new/re-planned agenda)
  • co-operating with each other
  • and/or working alone in teleworking
• the small team would be demotivated through
  • conducting tasks (c.f. creating parallel diaries in frame of the next course with more Students)
  • enforced situation generated by a greater team (c.f. responsibility of conductors)

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:

• It is necessary to have detailed and valid information at least about an innovation project/contest in order to be able to interpret policy needs/possibilities.
• The reality driven impulses (https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/reality_driven_education.docx) seems to be too specific/detailed for understanding at once.

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.

• Preview of the evaluation robot about Students and Conductors:
  • https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/log_students.xlsx
  • https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/log_conductors.xlsx

• 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.

• First demo about interpretation possibilities from conductor:
  • https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/st1_all.docx
  • all further tests will be commented cell by cell
  • and also according to typical phenomena

• Conclusions:
  • We have a lot of
    • definitions e.g. about the word of knowledge
    • log-data about Student's activities
    • characteristics about the daily innovation processes (c.f. GLH2019)
  • We do not have any operative quality assurance solutions like
    • rule system for evaluation of definitions
    • rule system for evaluation of Student's activities
    • rule system for evaluation of innovations

4. Day (2019.III.06)

Conclusions after the 4. meeting:

• The human eyes are not capable of identifying arbitrary patterns like:
  • https://miau.my-x.hu/myx-free/index.php3?x=iq / http://miau.my-x.hu/miau/129/cash.xls
  • https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/GDP_final_en.doc / https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/gdp_en.xls
• It seems to be worth to reproduce demonstrated analyses step by step:
  • First trial:
    • Source: https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/log_students.xlsx
    • Task: reproducing the OAM based on the reporting wizard of MS Excel
  • Homework:
    • Exercises pivoting
    • Searching for new data assets being available to derive robot politicians like
      • Robot for innovation policies
      • Robot for policies for tourism

Details:

• The first exercises was for pivoting/reporting in Excel:
  • Source: https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/log_students.xlsx
  • Source: https://miau.my-x.hu/myx-free/ (online engines)
  • Source: http://web.mit.edu/15.053/www/Excel_Solver.pdf
• Messages:
  • Based on Moodle-data, the Students have the possibilities to create rational reports based on the own logs.
  • The reports deliver OAMs for evaluation of Student's activities for the question: Who is the best?
  • The deep detailed way to the solutions should involve both the online (MY-X FRRE) and the offline engines (Solver).
• Experimental demo:
  • Source: http://miau.my-x.hu/miau/129/cash.xls
  • Source: https://miau.my-x.hu/myx-free/index.php3?x=iq
• Messages:
  • This valid OAM can test the capability of seeing patterns at all.
  • The movie "Mercury Rising" has the same initial motive: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120749/

5. Day (2019.III.13)

Conclusions after the 5. meeting:

• The basic competences could be trained like
  • using a solver engine for a demo-task about a 4-digit-number (online - Google-spreadsheets - based on the NEOS server)
  • using a reporting engine for evaluating Student's activities (online - Google-spreadsheets - based on log-data from Moodle)
• Task for the next week (after the Test Nr.2 - week Nr.7)
  • completing a model for evaluating Student's activities
  • completing a model for estimating GDP based on the previous case study:
    • https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/GDP_final_en.doc
    • https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/gdp_en.xls
  • using Solver of MS-Excel
  • using online engines (like https://miau.my-x.hu/myx-free/coco/index.html)
  • searching for relevant data assets and questions together

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):

• ...