„Vita:QuILT-IK045-Diary” változatai közötti eltérés

A Miau Wiki wikiből
(→‎3. Day (2019.II.27))
(→‎3. Day (2019.II.27))
117. sor: 117. sor:
 
**https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/st1_all.docx
 
**https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/st1_all.docx
 
**all further tests will be commented cell by cell
 
**all further tests will be commented cell by cell
−
**and also according to typical phenmena
+
**and also according to typical phenomena
  
 
=4. Day (2019.III.06)=
 
=4. Day (2019.III.06)=
 
Conclusions after the 4. meeting:
 
Conclusions after the 4. meeting:

A lap 2019. február 28., 18:39-kori változata

1. Day (2019.II.13)

Conclusions after the first meeting:

  • the potential/wished chained effect (the connection between two courses based on a single person having both courses behind each other) should be stopped because the single person has a correction in the course registration
  • 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:


2. Day (2019.II.20)

Conclusions after the second meeting: 

Prompt Neptun-email:
Dear All,
thank you for your activities in the Moodle system.
It would be nice to have definitions from each single Student.
A suggestion to the homework: https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/Definitions_of_knowledge.docx
- this first paper (learning material) needs your remarks: e.g.
your own definition and/or the definitions of others (see in Moodle)
https://moodle.kodolanyi.hu/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=44464
should be classified/interpreted compared to each other (see e.g. sub-chapter: Possible conclusions)...
It is possible to create new groups (highlighted keywords)...
Best regards
Laszlo Pitlik

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 is needed for a test
    • Not each Student has possibilities for
  • 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.

4. Day (2019.III.06)

Conclusions after the 4. meeting:

A lap eredeti címe: „https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Vita:QuILT-IK045-Diary&oldid=79915”