„QuILT-2” változatai közötti eltérés
(→About the log-based evaluation) |
(→About the log-based evaluation) |
||
| 26. sor: | 26. sor: | ||
'''T: Hi! | '''T: Hi! | ||
''' | ''' | ||
| + | |||
S(1, ..., n): Hello! | S(1, ..., n): Hello! | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''T:Thank you for your coming! In medias res: We should create two Doodle-votings. The first one will be made by the staff - here and now. | ||
| + | The second one is your turn. The first question is: Who had a mathematical correct decision in the Monty-Hall-Test? The second (your) question will be: Which kind of interpretations can be identified behind a wrong choice? | ||
| + | In order to create a Doodle-voting-scenario, it is necessary to have a question. This is already available. It is necessary to have options. In this case: e.g. correct interpretation, incorrect interpretation. | ||
| + | ''' | ||
| + | S(4): Sorry, sorry - I think, these two options are not precise enough because the person who did not decide about the Monty-Hall-Question, well, s/he can not find an appropriate choice in the planned Doodle-system. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''T: Excellent! I can just highlight that a question should always have so many options that each potential situation should have an appropriate one. And if we are here - there is two further expectations according to the options: All options should be a kind of entire original option. It means: no overlapping with other ones. And the last expectation is: the set of the options should cover the whole potential of the options. In our case - here and now: the correctness of an declared option can just have two status: yes or no, but the non-declared cases will still not be covered, therefore it is necessary to have a third option like "no-interpretation". | ||
| + | ''' | ||
Everybody may offer new description layers and/or fine tune the above mentioned initial interpretations! | Everybody may offer new description layers and/or fine tune the above mentioned initial interpretations! | ||
A lap 2018. december 10., 14:51-kori változata
QuILT-sitemap: https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/QuILT-content
2. Invitation: https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/QuILT-Invitations#2._performance
Raw materials
- Teamwork-potential (analogies for PLA-evaluations):
- Stress detection (further analogies for PLA-evaluations):
About the log-based evaluation
Script for all roles with highlighted comments from the authors. Legend: T = Teacher, S[i] = one of the Students, R = Robot-RuDu = Are you? Do you!) Elements of screen play: either nothing or masks if a one-man-show should be performed...
T: Hi!
S(1, ..., n): Hello!
T:Thank you for your coming! In medias res: We should create two Doodle-votings. The first one will be made by the staff - here and now. The second one is your turn. The first question is: Who had a mathematical correct decision in the Monty-Hall-Test? The second (your) question will be: Which kind of interpretations can be identified behind a wrong choice? In order to create a Doodle-voting-scenario, it is necessary to have a question. This is already available. It is necessary to have options. In this case: e.g. correct interpretation, incorrect interpretation. S(4): Sorry, sorry - I think, these two options are not precise enough because the person who did not decide about the Monty-Hall-Question, well, s/he can not find an appropriate choice in the planned Doodle-system.
T: Excellent! I can just highlight that a question should always have so many options that each potential situation should have an appropriate one. And if we are here - there is two further expectations according to the options: All options should be a kind of entire original option. It means: no overlapping with other ones. And the last expectation is: the set of the options should cover the whole potential of the options. In our case - here and now: the correctness of an declared option can just have two status: yes or no, but the non-declared cases will still not be covered, therefore it is necessary to have a third option like "no-interpretation".
Everybody may offer new description layers and/or fine tune the above mentioned initial interpretations!
