„QuILT-2” változatai közötti eltérés
(→About the log-based evaluation) |
(→About the log-based evaluation) |
||
| 30. sor: | 30. sor: | ||
'''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. | '''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? | + | 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/decision/interpretation? |
| − | 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 | + | In order to create a Doodle-voting-scenario, it is necessary to have a question. This/these is/are already available. It is also necessary to have options in case of each question. In the first case, the options could be: e.g. correct interpretation/decision, incorrect interpretation/decision. |
''' | ''' | ||
S(7): 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. | S(7): 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: | + | '''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: In fact, all options should be a kind of entire original option. It means: no overlapping in the meanings 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 a 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/decision". |
''' | ''' | ||
S(7): All right, Sir! | S(7): All right, Sir! | ||
| − | '''T: Before we try to use the Doodle-System, the options for your question should also be completed. Who could formulate the first option? | + | '''T: Before we try to use the Doodle-System, the options for your question, for the second question should also be completed. Who could formulate the first option? Remember, please: the second question was: " Which kind of interpretations can be identified behind a wrong choice/decision/interpretation? " |
''' | ''' | ||
| − | S(4): I think, in | + | S(4): I think, in this case, there is a lot of problems, is not there? |
| − | S(7): Yes, I agree with this suspicion. Interpretations compared to each other either will not be original enough or there will | + | S(7): Yes, I agree with this suspicion. Interpretations compared to each other either will not be original enough or there will have overlapping effects between interpretations. |
'''T: You are right. Principles are mostly available just to approximate them! | '''T: You are right. Principles are mostly available just to approximate them! | ||
''' | ''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | S(4): And may I have a further question, Sir? | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''T: Of course! We are here and together (in the real and/or in an virtual space) in order to have questions and find answers... | ||
| + | ''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | S(4): Why did you use parallel words before like choice-interpretation-decision? | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''T: You have a good instinct to ask! A good question ensure the half way to the results... :-)''' | ||
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 11., 15:35-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/decision/interpretation? In order to create a Doodle-voting-scenario, it is necessary to have a question. This/these is/are already available. It is also necessary to have options in case of each question. In the first case, the options could be: e.g. correct interpretation/decision, incorrect interpretation/decision. S(7): 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: In fact, all options should be a kind of entire original option. It means: no overlapping in the meanings 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 a 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/decision".
S(7): All right, Sir!
T: Before we try to use the Doodle-System, the options for your question, for the second question should also be completed. Who could formulate the first option? Remember, please: the second question was: " Which kind of interpretations can be identified behind a wrong choice/decision/interpretation? " S(4): I think, in this case, there is a lot of problems, is not there?
S(7): Yes, I agree with this suspicion. Interpretations compared to each other either will not be original enough or there will have overlapping effects between interpretations.
T: You are right. Principles are mostly available just to approximate them!
S(4): And may I have a further question, Sir?
T: Of course! We are here and together (in the real and/or in an virtual space) in order to have questions and find answers...
S(4): Why did you use parallel words before like choice-interpretation-decision?
T: You have a good instinct to ask! A good question ensure the half way to the results... :-)
Everybody may offer new description layers and/or fine tune the above mentioned initial interpretations!
