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:

Demo of rule sets for evaluation of definitions: https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/OT1c.xlsx
- (The file should be discussed sooner or later in details.)
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:

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

a kind of massive lack of satisfaction could be detected concerning the usefulness of the chained translation
- the existence of the critical aspect is relevant
- critics should be formulated in written form incl. arguments and detailed improvements
- detailed critics needs detailed experiences:
- theoretical aspects are not always relevant enough till own experiences do not exist
  - detecting a joke through artificial intelligence is a high-level challenge (c.f. Turing-test)
  - being independent from a mentor (c.f. AWS vs. chained translation) is an important level of the expected/needed sovereignty
a kind of massive acceptance could be detected in case of the Rosling-animation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo&t=218s)
a kind of massive and instinctive misunderstanding of chaos/pattern could be detected in case of the Pendulum-video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhMiuzyU1ag)
- the Rosling-animation works with chaos and it derives a kind of pattern-like figure
- the Pendulum is a kind of strong pattern without or points of views, but the subjective perspectives can lead to misunderstandings of physical phenomena
the detected antagonisms should be solved
- see learning material Nr.2 - ASAP
- in order to see the first impulses about research activities
the chained translation is not the unique/single way to detect weaknesses in a definition
- we need to play barkochba-games
  - at first: a plant or animal should be derived based on the animal taxonomy / plant systematics
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_taxonomy
    - https://www.insectidentification.org/insect-description.asp?identification=May-Beetle
  - the second attempt should be a subject (like steering wheel of a car - it means a technical object or a particular type/model of cars)
  - the last game should be about an abstraction (like knowledge, competence, competency, intelligence, information, data, etc.)
    - the more sophisticated is a definition the more people are able to guess it in frame of a barkochba-game and/or the less time is required for the guessing (c.f. the less amount of questions and/or the more trivial are these questions)
    - control view: Is a series of question capable of classifying each focused expression (like knowledge, competence, competency, intelligence, information, data, etc.) in one single system?
Important questions:
- Why should we have definitions at all?
- Where should we use definitions at all?
- (Already known question: Which definition is better than an other definition?)
supporting remarks into the learning material Nr.1: https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/Definitions_of_knowledge.docx
- positive remarks in form of questions: https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/demo_questions_to_important_messages.docx
- negative remarks (see critics above): with arguments and detailed improvements at once

3. Day (2019.II.27)

Conclusions after the second meeting:

Vita:QuILT-IK045-Diary

1. Day (2019.II.13)

2. Day (2019.II.20)

3. Day (2019.II.27)

Navigációs menü

Nézetek

Személyes eszközök

Navigáció

Keresés

Eszközök