Vita:QuILT-IK045-Diary

A Miau Wiki wikiből
A lap korábbi változatát látod, amilyen Pitlik (vitalap | szerkesztései) 2019. március 15., 13:40-kor történt szerkesztése után volt. (→‎5. Day (2019.III.13))

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 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.
  • 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.
  • Conclusions:
    • We have a lot of
      • definitions e.g. about the word of knowledge
      • log-data about Student's activities
    • We do not have any
      • rule system for evaluation of definitions
      • rule system for evaluation of Student's activities

4. Day (2019.III.06)

Conclusions after the 4. meeting:

  • The planned actions got postponed based on specific Student's questions.
  • The new objectives were:
    • having a detailed case study about technological, economical effects of the data-driven world
    • having the possibility to reproduce it by Students step by step

5. Day (2019.III.13)

Conclusions after the 5. meeting: 

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 5. meeting:

  • ...
A lap eredeti címe: „https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Vita:QuILT-IK045-Diary&oldid=80045”