QuILT-parallelisms

Parallel aspects of the QuILT-activities

QuILT-sitemap: https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/QuILT-content

As the QuILT-site about the targeted groups (https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/QuILT-targeted-groups) shows, there can be parallel courses with theoretical and practical focus where it is also important whether the theoretical or the practical aspects should support the other one?!

Assumed, that a group of Students have 2 QuILT-based courses in a parallel way and the first course should be interpreted as a practice-driven course then following didactic can be used for a rational co-existence of the parallel courses:

Focus points of the (first) practical course (maybe together with other Students e.g. from other faculties):

The Students affected through parallelisms and facing the QuILT-system at first in form of a practical approach should

• use the QuILT-system as in general presented in the descriptions because the QuILT-system is an experience-oriented approach (c.f. learning by doing) where each understanding should come - as far as possible - derived from raw data (c.f. big data + data mining) and less through declarations (of teachers<--conductors and/or other authors of literature items)...
• know in advance that they are affected through parallelisms in order to be willing to search for differences from now on where searching means
  • collecting questions according to the practical aspects...
  • evaluating these questions also from the point of view of the theory (it means: is there any characteristics being to generalize)...

The same group of Students who have already practical QuILT-experiences and have the possibility to co-operate with other Students on the same level (e.g. MSC) but without any QuILT-experiences should

• play the role of the teacher who may declare experience-based knowledge and/or
• play the role of the conductor who may not make any declarations but should support the derivation of declarations by the Students through the raw/aggregated experiences
• create two evaluation systems (especially the list of the involved attributes for the measurement both of the theoretical and the practical knowledge)
• derive what kind of misunderstanding can exist behind some irrational practices in case of the unexpected Students
• derive which kind of therapies could be useful for handling of the explored misunderstandings
• be capable proving which therapy is better than an other one...

The above listed approximations make possible to see the log-data (the collection of practical experiences in the QuILT-system) from the point of view of the theory and the practice in a parallel way. The Students having only a practice-oriented course in the QuILT-system will also have impulses from the conductors to be capable deriving of generalized knowledge but the amount and/or complexity should be less in the practical case than in the theoretical case.

Examples for the forms of generalized knowledge:

• during e.g. the introduction game, Students should have intuitive impulses about the necessity of abstraction (like term creation e.g. data, information, knowledge, knowledge economy, quality, innovation, management, design, policy etc.)
• based on the already understood necessity of abstract terms is should also be necessary to explore the difference between the magic of words and the log-based thinking about terms/words
• during the creation of complex definition (like https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/Szak%C3%A9rt%C5%91i_rendszer) Students should have intuitive impulses about the competitive evaluation of definitions and/or connections (types and/or grades) between definitions (c.f. consistence of thinking)
• during the creation of experts systems alone and/or together, Students should have intuitive impulses about the steps and logic of the knowledge engineering (leading directly to the realization of the KNUTH's principle)
• seeing the logs and knowing already about the KNUTH's principle, Students should have intuitive impulses about the challenges of the objective

evaluation contrary to instinctive approaches (like evaluation systems in the schools)

• having already the capability of creating expert systems, Students should have intuitive impulses about the necessity to evaluate them in an automated way as far as possible
• after all of the previous listed generalization levels, Students should have intuitive impulses about proving evidence and about the comparative and objective quality of evidence proving systems
• ...

Everybody may offer new description layers and/or fine tune the above mentioned initial interpretations!