Vita:QuILT-IK057-Diary

1. Day (2019.II.13)

Conclusions after the first meeting:

• the small team of Students presented a high-level co-operation capability therefore
  • the chained conducting should be stopped at once (c.f. https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Vita:QuILT-IK057-Diary)
  • the already realized working speed should be ensured for the further meetings too
• the small team seems to be capable of
  • working on a more abstract level (c.f. more mathematics can be involved into the new/re-planned agenda)
  • co-operating with each other
  • and/or working alone in teleworking
• the small team would be demotivated through
  • conducting tasks (c.f. creating parallel diaries in frame of the next course with more Students)
  • enforced situation generated by a greater team (c.f. responsibility of conductors)

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
  • Facultative tasks:
  • What kind of additional information can be identified in the file compared to the information during the first meeting?
  • Why are the information units relevant?
• 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:

• It is necessary to have detailed and valid information at least about an innovation project/contest in order to be able to interpret policy needs/possibilities.
• The reality driven impulses (https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/reality_driven_education.docx) seems to be too specific/detailed for understanding at once.

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.

• Preview of the evaluation robot about Students and Conductors:
  • https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/log_students.xlsx
  • https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/log_conductors.xlsx

• 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.

• First demo about interpretation possibilities from conductor:
  • https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/st1_all.docx
  • all further tests will be commented cell by cell
  • and also according to typical phenomena

• Conclusions:
  • We have a lot of
    • definitions e.g. about the word of knowledge
    • log-data about Student's activities
    • characteristics about the daily innovation processes (c.f. GLH2019)
  • We do not have any operative quality assurance solutions like
    • rule system for evaluation of definitions
    • rule system for evaluation of Student's activities
    • rule system for evaluation of innovations

4. Day (2019.III.06)

Conclusions after the 4. meeting:

• The human eyes are not capable of identifying arbitrary patterns like:
  • https://miau.my-x.hu/myx-free/index.php3?x=iq / http://miau.my-x.hu/miau/129/cash.xls
  • https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/GDP_final_en.doc / https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/gdp_en.xls
• It seems to be worth to reproduce demonstrated analyses step by step:
  • First trial:
    • Source: https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/log_students.xlsx
    • Task: reproducing the OAM based on the reporting wizard of MS Excel
  • Homework:
    • Exercises pivoting
    • Searching for new data assets being available to derive robot politicians like
      • Robot for innovation policies
      • Robot for policies for tourism

5. Day (2019.III.13)

Conclusions after the 5. meeting:

• ...