Vita:QuILT-IK045-Diary

A Miau Wiki wikiből
A lap korábbi változatát látod, amilyen Pitlik (vitalap | szerkesztései) 2019. április 28., 22:55-kor történt szerkesztése után volt. (→‎10. Day (2019.IV.24))

(eltér) ← Régebbi változat | legfrissebb változat (eltér) | Újabb változat→ (eltér)

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 6. meeting (Test Nr. 2):

  • File-names:
    • without expectation the previous file-name-convention (= file-name with neptun-id) got used by Students (ratio: 1/14 incl. standard and mixed forms where mixed forms means: the new convention and the old convention got used in a parallel way)
    • the new (prepared) file-name got changed (ratio: 3/14)
    • the new (prepared) file-name is unchanged (ratio: 5/14)
    • (checking the ratios: 1+3+5=9)
  • Impressions based on questions/problems during the testing:
    • Each learning material is not read week by week by each Student.
    • Therefore the time (90 minutes) for testing seemed to be rel. 'small'...
    • The free choice URL should be re-interpreted rel. frequently - although there were examples available.
    • The logic of the quote in case of spreadsheets as source should be re-interpreted rel. frequently - although there was a specific rule in the description of the test-document.
    • The interpretation-task of the spreadsheets seemed to be unexpected - although they present the (structured, numeric, objective) details of the learning materials (c.f. magic of words).
  • Strategies:
    • Nobody reacted to the neptun message before - it means: nobody had at least a partially ready test version at the beginning of the testing.
    • Nobody was dare to choose the advanced version of the test Nr2.
  • Content-oriented interpretations: see in form of a new learning material (https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/st2_all.docx)
  • Concerning Test Nr.3 (Week Nr.9):
    • It seems to be necessary to use the methodology of the first two tests. It means:
      • The necessity of reading the learning materials may not be changed.
      • The work-time (90 minutes) may not be shortened.
      • The neptun-message should be sent asap.
    • Advanced test-versions should be created again and again in order
      • to give signs about the practical potential of the (theoretical) course
      • to make possible for Students to shift towards higher levels...
  • Concerning Test Nr.4 (week Nr.12):
    • Test Nr.4 should be the evaluation of each Student by each Student (in case of each parallel course)
    • because education is a kind of service
    • and the effect of the principle 'the-ocean-in-a-drop' makes possible to lead theory to practice
  • Concerning week Nr.7-8
    • To have/present/discuss more and more details seems to be important.
    • To have the chance to reproduce details seems to be important.
    • Recommended literature (see URLs from the free-choice-task) should be evaluated in the new learning material in all of the details.
It is possible to complete/change the tests and to send them through the Moodle-e-portfolio channel...
It is possible to send previous tests being not written during the appropriate meetings...
The tests sent later for some reason can also be evaluated by Students during the last Test (Nr.4 - week Nr.12).

7. Day (2019.III.27)

Conclusions after the 7. meeting:

  • to support the team-oriented modelling challenges (c.f. week Nr.9 - 3. test)
  • it is necessary to prepare more and more models/robots together
  • based on real data/statistics
  • based on real questions (decision making scenarios)
  • where the results will be published at once
  • incl. appropriate data-visualization effects

8. Day (2019.IV.03)

Conclusions after the 8. meeting:

Experiences about the common creating of a totally new project:

Experiences about the integration to an already available project:

9. Day (2019.IV.17)

Conclusions after the 9. meeting:

  • Synchronicity Test Nr.3.
    • in teamwork
    • preparation activities are permitted e.g.
      • building teams
      • selecting keywords
      • searching for data
      • completing thinking experiment
        • descriptive questions
        • decision situations
      • preparing OAMs, reports, other data processing steps
      • planning visual effects
      • planning publication details
  • Preparation works should be uploaded via Moodle-ePortfolio-channel by the project leader: before the next meeting
  • The name and the Neptun-Id of each project member should be part of the publication (c.f. authors)
Background-XLSX: https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/045.xlsx
KSH-source: http://www.ksh.hu/stadat_annual_4_5
Used STADAT-table (HTML): http://www.ksh.hu/docs/eng/xstadat/xstadat_annual/i_ogt003a.html
Used STADAT-table (XLS): http://www.ksh.hu/docs/eng/xstadat/xstadat_annual/xls/4_5_2ie.xls
Background information: http://www.ksh.hu/docs/eng/modsz/modsz45.html
Meta information: http://www.ksh.hu/apps/meta.objektum?p_lang=EN&p_menu_id=110&p_ot_id=100&p_obj_id=OGT
Remarks a) and b) can be visualized with a mouse-over effect in the HMTL-view.

Sources of the data about the population size of the analyzed countries: ???

It would be possible to clone the above listed XLSX (about the year 2018) for other years 
other days (c.f. not just for the same-day-statistics - see STADAT-XLS-for-downloading)...

Expectations concerning the final version of a study:

  • each decision should be described incl. argumentation
  • each calculation step should be described incl. argumentation
  • each visual effect should be described incl. argumentation
  • relevant alternatives (decisions, calculation steps, visual effect) should be described/rejected incl. argumentation
  • each sources should be described incl. argumentation
  • each calculation step should be checked incl. description
  • each number should have meta information about year, country, variable, dimension/unit, etc.
  • (each sentence/figure of the publication should have a responsible person - see roles: https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/QuILT-IK045-Teamwork)
How complex a MSC-team works: https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/Vita:QuILT-IK057-Diary#Complex_analyses

10. Day (2019.IV.24)

Conclusions after the 10. meeting:

A lap eredeti címe: „https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Vita:QuILT-IK045-Diary&oldid=80307”