Vita:QuILT-IK057-Diary

A Miau Wiki wikiből
A lap korábbi változatát látod, amilyen Pitlik (vitalap | szerkesztései) 2019. április 28., 22:56-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 small team of Students presented a high-level co-operation capability therefore
  • 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.
  • 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
      • 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: 

Details:

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: 2/14)
    • the new (prepared) file-name is unchanged (ratio: 0/14)
    • (checking the ratios: 1+2+0=3)
  • 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:

  • the goal was to derive the comparable statistics for a new word
  • based on the prepared case study about the fingerprint of words using 20Q.net-logs
  • the suggested new words like
    • maize
    • sunflower
  • were rejected by Students
  • the Student's decisions were
    • at first: leadership, what could not be guessed good enough
    • later: mind
  • the Student's hypotheses were in both cases
    • the basic characteristics should be closer to the word of "knowledge" than to the word of "horse"
    • the suggested/rejected cases about guessing plant should have the inverse hypotheses
  • log-data of the games
  • the integration of the data could not be closed
  • the data processing technique involving delimiter-handling could be discussed and tested
  • project-diary (created by the conductors): https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/Vita:QuILT-IK057-Diary

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
  • The name and the Neptun-Id of each project member should be part of the publication (c.f. authors)

Complex analyses

Initial steps (recommendations):

Potential questions:

  • What period(s) can be seen as the gold(en) age for the Hungarian research and innovation activities?
    • based on the amount of publication?
    • based on the amount of organisations?
    • based on the amount of HR?
    • based on the amount of patents?
    • based on all above-mentioned variables? (e.g. publication/person and/or publication/organisation and/or patents/person and/or patents/organisation and or patents/publication)
  • What is the dynamic relationship of a publication-index and organisation-index and HR-index?
  • How could be derived a production function where the dependent variable is the patent-index and each other index or raw variable could be seen as a kind of independent variable (also publications can be seen as resources=consultation-possibilities for patents)
  • What is the relationship between the index-ratios and the production function?
  • What is the real interpretation context in Hungary here and now (c.f. government's position about the future of the R&D-activities)?
Background of the analyses: https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/057.xls

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-IK057-Diary&oldid=80308”