QuILT-IK057-Diary

A Miau Wiki wikiből
QuILT-sitemap: https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/QuILT-content

These kind of diaries will always be created as a PLAN-version in a direct way. After each meetings, the FACTS will also be noticed either as a kind of correction series (c.f. page history: https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php?title=QuILT-IK057-Diary&action=history) or on the discussion page (https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/Vita:QuILT-IK057-Diary)...

1. Day (2019.II.13.)

Agenda:

  • Introduction
    • Welcome
    • Moodle-view
      • Course title: Quality, Innovation Policies and Tools in MLE
      • Affected groups: Level / Type / Logistic: MSC (1 group + ERASMUS Students) / Practice / Room: FR305, Wednesdays, 14.15-15.45
    • NEPTUN-view
      • Please, send an answer (basic information)
      • Tests of connections
    • Nicknames (offline and online = Please, send it to the course-forum in a parallel way)
      • Conductor(s) / Khon-Duck-Thor(s)
        • Teaching vs. Conducting
        • Learning (swotting/cramming) vs. Intuitive Deriving of conclusion
        • We will try to entertain you - but...
      • Free choosing
      • Offering default IDs
    • Instead of rules
      • rather offers, suggestions, recommendations, and customizing effects
      • yet: here and now - chances for asking - (but just in written form:-)
        • (video stream with an initial message)
        • offline
        • online (Moodle: Course-Forum)
  • Warming-up-games/tasks (see below)

A task is always a game (- if somebody want to see it so... :-)


Theoretical aspects

  • This course has following aims (see Moodle - course description):
    • Layer_1:
      • shifting paradigms about knowledge from classic principles (like magic of words) towards big-data/data-mining/artificial-intelligence
      • shifting paradigms about evaluation from classic principles (like subjectivity) towards log-based objectivity
      • shifting paradigms about co-operation from classic principles (like verbal and declaration-oriented working) towards written communication forms with discursive characteristics
      • learning by doing (learning through own - alone/group-wise - practical experiments) gamification (pure:-)
      • instead of classic teaching rather conducting (in jam session form - with more conductors parallel)
    • Layer_2:
      • supporting adaptation challenges towards other contents/subjects (where the adaptation capability will be tested at once in the next course together with other Students)
      • shifting points of views from practical to theoretical aspects (where the shifting capability will be tested at once in the next course together with other Students)
  • Participants have
    • to understand the messages of the practical level where understanding means
      • to have ideas why each action is important
      • to have ideas what kind of connections could be identified between actions (incl. chronology/parallelisms of actions)
      • to have ideas what other Students will think after the first/further impulses based on own experiences
    • to try to adapt these practical experiences towards other contents and/or Students (see IK059 - https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php?title=QuILT-IK059-Diary) where adaptation means
      • to be capable of seeing contextual analogies (e.g. changing parameters like keywords)
      • to be capable of deriving differences between practical and theoretical aspects (e.g. capability of generalized/meta views like chronological series of keywords: c.f. if the term "knowledge economy" is existing, then how can be describe the area before and after the area of knowledge economy? - https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/QuILT-targeted-groups)

Practical aspects

Overview: https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/QuILT-targeted-groups

  • IK045: practice (BSC)
  • IK057: practice (MSC)
  • IK059: theory (MSC)

Obligatory Task Nr.1 (OT1*)

Solutions should always be sent to the prepared forum in the Moodle system or in case of system error - each solution should be written down on a sheet of paper - as far as possible with block capitals (uppercase):

  • OT1a: Please, create a definition (being valid especially for you) about the keyword "KNOWLEDGE"!
  • OT1b: Please, create an other definition too (being valid in general or especially for somebody else in the team) about the keyword "KNOWLEDGE"!
Remarks for supporting operative interpretations of the task-layers: The expected definitions should be appropriate complex/long. Please, do not use any sources neither for the general definition nor for your personal definition! The probability (that all member in the team will create the same definition about the keyword "KNOWLEDGE") is never high. Therefore, the second task-layer about the general definition targets either a definition which could really be created by an other team-member or a definition created/creating by the so called "average people". Example: Please define the word "WATER"! Expert-definition = H2O / General definition (like definitions in Wikipedia) = "Water is a transparent, tasteless, odorless, and nearly colorless chemical substance..."
  • OT1c: Please, create an evaluation rule set describing how somebody should evaluate/rank the quality of a lot of definitions (see above)!
  • OT1d: Please, create an evaluation rule set describing how somebody should evaluate/rank the quality of a lot of rule sets (evaluating definitions)! (c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F - Who will watch the watchmen?")
  • [FT1*: (unlimited task list: ...evaluation rule sets can always be expected to each creation level...:-) ]

Remarks for supporting operative interpretations of the task-layers: Without being capable of defining the term of the "Ideal/Good/Best/Target" and also the distance of solutions compared to these benchmarks or without being capable of deriving what objects are better than other ones, nobody can speak about rational planning/thinking/doing...
Remarks about didactic aspects in general: Without being capable of measuring the starting positions of Students, we can never speak about "learning/teaching" success - therefore in case of each task, the basic statements of each Student are always necessary to collect.

Facultative Task (FT*)

The following tasks need probably more time than available. But they could also be seen as relevant extensions in order to have a complex system of points of views supporting parallel divergent/convergent learning/teaching/problem-solving strategies:

  • Each definition (see OT1a, OT1b) should be evaluated in an instinctive way by at least 2-3 (or all) Students before OT1c and OT1d will be published at all...
  • Students should try to create a common definition based on the created definition (see OT1a and OT1b)...
  • Students should try to derive a methodology describing how a lot of definitions with totally different quality can be joined to a common definition being valid for each Student (created one or more definitions before)...
  • Each rule set (see OT1c, OT1d) should be evaluated in an instinctive way by at least 2-3 (or all) Students...
  • Students should try to create a common rule set based on the created rule set evaluating definitions (see OT1*)...
  • Students should try to derive a methodology describing how a lot of rule sets with totally different quality can be joined to a common rule set being valid for each Student (created one or more rule sets before)...
  • ...
Remarks in general: Without practical experiences about operative doing/handling in a given task, Students mostly remains Prisoners in the world of the magic of words where flexible terms can be created and used for covering massive lacks of experiences on the proved/observed fields... The Moodle system offers forums where each definition could be discussed as a kind of homework... 

Obligatory Task Nr.2 (OT2*)

After the own statements about the keyword "KNOWLEDGE", a knowledge-test should be used in order to have a probably new look to the definition of the keyword "KNOWLEDGE":

Source of an international validated online knowledge test: https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/mgkt.docx

  • OT2a: Please, choose the probably correct options in case of each question in the test!
  • OT2b: Please, make remarks - if any is available - about the content of the questions and/or their options!
Remarks for supporting operative interpretations of the task-layers: Please, send the chosen options in case of each question in the following test to the prepared Moodle-Forum (as far as possible in a chronological way)! (If the online communication should not be available, then please, write down the chosen options on the sheet of paper also in a chronological way!) Chronology means: the first position in your message/post should always be the option being selected at first and so on... [Extension possibilities for working offline: If somebody makes corrections during the selection of options, then it is enough here and now (unfortunately, without an appropriate IT-frame for logging each user activities) to strike through each option being evaluated later as an incorrect one and to follow the previous chronological way to notice new and newer options being selected as correct ones (+ these new-comers can also be stroke through if needed). A real log-based solution could detect each timestamp and event you made during the whole selection process...]

Obligatory and Facultative Task-layers Nr.3 (OT3*/FT3*)

Experiences should be collected in order to analyze them. The conclusions of these analyses could lead to new definitions/re-definitions:

  • OT3a: After closing the international knowledge test, the task-layer OT1a should be repeated...
  • FT3b: A re-definition would also be possible and useful in case of the general definitions... and these re-definitions could also be discussed...
Remarks for didactic aspects: The appropriate forum in the Moodle system makes possible to re-define general definitions too as a kind of homework... Each re-definition can be discussed in the Moodle system and especially the potential argumentation/comment-items are worth interpreting in details. The reasons of changes in the basic definitions could be interpreted as a kind of attribute for evaluation rule sets (see before)...

Obligatory and Facultative Task Nr.4 (OT4*, FT4*)

Extreme situations (like accidents) make it easier to create more complex/generalized interpretations about definitions:

Remarks for didactic aspects: Knowledge as term is mostly interpreted just from scientific point of view. Each other (c.f. insane-like, illness-oriented, extreme) aspect is not focused - in general...

Obligatory and Facultative Task-layers Nr.5 (OT5*/FT5*)

Experiences should be collected in order to analyze them. The conclusions of these analyses could lead to new definitions/re-definitions:

  • OT5a: After closing the video stream, the task-layer OT1a should also be repeated...
  • FT5b: A re-definition would also be possible and useful in case of the general definitions... and these re-definitions could also be discussed...
Remarks for didactic aspects: The appropriate forum in the Moodle system makes possible to re-define general definitions to as a kind of homework... Each re-definition can be discussed in the Moodle system and especially the potential argumentation/comment-items are worth interpreting in details.

Obligatory and Facultative Task-layers Nr.6 (OT6*/FT6*)

Students should always know in the most exact form and way how their performances will be evaluated. Potential declarations from teachers may always be discussed. But this kind of discussions always needs preparation works like imaginations about complex evaluation systems - at least about potential attributes being involved in an evaluation process...

  • OT6a: Please, collect appropriate attributes being capable of describing performance layers (especially such kind of layers where somebody seems to be rel. good)...
  • FT6b: Evaluation criteria can also be collected for general definitions and for comparison of personal and general definitions as a kind of homework...
Remarks for didactic aspects: Objectivity-driven evaluation is central phenomenon where somebody want to speak about knowledge, quality, science, research...

Basic game (CCR)

https://citycountryriver.net/new-game.xhtml (CCR)

  • Who is the best player?
  • Furthermore: What is knowledge?
  • What (kind of knowledge) can be measured based on the game "CCR"?

Introduction game (SCMT)

https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/QuILT_introduction_game (SCMT)

  • Central questions: Who is the best player? (Furthermore: What is knowledge? / )

Supplement/reserve/spare games

  • What kind of phenomena can not be seen as KNOWLEDGE? (c.f. IF THEN ELSE)
  • What is the definition of the phenomenon of NON-KNOWLEDGE? (c.f. https://www.google.com/search?ei=nt9fXKT9AYLXwALHnJ_QAQ&q="non-knowledge"+wikipedia&oq="non-knowledge"+wikipedia)
  • What is a source code?
  • Could be seen e.g. a knife as a kind of knowledge? (Can knowledge be materialized - c.f. slicing, cutting)?
  • Is (or can be seen) the principle of KNUTH about KNOWLEDGE/SCIENCE as a kind of source code?
  • What does mean fuzzy logic?
  • What is intelligence?
  • Please, read a rel. long sentence/quote alone, and try to explain its meaning for an other person - an so on including a lot of people... (The last sentence should be compared with the first one! Derive the level of the distortions of the original meanings!)
  • What is knowledge transfer?
  • How can be evaluated a knowledge-transfer-process? (c.f. distortion of meanings, speed of transfer, etc.)
  • How can be defined the expression "MAGIC OF WORDS"?
  • ...

2. Day (2019.II.20.)

New room: FR305
Source: Reality-driven education (https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/reality_driven_education.docx)
Tasks:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo&t=8s
Tasks:
  • Could be made the data-visualization more sophisticated?
  • Where could still be used the given visualization effect?

3. Day (2019.II.27.)

Synchronicity Test Nr.1

Test Nr.1: https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/st1_ik057.docx

Data-driven policy making

Question: What is policy as such?
  • Contrary to the magic of words: operative steps
Question: What is a Robot-Politician?

4. Day (2019.III.06.)

Warming up tasks or before modelling

Main topics

  • Introduction and conclusion (parallel): https://miau.my-x.hu/myx-free/index201007.html (translated to English in an automated way)
  • The case study about the modelling of the (innovation) policies will be interpreted step by step.
  • It would be ideal to be capable of reproducing each operative steps in the study: https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/GDP_final_en.doc
  • The main message of the study is: how to transfer human knowledge into source code to create robot politicians?
  • (If we will have time enough: we can derive the digital footprints for each Student step by step.)
  • The conclusions of the first test will be part of the next test (week Nr.6).

5. Day (2019.III.13.)

To avoid language problems in the offline MS-Excel, it is possible to use the online Google-Spreadsheets: 
e.g.: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sEbStn1MlsfE4dlu5JOPPkZKKAALPZT6TQH-wtycKU4/edit#gid=0
(To edit an online Google-Spreadsheet, it is necessary to have a Google-Account!)

6. Day (2019.III.20.)

Synchronicity Test Nr.2

https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/st2_ik057.docx

Basic version (re-acting to learning materials)

Search: https://www.google.com/search?q=Innovation+Policies

Advanced version

Searching for analogies

Transferring knowledge for new topics 
  • Please, search for appropriate data assets based on the paper about the innovation policy (https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/GDP_final_en.doc)!
  • Please, create appropriate questions based on the paper about the innovation policy concerning the keywords/title of the course!
  • Please, create an interpretation for each of your questions: what kind of benefit/utility could be expected if the particular question will be answered by robots based on the collected data!?

Checking equilibrium

Quality assurance/management
Equilibrium in case of tests written later

Each quality management action should have a clear goal: e.g.

  • Action: Demonstrating static facts / Goal: Ensuring minimum levels
  • Action: Deriving dynamic developments based on static facts / Goal: Ensuring increasing levels
  • Action: Comparing alternatives / Goal: Ensuring equilibrium (anti-discriminative expectations - e.g. each re-writing alternativecan be seen as a solution having the same challenge-level based on other complexity-constellations)
  • ...

Tasks:

  • Please, derive a lot of alternative rule sets being capable of regulating re-writing of previous tests
    • Examples:
      • Alternative Nr.1: Using the already involved templates
      • Alternative Nr.2: Using the collected and commented common document
      • Alternative Nr.3: Using anonymous tests being still not interpreted by conductors
      • Alternative Nr.4: ...
  • Please, derive, whether each alternatives could have the same evaluation value?!
    • Support:
      • Objects = Alternative rules
      • Attributes = Characteristics of rules being capable of comparing them
      • Method of the comparison = OAM-based similarity analyses (c.f. MS-EXcel: Solver and/or Google-Spreadsheets: Solver)
  • Please, create a detailed study (publication) about the steps and interpretations!
Equilibrium of offers

Offers are customized actions for customized learning: e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNHBMFCzznE

Tasks:

7. Day (2019.III.27.)

8. Day (2019.IV.03.)

Remark: (2019.IV.10.) no meeting (international week of the university)

Roles and responsibilities in the teamwork: https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/QuILT-teamwork

9. Day (2019.IV.17.)

Synchronicity Test Nr.3

Common task for each Student on the spot:

  • identifying statistics being informative enough to build models
  • identifying questions (what a robot politician should be able to answer - like https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/GDP_final_en.doc)
  • creating models
  • choosing the best model
  • creating data-visualization effects
  • creating a publication (at least 4-5 pages) on the spot at once
  • the publication 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)

Further information:

10. Day (2019.IV.24.)

Discussion about the common publications:

(URLs later - if the authors will agree with the publication of work-phases)

Discussion strategies:

  • completing publication in teamwork as planned
  • creating a ppt (e.g. in cartoon/movie-style where each step should be visualized and explained)
  • creating a doc/pdf (e.g. in cartoon/movie-style where each step should be visualized and explained)
  • common interpreting prepared BSC/MSC tasks (course-id: 045 and or 059)
  • common publishing prepared BSC/MSC-tasks (like before)
  • working totally alone on an own publication (c.f. week Nr12 - advanced test) - potential tasks: similar steps like in teamwork but for other years
  • preparing "just" detailed commands for the still not complete teamwork-publication for further subtasks including quality assurance rule sets - it means: when may be seen a subtask as solved in an ideal way?)

11. Day (2019.V.01.)

holiday (it is possible to define evaluation variables and ask for anonymous data for week Nr12 via email)

12. Day (2019.V.08.)

Synchronicity Test Nr.4

Basic version

Questions behind an evaluation

  • (default objects = Students)
  • What kind of attributes about the Students (about their performances) could be involved into the evaluation theoretically?
    • Name of each attribute = ...
    • Definition of each attribute = ...
      • Source = ...
      • Measuring details = ...
    • Unit/dimension of each attribute = ...
    • Direction of each attribute = ...
      • Code (0/1 based on Excel-logic) = ...
      • Rule for each direction with detailed description = ... (the more the more / the more the less)
    • Max-min values of each attribute (for creating RND-values of the OAM)
  • How should be processed this OAM?
    • Flow-chart-like description
    • with detailed argumentation (why is a step necessary?)
  • What kind of interpretation rules should be used in case of the results?

Advanced version

  • Own (alone planned-closed) publication within 90 minutes (on the spot)

13. Day (2019.V.15.)

Personal/team-consultations first of all for ERASMUS-Students

Demonstration materials about closed and/or still prepared publications: https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/?C=M;O=D

14. Day (2019.V.22.)

Personal/team-consultations for each Student

Demonstration materials about closed and/or still prepared publications: https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/?C=M;O=D


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