PRE2017 3 Groep14: Difference between revisions

From Control Systems Technology Group
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(25 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 19: Line 19:
|}
|}


='''Process'''=
[[Process Group 14]]


='''Week 1'''=
='''Report'''=
== Subject ==
[[Report group 14]]
'''Fun Learning for Kids'''
Enhance knowledge levels of young children through an interactive quiz system. Teachers will be able to tell the system the desired final knowledge level and will be able to see the progress of each child. Furthermore the system has to be able to interact with the children and assess their knowledge levels to create questions on their personal level. In our project we will focus on the quiz and try to create this.


== Users ==
='''Peer review and Contributions'''=
* Children from class 3 - 4 in the Netherlands. The system could later on be changed to fit other age groups that have other knowledge levels, but for this project we focus on this group as the simple math they need to learn here are an easy starting point for the program.
==Peer review==
* Parents or guardians of these children as they want to know the progress their child or children has made.
As all of us have contributed a lot to this project, there was good communication and we do not have any negative remarks about each other, we decided that each of us deserves the same result. This is why we decided on the following peer review results:
* Teachers that can tell the systems what level of knowledge the entire class needs to reach at the end. They also need to be able to see how far each student has gotten.
* Abby: 7,5
* Christine: 7,5
* Dennis: 7,5
* Ellen: 7,5
* Sophie: 7,5
Of course there is always room for improvement and our project could have been better, which is why we think 7,5 is a good representation of what we have done.


== User Requirements ==
==Contributions==
'''children:'''
We also had 6 hours of meetings each week, so that makes 7*6 = 42 hours extra for everyone.
* learning through a fun program
* competitive, want the highest reward (number of sheep)


'''parents:'''
* want their children to study properly
* want their children to be happy
* want their children to be motivated/interested
* want to have more free time as they do not have to tutor as much anymore
* want to check their children's progress
'''teachers:'''
* let the students learn effectively
* the system has to match the curriculum
* easier to check all students' progress
== Objective ==
Develop a smart quiz program for on a computer/tablet/laptop that can assess knowledge levels of its users and ask questions on their personal boundary so they learn effectively.
== Approach ==
Creating the smart quiz and interface in java.
== Intelligent Quiz Master ==
'''Idea.''' Use a set of arithmic questions (addition, subtraction, fractions) since then it is easy for us to check if it makes sense.
Also, since most children have difficulties with arithmic this is actually useful.
Given a set of questions, the quiz master will test the knowledge of a child, and help the child improve by asking the right questions at the right time.
We will build an application that selects the next question to ask the child, based on the previous answers the child gave to previous questions.
The quiz will find the knowledge level of the child and ask questions at the child's knowledge boundary so he can still learn from the question but will not be overwhelmed.
The quiz master has to:
* Find out the level of knowledge the child has, and ask questions that are on the 'edge' of a childs knowledge in order to improve their knowledge.
* Optionally invent new questions, similar to the already existing questions.
In order to do so, we must:
* Define '''distance''' (or '''question similarity''') between questions, which questions are of similar difficulty. So cluster questions based on their difficulty. Note that this will vary per child.
* Simulate the (increasing/decreasing) knowledge of different children. (To be able to train our app.)
* Construct a (large enough) data set to use parts of it for training and validation.
* Find out what the next '''right''' question would be. Our app should do this, based on the question similarity for a certain child. Educational/psychological: what are the best questions to ask?
== Milestones ==
* Finishing planning
* Summarizing SotA
* Quiz
** Teacher can enter category and boundary (knowledge goal that has to be reached)
** Quiz can generate questions inside category
** Quiz can understand the person's input
** Quiz uses input to generate personal level questions
** Quiz gives results
* Interface
** Results are displayed to child/parent/teacher (they each have their own interface)
** Reward system (for the child, parents can see this as well)
== Deliverables ==
Smart quiz program including interfaces for the child who will use the quiz to learn, the parents and the teacher.
== State of the Art Literature Study ==
[[State of the Art Literature Study]]
== Who will do what? Planning ==
*'''Abby''' focusses on the quiz programming
*'''Christine''' focusses on the quiz design
*'''Dennis''' focusses on the quiz programming
*'''Ellen''' focusses on the wiki
*'''Sophie''' focusses on the quiz programming
'''week 1:'''
* literature search, SotA summary
* make plan
* setup Git
* update wiki
'''week 2:'''
* quiz plan:
** how to make it smart
** which categories
** '''UML of quiz'''
* update wiki
'''week 3:'''
* implement quiz structure
* quiz has to read input
* start with letting quiz learn from input
* update wiki
'''week 4:'''
* quiz has to learn from input
* start with interface for child
* feedback system in quiz
* update wiki
'''week 5:'''
* reward system in interface
* child interface has to be finished
* smart quiz has to generate questions inside the categories
* update wiki
'''week 6:'''
* teacher program finished
* parent program finished
* smart quiz has to generate questions inside the categories
* update wiki
'''week 7:'''
* BUFFER
* final presentation
'''week 8:'''
* BUFFER?
='''Week 2'''=
==UML for Quiz==
[[File: UML.PNG]]
*This includes the categories and how we plan to make it smart.
==Clustering==
* [https://www.knewton.com/ Knewton] did something similar...
* Ideas for defining distance between arithmic questions:
** Number of operators.
** Size of the numbers (number of digits, or a range).
** Create graph of questions, with the weight of an edge between two nodes the number of similarities they have. An edge with weight 0 is not an edge. Then all components are their own cluster, and we can find minimal cuts in this network to construct more clusters.
='''Week 3'''=
==Idea==
Tutoring system for in the classroom which will be able to come up with questions in a smart way. These questions will be on the average knowledge level of the whole class. The system gives feedback to the teacher about the students enabling him/her to know what students are above average and what students are below. This way the children that are above average can move on in the curriculum independently, while the average children can learn the simple maths with the program and the teacher can focus on helping the children that are not as good. By doing this, the teacher can work more efficiently and more children can be educated at their personal levels.
We have found an open source program that resembles Kahoot, and we want to build on this so that eventually it will become an AI program that can generate questions on its own and knows which questions to ask the class.
If it is possible (taking into account time and materials) we would like to test this program at an elementary school in Oisterwijk by letting the children make the quiz and check whether or not the program can cluster the children correctly. We can check this by asking the teacher if it is like their expectations. When doing this we can also ask the children and the teacher about their opinion of the program. Some letters will have to be send to the school and/or parents (informed consent?) which we would like to do this week so we can test in week 6.
All in all we will test whether or not blended learning can work because we want teacher to be able to work more efficiently as there is a big shortage of elementary teachers.
==Persoonlijke planning==
'''week 4'''
* Abby
** Figure out how to work with Toohak.
** Start programming the clustering of the students.
** Put progress on wiki.
* Christine
** Figure out how to work with Toohak.
** Start changing Toohak so that questions can be generated.
** Put progress on wiki.
* Dennis
** Figure out how to work with Toohak.
** Start changing Toohak so that questions can be generated.
** Progress: Questions can now be generated and input is changed from multiple choice to a textfield of which the numbers are parsed.
* Ellen
** Make sure there is a correct informed consent for our study.
** Write a letter to the school and all parents.
** Put progress on wiki.
* Sophie
** Send out letters to school and parents (by giving them to a teacher intern).
** Ask whether we can do the study in a couple of weeks (preferably week 6).
** Ask what level the class is on.
** Put progress on wiki.
'''week 5'''
* Abby
** Finish programming the clustering of students.
** Improve quiz design.
** Put progress on wiki.
* Christine
** Finish programming the question generator.
** Translate all visible text to Dutch.
** Put progress on wiki.
* Dennis
** Finish programming the clustering of students.
** Improve quiz design.
** Put progress on wiki.
* Ellen
** Start writing the study report.
** Prepare for test at school.
** Put progress on wiki.
* Sophie
** Prepare for test at school.
** Improve quiz design.
** Put progress on wiki.
'''week 6'''
* Abby
* Abby
** Test in school.
** State of the art - 10 hours
** Put progress on wiki.
** Desk research - 5 hours
** Programming - 40 hours
** Wiki - 10 hours
* Christine
* Christine
** Take minutes in school.
** State of the art - 10 hours
** Put progress on wiki.
** Desk research - 30 hours
** Survey - 15 hours
** Wiki - 10 hours
** Program design - 5 hours
* Dennis
* Dennis
** Test in school.
** State of the art - 10 hours
** Put progress on wiki.
** Presentation - 8 hours
** Programming - 45 hours
** Wiki - 10 hours
* Ellen
* Ellen
** Take minutes in school.
** State of the art - 10 hours
** Put progress on wiki.
** Desk research - 30 hours
** Survey - 15 hours
** Wiki - 10 hours
** Presentation - 5 hours
* Sophie
* Sophie
** Test in school.
** State of the art - 10 hours
** Put progress on wiki.
** Presentation slides and demo - 5 hours
'''week 7''' who will do the presentation?
** Programming - 45 hours
* Abby
** Wiki - 10 hours
** (AI programming).
** Put progress on wiki.
* Christine
** Finish study report.
** Make the presentation.
** Put progress on wiki.
* Dennis
** (AI programming).
** Put progress on wiki.
* Ellen
** Finish study report.
** Put progress on wiki.
** Make sure wiki is clear and contains everything.
* Sophie
** (AI programming).
** Put progress on wiki.
'''week 8'''
* Abby
** BUFFER
* Christine
** BUFFER
* Dennis
** BUFFER
* Ellen
** BUFFER
* Sophie
** BUFFER
 
=Progress=
Letters for school/parents and an informed consent have been drafted but there are probably some TU/e templates and stuff we need. So we have to wait until after the tutormeeting and ask how we need to do this.
 
Information needed to conduct the test at the school has been collected. The children in class three have basic arithmatic knowledge, mainly adding and subtracting integers, and naming all the integers that lie in between two other given integers. The school has plenty of iPads and computers to perform the test, on. However, we need to figure out:
* how we will get the computer program on all the iPads/computers
* we need to know for sure that the school agrees with this
* the program UI should be easy to understand, as these children are very young
* the program should be interesting for young kids?
A teacher at the school will contact us shortly, to tell us whether we can conduct the test and if so when/how. Issues concerning informed consent and issues concerning putting the program on the iPads/computers can then be discussed.
 
=Doel van het project=
Leraar beter inzetten:
* op tijd/snel herkennen welke kinderen extra hulp nodig hebben
* vraag beantwoorden: welke kinderen hebben moeite met dit onderwerp/welke kinderen hebben mijn extra tijd nodig en welke niet?
** onderbouwend artikel over moeite met onderwerpen niet hele categorie
 
Middel/idee:
* (uitkomsten van de) quiz
* per week/maand
* per onderwerp
* uitgebouwd op een bestaand systeem
 
Problemen die we identiciferen/needs of the users:
* privacy
** nee
* didactische theorie
** ja, eventueel een keuze door leraar tussen twee uitersten
* entertainment
** ja, heeft te maken met didactische theorie die onze quiz onderbouwt
** hoe vragen stellen
* competitief
** word onderbouwt door onze didactische theorie
* het moet niet voelen als een test/ druk dat je niet de slechtste wil zijn of een label krijgt
** dit gaan wij niet concreet verbeteren
** maar onze didactische theorie beantwoord die vraag impliciet
* ouders moeten het er mee eens zijn
** gaan we niet op in
* hoe ervaart de leraar dit?
** uitleg van ons systeem
** zou je het willen gebruiken
** denk je dat het gaat helpen om tijd/aandacht beter in te delen
** spreekt het de kinderen aan (didactische theorie)
** gunstig om per onderwerp te testen (klokkijken, tafeltjes, breuken, etc)?
* hoe vaak test je, frequentie
** doen we geen uitspraak over
** laten we aan de leraar over
* hoe test je
** per onderwerp
** we hebben nog een onderzoekje nodig om dit te onderbouwen evt
 
Wat moet de leraar kunnen kiezen:
* integer/decimal
* onder en boven bound
* operations
* aantal argumenten per vraag
* aantal antwoorden per vraag
* haakjes/geen haakjes
* antwoorden invullen of meerkeuze
 
=Taakverdeling=
 
week 4 (8-15 maart):
* Ellen en Chris
** Klein onderzoek over of testen per onderwerp nuttig is
** Didactische theorie onderzoek (meest relevant/meest gebruikt/etc?)
** Plan van aanpak voor de quiz vanuit de dedactische theorie
*** hoe zien de vragen eruit
*** competitief
*** entertainment
** Begin aan de enquête met concrete vragen opgesteld
* Sophie en Dennis
** Basis van de UI (scheiding tussen leraar en kinderen)
** Basis van de achterliggende code (vragen invoeren en beantwoorden)
** basis rekenvragen, meerkeuze
* Abby
** na de quiz: leraar kan een overzicht opvragen van wie er hulp nodig heeft
** tijdens de quiz:
*** welke vraag is er gesteld
*** timer
*** hoeveel er nog moet antwoorden
*** percentage goed/fout
*** doorklikken naar volgende vraag
 
Week 4 tweede helft
* communicatie af
* enquete moet af
* plan van de quiz moet af
 
Week 5 (15 - 22 maart)
* Enquete versturen
* didactische theorie plan implementeren
 
Week 6 (22 - 29 maart)
* enquete verwerken
* verslag schrijven
* presentatie voorbereiden
* extra reken onderwerpen toevoegen
 
=Didactische leeromgeving=
 
==Artikelen voor ons idee:==
Uit onderzoeken van de rijksoverheid <ref> Inspectie van het Onderwijs, "De staat van het onderwijs", Onderwijsverslag 2011/2012, april, 2013, from: http://www.rijksbegroting.nl/binaries/pdfs/ocw/onderwijsverslag-2011-2012-printversie.pdf </ref> blijken de volgende dingen:
* Opsplitsen van de grote groep in kleinere groepen in leerjaar 3 heeft een positief effect op de prestaties van de leerlingen, doordat er meer interactie waargenomen wordt.
* Ruim 90 procent van de leraren in het primair onderwijs gebruikt computers bij het lesgeven.  Volgens hun kan het gebruik van ICT kan bijdragen aan efficiënter, effectiever en aantrekkelijker onderwijs.
 
In het boek, het didactische werkvormenboek
<ref> Piet Hoogeveen, Jos Winkels "Het didactische werkvormenboek", from: https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=5v9peu5jRfgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA19&dq=didactische+werkvormen+basisonderwijs&ots=ARLOURzljI&sig=x_9xhZYBBVB8-cEMIeIQzRvK35I#v=onepage&q&f=false</ref>, worden de volgende belangrijke aspecten gevonden bij lesgeven:
* Leerlingen nemen het beste informatie op door te lezen en te kijken.
* Bij het stellen van vragen moet er gelet worden dat er zowel open als gelosten vragen gesteld worden
* Zowel klassikaal als in kleine groepjes/individueel gewerkt worden
* Het wisselen tussen werkvormen werkt bevorderlijk voor het leren van informatie. Bijvoorbeeld het wisselen tussen spelletjes en sommen maken.
 
Voor ons project hebben we gekozen voor een traditioneel onderwijs systeem zoals beschreven is in bovenstaand boek, hier wordt het volgende mee bedoelt:
* De docent bepaalt grotendeels de inhoud en de volgorde van het onderwijs
* Nadruk ligt op klassikaal overdragen van kennis en vaardigheden
* Er is een leerplan waarbij bepaalde vakken en vakgebieden centraal staan
* Leren is een individuele activiteit
* De prestaties van een leerling worden getoetst
Hierbij willen we het aspect spelenderwijs leren benadrukken.
 
Het volgende artikel <ref>Tessa van Asselt, "De toepassing van games in het basisonderwijs", from: https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/209813/Masterscriptie%20Tessa%20van%20Asselt%203012468.pdf?sequence=1</ref> laat ons zien dat het onderwijs niet lijkt aan te sluiten bij het natuurlijke, experimentele leerproces van kinderen. In games is het wel mogelijk op een natuurlijke manier te leren, waardoor het gebruik van games relevant kan zijn voor het basisonderwijs. Er moet een goede balans zijn tussen speelplezier en effectief leren, zodat de voordelen van spelenderwijs leren bewaard blijven. Er moet gelet worden op de volgende items bij het stellen van de vragen:
* de informatie moet niet op een (te) abstracte manier worden gepresenteerd, laat het inspreken tot de kinderen hun verbeelding,
* er moet meer herhaling plaatsvinden,
* belangrijke informatie moet op meer dan één manier worden overgebracht,
* het moet niet te snel verlopen,
* er moet gebruik worden gemaakt van realistische karakters,
* maak gebruik van animatie, kinderlijke dialogen, interactiviteit en directe feedback,
* kinderen moeten niet te snel afgestraft worden voor een fout.
 
Dit is een artikel <ref>https://llk.media.mit.edu/papers/edutainment.pdf</ref> met een goed voorbeel dvan spelenderwijs leren. De nadruk ligt op intrinsieke motivatie om dingen te doen waar kinderen dan van leren, en dus niet op het sugar-coaten van leren. Het is een misverstand dat mensen/kinderen niet willen leren, het moet simpelweg vanuit ze zelf komen.
 
Een uitgebreide uitleg over op welke vlakken de Montessori didactiek overeenkomt met spelenderwijs leren en op welke vlakken niet. Dit geeft dus veel inzichten in spelenderwijs leren ansich en in hoe Montessori scholen dit aanpakken. <ref>https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1077161.pdf</ref>
 
Playful learning toegepast in een mobiele game, wat praktisch is wat wij willen doen dus lijkt een handig artikel. <ref>http://www.apsce.net/uploaded/filemanager/9fca62c6-c92d-4718-8776-1d995c69ca98.pdf</ref> gaat over het design.
 
'''We can conclude from this that we want to focus on playful learning in an app. We will do this by asking simple maths questions using fun pictures of opjects (animations if possible) this way we hope to intrinsically motivate the children to play with our app. Other things we will implement is that we want to make sure it will not go too fast and we can use child-friendly language.'''
 
==Vragen==
We hebben 3 type vragen:
* Aantal schapen, varkens, koeien en kippen
* Dieren met bordjes vraag
** Vlak met x aantal random punten, plaats deze punten zodat als er een plaatje op komt deze niet overlappen.
* Tijdlijn vragen
 
Deze vragen zijn optel en aftrek vragen die lopen tussen 0 en 20


=References=
='''Coaching Questions'''=
<references/>
[[Coaching Questions Group 14]]
[[Coaching Questions Group 14]]

Latest revision as of 14:21, 4 April 2018

Student Student Number
Abby Berkers 0951825
Dennis van den Berg 0949036
Sophie van den Eerenbeemt 0954445
Christine Ingwersen 0952530
Ellen Mans 0956433

Process

Process Group 14

Report

Report group 14

Peer review and Contributions

Peer review

As all of us have contributed a lot to this project, there was good communication and we do not have any negative remarks about each other, we decided that each of us deserves the same result. This is why we decided on the following peer review results:

  • Abby: 7,5
  • Christine: 7,5
  • Dennis: 7,5
  • Ellen: 7,5
  • Sophie: 7,5

Of course there is always room for improvement and our project could have been better, which is why we think 7,5 is a good representation of what we have done.

Contributions

We also had 6 hours of meetings each week, so that makes 7*6 = 42 hours extra for everyone.

  • Abby
    • State of the art - 10 hours
    • Desk research - 5 hours
    • Programming - 40 hours
    • Wiki - 10 hours
  • Christine
    • State of the art - 10 hours
    • Desk research - 30 hours
    • Survey - 15 hours
    • Wiki - 10 hours
    • Program design - 5 hours
  • Dennis
    • State of the art - 10 hours
    • Presentation - 8 hours
    • Programming - 45 hours
    • Wiki - 10 hours
  • Ellen
    • State of the art - 10 hours
    • Desk research - 30 hours
    • Survey - 15 hours
    • Wiki - 10 hours
    • Presentation - 5 hours
  • Sophie
    • State of the art - 10 hours
    • Presentation slides and demo - 5 hours
    • Programming - 45 hours
    • Wiki - 10 hours

Coaching Questions

Coaching Questions Group 14

Retrieved from "https://dsdwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_3_Groep14&oldid=53836"