KoGloss: Evaluation Questionnaire

Please only answer the questions that apply to you

I belong to:

I come from:

Please specify your country:

  1. india
  2. taiwan
  3. russia
  4. tjluguza

The focus of the course was on:

I. a. I have previously worked on building a corpus.

I. b. In the field of foreign and specialized languages, working with corpora has proven useful.

I. c. The text selection in the corpus provided a suitable working basis.

I. d. The texts in the corpus were suitable for identifying discourse-specific constructions.

II. a. I have previously worked with the program AntConc.

II. b. Handling AntConc posed no problems for me.

II. c. The analysis using AntConc provided satisfactory results.

II. d. I will be able to apply the experiences gained with AntConc in the future.

III. a. I have previously worked with the learning platform Moodle.

III. b. I find the learning platform Moodle well suited for collaborative work.

III. c. Handling Moodle posed no problems for me.

IV. a. I had sufficient linguistic knowledge to handle all aspects of the glossary entry.

IV. b. Through creating the glossary entries, I acquired new knowledge.

IV. c. I see practical applications for the glossaries created in Moodle.

V. a. I consider the KoGloss method a promising approach.

V. b. I see further application possibilities for the KoGloss method.

V. c. I see possibilities for improvement of the KoGloss method.

Your comments/ additions/ suggestions:

  1. additions
  2. i would suggest using antconc in the course "introduction to terminology," where students could collect corpora themselves and, with the help of the instructor, process them to obtain the necessary results. this would be an opportunity to use this tool in several subjects and more frequently than before.
  3. hans werth says: the reference to the dictionary of the german language, 1838 [a new term is making the rounds: "gutteln," 01.04.2011], is indeed ludicrous, but not very convincing. one may attribute it to the genre of folk etymology, as shown on page 270 of the wbds: "gutteln, guttern, tfl6nen, like a liquid poured from a narrow-necked vessel; a derivation of the word that is to be taken lightly." and "gutteln" is by no means "making the rounds" ... but in another historical source from 1835, there is a printed copy, at the very bottom right in small print, a "note from the typesetter: 'no. 60 "ei so lfcg" is a plagiarism from the >dorfzeitung<.'” if this were to happen today, an independently employed insider inserting it into print documents would not only be dismissed without notice but also confronted with damage claims from the author and publisher, etc. one should not be misled again by that public call for the identification of the so-called "plagiarism hunters." because those authors who enable the rich harvest of vroniplag are concerned with such intentions. and they may even have their generous "doctor fathers" as accomplices, who might grant them perhaps fabricated university absolution for the sake of their own reputation. a rogue who associates this with the crow principle. and finally, the charming crows are under nature protection. nothing against 'googling,' which is hastily denounced as a "sin against the spirit of science." it is exclusively about correct usage, both formally and in content. the internet offers various levels: for example, reference collections like wikipedia or similar. a nice collection that can be very helpful in uncovering other sources. however, the contents themselves should be enjoyed with caution and always require verification of the original. furthermore, sometimes data or characters are slightly 'varied,' thus laying a trap for 'intellectual thieves.' often a (pseudo-)source is provided, which appears in the wiki article or similar collections as proof, but does not prove the associated sentence or the claims contained therein.
  4. i would have preferred if the instructors had provided several sessions for working on our own entries. we could also review each other's entries in group work during the sessions and give direct feedback.
  5. please upload examples earlier, as this way one can complete their task sooner (this only applies to the first task we had to complete, not the glossary entry!).
  6. the quality of the course was unfortunately not convincing. i don't feel like i learned anything, even though i really tried hard...
  7. the topic is fundamentally interesting, but its application in the educational field is absolutely unimaginable and therefore not suitable as a seminar for teaching degrees. the instructors, however, are very nice and competent.
  8. unfortunately, i missed the connection to our later teaching activities. perhaps there could have been a session on a similar project in the school or suggestions on how to handle such a glossary in the school. additionally, i did not understand exactly what is meant by "kogloss method" and "antconc." i could only piece this together. the option: no information is also missing. otherwise: interesting seminar.
  9. the provided sample entry was very helpful; unfortunately, the instructors were not entirely in agreement about the information included. this seminar could possibly take place in a slz, allowing all participants to follow a tutorial simultaneously.
  10. it would be good to create a unified training method, as otherwise there were many problems with it.
…More…
Create your questionnaireAnswer this form