julian-fietkau.de

Today, there is the promised surprise subject: was provided during the day, held iPhone Power Days by Kai Meyer (an employee of the C1 WPS) is a teachlet on "MapKit integration on the iPhone" in the lecture hall B ESA held before about 100 people. We had shorted us due to a tip of Axel before and I've spoken to him about what a teachlet presenter has to consider so what I like this one teachlet think with such a large number of participants to perform and how such teachlet would make.

Today I then put in the lecture hall and taken over the role of the tracker - so I have a detailed log of the time course customized. In the workshop teachlet this protocol is to serve the teachlet developers to revise the choreography and adapt to the reality. In this context, I was especially interested in how fluid can last a lecture hall teachlet.

Targeted were probably 60 minutes, then however it has lasted only 45. Here is the schedule:

Kai Meyer, 08/24/2010, ESA B - iPhone Power Day

17:02 welcome
17:04 teachlet concept brief explanation

17:05 output system described
17:07 task
17:08 what is MKMapView
17:09 class diagram vision

17:11 starting system considered

17:12 implementation start
  :13 button interface to add
  :15 defining action
  :16 action link and button
  :18 implement methods as a dummy
  :19 debugging
  :21 MapView add
  :23 can show user location
  :24 create new UIViewController
  :25 link controller and map
  :27 controller enable
  :28 test run
  :31 MapType and title

17:32 task has been fulfilled
17:33 prepared target system shows

17:34 coordinate handover show
17:35 automatic zoom shows
17:37 summary
17:39 question round
17:45 end

Compared with the classical teachlet had this a few features that make it particularly exciting for me. Above all, it's rare that a teachlet is held to such a large audience. This reflects mostly that no draft discussion can take place in a seminar-like teachlet unit, firstly because too many people are present when all could have their say, and secondly because the acoustics of a discussion compared to a small number of participants makes it impossible. In this case, the moderator had a microphone in order right down to the lowest ranks understood. From among the participants (I always find myself there again, "public" to want to write) could only be short shouts.

What works unexpectedly well in my eyes, was left to the participants, the sequence of implementation. The moderator asked the participants completely open, which is to be made and was able to implement any call directly. The typical teachlet auspices of the participants in the implementation could be implemented without major difficulties here. A possible limitation is that the target group were no advanced iPhone programmer, and the participants knew each probably no other solution than the targeted.

In the context of and for the purpose I think the unit is clearly succeeded. The question that is for me but has greater relevance, whether this is really is a teachlet as revised definition.

Teachlet Definition 2.0.1

Here is the definition of two weeks ago in which I have also entered the corrections from your comments (with even small changes by me):

A teachlet is a very interactive teaching unit in which a working piece of software is modified so that it meets a clearly defined task. This is chosen so that it can be done by changing a clearly defined objective. A moderator motivates the original system and make changes in a common vision with the participants (such as the projector) and can then instruct the participants to undertake the necessary steps to change the software. For the solution of the problem, a solution space, there are several possible variants on the architecture to enable a design discussion. The moderator is here to guide the task of the discussion hold intermediate results and to reach agreement on a goal for the implementation. After the joint implementation phase, the software will meet, ideally before the task. At a teachlet still is documented that contains the relevant documents, such as preparing a detailed choreography and an implemented target system.

So now we have seen a teachlet?

Kai Meyer's event was very interactive and software has been changed by the participants (programmed). A clearly defined task was given (a MapView in the existing software installed), which led to a clearly defined learning objective (MapKit the simplicity of the API to get to know). Beamer was working on and the participants change steps have steered (by acclamation). The solution space is a bit notchy... essentially a single solution was in the room, as the participants did not have enough experience to get to another. In principle, however, other solutions would have been possible and is in the definition, only one "should" and not "must" - so I do not have a bad feeling about it, let the pass. The moderator has fulfilled its tasks well, the objective was achieved (the map worked). To what extent do teachlet to the extensive documentation, I do not now.

Conclusion: It is becoming quite clear that today carried out expression of the concept is still a teachlet that was designed just unusual in some respects. It worked, as I said, still pretty good.

Outlook

For next week I hope for news regarding the interviews and perhaps for the organizational. Tomorrow I speak again with Axel about the recent progress and next steps. No later than Tuesday then you learn here how it goes.