 ర్ర్ట్నిండ్బ్బామాభాలుసి. అ్త్ర్ర్నాటి. ప్ర్డ్వరత్తోంటోనలా. ఋవ్నిసి పమ్సాన్నింట్నా పమరనంటిస్టా◕్య్నం. I will talk about the activities. These are the four activities. Each group will be allocated a topic. On that topic, first activity is to construct a programming problem which can be used to illustrate some aspect of the topic or which can be given as an examination problem in a paper. So it's a programming problem. You design a problem either to illustrate some aspect of that topic or it has to be given as an examination problem. Second, describe the algorithm and program design for solving the problem. So this could be a description step by step process. Third, write a C++ program to implement your design. And this C++ program, if you wish you can write it in two ways. One, how a student will write in the exam. And second, how ideally that program should be written as a preservable commodity and usable commodity meaning full documentation, etc., etc. You can choose or you can write only the final version. It's all right. The last activity is you have to construct two multiple choice quiz questions related to the topic. They need not be related to this program that you are writing. There could be generic questions looking at some other topic. These quiz questions should be written such that you first write the question. For each question, for each of the choices, give a short one or two line explanation as to what that choice is right or wrong. This we discussed briefly in the morning. These are four activities. These are not very difficult activities. And since you have a group of four or five or six, it would be a good idea that you do this. But important thing is how do you coordinate, how do you distribute the work amongst yourselves and what quality of work that you do. Now you will agree that if there are different groups, the quality of output will be different. Yesterday only we discussed productivity and all of us get the same salary of a teacher. Yet our productivity is different. There is no problem there. It's perfectly all right. Second, the same activity will be given to multiple groups. So I am anticipating what you will be doing tomorrow. Instead of telling you tomorrow, I am telling you now. First, some mundane logistics issues. So each group has to do this activity. But you will have to submit a single file. So the entire preparation is text. The program is also text. The problem is also text, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So use any available word processor. Most rarely open office would be located on your machine. If you want to use Microsoft and it's available, absolutely no problem. But it should be an editable thing. The only requirement is that each of the four parts should begin on a new page. So it is a multi-page document, a single file. Word document or an auditory document, single file. Not PDF. It should be editable. I'll let you know why it should be. And the file name has to be very, very specifically given in this fashion. The file name of your group report should be the activity number underscore characters rc underscore coordinators rc code. Each group has a coordinator. I hope you have already worked that out. Except for two labs, I did not have that information. And from one lab, I have information about all the group members. But no coordinator has been identified in that list, which I got. So I will tell that he has to get that information, but that is okay. So this is what you will have to give. So suppose I am in a group whose coordinators rc code is 2560. And the activity given to me is activity number zero. Zero is a valid number in the serial number list. Then the file name has to, this is explicitly required, zero underscore rc underscore 2560. By the way, this is something that all of us should learn to train our students right from day one. Otherwise you ask them to upload an assignment three. You will get hundred copies of ASS GN underscore three, ASS GN three, assignment three, just three, all kinds of things. And you will have no clue on who has submitted that assignment. So remember he also mentioned what is in a name. And I tell you that is a problem whose significance people have not understood. It is not only about variable names. It is not only about file names. It is about any name in nomenclature. In general, our psychology is that we use a name which we can recognize. But when we are using a name which all others have to recognize. And when others have to recognize our name in the context of hundreds of submissions, then the file names have to be very appropriate. Now the choice of the activities. There are exactly ten activities listed here. You will notice that these are nothing but simplified list of topics that each one of us has to teach. I am not talking here about the group projects that students will be doing, etc., etc. But as we develop the course, we develop the topics like this. So these are listed zero, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight and nine. And the topic that is allocated to your group is found out from this simple logic. The last digit of the RC code of the group coordinator. Now I want you to participate in a peer review exercise as well. So what is that peer review exercise? When groups do these activities, I have checked because the coordinator would be randomly selected by that group. So if I take all the RCs, I have last digit zero, last digit one, last digit two, etc., etc., multiple number of times. There are 277 people. When I look at only the co-ordinators RC, it is likely that all 20, 30 co-ordinators have only last digit seven. We do not know that. But I have seen from whatever samples that I have that even they are randomly distributed. What it means is that there may be on an average there are 277 participants. The groups are about I think four to six people in each group. That is what they told me. If you take five approximately, the total number of groups are between 40 to 50. Now if there are ten activities, on an average there should be four to five groups doing an activity. It may so happen that because of this random allocation, some activity may be done only by as little as two or three groups. Some activities may be done by five or six groups, which is perfectly fine. When you upload these files tonight or today evening when you finish the lab, these uploaded files will get copies printed as many as there are groups doing the same assignment. So for example, if there are three groups doing the assignment serial number five use of two-dimensional arrays, then I will make three printed copies of these documents and will make these copies available for each of the group by the way. So each group which has done the activity number five, I will make three copies and such three sets will be available. Tomorrow the coordinators of these three groups will have to sit together with these printouts, with their colleagues in the background. And they have to discuss and decide which component of which submission seems to be best. So it may so happen that the three coordinators and the other people may choose a particular quiz problem from one group, a particular examination problem from some other group. Needless to add, all submissions will be available and accessible to all of us. So in future if we wish to use them, anyone can use anything. But the objective is to understand the peer evaluation system and how this can be done dispassionately and objectively. For example, let me ask you a question. If there are three coordinators who have to decide which is the best submission. Or let us say the choice of program or the program itself. And there is a dispute. And each coordinator says, no the work prepared by my group is the best. This is natural and logical. Now you tell me, how will you resolve this? By telling which is the worst. So let me digress and tell you how a reporter last century he correctly predicted who is going to be the future chess champion. There was an occasion when a reigning world champion died without losing to somebody else. So there was no world chess champion at that point in time. And the FIDE which is the international organization was wondering how exactly how we selected. That standard process is that the existing world champion has a match with the challenger. And if the challenger wins, that becomes a new world champion. But there is always a world champion. Poor fellow is soul departed to the godly award and world did not know it. So what they did by consensus of that committee meeting, they selected the four top players in the world at that time. Were undisputedly amongst the best. And they decided to have a tournament amongst these four. And the winner will become the world champion. So everybody was trying to predict based on the strengths and weaknesses and so on. So this reporter thought of a brilliant idea. He went to each player. Now if he asked the question, who do you think will be the world champion? Now that each player believes genuinely that he is the best. But out of maybe he may not want to say this. So his answer could be arbitrary or could be self. So he did this. He says he meets that fellow sir so and so. You are of course the most wonderful player. You are naturally going to be the world champion. But who do you think will be the runner up? And that fellow was very pleased. Of course I am going to be the world champion. But I think botvinnik will be the runner up. This was the answer given by all the four people. Because botvinnik also when he was contracted and he was told that you will be the world champion. But who do you think will be runner up? He modestly said I don't think I will be the world champion. He is a very tough match. I will be very happy if I am even a runner up. He collected these answers and next day announced that botvinnik is going to be the world champion. And botvinnik indeed became the world champion. So you may adopt this strategy. But what is worse is that you still remain undecided and as somebody said we will come to you or we will go to someone else. That is not a good solution even in real life. You have to solve the problem. Absolutely no way out. And the problem solution is what you must come up with. Because again what will happen is A our personal sensitivities might be heard. B our genuine differences that I might feel this is better. One might feel something this is better. Let me tell you fact of life. When you discuss these things qualitatively there is no unique answer. It is impossible to say that one is definitely better than the other unless in some exceptional circumstance. There is some aspect of everything which will be good. Which is okay. So this is not a Olympic contest where we are working for a gold medal or something like that. But the idea is to become familiar with the process of peer review. Then on the final day you remember in the timetable there are group presentations. There are 10 groups. There will be 10 extensive presentations. And these presentations will be whatever has been selected as the best of the submissions by these. And as I said this could be from here they are something. Each presentation must include the RC numbers and names of all the partners of all the groups. Because the entire thing is recognized as a joint contribution of everyone. You agree with this? Yes. Then is the exercise? Any questions or observations that you have now? So let me make one observation. Now please understand the power of the collaboration as I was telling you. In exactly one day there are going to be 50 creations useful for the course. 50 in exactly one day. Imagine what would happen when there are 10,000 teachers. How many creations you would get? Imagine what kind of good filtering may happen when you crowd source the evaluation there itself. And you collect the best from each remote center. We coordinate all of them. And finally you get a whole lot of useful material to be used not only by us, not only by the 10,000 colleagues, but any teachers and any students as well.