On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Joe Ward wrote, in response to Robert Knodt's reply
to ecwebster:
> Good comment, Robert --
>
> Perhaps the unidentified writer is a frustrated product of "Non-mastery"
> Spelling Education
> and is intentionally (or unintentionally) showing the results.
>
> See BOLD items
Robert Knodt writes in response to
the message at http://www.remarq.com
The Internet's Discussion Network (SEE BELOW)
---
Re: adjusting marks; W. Edwards
Deming
It would be nice if those sending
to the mailing list would clearly identify themselves. It would also be
It would be nice if those sending to the mailing list would clearly identify
themselves. It would also be nice if they used an e-mail address so
individuals might send them e-mail directly.
Thanks,
Dr. Robert C. Knodt
4949 Samish Way, #31
Bellingham, WA 98226
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dr. Deming Naive? You, sir, are misguided and unfortunately,
misinformed of the genius of the master Dr. Shewhart, and his
disiple and messenger to the latter half of the 20th century,
Dr. Deming.
Humans want to do a good job. Dr. Deming was pellucid on this
point. People and school fit nicely
i would definitely agree that grading and QC are fundamentally and
philosophically different in their level and kind of detail, and in the
correlation between numbers representing physical measurements and the desired
results.
however, if he recognized the essential difference in these 2 kinds of
Hi
On Wed, 22 Dec 1999, Peter Westfall wrote:
> Jim Clark wrote:
> > Artificially giving all students (or almost all) the same grade
> > does not minimize variation in the underlying trait, achievement,
> > in this case. It simply hides the variation so that one does not
> > know to what extent o
Robert Dawson wrote:
> "Learning should be a joy...?" It all depends on what you mean by "should".
> If you mean that, given an individual learner it is better that they learn
> joyfully than otherwise, sure. But this does not mean that we can or should
> refuse to teach anybody who is there
"Learning should be a joy...?" It all depends on what you mean by "should".
If you mean that, given an individual learner it is better that they learn
joyfully than otherwise, sure. But this does not mean that we can or should
refuse to teach anybody who is there for some lesser motive than "the
On Wed, 22 Dec 1999, dennis roberts wrote:
> this shows how naive deming really was ...
> who says learning "should" be a joy?
I do, inter alios.
> learning is WORK ... and, work is hard.
Sure it is. _Real_ work is also fun.
> now, some kids really relish the task and chall
this shows how naive deming really was ...
who says learning "should" be a joy? learning is WORK ... and, work is
hard. now, some kids really relish the task and challenges ... but many
others do not ... should we blame THEM?
but, i don't really see what deming has to do with our discussion of
Jim Clark wrote:
> Artificially giving all students (or almost all) the same grade
> does not minimize variation in the underlying trait, achievement,
> in this case. It simply hides the variation so that one does not
> know to what extent one is minimizing differences in achievement,
> and rew
11 matches
Mail list logo
