Re: Re. Education Philosophy

[Mike Tveite <mtveite@earthlink.net>]

WMack wrote:

>
> Dr. Deming's feelings about gold stars, etc. were based on his
> understanding of variation and not psychology.  Essentially, Dr. Deming
> felt there are only three catagories for evaluation based on the control
> chart: above the upper limit, between the lower and upper limit, and
> below the lower limit.
>
> Unless the awarding of gold stars is based upon either exceeding
> the upper control limit or exceeding the lower control limit, it is
> arbitrary.  This is one of the lessons of the red bead experiment.
>
> Understanding variation is one of the keys to understanding Dr. Deming's
> work.  Once you accept his views on variation, other issues such as
> the psychological affect of awards become much more logical.  I'm
> sure the first question Dr. Deming would ask of anyone awarding
> "gold stars" is "Where is your data (for determining the award)?"
>
> Wayne Mack
> =======================================================================

The first sentence of Wayne's post is wrong. Deming's views came from
looking at the world through the lens of a System of Profound Knowledge,
which includes both knowledge about variation and psychology, as well as
appreciation for systems and theory of knowledge. If you take ANY position
and attribute it to one of the components of SoPK, you will be wrong!

About Deming's feelings about gold stars, if you ask yourself why he would
object, I am confident you could come up with reasons to which all of the
components contribute. However, if you have any doubt about connections to
theories about motivation, see Alfie Kohn's Punished by Rewards (Deming
referenced Alfie frequently).

For goodness sake, a System of Profound Knowledge is a system! That means
that if we take it apart and study the components separately we will lose
its essential character.

-Mike Tveite
=======================================================================