Downloads & Free Reading Options - Results

University of Toronto Division of Engineering Science ESC102-20061 Engineering Science Praxis II Lecture 01 - introduction to the course - syllabus - schedule - design notebook assignment

Amateurreihe - electronica Die -amateurreihe-electronica- ist die Fortsetzung der Heftreihe -Der Praktische Funkamateur- . Beginn der Reihe mit Nr.83. Die letzte Ausgabe war die Nr.251.   Militärverlag der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, DDR Amateurfunk, Elektronik, Messtechnik, Halbleiter, Röhren

Amateurreihe - electronica Die -amateurreihe-electronica- ist die Fortsetzung der Heftreihe -Der Praktische Funkamateur- . Beginn der Reihe mit Nr.83. Die letzte Ausgabe war die Nr.251.   Militärverlag der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, DDR Amateurfunk, Elektronik, Messtechnik, Halbleiter, Röhren

Amateurreihe - electronica Die -amateurreihe-electronica- ist die Fortsetzung der Heftreihe -Der Praktische Funkamateur- . Beginn der Reihe mit Nr.83. Die letzte Ausgabe war die Nr.251.   Militärverlag der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, DDR Amateurfunk, Elektronik, Messtechnik, Halbleiter, Röhren

viii, 254 p

viii, 254 p

viii, 254 p

viii, 254 p

viii, 254 p

viii, 254 p

viii, 254 p

iv, 297 pages ; 28 cm

University of Toronto Division of Engineering Science ESC102-20061 Engineering Science Praxis II Lecture 01 - introduction to the course - syllabus - schedule - design notebook assignment

University of Toronto Division of Engineering Science ESC102-20061 Engineering Science Praxis II Lecture 01 - introduction to the course - syllabus - schedule - design notebook assignment

University of Toronto Division of Engineering Science ESC102-20061 Engineering Science Praxis II Lecture 01 - introduction to the course - syllabus - schedule - design notebook assignment

University of Toronto Division of Engineering Science ESC102-20061 Engineering Science Praxis II Lecture 01 - introduction to the course - syllabus - schedule - design notebook assignment

ix, 251 p. : 29 cm

ix, 251 p. : 29 cm

Teacher preparation programs have continued to see the ever-increasing control of teacher candidates by policymakers. To control means to regulate. The problem, according to these authors, is that there are currently at least three regulating measurement and assessment obstacles faced by teacher candidates in teacher preparation programs. The first obstacle is being admitted into a teacher preparation program. High school grades, standardized test data, letters of recommendation, and other information are used to regulate this process. The second obstacle is navigating a complex regulated curriculum that is intended to help insure that entering students will be successful classroom teachers. Universities establish general education curriculum content, specialized professional associations require specific curriculum content, state departments of education require specific curriculum content, and education departments require specific curriculum content that are used to regulate the teacher preparation process. However, despite how effective a teacher preparation program may be in selecting potential teacher candidates and programmatically guiding their teacher candidates, the teacher candidates are still faced with a third regulatory measurement and assessment obstacle. The third regulatory obstacle for teacher candidates is passing a legislatively mandated norm-referenced examination (i.e., PRAXIS II) before they are certified as teachers. This study explores predicting PRAXIS II Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge scores required for licensing teacher candidates in many states. The procedures included using paired scores for two hundred (200) teacher candidates who met or exceeded a score of 150 (qualifying score in some states) on the Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge examination during the 2003-2005 academic years at two universities. (Contains 6 tables, 1 figure, and 1 note.)

Teacher preparation programs have continued to see the ever-increasing control of teacher candidates by policymakers. To control means to regulate. The problem, according to these authors, is that there are currently at least three regulating measurement and assessment obstacles faced by teacher candidates in teacher preparation programs. The first obstacle is being admitted into a teacher preparation program. High school grades, standardized test data, letters of recommendation, and other information are used to regulate this process. The second obstacle is navigating a complex regulated curriculum that is intended to help insure that entering students will be successful classroom teachers. Universities establish general education curriculum content, specialized professional associations require specific curriculum content, state departments of education require specific curriculum content, and education departments require specific curriculum content that are used to regulate the teacher preparation process. However, despite how effective a teacher preparation program may be in selecting potential teacher candidates and programmatically guiding their teacher candidates, the teacher candidates are still faced with a third regulatory measurement and assessment obstacle. The third regulatory obstacle for teacher candidates is passing a legislatively mandated norm-referenced examination (i.e., PRAXIS II) before they are certified as teachers. This study explores predicting PRAXIS II Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge scores required for licensing teacher candidates in many states. The procedures included using paired scores for two hundred (200) teacher candidates who met or exceeded a score of 150 (qualifying score in some states) on the Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge examination during the 2003-2005 academic years at two universities. (Contains 6 tables, 1 figure, and 1 note.)

Teacher preparation programs have continued to see the ever-increasing control of teacher candidates by policymakers. To control means to regulate. The problem, according to these authors, is that there are currently at least three regulating measurement and assessment obstacles faced by teacher candidates in teacher preparation programs. The first obstacle is being admitted into a teacher preparation program. High school grades, standardized test data, letters of recommendation, and other information are used to regulate this process. The second obstacle is navigating a complex regulated curriculum that is intended to help insure that entering students will be successful classroom teachers. Universities establish general education curriculum content, specialized professional associations require specific curriculum content, state departments of education require specific curriculum content, and education departments require specific curriculum content that are used to regulate the teacher preparation process. However, despite how effective a teacher preparation program may be in selecting potential teacher candidates and programmatically guiding their teacher candidates, the teacher candidates are still faced with a third regulatory measurement and assessment obstacle. The third regulatory obstacle for teacher candidates is passing a legislatively mandated norm-referenced examination (i.e., PRAXIS II) before they are certified as teachers. This study explores predicting PRAXIS II Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge scores required for licensing teacher candidates in many states. The procedures included using paired scores for two hundred (200) teacher candidates who met or exceeded a score of 150 (qualifying score in some states) on the Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge examination during the 2003-2005 academic years at two universities. (Contains 6 tables, 1 figure, and 1 note.)

Teacher preparation programs have continued to see the ever-increasing control of teacher candidates by policymakers. To control means to regulate. The problem, according to these authors, is that there are currently at least three regulating measurement and assessment obstacles faced by teacher candidates in teacher preparation programs. The first obstacle is being admitted into a teacher preparation program. High school grades, standardized test data, letters of recommendation, and other information are used to regulate this process. The second obstacle is navigating a complex regulated curriculum that is intended to help insure that entering students will be successful classroom teachers. Universities establish general education curriculum content, specialized professional associations require specific curriculum content, state departments of education require specific curriculum content, and education departments require specific curriculum content that are used to regulate the teacher preparation process. However, despite how effective a teacher preparation program may be in selecting potential teacher candidates and programmatically guiding their teacher candidates, the teacher candidates are still faced with a third regulatory measurement and assessment obstacle. The third regulatory obstacle for teacher candidates is passing a legislatively mandated norm-referenced examination (i.e., PRAXIS II) before they are certified as teachers. This study explores predicting PRAXIS II Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge scores required for licensing teacher candidates in many states. The procedures included using paired scores for two hundred (200) teacher candidates who met or exceeded a score of 150 (qualifying score in some states) on the Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge examination during the 2003-2005 academic years at two universities. (Contains 6 tables, 1 figure, and 1 note.)

Teacher preparation programs have continued to see the ever-increasing control of teacher candidates by policymakers. To control means to regulate. The problem, according to these authors, is that there are currently at least three regulating measurement and assessment obstacles faced by teacher candidates in teacher preparation programs. The first obstacle is being admitted into a teacher preparation program. High school grades, standardized test data, letters of recommendation, and other information are used to regulate this process. The second obstacle is navigating a complex regulated curriculum that is intended to help insure that entering students will be successful classroom teachers. Universities establish general education curriculum content, specialized professional associations require specific curriculum content, state departments of education require specific curriculum content, and education departments require specific curriculum content that are used to regulate the teacher preparation process. However, despite how effective a teacher preparation program may be in selecting potential teacher candidates and programmatically guiding their teacher candidates, the teacher candidates are still faced with a third regulatory measurement and assessment obstacle. The third regulatory obstacle for teacher candidates is passing a legislatively mandated norm-referenced examination (i.e., PRAXIS II) before they are certified as teachers. This study explores predicting PRAXIS II Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge scores required for licensing teacher candidates in many states. The procedures included using paired scores for two hundred (200) teacher candidates who met or exceeded a score of 150 (qualifying score in some states) on the Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge examination during the 2003-2005 academic years at two universities. (Contains 6 tables, 1 figure, and 1 note.)

Teacher preparation programs have continued to see the ever-increasing control of teacher candidates by policymakers. To control means to regulate. The problem, according to these authors, is that there are currently at least three regulating measurement and assessment obstacles faced by teacher candidates in teacher preparation programs. The first obstacle is being admitted into a teacher preparation program. High school grades, standardized test data, letters of recommendation, and other information are used to regulate this process. The second obstacle is navigating a complex regulated curriculum that is intended to help insure that entering students will be successful classroom teachers. Universities establish general education curriculum content, specialized professional associations require specific curriculum content, state departments of education require specific curriculum content, and education departments require specific curriculum content that are used to regulate the teacher preparation process. However, despite how effective a teacher preparation program may be in selecting potential teacher candidates and programmatically guiding their teacher candidates, the teacher candidates are still faced with a third regulatory measurement and assessment obstacle. The third regulatory obstacle for teacher candidates is passing a legislatively mandated norm-referenced examination (i.e., PRAXIS II) before they are certified as teachers. This study explores predicting PRAXIS II Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge scores required for licensing teacher candidates in many states. The procedures included using paired scores for two hundred (200) teacher candidates who met or exceeded a score of 150 (qualifying score in some states) on the Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge examination during the 2003-2005 academic years at two universities. (Contains 6 tables, 1 figure, and 1 note.)

Teacher preparation programs have continued to see the ever-increasing control of teacher candidates by policymakers. To control means to regulate. The problem, according to these authors, is that there are currently at least three regulating measurement and assessment obstacles faced by teacher candidates in teacher preparation programs. The first obstacle is being admitted into a teacher preparation program. High school grades, standardized test data, letters of recommendation, and other information are used to regulate this process. The second obstacle is navigating a complex regulated curriculum that is intended to help insure that entering students will be successful classroom teachers. Universities establish general education curriculum content, specialized professional associations require specific curriculum content, state departments of education require specific curriculum content, and education departments require specific curriculum content that are used to regulate the teacher preparation process. However, despite how effective a teacher preparation program may be in selecting potential teacher candidates and programmatically guiding their teacher candidates, the teacher candidates are still faced with a third regulatory measurement and assessment obstacle. The third regulatory obstacle for teacher candidates is passing a legislatively mandated norm-referenced examination (i.e., PRAXIS II) before they are certified as teachers. This study explores predicting PRAXIS II Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge scores required for licensing teacher candidates in many states. The procedures included using paired scores for two hundred (200) teacher candidates who met or exceeded a score of 150 (qualifying score in some states) on the Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge examination during the 2003-2005 academic years at two universities. (Contains 6 tables, 1 figure, and 1 note.)

Teacher preparation programs have continued to see the ever-increasing control of teacher candidates by policymakers. To control means to regulate. The problem, according to these authors, is that there are currently at least three regulating measurement and assessment obstacles faced by teacher candidates in teacher preparation programs. The first obstacle is being admitted into a teacher preparation program. High school grades, standardized test data, letters of recommendation, and other information are used to regulate this process. The second obstacle is navigating a complex regulated curriculum that is intended to help insure that entering students will be successful classroom teachers. Universities establish general education curriculum content, specialized professional associations require specific curriculum content, state departments of education require specific curriculum content, and education departments require specific curriculum content that are used to regulate the teacher preparation process. However, despite how effective a teacher preparation program may be in selecting potential teacher candidates and programmatically guiding their teacher candidates, the teacher candidates are still faced with a third regulatory measurement and assessment obstacle. The third regulatory obstacle for teacher candidates is passing a legislatively mandated norm-referenced examination (i.e., PRAXIS II) before they are certified as teachers. This study explores predicting PRAXIS II Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge scores required for licensing teacher candidates in many states. The procedures included using paired scores for two hundred (200) teacher candidates who met or exceeded a score of 150 (qualifying score in some states) on the Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge examination during the 2003-2005 academic years at two universities. (Contains 6 tables, 1 figure, and 1 note.)

Teacher preparation programs have continued to see the ever-increasing control of teacher candidates by policymakers. To control means to regulate. The problem, according to these authors, is that there are currently at least three regulating measurement and assessment obstacles faced by teacher candidates in teacher preparation programs. The first obstacle is being admitted into a teacher preparation program. High school grades, standardized test data, letters of recommendation, and other information are used to regulate this process. The second obstacle is navigating a complex regulated curriculum that is intended to help insure that entering students will be successful classroom teachers. Universities establish general education curriculum content, specialized professional associations require specific curriculum content, state departments of education require specific curriculum content, and education departments require specific curriculum content that are used to regulate the teacher preparation process. However, despite how effective a teacher preparation program may be in selecting potential teacher candidates and programmatically guiding their teacher candidates, the teacher candidates are still faced with a third regulatory measurement and assessment obstacle. The third regulatory obstacle for teacher candidates is passing a legislatively mandated norm-referenced examination (i.e., PRAXIS II) before they are certified as teachers. This study explores predicting PRAXIS II Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge scores required for licensing teacher candidates in many states. The procedures included using paired scores for two hundred (200) teacher candidates who met or exceeded a score of 150 (qualifying score in some states) on the Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge examination during the 2003-2005 academic years at two universities. (Contains 6 tables, 1 figure, and 1 note.)

Teacher preparation programs have continued to see the ever-increasing control of teacher candidates by policymakers. To control means to regulate. The problem, according to these authors, is that there are currently at least three regulating measurement and assessment obstacles faced by teacher candidates in teacher preparation programs. The first obstacle is being admitted into a teacher preparation program. High school grades, standardized test data, letters of recommendation, and other information are used to regulate this process. The second obstacle is navigating a complex regulated curriculum that is intended to help insure that entering students will be successful classroom teachers. Universities establish general education curriculum content, specialized professional associations require specific curriculum content, state departments of education require specific curriculum content, and education departments require specific curriculum content that are used to regulate the teacher preparation process. However, despite how effective a teacher preparation program may be in selecting potential teacher candidates and programmatically guiding their teacher candidates, the teacher candidates are still faced with a third regulatory measurement and assessment obstacle. The third regulatory obstacle for teacher candidates is passing a legislatively mandated norm-referenced examination (i.e., PRAXIS II) before they are certified as teachers. This study explores predicting PRAXIS II Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge scores required for licensing teacher candidates in many states. The procedures included using paired scores for two hundred (200) teacher candidates who met or exceeded a score of 150 (qualifying score in some states) on the Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge examination during the 2003-2005 academic years at two universities. (Contains 6 tables, 1 figure, and 1 note.)

Teacher preparation programs have continued to see the ever-increasing control of teacher candidates by policymakers. To control means to regulate. The problem, according to these authors, is that there are currently at least three regulating measurement and assessment obstacles faced by teacher candidates in teacher preparation programs. The first obstacle is being admitted into a teacher preparation program. High school grades, standardized test data, letters of recommendation, and other information are used to regulate this process. The second obstacle is navigating a complex regulated curriculum that is intended to help insure that entering students will be successful classroom teachers. Universities establish general education curriculum content, specialized professional associations require specific curriculum content, state departments of education require specific curriculum content, and education departments require specific curriculum content that are used to regulate the teacher preparation process. However, despite how effective a teacher preparation program may be in selecting potential teacher candidates and programmatically guiding their teacher candidates, the teacher candidates are still faced with a third regulatory measurement and assessment obstacle. The third regulatory obstacle for teacher candidates is passing a legislatively mandated norm-referenced examination (i.e., PRAXIS II) before they are certified as teachers. This study explores predicting PRAXIS II Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge scores required for licensing teacher candidates in many states. The procedures included using paired scores for two hundred (200) teacher candidates who met or exceeded a score of 150 (qualifying score in some states) on the Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge examination during the 2003-2005 academic years at two universities. (Contains 6 tables, 1 figure, and 1 note.)

Teacher preparation programs have continued to see the ever-increasing control of teacher candidates by policymakers. To control means to regulate. The problem, according to these authors, is that there are currently at least three regulating measurement and assessment obstacles faced by teacher candidates in teacher preparation programs. The first obstacle is being admitted into a teacher preparation program. High school grades, standardized test data, letters of recommendation, and other information are used to regulate this process. The second obstacle is navigating a complex regulated curriculum that is intended to help insure that entering students will be successful classroom teachers. Universities establish general education curriculum content, specialized professional associations require specific curriculum content, state departments of education require specific curriculum content, and education departments require specific curriculum content that are used to regulate the teacher preparation process. However, despite how effective a teacher preparation program may be in selecting potential teacher candidates and programmatically guiding their teacher candidates, the teacher candidates are still faced with a third regulatory measurement and assessment obstacle. The third regulatory obstacle for teacher candidates is passing a legislatively mandated norm-referenced examination (i.e., PRAXIS II) before they are certified as teachers. This study explores predicting PRAXIS II Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge scores required for licensing teacher candidates in many states. The procedures included using paired scores for two hundred (200) teacher candidates who met or exceeded a score of 150 (qualifying score in some states) on the Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge examination during the 2003-2005 academic years at two universities. (Contains 6 tables, 1 figure, and 1 note.)

Teacher preparation programs have continued to see the ever-increasing control of teacher candidates by policymakers. To control means to regulate. The problem, according to these authors, is that there are currently at least three regulating measurement and assessment obstacles faced by teacher candidates in teacher preparation programs. The first obstacle is being admitted into a teacher preparation program. High school grades, standardized test data, letters of recommendation, and other information are used to regulate this process. The second obstacle is navigating a complex regulated curriculum that is intended to help insure that entering students will be successful classroom teachers. Universities establish general education curriculum content, specialized professional associations require specific curriculum content, state departments of education require specific curriculum content, and education departments require specific curriculum content that are used to regulate the teacher preparation process. However, despite how effective a teacher preparation program may be in selecting potential teacher candidates and programmatically guiding their teacher candidates, the teacher candidates are still faced with a third regulatory measurement and assessment obstacle. The third regulatory obstacle for teacher candidates is passing a legislatively mandated norm-referenced examination (i.e., PRAXIS II) before they are certified as teachers. This study explores predicting PRAXIS II Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge scores required for licensing teacher candidates in many states. The procedures included using paired scores for two hundred (200) teacher candidates who met or exceeded a score of 150 (qualifying score in some states) on the Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge examination during the 2003-2005 academic years at two universities. (Contains 6 tables, 1 figure, and 1 note.)

Teacher preparation programs have continued to see the ever-increasing control of teacher candidates by policymakers. To control means to regulate. The problem, according to these authors, is that there are currently at least three regulating measurement and assessment obstacles faced by teacher candidates in teacher preparation programs. The first obstacle is being admitted into a teacher preparation program. High school grades, standardized test data, letters of recommendation, and other information are used to regulate this process. The second obstacle is navigating a complex regulated curriculum that is intended to help insure that entering students will be successful classroom teachers. Universities establish general education curriculum content, specialized professional associations require specific curriculum content, state departments of education require specific curriculum content, and education departments require specific curriculum content that are used to regulate the teacher preparation process. However, despite how effective a teacher preparation program may be in selecting potential teacher candidates and programmatically guiding their teacher candidates, the teacher candidates are still faced with a third regulatory measurement and assessment obstacle. The third regulatory obstacle for teacher candidates is passing a legislatively mandated norm-referenced examination (i.e., PRAXIS II) before they are certified as teachers. This study explores predicting PRAXIS II Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge scores required for licensing teacher candidates in many states. The procedures included using paired scores for two hundred (200) teacher candidates who met or exceeded a score of 150 (qualifying score in some states) on the Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge examination during the 2003-2005 academic years at two universities. (Contains 6 tables, 1 figure, and 1 note.)

Teacher preparation programs have continued to see the ever-increasing control of teacher candidates by policymakers. To control means to regulate. The problem, according to these authors, is that there are currently at least three regulating measurement and assessment obstacles faced by teacher candidates in teacher preparation programs. The first obstacle is being admitted into a teacher preparation program. High school grades, standardized test data, letters of recommendation, and other information are used to regulate this process. The second obstacle is navigating a complex regulated curriculum that is intended to help insure that entering students will be successful classroom teachers. Universities establish general education curriculum content, specialized professional associations require specific curriculum content, state departments of education require specific curriculum content, and education departments require specific curriculum content that are used to regulate the teacher preparation process. However, despite how effective a teacher preparation program may be in selecting potential teacher candidates and programmatically guiding their teacher candidates, the teacher candidates are still faced with a third regulatory measurement and assessment obstacle. The third regulatory obstacle for teacher candidates is passing a legislatively mandated norm-referenced examination (i.e., PRAXIS II) before they are certified as teachers. This study explores predicting PRAXIS II Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge scores required for licensing teacher candidates in many states. The procedures included using paired scores for two hundred (200) teacher candidates who met or exceeded a score of 150 (qualifying score in some states) on the Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge examination during the 2003-2005 academic years at two universities. (Contains 6 tables, 1 figure, and 1 note.)

8 unnumbered leaves (including frontispiece), 647, that is, 757 pages, 13 unnumbered leaves : (4to)

8 unnumbered leaves (including frontispiece), 647, that is, 757 pages, 13 unnumbered leaves : (4to)

add author: Norman Levy

add author: Norman Levy

add author: Norman Levy

add author: Norman Levy

add author: Norman Levy

CPC 464 664 Praxis II Band 2 Datenverwaltung - MANFRED WALTER THOMA Synopsis :  Anhand von fünf sehr umfangreichen und leistungsstarken Programmen findet im Band 2 der CPC-464/664 Praxis-Reihe eine grundlegende Darstellung der wichtigsten Methoden zur Datenverarbeitung der wichtigsten Methoden zur Datenverwaltung statt. Neben der Behandlung von Konstanten, der sequentiellen Datei und der RAM-Floppy (relative Adressierung) darf natürlich der Direktzugriff auf Daten nicht fehlen. Mit einem sehr komfortablen Diskettenmonitor wird der Aufbau der Diskette genauer untersucht. Doch auch Such- und Sortierverfahren sowie die Handhabung und Programmierung von Index-Dateien finden hier ihren Platz. Die erarbeiteten Programme gehen weit über das übliche Niveau hinaus (sie sind, bis auf den Direktzugriff auch mit dem Datenrecorder nutzbar) und lassen sich in der alltäglichen Praxis hervorragend anwenden. Die Programme brauchen durch ihre Qualitât einen Vergleich mit kommerziellen Programmen nicht zu scheuen. ISBN 3-7785-1209-9

CPC 464 664 Praxis II Band 2 Datenverwaltung - MANFRED WALTER THOMA Synopsis :  Anhand von fünf sehr umfangreichen und leistungsstarken Programmen findet im Band 2 der CPC-464/664 Praxis-Reihe eine grundlegende Darstellung der wichtigsten Methoden zur Datenverarbeitung der wichtigsten Methoden zur Datenverwaltung statt. Neben der Behandlung von Konstanten, der sequentiellen Datei und der RAM-Floppy (relative Adressierung) darf natürlich der Direktzugriff auf Daten nicht fehlen. Mit einem sehr komfortablen Diskettenmonitor wird der Aufbau der Diskette genauer untersucht. Doch auch Such- und Sortierverfahren sowie die Handhabung und Programmierung von Index-Dateien finden hier ihren Platz. Die erarbeiteten Programme gehen weit über das übliche Niveau hinaus (sie sind, bis auf den Direktzugriff auch mit dem Datenrecorder nutzbar) und lassen sich in der alltäglichen Praxis hervorragend anwenden. Die Programme brauchen durch ihre Qualitât einen Vergleich mit kommerziellen Programmen nicht zu scheuen. ISBN 3-7785-1209-9

CPC 464 664 Praxis II Band 2 Datenverwaltung - MANFRED WALTER THOMA Synopsis :  Anhand von fünf sehr umfangreichen und leistungsstarken Programmen findet im Band 2 der CPC-464/664 Praxis-Reihe eine grundlegende Darstellung der wichtigsten Methoden zur Datenverarbeitung der wichtigsten Methoden zur Datenverwaltung statt. Neben der Behandlung von Konstanten, der sequentiellen Datei und der RAM-Floppy (relative Adressierung) darf natürlich der Direktzugriff auf Daten nicht fehlen. Mit einem sehr komfortablen Diskettenmonitor wird der Aufbau der Diskette genauer untersucht. Doch auch Such- und Sortierverfahren sowie die Handhabung und Programmierung von Index-Dateien finden hier ihren Platz. Die erarbeiteten Programme gehen weit über das übliche Niveau hinaus (sie sind, bis auf den Direktzugriff auch mit dem Datenrecorder nutzbar) und lassen sich in der alltäglichen Praxis hervorragend anwenden. Die Programme brauchen durch ihre Qualitât einen Vergleich mit kommerziellen Programmen nicht zu scheuen. ISBN 3-7785-1209-9

CPC 464 664 Praxis II Band 2 Datenverwaltung - MANFRED WALTER THOMA Synopsis :  Anhand von fünf sehr umfangreichen und leistungsstarken Programmen findet im Band 2 der CPC-464/664 Praxis-Reihe eine grundlegende Darstellung der wichtigsten Methoden zur Datenverarbeitung der wichtigsten Methoden zur Datenverwaltung statt. Neben der Behandlung von Konstanten, der sequentiellen Datei und der RAM-Floppy (relative Adressierung) darf natürlich der Direktzugriff auf Daten nicht fehlen. Mit einem sehr komfortablen Diskettenmonitor wird der Aufbau der Diskette genauer untersucht. Doch auch Such- und Sortierverfahren sowie die Handhabung und Programmierung von Index-Dateien finden hier ihren Platz. Die erarbeiteten Programme gehen weit über das übliche Niveau hinaus (sie sind, bis auf den Direktzugriff auch mit dem Datenrecorder nutzbar) und lassen sich in der alltäglichen Praxis hervorragend anwenden. Die Programme brauchen durch ihre Qualitât einen Vergleich mit kommerziellen Programmen nicht zu scheuen. ISBN 3-7785-1209-9

xiv, 274 pages : 28 cm

xiv, 274 pages : 28 cm

xiv, 274 pages : 28 cm

xiv, 274 pages : 28 cm

This item represents a case in PACER, the U.S. Government's website for federal case data. This information is uploaded quarterly. To see our most recent version please use the source url parameter, linked below. To see the canonical source for this data, please consult PACER directly.

This item represents a case in PACER, the U.S. Government's website for federal case data. This information is uploaded quarterly. To see our most recent version please use the source url parameter, linked below. To see the canonical source for this data, please consult PACER directly.