. (32‘s.)... r1... .flli‘lnlfll... I. (15"! ‘99:»..A5i... $11 {VII-I225!!- MW TNT"?"lilifllllflljfllil L 3 1293 007 Ill LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF TEACHER-DIRECTED AND COMPUTER- ASSISTED INSTRUCTION IN TERMS OF STUDENTS' KEYBOARDING ACHIEVEMENT, ATTITUDES, AND COOPERATIVE LEARNING presented by Esther M. Crowell has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D Teacher Education ' degree in WOW Major professor Dam June 1992 MSUi: an Aflinmm've Action/Equal Opportunity Inslirun'on 0-12771 PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. p DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE W s x L T A NU‘V / 9 “E5 _. E? 055 11A" r 1 1997 RILEY lit; mi Ii' r‘r‘nnl UK 1 Li \r- n /i_\J MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution czwmwuedmnnth A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF TEACHER-DIRECTED AND COMPUTER- ASSISTED INSTRUCTION IN TERMS OF STUDENTS’ KEYBOARDING ACHIEVEMENT, ATTITUDES, AND COOPERATIVE LEARNING By Esther M. Croweli A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fuifiiiment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education 1992 ABSTRACT A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF TEACHER-DIRECTED AND COMPUTER- ASSISTED INSTRUCTION IN TERMS OF STUDENTS’ KEYBOARDING ACHIEVEMENT, ATTITUDES, AND COOPERATIVE LEARNING By Esther M. Crowell Modern technology has led many educational institutions to invest in microcomputers for instructional purposes. As a result of the increased use of computers, the effectiveness of typewriters and the method used to teach keyboarding skills are questioned. The major purpose of this study was to analyze keyboarding skills of students using the teacher-directed and computer-assisted modes of instruction. Specifically, this study was aimed at comparing the two modes of instruction by examining students’ attitudes, collaborative learning, and achievement. A quasi-experimental design was used for this study. The subjects consisted of 66 students enrolled in the Fundamentals of Typewriting and Keyboarding classes at an urban community college. The sample was divided into two groups. The experimental group was taught keyboarding skills with computer-assisted instruction on microcomputers. The control group was taught similar skills with teacher-directed instruction on electronic typewriters. Esther M. Crowell Twenty-five keyboarding lessons were divided into five units. Three instruments were developed by the researcher to gather data on students’ attitudes and cooperative learning. Two instruments were administered at the end of every fifth lesson; the third was given at the end of the study. A pretest and posttest were given to analyze keyboarding achievement in speed, accuracy, and skill development in vertical, horizontal, block, and spread centering. The analysis of data included the use of analysis of variance and repeated-measures analysis of variance to determine whether a difference occurred between the two groups as specified in the seven hypotheses. The .05 level of significance was used in analyzing the results from the tests. Findings from this study revealed no significant differences between the two nmthods with regard to students’ attitudes, cooperative learning, and achievement, regardless of previous keyboarding experience. 'There was a significant difference in speed; the control group typed faster than the experimental group. Also, the experimental group made fewer errors than the control group, although this difference was not statistically significant. This study supports the findings of other research, namely, that both modes of instruction are equal in teaching keyboarding skills to students and that students prefer interacting with a teacher but enjoy using the computer. Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Robert Poland Copyright by ESTHER M. CROWELL 1992 To my family, Joe, Kymberlyn, and Rodney, for their patience, love, and support. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my sincere appreciation and gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Robert Poland, for his advice and guidance throughout this study. His encouragement and belief in me will always be remembered. A special thank-you is extended to Dr. Paul Slocum for his time and invaluable assistance when I needed it most. I also wish to thank my committee members, Dr. Gloria Smith and Dr. Richard McCloud, for their contributions to this study. I am indeed grateful to John I?. Thoreson and Jerry Hagen of Glencoe/McGraw-Hill for their assistance 'hi providing rma with the materials necessary for this study. A very special thanks to Dorothy Alexander and Henry Shepherd, whose help and cooperation made this study possible by permitting their students and themselves to be a part of this research. Finally, to my husband, Joe Crowell, Jr., for providing the motivation, support, and love that were needed throughout this entire time. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................... LIST OF FIGURES ....................... Chapter I. INTRODUCTION .................... Statement of the Problem ............. Purposes of the Study ............... Importance of the Study .............. Research Questions ................ Hypotheses .................... Setting for the Study ............... Limitations .................... Instructor Effects ............... Nonrandom Groups ................ Sample Size ................... Generalizability of the Findings ........ Definitions of Terms ............... Organization of the Dissertation ......... II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............. Introduction to Keyboarding ............ The Use of Microcomputers in Classrooms ...... Research on Speed and Accuracy in Keyboarding . . . Computer-Assisted Instruction ........... Perceptions of Computer-Assisted Instruction Research on Computer-Assisted Instruction Versus Teacher-Directed Instruction .......... Attitudes Toward Computer-Assisted Instruction . Cooperative Learning ............... Summary ...................... III. METHODOLOGY FOR THE STUDY .............. Research Design .................. Research Questions ................ Hypotheses .................... vii I-‘ NOkOkOLOLOLOGDNONU'I-hm p—ag—JH (A) NNi—Ii—n—n wNNU'Iw hWWN Nmi—‘m h-b mm #4:. LON The Setting for the Study ............. 49 The Population and Sample ............. 50 Treatment Protocol ................ 52 Pretest and Posttest .............. 53 Instrumentation .................. 55 The Learner Attitude Inventory ......... 56 The Cooperative Learning Inventory ....... 56 The Keyboarding Evaluation Inventory ...... 57 Data-Collection Procedures ............ 57 Data-Analysis Procedures ............. 59 IV. RESULTS OF THE STATISTICAL ANALYSES ......... 61 Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents . . 61 Results of Hypothesis Testing ........... 71 Null Hypothesis 1 ................ 71 Null Hypothesis 2 ................ 75 Null Hypothesis 3 ................ 87 Null Hypothesis 4 ................ 95 Null Hypothesis 5 ................ 103 Null Hypothesis 6 ................ 109 Null Hypothesis 7 ................ 115 Analysis of Responses to the Keyboarding Evaluation Inventory .............. 122 Summary ...................... 128 V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND REFLECTIONS .................. 129 Summary ...................... 129 Findings and Conclusions ............. 131 Null Hypothesis 1 ................ 131 Null Hypothesis 2 ................ 132 Null Hypothesis 3 ................ 133 Null Hypothesis 4 ................ 134 Null Hypothesis 5 ................ 135 Null Hypothesis 6 ................ 136 Null Hypothesis 7 ................ 137 Recommendations .................. 138 Reflections .................... 140 APPENDICES A. WAYNE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE: KEYBOARDING 015 100 AND FUNDAMENTALS OF TYPEWRITING OIS 101--CALENDAR 0F LESSONS ..................... 143 B. STUDENT SURVEY ................... 144 C. CONSENT FORM .................... I45 D.' SPEED SCORES CHART FOR PRE AND POST TEST ...... E. SKILL DEVELOPMENT POINT CHART ............ F. LEARNER ATTITUDE INVENTORY, COOPERATIVE LEARNING INVENTORY, AND KEYBOARDING EVALUATION INVENTORY . . . G. PRETEST ....................... H. POSTTEST ...................... BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................ ix 147 148 155 158 160 Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. LIST OF TABLES Distribution of the Sample by Current Marital Status Distribution of the Sample by Age Category ...... Distribution of the Sample by Gender ......... Distribution of the Sample by Educational Level . . . . Distribution of the Sample by Number of Courses in Which They Were Enrolled .............. Distribution of the Sample by Employment While Attending School .................. Distribution of the Sample by Previous Keyboarding Experience ..................... Distribution of the Sample by Where They Had Received Previous Keyboarding Instruction .......... Distribution of the Sample by Estimated Typing Speed Distribution of the Sample by Reasons for Enrolling in Fundamentals of Typewriting or Keyboarding . . . . Distribution of the Sample by Previous Use of a Microcomputer .................... Distribution of the Sample by the Availability of a Typewriter at Home ................. Distribution of the Sample by the Availability of a Microcomputer at Home ................ Results of Analysis of Variance for Keyboarding Achievement (Post5) by Group and Previous Experience ..................... Keyboarding Achievement (Post5) of Students With and With and Without Previous Keyboarding Experience Page 62 63 64 65 65 66 67 67 68 69 70 70 71 72 73 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Comparison of Post5 by Group With Pre5 ........ Comparison of Keyboarding Achievement Between the Experimental Group and the Control Group ...... Results of the Analysis for Attitude Item 1: "The Lessons Were Written in a Way That Made Them Easy to Understand" ................. Results of the Analysis for Attitude Item 2: "The Instructor’s Explanations Helped Make the Lessons Clearer and Easier to Understand" .......... Results of the Analysis for Attitude Item 3: "It Was Not Necessary to Have an Instructor in the Classroom in Order to Understand the Lessons" . Results of the Analysis for Attitude Item 4: "I Would Have Preferred to Have Someone Explain These Lessons to Me" ................... Results of the Analysis for Attitude Item 5: "It Was Difficult for Me to Do the Assignment Because of the Way the Lessons Were Presented by the Instructor" ..................... Results of the Analysis for Attitude Item 6: "I Enjoyed Doing the Lessons on the Typewriter/ Microcomputer" ................... Results of the Analysis for Attitude Item 7: "The Electronic Typewriter/Microcomputer Is a Valuable Piece of Equipment to Learn" ............ Results of the Analysis for Attitude Item 8: "It Was Difficult for Me to Manipulate the Typewriter/ Microcomputer While Doing These Lessons" ...... Results of the Analysis for Attitude Item 9: "Now That I Am Taking This Course, I Enjoy Using the Typewriter/Microcomputer" .............. Results of the Analysis of Variance for Attitudes of Students Using Computer-Assisted Instruction Versus Those Using Teacher-Directed Instruction ...... Results of the Analysis for Cooperative Learning Item 1: "I Asked Other Students Questions About How to Do the Lessons" ............... xi 76 78 81 83 83 84 84 85 85 87 88 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. Results of the Analysis for Cooperative Learning Item 2: "I Asked for Help When I Needed It" Results of the Analysis for Cooperative Learning Item 3: "I Allowed Other Students to Show Me How to Do the Lessons" ............... Results of the Analysis for Cooperative Learning Item 4: "I Helped Other Students With the Lessons" . Results of the Analysis for Cooperative Learning Item 5: "I Made Certain Other Students Under- stood the Lessons" ................. Results of the Analysis for Cooperative Learning Item 6: "1 Worked With Other Students in Order to Complete My Lessons" ............... Results of the Analysis of Overall Cooperative Learning Between the Experimental and Control Groups ....................... Results of the Analysis of Previous Keyboarding Experience and Attitude Item 1: "The Lessons Were Written in a Way That Made Them Easy to Understand" . Results of the Analysis of Previous Keyboarding Experience and Attitude Item 2: "An Instructor’s Explanations Would Have Helped Make the Lessons Clearer and Easier to Understand" .......... Results of the Analysis of Previous Keyboarding Experience and Attitude Item 3: "It Was Not Necessary to Have an Instructor in the Classroom in Order to Understand the Lessons" ......... Results of the Analysis of Previous Keyboarding Experience and Attitude Item 4: "I Would Have Preferred to Have Someone Explain These Lessons to Me" ........... . ............ Results of the Analysis of Previous Keyboarding Experience and Attitude Item 5: "It Was Difficult for Me to Do the Lessons Because of the Way the Lessons Were Presented" ............... Results of the Analysis of Previous Keyboarding Experience and Attitude Item 6: "I Enjoyed Doing These Lessons on the Computer/Typewriter" ...... Page 89 92 92 93 93 95 96 97 99 99 100 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Results of the Analysis of Previous Keyboarding Experience and Attitude Item 7: "The Computer/ Typewriter Is a Valuable Piece of Equipment to Learn" ....................... Results of the Analysis of Previous Keyboarding Experience and Attitude Item 8: "It Was Difficult for Me to Manipulate the Computer/Typewriter While Doing These Lessons" ................ Results of the Analysis of Previous Keyboarding Experience and Attitude Item 9: "Now That I Am Taking This Course, I Enjoy Using Computers/ Typewriters" .................... Results of the Analysis of Overall Attitudes Between Students With Previous Keyboarding Experience and Those Without Previous Keyboarding Experience . . . . Results of the Analysis of Previous Keyboarding Experience and Cooperative Learning Item I: "I Asked Other Students Questions About How to Do the Lessons" ................. .. . . Results of the Analysis of Previous Keyboarding Experience and Cooperative Learning Item 2: "I Asked Other Students Questions About How to Do the Lessons" .................... Results of the Analysis of Previous Keyboarding Experience and Cooperative Learning Item 3: "I Allowed Other Students to Show Me How to Do the Lessons" ...................... Results of the Analysis of Previous Keyboarding Experience and Cooperative Learning Item 4: “I Helped Other Students With the Lessons" ....... Results of the Analysis of Previous Keyboarding Experience and Cooperative Learning Item 5: "I Made Certain Other Students Understood the Lessons"_. Results of the Analysis of Previous Keyboarding Experience and Cooperative Learning Item 6: "1 Worked With Other Students in Order to Complete My Lessons" ..................... xiii Page 100 101 102 103 104 104 105 107 107 108 - “mm. .. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68.‘ Results of the Analysis of Overall Cooperative Learning Between Students With Previous Keyboarding Experience and Those Without Previous Keyboarding Experience ..................... Postl Speed by Group and Previous Experience ..... Postl Speed by Group: Students With and Without Previous Keyboarding Experience ........... Postl Speed by Group With Prel ............ Comparison of Straight-Copy Speed Scores Between the Experimental Group and the Control Group ...... Post3 Speed by Group and Previous Experience ..... Post3 Speed by Group: Students With and Without Previous Keyboarding Experience ........... Post3 Speed by Group With Pre3 ............ Comparison of Numeric-Copy Speed Scores Between the Experimental Group and the Control Group ...... Post2 Accuracy by Group and Previous Experience . . . . Post2 Accuracy by Group: Students With and Without Previous Keyboarding Experience ........... Post2 Accuracy by Group With Pre2 ........... Comparison of Straight—Copy Accuracy Between the Experimental Group and the Control Group ...... Post4 Accuracy by Group and Previous Experience . . .I\ Post4 Accuracy by Group: Students With and Without Previous Keyboarding Experience ........... Post4 Accuracy by Group With Pre4 ........... Comparison of Numeric-Copy Accuracy Between the Experimental Group and the Control Group ...... Responses to Question 1: "Did You Learn How to Keyboard?" ..................... xiv Page 108 110 110 111 112 113 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 119 120 121 122 123 Responses to Question 2: "Did You Find That the Teacher’s Instructions Helped You to Learn Keyboarding Skills?" ................ 123 Responses to Question 3: "Would You Take Another Typing/Computer-Aided Instruction Course?" ..... 124 Responses to Question 4: "Did Working With Other Students make the Course Enjoyable?" ........ 124 Responses to Question 5: "Did You Use a Typewriter/ Microcomputer Outside the Classroom to Practice or Complete Assignments?" .............. 125 Results of T-Test for Students’ Use of a Typewriter/ Microcomputer Outside the Classroom, by Group . . . . 126 Responses to Question 6: "How Many Hours Do You Practice or Complete Assignments?" ......... 127 Results of T-Test for Number of Hours Spent Outside the Classroom Practicing or Completing Assignments, by Group ...................... 127 Responses to Question 7: "Would You Recommend This Course to Another Student?" ............. 128 XV . ‘1‘“. LIST OF FIGURES Mean Responses of Experimental and Control Groups to Attitude Item 1: "The Lessons Were Written in a Way That Made Them Easy to Understand" ....... Mean Responses of Experimental and Control Groups to Attitude Item 2: "The Instructor’s Explanations Helped Make the Lessons Clearer and Easier to Understand" .................... Mean Responses of Experimental and Control Groups to Attitude Item 3: "It Was Not Necessary to Have an Instructor in the Classroom in Order to Understand the Lessons" .................... Mean Responses of Experimental and Control Groups to Attitude Item 4: "I Would Have Preferred to Have Someone Explain These Lessons to Me" ........ Mean Responses of Experimental and Control Groups to Cooperative Learning Item 1: "I Asked Other Students Questions About How to Do the Lessons" Mean Responses of Experimental and Control Groups to Cooperative Learning Item 2: "I Asked for Help When I Needed It" ................. Frequency With Which Students in the Experimental Group and the Control Group Engaged in Coopera- tive Learning, Over Time .............. Mean Responses of Students With Previous Keyboarding Experience and Those Without Such Experience on Attitude Item 2: "An Instructor’s Explanations Would Have Made the Lessons Clearer" ........ Mean Responses of Students With Previous Keyboarding Experience and Those Without Previous Keyboarding Experience on Cooperative Learning Item 2: "I Asked for Help When I Needed It" .......... xvi Page 77 79 80 82 90 91 94 98 106 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Technological advancements have revolutionized education and the work force. The growing use of keyboards in business, industry, government, and education, along with the demand for increased office productivity, has made the efficient use of keyboarding . skills of prime importance in American society tOday. Nathan (1983) summed up the need for keyboarding skills by saying, "Knowing how to build a house and ride a horse were basic skills 150 years ago. Looking to the future, keyboarding is a twenty-first century basic skill" (p. 10). According to LaBarre (1984), “The spectacular advancements in electronic technology, competition in the work place, and the flexibility provided by electronic keyboarding systems are presenting business educators with challenges and new frontiers to be pioneered" (p. 54). Whereas the typewriter is still used 'hi teaching keyboarding skills, microcomputer technology has had a growing influence on the future of the business education curriculum. Hofmeiser (1982) stated that the widespread application of microcomputers is a societal, not merely an educational, phenomenon. This new era of microcomputer technology is rapidly pushing tin: typewriter toward obsolescence (Rhodes, 1987). Wallace (1981) agreed zuui predicted that microcomputers will replace conventional typewriters in the classroom as keyboarding becomes a universal skill. Stocker (1988) emphasized that the proliferation of computers in business education classrooms has brought about many changes. These changes, and their intellectual and emotional consequences, have had a major influence on the way business education is now being taught in the classroom. Thus, Behymer and Schaefer (1990) challenged the role of business education and business educators by asking, "How will business education in the 19905 and beyond differ from the present? Why, who, what, when, where, and how will we teach as we head towards the year 2000?" (p. 10). With so much emphasis on microcomputers, educators will face many questions and concerns as they develop curricula to include microcomputers. To date, research on the effect of microcomputer technology in the classroom has been geared primarily toward student achievement in various academic subjects. In this study, the researcher addressed unanswered questions regarding the use of microcomputers in teaching keyboarding skills by comparing the relationship of' two Inodes of instruction to students’ learning, students’ attitudes, and students’ interaction with each other while achieving keyboarding skills. Statement of the Problem 'The American workplace has become a highly technological environment, where every individual whose job depends on processing information needs to have keyboarding skills. In its 1984 publica- tion, “This We Believe About Keyboarding," the Policies Commission for Business and Economic Education asserted that whether an execu- tive uses a keyboard as a means of communication or a student interacts with a computer for drill and practice, the skill of keyboarding shortens input time aunt increases productivity. Stainbrook (1984) supported the need for most business people to have keyboarding skills by commenting: "Individual professionals of all kinds as well as captains of industry are ever more likely to be sitting down in front of' a keyboard whether it be on a word processor with electronic messages (n: the computer terminal with scientific notations" (p. 326). Research on developing keyboarding skills using microcomputers versus typewriters was conducted by Lindsay (1982), D’Souza (1983), Culwell (1985), Richerson (1986), and Davidson (1988). However, the results of these studies were not conclusive as to which type of equipment was better to use in teaching keyboarding. These researchers recommended that further studies comparing use of the typewriter with use of the microcomputer in teaching keyboarding be undertaken. Such research is needed as the microcomputer is being incorporated into the business education curriculum and the fUture use of typewriters is being questioned. Although some research has been done to compare the achievement of students who have been taught keyboarding skills with the computer-assisted and teacher-directed methods of instruction, little or no research has been undertaken (H1 students’ attitudes toward these two methods of learning keyboarding skills in conjunction with the cooperative/collaborative learning of students using both methods, at the community college level. Thus, this study was undertaken to provide some of that needed information. Specifically, the researcher attempted to determine whether there were significant differences in achievement, speed, accuracy, attitudes, and cooperative learning between students who were taught keyboarding .skills; on electronic typewriters, using the teacher- directed method, and those taught keyboarding skills on microcomputers, using the computer-assisted method. Purposes of the Studv One of the researcher’s purposes in conducting this study was to compare the keyboarding achievement, speed, and accuracy of students who learn keyboarding skills on electronic typewriters, using the traditional teacher-directed method of instrUction, with that of students who learn keyboarding skills on microcomputers, using the computer—assisted method of instruction. Additional purposes were to determine whether students taught by these two methods differed in terms of their attitudes and the frequency with which they engaged in collaborative learning in the keyboarding/typewriting class. Further purposes were 11) discover whether the attitudes and collaborative learning of students who had had previous keyboarding experience differed from those of students who had not had keyboarding experience. Importance of the Study Microcomputer technology has brought about the automation of many jobs in the work place; thus, it is important that all business people learn keyboarding techniques. Robinson and Johnson (1982) commented that individuals at every level of the business hierarchy --from clerks to executives-~are required to use keyboards to enter and retrieve information that is essential to the successful completion of their work. As educators develop curricula to meet individuals’ keyboarding needs, they should take into consideration the mode of instruction used to teach these skills and how it might influence students’ attitudes and levels of interaction with other students. Feldman (1984) concluded from his research that the accounts of students themselves are well worth considering because students’ attitudes and perceptions play a large part in how willing they are to work. Baer (1988) agreed with Feldman, noting that researchers have largely ignored the importance of students’ attitudes. Johnson and Johnson (cited in Carrier & Sales, 1987) discussed the need to consider how students interact with each other, or engage in collaborative learning, while receiving computer-assisted instruction: How students interact with each other is a neglected aspect of computer—assisted instruction. Much training time is devoted to helping teachers arrange appropriate interactions between students and (a) the computer zuui (b) other curriculum Inaterials. And some ‘time is spent, on how 'teachers should 'interact with students, but how students should interact with each other while working with a computer is relatively ignored. It should not be. (p. 3) Therefore, in designing curricula in) prepare individuals fer the work force, business educators need to be aware of how students’ achievement, attitudes, and collaborative learning are influenced by the method of instruction used in teaching them keyboarding skills. This study is intended to provide new and additional information about the use of computer-assisted instruction and traditional teacher-directed instruction in teaching keyboarding skills. This information can then be used in developing courses to improve students’ keyboarding skills. Research Questions The following questions were posed to guide the collection of data for this study: 1. Does the keyboarding achievement of students who learn keyboarding skills on microcomputers, using computer-assisted instruction, differ from 'that of students who learn keyboarding skills (”1 electronic typewriters, using teacher-directed instruc- tion? 2. Do the attitudes of students who learn keyboarding skills using computer-assisted instruction differ from those (Hi students who learn keyboarding skills using teacher-directed instruction? 3. Does the collaborative learning of students who learn keyboarding skills using computer-assisted instruction differ from that of students who learn keyboarding skills using teacher-directed instruction? 4. Do the attitudes of students who have had previous keyboarding experience differ from those of students who have had no keyboarding experience? 5. Does the collaborative learning of students who have had previous keyboarding experience differ from that of students who have had no keyboarding experience? Because typewriters are still used 'hi some schools 111 teach keyboarding skills, the following research questions also were posed: 6. Does the speed of students who learn keyboarding skills using electronic typewriters differ from that of students who learn keyboarding skills using microcomputers? 7. Does the accuracy of students who learn keyboarding skills using electronic typewriters differ from that of students who learn keyboarding skills using microcomputers? Hypotheses The following hypotheses, stated in the null form, were formu- lated to test the data collected in this study: Ho 1: There is no significant difference in the keyboarding achievement of students who learn keyboarding skills on micro- computers, using computer-assisted instruction, and that of students who learn keyboarding skills on electronic typewrit- ers, using teacher-directed instruction. Ho 2: There is no significant difference in the attitudes of students who learn keyboarding skills using computer-assisted instruction and those of students who learn keyboarding skills _using teacher-directed instruction. Ho 3: There is no significant difference in the collaborative learning of students who learn keyboarding skills using computer-assisted instruction and that of students who learn keyboarding skills using teacher-directed instruction. Ho 4: There is no significant difference in the attitudes of students who have had previous keyboarding experience and those of students who have had no keyboarding experience. Ho 5: There is no significant difference in the collaborative learning of students who have had previous keyboarding experi- ence and that of students who have had no keyboarding experi- ence. Ho 6: There is no significant difference in the speed of stu- dents who learn keyboarding skills using electronic typewriters and that of students who learn keyboarding skills using micro- computers. Ho 7: There is TH) significant difference iri the accuracy of students who learn keyboarding skills using electronic type- writers and that of students who learn keyboarding skills using microcomputers. Settinq for the Studv This study was conducted in an educational setting at the Eastern and Downtown campuses of Wayne County Community College in Detroit, Michigan. The college has an open-door policy; thus, all students who desire an educational experience have time opportunity to enroll, regardless (H: their educational preparation. In addition, the college serves all people without regard to age, gender, race, national origin, handicapping condition, religion, economic status, or social background (Wayne County Community College, 1989). Limitations Instructor Effects The researcher taught one control group and one experimental group. The second control group and second experimental group were taught by two professional tenured business instructors on the community college faculty, each of whom taught one group. Thus, certain instructor effects might have influenced the results. Nonrandom Groups Because of the nature of the scheduling procedures at Wayne County Community College, random assignment of students to course offerings was not possible. However, based on past experience, students enrolled in various sections of both courses were expected to be representative of all students taking the courses. Sample Size The sample was limited to students enrolled in two sections of Keyboarding (OIS 100) and students enrolled in two sections of Fundamentals of Typewriting (015 101) at Wayne County Community College during fall semester 1990. Generalizability of the Findings The findings of this study can be generalized only to students who were enrolled in either the Keyboarding course (018 100) or the Fundamentals of Typewriting course (015 101) during fall semester 1990 at Wayne County Community College. Generalizing the findings from ‘this study to students enrolled in other 10 keyboarding/typewriting courses at other community colleges is not suggested. Definitions of Terms To ensure an accurate interpretation of key terms used in this study, the following definitions are provided. Accuracy. Measured by the total number of errors in straight- copy timed writings (West, 1983). Achievement. How well the student learns how to keyboard, based on the score he or she receives on an achievement test consisting of four centering problems--vertical, horizontal, block, and spread. High scores indicate positive achievement results; low scores indicate less positive results. Attitude. How' students feel about a teaching method, the equipment used, the subject matter, and the textbook. Collaborative learninq. Instruction whereby students work interdependently to accomplish a mutual task or goal; also referred to as cooperative learning (Swartz, 1989). Computer-assisted instruction. Instruction whereby the student interacts with a computer. The student progresses at his or her own individual pace. The term is used interchangeably with computer— aided instruction. Electronic typewriter. A piece of electronic equipment that falls into a category between the electric typewriter and the more sophisticated text-editing machine. 11 Formatting skill. The student’s ability to arrange typed material in a specified manner on a sheet of typing paper. Gross words a minute (GWAM). Measured speed on a timed writing, calculated by dividing the total words typed by the number of minutes in the timed writing (West, 1983). Keyboarding. The act of entering information into various types of equipment through the use (H’ a typewriter-like keyboard. The focus of keyboarding is on input rather than output of data (Policies Commission for Business & Economic Education, 1984). Lockout/lockout system. A feature of the keyboarding software package, which does not allow the student to continue until he or she touches the correct key. Microcomputer. A.inachine ‘that. receives, sends, stores, and manipulates data according to a series of software instructions; used interchangeably with computer. Skill development. The activity that follows learning the alphabetic keys by touch and further develops speed and accuracy in keyboarding (Erickson, 1983). Software. A computer program that interacts with the computer and enables it to perform various functions. Spe_d. The number of standard five-stroke words of 1.5 syllabic intensity typed in a specific period of time, measured in gross words a minute (West, 1983). “Teacher-directed instruction. Instruction whereby a teacher interacts with the entire group. All students iri the class are expected to progress at the same pace and to take all major 12 examinations at the same time. The teacher is expected to cover a specific amount of material within a given period of time (West, 1983). Typewriting. An activity involving the manipulation of keys and controls of a standard typewriter keyboard in such a manner that typed copy is produced on paper (Erickson, 1983). Organization of the Dissertation Chapter I contained an introduction to the study, a statement of the problem, purposes of the study, and need for the research. The research questions and null hypotheses were presented, as were limitations of the research and definitions of important terms. Chapter II contains a review of the literature comparing computer-assisted instruction to traditional teacher-directed instruction 'hi terms of students’ keyboarding achievement, speed, and accuracy. Findings of research on students’ attitudes and on collaborative learning using either microcomputers or typewriters also are presented. The methodology used in conducting the study is described in Chapter III. Included is a discussion of the research design, the population and sample, ‘treatment. protocol, instrumentation, data- gathering methods, and procedures used in analyzing the data. The results of the data analyses are presented in Chapter IV. Chapter V contains a summary of the study, conclusions drawn from the major findings, recommendations for future research, and reflections. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE A review of the literature was undertaken to provide background for this study. This chapter includes a discussion of articles and reports of research pertinent to (a) keyboarding, (b) the use of microcomputers in classrooms, (c) research on speed and accuracy in keyboarding, (d) computer-assisted instruction versus teacher— directed instruction, (e) students’ attitudes toward computer- assisted and teacher-directed instruction, and (f) cooperative learning. The vast majority of the research on these topics was conducted at the high school and post—high-school levels, although a few studies were concerned with pre-high-schoolers. Introduction to Keyboardinq Nearly a decade ago, the United States Department of Education and the National Science Foundation emphasized that American students were rapidly falling behind their Russian, Japanese, and German counterparts in both science and math achievement (Stainbrook, I984). Stainbrook commented that, according to a 1979 report by the Carnegie Council, "One-third of America’s young pebple have' been ill-prepared, lacking in employable skills to become productive members of modern society" (p. 325). Naisbitt (1982) 13 14 alluded to the types of skills people will need ix: be employed in the 19905 and beyond. He indicated that, although Americans may think they are still living in an industrial society, the economy has in reality become one based on the creation and distribution of information. Keyboarding is an essential skill in this dissemina- tion of information. The United States Department of Labor emphasized that, by the year 2000, more than 65% of the American work force will be using some type of keyboard to distribute information (New York Times, 1981). In fact, in The Third Wave, Toffler (1980) suggested that the day will come when advertisements for high-level positions in management will carry a new requisite: "typing required." Thus, keyboarding has acquired new importance and will continue to attract students from all academic majors. Goodrich (1979) stated: Gone are the days when the typewriting course was designed primarily to prepare women for secretarial jobs. Today’s keyboarding course must prepare men and women for their careers, any one of which may have a typewriter-like keyboard in it. The growing use of keyboards in business, industry, government and education has made them the tools for many future careers. (p. 15) Because keyboarding skills can be developed on microcomputers as well as on typewriters, educators themselves first need to understand how to use microcomputers effectively, to prepare their students to succeed in a rapidly changing job market. Erickson (1983) claimed that "if we do not learn to use and apply newly available electronic tools in a relatively short period of time, we risk obsolescence" (p. 5). As nficrocomputers come in) be used in developing keyboarding skills, business educators will face a number 15 of challenges, including revising the present curriculum, developing a new curriculum, and designing strategies for teaching students to use microcomputers. Confronted with these challenges, educators need to consider their mode of instruction and the attitudes of their students toward the mode of instruction, as well as students’ interactions with each other as they learn keyboarding skills. The Use of Microcomputers in Classrooms The use of microcomputers in classrooms continues to grow at a phenomenal rate. According to the Becker Report, in 1983 more than 53% of all schools in the United States had at least one microcomputer for use in instructing students. Lambrecht (1984) and Swanson (1986) emphasized that course objectives should be determined before deciding what equipment to purchase. Unfortunately, in many cases this does not occur, particularly in business education departments, whose use of' microcomputers has increased rapidly. Harmon (1986) reported that microcomputers are more applicable to business education than to other areas of secondary education because students can view the microcomputer as a medium of instruction. Traditional typewriting/keyboarding classes have become increasingly popular as the need for keyboarding skills has become more prevalent. McLean (1987) confirmed the popularity of keyboarding by stating: 16 Almost everywhere we look today we find microcomputers--in the classroom, the playroom, the workroom. Certainly the schools have discovered the technology in a nmjor way; microcomputers are also widely evident 'hi offices, stores, factories, warehouses, at sporting events, on television, in the comic strips, in romance novels, and in our homes. With this explosive growth, a new "basic" has been added to the curricu- lum that all students need to learn--the ability to keyboard. (9. 10) Much research has been done concerning the effects of computer— assisted instruction (Hi students’ academic achievement” Larrea- Peterson (1986) examined such effects on reading and math achievement, Chin (1986) on achievement in chemistry, Morgan (1987) in biology, Dyarmett (1987) in accounting, and Morris (1987) in spelling with learning-disabled students. In comparison to other courses, keyboarding has been the subject of just a few studies. Those studies on keyboarding generally have focused on developing such skills on microcomputers and/or typewriters, or they have compared the traditional teacher- directed method, using typewriters, with the computer-assisted method, using microcomputers (Anderson, 1984; D’Souze, 1983; Lindsay, 1982; Perrault, 1984; Schulz, 1985; Sharron, 1985; Sormunen, 1987). In the early 19705, a few researchers examined the teaching of keyboarding skills with electronic devices other than microcomputers; these devices included an electronic wallchart (Wally, 1974) an audio-visual tutorial (Anderson, 1976), and a simulator (Shaffer, 1977). These early studies provided business teachers with information that was useful in developing curricula to teach keyboarding skills on the typewriter and the microcomputer—- 17 with or without the use of computer-assisted instruction. Such research also made teachers aware of some of the differences between using the typewriter and the microcomputer, especially in developing speed and accuracy in keyboarding. Research on Speed and Accuracy in Keyboardinq Numerous studies have been conducted on speed and accuracy using the typewriter (Clever, 1980; Russon & Wanous, 1973; Walthall, 1986; West, 1969). However, due to the increased use of microcomputers, researchers have begun to compare the effects of using a typewriter' to the effects of using a Inicrocomputer in developing students’ speed and accuracy in keyboarding. In one such study, Davidson (1988) compared the effects of using a microcomputer versus an electric typewriter in teaching a beginning keyboarding class at the secondary school level. Her subjects were 112 students in four keyboarding classes. The typewriter/microcomputer group was composed of two classes that were taught on electric typewriters for the first two weeks and then switched to microcomputers for the remaining six weeks. The microcomputer/typewriter group was composed of the other two classes, which were taught on microcomputers for the first two weeks and then switched to electric typewriters for the remaining six weeks. Students who transferred from the electric typewriter to the microcomputer showed little change in completion time and produced fewer errors on timed writings. In contrast, students who transferred from the microcomputer to the typewriter showed an 18 increase in both completion time and typographical errors. Finally, on straight-copy timed writings, there were no speed differences between groups, but students using the microcomputer made fewer errors. Conclusions from the study showed that the performance of students working on microcomputers was superior to that of students working on electric typewriters in terms of completion time and accuracy. Frederickson (1988) analyzed the relationship between a student’s touch-typing skills and the availability of a computer at home. Of the 84 students who enrolled irila beginning typewriting class, 39 had computers at home. In the study, all students were taught keyboarding on electronic typewriters. After eight weeks of instruction, no significant differences in speed and accuracy scores were found. However, at the conclusion of the study (18 weeks), significant differences were found between the two groups. Students who had computers at home achieved higher scores on speed and accuracy than those who did not have computers at home. Richerson (1988) sought to determine whether there was a difference in students’ production/formatting skill rate and accuracy, based on the type of equipment they used. The sample consisted of 60 students who were enrolled in an intermediate typing class and an office production class at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Using a matched-pairs approach, 30 students Were assigned to work on microcomputers, and 30 were assigned to work on electronic typewriters. The study lasted eight weeks. Final 19 evaluation was done with an instrument designed to measure production/formatting speed and accuracy. The Wilcoxon Signed-Range Test was the statistical procedure used in analyzing the data. The findings indicated that the microcomputer and the electronic typewriter were equally effective when used to develop students’ speed and accuracy in production/formatting skills. Glades (1986) examined the speed and accuracy scores of students using microcomputers to determine the effects of computer use on keyboarding techniques and skills. Five experienced teachers were involved in the research; they taught seven sections of keyboarding. Three study groups were formed, based on their keyboarding experience. Group 1 consisted of those students who had had no experience at the keyboard. Students in Group 2 had had no keyboarding experience but had completed a hands-on computer course. Group 3 consisted of those students who had completed at least one semester of keyboarding before taking the present class. In total, 103 students participated in the study; all were taught keyboarding skills on microcomputers in the same manner. Final testing covered keyboarding techniques, as well as speed and accuracy on two three- minute timed writings. Glades (1986) used one-way analysis of variance and the Tukey Multiple-Range Test to determine whether differences existed among the three groups with regard to speed and accuracy. He found statistically significant differences among the three groups in keyboarding speed. Students with previous keyboarding experience had higher speeds than students. with no keyboarding experience. 20 However, no significant differences were found among the three groups with regard to accuracy. Only two studies were located that investigated students’ speed and accuracy on microcomputers, as well as students’ attitudes. One of these studies was designed by Williams (1990). Seventy seventh- grade students were divided into two groups; both groups keyed for 22 days on either a microcomputer or an electronic typewriter. At the end of 22 days, the students switched from computer to typewriter or vice versa. An attitude questionnaire was administered during the first session (Hi'the nine—week course and again during the last session. The data revealed that significant differences did occur between the two groups in terms of speed and accuracy; the computer group achieved greater speed and made fewer errors than the typewriter group. Also, both boys and girls indicated it preference for using computers as compared to typewriters; they also reported having less anxiety when using computers. Boys indicated that computer skills were more necessary for boys than for girls, whereas girls said that both boys and girls needed computer skills. In a similar study, Liberatore (1986) explored the relationship of’ students’ entry-level keyboarding skills to their input-speed scores, correcting/editing scores, and attitudes toward computers following a unit of instruction. Based on the study findings, Liberatore concluded that: 21 1. Students’ grade point averages had a greater influence on the students’ editing ability than did their keyboarding skill. 2. Students’ level of performance while inputting data was directly related to their keyboarding ability. 3. Students’ attitudes toward computers did not significantly change following the unit of instruction on word processing. The purpose of Sharron’s (1985) research was to analyze the systematic development and formative evaluation of a research-based model program for teaching alphabetic keyboarding skills on a microcomputer. The sample consisted of 66 community college students who were nontypists. Sharron developed her own microcomputer instructional program based on teaching strategies and psychological concepts that were considered appropriate during the early stages ITF teaching typing. She concluded that the microcomputer was an effective medium for teaching initial keyboarding skills and recommended that teachers of' typewriting/ keyboarding should consider microcomputer instruction as a teaching method. Using a sample of 103 students in grades three through six, Sormunen (1987) analyzed the relationship between students’ keyboarding speed and the number of instructional hours they had on a microcomputer. Instruction was provided through a tutorial that used a traditional, research-based approach for teaching keyboarding on the-microcomputer. Results from the study indicated there was no significant relationship between students’ posttest keyboarding 22 speed and the number of instructional hours they had had on a computer. Despite the growing popularity of teaching keyboarding on microcomputers, Robinson (1982) commented that the approach does have its limitations. Computer—assisted instruction cannot replace a well-prepared, interesting, and interested teacher (p. 228). Campbell and Campbell (1982) concurred with Robinson, adding that microcomputers should not be placed in business education classrooms merely to keep up with "trends" or because some administrator has decided they should be there. Yet, in assessing the attitudes of teachers toward using microcomputers in teaching keyboarding, Gladdis (1988) found that teachers preferred using the microcomputer over the typewriter when cost constraints did not exist. Computer-Assisted Instruction D’Souze (1983) defined computer-assisted instruction as "a method whereby the student is on-line to a microcomputer by means of a device such as an electronic keyboard" (p. 10). She stated that, through this mode of instruction, information is presented to the student, who then responds In) and processes the information. In addition, D’Souze reported that computer-assisted instruction allows the student to become the direct recipient of the information presented by the microcomputer. In their studies, Lindsay (1982), Perreault (1988), D’Souze (I983), Culwell (1985), Schuls (1985), and Bartha (1988) found that computer-assisted instruction was one possible solution to many problems confronting business educators in 23 developing and presenting a keyboarding course that can meet the individual needs of students who want to develop basic keyboarding skills. Perceptions of Computer- Assisted Instruction D’Souze (1983) strongly advocated using computer-assisted instruction to teach keyboarding skills because: It addresses the individual differences in learning rate, motivation and learning style in basic keyboarding skill instruction by pacing students at goal rates, informing them line-by-line of their performance rate. Microcomputer assistance instruction attempts In) improve the quality of instruction by providing individualization. Four important features of [computer-assisted instruction] in learning basic keyboarding skills are (a) immediate feedback, (b) lack of embarrassment, (c) lack of subjective evaluation, and (d) flexibility of scheduling. (p. 10) Dalgaard and Lewis (1985) assessed the status of computer- assisted instruction to provide useful information on this approach for business educators. They made the following observations about the effectiveness of computer—assisted instruction, based on their review of general educational research literature: 1. Computer-assisted instruction can be effective in improving students’ achievement. 2. Such instruction can reduce students’ average training time. 3. Students’ attitudes toward the subjects and their ratings of quality of instruction tend to be more favorable with computer- assisted instruction. 24 4. Students tend to have positive attitudes toward using computers. 5. Use of computer-assisted instruction enhances computer literacy. 6. Computer-assisted instruction may increase labor produc- tivity. In contrast in) the aforementioned assertions regarding computer-assisted instruction, Robinson (1982) stressed that, although he found 1K) significant. differences in the keyboarding skills of students taught using computer-assisted instruction and those instructed with the traditional teacher-directed method, "the microcomputer cannot hear; therefore, it cannot answer the student’s call for help" (p. 228). Thus, he asserted that using a combination of the two methods will result in better keyboarding skills. Conversely, Sunkel and Cooper (1982) favored teaching keyboard- ing solely with microcomputers. They stated that students using microcomputers would spend more time than usual on the equipment and not complain about the amount of time used for practicing; as a result, they would develop better keyboarding skills. Schmidt and Stewart (1983) recommended that, in) achieve effective instruction iri a computer-assisted keyboarding course, instructors should employ the following teaching and classroom— management procedures. These suggestions were based on Schmidt and Stewart’s research findings regarding the effect of microcomputers on business education typewriting courses. 25 1. Select effective and appropriate software. 2. Familiarize students with operating the equipment and using the software. 3. Provide students with continuous reinforcement. 4. Monitor students’ progress. 5. Help students establish appropriate goals. 6. Provide a variety of instructional activities. Atkinson (1984) conducted a study on computer-assisted instruction and concluded that, during the last 20 years, computers have come to be~used in classrooms in many different ways. She further stated that computer-assisted instruction is used in two basic ways: (a) to present supplementary material and (b) to substitute for other modes of instruction. Based on her extensive review of the literature, Atkinson concluded that computer-assisted instruction has been found to be effective in the following areas: 1. Student Achievement: This was the most commonly studied variable. Vinsonhaler and Bass (1972); Chambers and Sprecher (1980); and Kearsley, Hunter and Seidel (1983) concluded that computer-assisted instruction made instruc- tion both more effective and efficient. 2. Learning Time. In a "eta-analysis at the college level, Kulik et al. (1980) found that computer-assisted instruc— tion took less time than traditional instruction. 3. Student Attitudes. Chambers and Sprecher (1980), McDougall (1975), and Kulik et al. (1980) reported that computer- assisted instruction improved students’ attitudes toward computers in the learning situation. 4. Low-Ability Students. The findings iW1m1 studies by Chambers and Sprecher (1980); Kulik et al. (1980); Hallworth and Brebner (1980); and Jamison, Suppes, and Wells (1974) indicated that computer-assisted instruction can be used successfully to improve the achievement of disadvantaged students at both the secondary school and college levels. 26 Although considerable research has supported the overall effectiveness of computer—assisted instruction as a teaching method, few studies have been undertaken to determine the effectiveness of the computer software for particular subject matter areas. Gray (1987) stressed that there has been an increasing focus on computer— assisted instruction in educational environments. However, most research efforts have centered on evaluating the effect of computer- assisted instruction on student achievement in particular subjects, but little research has been done on software packages designed for specific courses of study. Patterson and Bloch (1987) found that little is done with regard to the formative evaluation of software packages used in computer-assisted instruction. They warned that such evaluation is highly important because much money is wasted each year on purchas- ing software that proves to be inappropriate or ineffective. "To prevent these negative effects and improve the educational products produced, CAI developers or design teams should engage largely in formative evaluation of courseware as part of the instructional development process" (p. 26). Research on Computer-Assisted Instruction Versus Teacher-Directed Instruction The findings from research comparing computer—assisted instruction with traditional teacher-directed instruction, like those of studies comparing the use of typewriters and microcomputers in teaching keyboarding skills, have not been conclusive with regard to whether one method or type of equipment is superior to the other. 27 Whereas no significant differences were found in four studies reviewed for the present research, in two similar studies differences were discovered when comparing the two modes of instruction. In her study, D’Souze (1983) was interested in determining (a) whether the computer-assisted and traditional teacher-directed modes of instruction had different effects on student achievement, (b) whether there was a difference in mean instruction time between the two modes of instruction, and (c) whether attitudes toward keyboarding differed significantly between the two groups. At the end of the study, all students were tested for their achievement in keyboarding speed and accuracy. Findings from D’Souze’s study indicated that computer—assisted instruction was as effective as teacher—directed instruction and that the role of the teacher changed somewhat when computer-assisted instruction was employed. A questionnaire relative to students’ attitudes and interests with regard to the course was administered at the end of the study. On this questionnaire, students expressed positive attitudes toward using the microcomputer as a teaching aid iri developing their keyboarding skills. In addition, a t-test analysis indicated there were no significant differences between the two groups relative to their attitudes toward the keyboarding course. Finally, results of the t-tests comparing the two groups’ mean speed and accuracy on straight-copy, two-minute timed writings 28 indicated no significant difference in keyboarding achievement at the .05 level of significance. Lindsay (1982) compared the effectiveness of teaching typewriting skills on electric typewriters versus microcomputers. During it four-week period, 105 students were taught basic typewriting skills. The 32 students in the control group were taught these skills on electric typewriters; the 73 students in the experimental group were taught typewriting skills on Commodore computers, using a software package designed for that purpose. After being taught the alphabetic keys, both groups started a skill- building prograni to develop speed and accuracy. Findings from Lindsay’s study suggested that the microcomputer was (a) as effective as the electric typewriter in increasing students’ speed and accuracy when age and class attendance were controlled and (b) not as effective as the electric typewriter in increasing accuracy for males and females. Using a sample of eight students enrolled in a keyboarding class at State Fair Community College in Sedalia, Missouri, Schuls (1985) compared computer-assisted keyboarding instruction to teacher-directed keyboarding instruction. The researcher’s objectives were to identify the better instructional method and to produce instructor-assisted, individualized-instruction keyboarding materials for use with microcomputer keyboards. Schuls wanted to compare the success of students who received keyboarding instruction from microcomputers with the success of students who received such instruction from computers but also received individualized 29 attention, motivation, and instruction from a teacher. Half of the students 'hi the study' received feedback from the instructor at specified intervals; the other half did not have this interaction with the instructor. Students evaluated these procedures at the end of' the study; 'The conclusions indicated that students favored instruction with the instructor but also believed that computer- assisted instruction was a valuable tool and should be used in conjunction with an instructor. Thus, according to Schuls, the best method for teaching keyboarding skills is a combination of computer- assisted and teacher-directed instruction. In another study, Bartha (1988) involved students at the University of North Dakota in a study comparing teacher—directed instruction to computer-assisted instruction iri keyboarding. Results from 'this study indicated no significant differences in speed and accuracy between students taught with these two modes of instruction. Culwell (1985) undertook a comparative study of nficrocomputer and typewriter keyboarding skills to determine whether significant differences existed between microcomputer and typewriter keyboarding skills taught with computer-assisted and traditional teacher- directed methods, respectively. The study involved 29 students who were enrolled in a beginning typewriting class at the University of Arkansas. The experimental group received six weeks of keyboarding instruction on microcomputers, whereas the control group received keyboarding instruction on electric typewriters. Culwell 30 administered an attitude questionnaire to 'the students one week after the study. To determine whether statistically significant differences existed between the two methods of instruction, Culwell used the t-test for independent samples to analyze the speed, accuracy, and proofreading scores (Hi both groups. In addition, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to determine various relationships. Culwell found no significant differences between the two groups with regard to speed, accuracy, technique, proofreading, or attitude. However, significant relationships were found between speed and technique, speed and gender, speed and grade point average, technique and proofreading, technique and gender, and attitude and gender for the experimental group. For the control group, Culwell found that significant relationships existed between speed and technique, speed and gender, and technique and proofreading. For both groups, significant differences were found in the relationship between speed and technique, speed and attitude, speed and gender, speed and grade point average, and accuracy and gender. The analyses also indicated that gender and technique were significant predictors of speed. No significant predictors were found for accuracy. In a study by Perreault (1984), students’ achievement in keyboarding was measured with regard to technique, straight—copy speed, and straight-copy errors. The sample consisted of 67 students yum) were taught keyboarding using the computer-assisted method or the teacher-directed method of instruCtion. Analysis of 31 variance and the student’s t-test were the statistical techniques used to test the hypotheses at the .05 level of significance. The data analyses showed that there was a significant difference in overall achievement and in technique achievement between students taught with the computer-assisted method and those taught with the teacher-directed method. There was no significant difference in achievement in straight-copy speed or error scores. However, the computer-assisted group did make high average speed gains and made fewer errors per timed writing than the teacher-directed group. Attitudes Toward Computer-Assisted Instruction Garhart and Hannafin (1986) stated that individuals process information in different ways. The strategies preferred by one learner are likely to differ from those preferred by another individual. A number of researchers have established the overall effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction (Atkinson, 1984; Boettcher, Alerson, & Sauccucci, 1981; Gillingham, 1988). Relatively few researchers have investigated the reflationship between students’ ability and their motivation to learn. Even less research has been reported concerning the effect that presenting information in alternative styles in computerized tutorials has on learning (MacLachian, 1986). According to social psychologists, attitudes have three components: affective, cognitive, and conative or behavioral. These three components promote the supposition that the chief effect of an attitude should be on behavior toward the object of that 32 attitude (Greenwald, Pratkanis, & Breckler, 1989). Therefore, how well a student likes the subject or equipment could affect how much he or she will learn, which in turn could affect his or her behavior. A number of investigators have explored the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction and its influence on the learning process. The vast majority of these studies were done in non- business-education courses and concerned either students’ achievement or 'their attitudes toward computers after using the computer-assisted method. The attitudes of students toward computer-assisted instruction have been the focus for many researchers. According to Kern and Matta (1988), the effect of learner control on the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction is influenced by individual traits of the learner. A student’s personality may also have an influence on his or her ability to apply self-paced instruction. Students who exhibit a preference for alternative means of receiving and processing information may differ in their learning performance when applying various educational media. As Snow (cited in Kern & Matta, 1980) stated: "Individual characteristics not under the control of the students will determine, to a significant extent, what and how much that individual will learn in it given instructional setting" (p. 104). Kern and Matta further pointed out that identifying Such patterns of receiving information would be helpful to educators who design or use computer-assisted instruction. Educators would then 33 have a better understanding of specific students’ abilities to apply instructional packages. Kern and Matta’s study involved 90 students who were enrolled in an introductory computer class in a college of business. Using demographic information and data inwmi the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, a personality instrument, the researchers examined the influence of personality type on the performance of students taught using computer-assisted instruction. According to the developers of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, human behavior can in; categorized into four areas: (a) extroversion versus introversion, (b) sensing versus intuition, (c) thinking versus feeling, and (d) judging versus perceiving. The results from Kern and Matta’s study suggested that identifiable aspects of personality could be used to differentiate students’ effectiveness when using computer-assisted instruction. The findings also showed that "sensing-thinking" students performed slightly better than "intuitive-feeling" students. Hence, Kern and Matta concluded that personality can contribute to students’ relative success in employing computer- assisted instruction. A similar study to that of Kern and Matta was undertaken by Howard (1987). The researcher’s purpose was to examine the effect of personality characteristics, as measured by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and attitude, upon learning by computer-assisted instruction. The sample consisted of 79 upper-division students who were majoring in teacher education. Pretests and posttests on metric measurements were administered. The study findings indicated 34 that, at the end of the six-week study period, students could follow computer-assisted instruction and there was no significant difference among students in the four personality classifications with regard to retention. Several researchers found no .significant difference in students’ attitudes toward computer-assisted instruction as compared to 'teacher-directed instruction (e.g., Agneberg, 1986, in record management; Labonty, 1988, iii accounting, Leitman, 1987, ““1 math; Tobin, 1987, in vocabulary development; VanScoder, 1986, in health). On the other hand, some researchers did find significant differences in students’ attitudes toward the two methods of instruction (e.g., Darling, 1987, in math; Drzewiecki, 1987, in developing study skills in low achievers; Reed, 1987, in biology). Using the Computer Appreciator-Critic Scale developed by Mathews and Wolfe (1983), Verducci (1986) measured 119 graduate subjects’ attitudes toward microcomputers. He found that microcom- puter users’ attitudes toward computers improved as a result of their computer training. Carpenter (1990) examined tine relationship between students’ learning styles and their attitudes toward computer-assisted instruction. Specifically, he sought to determine whether students’ learning styles, as measured by an instrument developed by Kolb (1976), affected their attitudes toward computer-assiSted instruction and whether, after students experienced such instruction, their learning styles and/or attitudes toward that 35 instructional method changed. The sample consisted of 63 students enrolled in three different nursing programs at a medium-sized university. Carpenter discovered that the students’ typing ability appeared to be related to their attitudes toward computer-assisted instruction. Individuals who could type had a significantly more positive attitude toward computer-assisted instruction than those who could not type. Another important finding was that students’ learning style did change over time. Sixty percent of the partici- pants changed their learning style during the research. Limited research was found on the effect of computer-assisted instruction on the attitudes and learning of business-education subjects. However, the studies that were conducted on this topic indicated either positive changes or no significant differences in attitudes when computer-assisted instruction was used (Culwell, 1985; D’Souze, 1983; Schuls, 1985). One study in which a positive change took place in students’ attitudes was reported by Seals (1988). In 1986, typewriters were replaced with microcomputers at Illinois Valley High School, and a word-processing software package for teaching keyboarding was installed through a networked system. At the end of the first year, students showed considerable enthusiasm and increased motivation for typing. In a study comparing students’ achievement and attitudes, Greenland and Bartholome (1987) found that students’ attitudes toward writing were not affected by using a nficrocomputer. hi a similar study' conducted in! Oleny (1987), the experimental group 36 composed their assignments at a computer, whereas the control group composed at a ‘typewriter. 'The findings indicated that using a microcomputer had a positive effect on students’ attitudes toward writing assignments in business education. Orr (1990) compared two methods of teaching students to operate word-processing equipment, in order to determine whether achievement and attitude would be affected by the method. The two methods used were the traditional approach of following step-by-step printed instructions and a computer-assisted tutorial approach. To measure attitudes, Orr used the Scale to Measure Attitude Toward Any School Subject, developed by Remmers (1960). From the study findings, she concluded that (a) the method of learning equipment operation did not. affect. students’ attitudes toward the course, and (b) using computer-assisted instruction did not significantly affect students’ attitudes toward computers. Crawford (1985) focused on the effectiveness of computer- assisted instructicni as compared to “teacher-directed instruction. The effect of students’ attitudes toward computer—assisted instruction on their achievement in a selected unit in business mathematics also was investigated. The sample consisted of 57 freshman college students who were enrolled in two sections of business mathematics. The findings indicated that the computer- assisted instruction group had a positive attitude toward computers even‘though they did not view computer-assisted instruction as a better educational tool than teacher-directed instruction. In 37 addition, no correlation was found between students’ attitudes toward computer-assisted instruction and their achievement iri the class. Skinner’s (1988) study at The Ohio State University included 36 undergraduates who were enrolled in a behavioral management course. The purpose was to determine the students’ attitudes toward working with a personalized system of computer-assisted instruction. The participants were divided into two groups and were exposed to three instructional conditions during the course. A computer-assisted instruction tutorial was used for five units (CAI-GUIDED), a combination of textbook and computer-assisted instruction (TEXT-CAI- GUIDED) was used for two units, and textual materials alone were used for the last two units (TEXT-ONLY). Skinner developed two survey forms to evaluate students’ attitudes toward computer- assisted instruction: a short form specifically for the five CAI- GUIDED units and a long form to evaluate the course at the end of the study, regardless of the type of instruction. From the findings, Skinner concluded that students overwhelmingly had positive perceptions aunt attitudes toward computer-assisted instruction. According to the literature reviewed for this study, researchers analyzing students’ attitudes toward computers have agreed that learners have more positive attitudes toward computers after using them. However, researchers have found that students have expressed mixed reactions when comparing computer-assisted instruction to teacher-directed instruction. Garhart and Hannafin 38 (1986)_remarked that the popularity of learner-controlled, computer- assisted instruction accentuates the importance of further cognitive-monitoring research. 'The future success of computerized instruction will depend on business educators’ ability to use this approach creatively' and ‘rationally. If’ microcomputers are used properly and innovatively, they could revolutionize the entire learning process (Staudacher, 1983). Cooperative Learning During the past two decades, researchers have investigated whether cooperative learning is a viable method to use in improving students’ achievement, attitudes, and interpersonal and intergroup skills (Glassman, 1990; Morgan, 1988; Nederhood, 1987; Saxe, 1987; Scott, 1985; Valentino, 1989). However, very little research has been done to discover the outcome of cooperative learning and computer-assisted instruction. In reviewing the literature, only one recent study was found comparing cooperative learning in computer-assisted instruction to teacher-directed instruction in developing keyboarding skills. Carney (1989) examined the effect of cooperative learning on students’ acquisition of keyboarding skills. He also investigated the effects of academic aptitude, gender, and software/hardware configuration on the development of keyboarding proficiency. , In addition, the researcher' explored the extent. to which students’ attitudes toward their peers changed as a result of working in a cooperative learning environment. The study sample comprised 119 39 fourth_ graders at two public elementary schools. The results indicated no significant effect of cooperative learning and no significant difference in students’ attitudes toward (nu: another, depending on whether or not they worked in a cooperative learning environment. Two studies in curriculum and instruction were reviewed to assess the effectiveness of cooperative learning in computer— assisted instruction and teacher-directed instruction. Carrier and Sales (1987) described the relative effects on achievement of pairing students to learn new concepts using computer-assisted instruction versus having them work individually. The participants in the study were 36 undergraduates enrolled in a teacher- preparation program. Students worked (Hi the lessons either individually or in pairs. The findings indicated that individual achievement was not directly related to learning with a partner. In the second study' on curriculum and instruction, Tanamai (1990) investigated the comparative effects of cooperative and individualistic use of computer-assisted instruction on achievement. He also explored the subjects’ affective responses to the two different applications of computer-assisted instruction. Using a matched-pairs approach, the researcher randomly assigned students to the computer-assisted cooperative learning group (n: the computer- assisted individualistic learning group. Sixty-two subjects par- ticipated in the three-week study. The findings revealed that, on both the pretest and the posttest, the two groups had similar 40 attitudes toward computers. There was no interaction between gender or treatment and students’ attitudes toward computers. Other findings indicated that the achievement of students using computer- assisted instruction with cooperative learning did not differ significantly from that of students using computer-assisted instruction with individualistic learning. According to Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec (1988), cooperative learners who participated in their study experienced the following learning outcomes: 1. Higher achievement and increased retention. 2. Greater use of higher level reasoning strategies and increased critical-reasoning competencies. 3. Greater ability to view situations from others’ perspec- tives. 4. Higher achievement and greater intrinsic motivation. 5. More positive attitudes toward subject areas, learning, and school. 6. More positive, accepting, and supportive relationships with peers regardless of ethnic, gender, ability, and social-class dif- ferences or handicapping conditions. 7. More positive attitudes toward teachers, principals, and other school personnel. 8. Higher self-esteem based on basic self-acceptance. _9. Greater social support. 10. More positive psychological adjustment and health. 11. Less disruptive and more on-task behavior. 41 12. Greater collaborative skills and attitudes necessary for working effectively with others. Swartz (1989) evaluated the effectiveness of cooperative learning in teaching business communication at the postsecondary level. The study sample consisted of 119 students enrolled in four sections of a business-communication class. A quasi-experimental design was used to assess the effectiveness of cooperative learning. Swartz found that certain attitudes of students who participated in cooperative learning groups were significantly different from those of students who experienced the traditional lecture-discussion method of teaching. The primary objective of a study undertaken by Willard (1986) was to examine the effects of cooperative learning and cognitive style on teaching word-processing skills to adults. One hundred thirty-two adults were paired and randomly assigned to one of six one-day workshops on Wordstar, a word-processing program. ‘The 34 subjects in the first two workshops worked alone, one person to a computer. The 50 subjects in the next two workshops were randomly assigned partners with whom they shared both a computer and a set of instructional materials. In the remaining two workshops, 48 subjects were assigned a partner based on their scores on a pretest. Results showed no significant differences between the scores of participants working in pairs and those working individually. ‘The 'findings from research on cooperative learning strongly suggested that educators should consider using this strategy when 42 teaching students lunv to use the microcomputer. Findings from studies by Johnson and Johnson (1985) and their colleagues have indicated that a cooperative environment is better than an individualistic one for learning at the microcomputer (Carrier & Sales, 1987). Researchers also have agreed that further studies on cooperative learning are needed. Summary Literature on the development of keyboarding skills using the microcomputer or the typewriter was the focus of this chapter. The primary emphasis was on studies comparing computer—assisted instruction yfith teacher-directed instruction and examining students’ attitudes toward the mode of instruction and cooperative learning. More than 65 studies were reviewed to provide the necessary background information for this study. Few studies have been done with regard to the business education curriculum at tin; post-high- school level. The majority of researchers who compared computer— assisted instruction with teacher-directed instruction examined these instructional methods in relation to such variables as speed and accuracy scores and students’ attitudes toward the mode of instruction. The data from these studies showed time two modes of instruction to be roughly equivalent in terms of these variables. With regard to speed and accuracy, whereas three researchers found significant differences between computer-assisted instruction and teacher-directed instruction, two did not, implying that both 43 methods were effective in developing students’ speed and accuracy in keyboarding. Other investigators did not compare the two methods but. did analyze students’ speed and accuracy scores, formatting skills, and/or attitudes; the results were not conclusive as to whether one mode of instruction or type of equipment was superior to the other. Few studies were found concerning students’ attitudes and their relationship to the mode of instruction used in developing keyboarding skills. The majority of these researchers examined students’ attitudes toward the computer or the subject matter. Seals (1988) did compare tflua relationship between students’ attitudes and the mode of instruction and found that students had positive attitudes toward using computers. In other studies concerning students’ attitudes, it was found that students’ personalities played an important role in their success when applying computer-assisted instruction. Researchers iri this area found that students preferred both using computer-assisted instruction and interacting with a teacher. Data from the research on computer-assisted instruction and teacher-directed instruction also indicated that students liked using a computer and thought that computer-assisted instruction was a good way to learn keyboarding skills. With few exceptions, the studies reviewed in this chapter indicated that students’ attitudes changed positively as a result of using computers, with or without computer-assisted instruction. These findings were consistent with 44 those of other studies concerning students’ attitudes toward microc6mputers (Burns, 1985; Dalgaard & Lewis, 1985; Skinner, 1988). For the most part, the findings from studies on cooperative learning indicated there was no significant difference in students’ performance, based on the mode of instruction. Only one study was found that analyzed cooperative learning and compared computer- assisted instruction to teacher—directed instruction 'hl developing keyboarding skil'ls (Carney, 1989). This study was conducted with fourth-grade students. No significant difference was found in the way these students performed or interacted with each other, depending on whether or not they worked in a cooperative learning environment. Although studies have revealed that the popularity of microcomputers is increasing, research has not shown that they are far superior to typewriters in teaching keyboarding skills and that typewriters should indeed by replaced with microcomputers. It has been found, however, that students enjoy using microcomputers rather than typewriters and that the role of the teacher does indeed change when computer-assisted instruction is employed. Limited research was found on the effect of various computer-assisted- instruction software programs in teaching keyboarding. Writers strongly suggested, however, that educators who intend to use computer-assisted instruction should explore the efiTectiveness of particular software programs in developing keyboarding skills. No study was found in which computer-assisted instruction was compared with teacher-directed instruction in developing keyboarding 45 skills, at the community college level or that examined students’ attitudes toward the mode of instruction, their attitudes toward the type of equipment used, and their interaction with one another in collaborative learning. Most of the research in business education was concerned with just one or two of these variables. The present research was intended to provide useful information on all of these topics. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY FOR THE STUDY The primary purpose of this study was to compare the keyboarding achievement, attitude, and collaborative learning of students who learned keyboarding skills on electronic typewriters, using the traditional teacher-directed method of instruction, as compared to students who learned keyboarding skills on microcomputers, using the computer-assisted method of instruction. The research procedures used in the study are discussed in this chapteru 'The research design is discussed first, followed by the research questions and hypotheses. Also described are the setting for the study, population definition and sample selection, the treatment protocol, instrumentation, and data-collection aunt data- analysis procedures. Research Design A quasi-experimental design was used in this study. The study lacked the necessary criteria for being a true experiment because subjects were not randomly assigned ix) the treatment and control groups. Campbell and Stanley (1963) commented that a quasi- experimental design is worth using when true experiments are impossible. Huxley (1981) further stated that the purpose of a 46 47 quasi-experimental design is to approximate the conditions of a true experiment in a setting that does not allow the researcher to control and/or manipulate all relevant variables. ‘The researcher must understand what compromises exist in the internal and external validity of the design and proceed within these limits. The basic design was a pretest, treatment, and posttest design using intact classes at two campuses of an urban community college. The curriculum, teaching methods, course description, and classes included in the study were consistent between the two campuses. The independent variables studied in this research were teacher-directed instruction using electronic typewriters and computer-assisted instruction using microcomputers to teach keyboarding. The dependent variables were speed, accuracy, basic skills requiring keyboarding, student attitudes, and cooperative learning. Organismic variables included subjects’ personal charac— teristics as well as their previous knowledge of keyboarding. The researcher was aware that at least two extraneous variables might have affected the outcome of the study. The major variable of concern was the amount of practice time a student put in outside of class. Another extraneous variable was the dropout rate in the classes. Research Questions The following questions were posed to guide the collectiOn of data for this study: 48 1. Does the keyboarding achievement of students who learn keyboarding skills on microcomputers, using computer-assisted instruction, differ from that of students who learn keyboarding skills (N1 electronic typewriters, using teacher-directed instruc- tion? 2. Do the attitudes of students who learn keyboarding skills using computer-assisted instruction differ from those of: students who learn keyboarding skills using teacher-directed instruction? 3. Does the collaborative learning of students who learn keyboarding skills using computer-assisted instruction differ from that of students who learn keyboarding skills using teacher—directed instruction? 4. Do the attitudes of students who have had pwevious keyboarding experience differ from those of students who have had no keyboarding experience? 5. Does the collaborative learning of students who have had previous keyboarding experience differ from that of students who have had no keyboarding experience? 6. Does the speed of students who learn keyboarding skills using electronic typewriters differ from that of students who learn keyboarding skills using microcomputers? 7. Does the accuracy of students who learn keyboarding skills using electronic typewriters differ from that of students who learn keyboarding skills using microcomputers? 49 Hypotheses The following hypotheses were tested in this study: Ho 1: There is TH) significant difference iri the keyboarding achievement of students who learn keyboarding skills on micro- computers, using computer-assisted instruction, and that of students who learn keyboarding skills on electronic typewrit- ers, using teacher-directed instruction. Ho 2: There is no significant difference in the attitudes of students who learn keyboarding skills using computer-assisted instruction and those of students who learn keyboarding skills using teacher-directed instruction. Ho 3: There is no significant difference in the collaborative learning of students who learn keyboarding skills using computer-assisted instruction and that of students who learn keyboarding skills using teacher-directed instruction. Ho 4: There is no significant difference in the attitudes of students who have had previous keyboarding experience and those of students who have had no keyboarding experience. Ho 5: There is no significant difference in the collaborative learning of students who have had previous keyboarding experi- ence and that of students who have had no keyboarding experi— ence. Ho 6: There is no significant difference in the speed of stu- dents who learn keyboarding skills using electronic typewriters and that of students who learn keyboarding skills using micro- computers. Ho 7: There is IN) significant difference iri the accuracy of students who learn keyboarding skills using eflectronic type- writers and that of students who learn keyboarding skills using microcomputers. The Settinq for the Study Wayne County Community College (WCCC) has five state—of-the-art campuses, which are located in industrial, rural, and metropolitan areas of Michigan where a major share of the state’s technical and skilled occupations are located. Because of the diversity of its service area, WCCC places strong emphasis on occupational/career 50 programs, in addition to traditional college and university transfer programs. WCCC is an accredited institution with an enrollment of more than 11,000 students (WCCC, 1989, p. I). The Office Information Systems (015) Department enrolls students who are preparing for six careers: administrative secretary, legal secretary, medical secretary, general office clerk, court and conference reporter, and information word processor. Keyboarding skills are mandatory for each of these careers. To develop keyboarding skills, students may enroll ‘hi one of two courses--Keyboarding (013 100) or Fundamentals of Typewriting (018 101). Students entering the keyboarding courses are expected to (a) develop keyboarding skills and (b) become computer literate. Students entering the typewriting course are expected to (a) develop keyboarding skills and (b) acquire other skills necessary for entry- level employment in a business office. Class size for both courses is usually 15 to 20 students who represent not only the various OIS career majors but also other career majors.) There are no prerequisite courses for enrollment in either Keyboarding or Fundamentals of Typewriting. The Population and Sample The population consisted of all students at WCCC who were enrolled in Keyboarding (OIS 100) and Fundamentals of Typewriting (015.101) during fall semester 1990. The students had met all of the requirements for admission to the community college. The average student at WCCC is an African American female, approximately 51 25 years old, who is attending school to preparing for employment or to gain additional education. The Keyboarding and Fundamentals of Typewriting classes are not required 1%”: all students. Students enrolled in these classes represented a cross-section of all students enrolled in the college as nursing, accounting, computer— data processing, and liberal arts majors. Those who take the keyboarding and typewriting classes are usually first-semester to third—semester students. The sample for this study consisted of 66 students who enrolled in either Keyboarding (015 100) or Fundamentals of Typewriting (015 101) at Wayne County Community College, Eastern and Downtown campuses, during fall semester 1990. The two classes met three hours a week for 15 weeks. Students were not randomly selected for the classes, nor were they informed of the research during the registration period. The experimental group comprised the 34 students who enrolled in Keyboarding, whereas the control group comprised the 32 students who enrolled in Fundamentals of Typewriting. The experimental group learned keyboarding skills on microcomputers, using a computer-assisted instruction software package and Lessons 1 to 25 in Greqq College Typing Series Six, a textbook published by McGraw-Hill. The control group learned keyboarding skills on IBM Wheelwriter 5 electronic typewriters, using teacher-directed instruction and the same textbook as the experimental group. For the duration of this study, students in the 52 experimental group had access to microcomputers to complete and practice their' assignments. Students in the control group had access to electronic typewriters to complete and practice their assignments. Treatment Protocol The researcher taught one keyboarding class and one typewriting class. The other keyboarding and typewriting classes were taught by two professional, tenured business teachers in the 015 Department. Students in both the experimental and control groups were responsible for completing all 25 lessons in a 12-week period. The 25 lessons were grouped into five units, each of which contained five lessons. Unit 1 (Lessons 1-5), introduced students to the home-row keys and nine other alphabetic keys. Unit 2 (Lessons 6-10) introduced students to the remainder of the alphabetic keys and most of the punctuation keys. Unit 3 (Lessons 11-15) emphasized skill development, which included horizontal, vertical, block, and spread centering. Unit 4 (Lessons 16-20) focused on the numeric keys, and Unit 5 (Lessons 21—25) contained the symbol keys. To maximize time and ensure that students would steadily progress through the material, a calendar indicating when lessons were 11) be completed was developed and distributed to the students (see Appendix A). During the first three weeks of class, the researcher and the faculty members met with their respective classes to explain Class procedures, have students complete survey forms, and administer the pretest. At the end of the first three weeks, the students were 53 able to (a) operate the microcomputer or the electronic typewriter, (b) operate the printer (experimental group), and (c) complete Lesson 1. From Week 4 through Week 12, students in the experimental group completed the remaining 24 lessons, working at their own pace. However, the researcher or faculty member was available to answer students’ questions. The control group completed their 24 lessons with the instructor at the same time as the experimental group. To identify students who had had previous keyboarding experience, a Student Survey was distributed to both groups during the first three class sessions. In addition to previous keyboarding experience, the survey was designed to gather information on students’ gender, age, educational background, and employment (see Appendix B). 7 Students in both the experimental and control groups were given a consent form, which they were to sign if they agreed to partici- pate in the study' (Appendix C). They' were assured that their participation was voluntary and that the results would in: treated with strict confidence. Pretest and Posttest A pretest and a posttest were used to measure the students’ keyboarding achievement on either the electronic typewriters or the microcomputers. The pretest was administered during the first three days of classes to give late enrollees an opportunity to take the 54 test. The posttest was administered at the end of Lesson 25. Both the pretest and the posttest consisted of two parts. Part I of the pretest and posttest contained two two-minute timed writings. One timed writing was straight copY; the other was a combination of straight copy and numbers. These timed writin95~ were used to measure students’ keyboarding speed and accuracy. The difficulty level for the timed writing was easy. Gross words a minute (GWAM) or speed scores were based on the number of words typed in the timed writing. To determine GWAM, the line score on the timed writing was divided by two (because it was a two-minute timed writing) (see Appendix D). Accuracy was determined by counting the number of errors. Although students could correct their errors during the timed writings, this was neither emphasized nor taught. Part II of the pretest and the posttest contained four skill— development problems in centering-—namely, horizontal, vertical, block, and spread. Scores were based (Hi the accuracy with which students completed each problem. Each completed problem (test item) was assigned a score of 25 points. Points were deducted from the 25 points allocated in) each problem for spacing errors, repetition errors, improper capitalization, typographical errors, centering errors, and omission of lines. Points were given fOr incomplete problems, based on the number of lines typed (Appendix E). Students had 60 minutes in which to complete the four problems. 55 Instrumentgtion The researcher developed three instruments to gather the data necessary to test Hypotheses 2, 3, 4, and 5. These were the Learner Attitude Inventory, the Cooperative Learning Inventory, and the Keyboarding Evaluation Inventory. To establish the validity of these inventories, the researcher mailed them to 25 business teachers throughout Michigan. Nineteen teachers returned the instruments with comments or suggestions. Based on this input, the instruments were modified to improve their face validity. The final version of the inventories may be found in Appendix F. Reliability was established using a group of students who were not included 'hi the study sample. They were enrolled iri a keyboarding class during the semester the instruments were developed. The students completed the instruments twice, approximately four weeks apart. Test-retest analysis was performed using the Pearson product-moment correlation procedure. The coefficient for the Learner Attitude Inventory was .67, and the Cooperative Learning Inventory had an r-value of .54. These values were sufficient to establish the reliability of the instruments for use in this study. All three instruments were administered to both the experimental group and the control group. Some wording in the instruments was modified to reflect the particular type of equipment used by each group (microcomputers or typewriters). 56 The Learner Attitude Inventory The Learner Attitude Inventory contained ten items developed to ascertain (a) students’ attitudes toward the class, (b) the problems students encountered while learning keyboarding, and (c) students’ attitudes toward using the computer (H‘ the electronic typewriter. The students’ attitudes toward their: method of instruction (computer-assisted instruction or teacher-directed instruction) also were measured with this inventory. Students responded to most statements on the inventory using a Likert-type scale ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. Two open-ended questions allowed students to write in their own comments on parts of lessons that were unclear and their attitudes about doing the keyboarding lessons. The ‘researcher CH“ business instructor' administered ‘the instrument at the end of every fifth lesson. The Cooperative Learninqunventory The Cooperative Learning Inventory contained six statements; students responded to each statement by checking one of three answers: Never, Frequently, or Sometimes. This instrument was a modification of one developed by Swartz (1989). It was intended to compare the cooperative learning of students in the computer- assisted instruction (experimental) group and those in the teacher- directed instruction (control) group. Students also completed this instrument at the end of every fifth lesson. 57 The Keyboardinq Evaluation Inventory The Keyboarding Evaluation Inventory was a six-item, yes-no instrument in which students evaluated various aspects of the keyboarding class. The inventory also was intended to discover students’ attitudes toward the computer-assisted and the teacher- directed methods of instruction and cooperative learning. Students completed this instrument at the end of Lesson 25. Data-Collection Procedures During the first three class meetings of both the experimental and control groups, the initial data were collected by administering the Student Survey and the pretest (Appendix G). At this time, students signed a consent form indicating their agreement to participate in the study. The faculty members kept the consent forms from their students; one faculty member also kept the consent forms from the researcher’s classes to prevent any bias. Each student was assigned a number, which was recorded on all survey forms, tests, and inventories administered throughout the study. The researcher or faculty member briefly explained the nature of the research and the students’ role in it. Minimal verbal instructions and assistance were given to students before they began the pretest on the microcomputer or the electronic typewriter. For example, the experimental group’s microcomputers were ready for them to begin keying the appropriate information. Students in this group were told two things: (a) that the "Enter" key on the microcomputer was the same as the return key 58 on a typewriter, and (b) that after touching the "Enter" key repeatedly they would see a line going across the screen, indicating a new page. Students in the control group were told (a) how to turn on the electronic typewriter and (b) how to insert a sheet of paper into the typewriter. Students were given an hour to take the entire pretest. The researcher or faculty member printed out the experimental group’s pretests from their microcomputers. At the end of the third class, all survey forms and pretests were given to the researcher. The pretests were then grouped and coded to indicate which were from the two experimental groups and the two control groups. The pretests were analyzed to determine students’ speed and accuracy scores, as well as their points on pre- keyboarding centering skills. The charts in Appendices D and E were used to evaluate students’ performance on both the pretest and the posttest. During the next three class sessions, students became familiar with class procedures and machine operation and had completed Lesson 1. Beginning with the seventh class, students started and completed Lessons 2 through 25 according to the class calendar. Students were told that if they wanted to work with other students at any time they could do so. This was the only time that cooperative learning was mentioned. Students were assigned two or three lessons each week. Upon completing Lessons 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, and 21e25, students filled out the Learner Attitude Inventory and the Cooperative Learning Inventory. The researcher gathered these instruments and grouped and coded them according to class section. 59 Week 13 was set aside for students to take the posttest and complete the Keyboarding Evaluation Inventory. ‘The posttest contained the same activities as the pretest. Part I consisted of two two-minute timed writings, and Part II consisted of four skill- development centering problems (horizontal, vertical, block, and spread). Students were given one hour to complete the centering problems, which allowed the slowest students enough time to complete all problems on the test. Pretests and posttests were coded as follows: nge Definition Prel and Postl Speed score on straight-copy timed writing Pre2 and Post2 Accuracy score on straight-copy timed writing Pre3 and Post3 Speed score on numeric-copy timed writing Pre4 and Post4 Accuracy score on numeric-copy timed writing Pre5 and Post5 Achievement test average on four centering problems After all of the tests had been grouped, coded, and analyzed, the results for the four groups were compared to determine whether there were significant differences between the experimental and control groups. The statistical analyses used in these comparisons are described in the following section. Data-Analysis Procedures Descriptive statistics (frequency and percentage) were used to analyze the demographic data and to compare the experimental and 60 control groups in terms of these personal characteristics. Cross— tabulations and measures of central tendency also were used. Hypothesis 1, 6, and 7 were tested using analysis of variance and covariance. Hypotheses 2, 3, 4, and 5 were tested using repeated-measures analysis of variance and analysis of covariance to determine whether there were significant differences between the experimental and control groups. A t-test was also used with two independent variables to determine whether there were significant differences between the groups based on data from the Keyboarding Evaluation Inventory. For all statistical analyses conducted in this study, the .05 alpha level was the criterion for significance. The results of the data analyses are reported in Chapter V. CHAPTER IV RESULTS OF THE STATISTICAL ANALYSES Chapter IV contains the results of the statistical analyses performed on the data collected in this study. The subjects were 66 students enrolled in the Fundamentals of Typewriting and Keyboarding classes at Wayne County Community College (WCCC) during fall semester 1990. The sample was divided into two groups. The experimental group was taught keyboarding skills with computer- assisted instruction on microcomputers. The control group was taught similar skills with teacher-directed instruction on electronic typewriters. 'The two groups were not intentionally matched on any demographic characteristics. The criterion for inclusion in the sample was enrollment in either the Fundamentals of Typewriting course or the Keyboarding course. This chapter is divided into three sections: Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents, Results of Hypothesis Testing, and Analysis of Responses to the Keyboarding Evaluation Inventory. Demographic Charagteristics of the Respondents Answers provided on ‘the Student Survey' were analyzed u5ing descriptive statistics. This self-report instrument was completed by students in the sample during the first three class meetings. 61 62 The researcher did not attempt to verify the answers because the students were told that all information would remain confidential, and thus they had no reason to answer untruthfully. The Student Survey was designed to elicit information on students’ marital status, age, gender, and previous education. Other questions pertained to the number of courses in which students were enrolled, the: number of hours they worked, their previous keyboarding experience, keyboarding speed, and reasons for taking the class. In addition, students were asked about the availability of a typewriter or a microcomputer in their homes. The current marital status of students in the sample is shown in Table 1. The majority of students (50 or 75.7%) were single. Of these 50 students, 27 (40.9%) were in the experimental group and 23 (34.8%) were in the control group. The other students were either married (12.1%) or divorced (12.2%). Table 1.--Distribution of the sample by current marital status. Experimental Control Marital Status Group Group Total Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Single 27 40.9 23 34.8 50 75.7 Married 3 4.5 5 7.6 8 12.1 Divorced 4 6.1 4 6.1 8 12.2 Total 34 51.5 32 48.5 66 100.0 63 Students were asked to indicate their ages, using one of five categories. The distribution of students by age category is displayed in Table 2. Most of the students (35 or 53.1%) were under 25. They were nearly equally represented in the experimental and control groups (18 or 27.3% and 17 or 25.8%, respectively). Two students (3%), one in each group, were 55 or older. Table 2.--Distribution of the sample by age category. Experimental Control Age Group Group Total Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Under 25 18 27.3 17 25.8 35 53.1 25 to 34 6 9.1 9 13.6 15 22.7 35 to 44 6 9.1 5 7.6 11 16.7 45 to 54 3 4.5 0 0.0 3 4.5 55 and over 1 1.5 I 1.5 2 3.0 Total 34 51.5 32 48.5 66 100.0 The distribution of the sample by gender is shown in Table 3. Fifty-five (83.3%) of the 66 participants were females; the other 11 (16.7%) were males. 64 Table 3.--Distribution of the sample by gender. EXperimental Control Gender Group Group Total Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Female 28 42.4 27 40.9 55 83.3 Male 6 9.1 5 7.6 11 16.7 Total 34 51.5 32 48.5 66 100.0 The personal characteristics of the study sample were similar to those of other students enrolled in WCCC. The sample consisted primarily of single females under 25 years of age. Males were underrepresented in the sample, but the percentage of males was proportional to the number of males who normally enroll in the Fundamentals of Typewriting and Keyboarding courses. 0n the survey form, students were asked to indicate their previous educational level. Responses to this item are shown in Table 4. The majority of participants (46 or 69.7%) had completed high school, whereas five students (7.6%) had earned a general education degree (GED). Three students (4.5%) did not respond to the question. 65 Table 4.--Distribution of the sample by educational level. Experimental Control Educational Group Group Total Level Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Post-high school 5 7.6 4 6.1 9 13.7 H.S. graduate 21 31.8 25 37.9 46 69.7 Two years H.S. 2 3.0 1 1.5 3 4.5 GED diploma 4 6.1 1 1.5 5 7.6 No response 2 3.0 1 1.5 3 4.5 Total 34 51.5 32 48.5 66 100.0 Students were asked how many classes they were taking. Their responses are summarized in Table 5. The majority of students (44 or 66.8%) were taking three or four classes. Sixteen students (24.2%) were taking two classes, and three students (4.5%) said they were enrolled in six classes. Table 5.--Distribution of the sample by number of courses in which they were enrolled. Experimental Control Number of Group Group Total Courses Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % One 2 3.0 I 1.5 3 4.5 Two 9 13.6 7 10.6 16 24.2 Three 11 16.7 12 18.2 23 34.9 Four 11 16.7 10 15.2 21 31.9 Six 1 1.5 2 3.0 3 4.5 Total 34 51.5 32 48.5 66 100.0 66 Table 6 shows the number of participants who were working in addition to attending school. The 28 (42.4%) students who were working indicated that they worked 20 to 34.6 hours a week. The average was 28.8 hours (standard deviation = 14.6). Table 6.--Distribution of the sample by employment while attending school. Experimental Control Sample Members Group Group Total Working Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Yes 12 18.2 16 24.2 28 42.4 No 22 33.3 16 24.3 38 57.6 Total‘ 34 51.5 32 48.5 66 100.0 Participants also were asked whether they had previous keyboarding experience. majority of respondents (51 or 77.3%) had previous experience. Their responses are shown in Table 7. The keyboarding 0f the 32 students in the control group, 30 (45.5% of the total sample) had previous keyboarding experience, compared to only 21 (31.8% of the total sample) of the 34 participants in the experimental group. 67 Table 7.-—Distribution of the sample by previous keyboarding experience. Experimental Control Keyboarding Group Group Total Experience Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Yes 21 31.8 30 45.5 51 77.3 No 13 19.7 2 3.0 15 22.7 Total 34 51.5 32 48.5 66 100.0 Students who had had keyboarding experience were asked where they had received their instruction. Most of the students (32 or 48.5%) reported that their previous typing instruction had been in high school. type. These data are shown in Table 8. Two students (3%) said they had taught themselves to Table 8.--Distribution of the sample by where they had received previous keyboarding instruction. Experimental Control Location Group Group Total Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Junior H.S. 2 3.0 5 7.6 7 10.6 High school 15 22.7 17 25.8 32 48.5 Business school 2 3.0 5 7.6 7 10.6 Self-taught 0 0.0 2 3.0 2 3.0 Armed services 0 0.0 1 1.5 1 _1.5 Other 2 3.0 0 0.0 2 3.0 No previous exp. 13 19.8 2 3.0 15 22.8 Total 34 51.5 32 48.5 66 100.0 68 The students who had had previous instruction in keyboarding were asked to indicate their typing speed. The responses are shown in ‘Table 9. Students who had had previous typing instruction reported typing speeds ranging from 15 to 35 words per minute. The greatest number of students (15 or 22.7%) said they did not know how fast they typed. No attempt was made at this time to test the students’ typing ability. All of the responses to this item were estimates, based on the students’ ability to remember their previous typing experience in a classroom setting. Table 9.--Distribution of the sample by estimated typing speed. Experimental Control Typing Speed Group Group Total Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % 15 words/minute 2 3.0 1 1.5 3 4.5 20 words/minute 3 4.5 4 6.1 7 10.6 25 words/minute 5 7.6 5 7.6 10 15.2 30 words/minute 1 1.5 5 7.6 6 9.1 35 words/minute 5 7.6 5 7.6 10 15.2 Don’t know 5 7.6 10 15.1 15 22.7 No typing exp. 13 19.7 2 3.0 15 22.7 Total 34 51.5 32 48.5 66 100.0 0n the Student Survey, participants also were asked why they were currently taking the Fundamentals of Typewriting or Keyboarding class. As shown in Table 10, the greatest number of students (21 or 31.9%) were taking Fundamentals of Typewriting or Keyboarding fer 69 purposes of skill development. The second and third major reasons were far employment (15 or 22.7%) and personal use (14 or 21.1%). Only 12 students (18.2%) said they needed the class as part of their program requirements. Table 10.--Distribution of the sample by reasons for enrolling in Fundamentals of Typewriting or Keyboarding. Experimental Control Reason for Group Group Total Enrolling Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Skill development 10 15.2 11 16.7 21 31.9 Employment 9 13.6 6 9.1 15 22.7 Personal use 9 13.6 5 7.5 14 21.1 Requirement 2 3.0 10 15.2 12 18.2 Other 4 6.1 0 0.0 4 6.1 Total 34 51.5 32 48.5 66 100.0 Students in both the experimental and control groups were asked whether they had ever used a microcomputer. As shown in Table 11, 48 (72.7%) of the students in the total sample had never used a. microcomputer. The number of participants who had typewriters in their homes is shown in Table 12. Thirty-six of the 66 participants (54.5%) indicated that they had typewriters in their homes. Of that number, 15 (22.7%) were in the experimental group and 21 (31.8%) were in the control group. 70 Table 11.--Distribution of the sample by previous use of a micro- computer. Experimental Control Computer Group Group Total Use Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % No 23 34.8 25 37.9 48 72.7 Yes 11 16.7 7 10.6 18 27.3 Total 34 51.5 32 48.5 66 100.0 Table 12.--Distribution of the sample by the availability of a type- writer at home. Experimental Control Availability Group Group Total of Typewriter Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Yes 15 22.7 21 31.8 36 54.5 No 19 28.8 11 16.7 30 45.5 Total 34 51.5 32 48.5 66 100.0 The final question on the Student Survey concerned whether students had a microcomputer at home. 4 (6%) had a microcomputer at home (see Table 13). Of the 66 participants, only The majority of students (62 or 94%) did not have a microcomputer at home. 71 Table 13.--Distribution of the sample by the availability of a micro- computer at home. Experimental Control Availability of Group Group Total Microcomputer Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % No 31 47.0 31 47.0 62 94.0 Yes 3 4.5 1 1.5 4 6.0 Total 34 51.5 32 48.5 66 100.0 Results of Hypothesis Testing Each of the research questions and its companion hypothesis was evaluated individually. In this section, each research question and the accompanying hypothesis are restated, followed by the results of the hypothesis testing. Null Hypothesis 1 The first research question was, "Does tin: keyboarding achievement of students who learn keyboarding skills on microcomputers, using computer-assisted instruction, differ from that of students who learn keyboarding skills on electronic typewriters, using teacher-directed instruction?" Null Hypothesis 1 was: Ho 1: There is no significant difference in the keyboarding achievement of students who learn keyboarding skills on micro- computers, using computer-assisted instruction, and that of students who learn keyboarding skills on electronic typewrit- ‘ers, using teacher-directed instruction. Analysis of variance was used to test for significant differences between the experimental group and the control group 72 with .regard to 'their keyboarding achievements Keyboarding achievement was measured by the score on Post5. That score was the dependent variable. The type of instruction--computer assisted or teacher directed--was the independent variable. Mean scores were analyzed to compare the achievement of the two groups and to compare the achievement of students who had previous typing instruction with that of students who had not had previous typing instruction. The results are shown in Tables 14 through 17. As shown in Table 14, no significant difference in achievement was found at the .05 alpha level between the experimental and control groups or between students who had and those who did not have previous keyboarding experience. Table 14.--Results of analysis of variance for keyboarding achieve- ment (Post5) by group and previous experience. Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Main effects 1585.930 2 792.965 2.340 .106 GROUP 67.049 1 67.049 .198 .658 PREV EXP 1111.011 1 1111.011 3.278 .075 2-way interaction 89.853 1 89.853 .265 .609 Residual 19316.217 57 338.881 Total 20992.000 60 349.867 73 The group means on the fifth posttest are shown in Table 15. As shown in the table, the control group (typewriters) scored higher (77.9%) on the achievement test than did the experimental group (computers) (72.3%). 0f the students who had previous keyboarding experience, those in the control group did better than their counterparts in the experimental group (79.1% versus 75.8%, respectively). However, of the students without previous keyboarding experience, those in the experimental group did better than students in the control group (66.5% versus 62.0%, respectively). Table 15.--Keyboarding achievement (Post5) of students with and without previous keyboarding experience. Total Previous No Group Means Keyboarding Exp. Keyboarding Computers 72.3 75.8 66.5 Typewriters 77.9 79.1 62.0 Grand means 75.0 77.7 65.8 Because the majority of students had previous keyboarding experience (30 students in the control group and 21 in the experimental group), an analysis of covariance was used to test for significant differences between the two groups. The achievement score on the fifth pretest (Pre5) was used as the covariate. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 16. As seen in the table, with Pre5 controlled, the F-value of 2.831 was not 74 statistically significant at the .05 alpha level. Thus, there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental group and the control group on the achievement test. Table 16.--Comparison of Post5 by group with Pre5. Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Covariates PRE5 249.614 1 249.614 2.285 .146 Main effects GROUP 309.279 1 309.279 2.831 .108 Residual 2184.020 20 109.251 Total 2743.913 22 124.723 The final test of Hypothesis 1 was an analysis of variance to test for significant differences in keyboarding achievement between the experimental and control groups. Table 17 contains the results of this analysis. The F-value of 1.366 was not significant at the .05 alpha ‘level. Hence there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental and control groups in terms of keyboarding achievement. Therefore, Null Hypothesis 1 was not rejected. 75 Table 17.--Comparison of keyboarding achievement between the experimental group and the control group. Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Main effects GROUP 474.919 1 474.919 1.366 .247 Residual 20517.08] 59 347.747 Total 20992.000 60 349.867 Null Hypothesis 2 The second research question asked, "Do the attitudes of students who learn keyboarding skills using computer-assisted instruction differ from ‘those of students. who learn keyboarding skills using teacher-directed instruction?" Null Hypothesis 2 was as follows: flg_2: There is no significant difference in the attitudes of students who learn keyboarding skills using computer-assisted instruction and those of students who learn keyboarding skills using teacher-directed instruction. Null Hypothesis 2 was tested at the .05 level of significance using repeated-measures analysis of variance. The method of instruction was the independent variable; the dependent variable was the students’ attitudes at five testing times during the course. The participants responded in) a nine-item attitudinal instru- ment, the Learner Attitude Inventory, at the end of every fifth lessen. To test this hypothesis, responses to each item were evalu- ated separately to determine whether there were differences in the 76 students’ attitudes over time. Mean scores on each item for the experimental and control groups were then graphed to determine at what testing time(s) differences might have occurred and the nature of the difference. With 'regard in) the first attitude item ("The lessons were written in a way that made them easy to understand"), the F-value of 2.54 was not significant at the .05 alpha level (see Table 18). When the mean scores were graphed over the five testing times, a significant difference was noted in the two groups’ attitudes at Time 3 (Lessons 11-15) (see Figure 1). At Time 3, the experimental disagreed significantly more strongly with Item 1 than did the control group. However, the two groups did not differ significantly with respect to Item 1 overall. Table 18.-~Results of the analysis for Attitude Item 1: "The lessons were written in a way that made them easy to understand." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within cells 87.55 60 1.46 Group 3.71 1 3.71 2'54 '116 For the second attitude item ("The instructor’s explanations helped make the lessons clearer and easier to understand"), the F-value of 25.23 was significant at the .05 alpha level (see Table 19). Thus, the two groups differed significantly in their attitudes 77 4.5 _. ...................................................... , ...................... , ............................................................................ . ................................. 3 5 .............................................................................................................................. — ....................................... 7.. ............................. 1 | l l L, 1 Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Computers Typewriters ‘I=Strongly Agree 5=Strongly Disagree Figure 1: Mean responses of experimental and control groups to Attitude Item 1: "The lessons were written in a way that made them easy to understand." 78 regarding Attitude Item 2. 'There were significant differences between groups at all five test times. The control group agreed more strongly with this item at all times than did the experimental group, as shown in Figure 2. The significant difference in attitudes toward this item might be attributed to the method of instruction. Table 19.--Results of the analysis for Attitude Item 2: "The instructor’s explanations helped make the lessons clearer and easier to understand." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within cells 114.37 60 1.91 * Group 48.09 1 48.09 25'23 '000 *p < .05. For the third attitude item ("It was not necessary to have an instructor in the classroom in order to understand the lessons"), the F-value of 6.29 was significant at the .05 alpha level (see Table 20). Thus, the two groups differed significantly iri their attitudes regarding Item 13. As shown in Figure 3, the groups differed significantly at Times 1 and 4» 'The control group disagreed significantly more strongly with the statement at those times than did the experimental group. 79 4'5 _.. ........................... , ........................ , ......................................................................................................................................... . ...... 1 l l I l i Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Computers Typewriters 1 =Strongly Agree 5=Strongiy Disagree Figure 2: Mean responses of experimental and control groups to Attitude Item 2: "The instructor’s explanations helped make the lessons clearer and easier to understand." 80 :3 5 , ...................... .. ...,...... ............................... ...,..................- ._....-................ . . ...... . ......... . ... . . - .. 1 i i 1 l . i Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Computers Typewriters 1 =Strongiy Agree 5=Strongly Disagree Figure 3: Mean responses of experimental and control groups to Attitude Item 3: "It was not necessary to have an instructor in the classroom in order to understand the lessons." 81 Table 20.--Results of the analysis for Attitude Item 3: "It was not necessary to have an instructor in the classroom in order to understand the lessons." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within cells 216.70 60 3.61 * Group 22.73 1 22.73 6'29 '015 *p < .05. With respect to the fourth attitude item ("I would have preferred to have someone explain these lessons to me"), the F-value of 4.28 was significant at the .05 alpha level, indicating that the experimental and control groups differed significantly in their attitudes toward this item (see Table 21). As illustrated in Figure 4, mean scores of the two groups differed significantly at Times 4 and 5, when the control group agreed with the statement significantly more strongly than did the experimental group. At Time 3, both groups were given instruction by their teachers on how to complete the assignments; this might explain why the groups did not differ in their responses at that testing time. 82 45 _. ............................................ . ...................................................................................... . ...................................................... I 2 __ .................................................................................... 1 .5 _ ....................... 1 I I I I I Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Computers Typewriters 1 =Strongiy Agree 5=Strongiy Disagree Figure 4: Mean responses of experimental and control groups to Attitude Item 4: "I would have preferred to have someone explain these lessons to me." 83 Table 21.--Results of the analysis for Attitude Item 4: "I would have preferred to have someone explain these lessons to me." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within cells 164.16 59 2.78 * Group 11.90 I 11.90 4'28 '043 *p < .05. On the fifth attitude item ("It was difficult for me to do the assignment because of the way the lessons were presented by the instructor"), the F-value of 2.81 was not significant at the .05 alpha level (see Table 22). The attitudes of students in the two groups did not differ significantly with respect to this item; thus, the means were not graphed. Table 22.--Results of the analysis for Attitude Item 5: "It was difficult for me to do the assignment because of the way the lessons were presented by the instructor." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within cells 99.99 60 1.67 Group 4.69 1 4.69 2'81 '099 'For the sixth attitude item ("I enjoyed doing the lessons on the typewriter/microcomputer"), the F-value of .21 was not 84 significant at the .05 alpha level (see Table 23). Participants in the two groups were in agreement with respect to this item; thus, the means were not graphed. Table 23.--Results of the analysis for Attitude Item 6: "I enjoyed doing the lessons on the typewriter/microcomputer." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within cells 62.99 57 1.11 Group .24 1 .24 '21 '646 No significant difference was found in the attitudes of students in the two groups on Attitude Item 7 ("The electronic typewriter/microcomputer is a valuable piece of equipment to learn"); thus, the means were not graphed. The F-value of 1.47 was not significant at the .05 alpha level, as shown in Table 24. Table 24.--Results of the analysis for Attitude Item 7: "The electronic typewriter/microcomputer is a valuable piece of equipment to learn." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Group 1.03 1 1:03 85 For the eighth attitude item ("It was difficult for me to manipulate the typewriter/microcomputer while doing these lessons"), the F-value of 1.91 was not significant at the .05 alpha level. This indicates that the attitudes of students 'hi the experimental and control groups did not differ significantly with respect to this item (see Table 25). Table 25.-~Results of the analysis for Attitude Item 8: "It was difficult for me to manipulate the typewriter/micro- computer while doing these lessons." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within cells 151.23 53 2.85 Group 5.45 1 5.45 1'91 '173 For the ninth attitude item ("Now that I am taking this course, I enjoy using the typewriter/microcomputer"), the F-value of .90 was not significant at the .05 alpha level. This indicates that students in the two groups did not differ significantly in their attitudes concerning this item (see Table 26). Table 26.-—Results of the analysis for Attitude Item 9: "Now that I am taking this course, I enjoy using the type- writer/microcomputer." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within CEIIS 70.04 54 1.30 .90 .348 Group 1.16 1 1.16 86 For Items 1-3, 6, 7, and 9 on the Learner Attitude Inventory, the scale values ranged from 1 = Strongly Agree to 5 = Strongly Disagree. For Items 4, 5, and 8, the order was reversed because agreement with these items had a negative connotation. Therefore, to sum the responses to all nine items in the same direction, the scoring was reversed for Questions 4, 5, and 8 (1 = 5, 2 = 4, 3 = 3, 4 = 2, and 5 = 1). That is, for these three questions, high numbers were converted to low scores, and low numbers were converted to high scores. Scores were then summed to arrive at a mean score for each of the nine items. Analysis of variance was used to determine whether a statistically significant difference existed irI the overall attitudes (yf students 'hi the experimental group and the control group. The results are shown in Table 27. The F-value of .23 was not significant at the .05 alpha level. Hence, there (was no statistically significant difference in attitudes between the experimental group and the control group. The attitudes of students in the two groups did not change over time, nor were there significant differences between students exposed IN) the two instructional modalities. Based on these results, Null Hypothesis 2 was not rejected. 87 Table 27.--Results of the analysis of variance for attitudes of students using computer-assisted instruction versus those using teacher-directed instruction. Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within cells 5.39 60 .09 Group .02 1 .02 '23 '637 Null Hypothesis 3 Research Question 3 was, "Does the collaborative learning of students who learn keyboarding skills using computer-assisted instruction differ from that of students who learn keyboarding skills using teacher-directed instruction?" The corresponding null hypothesis stated: flg_3: There is no significant difference in the collaborative learning of students who learn keyboarding skills using computer-assisted instruction and that of students who learn keyboarding skills using teacher-directed instruction. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used 1x) determine whether there were significant differences (at time .05 level) in the collaborative learning of students in the computer—assisted and teacher-directed instruction groups. Students responded to statements on the six-item Cooperative Learning Inventory, which was developed to ascertain the extent to which they engaged in collaborative learning (1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Frequently). Students completed this instrument at the end of every fifth lesson. To test the hypothesis, each item in the inventory was evaluated separately to determine whether significant differences in 88 cooperative learning existed between the two groups over time. If a significant difference was found, mean scores for the experimental and control groups on the item were graphed for each testing time to determine at what time(s) a significant difference(s) occurred and the nature of that difference(s). The mode of instruction was the independent variable; the dependent variable was the five measurements of cooperative learning. 0n Item 1 on the Cooperative Learning Inventory ("I asked other students questions about how to do the lessons"), a significant difference in cooperative learning was found between students in the experimental and control groups with regard to the frequency with which they asked other students questions about how to do the lessons. As shown in Table 28, the F-value of 6.55 was significant at the .05 alpha level. Table 28.-~Results of the analysis for Cooperative Learning Item 1: "I asked other students questions about how to do the lessons." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within cells 9.85 60 .16 * Group .08 1 1.08 6'55 '013 *p < .05. _The mean scores of the two groups were graphed to show at what testing time(s) the significant difference occurred with regard to Item 1. The results are shown in Figure 5. The greatest difference 89 was at Time 3 (Lessons 11-15), when students in the experimental group asked other students questions about how to (k) the lessons significantly more frequently than did students in the control group. For Item 2 on the Cooperative Learning Inventory ("I asked for help when I needed it"), the F-value of 11.13 was significant at the .05 alpha level (see Table 29). This indicates that students in the two groups differed significantly in the frequency with which they asked for help when they needed it. Table 29.--Results of the analysis for Cooperative Learning Item 2: "I asked for help when I needed it." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within cells 7.17 60 .12 * Group 1.08 1 1.33 11'13 '001 *p < .05. The two groups’ mean scores were graphed to show at what testing time(s) the significant difference(s) occurred (N1 Item 2. As shown in Figure 6, the differences occurred at Times 2 and 3. At those times, the experimental group worked with each other and asked for help significantly more frequently than did the control group. 90 3.5 _ ........................................................................................................................................................................................ , ............. 25 __ ................. . ................ , ................. 1 l I l l | Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Computers Typewriters 1=Never 2=Sometimes 3=Frequentiy Figure 5: Mean responses of experimental and control groups to Cooperative Learning Item 1: "I asked other students questions about how to do the lessons." 91 1.5 __ ......................... , .......... ............ ..... ..................................... , ..................................................................... 1 I l I I I Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Computers Typewriters 1=Never 2=Sometimes 3=Frequently Figure 6: Mean responses of experimental and control groups to Cooperative Learning Item 2: "I asked for help when I needed it." 92 Differences between the experimental and control groups with regard to Items 3 through 6 on the Cooperative Learning Inventory were not statistically significant at the .05 alpha level. These results are shown in Tables 30 through 33. Because no significant differences were found, the means were not graphed. Table 30.--Results of the analysis for Cooperative Learning Item 3: "I allowed other students to show me how to do the lessons." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within cells 13.15 59 .12 Group .48 1 .48 2°13 '150 Table 31.--Results of the analysis for Cooperative Learning Item 4: "I helped other students with the lessons." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within CGIIS 14.35 60 .24 .81 .372 Group .19 1 .19 93 Table 32.-—Results of the analysis for Cooperative Learning Item 5: "I made certain other students understood the lessons." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within cells 13.07 60 .22 Group .00 1 .00 '00 '953 Table 33.--Results of the analysis for Cooperative Learning Item 6: "I worked with other students in order to complete my lessons." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within groups 15.11 60 .25 Group .08 1 .08 '30 '587 To determine at what time(s), if any, significant differences occurred between the two groups in terms of overall cooperative learning, mean scores for the two groups on the six items on the Cooperative Learning Inventory were summed and graphed. As shown in Figure 7, a statistically significant difference was found between the two groups at Time 3, when the lessons consisted of a variety of centering problems. At that time, students in the experimental group engaged in cooperative learning significantly more frequently than did those in the control group. 94 2 —\/\ ................................................... 1'5 _ ....................................................................................................................................... 1 I I I I I Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Computers Typewriters 1=Never 2=Sometimes 3=Frequently Figure 7: Frequency with which students in the experimental group and the control group engaged in cooperative learning, over time. 95 Analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was a significant difference between the experimental and control groups in terms of the overall frequency with which they engaged in cooperative learning. The results are shown in Table 34. The F—value of' 3.31 was not significant at the .05 alpha level. No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of cooperative learning. Therefore, Null Hypothesis 3 was not rejected. Table 34.--Results of the analysis of overall cooperative learning between the experimental and control groups. Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within cells 6.40 60 .11 Group .35 1 .35 3'31 '074 Null Hypothesis 4 Research Question 4 asked, "Do the attitudes of students who have had previous keyboarding experience differ from those of students who have had no keyboarding experience?" The corresponding null hypothesis was as follows: Ho 4: There is no significant difference in the attitudes of students who have had previous keyboarding experience and those of students who have had no keyboarding experience. Hypothesis 4 was tested using repeated-measures analysis of variance. The independent variable was students’ previous history 96 of typing instruction; the dependent variables were students’ scores on the Learner Attitude Inventory, which they completed at five times during the semester. Responses to each item on the Learner Attitude Inventory were evaluated separately to determine whether there were differences in students’ attitudes over time and between the two groups. If a significant difference was found, the groups’ mean scores on the item were graphed to determine at which time(s) a difference(s) occurred and the nature of the difference(s). The data in Table 35 show that students with previous keyboarding experience and those without previous keyboarding experience did not differ significantly in their attitudes toward Item 1 in the Student Attitude Inventory ("The lessons were written in a way that made them easy to understand"). The F-value of 2.50 was not significant at the .05 alpha level. Table 35.--Results of the analysis of previous keyboarding experi- ence and Attitude Item 1: "The lessons were written in a way that made them easy to understand." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within cells 16.16 58 .28 Group 2.09 3 .70 2'50 '068 On Attitude Item 2 ("An instructor’s explanations would have helped make the lessons clearer and easier to understand"), a significant difference was found between students who had previous 97 keyboarding experience and those who did not. The F-value of 9.36 was significant at the .05 alpha level (see Table 36). Mean scores for Item 2 were graphed to determine at what testing time(s) the difference(s) occurred and the nature of the difference(s). As shown in Figure 8, the groups differed significantly at Time 3, when students with previous keyboarding experience agreed more strongly than those without such experience that an instructor’s explanations would have helped make the lessons clearer and easier to understand. Table 36.--Results of the analysis of previous keyboarding experi- ence and Attitude Item 2: "An instructor’s explanations would have helped make the lessons clearer and easier to understand." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within cells 21.89 58 .38 * Group 10.60 3 3.53 9'36 '000 *p < . 05. Students with previous keyboarding experience and those without such experience did not differ significantly in their attitudes regarding Item 3 ("It was not necessary to have an instructor in the classroom in order to understand the lessons"). The F-value of 2.47 was not significant at the .05 alpha level (see Table 37). 98 4.5... ............................. . ..... . .......... , ......... , ........................................................................................................................ , .................... 1.5 i_ .. . . . , ............................................................ ... .............. . .................................. 1 I I I I I Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Prev Experience No Experience 1 =Strong|y Agree 5=Strongly Disagree Figure 8: Mean responses of students with previous keyboarding experience and those without such experience on Attitude Item 2: "An instructor’s explanation would have made the lessons clearer." 99 Table 37.—-Results of the analysis of previous keyboarding experi- ence and Attitude Item 3: "It was not necessary to have an instructor in the classroom in order to understand the lessons." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within cells 42.45 58 .73 Group 5.43 3 1.81 2'47 '070 With regard to Item 4 ("I would have preferred to have someone explain these lessons 11) me"), no statistically significant difference was found between students who had previous keyboarding experience and those who did not. The F—value of 1.79 was not significant at the .05 alpha level (see Table 38). Table 38.--Results of the analysis of previous keyboarding experi- ence and Attitude Item 4: "I would have preferred to have someone explain these lessons to me." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within cells 32.18 58 .56 Group 3.03 3 1.10 1'79 '160 As shown in Tables 39, 40, and 41, the attitudes of students with and those without previous keyboarding experience did not differ significantly with regard to Items 5, 6, and 7 in the Learner Attitude Inventory. The F-values in these. three analyses (1.38, 100 .93, and 2.50, respectively), were not significant at the .05 alpha level.' Table 39.--Results of the analysis of previous keyboarding experi- ence and Attitude Item 5: "It was difficult for me to do the lessons because of the way the lessons were pre- sented." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within cells 19.54 58 .34 Group 1.39 3 .46 1°38 '258 Table 40.--Results of the analysis of previous keyboarding experi- ence and Attitude Item 6: "I enjoyed doing these lessons on the computer/typewriter." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within cells 12.03 55 .22 Group .61 3 .20 '93 '430 Table 41.--Results of the analysis of previous keyboarding experi- ence and Attitude Item 7: "The computer/typewriter is a valuable piece of equipment to learn." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within CQIIS 7.54 53 .14 2.50 .472 Group .36 3 .12 101 The repeated-measures analysis of variance for Item 8 ("It was difficult for me to manipulate the computer/typewriter while doing these lessons") showed that the F-value of 1.35 was not significant at the .05 alpha level (see Table 42). Thus, there was no significant difference in students’ attitudes toward this item, depending on whether they had or did not have previous keyboarding experience. Table 42.--Results of the analysis of previous keyboarding experi- ence and Attitude Item 8: "It was difficult for me to manipulate the computer/typewriter while doing these lessons." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within cells 29.03 51 .57 Group 2.31 3 .77 1'35 '268 With regard to Item 9 ("Now that I am taking this course, I enjoy using computers/typewriters"), no significant difference was found in the attitudes of students with previous keyboarding experience and those without such experience. The F-value of 1.07 was not significant at the .05 alpha level (see Table 43). Students in both groups enjoyed the equipment they were using. 102 Table 43.--Results of the analysis of previous keyboarding experi- ence and Attitude Item 9: "Now that I am taking this course, I enjoy using computers/typewriters." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within cells 13.41 52 .26 Group .83 3 .28 1°07 '370 So that all nine items on the Learner Attitude Inventory could be scored in the same direction, answers to Items 4, 5, and 8 were reversed, to arrive at a mean attitude score for each group. Analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was a significant difference in overall attitudes between students with previous keyboarding experience and those without such experience. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 44. The F-value of 1.21 was not significant at the .05 alpha level. This finding indicated that there was no significant difference irI the overall attitudes of students who had previous keyboarding experience and those who had no previous experience. Therefore, Null Hypothesis 4 was not rejected. 103 Table 44.--Results of the analysis of overall attitudes between students with previous keyboarding experience and those without previous keyboarding experience. Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within cells 5.09 58 .09 Group .32 3 .11 1’21 '316 Null Hypothesis 5 Research Question 5 asked, "Does the collaborative learning of students who have had previous keyboarding experience differ from that of students who have had no keyboarding experience?" The corresponding null hypothesis stated: flg_§: There is no significant difference in the collaborative learning of students who have had previous keyboarding experi- ence and that of students who have had no keyboarding experi- ence. This hypothesis was tested using repeated-measures analysis of variance. Previous keyboarding experience was the independent variable; cooperative learning was the dependent variable, which was measured at five testing times. If a significant difference between groups was found on a particular item, the means for that item were graphed over the five testing times to determine at what time(s) the difference(s) occurred and the nature of the difference(s). 0n Item 1 of the Cooperative Learning Inventory ("I asked other students questions about how to do the lessons"), no significant difference was found between students with previous keyboarding 104 experience and those without such experience. The F-value of 2.35 was not significant at the .05 alpha level (see Table 45). Table 45.--Results of the analysis of previous keyboarding experi- ence and Cooperative Learning Item 1: "I asked other students questions about how to do the lessons." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within cells 9.74 58 .17 Group 1.19 3 .40 2°35 '081 A significant difference was found between students with previous keyboarding experience and those without such experience on Item 2 on the Cooperative Learning Inventory ("I asked for help when I needed it"). The F-value of 4.38 was significant at the .05 alpha level (see Table 46). Table 46.--Results of the analysis of previous keyboarding experi- ence and Cooperative Learning Item 2: "I asked other students questions about how to do the lessons." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within cells 6.93 58 .12 * Group 1.57 3 .52 4'38 '008 *p < .05. 105 The group means on Item 2 were graphed across the five testing times'to determine at which time(s) students with previous keyboarding experience Idiffered significantly from those without such experience and the nature of the difference(s). As shown in Figure 9, the significant difference occurred at Time 3, when students without previous keyboarding experience asked for help when they needed it significantly less frequently than students who had previous keyboarding experience. No difference in cooperative learning was found between the two groups with respect to Item 3 ("I allowed other students to show me how to do the lessons"). The F—value of .71 was not significant at the .05 alpha level, as seen in Table 47. Table 47.--Results of the analysis of previous keyboarding experi- ence and Cooperative Learning Item 3: "I allowed other students to show me how to do the lessons." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within cells 13.13 57 .23 Group .49 3 .16 '71 '548 The results for the fourth item on the Cooperative Learning Inventory ("I helped other students with the lessons") are shown in Table 48. Students with previous keyboarding experience and those without such experience did not differ significantly in their responses to this item. The F-value of .36 was not significant at the .05 alpha level. 106 5 ‘s 4‘ ‘- R Q ~ ‘~ 5 \ ----------------------------------------- 25_ .......................................................... . ..... ‘ .................................................. . ......................... I '---—--——.---0 d ’ fl“ ‘ 1 I I I I I Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Prev Experience No Experience 1=Never 2=Sometimes 3=Frequentiy Figure 9: Mean responses of students with previous keyboarding experience and those without previous keyboarding experience on Cooperative Learning Item 2: "I asked for help when I needed it." 107 Table 48.--Results of the analysis of previous keyboarding experi- ence and Cooperative Learning Item 4: "I helped other students with the lessons." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within cells 14.20 58 .24 Group .34 3 .11 '36 '709 Likewise, the two groups (students with previous keyboarding experience and those without such experience) did not differ significantly in their responses to Item 5 on the Cooperative Learning Inventory ("1 made certain other students understood the lessons"). The F-value of .20 was not significant at the .05 alpha level (see Table 49). Table 49.-—Results of the analysis of previous keyboarding experi- ence and Cooperative Learning Item 5: "I made certain other students understood the lessons." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within cells 12.94 58 .22 Group .13 3 .04 '20 '899 Students with previous keyboarding experience and those without such experience did not differ significantly in their responses to Item 6 on the Cooperative Learning Inventory ("I worked with other students in order to complete my lessons"). The F—value of .74 was not significant at the .05 level (see Table 50). 108 Table 50.--Results of the analysis of previous keyboarding experi- ence and Cooperative Learning Item 6: "I worked with other students in order to complete my lessons." Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within cells 14.62 58 .25 Group .56 3 .19 '74 '531 Analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was a significant difference in overall cooperative learning between students with previous keyboarding experience and those without such experience. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 51. As seen in the table, the F-value of 1.11 was not significant at the .05 alpha level. The overall cooperative learning of students with previous keyboarding experience did not differ significantly from that of students with no previous keyboarding experience. There- fore, Null Hypothesis 5 was not rejected. Table 51.--Results of the analysis of overall cooperative learning between students with previous keyboarding experience and those without previous keyboarding experience. Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Within CGIIS 6.38 58 .11 1.11 .351 Group .37 3 .12 109 Null Hypothesis 6 Research Question 6 asked, "Does the speed of students who learn keyboarding skills using electronic typewriters differ from that of students who learn keyboarding skills using microcomputers?" The corresponding null hypothesis was as follows: flg_§: There is no significant difference in the speed of stu- dents who learn keyboarding skills using electronic typewriters and that of students who learn keyboarding skills using micro— computers. Students were given a pretest for speed at the beginning of the study and a posttest at the end of the 12-week study. The pretest and posttest consisted of two two-minute timed writings; the first timed writing was straight copy, and the second was numeric copy. Analysis of variance was used to test Null Hypothesis 6. Mode of instruction was the independent variable; posttest speed was the dependent variable. Mean scores were analyzed to compare the speed of students who had previous keyboarding instruction with that of students who did not have such instruction and also to compare the speed of the control group with that of the experimental group. The results are shown in Table 52. As shown in the table, the F-value of 2.232 was not significant at the .05 alpha level in the comparison between the experimental and control groups. However, in comparing the students who had previous keyboarding experience with those who did not have such experience, the F-value of 17.252 was significant at the .05 alpha level. 'This indicates that the two groups differed in their posttest speed on the straight-copy timed writing. 110 Table 52.--Post1 speed by group and previous experience. Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Main effects 2376.458 2 1188.229 13.823 .000 GROUP 191.882 1 191.882 2.232 .141 PREV EXP 1482.935 1 1482.935 17.252 .000* 2—way interaction GROUP/PREV EXP 72.399 1 72.399 .842 .363 Explained 2448.857 3 816.286 9.496 .000 Residual 4899.700 57 85.960 Total 7348.557 60 122.476 *p < .05. The group means on the Postl test are shown in Table 53. Students in the control group (typewriters) typed faster (31.4 wpm) than students in the experimental group (microcomputers) (23.7 wpm). Students with previous keyboarding experience who were in the control group also typed faster (33.6 wpm) than those who were in the experimental group (26.9 me). Yet students who had no keyboarding experience and were in the experimental group typed faster (16.7 wpm) than those in the control group (14.5 wpm). Table 53.-~Post1 speed by groupzr students with and without previous keyboarding experience. Total Previous No Group Means Keyboarding Exp. Keyboarding Computers 23.7 26.9 16.7 Typewriters 31.4 33.6 14.5 Grand mean 27.3 31.1 15.2 111 Differences between experimental and control group students with previous keyboarding experience were tested further using analysis of covariance. Prel speed scores were used as the covariate. The results for the Pre/Postl speed test analysis are shown in Table 54. Prel speed was a significant covariate (F = 26.856, significant at the .05 alpha level). The F-value of 4.374 was also significant at the .05 alpha level. Thus, there were significant differences in straight-copy speed between students in the control and experimental groups who had previous keyboarding experience. This difference might be attributed to the fact that the majority of students in the control group (typewriters) had previous typing experience. Table 54.-~Post1 speed by group with Prel. Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Covariates PREl 1435.885 1 1435.885 26.856 .000* Main effects GROUP 233.860 1 233.860 4.374 .044* Residual 1871.308 35 53.466 Total 3541.053 37 95.704 *p < .05. 112 Analysis of variance was then used to determine whether there was a significant difference in straight-copy speed scores between the experimental group and the control group, regardless of previous keyboarding experience. Table 55 contains these data. The F-value of 8.167 was significant at the .05 alpha level, indicating there was a significant difference between students 'hi the experimental and control groups in terms of their straight-copy speed scores. Table 55.--Comparison of straight-copy speed scores between the experimental group and the control group. Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Main effects GROUP 893.523 1 893.523 8.167 .006* Residual 6455.034 59 109.407 Total 7348.557 60 122.476 *p < .05. The Post3 speed test (numeric copy) was analyzed in the same manner as the Post] (straight copy) speed test. Results of this analysis are shown in Table 56. A significant difference was found between students in the experimental and control groups who had previous keyboarding experience, as indicated by ‘the F—value of 12.022, which was significant at the .05 alpha level. 113 Table 56.-~Post3 speed by group and previous experience. Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Main effects 1311.931 2 655.965 9.827 .000 GROUP 128.750 1 128.750 1.929 .170 PREV EXP 802.502 1 802.502 12.022 .001* 2-way interaction GROUP/PREV EXP 99.835 1 99.835 1.496 .226 Explained 1411.765 3 470.588 7.050 .000 Residual 3738.168 57 66.753 Total 5149.933 60 87.287 *p < .05. Group means for the Post3 numeric-copy speed test are shown in Table 57. According to the figures shown in this table, students in the control group typed faster on numeric copy (26.3 wpm) than did those in the experimental group (20.5 wpm). 0f the students with no previous keyboarding experience, those in the experimental group typed, on average, faster' on numeric copy than did their counterparts in the control group (15.5 wpm and 11.5 wpm, respectively). Table 57.--Post3 speed by group: students with and without previous keyboarding experience. Total Previous No Group Means Keyboarding Exp. Keyboarding Computers 20.5 23.3 15.5 Typewriters 26.3 27.4 11.5 Grand mean 23.3 26.2 13.0 114 Analysis of covariance was used to test the hypothesis further for students with previous keyboarding experience in the control and experimental groups. The Pre3 numeric—copy speed score was used as the covariate; the Post3 numeric—copy speed score was the dependent variable. The findings are shown in Table 58. The F-value of 6.524 was significant at the .05 alpha level for Pre3 speed. However, on Post3, there was no significant difference between the control and experimental groups when only those students who had previous keyboarding experience were included in the analysis. Table 58.-~Post3 speed by group with Pre3. Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Covariate PRE3 454.424 1 454.424 6.524 .015* Main effects GROUP 144.390 1 144.390 2.073 .159 Residual 2507.545 36 69.654 Total 3106.359 38 81.746 *p < .05. Analysis of variance was performed to determine whether there was a significant difference in numeric-copy speed scores between the experimental group and the control group regardless of previous keyboarding experience. The results of this analysis are shown in 115 Table 59. The F-value of 6.367 was significant at the .05 alpha level, indicating there was a significant difference between the two groups in terms of their numeric-copy Speed scores. The control group typed significantly faster than the experimental group on both straight and numeric copy. Therefore, Null Hypothesis 6 was rejected. Table 59.--Comparison of numeric-copy speed scores between the experimental group and the control group. Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Main effects GROUP 509.428 1 509.428 6.367 .014* Residual 4640.505 59 80.009 Total 5149.933 60 87.287 *p < .05. Null Hypothesis 7 Research Question 7 asked, "Does the accuracy of students who learn keyboarding skills using electronic typewriters differ from that of students who learn keyboarding skills using microcomputers?" The corresponding null hypothesis was as follows: Ho 7: There is no significant difference in the accuracy of students who learn keyboarding skills using electronic type- writers and that of students who learn keyboarding skills using .microcomputers. Keyboarding accuracy was measured using the number of errors students made on speed Pretests/Posttests 1 and 3. Analysis of 116 variance was used to test this hypothesis. The method of instruCtion and previous keyboarding experience were the independent variables. The posttest accuracy score was the dependent variable. Mean scores were used to compare students who had previous keyboarding experience with those who did not have such experience and also to compare the control group with the experimental group. The data are contained in Table 60. The F-values of 2.306 and 1.851 were not significant at the .05 alpha level, indicating that no significant difference in accuracy was found between the experimental and control groups or between students who had previous keyboarding experience and those who did not. Table 60.--Post2 accuracy by group and previous experience. Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Main effects 91.785 2 45.892 1.517 .231 GROUP 69.747 1 69.747 2.306 .136 PREV EXP 55.991 1 55.991 1.851 .181 2-way interaction GROUP/PREV EXP .467 1 .467 .015 .902 Explained 92.252 3 30.751 1.017 .394 Residual 1330.727 57 30.244 Total 1422.979 60 30.276 ‘The group means for Post2 straight-copy accuracy are shown in Table 61. The figures in the table indicate that students in the control group (typewriters) made more errors (5.7) on straight copy 117 than students in the experimental group (microcomputers) (4.0). Students with previous keyboarding experience who were in the control group also made more errors than their counterparts in the experimental group (5.7 and 3.7, respectively). Students with no keyboarding experience who were in the experimental group made fewer mistakes (5.8) than their counterparts in the control group (8.0). Table 61.--Post2 accuracy by group: students with and without previous keyboarding experience. Total Previous No Group Means Keyboarding Exp. Keyboarding Computers 4.0 3.7 5.8 Typewriters 5.7 5.7 8.0 Grand mean 4.9 5.2 6.9 Difference in accuracy based on previous keyboarding experience was tested further using analysis of covariance. Mode of instruction and previous keyboarding experience were the independent variables, the Post2 straight-copy accuracy score was the dependent variable, and the Pre2 straight-copy accuracy score was the covariate. The Pre2/Post2 accuracy test results are shown in Table 62. As shown in the table, Pre2 accuracy was not a significant covariate (F = .055 and .738, not significant at the .05 alpha level). Therefore, there was no significant difference in accuracy on straight copy between the control and experimental groups when 118 only those students who had previous keyboarding experience were included in the analysis. Table 62.--Post2 accuracy by group with Pre2. Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Covariate PRE2 1.802 1 1.802 .055 .816 Main effects GROUP 24.164 1 24.164 .738 .397 Residual 950.034 35 32.760 Total 976.000 37 31.484 Analysis of variance was used to test for a significant difference in straight-copy accuracy between the experimental group and the control group, regardless of previous keyboarding experience. The results of that analysis are shown in Table 63. The F-value of 1.187 was not significant at the .05 alpha level, indicating that no significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of their straight—copy accuracy. 119 Table 63.--Comparison of straight-copy accuracy between the experi- mental group and the control group. Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Main effects GROUP 35.794 1 35.794 1.187 .282 Residual 1387.185 59 30.156 Total 1422.979 60 30.276 Post4 accuracy (numeric copy) was tested in the same way as Post2 (straight copy) accuracy. The findings are presented in Table 64. No significant difference was found between the experimental and control groups or between students who had previous keyboarding experience and those who did not have such experience in terms of their numeric-copy accuracy. Table 64.—-Post4 accuracy by group and previous experience. Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Main effects 29.141 2 14.571 1.657 .203 GROUP 29.137 1 29.137 3.313 .076 PREV EXP 3.625 1 3.625 .412 .524 2-way interaction GROUP/PREV EXP 12.801 1 12.801 1.456 .234 Explained 41.943 3 13.981 1.590 .206 Residual 369.383 57 8.795 Total 411.326 60 9.141 120 The Post4 accuracy means are shown in Table 65. As seen in the table, the experimental group made fewer errors (2.9) on numeric copy than did the control group (4.4). However, when only those students with no previous keyboarding experience were compared, it was found that students in the experimental group made more mistakes on numeric copy than their counterparts in the control group. Table 65.--Post4 accuracy by group: students with and without previous keyboarding experience. Total Previous No Group Means Keyboarding Exp. Keyboarding Computers 2.9 2.6 3.8 Typewriters 4.4 4.5 3.0 Grand mean 3.7 3.9 3.4 Analysis of covariance was used to test the hypothesis further with regard to students who had previous keyboarding experience. The Pre4 numeric-copy accuracy score was used as the covariate; the Post4 numeric-copy accuracy score was the dependent variable. The findings are shown in Table 66. For Pre4 accuracy, the F-value of .005 was not significant at the .05 alpha level. Neither was a significant difference found between the experimental and control groups (F-value = 2.770, not significant at the .05 alpha level). Thus, there was no significant difference in the numeric—copy 121 accuracy of students in the control and experimental groups, when only those students who had previous keyboarding experience were included in the analysis. Table 66.-—Post4 accuracy by group with Pre4. Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Covariate PRE4 .051 1 .051 .005 .942 Main effects GROUP 26.016 1 26.016 2.770 .106 Residual 281.812 36 9.394 Total 307.879 38 9.621 Analysis of variance was then used to determine whether there was a significant difference in numeric-copy accuracy between the experimental and control groups, regardless of previous keyboarding experience. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 67. As seen in the table, the F-value of 2.910 was not significant at the .05 alpha level. Even though the experimental group (microcomputers) made fewer errors on both straight copy and numeric copy than (int the control group (typewriters), these differences were not statistically significant. Therefore, Null Hypothesis 7 was not rejected. 122 Table 67.--Comparison of numeric-copy accuracy between the experi- mental group and the control group. Source of Sum of Mean Sig. Variation Squares df Square F of F Main effects GROUP 25.517 1 25.517 2.910 .095 Residual 385.810 59 8.768 Total 411.326 60 9.141 Analysis of Responses to the Keyboardinq Evaluation Inventory The students were asked to complete an end-of-course evaluation, the Keyboarding Evaluation Inventory, which contained seven questions. Responses to each question were measured separately to determine whether students in the experimental and control groups evaluated the course differently, based on the mode of instruction and previous keyboarding experience. A t-test was used to test for significant differences on questions receiving less than an 80% affirmative response. The results for each of the questions are shown in Tables 68 through 76. As shown in Table 68, the majority of students in the total sample (57 or 93.4%) responded that they did learn how to keyboard. Students also responded affirmatively (59 or 96.8%) to Question 2, indicating that the teacher’s instructions helped them learn keyboarding skills. Even though the experimental group did not have 123 a teacher in the classroom at all times, the instructor was accessible to answer their questions, particularly at Time 3. Table 68.--Responses to Question 1: "Did you learn how to keyboard?" Experimental Control Response Group Group Total Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % No 30 49.2 27 44.2 57 93.4 Yes 2 3.3 2 3.3 4 6.6 Total 32 52.5 29 47.5 61 100.0 Table 69.-—Responses to Question 2: "Did you find that the teacher’s instructions helped you to learn keyboarding skills?" Experimental Control Response Group Group Total Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % No 31 50.9 28 1 45.9 59 96.8 Yes 1 1.6 1 1.6 2 3.2 Total 32 52.5 29 47.5 61 100.0 Of the 60 students who responded to Question 3, 52 (86.6%) said they would take another typing/computer—aided instruction course, whereas 8 (13.4%) said they would not (see Table 70). Students giving negative responses were evenly distributed between the experimental and control groups. Five of the eight students 124 responding negatively had no previous keyboarding experience, and three had such experience. Table 70.--Responses to Question 3: "Would you take another typing/ computer-aided instruction course?" Experimental Control Response Group Group Total Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % No 27 45.0 25 41.6 52 86.6 Yes 4 6.7 4 6.7 8 13.4 Total 31 51.7 29 48.3 60 100.0 Most of the students (56 or 91.8%) responded affirmatively when asked whether working with other students made the course enjoyable (see Table 71). Only five (8.2%) said that working with other students did not make the course enjoyable. Three of the students who responded negatively had no previous keyboarding experience; the other two had previous experience. Table 71.--Responses to Question 4: "Did working with other students make the course enjoyable?" Experimental Control Response Group Group Total Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % No 30 49.2 26 42.6 56 91.8 'Yes 2 3.3 3 4.9 5 8.2 Total 32 52.5 29 47.5 61 100.0 125 Only 48 (78.7%) of the students said they used a typewriter/ microcomputer outside the classroom to practice or complete their assignments (see Table 72). The majority of these students (30 or 49.2%) were in the experimental group. Table 72.--Responses to Question 5: "Did you use a typewriter/ microcomputer outside the classroom to practice or complete assignments?"' Experimental Control Response Group Group Total Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % No 30 49.2 18 29.5 48 78.7 Yes 2 3.3 11 18.0 13 21.3 Total 32 52.5 29 47.5 61 100.0 Because Question 5 received less than an 80% affirmative response, a t-test was used to determine whether there was a significant difference between the experimental and control groups on this question. The results are shown in Table 73. The t-value of -3.22 was significant at the .05 alpha level, indicating that the two groups differed significantly with regard to whether or not they used the microcomputer or typewriter outside the classroom. ‘This difference could be explained by the fact that students in the experimental group had less experience with a microcomputer than students in the control group had with a typewriter. Also, more 126 students 'hi the control group than 'hi the experimental group had typewriters at home. Table 73.--Results of t-test for students’ use of a typewriter/ microcomputer outside the classroom, by group. Standard t- 2-Tailed Group n Mean Deviation Value Prob. Computers 32 1.0625 .246 _ * Typewriters 29 1.3793 .494 3°22 '002 *p < .05. The next evaluation question asked students how many hours per week they practiced or completed their assignments. Responses are shown in Table 74. A total of 47 students said they practiced or completed their homework outside the classroom. Thirty (63.8%) of those students were in the experimental group, and 17 (36.1%) were in the control group. Three to four hours was the amount of time a majority of students (19 or 40.5%) spent practicing IN" completing their assignments. More than twice the number of students in the experimental group as in the control group spent that amount of time practicing or completing their assignments (13 or 27.7% and 6 or 12.8%, respectively). 127 Table 74.--Responses to Question 6: "How many hours do you practice;” or complete assignments?" Experimental Control Hours Group Group Total Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % 1-2 9 19.1 8 17.0 17 36.1 3-4 13 27.7 6 12.8 19 40.5 5-6 4 8.5 2 4.3 6 12.8 7+ 4 8.5 1 2.1 5 10.6 Total 30 63.8 17 36.2 47 100.0 A t-test was performed to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference between the experimental and control groups on Question 6. The results are shown in Table 75. The t-value of 1.15 was not significant at the .05 alpha level, indicating that there was no significant difference between the two groups. Even though the experimental group spent longer than the control group doing assignments or practicing, the difference was not statistically significant. Table 75.--Results of t—test for number of hours spent outside the classroom practicing or completing assignments, by group. Standard t- 2-Tailed Group n Mean Deviation Value Prob. Computers 30 2.100 .995 1.15 .258 Typewriters 17 1.764 .903 128 The last question on the Keyboarding Evaluation Inventory asked students whether they would recommend the course to another student. As shown in Table 76, a majority of the students (60 or 98.3%) responded affirmatively. Only one student (1.6%) responded negatively to Question 7. Table 76.--Responses to Question 7: "Would you recommend this course to another student?" Experimental Control Response -Group Group Total Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % No 31 50.9 29 47.5 60 98.4 Yes 1 1.6 0 0.0 1 1.6 Total 32 52.5 29 47.5 61 100.0 Summary This chapter contained the results of the statistical analyses carried out in this study. The demographic characteristics of the student respondents were discussed first, followed by the results of hypothesis testing. Analyses of students’ responses to the Keyboarding Evaluation Inventory were presented in the last section. Chapter V contains a summary of the study, findings and conclusions, recommendations for practice and further research, and the researcher’s reflections. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND REFLECTIONS Swim Modern technology has led many educational institutions to invest in microcomputers for instructional purposes. Two important questions have resulted from the varied uses of computers in the business education curriculum. First, is there still a need for typewriters? Second, what method of teaching is best in developing keyboarding skills: computer-assisted or teacher-directed instruction? One of the researcher’s purposes in conducting this study was to compare the keyboarding achievement, speed, and accuracy of students who learn keyboarding skills on electronic typewriters, using the traditional teacher-directed method of instruction, with that of students who learn keyboarding skills on microcomputers, using the computer-assisted method of instruction. Additional purposes were to determine whether students taught by these two methods differed in terms of their attitudes and the frequency with which they engaged in collaborative learning in the keyboarding/typewriting class. Further purposes were in) discover whether the attitudes and collaborative learning of students who had 129 130 had previous keyboarding experience differed from those of students who had not had keyboarding experience. Sixty-six students who were enrolled in two sections of Keyboarding and two sections of Fundamentals of Typewriting at Wayne County Community College in Detroit, Michigan, participated in the study during fall semester 1990. The students were divided into two groups. Those in the experimental group were given computer- assisted instruction on microcomputers, using a keyboarding software package. Students in the control group were given traditional instruction by a teacher, using electronic typewriters. The researcher taught one experimental and one control group. The other experimental and control groups were taught by two teachers in the business department at the community college. By the end of the 12-week study period, students had completed five units containing five lessons each (a total of 25 lessons). At the end of each unit, students completed two instruments designed to ascertain their attitudes toward the class and the extent to which they engaged in cooperative learning in completing the lessons. The data from these instruments, as well as students’ speed and accuracy on timed writings, were used in the statistical analyses. Descriptive statistics (frequency and percentage) were used to analyze the demographic data and to compare the experimental and control groups in terms of these personal characteristics. Cross- tabulations and measures of central tendency also were used. Hypotheses 1, 6, and 7 were tested using analysis of variance and covarianceu Hypotheses 2, 3, 4, and 5 were tested using 131 repeated-measures analysis of variance and analysis of covariance to determine whether there were significant differences between the experimental and control groups. A.t~test was also used with two independent variables to determine whether there were significant differences between the groups based on data from the Keyboarding Evaluation Inventory. For all statistical analyses conducted in this study, the .05 alpha level was the criterion for significance. Findings and Conclusions The majority of participants in this study (51 or 77.3%) had previous keyboarding experience; of that number, 30 were in the control group. Only two students in the control group did not have previous keyboarding experience, as compared to 13 “hi the experi- mental group. In the following pages, each of the null hypotheses formulated for the study is restated, followed by the major findings and conclusions pertaining to that hypothesis. Null Hypothesis 1 There is rui significant difference in the keyboarding achievement of students who learn keyboarding skills on micro- computers, using' computer-assisted instruction, and that of students who learn keyboarding skills on electronic typewrit- ers, using teacher-directed instruction. Findings. 1. No statistically significant difference was found “hi the achievement of students in the experimental group and those in the control group. 132 2. Students in the control group who had previous keyboarding experience scored higher on the four centering problems than did their counterparts in the experimental group. However, this difference was not statistically significant. 3. Students in the experimental group who had no previous keyboarding experience scored higher on the four centering problems than did their counterparts irI the control group. However, this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions. Based on the findings regarding Null Hypothesis 1, it was concluded that, regardless of the mode of instruction, students’ achievement in formatting text using vertical, horizontal, block, or spread centering was not affected. Students in both the control and experimental groups who entered the keyboarding or typewriting class with previous keyboarding skills achieved a higher degree of skill than those students who had no experience, regardless of the mode of instruction. Null Hypothesis 2 There is no significant difference in the attitudes of students who learn keyboarding skills using computer-assisted instruction and those of students who learn keyboarding skills using teacher-directed instruction. Findings. 1. No statistically significant difference was found irI the overall attitudes of students using the two modes of instruction. .2. A statistically significant difference was found irI stu- dents’ attitudes concerning Items 2 ("The instructor’s explanations helped make the lessons clearer and easier to understand"), 3 ("The 133 lessons were written in a way that made them easy to understand"), and 4 ("I would have preferred to have someone explain these lessons to me") on the Learner Attitude Inventory. The control group had significantly more positive attitudes toward these items than did the experimental group. 3. The experimental group’s attitude was less positive than that of the control group at Time 3 (Lessons 11-15); however, this difference was not significant. The experimental group thought that these lessons were not written in a way that made them easy to do and understand. Conclusions. Based on the findings regarding Null Hypothesis 2, it was concluded that, regardless of the mode of instruction, the overall attitudes of students were not affected. Students in the control group, who were taught by a teacher, tended to express a more favorable attitude toward completing the assignments than did students in the experimental group, who had little or no interaction with a teacher. Null Hypothesis 3 There is TH) significant difference irI the collaborative learning of students who learn keyboarding skills using computer-assisted instruction and that of students who learn keyboarding skills using teacher-directed instruction. Findings. 1. No statistically significant difference was feund “hi the cooperative learning of students using the two methods of instruction. 134 2. Students “hi the experimental group asked questions and sought help more often than those in the control group, especially at Time 3, but this difference was not statistically Significant. Conclusions. Based on the findings regarding Null Hypothesis 3, it was concluded that students’ cooperative learning was not affected by the mode of instruction. Null Hypothesis 4 There is no significant difference in the attitudes of students who have had previous keyboarding experience and those of students who have had no keyboarding experience. Findings. 1. No statistically significant difference was feund between the overall attitudes of students who had previous keyboarding skills and those of students who had no previous keyboarding skills. 2. At Time 3 (Lessons 11-15), the attitudes of students in the experimental group who had no previous keyboarding experience were not as positive as those of their counterparts in the control group. However, this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions. Based on the findings regarding Null Hypothesis 4, it was concluded that, regardless of the mode of instruction, previous keyboarding experience did run; affect students’ attitudes toward developing keyboarding skills. Null Hypothesis 5 There is 1H) significant difference irI the collaborative 'learning of students who have had previous keyboarding experi- ence and that of students who have had no keyboarding experi- ence. 135 Findings. 1. No statistically significant difference was feund between the collaborative learning of students who had previous keyboarding experience and those who did not have such experience. 2. Students in the experimental group who had no previous keyboarding experience engaged in cooperative learning with others in the class more often than did their counterparts in the control group, especially at Time 3. However, this difference was not sta- tistically significant. Conclusions. Based on the findings regarding Null Hypothesis 5, it was concluded that the mode of instruction did not affect students’ cooperative learning, regardless (Hi their previous keyboarding experience. Inexperienced students who had little contact with a teacher asked for help more often than did experienced students, regardless of the mode of instruction. Null Hypothesis 6 There is no significant difference in the speed of students who learn keyboarding skills using electronic typewriters and that of students who learn keyboarding skills using microcomputers. Findings. 1. A statistically significant difference was found between students in the experimental and control groups with regard to their keyboarding speed. Students in the control group keyed signifi- cantly faster than those in the experimental group on both straight and numeric copy. 136 2. Inexperienced students in the experimental group keyed faster than inexperienced students in the control groupu However, the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions. Based on the findings regarding Null Hypothesis 6, it was concluded that the mode of instruction did make a difference in students’ keyboarding speed. However, because 51 of the 66 students (77.3%) who participated in this study had previous keyboarding experience and of that number 30 were in the control group, it was further concluded that this difference resulted from a combination of the teaching method used and the students’ previous keyboarding experience. Null Hypothesis 7 There is no significant difference in the accuracy of students who learn keyboarding skills using electronic typewriters and that- of students who learn keyboarding skills using microcomputers. Findings. 1. No statistically significant difference was found between students in the experimental and control groups with regard to their keyboarding accuracy. 2. Students in the experimental group made fewer errors than those in the control group on the two-minute timed writings. However, this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions. Based on the findings regarding Null Hypothesis 7, it was concluded that the two methods of instruction were equivalent in developing students’ keyboarding accuracy. However, 137 on average, students in the experimental group were more accurate in keyboarding than those in the control group. ngmary of Conclusions and Related Findings Based on the findings for Null Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7, it. was concluded that, regardless of the mode of instruction, students’ achievement, attitudes, cooperative learning, and accuracy were not affected. Further, the attitudes and cooperative learning of students who had previous keyboarding experience also were not affected by the mode of instruction. However, based on the findings for Null Hypothesis 6, previous keyboarding experience did affect students’ keyboarding speed, regardless of the mode of instruction. Related Findings The findings from this study concurred with those from similar studies conducted by D’Souze (1983) and Schuls (1985). These researchers reported that both modes of instruction were equal in teaching keyboarding skills to students. The findings from this study also confirmed the results of Culwell’s (1985) and Perreault’s (1984) research, which indicated that students using computer- assisted instruction made fewer errors than those using teacher— directed instruction. In the present study, no statistically significant difference was found between computer-assisted instruction and teacher-directed instruction with regard to their effects on students’ attitudes and the extent to which students engaged in cooperative learning while developing keyboarding skills. 138 Recommendations The following recommendations for educational practice and further research are based on the conclusions drawn from the study findings. 1. Students should be able to use both electronic typewriters and microcomputers effectively. To keep abreast of the needs of modern offices, students need to be able to adapt to various types of office equipment. 2. Business teachers should Idevelop attitudinal instruments and periodically assess students’ attitudes. This will help educators develop teaching strategies that foster positive student attitudes and create an atmosphere conducive to learning. 3. Business educators should carefully examine and test a variety of instructional software to determine whether it is clearly written and easy for students to understand without the help of an instructor. With the increased cost of software, it is critical for educators to ensure that software meets the goals and objectives of their classes before making expensive purchases. 4. If computer-assisted instruction is used to teach keyboard- ing skills, teachers should make certain they establish an environ- ment that encourages cooperative learning. Such an environment will enable students, regardless of their previous knowledge and experi- ence, to understand the value of cooperative learning and teamwork in performing and completing tasks. Such an environment also can maximize the teacher’s time by enabling him or her to work with groups of students rather than one student at a time. 139 5. When computer-assisted instruction is used to teach keyboarding skills, a teacher should be present in the classroom at all times. The teacher should provide a balance between the student and this mode of instruction to ensure that every student under- stands the assignments. In computer-assisted instruction, the role of the teacher becomes that (Hi facilitator, coordinator, resource person, and tutor. 6. Research should be undertaken to determine the speed requirements for students who correct their' errors while taking timed writings on both the electronic typewriter and the microcomputer. Such studies might help business teachers make a definite distinction between the number of keyboarding errors allowed when corrections are permitted as opposed to when they are not permitted. These studies will further assist teachers in devel- oping a more realistic and updated error-assessment scale. 7. Further studies should be undertaken to analyze students’ attitudes and cooperative learning as they develop keyboarding skills (hi both the electronic typewriter and the microcomputer. Because so little comparative research has been done on this topic, studies are needed to provide business educators with the informa- tion necessary to develop relevant business curricula and teaching strategies to enhance students’ keyboarding skills. 8. This study should be replicated with students who have had previous keyboarding experience and those who have not had such 140 experience, to determine whether the findings corroborate those from this study. Reflections In this study, computer-assisted instruction and teacher- directed instruction were both found to be effective methods of teaching keyboarding skills to students at the community college level. Although students were receptive to both methods of instruction at the beginning of the study, the microcomputer group became confused and expressed concern when they attempted to do the centering assignments without the help of a teacher. The teacher had to intervene and help them learn centering skills. Students in the teacher-directed group also had difficulty developing this skill. Comments on the learner Attitude Inventory showed that students in both the experimental and control groups thought they needed a teacher to demonstrate how to do the various centering problems. Even though cooperative learning was stressed only once during the semester, students worked cooperatively vfiifii each other throughout the 12 weeks. However, observations showed that the shy, nonassertive students did not seek help or ask as many questions as the assertive students. On the other hand, those students who had previous keyboarding experience and indicated their initial typing Speed was 25 gross words a minute (GWAM) engaged in cooperative learning the least. This observation supported the belief that, for 141 many students, individual success is more important than group achievement (Swartz, 1989). Both of these observations illustrate that the presence of a teacher is a prime factor in providing the feedback, clarification, reinforcement, and communication that are needed to “foster the positive attitudes and interpersonal relationships desired in a classroom setting. Although more students in the control group had typewriters at home than students in the experimental group had microcomputers at home, correcting errors during timed writings seemed to be easier on a microcomputer than on a typewriter. On average, students using microcomputers made fewer errors than those using typewriters. The fact that the experimental group made fewer errors during the timed writings may be attributed to two important factors. First, the experimental group spent more time completing their assignments and practicing outside of class than did the control group. Second, the experimental group might have been more familiar with the location of keys on the keyboard. During the initial introduction (Hi the alphabet keys, students in the experimental group were "locked out" of continued keying by a "beep" sound when they touched an incorrect key. Perhaps this "beep" technique forced the students to learn the correct location of keys and made them more aware of letter placement on the keyboard. The control group, on the other hand, could make an error on the typewriter and continue keying. Because these students had ru) lockout system or control mechanism for keying the correct letters, their familiarity with the keyboard was not reinforced during the developmental 142 stages. However, despite the experimental group’s lower number of errors on the timed writings, the difference between the two groups with regard to accuracy was not statistically significant. Attendance during this study was stable, and the nejority of students completed their assignments as outlined on the course calendar or shortly thereafter. At the conclusion of the study, both groups expressed positive attitudes toward the course and said that cooperative learning made the course more enjoyable. The students overwhelmingly stressed that they did learn how to keyboard, that they enjoyed the way the class had been taught, and that they would recommend the class to other students. APPENDICES APPENDIX A WAYNE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE: KEYBOARDING 015 100 AND FUNDAMENTALS OF TYPEWRITING OIS 101--CALENDAR 0F LESSONS WAYNE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE 143 KEYBOARDING OIS 100 FUNDAMENTALS OF TYPEWRITING OIS 101 CALENDAR OF LESSONS Please complete and turn in the following lessons according Should you have any difficulty please consult the instructor. to the dates listed below. completing lessons when due, WEEK NO. 10 ll 12 13 WEEK OF September 17 September 27 October 1 October 8 October 15 October 22 October 29 November 5 November 12 November 19 LESSONS Lessons Lessons Lessons Lessons Lessons Lessons Lessons Lessons Lessons 10-11 12-13 14-16 17-19 20-22 23-25 Post Test LESSONS DUE DATE September 26 October 3 October 10 October 17 October 24 October 31 November 7 November 14 November 21 APPENDIX B STUDENT SURVEY 144 STUDENT SURVEY NAME MARITAL STATUS: S M D ADDRESS SOC SEC NO. Please answer the following questions: 1. Age: 2: Sex: 3: Education: Post high school 25 and Under Male High School Grad 26-34 Female 2 yrs high school__ 35-44 G.E.D. 45-54 No high school 55 and Over 4. How many courses are you taking this semester? 5. Are you presently working? Yes No 6. If you are working, how many hours per week 7. Have you ever had any typing instruction before? Yes No Jr. High School High School Business School Self—taught Armed Services Other 8. If Yes to Question 7, approximately how fast can you type? 15 wpm 30 wpm 20 wpm 35+ wpm 25 wpm Don't Know 9. Why are you taking this course? Requirement Personal Use Employment Skill Development other Please Explain 10. Have you ever used a microcomputer before? Yes No If Yes, please explain: 11. A. Do you have a typewriter at home? Yes No B. Do you have a microcomputer at home? Yes No APPENDIX C CONSENT FORM 145 CONSENT FORM Dear Student The need to develop keyboarding skills will become a necessity as we enter the year 2000. To meet this need, the Information Systems Department (OIS) and faculty continuously involve themselves in curriculum improvement. This study is being conducted to determine whether or not there are any significant differences in (1) the keyboarding skills of students who are taught using a teacher-directed method of instruction with those of students who are taught using a computer-assisted method of instruction and (2) the students preference of learning by the methods. The study will last approximately 12 weeks and will basically follow the same course outline and format used during the regular school year. Course goals, objectives and grade requirements, therefore, would remain the same. Textbooks and computer disks will be provided. During the study, no risks are involved. All results will be treated with strict confidence. Data collected will be analyzed as a group--not as individuals. Your participation in this study is strictly voluntary and would be greatly appreciated to assist me in analyzing keyboarding skills. By signing this form, you indicate your agreement to participate in this research. Thank you. Signature Date APPENDIX D SPEED SCORES CHART FOR PRE AND POST TEST I46 SPEED SCORES CHART FOR PRE AND POST TEST This chart is based on the 2-minute timed writings on both the alphabetic copy and the numeric copy. The gross words a minute (GWAM) is based on line score for line completed divided by 2. If a line was not completed, one point per word is added to the line score before calculating the GWAM. SPEED SCORE LINES TYPED LINE SCORE GWAM l 10 5 2 20 10 3 28 14 4 38 19 5 48 24 6 56 28 7 66 33 8 76 38 9 84 42 10 94 47 11 104 52 12 112 56 APPENDIX E SKILL DEVELOPMENT POINT CHART This Chart is based on the four centering test items. test item was worth 25 points if completed. 147 SKILL DEVELOPMENT POINT CHART Each The following assigned points were deducted from the 25 points based on the type of error found in each problem. 10. The following points were given for complete test items. TYPE OF ERROR Spacing between words Spacing between lines Repetition of words Capitalization Typographical error Horizontal centering Vertical centering Block centering Spread centering Line Omission POINTS DEDUCTED 5 5 TEST ITEM LINES COMPLETED C,D,E,F ALL 100 C,D,E ALL 75 C,D ALL 50 c ALL 25 POINTS The following points were given to incomplete problems based on the test item and the number of lines typed. TEST ITEM LINES TYPED C,D,F 1 - 3 3 4 — 6 6 7 - 9 13 10 - 11 25 E 1 — 3 6 4 — 6 13 7 — 8 25 POINTS APPENDIX F LEARNER ATTITUDE INVENTORY, COOPERATIVE LEARNING INVENTORY, AND KEYBOARDING EVALUATION INVENTORY 148 LEARNER-ATTITUDE INVENTORY (Typewriter) LESSONS COMPLETED DATE Directions: The following ten statements are about the lessons you have just completed. Please read each statement carefully, then circle the letter that best describes your agreement or disagreement with that statement. SA -- Strongly Agree A -- Agree D —- Disagree SD -- Strongly Disagree U -- Undecided The lessons were written in a way that made them easy to understand. SA A U D SD The instructor’s explanations helped make the lessons clearer and easier to understand. SA A U D SD It was not necessary to have an instructor in the classroom in order to understand these lessons. SA A U D SD I would have preferred to have someone explain these lessons to me. SA A U D SD It was difficult for me to do the assignment because of the way the lessons were presented by the instructor. SA A U D SD Please write down the part of any lesson that was unclear or difficult. Be specific; for example, the instructor’s directions were not clear. A. 10. I49 I enjoyed doing the lessons on the electronic typewriter. SA A U D SD The electronic typewriter is a valuable piece of equip- ment to learn. SA A U D SD It was difficult for me to manipulate the typewriter while doing these lessons. SA A U D SD Now what I am taking this course, I enjoy using the typewriter. SA A U D SD COMMENTS: Please write down any comments, ideas or suggestions you wish to express concerning your attitudes and feelings while doing these lessons. 150 LEARNER-ATTITUDE INVENTORY (Computer) LESSONS COMPLETED DATE Directions: The following ten statements are about the lessons you have just completed. Please read each statement carefully, then circle the letter that best describes your agreement or disagreement with that statement. SA -- Strongly Agree A —- Agree D —- Disagree SD —— Strongly Disagree U -- Undecided The lessons were written in a way that made them easy to understand. SA A U D SD The instructor’s explanations helped make the lessons clearer and easier to understand. SA A U D SD It was not necessary to have an instructor in the classroom in order to understand these lessons. SA A U D SD I would have preferred to have someone explain these lessons to me. SA A U D SD It was difficult for me to do the assignment because of the way the lessons were presented on the computer. SA A U D SD Please write down the part of any lesson that was unclear or difficult. Be specific; for example, the vocabulary directions were not clear. A. 10. 151 I enjoyed doing the lessons on the computer. SA A U D SD The computer is a valuable piece of equipment to learn. SA A U D SD It was difficult for me to manipulate the computer while doing these lessons. SA A U D SD Now what I am taking this course, I enjoy using the computer. SA A U D SD COMMENTS: Please write down any comments, ideas or suggestions you wish to express concerning your attitudes and feelings while doing these lessons. 152 COOPERATIVE LEARNING INVENTORY LESSONS COMPLETED DATE Directions: with other students. actions. I asked other students questions about how to do the lessons. Never Frequently Sometimes I asked for help when I needed it. Never Frequently Sometimes I allowed other students to show me how to do the lessons. Never Frequently Sometimes I helped other students with the lessons. Never Frequently Sometimes I made certain other students understood the lessons. Never Frequently Sometimes I worked with other students in order to complete my lessons. Never Frequently Sometimes The following six statements are about working They pertain to the lessons you have just completed. Please read each statement carefully, then place a check mark (x) by the answer that best describes your 153 KEYBOARDING EVALUATION INVENTORY (Typewriter) Directions: Please read each question carefully. Then place a check mark (x) by your answer. In the space provided, write down any comments you wish to make regarding your answer. Your comments are needed to help us evaluate and im- prove this course for future students. Thank you. 1. Did you learn how to keyboard? YES NO If YES, why? If NO, why not? 2. Did you find that the teacher's instructions helped you to learn keyboarding skills? YES NO If YES, why? If NO, why not? 3. Would you take another typing course? YES NO If YES, why? If NO, why not? 4. Did working with other students make the course enjoy- able? YES NO If YES, why? ILf NO, why not? 5. Did you use a typewriter outside the classroom to prac— tice or complete assignments? YES No. If YES, please check the approximate number of hours. 1-2 hrs per week 5-6 hrs per week 3-4 hrs per week 7 or more hrs per week 6. Would you recommend this course to another student? YES NO If YES, why? If NO, why not- 154 KEYBOARDING EVALUATION INVENTORY (Computers) Directions: Please read each question carefully. Then place a check mark (x) by your answer. In the space provided, write down any comments you wish to make regarding your answer. Your comments are needed to help us evaluate and im- prove this course for future students. Thank you. 1. Did you learn how to keyboard? YES NO If YES, why? If NO, why not? 2. Did you find that the computer-assisted instructions helped you to learn keyboarding skills? YES NO If YES, why? If NO, why not? 3. Would you take another CAI course? YES NO If YES, why? If NO, why not? 4. Did working with other students make the course enjoy- able? YES NO If YES, why? ILf NO, why not? 5. Did you use a computer outside the classroom to prac- tice or complete assignments? YES No. If YES, please check the approximate number of hours. 1-2 hrs per week 5-6 hrs per week 3-4 hrs per week 7 or more hrs per week 6. Would you recommend this course to another student? YES NO If YES, why? If NO, why not APPENDIX G PRETEST 155 PRETEST TEST l-A ;:Minute Timed Writing On Alphabetic CODY Let it snow. If those three words make your pulse race, you probably like winter sports. You may like to ski, skate, or sled in Vail. The three words cause you to gaze quietly in the distance as you don and adjust the right gear for your expected trip to winter sports. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 TEST l-B 2-Minute Timed Writing On Copy With Numbers San Francisco has a public library system of 26 branches. The budget was over 13.2 million in 1986 for this 26-branch library system. There are over 1,950,684 volumes in the sys— tem and a circulation Of over 2,695,510. Many of the 712,753 citizens use the libraries. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 20 28 38 48 56 10 20 28 38 48 56 156 TEST l-C Horizontal and Vertical Centering Directions: Title displayed: Spread-centered, 2 Blank Lines. Line: Center longest line; block—center listing Tab: Center only Spacing: As shown C R U I S E S The Hill-Rowe Travel Company is pleased to announce its annual winter cruises to the carribbean. The cruises include stops at: Antigua Barbados Grenada Guadeloupe Martinique St. Lucia St. Maarten TEST l-D Block Centering Directions: Center Title, 2 blank lines. Line: To Center longest item. Tab: Center Spacing: Single MODERN U. S. SUSPENSION BRIDGES Bronx-Whitestone Delaware Memorial Gas Pipe Line George Washington Golden Gate Mackinac Straits Seaway Skyway Tacoma Narrows Transbay Verrazano-Narrows 157 TEST l-E Line Centering Directions: Title: Center 2 Blank Lines Line: Center each line horizontally Tab: Center Spacing: Double FOREIGN EXCHANGE British Pound Canadian Dollar French Franc German Mark Japanese Yen Mexican Peso Swiss Franc TEST 1-F Block Centering Directions: Title: Spread Centered 2 Blank Lines Lines: To center longest item Tab: Center Spacing: Single TEN LARGEST U. S. CITIES New York Los Angeles Chicago Houston Philadelphia Detroit Dallas San Antonio Phoenix San Francisco APPENDIX H POSTTEST 158 POSTTEST TEST l-A 2-Minute Timed Writing On Alphabetic Copy When apprOaching the middle of April, people realize that it is time for taxes. This is quite a busy time in many homes in the nation. It is time to review some records and to see just what deductions and credits can be taken. A smaller tax liability is the objective. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 TEST 1-B 2—Minute Timed Writing On Copv With Numbers The Crane Company, 1568 Alpine Street, lists more than 2,240 items in its 92-page catalog. It sold items to 1,247 customers last week. The company employs 642 workers in its Alpha plant and 540 in Easton. There are 142 marketing people who call on the 10,952 customers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 20 28 38 48 56 10 20 28 38 48 56 159 TEST 1-C Horizontal and Vertical Centerinq Directions: Title displayed: Spread-centered, 2 Blank Lines. Line: Center longest line; block-center listing Tab: Center only Spacing: As shown T O U R S The Memphis chapter of the Certified Public Accountants is sponsoring a special trip for its members to tour these Italian cities: Florence Genoa Milan Naples Perugia Rome Venice TEST l-D Block Centerinq Directions: Center Title, 2 blank lines. Line: To Center longest item. Tab: Center Spacing: Single WORLD SERIES WINNERS FOR LAST TEN YEARS Los Angeles Dodgers Minnesota Twins New York Mets Kansas City Royals Detroit Tigers Baltimore Orioles St. Louis Cardinals Los Angeles Dodgers Philadelphia Phillies Pittsburgh Pirates 160 TEST l-E Line Centering Directions: Title: Center 2 Blank Lines Line: to Center each line horizontally Tab: Center Spacing: Double LAST SEVEN VICE PRESIDENTS OF THE U.S.A. George Bush Walter Mondale Nelson Rockefeller Gerald Ford Spiro Agnew Hubert Humphrey Lyndon Johnson TEST l-F Block Centerinq Directions: Title: Spread Centered 2 Blank Lines Lines: To center longest item Tab: Center Spacing: Single M O S T E L E C T O R A L C O L L E G E V O T E S California New York Pennsylvania Texas Illinois Ohio Michigan Florida New Jersey Massachusetts BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Agneberg, C. (1986). Comparison of computer-assisted instruction, traditional instruction, and cognitive style on achievement of postsecondary students in applying alphabetic filing rules (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Nebraska, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 08A. Anderson, M. A. (1976). A comparison of time spent by college students learning typewriting via audio-visual tutorial and traditional group instruction (Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts International, 35, 3356A. Anderson, T. (1984). Traditional method versus computer-aided instruction in teaching keyboarding skills to elementary school-age children (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 388A. Atkinson, M. L. (1984). Computer-assisted instruction: Current state of the arts. Computers in the Schools, 1, 91—95. Baer, V. (1988). Computers as composition tools: A case study of student attitudes. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15, 144-148. Bartha, R. (1988). A comparison of teacher-directed computer-based instruction and self-directed computer-based instruction in teaching (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 410A. Becker, H. J. (1983). School uses of microcomputers. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for School Organization. Behymer, J., & Schaefer, J. (1990, March). Andragogy: Implica- tions for business education for the 19905 and beyond. Busi- ness Education Forum, 44, 9. ' Boettcher, E. 6., Alderson, S. F., & Saccucci, M. S. (1981). A comparison of the effects of computer-assisted instruction versus printed instruction on student learning in the cognitive categories of knowledge and application. Journal of Computer- Based Instruction, 8, 13-17. 160 161 Bronner, M., & Bronner, R. (1984). First-time final copy: A keyboarding experiment. Business Education Forum, 39, 20-21. Burns, G. A. (1985). Effects of computer-assisted instruction testing on test anxiety, achievement and student attitudes (Doctoral dissertation, Ball State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 4;, 08A. Campbell, D., & Campbell, J. (1982). Microcomputer mania . . . avoid the pitfall. Journal of Business Education, 5g, 15. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and guasi- experimental desigps for research. Chicago: Rand McNally. Carnegie Council of Policy Studies in Higher Education. (1979, November). Washington Post. Carney, C. (1989). Using cooperative learning strategies to enhance computer—assisted keyboarding instruction (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International, 5Q, Carpenter, C. (1990). A study of adult learning styles and atti— tudes in computer- assisted instruction (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Oklahoma, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, Carrier, C., & Sales, G. (1987). Pair versus individual work on the acquisition of concepts in a computer-based instructional lesson. Journal of Cgmputer-Based Instruction, 14, 11-17. Chamber, J. A., & Sprecher, T. (1980). Computer-assisted instruc— tion: Current trends and critical issues. Association for Computing, g3, 332-342. Chin, S. (1986). The influence of computer—generated advisement on student interactions with computer—assisted instruction (Doc- toral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46(09A 2669. Cleaver, T. G., & O’Connor, C. A. (1980). Prediction of success at typing (Louisville University, Kentucky). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 242 926) Crawford, V. F. (1985). A comparison of computer-assisted instruction and traditional classroom instruction in selected units of a college business mathematics course (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 3333. ’ 162 Culwell, B. (1985). A comparative study of microcomputer and typewriter keyboarding skills (Doctoral dissertation, Univer- sity of Arkansas, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 4Q, 2896A. Dalgaard, B. R., & Lewis, D. H. (1985). Current status of computer-assisted instruction with implications for business educators. Journal of Education for Business, p1, 20~23. Darling, D. L. (1987). A study of the effects of using microcom- puters on achievement in mathematics basic skills (CAI) Doctoral dissertation, The University of Tennessee, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 785. Davidson, L. (1988). Effects of microcomputer vs. electric element typewriter instruction on straight copy and production key— boarding performance (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Minnesota, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 411A. Drzewiecki, P. (1987). The comparative effectiveness of computer- assisted and teacher-presented study skills courses for low- achieving college students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 02A. D’Souza, P. (1983). A comparative analysis of the impact of computer-aided instruction and traditional teacher-directed instruction in teaching a basic keyboarding course (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 09. D’Souze, P. (1983). Using the microcomputer to learn keyboarding skills. Century 21 Reporter, 10. Dyarmett, C. J. (1987). The influence of computer-assisted instruction versus traditional instruction on the academic achievement of high school students enrolled in beginning accounting courses (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Southern Mississippi, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts Inter- national, 41, 2819. Erickson, L. w. (1983). Typewriting vs. keyboarding--What’s the difference? Century 21 Reporter, pp. 5-9. Feldman, P. R. (1984). Using microcomputers for colleqe writing: What students say. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 244 298. Frederickson, P. A. (1988). Impact of home computers on typewrit- ing instruction. Business Education Forum, 43, 13. 163 Gaddis, R. W. (1988). Keyboarding trends: An attitudinal survey of leading national business teacher educators (Doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 07A. Garhart, C., & Hannafin, M. (1986). The accuracy of cognitive monitoring during computer-based instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19, 88-93. Gillingham, M. G. (1988). Text in computer-based instruction: What the research says. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19, 1-6. Glades, R. (1986). The effect of computer use on keyboarding technique and skill. Business Education Forum, 49(5), 34—36. Glassman, P. (1990). A study of cooperative learning in mathe- matics, writing, and reading in the intermediate grades: A focus upon achievement, attitudes, and self-esteem by gender, race and ability group (Doctoral dissertation, Hofstra Univer- sity, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 99, 07A. Goodrich, E. A. (1979). Keyboarding: An increasing fact in today’s society. Business Education Forum, 99, 15-17. Gray, S. (1987). The effect of sequence control on computer- assisted learning. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14(2), 54-56. Greenland, L. T., & Bartholome, L. W. (1987). The effects of the use of microcomputers on writing ability and attitudes toward business communication classes. The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 29, 78. Greenwald, A., Pratkanis, A., & Breckler, S. J. (1989). Attitudes structure and function. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Harmon, G. (1986). Microcomputers in business education: A look at public and private schools. Journal of Business Education, 91(7), 293. Hauger, B. (1987). A comparison of computer-assisted instruction and teacher-directed instruction in teaching microcomputer keyboarding to sixth graders (Doctoral dissertation, The University of North Dakota, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 635A. Hofmeister, A. (1982). Microcomputers in perspective. Exceptional Children, 49(2), 116. 164 Holt, A. B. (1987). The effects of traditional and response based approaches to teaching literature on student involvement (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41. Howard, M. (1987). The impact of personality characteristics and attitude on learning by computer-assisted instruction (Doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University, 1986). Disserta- tion Abstracts International, 41, 801. Huxley, T. (1981). Guide to research designs, methods and strate— gies. In Handbook in resgarch and evalpation (2nd ed., Chapter 3). San Diego, CA: EDITS Publishers. Imboden, H. (1986). The effects of computer-enhanced instruction in teaching concepts of percent to low achieving college stu- dents (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 11A. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1985). Computer-assisted cooperative learninq. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1988). Coopera- tion in the classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Jorgensen, C., & Campbell, M. (1984). Business classroom and laboratory equipment. Business Education Forum, 99, 25-29. Kern, G., & Matta, K. (1988). The influence of personality on self-paced instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19(3), 104-108. LaBarre, J., & Byfield, J. S. (1984). Integrating information processing into keyboarding/typewriting. Business Education Forum, 99, 53-56. LaBonty, D. J. (1988). The comparison of student achievement in principles of accounting using a software package versus a traditional method of teaching (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Nebraska-Lincoln). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 813. Lambrecht, J. (1984). Selecting electronic equipment: Limited resources vs. multiple options. Journal of Business Education, 99, 220-224. 165 Larrea-Peterson, M. (1986). A comparison of reading and mathemat- ics achievement and cost effectiveness: Traditional and com- puterized prescription learning methods (Doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts Inter- national, 41, 39. Leitman, S. I. (1987). Effects of computer programming on mathe- matics problem solving with ninth-grade students using a unit on flowcharting (Doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, 1986). Dissertation Abstragts International, 47(06A, 2067. Liberatore, K. M. (1986). A study to determine the relationship of entry-skill level of keyboarding to input speed scores, cor- recting editing scores, and post attitudes toward computers of students performing word processing applications on a microcom- puter (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 2898A. Lindsay, R. (1982). A comparative study of teaching typing skills on microcomputers (Educational Research Institute of British Columbia, Grant No. 306). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 220 597) MacLachian, J. (1986). Psychologically based techniques for improving learning within computerized tutorials. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19(3), 65-70. Mansourian, L. (1988). The association between exposure to com- puter instruction and changes in attitudes toward computers (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 1999. McLean, G. (1987a). Criteria for selecting computer software for keyboarding instruction. Business Education Forum, 41, 10. McLean, G. (1987b). Teaching keyboarding/typewriting. Delta Pi Epsilon Rapid Reader, 9, 76. Morgan, B. (1988). Cooperative learning: Teacher use, classroom life, social integration and student achievement (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 10A. Morgan, R. C. (1987). The comparative effectiveness of an interactive microcomputer program utilizing slides versus a text only format in improving anatomy instruction (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47/07. 166 Morris, P. D. (1987). Comparison of teacher-assisted and computer- assisted instruction with learning disabled high school stu- dents (spelling) (Doctoral dissertation, University of New Orleans, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47/07A, 2543. Naiman, A. (1982). Microcomputers in educaljon: An introduction. Cambridge, MA: Technical Education Research Centers. Naisbitt, J. (1982). Meqatrends. New York: Warner. Nathan, J. (1983). Fighting school computer fad. Infoworld Magazine, 9, 35. Nederhood, B. (1987). The effects of student team learning on academic achievement, attitudes toward self and school (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47/04A, 1175. Olney, R. (1987). The impact of computer technology on the com- position of written business communication. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 99, 3. . Orr, C. L. (1990). A comparison of achievement and attitude of postsecondary students taught by two methods of instruction in word processing. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 99, 71—85. Patterson, A., & Bloch, B. (1987). Formative evaluation: A pro- cess required in computer-assisted instruction. Educational Technoloqv, pp. 26-30. . Perreault, H. R. (1984). A comparison of achievement of students receiving computer-assisted keyboarding instruction with achievement of students receiving keyboarding instruction within a traditional typewriting class (Doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 2961. Policies Commission for Business and Economic Education. (1984). This we believe about keyboarding. Business Education Forum, 99, 8-9. Pratkanis, A., Breckler, S., & Greenwald, A. (1989). Attitude structure and function. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Reed, B. B. (1987). The effects of computer-assisted instruction on achievement and attitudes of underachievers in high school biology (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45(04A, 1270. 167 Rhodes, G. (1987). Keyboarding instruction requires different approach. Business Edugation Forum, 49, 19. Richerson, V. (1986). Teaching typewriting formatting/production skills on electronic typewriters and microcomputers (Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 764A. Robinson, J., & Johnson, G. (1982). Learning microcomputer keyboarding. The Balance Sheet, 99, 228-231. Russon, A., & Wanous, S. J. (1973). Philosophy and psychology of teaching typewriting (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern Publishing. Saxe, S. (1987). The effect of peer interaction and incentive on adult learner achievement (Doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47(07A, 2421. Schmidt, J. (1985). Selecting materials for keyboarding instruc- tion on microcomputers. Business Education Forum, 99, 15. Schmidt, J., & Stewart, J. (1983). Microcomputer typewriting in business education. Business Education Forum, 91, 23. Schuls, B. (1985). Instructor-assisted individualized instruction versus computer-assisted individualized instruction for teaching keyboarding on microcomputer keyboards. Jefferson City: Missouri State Department of Education, Research Coordinating Unit. Scott, T. (1985). The effects of cooperative learning environments on relationships with peers, attitudes toward self and school, and achievement in spelling of ethnically diverse elementary students (Doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46ZO6A, 1503. Seals, G. (1988). Computers enhance learning throughout networked system. Business Education Forum, 49, 17. Shaffer, M. (1977). Comparison of two methods of teaching the typewriter keyboard: Simulator versus the conventional class- room method (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International, 91, 5735A. Sharron, J. E. (1985). An empirically validated model program for teaching alphabetic keyboarding skills via microcomputer (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 1967A. ' 168 Skinner, M. E. (1988). Attitudes of college students toward computer-assisted instruction: An essential variable for successful implementation. Educational Technology, 99, 7-15. Sormunen, C. (1987). A comparison of two methods for teaching microcomputer keyboarding at the elementary school level (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 12A. Stainbrook, J. (1984). Keyboards for key persons: A basic in a back-to-basics era. Journal of Business Education, 99, 325-327. Staudacher, D. (1983). The effects of computers on education. American Education, 19, 6. Stenehjem, K. (1986). A comparison of lecture-demonstration and augmented computer-assisted instruction methods for college students (Doctoral dissertation, The University of North Dakota, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 04A. Stocker, R. H. (1988). Computer proliferation and the changing curriculum. Business Education Forum, 49, 18-19. Suddendorf, L. (1987). Student characteristics and computer- assisted instruction in medical technology education (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 08A. Sunkel, M., & Cooper, M. (1982). Teaching touch keyboarding on computer terminals. Business Education Forum, 1, 18. Swanson, J. (1986). Equipment decisions: Micros, terminals, or typewriter. Business Education Forum, 41, 17. Swartz, R. A. (1989). The effectiveness of heterogeneous coopera- tive learninq qroups in the teaching of business communication at the postsecondary level. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. Tanamai, A. (1990). A comparison of computer—assisted cooperative learning with independent learning (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts Inter- national, 99, 11A. Tobin, W. L. (1987). A comparison of computer—assisted instruction and individualized instruction for adult basic education students enrolled in Florence district one programs and the effectiveness of the instruction in relation to the age of student learning (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47/04A, 1156. ' 169 Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York: Morrow. U.S. Department of Education & National Science Foundation. (1981, October 23). U.S. reports fears most Americans will become scientifically illiterate. The New York Timaa. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1983). Valentino, V. (1989). A study of achievement, anxiety, and atti- tude toward mathematics in college algebra students using small-group interaction methods (Doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts Interna- tional, 99, 02A. Van Scoder, L. I. (1986). A comparison of the effectiveness of computer—assisted instruction with traditional techniques for selected topics in respiratory therapy education (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47/01A, 57. Verducci, D. (1986). The comparative effects of three training methods on the improvement of microcomputer users’ attitudes and skills (Doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 12A. Wallace, 1. G. (1981). Computers in the typing class. Business Education Forum, 99, 27. Wally, M. G." (1974). An analysis of the effects on speed and accuracy when using the electronic wallchart as compared with traditional instruction to introduce the typewriting keyboard in six selected ninth-grade classes (Doctoral dissertation, The University of North Dakota, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts International, 94, 4986A. Walthall, M. S. (1986). Relationship of two methods of practice on speed and accuracy among keyboarding students (Doctoral disser- tation, University of South Florida, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47/021, 393A. Wayne County Community College. (1989). College cataloque. 1989- 1991. West, L. (1969). Acquisition of typewriting skills. New York: Pitman. West, L. (1983). Acquisition of typewriting skills: Methods and research in teaching typewritinq and word processing. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. 170 Williams, F. B. (1990). A comparative study of using electronic typewriters and microcomputers to achieve speed and accuracy in beginning keyboarding classes (typewriters) (Doctoral disserta- tion, University of Arkansas, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 99, 07A. Williard, M. (1986). An investigation of the effects of c00pera- tive learning and cognitive style in teaching word-processing skills to adults (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 04A. G “111 B 1 11111111 RQRIES UI‘U i i H 1 1