THE EFFECTS OF INTELUGENCE AND TYPES OF DRILL MATERIALS 0N
ACHIEVEMENT III INTERMEDIATE COLLEGIATE TYPEWBITING

THESIS F03 THE DEGREE 01' PM).
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
CARRIE MCDONALD PRATER

1978

Ls

Date

0-7639

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

THE EFFECTS OF INTELLIGENCE AND TYPES OF DRILL
MATERIALS 0N ACHIEVEMENT IN INTERMEDIATE
COLLEGIATE TYPEWRITING

presented by

Carrie McDonald Prater

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Bus . Ed.

 

 

.r '
‘//?_./ a") ) .
, 1:, ' ’ . 0, 4" /lz ' '
//’ / ( C d If- . L , /( \J/ _ -_ r ' ,3 s

 

 

1'
/
1

Major professor

March, 1976

 

 

of II
in 1:
terms
ings .

typenn

tYpewr
ligenc
drill 1

0f unit

“Te en
I"Ring.
Iem! A
upPer-ab
“mist.
the tYPEi
the study

which to

‘2
. ‘I,_.’
.~‘ 3,
( 7"”
i

‘7

ABSTRACT

THE EFFECTS OF INTELLIGENCE AND TYPES OF DRILL MATERIALS 0N
ACHIEVEMENT IN INTERMEDIATE COLLEGIATE TYPEWRITING

By

Carrie McDonald Prater

The problem of this study was to attempt to determine the effects
of levels of intelligence and types of drill materials on achievement
in intermediate collegiate typewriting. Achievement was measured in
terms of straight-copy speed and accuracy on threedminute timed writ-
ings and in terms of production-copy speed and accuracy on 30-minute
typewriting tasks.

The purpose of this study was to attempt to determine whether
typewriting instructors should be concerned about the levels of intel-
ligence of students who enroll in typewriting classes and the types of
drill practice given as it relates to the organization and presentation
of units of instruction.

The subjects who participated in the study were 95 students who
were enrolled in five intact classes in intermediate collegiate type-
writing. The results of an administration of the Otis QuickeScoring
Mental Ability Test were used as a means of grouping students into
upper-ability and lower-ability categories. A typewriting pre-test was
administered prior to the initiation of the study in order to determine
the typewriting proficiency of the students. Upon the termination of
the study, a post-test was administered in order to generate data with

which to compare the pre-test results to obtain a measure of the effects

 

 

si

dr
Vi
ti:
the
min
per

ins

sign

of d
0f Cl

fete:

Carrie McDonald Prater

of exposure to the four experimental treatments. The two-way analysis of
variance technique was used to determine whether significant differences
existed between mean achievement levels on straight-copy speed and accu-
racy and on production-capy speed and accuracy for the four treatment
groups. When instances of differences occurred which were significant,

the Scheffe'post hoc procedure was used to ascertain which pair of means
contributed to or was responsible for the rejection of the null hypothesis.

Approximately one-fourth of the students from each class at each of
the participating universities were randomly assigned to one of the four
treatment groups. Group I typed from computerized drill books. Group II
typed paragraphs from magazines, Group III typed preparatory drills from
the textbooks which were currently being used at their respective univer-
sities, and Group IV did not type warm-up drills.

Fifteen minutes of each class period were devoted to the experimental
drill practice and one, three-minute timed writing. Each treatment group,
with the exception of Group IV, typed and quickly scored a three-minute
timed writing at the beginning of each class period; and the remainder of
the 15 minutes was devoted to additional drill practice. After the 15
minutes of drill practice had been completed, the remainder of the class
period was conducted according to the discretion of the typewriting
instructors.

The two-way analysis of variance test indicated that there was a
significant difference in straight-copy speed achievement among the types
of drill materials used in favor of Group IV (no drills) at the .05 level
of confidence. The test also indicated that there was a significant dif-

ference in productionecopy speed achievement between levels of intelligence

Carrie McDonald Prater

in favor of the lower-ability students at the .05 level of confidence.

No significance in achievement was indicated between groups subdivided

by levels of intelligence and types of drill materials on straight-copy
accuracy and production—copy accuracy.

The conclusions derived from an analysis of the findings were as
follows:

1. Drill practice during the second semester of intermediate
collegiate typewriting is of little value in producing meaningful gains
in straight-copy speed and accuracy and in producing meaningful gains
in production-copy speed and accuracy. In addition, the benefits which
can be derived from emphasising the typing of drills at the intermediate
level of instruction are more in favor of the lower-ability students than
the upper-ability students.

2. Levels of intelligence, as categorized in this study, do not
play an important role in achievement in intermediate collegiate type-
writing. However, since all treatment groups acquired mean gains in
straight-copy speed and accuracy and production-copy speed and accuracy,
the amount of time in which a student engages in typewriting practice

facilitates achievement.

THE EFFECTS OF INTELLIGENCE AND TYPES OF DRILL MATERIALS ON

ACHIEVEMENT IN INTERMEDIATE COLLEGIATE TYPEWRITING

3?

Carrie McDonald Prater

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to

Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Business and Distributive Education

1976

 

an

8t

Mr

DEDICATION

This research project is dedicated to my husband, Mr. Fred Prater,
and to my mother, Mrs. Liddie Ruth McDonald, without whose support this
study would not have been possible; and to the memories of my father,

Mr. Tommie McDonald, and my paternal grandmother, Mrs. Lucinda Taylor.

11

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer gratefully acknowledges the assistance and patience of
the guidance committee, Dr. Helen H. Green, Dr. William Mann, Dr. Robert
Poland, and Dr. James Rainey, in the preparation of this dissertation.

Sincere appreciation is expressed to Mrs. Ella Anderson, Mr. Leon
Crawford, and their intermediate typewriting classes of Alcorn State
University located in Lorman, Mississippi; Mrs. Della Cooper and her
intermediate typewriting class of Jackson State University located in
Jackson, Mississippi; and Ms. Dianne Williams and her intermediate
typewriting classes of Mississippi Valley State University located in
Itta Bena, Mississippi, for their coOperation in the gathering of the
data for this investigation.

Special thanks is extended to Dr. Gwendolyn Norrell who aided in
the selection and acquisition of an apprOpriate mental-ability test and
to Dr. John Schweitzer who assisted in the interpretation of the statis-

tical tests.

iii

CHAPTER

TABLE OF

I. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY . . .

The Problem . .

Statement of the problem

Purpose of the study . . .

Importance of the study .

Hypotheses . . .
Assumptions . .
Delimitations .

Limitations . .

Definitions of Terms Used .

Achievement .

Computerized drill book .

Lower-ability student . .

Upper-ability student . .

Production copy

Straight capy

Organization of the Study .

CONTENTS

PAGE

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

II. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

The weaver Study 0 O O O O O I O O I O O O O O O O 0 O O O 13

The Byford Study

The Crawford Study . . . .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 15

0 O 0 O O O O 0 O O O O I O O 18

The Dodson Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

CHAPTER
TheGadesStudy ........
TheJohnsonStudy .......
The Mach Study . . . . . . . . .
The Nemesh Study . . . . . . . .
TheTheisStudy ........
The Tranquill Study . . . . . .
The west Study . . . . . . . . .

Summary of the Reviewed Literature

III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES . . . . . .

IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Statistical Analysis of the Data

Analysis of the data on speed on

timed writings

Analysis of the data on speed on

Analysis of the data on accuracy

copy timed writings

Analysis of the data on accuracy

straight-copy

production copy

on straight-

on production

copy eeeosesseseeeesese

Sub-Hypotheses

Summary of Findings From the Statistical Analysis

Of the Data 0 O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O

Non-Statistical Analysis of the Data

Analysis of the data an ability levels

Analysis of the data on pre-test and post-test

straight-copy speed

PAGE
24
27
31
34
36
39
44
48
S4
61

63

63

67

71

74

77

78

80

80

82

CHAPTER

V.

Analysis of the data on pre-test and
production-capy speed . . . . . .
Analysis of the data on pre-test and
straight-capy accuracy . . . . .
Analysis of the data on pre-test and
production-copy accuracy . . . .
Summary of Non-Statistical Analysis of
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of statistical findings . .
Summary of non-statistical findings
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Implications . . . . . . . . . . . .

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . .

B IBL 1mm 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

APPENDIX A - Sub-Hypotheses . . . . . . .

APPENDIX B - Mental Ability Scores . . . .

APPENDIX C - Pro-Test Materials . . . . .

APPENDIX D - Post-Test Materials . . . . .

APPENDIX E - Correspondence . . . . . . .

post-test

post-test

post-test

the

Data

PAGE

85

89

93

96

102
102
107
110
114
115
115
117
120
121
128
133

139

TABLE

3.1

3.2

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

LIST OF TABLES

One-way Analysis of Variance of Ability Levels Across
the Four Treatment Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Confidence Intervals Around the Differences
Between the Mean Mental Ability Levels of the Four
Treatment Groups Using the Scheffe'Method . . . . . .
Two-way Analysis of Variance of Treatment Groups and
Ability Levels on Straight-Copy Speed . . . . . . . .
Summary of Confidence Intervals Around the Differences
Between the Means of the Four Treatment Groups Using
the Scheffe'Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Two-way Analysis of Variance of Treatment Groups and
Ability Levels of Production-Copy Speed . . . . . . .
Mean Production-Copy Speed Gains for the Combined Group
of UppereAbility Students and the Combined Group of
Lower-Ability Students in the Four Treatment Groups .
Two-Nay Analysis of Variance of Treatment Groups and
Ability Levels on Straight-copy Accuracy . . . . . .
Two-Nay Analysis of Variance of Treatment Groups and
Ability Levels on Production-Copy Accuracy . . . . . .
Mean Mental Ability Scores of the Students Assigned to

the Four Treatment Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PAGE

55

56

64

65

68

70

72

75

80

TABLE PAGE

4.8 Mean Straight-Copy Speed Scores for Pre-Test and

Post-Test Results, Mean Speed Gain for Upper-

Ability Students and LowereAbility Students,

and Mean Difference Between Speed Gains for

the Combined Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.9 Mean Straight-Copy Speed Gains for the Combined

Groups of UppereAbility Students and Lower-

Ability Students in the Four Treatment Groups . . . . . 84
4.10 Mean Production-Copy Speed Scores for Pre-Test

and Post-Test Results, Mban Speed Gain for

UppereAbility Students and LowereAbility

Students, and Mean Difference Between Speed

Gains for the Combined Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.11 Mean Production-Copy Speed Gains for the Combined

Groups of UppereAbility Students and Lower-

Ability Students in the Four Treatment Groups . . . . . 88
4.12 Mean Straight-Copy Accuracy Scores for Pre-Test and

Post-Test Results, Mean Accuracy Gain for Upper-

Ability Students and LowereAbility Students, and

Mean Difference Between Accuracy Gains for the

Combined Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.13 Mean Straight-Copy Accuracy Gains for the Combined

Groups of UppereAbility Students and LowereAbility

Students in the Four Treatment Groups . . . . . . . . . 91

TABLE PAGE

4.14 Mean Production-Copy Accuracy Scores for Pre-Test

and Post-Test Results, Mean Accuracy Gain for

Upper-Ability Students and LowerqAbility Students,

and'Mean Difference Between Accuracy Gains for the

Combined Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.15 Mean Production-Copy Accuracy Gains for the Combined

Groups of Upper-Ability Students and LowereAbility

Students in the Four Treatment Groups . . . . . . . . 95
5.1 Effectiveness of Treatments in Developing Straight-

Copy Speed for Upper-Ability Students, for Lower—

Ability Students, and for Combined Groups . . . . . . 110
5.2 Effectiveness of Treatments in Developing Production-

Copy Speed for UppereAbility Students, for Lower-

Ability Students, and for Combined Groups . . . . . . 111
5.3 Effectiveness of Treatments in DevelOping Straight-

COpy Accuracy for UppereAbility Students, for

LowereAbility Students, and for Combined Groups . . . 112
5.4 Effectiveness of Treatments in Developing Production-

Copy Accuracy for UpperqAbility Students, for Lower-

Ability Students, and for Combined Groups . . . . . . 113

CHAPTER I

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Typewriting, because of its vocational and personal use, and more
recently, its use as a means of improving literacy, has for many years
accounted for a large proportion of the number of students enrolled in
business education courses. Statistics published by the United States
Department of Health, Education, and welfare revealed that 39.7 percent
of all students in grades seven through twelve enrolled in public sec-
ondary schools during the 1970-71 school year were enrolled in business
courses.1 Nolan, Hayden, and Malabary state that there are probably
more students enrolled in typewriting than in shorthand, bookkeeping,
and general business combined.2

According to national figures releases by the United States Depart-
ment of Labor, the employment outlook for those who have completed a
clerical sequence is Optimistic. The 1974-75 edition of the Occupational
Outlook Handbook showed that during 1972, over 435,000 persons were

3

employed as receptionists, over 3,000,000 were employed as secretaries

 

1United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Digest
of Educational Statistics, DHEW Publication No. (OE) 74-11103 (Hashington:
Government Printing Office, 1973), p. 42.

2C. A. Nolan, Carlos R. Hayden, and Dean R. Malabary, Principles and
‘Problems of Business Education, Third Edition, (Cincinnati: SouEEZWestern
Publishing Company, 19675, p. 237.

3United States Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook,
Bulletin 1785, (Hashington: Government Printing Office, 1974-75 Edition),
p. 96.

and stenographers,‘ and over 1,000,000 were employed as typists.5 The
Occupational Outlook Handbook further states that:
The number of typists needed is expected to grow rapidly
through the mid-1980's as business expansion increases the

volume of paper work. There will be several thousand job

openings each year due to the growth of the occupation and

the need to replace those who stop working or transfer to

other jobs.

Demand should be particularly strong for highly skilled

workers and those who can handle other office jobs as well

as typing. Some employers will prefer typists who are famil-

iar with new kinds of typing equipment sue? as high-speed

machines equipped with magnetic keyboards.

Currently, typewriting is also being taught on an experimental basis
in many progressive elementary schools; and it appears to be increasing
in popularity. At this level, the major emphasis of the course is the
development of all language arts skills. That is, the typewriter is used
as a writing machine rather than a copying machine.7 Accordingly, Bober
maintains that learning to typewrite is directly related to the improve-
ment of language arts skills.8

Brown states that typewriting is an essential adjunct to communica-

tion and that it has become a necessity for the writer as well as the

 

reader.9 She further contends that the usefulness of typewriting is so
4
Ibid., p. 103.
5

Ibid., p. 105.

61bid., p. 106.

7John L. Rowe, "Typewriting in the Seventies-An Overview," National
Business Education Yearbook, No. 12, (Reston, Virginia: National Business
Education Association, 1974, p. 58.

8Charles F. Bober, "Typewriting in the Elementary Schools," Business
Education Forum, Vol. 29., No. 4, January, 1975, p. 16.

9Eleanor B. Brown, "Typewriting for the Gifted," Business Education
Forum, Vol. 22, No. 2, November, 1967, p. 7.

universally accepted that to deny anyone the opportunity to learn the
basic principles of efficient, effective typewriting is to deny them
a convenient lifelong means of expression and that the student who
cannot type is, indeed, handicapped.10

Tonne believes that the high enrollments in typewriting classes
are justified. He maintains that not only has typewriting become an
almost universal communications instrument but also will probably become
increasingly important as electronic data processing becomes an integral

11 He further maintains that the

element in our communications system.
typewriter, in some form, will almost certainly continue to be the basic
means of input for electronic data processing and be the key for securing
specific electronic data processing output in useful form.12 Campbell
asserts that the world of automation of which Tonne speaks and which
requires error-free input, is causing an increased demand for accurate
typists.13

The fact that typewriting is taught on all educational levels and
that the need for typewriting skills is so great necessitate constant
evaluation and assessment of procedures which can be used in the type-
writing classroom so that students will reach their Optimum potentials

within the limited amount of time allotted to the achievement of the

objectives of the course. Having such large, heterogeneous numbers of

 

loIbid.

11Herbert A. Tonne, "Ubiquitous Typing," Journal of Business Educa-
tion, Vol. XLVI, January, 1971, p. 140.

lzIbid.

13Don Campbell, "Let's Take A Look At Typewriting Accuracy. . .",
Journal of Business Education, Vol. XLV, No. 2, November, 1969, p. 55.

students also brings into sharp focus the importance of developing,
testing, and perfecting new methods and materials in typewriting in
order to plan and implement efficient programs of individualized

instruction.
I. THE PROBLEM

Statement of the problem. The problem of this study was to attempt
to determdne the effects of levels of intelligence and types of drill
materials on achievement in intermediate collegiate typewriting. Achieve-
ment was measured in terms of straight-copy speed and accuracy on three-
minute timed writings and performance on production typewriting tasks as

measured by speed and accuracy on production copy timed for 30 minutes.

Purpose of the study. The purpose of this study was to attempt to
determine whether typewriting instructors should be concerned about the
levels of intelligence of students who enroll in typewriting classes
and the types of drill practice given as it relates to organization and
presentation of units of instruction.

If levels of intelligence and types of drill practice do, in fact,
influence achievement of speed and/or accuracy on straight-copy timed
writings and/or satisfactory performance on production typewriting tasks,
then it would be beneficial for the typewriting instructor to have some
knowledge of the range of each student's capabilities as well as the type
of drill practice which is likely to influence achievement. This knowledge
could serve as a basis for the determination of the areas of emphasis in
the teaching of typewriting and for the more efficient individualization

of learning activities which will contribute to the optimum development

of those skills and knowledges needed to perform competently upon the
completion of the typewriting course.

If, on the other hand, levels of intelligence and types of drill
materials do not affect performance on either straight-copy timed writ-
ings or production typewriting tasks, the typewriting instructor would
have some rationale for gearing teaching activities toward other areas
which might facilitate achievement in intermediate collegiate type-

Importance of the study. This study was important because it
involved the use of two types of drill materials which have not been
utilized heretofore in scholarly research. One type of drill material
which fits this category was a computerized drill book which was com-
posed of copy material specifically designed to analyze the student's
typewriting errors. This drill book was based largely upon a research
study conducted by David H. Weaver (see Chapter II).lh Weaver found
"that no random practice can be assigned as having uniform import upon
a large group of students." Furthermore, Weaver's results demonstrated
that the difficulty or ease with which the subjects typed the weighted
copy reflected their speed levels, the kind of machine they were using,
and the ratio of the various stroking patterns located in the material.
In addition, he found that it was not possible to prescribe each type
of factor as being consistent for all speed levels or for all machines
and that there is a difference between the effects that some factors

have upon speed and their effects upon accuracy.15

 

ll’University Microfilms, Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 27, No. 10,
(Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1967), p. 355.

15Ibid.

In the drill book (which utilized the results of the Weaver study)
the student, depending upon the number of errors made on the first timed
writing, is directed by instructions contained in the book to type a
remedial drill which is geared either toward developing greater speed or
greater accuracy. The title of the drill book is Selective Practice
Typinngrills and was published in 1974.

The second type of drill material consisted of ordinary English
prose, such as is to be found in magazines or books. In this instance,
magazines were selected. The use of ordinary English prose for both
speed and accuracy practice has been advocated by a well-known researcher,
Leonard J. West. According to West, materials and procedures for build-
ing ordinary copying skills must be based on five demonstrable facts.
One of these is that, with few exceptions, materials for both speed and

16

accuracy practice should be ordinary English prose. west believes that

there is no merit in specially contrived drills. He feels that much of
the specially contrived materials or "special focus materials" are use-
less.17 west states that:

The reason for the failure of contrived materials of the
sort mentioned (nonsense sequence, easy words, hard words,
common words, uncommon words, balanced-movement words, first-
finger words, and third—finger words) to be beneficial lies
in a concept that is fundamental to all learning, one with
which the reader should by now be familiar, namely, transfer.
To illustrate: Practice at some particular balanced-movement
word (one involving a left-right alternation of the hands, 3:5,,
their) will make you better at that word and no other words in
the language whatever except those that contain the same letter
sequences. Practice at one-finger words like cede does not
strengthen that finger in general; it merely contributes to

 

16Leonard J. West, Acquisition of Typewriting Skills, (New York:
Pitman Publishing Corporation, 1969), p. 235.

17Ibid., p. 239.

facility at that word and at other words containing the
same letters or letter sequences. Practice at some thing
makes one better at that thing, not at other things. In
the deepest sense, there is no such thing as speed in
general, facility in general, rhythm in general. Instead,
one develops those things on whatever particular words have
been practiced. One might suspect such materials to be mere
window dressing, perhaps created out of a need to feel that
there is something complicated or recondite about the prac-
tice materials. Instead, with exceptions, the answer is
simplicity itself: ordinary English.

II. HYPOTHESES

The hypotheses tested in this study, which were restated for statis-
tical analysis in null form, were as follows:

1. Speed in intermediate collegiate typewriting on straight-copy
material will be affected by types of drill materials used.

2. Speed in intermediate collegiate typewriting on straight-copy
material will be affected by levels of intelligence.

3. Speed in intermediate collegiate typewriting on straight-copy
material will be affected by an interaction between types of drill
materials used and levels of intelligence.

4. Speed in intermediate collegiate typewriting on production-copy
material will be affected by types of drill materials used.

5. Speed in intermediate collegiate typewriting on production-copy
material will be affected by levels of intelligence.

6. Speed in intermediate collegiate typewriting on production-copy
material will be affected by an interaction between types of drill
materials used and levels of intelligence.

7. Accuracy in intermediate collegiate typewriting on straight-

copy material will be affected by types of drill materials used.

 

181bid., p. 240.

8. Accuracy in intermediate collegiate typewriting on straight-
copy material will be affected by levels of intelligence.

9. Accuracy in intermediate collegiate typewriting on straight-
copy material will be affected by an interaction between types of
drill materials used and levels of intelligence.

10. Accuracy in intermediate collegiate typewriting on production-
copy material will be affected by types of drill materials used.

11. Accuracy in intermediate collegiate typewriting on production-
cOpy material will be affected by levels of intelligence.

12. Accuracy in intermediate collegiate typewriting on production-
copy material will be affected by an interaction between types of drill
materials used and levels of intelligence.

In addition, 24 subhypotheses were postulated concerning the pos-
sible interactions between each type of drill material and each level
of intelligence regarding straight-copy speed, straight-copy accuracy,
production-capy speed, and production-copy accuracy. For example:

1. There will be a significant difference in speed on straight-
copy timed writings between students classified as upper ability and
students classified as lower ability who will be exposed to Treat-
ment I (computerized drills).

2. There will be a significant difference in speed on straight-
copy timed writings between students classified as upper ability and
students classified as lower ability who will be exposed to Treat-
ment II (magazine drills). (See Appendix A for the entire list of the

24 subhypotheses.)

III. ASSUMPTIONS

The following assumptions underlie the research effort:

I. The time of day in which classes were conducted would not
adversely affect the students' performances.

2. Instructors would be amenable to the use of the four types of
drill materials in their typewriting classes.

3. Students would be amenable to the use of the types of drill
material to which they would be assigned for the duration of the study.

4. Practice time spent in the typewriting laboratory after regular
class hours by either treatment group would not significantly affect mean
gains in speed and accuracy on straight-copy timed writings or production
copy.

5. The use of different textbooks by the participating classes
would not result in significant differences in the terminal performances
of the four treatment groups on straight-copy speed and accuracy or

production-copy speed and accuracy.

IV. DELIMITAIIONS

The problem of this study was limited to the effects of_four types
of drill materials only and their influence on the achievement levels
of students classified as possessing upper intellectual abilities and
students classified as possessing lower intellectual abilities as
measured by the results of an administration of the Otis Quick-Scoring
Mental Ability Test.

It is generally recognised that many factors affect and contribute

to the success of learning the skill of typewriting such as age, sex,

10

\nisual acuity, finger dexterity, reading ability, vocabulary, English
competency, and grade point average. However, these variables were not
”included as separate factors so as not to confound the findings of the
study.

In addition, this study was not concerned with the teaching
abilities of the instructors involved or the interpersonal relation-
ships between the students and the instructors which might have some
psychological bearing on the achievement of the students.

This study did not attempt to analyze the fatigue factor, classroom
settings, or the time of day students should enroll in the typewriting
class as determinants of achievement in intermediate collegiate type-
writing.

Further, the effects of previous instruction in typewriting, whether
in high school or through repeating the course on the collegiate level,

were not taken into consideration in this study.

V. LIMITATIONS

As the subjects included in this study were not random samples but
were students already enrolled in intermediate collegiate typewriting
classes, the generalizability of the findings will necessarily be limited
to typewriting classes in similar geographic locations, in similar four-
year colleges, and students of similar intellectual abilities.

The investigator had no means of determining whether students per-
formed to the best of their abilities on the Otis Quick-Scoring Mental
Ability Test; therefore, there might have been error in categorizing

students as upper ability and lower ability.

11

No features were built into the study to control the syllabic
intensity, selection of paragraphs, size of print, or layout of the
pages of the magazines which were used by students assigned to Treat-
ment II. However, various issues of the same magazine were used by

the Treatment II group.

VI. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED

Achievement. The typewriting speed and accuracy of all treatment
groups as measured by performance on three-minute timed writings on
straight-copy material and speed and accuracy on production typewriting
tasks timed for 30 minutes.

Computerized drill book. A typewriting drill book composed of copy
specifically designed to analyze students' typewriting errors. Depending
upon the number of errors made on their first threedminute timed writing,
the students are directed by instructions contained in the book to type
a remedial drill which is geared either toward developing greater speed
or greater accuracy. The book is entitled Selective Practice Typing
Drills, was coauthored by Alan C. Lloyd, Robert P. Poland, John L. Rowe,
Fred B. Winger, and William D. Griffith, and was published in 1974.

Lower-ability student.* A student whose mental ability is determined

 

to be 90 and below by the results of an administration of the Otis Quick-

Scoring Mental Ability Test.

 

*In order to divide the two groups of students as evenly as possible,
it was necessary to slightly overlap the two categories; thus, the two
groups were not mutually exclusive. Three students with mental abilities
of 90 were assigned to the upper-ability group, and all other students
with mental abilities of 90 and below were assigned to the lower-ability

“Cape

12

Upper-ability student. A student whose mental ability is determined

 

to be above 90 by the results of an administration of the Otis Quick-
Scoring Mental Ability Test.

Production copy. Office-type typewriting tasks such as letters,
memoranda, manuscripts, tabulations, minutes of meetings, and news
releases.

Straight-copy material. Copy consisting of commonly used words

 

which does not contain Arabic or Roman numerals.

VII. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

The organization of this study is as follows:
Chapter I: Background of the Study

Chapter II: Review of the Related Literature
Chapter III: Methods and Procedures

Chapter IV: Analysis of the Data

Chapter V: Summary, Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

Much has been written.with regard to the testing and development
of more efficient types of copy materials to be used in the building
of speed, accuracy, and production skills in typewriting. Research
findings to date have yielded inconclusive results. This absence of
established, definitive procedures is evidenced by the numbers of
studies which are undertaken each year in an effort to determine those
techniques which will produce the most competent typists. The review
of literature of this study, however, is limited to a small, representa-
tive sample of investigations which are specifically related to the
utilization of various types of drill materials to enhance achievement

in typewriting.

The Weaver Study. The computerized drill books which were used in
the current study were developed as a result of the findings of the
Weaver study. Weaver's experiment was conducted to investigate the impact
that various alphabet and punctuation stroking sequences existing in
straight-copy materials have upon a learner of typewriting as he or she
progresses through various speed levels on an electric or manual type-
writer.1 Weaver measured the impact on two variables: gross words per
minute typewritten (rates) and number of error incidents in three minutes

(accuracy).

 

1Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 27, No. 10, (Ann Arbor, Michigan:
University Microfilms, 1967), p. 355.

13

14

Weaver used a total of 540 subjects in the experiment. The students
were randomly selected from 75 classes in 11 urban, suburban, and rural
public and parochial high schools which required daily classroom type-
writing.

The threedminute timed writings were administered by the instruc-
tors in the same manner as other regularly timed materials. The subjects
were divided according to manual and electric typists and into five speed
groups according to their initial speeds. The 54 experimental timed writ-
ings were prepared in which the percentage of strokes for each factor was
controlled. A different timed writing was prepared for grouping the
students according to their normal typewriting rates. Each subject was
required to take only one experimental timed writing.

Among Weaver's significant findings were:

1. Electric machines increased rates over manual machines at the
.05 level of confidence.

2. Significant differences existed between right handedness on
electric machines versus left handedness on manual machines and double-
letter strokes on electric machines versus consecutive—finger strokes
on manual machines at the .05 level of confidence.

3. Double-letter strokes on accuracy on manual machines signifi-
cantly decreased the incidents of error over consecutive-finger strokes
on electric machines at the .05 level of confidence.

As was pointed out in Chapter I, the Weaver experiment revealed that
no random practice material can be assigned as having uniform impact upon
a large group of students. Weaver's results demonstrated that the dif-
ficulty or ease with which the subjects typed the weighted copy was a

reflection of their speed levels, the kinds of machines used, and also

15

the ratio of the various stroking patterns located in the material. His
results also revealed that it was not possible to prescribe each type of
factor as being consistent for all speed levels or for all machines and
that there is a difference between the effects that some have upon speed
and their effects upon accuracy. The percentage of total key strokes
attributed to each factor was determined by its content proportions in
six commonly used typewriting textbooks. The experimental percentage
range for each factor was weighted in proportion to the percentage of
strokes allocated to that factor. The constants were: word frequency,
syllabic intensity, and stroke intensity.

The results of the weaver study revealed that the rate components
which were significant at the .05 level of confidence were:

1. Strokes, with double-letter strokes increasing rates but
consecutive-finger strokes decreasing rates.

2. The interactions of double-letter strokes with right handed-
ness or with left handedness which increased rates significantly over
left handedness by consecutive-finger strokes.

The accuracy component significant at the .01 level was again
strokes, with double-letter strokes decreasing the incident of error
and consecutive-finger strokes increasing the incident of error. The
interaction of double-letter strokes by proximate motions decreased
errors over consecutive-finger strokes by out motions at the .05 level

of confidence.

The Dyford Study. The purpose of the Byford study was to determine
whether typewriting drills containing language arts concepts would signifi-

cantly improve language arts knowledges and typewriting speed and accuracy

16

in second semester high school typewriting.2 The intentional approach
was used in the presentation of the language arts concepts.

Byford utilized a total of 45 language arts drills which were
written specifically for his investigation. The drills were divided into
three parts: presentation of formal language arts concepts, presentation
of an example illustrating the concept, and provision of space for students
to compose their own examples using the formal language arts concept. The
language arts areas included in the drills were grammar, mechanics, punctua-
tion, spelling, and diction. The drills were incorporated as a part of
the daily warmup activities at the beginning of each typewriting class
period. A single concept was presented each day for 45 consecutive days.

The subjects of Byford's study were eight intact second-semester type-
writing classes at the Robert E. Lee High School in Baytown, Texas. Four
of the eight classes were randomly assigned to the control group which
consisted of 120 students, and the remaining four classes comprised the
experimental group which also consisted of 120 students. The experimental
group typed specially prepared drills containing language arts concepts
for the first ten minutes of each class period. The control group typed
traditional warmup drills from the textbook for the first ten minutes of
each class period.

Prior to the initiation of the study at the beginning of the second
semester, the experimental groups and the control groups were administered
a pre-test which included Form 2A of the C00perative English Test and a

three-minute straight-capy timed writing. For nine weeks immediately

 

2David Lent Byford. An Investigation of Language—Drill Effective-
ness in Second-Semester Typewriting on the Secondary Level, Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Houston, 1971.

 

17

following the pre-test, the experimental group typed daily drills pertain-
ing to the linguistic concepts. At the end of the nine-week drill period,
a post-test which consisted of Form 23 of the Cooperative English Test and
a three-minute straight-capy timed writing were administered to all sub-
lects participating in the study. For retention study purposes, Form 2C
05 ‘the Cooperative English Test was administered as a follow-up test six
weeks after the beginning of the drill period. A three-minute straight-
copy timed writing was also given six weeks after the drill period to
Compare speed and accuracy improvement.

Two hypotheses were formulated to determine if a significant dif-
fterence existed in achievement and retention of language arts concepts
between the experimental groups and the control groups and if a signifi-
cant difference existed in three-minute straight-cOpy timed writings
Imetween the experimental groups and the control groups. The analysis
(>f variance statistical method was used to analyze the data generated

by the study.

Byford found the following to be significant as a result of the
statistical tests:

1. Experimental students using the specially prepared language
arts drills scored significantly higher on the post-test and followbup
test than did the control group.

2. A significant difference in language arts ability was apparent
between the experimental groups and the control groups according to post-
test scores and was significant at the .02 level of confidence.

3. The experimental group scored significantly higher on the language

arts followbup test than did the control group.

18

4. A significant difference existed in language arts concepts
between the pre-test and post-test performance of the experimental
groups.

5. The experimental groups acquired a significant gain at the
.001 level of confidence in language arts concepts knowledge from the
Dre-test period to the follow-up test period. This gain was attributed
tc’ the specially prepared drills completed by the experimental groups.

6. During the study, consistent typewriting speed and accuracy
ilnprovement was made by the subjects of both groups.

After an analysis of the findings, Byford reached the following
conclusions:

1. Students can learn and retain a significant amount of language
earts subject matter as a result of using intentional drills in the type-
‘vriting class. The typewriting drills for language arts development
ashould consist of a concept, an illustrative concept example, and student
iapplication of the concept.

2. The experimental groups learned the language arts concepts as
a function of practice on the drills. The specially prepared linguistic
drills proved to be an effective method of presentation for achieving
gains in language arts ability.

3. The language arts typewriting drills did not appear to be bene-
ficial to the students' speed and accuracy improvement, nor did the drills

adversely affect their speed and accuracy improvement.

The Crawford Study. The purpose of the Crawford study was to deter-
mine the effects of emphasizing production typewriting contrasted with

speed typewriting in developing production typewriting skills on the

 

pd

di

fo

pr:

an:

net

net

of

dem:

WEI!

claa

gran

"It:

stud:

day.

are
t

1

“A

\

on
t
i
h.

6
S
9
l

l9

collegiate level.3 During the course of the experiment, Crawford sought
to answer questions involving the following six related areas: (1) com-
parisons of group performance for classes taught by contrasted methods,
(2) comparisons of performance for individuals matched on selected

factors and taught by contrasted methods, (3) comparisons of production-
performance rates with net stroking and net performance rates, (4) com-
parisons in production performance of subjects in the upper and lower
distribution limits, (5) comparisons of gains in selected related areas
for classes taught by contrasted methods, and (6) relationships between
production-rate gains and selected related factors. In order to discover
answers to the preceding questions, Crawford employed two contrasting
methods of teaching which he identified as the traditional, speed-emphasis
method, and the experimental production-emphasis method. The formal period
of research for the study covered one year.

Students who participated in the study were students who were enrolled
in intermediate typewriting at Indiana University during the 1954-55 aca-
demic year. In each of the two semesters covered by the study, students
were divided into one control-group class and three experimental-group
classes. During the first semester, 37 students comprised the control
group and 85 students comprised the experimental group. During the second
semester, 22 students were assigned to the control-group class, and 82
students were assigned to the experimental-group class.

Classes met for four days each week for a total of 50 minutes each

day. Outside practice and additional instruction, other than that which

 

3Thomas James Crawford. The Effects of Emphasizing_Production Type-
‘writing Contracted With Speed Typewriting in DevelOping Production Type-
writing Abilitz, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh,
1956.

20

was provided during the regular class period, was not permitted for the
duration of the study. Crawford took this precaution in order to insure
that the results of the tests would reflect only the performance acquired
during the formal classroom sessions.

At the beginning of each semester, a battery of four tests was admin-
istered to all the subjects to determine their initial status in production
ability, net stroking speed, and related information. At the end of each
semester, the same tests were readministered to ascertain the students'
terminal status in the same four areas. Comparisons were drawn between
the two sets of scores in order to learn the extent of gains achieved on
each test throughout the semester. Once during each semester, an arith-
metic test consisting of 48 questions covering the fundamental processes
was given to the students to determine their general arithmetic abilities.
In addition to the performance-test data assembled for each student,
scores indicating their levels of general intelligence and their levels
of reading comprehension were compiled from records made available via
the Indiana University Bureau of Measurement.

The control groups and the experimental groups were equated on six
different factors which were: initial production ability, initial net
stroking rate, initial performance rate, initial related information
scores, general intelligence, and reading comprehension.

The outcomes of the Crawford study can be summarized as follows:

1. The production-emphasis method (experimental) produced signifi-
cantly greater production ability than did the speed-emphasis method
(control) for the contrasted groups as well as for the matched indi-

viduals.

21

2. The levels of performance in production typewriting were con-
sistently and appreciably lower than the performance in net stroking for
both the control group and the experimental group.

3. The level of skill in net stroking was not necessarily indicative
of the ability of a typist in production typewriting.

4. The level of skill in net stroking did not necessarily transfer
to production typewriting.

5. The general trend of performance among the subjects was that those
with high net stroking rates tended to gain more in production typewriting
than those with low net stroking rates.

6. The nonspeed (experimental) group gained more in one semester,
and almost as much in the other, in net stroking skill as the speed-
emphasis (control) group.

7. The gains in net performance skills between the experimental
group and the control group were not significant.

8. The experimental group greatly surpassed the control group in
the acquisition of related information.

9. The relationships between production gains and selected factors

proved to be inconclusive.

The Dodson Study. The purpose of the Dodson study was to determine
whether the use of interesting copy material in typewriting would result
in greater speed and accuracy than would the use of noninteresting copy
material in the second semester of high school typewriting.‘ For the

study, Dodson prepared two sets of interesting materials. Each set was

 

“Glenna Ardath Dodson. The Effectgiof Interesting and Noninteresting
Copy Material on Speed and Agcuracy in Typewriting, Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Florida, 1959.

22

composed of 12 stories and each contained approximately 300 standard
words. One set was designed to hold the attention of males, and the
other set was intended to be absorbing for females. The categories of
materials for males were mystery, adventure, patriotism, humor, and
biographies of famous men. The five categories for females included
mystery, adventure, sentiment, home and family life, and humor. Before
the study was begun, the sets of materials were rated by 52 males and 77
females who were enrolled in first semester high school typewriting
classes. The panel of judges, however, did not participate in the actual
study. The assessments were made using a sevenrpoint Likert-type scale
which ranged from very interesting to very uninteresting. None of the
copy material was included in the study if it received a rating lower
than any of the other materials in a particular category. The textbook
timed writings were rated as noninteresting by the same group of students.
The students who served as subjects for the study were randomly
selected from 23 second-semester high school typewriting classes. Fifty
percent of the males and 50 percent of the females in each of the partici-
pating classes were assigned to take the interesting timed writings and
the other 50 percent of the males and females were assigned to take the
noninteresting timed writings. No student was included in the study who
was unable to complete the two timed writings within the allotted amount
of time or if he or she were unable to recall the essence of the copy
material when quizzed immediately following the writings. From the quali-
fying students, Dodson used a table of random numbers to assign 35 males
and 35 females to the group to type the interesting materials, and 35
males and 35 females comprised the group to type the noninteresting mater-

ials for the duration of the study. Two timed writings taken from the

23

sixth edition of 20th Century Typewriting by Lessenberry and Crawford
were administered to verify the base speed and accuracy for each of the
participating students.

Dodson used the fiftest to analyze her data in order to establish:
(1) the effects on speed in typewriting performance among females when
interesting and noninteresting timed writings are used, (2) the effects
on speed in typewriting performance among males when interesting and
noninteresting timed writings are used, (3) the effects on speed in
typewriting performance among the total group of males and females when
interesting timed writings are used and among the total group of males
and females when noninteresting timed writings are used, (4) the effects
on accuracy in typewriting performance among females when interesting and
noninteresting timed writings are used, (5) the effects on accuracy among
males when interesting and noninteresting timed writings are used, (6) the
effects on accuracy in typewriting performance among the total group of
males and females when interesting timed writings are used and among the
total group of males and females when noninteresting timed writings are
used, and (7) the ability of the males and females to recall the interest-
ing timed writings and the ability of the males and females to recall the
noninteresting timed writings.

From an analysis of the data, Dodson found that:

l. The females who typed the interesting materials had an average
decrease in speed of 1.18 gross words per minute from the base typewrit-
ing speed, and the females who typed the noninteresting materials had an
average decrease in speed of .865 gross words per minute. The difference

among the females on speed performance was significant.

24

2. The males typing from the interesting materials experienced an
average decrease in speed of .47 gross words per minute below their base
speeds while the males typing from noninteresting materials experienced
an average decrease in speed of 1.72 gross words per minute. This dif-
ference among the males was great enough for statistical significance.

3. The total group of students assigned to type from the interesting
materials sustained a decrease of .83 gross words per minute below their
base speeds while the group of students assigned to type from the non-
interesting materials attained an increase of 1.29 gross words per minute.
The difference in the speed of the total group was significant.

4. There was no significant difference in the amount of increase
or decrease in the number of errors committed among any of the groups.

5. The difference among both the males and the females to recall
the interesting and noninteresting materials was significant. The females
typing from interesting materials remembered 2.77 timed writings out of
ten while those females typing from noninteresting materials remembered
1.96. The males exposed to interesting materials were able to remember
2.94 timed writings out of ten while those exposed to noninteresting

materials remembered only .77 timed writings out of ten.

The Gades Study. Gades undertook his study in order to ascertain
the effects of short-duration high-speed drills on speed, accuracy, and
production rate development in the first year of high school typewrit-
ing.5 Gades enumerated the following as the purposes of his study:

(1) to develop a high-speed drill procedure consistent with certain

 

sRobert Ellard Gades. The Effects of Short-Duration High-Speed
Drills on Speed, Accuracy, and Production Development in First-Year
TEpewriting, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, North Texas State
University, 1967.

25

psychological concepts in motor-skill learning, (2) to test the high-
speed drill procedure in selected high school beginning typewriting
classes for a full school year, (3) to determine the better procedure
for teaching beginning typewriting by comparing the results of the
high-speed procedure with the results of the standard procedure through
the use of matched groups of beginning high school typewriting students,
(4) to compare typewriting production work of the two groups to deter-
mine whether one procedure is superior to the other in developing
production rates, and (5) to determine whether the high-speed drill
procedure continues to be effective during the second semester if it
proves to be effective in the first semester.

The sex ratio of the two groups was not equal but similar. The
study included a total of 352 subjects with females outnumbering males
by an approximate ratio of five to three. The experimental group was
composed of 183 subjects-65 males and 105 females. The-control group
was composed of 183 subjects-65 males and 118 females.

Six teachers of beginning typewriting were involved in Gades‘s
study. Only those who taught at least two typewriting classes were
accepted for participation in the study. One class taught by each of
the instructors was designated as experimental and the other was desig-
nated as the control group.

Beginning with the fourth week of school and continuing through
the 34th.week, the experimental group used a high-speed drill procedure
for ten to twenty minutes of each class period. The high-speed drill pro-
cedure was developed in terms of established criteria, using six drills
adopted from other sources and one drill developed specifically for the

study. The drills were incorporated in a student drill booklet and made

26

available to all students in the experimental classes. Gades also
developed a teacher's handbook which explained the use of the drills
and provided lesson plans for the experimental portion of each class
session. These drills used short passages from material designed to
force the learners to type at their maximum speeds for short periods
of time which did not exceed one minute in length.

The control groups used the standard speed and accuracy development
procedures presented in current high school textbooks. The procedures
emphasized short timed writings early in the course and gradually
increased the timings to five minutes after 50 lessons. After the 50th
lesson, emphasis was shifted to longer, sustained writings.

In order to obtain periodic measures of progress, Gades required
the administration of typewriting speed tests to both the experimental
and the control groups at the end of twodweek intervals. The tests con-
sisted of three, onedminute timed writings and two, five-minute timed
writings on straight-copy material. The best one—minute and fivedminute
scores in errors and gross words per minute were recorded for each of
the students.

Gades maintained learning curves in order to provide himself with
a means of visual feedback of the groups' progress during the course
of the study. The learning curves were developed from the bidweekly
one-minute and fivedminute timed writings, and they revealed that the
development of speed for both the experimental and the control groups
followed a similar pattern. However, the learning curve representing
error patterns indicated that the control group was more erratic in

their performance than was the experimental group.

27

Gades used the fiftest to analyze his data, and the findings of his
study tended to support the hypothesis that the use of high—speed short-
duration drills would produce higher levels of speed and accuracy in
one year of typewriting than would the use of a standard procedure.

The findings also appeared to sustain the hypothesis that high-
speed drills would produce significantly higher production rates at the
end of the school year than would the standard textbook procedures. The
experimental groups, using the high-speed drill procedure, gained signifi-
cantly higher scores on a standard production test than did the control
group on the same test. The production test Gades used was the United
Students Typewriting Test, for which a national norm of 97 has been
established. Although the experimental group scored significantly
higher than the control group, both groups ranked below the national
average. The average production score for the experimental group was

82.9, and the average production score for the control group was 76.8.

The Johnson Study. The Johnson study was similar to the Gades

 

study in that both tested the effects of a high-speed drill procedure
on speed and accuracy achievement in beginning high school typewriting.6
The length of the Johnson study, however, was only one semester. In
order to determine the effects of the drills, Johnson isolated the speed-
building portion of each instructional period in each of the 18 high
school classes for experimentation with respect to the use of the two

procedures for building speed. The procedure used as a control element

 

6James Roland Johnson. The Effects of High-Speed Drills on Speed
and Accuracy Development in Beginning Typewriting, Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, North Texas State University, 1963.

28

in the experiment was based on speed-building drills representative of
those recommended in current typewriting textbooks prevalently used in
many beginning high school typewriting classes. The experimental pro-
cedure used was based on the use of eight selected high-speed drills
which Johnson believed conformed to the theoretical requirements of
motor-skill development.

The speed-building procedure for the control group was based on
the following steps:

1. Set a new, higher pace on two or three repeated halfdminute
timed drills on easy copy. '

2. Maintain a new pace for a full minute, using paragraph copy.
. Gradually increase the time the new pace is maintained to
longer periods of time-two, three, four, five, and ten

minutes.

3. Have a review practice on the most difficult words after
each paragraph timing.

The philosophy underlying these procedures is based on a gradual
increase in the length of timed drills. A combination of both short
and long timed drills was used throughout the semester; however, after
the fourth week of instruction, the longer timed drills began to pre—‘
dominate. After the sixth week of instruction, at least one or more
of the five-minute timed drills is suggested as a standard part of each
lesson.

The experimental procedure stressed the taking of short, intensive,
high—speed timed writings. The purpose of these drills was not to try
to maintain the high speed for gradually increased periods of time, but
to provide conditions favorable for the continual building of rapid
associations.

The 18 typewriting classes included in the study were taught by

five instructors in four high schools in the Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas,

29

area. The groups were matched according to the following factors:
1. Similar ratio of males to females
2. Mean mental maturity score
3. Time of day during which class was taught

4. Initial stroking ability as measured by a straight-copy test
at the end of three weeks of instruction

The schools were selected at random from the independent school
districts in surburban communities. The instructors were also selected
at random from.among the instructors in each school who taught three or
more beginning typewriting classes.

The Ertest was used to compare the groups with regard to mental
maturity scores and initial stroking ability, and no significant dif-
ference was found among the groups on these two matching factors. The
students were divided into three treatment groups. One was designated
as experimental, another as control, and a third as combined. The
experimental and control groups were composed of classes which met at
periods one, two, and three.

To obtain a measure of progress in speed and accuracy, each class
was given three, one-minute timed writings and two, five-minute timed
writings once each week on the straight-copy material. The best one-
minute timed writing and the best five—minute timed writing was used
as the measure of achievement for each week. Other than ten to twenty
minutes spent each day on the experimental and control drill procedures,
all classes devoted their class time to regular textbook assignments.

Johnson again employed the Ertest to analyze his data. On the final
one-minute timed writing, speed performance of the experimental group was

significantly greater than that of the control and the combined groups

30

at the .01 level of confidence. The final speed of the combined group,
however, was not significantly greater than that of the control group.

The final fivedminute timed writing administered at the end of the
study showed that the speed attainment of the experimental group was
significantly better than that of both the control group and the com-
bined group; however, the speed attainment of the combined group was
not significantly greater than that of the control group.

On the final one-minute timed writing, there was a significant
difference at the .01 level of confidence between the typewriting
accuracy of the experimental group and the control group. There was
also a significant difference between the experimental group and the
combined group at more than the .01 level of confidence. No signifi—
cant difference was found between the performance of the control group
and that of the combined group at the .Ol level; however, there was a
difference between the performance of these two groups at the .05 level
of confidence. The performance of the combined group was not signifi-
cantly better than that of the control group.

Johnson learned that, although supporting his hypothesis, the
learning curve indicated that the use of the experimental high-speed
drills did not produce the best results in all instances. The learning
curve also disclosed that each of the experimental groups maintained a
lower error rate on the five—minute timed writings than did any of the
other classes in their sections.

The final speed and accuracy scores reported by the Johnson study
were considered to be above average for beginning typists when compared

with speeds suggested by several typewriting speed standard studies.

31

The mean speed for the experimental group was 33 words per minute, 31
words per minute for the combined group, and 30 words per minute for

the control group.

The Mach Study. This study was conducted to determine if there
were any significant differences in the straight-copy speed achievement
and accuracy achievement of first-semester secondary school typewriting
students who learn to typewrite through repetitive practice drills and
those who learn to typewrite through non-repetitive practice drills.7
This research was also undertaken to ascertain whether repetitive drills
practice or non-repetitive drills practice would lead to higher skill
levels between the upper third, the middle third, and the lower third
of each group when ranked according to speed achievement. In addition,
the study also sought to determine if the two contrasting methods of
teaching would produce any significant differences between students using
non-electric typewriters and those using electric typewriters.

A control group and an experimental group in beginning typewriting
were randomly selected from each of four participating high schools in
the Eau Claire, Wisconsin, area. The same instructor taught both the
experimental and the control group, and both groups met in the same type-
writing room at their respective schools.

After the keyboard had been presented, three, one-minute straight-
c0py timed writings were administered. From the students' scores, the

mean straight-copy stroking rate for each group was computed. This data

 

7Kaye Allan Mach. The Effects of Repetitive and Non-Repetitive
Practice on Straight-copy Speed and Accuracy Achievement in First-
Semester Beginning Typewritigg, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
University of North Dakota, 1971.

 

32

appeared to suggest that there was no significant difference between
the control group and the experimental group on gross stroking rates
during the first class session after the presentation of the keyboard,
and the actual experiment was initiated with the subsequent class
meeting.

The control group typed one lesson per day which had been repro-
duced from Gregg Typing I, 191 Series, second edition, 1967, by Rowe,
Lloyd, and Winger which was published by the Gregg Division of the
MeGraw-Hill Book Company. An accompanying lesson plan was provided
for each lesson. The lesson plan was constructed to allocate suf-
ficient time for all students in the control group to repeat each line
in the lesson at least three consecutive times.

The students in the experimental group typed the same material as
the control group but were not allowed to repeat any of the material.
In order to insure that the experimental group spent the same amount
of time on each activity as the control group, additional materials
for the experimental group were taken from 20th Century Typewriting,
ninth edition, 1967, by Lessenberry, Crawford, and Erickson which was
published by South-Western Publishing Company; and Modern Typewriting
Practice, third edition, 1972, by Altholz and published by the Pitman
Publishing Company.

A series of three, three-minute timed writings were administered
on three different occasions during the 65-day experiment. The first
of the series was administered during the 22nd class meeting, the second
during the 43rd class meeting, and the third during the 65th class meet-

ing.

33

Mach used a separate onedway analysis of variance to test each
of her 36 hypotheses. On the first three~minute straight-copy timed
writing which was administered during the 22nd class meeting, Mach
found that there was no significant difference between the speed and
accuracy achievement of the experimental and control groups at the .05
level of confidence. She also learned that there was no significant
difference between the speed and accuracy performance of those members
of the experimental and control groups who typed on non-electric type-
writers, and there was no significant difference between the speed and
accuracy achievement of the experimental and control groups who used
electric typewriters. Significant differences between the speed
achievement of Level 1 experimental and control groups were found to
exist at the .05 level of confidence; however, there was no significance
between the accuracy achievement levels of these two groups. Mach did
not report significant differences between the speed and accuracy
achievement of the Level 2 and Level 3 experimental and control groups.

When the second three-minute straight-copy timed writing was admin-
istered during the 43rd class meeting, Mach found no significant dif-
ference between the control and experimental groups' speed achievement
when electric typewriters were used and no significant difference in
percentage level of accuracy of Level 1 experimental and control groups.
The differences were not significant at the .05 level of confidence.
There was significance reported between the speed and accuracy achievement
of the experimental group and the control group using non-electric type-
writers in favor of the experimental group and between the accuracy level
of the experimental group and the control group using electric typewriters

in favor of the experimental group at the .05 level of confidence. In

34

addition, significance was found to exist between the speed achievement
of the Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 experimental group and control
group in favor of the experimental group at the .05 level of confidence.
Further significance was found in favor of the experimental group at the
.05 level between the accuracy achievement of the Level 2 and Level 3
experimental group and control group.

On the 65th class meeting when the final three—minute straight-copy
timed writing was administered, Mach found no significant difference at
the .05 level of confidence in the speed achievement of the experimental
and control group using electric typewriters. However, significant dif-
ference was found to exist in favor of the experimental group between the
accuracy achievement of the experimental and control groups using the
electric typewriters, between the speed and accuracy achievement of the
experimental and control group using non-electric typewriters, and also
between the speed and accuracy achievement of the Level 1, Level 2, and
Level 3 experimental and control groups. All of these differences were

significant at the .05 level of confidence.

The Nemesh Study. The purpose of this study was to determine the
effects of on-the-job training materials versus traditional copy materials
with varying syllabic intensity on speed and accuracy in Typewriting I on
the community college level.8

In her investigation, Nemesh used 50 typewriting students who were

randomly assigned to either the experimental or control group after they

 

8Mary Nemesh. An Experimental Sgudy to Detggmine the Effects of
On-The-Job Training Materials Versus Traditional T ewritin Co
Materials on Speed and Accuracy, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Maryland, 1971.

35

had been randomly selected from the total population of Typewriting I
classes from a selected community college in which GPA and ACT scores
were made available. Before the actual experiment was begun, the
subjects were pretested using a standard straight-copy timed writing
for a measure of straight-copy speed and accuracy; and for a measure
of production skills, Typewriting Achievement Test, Form A, First Year,
was used. This production test was developed by the Psychological
Corporation.

Nemesh's control group utilized the traditional copy materials
presented in the textbook and supplementary drill books adopted by
the college. Beginning with the fifth week and extending into the
tenth.week of classes, the experimental group used on-the-job train-
ing materials which were gathered from actual job situations. These
materials were used for both practice and production.work but not for
testing purposes.

Tests used during the study consisted of five, five—minute timed
writings and five, 30~minute production tests which were administered
at one-week intervals. Once during the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth,
and tenth week, a five-minute timed writing and a 30-minute production
test were administered. Nemesh made no attempt to control the syllabic
intensity of the content of the timed writings or the production jobs;
however, the practice materials and the testing materials for both
groups were equated in terms of difficulty and format of copy.

At the end of the tenth week, a post-test was administered to deter-
mine the effects of the two treatments. A fiveuminute straight-copy
timed writing and Typewriting Achievement Test, Form B, Alternate First

Year were used as a measure of achievement and production during the study.

36

Nemesh used a 2 x 5 mixed design for orthogonal analyses of variance,
utilizing the repeated measures program, and analyses of covariance for
testing the hypotheses. The dependent variables were speed and accuracy
with GPA and ACT test scores as covariates.

Nemesh's findings supported the use of on-the-job training materials
in developing greater speed and accuracy. The two treatment groups dif-
fered significantly at the .05 level in both typewriting speed and in
typewriting accuracy at the end of the study.

When Nemesh covariated the hypotheses with GPA and ACT scores, she
found that these scores had no effect on the treatment groups and no
significant difference between the experimental and the control group

was found .

The Theis Study. The purpose of the Theis study was to determine

 

if greater accuracy on three-minute timed writings is associated with
a certain type of conditioning drill in third-semester high school type-
writing.9 In order to make this determination, three conditioning drills
identified as C-1, C-2, and C-3 were selected on the basis of acceptable
concepts of motor-skill learning and their use in various textbooks of
noted authors in the field of typewriting instruction. Theis used the
drills as part of a warming-up activity immediately preceding a straight-
copy timing in typewriting at the third-semester level of skill develop-
ment.

Two classes each from four high schools were chosen to participate

in the study. From these classes, 134 members were selected which

 

9Norman William Theis. A Typewriting Experiment to Compare Class
Performance on Straight-CopygThreeéMinute Writings Relative to Speed
And Accuracy Followigg Three Selected Conditioning Drills, Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Dakota, 1968.

37

represented 18 subjects in each group in schools number 1, 2, and 4,
and 13 subjects in each group in school number 3. All groups were
matched on the basis of sex, initial stroking ability, mean I.Q. score,
and standard deviation. Performance in each school relative to speed
and accuracy in the first three matching trials was not significantly
different.

During the experimental period, all of the control groups in
schools 1 and 3 were given the C-1 drill. The C-l drill was struc-
tured for the purpose of building correct mind sets and to give special
practice on different words, reaches, and letter sequences such as those
'which must be typed with one hand, and sentence fluency. The experi-
mental groups in the same schools were given the C-3 drill to type at
the beginning of each class period. The C-3 drill was composed so as
to give the typist a mode of attach for solving the problem of discover-
ing his or her Optimum rate of speed at which he or she could type for
longest durations without error.

In schools 2 and 4, the control groups were given the C-2 drill
for daily warmup practice prior to the three-minute timed writing.

This drill was designed primarily to assist the students in gaining
confidence in typing at higher speed rates within a standard of a maxi-
mum of one error per minute or no errors for half~minute timed writings.

Each student in both the experimental and control groups was
encouraged to type at different levels of speed: exploratory, faster,
faster, and back for control. The three-minute timed writing for the
experimental group of schools 2 and 4 was preceded by the C-3 drill which

was also used by the experimental groups in schools 1 and 3.

38

Both groups in each school copied the same test material, operated
under similar grading systems and other classroom conditions, and were
required to achieve the same standard of accuracy--one error per minute.
The materials capied during the C-2 and C-3 drills were also the same.

Twelve drills, one each week, were scheduled for each group. T-test
comparisons were not made for all the trials because of the problem of
absenteeism of the students. Only two "make-up" timings, given to each
student individually under similar practice conditions, were permitted
for each group of 18 subjects. Correspondingly, only one "make-up" timing
was permitted for each of the 13 subjects. A timing also did not qualify
for the Eftest analysis if it were not taken within a period of five days
after the originally scheduled timing or if the writing were unacceptable
as a result of typewriter malfunctions.

Two comparisons of trials 11 and 12 were made for the purpose of
determining whether greater increments in accuracy might be attributable
to the continued use of the C-3 drill. In these two trials, the C-3
drill was chosen to precede the timing for both groups.

Theis's comparison of group exhibition of skill on straight-copy
three-minute timed writings preceded by C-1 and C-3 drills revealed that
the combined experimental groups whose timings followed the C-3 drill
typed significantly more accurately than those in the combined control
groups receiving the C-1 treatment. Further, Theis found that the mean
number of errors registered by the experimental group in the two partici-
pating schools on timings preceded by the C-3 drill were lower in 10 of 11
trials: however, the difference between means reached the one per cent
level of probability in only one trial. No significance was found between

the mean stroking rates of the groups in either school.

39

Theis's findings relative to the comparison of group performance
on straight-copy timings preceded by C-2 and C-3 drills indicated that:

l. The combined experimental groups whose timings followed the
C-3 drill typed significantly more accurately than those in the combined
control groups receiving the C-2 treatment.

2. The mean number of errors registered by the experimental groups
in the participating schools on timings preceded by the C-3 drill were
lower in all of the 16 trials in which the Ertest comparisons were made,
but the difference between the means reached the one percent level of
significance in only one trial. The difference between means, based on
the total number of words typed for the combined groups, was not signifi-
cant.

The results of the final trial comparisons of Theis's experiment
appeared to indicate that the control groups whose timings were preceded
by the C-3 drill, registered a lower mean error rate than was recorded
in any of their previous experimental trials. In some cases, the mean
error rate registered by the control groups in these trials was lower
than those of the experimental groups. However, the speed rates of the
control and experimental groups did not vary significantly, except for
the groups in school number 2. In this instance, the difference between

the means reached the five percent level of probability.

The Tranquill Study. The Tranquill study was conducted to deter-
mine the effectiveness of individualized pacing in improving speed and

accuracy in secondary school typewriting.10 The study was delimited to

 

10Cecil Joseph Tranquill. The Effectiveness of Individualized Pacidg
in Iggroving TypewritingLSpeed and Accuraoy, Unpublished Doctoral Dis-
sertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1965.

40

three groups, each of which were composed of 82 students who were ran-
domly selected from 13 classes taught by six different instructors in
two high schools.

Tranquill composed his treatment groups by dividing the three
classes into thirds. The three classes were Typewriting I, Typewrit-
ing II, and Transcription. One group of students were assigned to use
the Strong-Pacer Electronic Pacing Equipment along with its accompanying
drills which allowed for individualized pacing practice; in order to
isolate the effects of the pacing equipment, a second group of students
used only the drills which were specially designed for use with the pacing
device; and a third group of students, the control group, used ordinary
textbook materials. The experiment was conducted for approximately one
semester with the first ten minutes of each class period set aside for
the use of the special treatment techniques.

Typewriting achievement was measured in terms of gross words per
minute and percentage of accuracy based on three different three-minute
timed writings. One writing was straight copy, another was straight copy
which emphasized numbers, and the third was straight copy which emphasized
surnames. Each of these tests were administered twice during each of six
testing sessions, and an average score for speed and percentage of accuracy
was computed and analyzed. The tests admdnistered during the semester
included a pre-test, three periodic tests, a post-test, and a follow-up
test s

At the termination of the study, Tranquill used the onedway analysis
of covariance to analyze the data. He found that those students assigned
to the pacer group achieved an increase in speed which was significantly

greater than the achievement of the control group on all of the three

41

minute timed writings at the .05 level. The pacer group also achieved

an increase in speed which was significantly greater than the achievement
of the drill group on the numbers test and the straight-copy test. The
difference was significant at the .05 level. Although the pacer group
surpassed the drill group in speed on the surnames test, the difference
in achievement between the two groups was not statistically significant.

The students assigned to the pacer group also achieved a significant
increase in accuracy scores over the control group on the straight-copy
test, the numbers test, and the surnames test. A comparison of the
achievement of the pacer group and the drill group revealed that the
increase in accuracy attained by the pacer group was significantly greater
on the numbers test only. The slight advantage in accuracy achieved by
the pacer group was not significantly greater than that of the drill group
on either the straight copy or the surnames test. The difference was not
significant at the .05 level of confidence.

The achievement of the drill group was greater than that of the con—
trol group on all tests; however, the difference was not significant on
the straight-copy test, the numbers test used to assess speed, or on the
three tests administered to measure accuracy. On the surnames test for
speed, however, the achievement of the drill group was significantly
greater than that of the control group.

When Tranquill analyzed the followbup test, he discovered that the
significant gains in speed achieved by the pacer group over the control
group on the post-test were maintained on tests of straight copy and
surnames. The significant gains in speed achievement by the pacer group
over the control group were not maintained on the numbers test. In

addition, he learned that the achievement of the pacer group over the

42

drill group on the straight copy and the numbers test was not main—
tained on the follow—up test. The achievement of the pacer group and

the drill group on the surname test was not significantly different on
the post-test or the followbup test. These differences were not signifi-
cant at the .05 level. The significant gains achieved by the drill group
over the control group on the surnames test for speed decreased slightly
but were nonetheless significant at the .05 level.

The significant gains in accuracy that were achieved by the pacer
group over the control group at the end of the experiment decreased
slightly on all three timed writings but remained significant. The dif-
ference in achievement between the pacer and the drill group on the
straight-copy test for accuracy was not significant on either the post—
test or the follow-up test. The achievement of the pacer group over
the drill group on the numbers test for accuracy decreased slightly on
the followbup test but remained slightly greater. The follow-up test
revealed that the pacer group achieved significant gains over the drill
group on the surnames test for accuracy.

Tranquill also analyzed the data to determine the instructional
level at which the pacing equipment appeared to be most effective. The
pacer group from Typewriting I achieved significant gains in speed over
the control group on the straight-copy test only.

The achievement of the Typewriting I pacer group on accuracy was
significantly greater than that of the control group on the test of
numbers and the test of surnames but not significantly greater on the
straight-copy test. Although there were greater gains in accuracy by
the pacer group than by the drill group on all tests, the difference was

not significantly greater.

43

The students enrolled in the Typewriting 11 class who were assigned
to the pacer group achieved gains in speed over the control group on all
three tests. However, when the speed achievement of the pacer group and
the control group was compared statistically, the gains were significant
at the .05 level only on the numbers test and the surnames test. The
gain in straight-copy accuracy by the pacer group over the drill group
was significantly greater on the numbers test only. The pacer group's
performance excelled the control group's performance in accuracy on all
three tests; however, the gains were not significant. As was the case
with the Typewriting I pacer group, the greatest gains in both speed and
accuracy for the Typewriting II pacer group were achieved after the com-
pletion of the third phase of the experiment.

The transcription students who were assigned to the pacer group
achieved some gains in speed over the control group; however, the gains
were not great enough to be statistically different on any of the tests.
The achievement of the Transcription pacer group was significantly
greater than that of the drill group on the straight-copy test for speed
only. The achievement of the pacer group was not significantly different
from that of the drill group on the numbers and surnames tests for speed.
The drill group achieved significantly greater gains than did the control
group on the numbers test and the surnames test. On the straight-copy
test, the control group achieved significantly greater gains than did the
drill group.

On accuracy, the Transcription pacer group achieved significant
gains over the control group on all three tests. Although the accuracy
gains of the pacer group excelled that of the drill group on all three

tests, these gains were not significant. An analysis of the periodic

tests I
tive fc
13
enced I
assign«
SIOUP,
averag
These
istrat
study
gains
tests.
accura
racy ;
achie‘

the m

the j
absol

minut

44

tests revealed that the third phase of the experiment was the most effec-
tive for the Transcription group who utilized the pacing equipment.
Tranquill also sought to determine if levels of intelligence influ-
enced achievement in any of the three classes among students who were
assigned to the pacer group. Of the 82 students assigned to the pacer
group, 26 were classified as high in intelligence, 27 were classified as
average in intelligence, and 26 were classified as low in intelligence.
These classifications were made based on measures obtained from an admin-
istration of the Otis Gamma Test of Intelligence, Form AM. An informal
study of the data revealed that the low-level pacer group achieved greater
gains in speed and accuracy than the lowblevel control group on all three
tests. The average-level pacer group achieved greater gains in speed and
accuracy than did the average-level drill group, and the speed and accu-
racy achievement of the high-level pacer group was not as great as the
achievement of the average and low-level pacer group when compared with

the counterparts of the drill and the control groups.

The West Study. The purpose of the West study was to test the rela-
tive merits of mental-motor work-method sets toward forced speed and
absolute accuracy in typewriting when differnetial practice totaling 200
minutes is introduced during the ninth week of the first semester of ele-
mentary typewriting in the secondary schools and maintained for 25 class
periods thereafter.11

west's experimental design included the use of paired classes. Five

pairs of classes in four New York City public high schools participated

 

11Leonard Jordan West. Practice Sets Towards Speed and Accuracy in
a Skill-Building Program in Elementary Typewriting, Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Columbia University, 1953.

45

in the experiment. Each pair of classes was taught by a different
instructor; two of the five instructors were in the same school, and
each of the other three instructors was in a different school. One
class in each of the pairs was designated as the speed-set class and
the other as the accuracy-set class.

Each class was composed of 20 subjects thereby constituting a total
of 200 subjects participating in the experiment. The speed-set group was
composed of 100 students and the accuracy-set group was composed of 100
students. The students were equated on the following bases: (1) initial
typewriting status, (2) chronological age, (3) mental age, (4) out-of-
class practice, and (5) absences.

The experimental typing consisted of 200 minutes of practice time
and 40 minutes of test work which was spread over a 25-day period.
‘Practice schedules were arranged so that each day's experimental work
consumed approximately 15 minutes of each 40~minute class period. The
remaining 25 minutes were devoted to usual typewriting activities.

West's experimental work was specifically selected to be a skill-
building program which was to be introduced during the middle of the
term. The instructional materials consisted of a series of sentences
and paragraphs of gradually increasing length from 15 to 375 strokes and
an accompanying table which allowed for instant determination of type-
‘writing speed. The materials distributed daily to each student were
collected immediately upon completion of the experimental practice for
the day. The vocabulary used in the sentences and paragraphs was con-
sidered to be an "everyday" vocabulary by West and was not selected
according to any particular qualitative criteria. The practice time on

these materials was in short spurts of 20, 30, and 60 seconds.

Eat
or a pa
the Stu
nateria
to proc
conple‘
plate,
the st
be ty;

1
instr
off 0
by th
Perfe
five
Comp?
Same
were
to t
301:
was
tim‘
acc.

to

tOr

1n\

46

Each student in the accuracy—set class began practice on a sentence
or a paragraph which when completed within the allotted time equalled
the student's current typewriting speed. If the student completed the
material selected without error within the allotted time, he or she was
to proceed to the next longer sentence and type it until perfection and
completion were achieved. If the sentence were both errorless and com-
plete, the student had achieved criteria. If criteria were not achieved,
the student kept typing the same sentence until the entire sentence could
be typed without error.

All typing was done under the precisely timed conditions set by the
instructors, and the student continued typing each day where he had left
off on the preceding day. Twenty-five percent of the practice time used
by the speed-set class was conducted according to the same completion-
perfection standards which were set for the accuracy-set class. Seventy-
five percent of the practice time was devoted to a speed-only or a
completion-only criterion. Selection of the initial sentence was in the
same manner as for the accuracy-set class. The conditions of practice
were identical for the two groups except for the criterion for progress
to the next longer sentence. Daily practice began with speed work aimed
solely toward completion of the sentence regardless of errors, and speed
was forced to its maximum. The speed spurts were followed by one or two
timings which were completed according to the same criteria set for the
accuracy-set class. When the speed-set classes were switched from speed
to accuracy, explicit instructions were given the students by the instruc—
tors in order to facilitate a smooth transition.

West used the analysis of covariance to analyze his data which

involved initial strokes, final strokes, initial errors, and final errors.

47

The results of the statistical test that in a 200~minute skill-building
program covering five weeks beginning at the middle of the first semester
of typewriting, practice forced at maximum speeds would produce higher
rates on criterion timings on new copy than would practice oriented
primarily toward absolute perfection of typescript should be rejected.
The difference between the accuracy-set group and the speed-set group
was significant at the .05 level of confidence.

The hypothesis that practice oriented primarily toward absolute
perfection of typescript would result in greater accuracy on criterion
timings than would practice forced at maximum speed was supported by the
data. Although the speed-set group and the accuracy-set group experi-
enced an increase in error frequency when compared with their initial
performances, they were both relatively more accurate at the end of the
experiment in terms of errors committed per stroke. The difference
between the performance of the two groups was significant at almost the
.01 level of confidence in favor of the accuracy-set group.

west also found that there was no significant difference between
the performance of the speed-set group and the accuracy-set group when
they were retested after several months of instruction by different
instructors when such instruction was largely devoted to production type-
writing. However, the accuracy—set group was faster and more accurate
than was the speed-set group. West explains the effects of three to five
months of practice oriented toward office standards of accuracy under dif-
ferent instructors is such as to reduce or to remove the performance
differences established earlier by the differential practice sets toward

forced speed and perfection of typescript.

gator:
mater:
on thl
tiven:
copy I
level:
appea:
readj\

1
tion :
thrOu;
0f We:
increz
that :
Urite]
atrok‘
Mun]
incurs

efro:

contai

and in

BChOOI

SUMMARY OF THE REVIEWED LITERATURE

One of the similarities among the studies reviewed is the investi-
gators' perceptions of the inadequacy of the composition of the drill
materials included in most typewriting textbooks which are currently
on the market. Specifically, the investigators questioned the effec-
tiveness of these drill materials in developing high levels of straight-
copy speed and accuracy which can be easily transferred to comparable
levels of production skills. One of the goals of each of the studies
appeared to be that of accomplishing such transfer with a minimum of
readjustment of typewriting patterns on the part of the learner.

Weaver investigated the impact which various alphabet and punctua-
tion stroking have upon a learner of typewriting as he or she progresses
through various speed levels on an electric or manual typewriter. One
of Heaver's discoveries was that electric typewriters significantly
increased stroking rates over manual machines. Another discovery was
that significance existed between right handedness on electric type-
writers versus left handedness on manual typewriters and double-letter
strokes on electric typewriters versus consecutive-finger strokes on
manual typewriters. The third discovery was that double-letter stroke
accuracy on manual typewriters significantly decreased the incidents of
error over consecutive-finger strokes on electric typewriters.

The Byford study made inquiry into the use of typewriting drills
containing language arts concepts in improving language arts knowledge
and in improving typewriting speed and accuracy in second semester high

school classes. Byford found that the experimental groups who typed

48

49

the language arts concept drills gained significantly more knowledge of
these concepts than did the control group but that the language arts
drills had very little positive or negative effect on the typewriting
speed and accuracy of the experimental group.

The Crawford study was conducted for the purpose of determining
the effects of emphasizing production typewriting contrasted with speed
typewriting in developing production typewriting skills. Discoveries
made by Crawford were that the production-emphasis method produced
significantly greater production ability than did the speed-emphasis
method of teaching typewriting and that high levels of straight-copy
speed do not necessarily transfer to production typewriting tasks.

The purpose of the Dodson study was to attempt to determine the
effects of interesting copy materials, in the form of short stories,
on typewriting speed and accuracy achievement as opposed to traditional
textbook drills which were designated as uninteresting copy materials.
One set of interesting materials was prepared for males; and another
set, employing a slightly different theme, was prepared for females.
The results of the study revealed that the males who were assigned to
type from interesting materials tended to commit more errors than did
those males who typed from non-interesting copy materials, but the
difference was not significant. Both groups of males experienced a
decrease in base speed; however, the males typing from interesting capy
materials experienced a smaller decrease in speed than did those males
typing from non-interesting copy materials. This difference was signifi-
cant at the .05 level. The females who typed from the interesting copy
materials committed significantly fewer errors than did those females

who typed from non-interesting copy materials; however, the females who

50

typed from interesting copy materials decreased in speed while those
females who typed from non-interesting copy materials experienced a
gain in speed. The difference between the speed achievement of the
females was significant.

In two studies, one a modified replication of the other, Gades and
Johnson attempted to determine the effects of short-duration high-speed
drills on speed and accuracy achievement versus conventional procedures
recommended by current textbooks. The experimental period of the original
study, the Johnson study, covered one semester. The replicated study, the
Gades study, was conducted for a full year and included the variable of
production typewriting. Johnson learned that the experimental group
achieved significantly greater speed and accuracy on one-minute and five-
minute timed writings than did the control group. The Gades study revealed
that although the experimental group excelled the control group in speed
and accuracy achievement on one-minute and five-minute timed writings, the
difference was not significant. However, on the standardized production
test which was administered at the end of the study, the experimental
group performed significantly better than did the control group.

Mach challenged the repetitive-drill method of improving speed and
accuracy achievement. The use of repetitive drills, which has long been
accepted as standard procedures for warm-up practice, was contrasted with
the efficiency of non-repetitive drills in facilitating speed and accuracy.
In addition, the study was conducted to ascertain whether repetitive drills
practice would lead to higher skill levels between the upper third, the
middle third, or the lower third of each group when ranked according to
speed achievement. The study further sought to determine if the two con-

trasting methods would produce any significant difference between those

51

students using non-electric typewriters and those using electric type-
writers. Upon the termination of the study, there was no significant
difference at the .05 level between the speed and accuracy achievement
of the experimental group and the control group using electric and
,non-electric typewriters on three-minute timed writings even though the
experimental group performed slightly better. Significant differences
between the speed achievement of the upper third experimental group and
the control group was found to exist at the .05 level; however, there
was no significance between the accuracy achievement levels of these two
groups. In addition, there was no reported significance between the
speed and accuracy achievement of the middle-third and the lower-third
experimental groups and control groups.

Nemesh took exception to the lack of on-the-joh training materials
in sufficient quantity to deve10p those marketable vocational typewrit-
ing skills demanded in the real world of work and based his study on the
use of realistic typewriting tasks as practice materials. The results
of the study indicated that while the use of on-the-job training materials
could lay the foundation for maximizing efficiency on the job, there was
no significant difference between the experimental groups and the control
groups on production speed and accuracy. However, on five-minute timed
writings there was a significant difference between the experimental groups
and the control groups on speed and accuracy performance in favor of the
experimental groups.

Specially constructed drill materials designed to conform to accept-
able concepts of motor-skill learning were utilized in the Theis study as
conditioning drills. The experimental method required that these con-

ditioning drills precede each timed writing as a means of ascertaining

52

their effect on speed and accuracy achievement. The drills were
designated as C-1, C-2, and C-3. When a comparison was made of the
timed writings which were preceded by each of the conditioning drills,
significant differences in speed and accuracy performance were dis-
covered in favor of students using the C-3 drill.

The Tranquill study utilized a commercially manufactured individ-
ualized pacing device with accompanying drills as its experimental
testing method. The three categories of tests used to measure the effec—
tiveness of the treatments were straight-copy tests, straight-copy tests
emphasizing numbers, and straight-copy tests emphasizing surnames. The
pacer group performed significantly more accurately than did the control
group on all three types of tests. In addition, the pacer group achieved
an increase in speed which was significantly greater than the achievement
of the control groups on the straight-copy timed writings and an increase
in speed which was significantly greater than the achievement of the
drill group on the numbers tests and the straight-copy tests. Although
the pacer group surpassed the drill group in speed on the surnames tests,
the difference in achievement between the two groups was not significant.

The West study tested the merits of mental-motor work methods sets
toward forced speed and absolute accuracy in typewriting when differen-
tial practice totaling 200 minutes is introduced during the ninth week
of the first semester of elementary typewriting in the secondary schools
and maintained for 25 class periods thereafter. west learned that prac-
tice forced at maximum speeds would not produce higher typewriting speed
on new copy than would practice oriented toward absolute accuracy. The

experimental group whose practice was oriented toward typescripts which

53

were errorless typed significantly faster and more accurately than did
the speed-emphasis group.

One of the more noteworthy features of each of the reviewed studies
is that each of the investigators concluded that the experimental treat-
ments resulted in speed and accuracy performance which exceeded that of
the students receiving the control treatment. However, in some cases,
these differences were not significant.

Some of the investigators suggested that the format of textbook
typewriting drills be re-examined for possible revision while all
invaribly recommended that their studies be replicated on a larger
scale for an extended period of time utilizing the same or similar test

methods in order to authenticate their findings.

CHAPTER III

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Four types of drill materials were contrasted in this study in
order to attempt to determine the effectiveness of each type of copy
in deveIOping straight-capy speed and accuracy and production speed
and accuracy. The study also attempted to determine whether levels
of intelligence played an integral part in typewriting achievement.

The subjects who participated in this sevendweek study were 95
students who were enrolled in five intact classes in intermediate
collegiate typewriting. Two of the classes were students who were
"enrolled at Alcorn State University located in Lorman, Mississippi;
one of the classes was made up of students who were enrolled at
Jackson State University in Jackson, Mississippi; and two of the
classes were students who were enrolled at Mississippi Valley State
university located in Itta Bena, Mississippi.

The results of an administration of the Otis Quick-Scoring Mental
Ability Test (Form EM) were used as a means of grouping students into
upper-ability and lower-ability categories. This test has a split-half
reliability coefficient of .88 and a mean validity index of approxi-
mately .50.1 The mental ability scores were arranged in descending order
to determine which group of students would be classified as upper ability
and which group would be classified as lower ability. (See Appendix B

for the mental ability scores for each of the 95 subjects). The scores

 

1Arthur S. Otis. Manual of Directions for Gamma Test, (New York:
World Book Company, 1953, pp. SQE.

54

55

were cut off at the approximate mid-point with 47 students assigned to
the upper-ability group and 68 students assigned to the lower-ability
group. In order to divide the two groups as evenly as possible, it was
necessary to slightly overlap the categories; thus, the groups were not
mutually exclusive. Three students with mental abilities of 90 were
assigned to the upper-ability group, and all other students with mental
abilities of 90 were assigned to the lower-ability group. The results
of the Otis QuickPScoring Mental Ability Test were also used as a means
of equating the groups on the basis of mean mental ability scores. The
onedway analysis of variance test was used to determine if any of the
four treatment groups were significantly different from the other at the
outset of the study. Table 3.1 shows a summary of the onedway analysis

of variance test.

TABLE 3.1

ONE-HAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE 0F ABILITY LEVELS
ACROSS THE FOUR TREATMENT GROUPS

Sources of Sums of Mean F
Variation Squares Squares Ratio P

 

Between Groups 6816.8015 3 1605.6005 138.8222 p .< .0001*

Within Groups 3157 .4858 _9_]_._ 34 . 697666
Totals 7974.2873 94

 

*Significance at the .05 level of confidence

The obtained P-ratio value of 138.8222 was larger than the critical value
of 2.70 for 3 and 91 degrees of freedom at the .05 level of confidence

and indicates a significant difference among the mean mental abilities

56

of the four treatment groups. In order to determine which groups were
significantly different from the other, the Scheffe’post hoc procedure
was used. Table 3.2 presents a summary of the comparisons of the dif-
ferences between all possible pairs of mental ability mean scores for

the four treatment groups.

TABLE 3.2

SUMMARY OF THE CONFIDENCE INTERVALS AROUND THE DIFFERENCES
BETHEEN THE MEAN MENTAL ABILITY LEVELS OF THE FOUR
TREATMENT GROUPS USING THE SCHEFFE METHOD

 

 

Differences Confidence

0°“tr33t8 Between Means Interval

 

Group I vs. Group II
(Computerized Drill Books

vs. Magazine drills) 90.58 93.65

-3.07 ( 1.813, -7.953)

Group I vs. Group III
(Computerized Drill Books

vs. Textbook Drills) 90.58 88.04

2.54 ( 7a423. -20343)

Group I vs. Group IV
(Computerized Drill Books

vs. No Drills) 90.58 93.28

Group II vs. Group III
(Magazine Drills vs.
Textbook Drills) 93.65

88.04 B 5.61 (10.544, 0.676)*

Group II vs. Group IV
(Magazine Drills vs.

No Drills) 93.65 93.28 8 0.37 ( 5.204, -4.464)

Group III vs. Group IV
(Textbook Drills vs.

No Drills) 88.04 93.28 - -5.24 (-0.406, ~10.074)*

*Significance at the .05 level of confidence

57

only two of the six comparisons of mean mental ability scores for the
four treatment groups included indicated a significant difference. The
confidence interval generated for the comparison between Group II comp
bined and Group III combined (magazine drills and textbook drills) and
the confidence interval generated for the comparison between Group III
and Group IV (textbook drills and no drills) did not span zero. Conse-
quently, it appears logical to expect Group II to achieve a significantly
higher level of typewriting speed and accuracy than would Group III; and
likewise, that Group IV would achieve higher levels of typewriting speed
and accuracy than would Group III.

A typewriting pre-test consisting of two, three—minute timed writings
and a production test were administered prior to the initiation of the
study in order to determine the typewriting proficiency of the students.
(See Appendix C for a copy of the pre-test). The production typewriting
section of the pre-test consisted of a manuscript, a news release contain-
ing rough-draft marks, and a letter containing rough—draft marks and
tabulations. The test was timed for 30 minutes and contained a total of
1,097 words.

Upon the termination of the study, a post-test consisting of the
same copy for the threedminute timed writing and a production test of
different copy but of the same type of typewriting tasks were administered.
(See Appendix D for a copy of the post-test). The results were used to
measure the effects of exposure to the four treatments. The post-test
was timed for 30 minutes and contained a total of 1,186 words. (See
Appendix E for a copy of the letter requesting permission to use the
materials which were included in the pre—test and the post-test and for a

copy of the letter granting permission to use the materials). Validity

58

coefficients for the pre-test and the post-test used in this study were
not derived by the investigator. However, in the White study in which
the pre-test and the post-test were similar to those used in this study,
a biserial correlation of .5948 was obtained.2 In addition, an examina-
tion of several collegiate typewriting textbooks currently on the market
revealed that their prescribed typewriting tasks were comparable in
content and length to the tasks included in the tests used in this study.

The straight-capy timed writings were measured in terms of gross
words per minute. The production test scores were obtained by using the
grading scale suggested in the instructor's manual which accompanied the
textbook from which the pre-test and the post-test were taken. The grad-
ing scale which was used is as follows:

1. Three points off for incorrect form and incorrect placement

2. Two points off for each technical error such as forgetting to

center a line, indent a paragraph, or leave a blank line between
paragraphs

3. One point off for each typographical error3

For analyses purposes, only the better of the two, three-minute timed
writings which were included in both the pre-test and the post-test were
used. The students' pre-test and their post-test scores were compared in
order to derive a measure of their levels of achievement on straight-copy

speed and accuracy and on production speed and accuracy as a result of

exposure to one of the four experimental treatments. The two~way analysis

 

2Kathryn Fern White. An Expgrimental Study Utilizing Varied Schedul-
ing Out-of-Class Assigggggts in Intermediate Collegiate Typewriting, Unpub-

lished Doctoral Dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 1974.

3Alan C. Lloyd, John L. Rowe, and Fred B. winger. Instructor's Manual
and Visual Key for Advanced Typing 75, (New'Tork: ‘McGraw-Hill Book Company,
1971), p. 27.

59

of variance technique was used to determine whether significance existed
between mean achievement levels on straight-copy speed and accuracy and
on production speed and accuracy for the four treatment groups. When
instances of significance occurred, the Scheffe'post hoc procedure was
used to ascertain which pair of means contributed to or was responsible
for the rejection of the null hypothesis.

Approximately one-fourth of the students from each class at each
university was randomly assigned to one of the four treatment groups by
drawing a numbered slip of paper from a box. Students assigned to Group I
typed drills from a computerized drill book entitled Selective Practice
Typing Drills by Alan C. Lloyd, Robert P. Poland, John L. Rowe, Fred B.
Winger, and William.Griffith. (See Appendix B for a copy of the letter
requesting free cepies of the book to be used in the experiment). The
drill book was composed of copy specifically designed to analyze the
student's typewriting errors. Depending upon the number of errors which
were committed on the first three-minute timed writing, the student is
directed by instructions contained in the book to type a remedial drill
which is geared either toward developing greater speed or greater accu-
racy. The students assigned to Group III typed paragraphs which they
selected themselves from Ebggz_magazines, the students assigned to
Group III typed preparatory drills from.the textbooks which were cur-
rently being used at their respective universities, and Group IV students
did not type war-Pup drills. Group IV proceeded to type those production
tasks which were assigned by their instructors.

Fifteen minutes of each class day were devoted to the experimental
drill practice and one, three—minute timed writing. Each treatment group,

with the exception of Group IV, typed and quickly scored a three-manure

timed v
of the
15 aim
period

instru

Chaptc

60

timed writing at the beginning of each class period; and the remainder
of the 15 minutes was devoted to additional drill practice. After the
15 minutes of drill practice were completed, the remainder of the class
period was conducted according to the discretion of the typewriting
instructors.

Data resulting from the study will be analyzed in the following

chapter a

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

This chapter presents a discussion of the data collected from the
typewriting experiment and the results of the statistical treatment of
the data using the twodway analysis of variance technique. The sources
of data include an administration of the Otis Quick-Scoring Mental
Ability Test which was used to determine ability groupings, a pre-test
which was used to ascertain the typewriting proficiency of the students
prior to the initiation of the study, and a post-test which was used to
determine the effects of the four experimental treatments on typewriting
achievement. VThe data were punched on cards and analyzed by computer at
the Michigan State University Computer Center. The computer program used
was Multivariance-AVersion 4 June 1968 by Jeremy D. Finn, Department of
Educational Psychology, State University of New York at Buffalo which was
modified for the Michigan State University CDC 3600 and 6500 computer
systems by Verda Scheifley and William Schmidt.

The data were analyzed to make the following determinations:

l. The effects of types of drill materials on straight-capy speed
in intermediate collegiate typewriting

2. The effects of levels of intelligence on straight-copy speed
in intermediate collegiate typewriting

3. The effects of an interaction between types of drill materials
and levels of intelligence on straight-copy speed in intermediate col-

legiate typewriting

61

62

4. The effects of types of drill materials on production-copy
speed in intermediate collegiate typewriting
5. The effects of levels of intelligence on production-copy
speed in intermediate collegiate typewriting
6. The effects of an interaction between types of drill materials
and levels of intelligence on productionvcopy speed in intermediate
collegiate typewriting
7. The effects of types of drill materials on straight-capy accuracy
in intermediate collegiate typewriting
8. The effects of levels of intelligence on straight-copy accuracy
in intermediate collegiate typewriting
9. The effects of an interaction between levels of intelligence and
types of drill materials on straight-copy accuracy in intermediate col-
legiate typewriting
10. The effects of types of drill materials on production-copy
accuracy in intermediate collegiate typewriting
11. The effects of levels of intelligence on production-copy accup
racy in intermediate collegiate typewriting
12. The effects of an interaction between types of drill materials
and levels of intelligence on production-capy accuracy in intermediate
collegiate typewriting
When instances of significance occurred, the Scheffe’post hoc pro-
cedure was employed. The purpose of this procedure was to isolate the
comparisons between the treatment means which were responsible for or

contributed to the rejection of the null hypothesis.

63

The discussion of the analysis of the data is reported in two parts
under the following headings:
Part I - Statistical Analysis of the Data

Part II - Non-Statistical Analysis of the Data

I . STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

As the study involves a two-factor design, the two-way analysis of
variance technique was used to analyze the data. The two factors of the
analysis of variance were treatment with four levels and intelligence
with two levels. The four types of treatment were computerized drill
books, magazine drills, textbook drills, and no drills. The two levels
of intelligence were upper ability and lower ability.

This section of the chapter will present a discussion of the two-
way analysis of variance tests which was used to analyze each of the
four dependent variables. The four dependent variables were speed on
Straight-capy timed writings, speed on production copy, accuracy on

Straight-cepy timed writings, and accuracy on production copy.

@lysis of the data on speed on straight-copy timed mithgg
Two, three-minute straight-copy timed writings were included in the
pre-test and in the post-test. The pre-test timed writings were admin-
istered prior to the initiation of the study to determine the levels of
the students' straight-copy typewriting skills. The post-test three-
minute timed writings were administered at the termination of the study
in order to measure the effects of exposure to the four experimental
treatments. For purposes of analysis, only the better of the two pre-test

timed writings was used; and only the better of the two post-test timed

64

writings was used. The students' pre-test scores were compared with

their post-test scores, and means were computed from the pre-test scores
and the post-test scores for each of the treatment groups.

This study included three hypotheses relative to the development of

straight-copy speed. The first of these three hypotheses was restated

for statistical testing purposes in the null form as follows: There is
no significant difference in straight-capy speed developed in intermed-
iate collegiate typewriting among the types of drill materials used.

The results of the statistical test revealed that this null hypothesis

Should be rejected. The two-way analysis of variance test of the dif-

ferences among the combined group means is summarized in Table 4.1 below.

TABLE 4 . 1

TWO—WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TREATMENT GROUPS AND
ABILITY LEVELS 0N STRAIGHT-COPY SPEED

H

Sources of Sums of df Mean F
Variation Squares Squares Ratio p

¥

TYpes of Drill
Materials 197.3595 3 65.6865 4.2271 p < .0078*

Ability Levels 5.1442 1 5.1442 .3305 p < .5669

Interaction of
Drill Materials

and Ability Levels 18.4692 3 6.1564 .3956 p < .7565
Within Cells 1353.9744 §_'_I_ 15.562925
Totals 1574 .9473 94

¥

*Significance at the .05 level of confidence

65

Akrn Phratio value of 4.2271 was obtained when the differences among the
means of the four treatment groups were tested. That value was larger
than the ctirical value of 2.72 for 3 and 87 degrees of freedom at the
.(15 level of confidence and extended into the rejection region. There-
fore, the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in
straight-copy speed developed in intermediate collegiate typewriting
iammang the types of drill materials used was rejected.

In order to determine which treatment groups were responsible for
(>1: contributed to the rejection of the null hypothesis, the Scheffé'post
hoe procedure was used. Table 4.2 presents a suxmnary of the comparisons

0f the differences between all possible pairs of treatment means.

TABLE 4.2

SHEMMARY OF CONFIDENCE INTERVALS AROUND THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEANS
OF THE FOUR TREATMENT GROUPS USING THE SCHEFFE METHOD

H

 

C Differences Confidence
ontrasts Between Means Interval
Computerized Drill Books

vs. Magazine Drills 2.417 - 2.826 - -0.409 (-3.689, 2.880)
Computerized Drill Books

vs. Textbook Drills 2.417 - 4.348 - -l.931 (-5.220, 1.358)
Computerized Drill Books

vs. No Drills 2.417 - 5.880 a -3.463 {-6.686, -0.240)*

Magazine Drills vs. Text-
book Drills 2.826

4.348 . 1.522 {-4.845, 1.801)

Magazine Drills vs. No
Drills 2.826

5.880 I -3.054 (-6.312, 0.204)

Textbook Drills vs. No
Drills 4.348

 

*Significance at the .05 level of confidence

Only the
cooputeri
(Group ll
different
fidence.
column 0
cant in
increase
experime
to the r
0f stra:
drill b
Th
straigh
straig}
the by}

ca .
. Ht d,

Small;
at the

r9810:

66

Only the confidence interval generated for the comparison between the
computerized drill books group (Group I) and the no drills group

(Group IV) did not span zero. This finding indicates a significant
difference between the two treatment groups at the .05 level of con-
fidence. An examination of the combined group means in the second
column of Table 4.2 on page 65 reveals that the difference was signifi-
cant in favor of the no drills group (Group IV) which attained a mean
increase of 5.880 gross words per minute during the course of the
experiment. Thus, the inference can be made that the students assigned
to the no drills group were able to attain a significantly greater level
of straight-copy speed than were the students assigned to the computerized
drill books group as a result of exposure to this treatment.

The second of the three hypotheses regarding the development of
straight-copy speed involved the effects of levels of intelligence on
straight-capy speed achievement. For statistical testing purposes,
the hypothesis was restated in null form as follows: There is no siggifi-
cant difference between levels of intelligence and straiggt-copy speed
achievement in intermediate collegiate typewriting, The results of the
statistical test disclosed that the hypothesis should be retained. The
two~way analysis of variance test of the differences in straight-copy
speed achievement among the combined groups with respect to levels of
intelligence is given in Table 4.1 on page 64.

An F-ratio value of .3305 was obtained when the differences among
the speed gains of the combined groups were tested. That value was
smaller than the critical value of 3.96 for 1 and 87 degrees of freedom
at the .05 level of confidence and did not extend into the rejection

region. Consequently, the null hypothesis that there is no difference

betwe-
inter
to ge
role

types

was

dom

regi
nifi
inte
used
nati
rant

tYpe

Part

67

between levels of intelligence and straight-copy speed achievement in
intermediate collegiate typewriting was retained. It appears correct
to generalize, therefore, that levels of intelligence do not play a
role in straight-capy speed achievement in intermediate collegiate
typewriting.

The last hypothesis which explored straight-copy speed achievement
focused on the effects of an interaction between types of drill materials
used and levels of intelligence on the development of straight-copy speed.
The hypothesis was restated in null form for statistical testing purposes
as follows: There is no significant difference in straight-copy speed
achievement as a result of an interaction between levels of intelliggggg
and types of drill materials used. The two~way analysis of variance test
of the interaction between types of drill materials used and levels of
intelligence is presented in Table 4.1 on page 64.

An F-ratio value of .3956 was obtained for this test. That value
was smaller than the critical value of 2.72 for 3 and 87 degrees of free-
dom at the .05 level of confidence and did not extend into the rejection
region. Thus, it follows that the null hypothesis that there is no sig-
nificant difference in straight-cepy speed achievement as a result of an
interaction between levels of intelligence and types of drill materials
used should be retained. This test appears to indicate that the combi-
nation of intelligence and types of drill materials used is not a salient
factor in the attainment of straight-capy speed in intermediate collegiate

typewriting.

Analysis of the data on speed on production copy
A 30~minute production-copy pre—test was administered to students

participating in the study in order to ascertain a measure of previously

acquired
manuscri
contain:
minute

was adm
data v1

extent

bined

TYPES
Matt

Abili

Inter
Dri
Abi

withi

Tet

68

acquired production typewriting skills. The pre—test consisted of a
manuscript, a news release containing rough-draft marks, and a letter
containing rough-draft marks and tabulations. The contents of the 30-
minute post-test were similar to that of the pre-test. The post-test
was administered upon the completion of the study in order to generate
data with which to compare the pre-test results and to establish the
extent of the increment in speed in production typewriting.

Three hypotheses associated with production-copy speed were incor-
porated in this study. The first hypothesis was restated for statistical
testing purposes in the null form as follows: There is no siggificant
difference in production-copy speed developed in intermediate collegig£g_
typewriting among the types of drill materials used. The results of the
statistical test revealed that this null hypothesis should be retained.
The two~way analysis of variance test of the differences among the com-

bined group means on types of drill materials used is shown in Table 4.3.

TABLE 4.3

TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TREATMENT GROUPS AND
ABILITY LEVELS ON PRODUCTION-COPY SPEED

 

 

Sources of Sums of df Mean F
Variation Squares Squares Ratio p

 

Types of Drill
Materials 36.2934 3 12.0978 .7608 p < .5192

Ability Levels 81.0185 1 81.0185 5.0949 p 1< .0266*

Interaction of
Drill Materials and

Ability Levels 42.1131 3 14.0377 .8828 p ( .4534
Within Cells 1383.4594 §1_ 15.901833
Totals 1542.8844 94

 

*Significance at the .05 level of confidence

69

The derived F-ratio value of .7608 was smaller than the critical value
of 2.72 for 3 and 87 degrees of freedom at the .05 level of confidence
and did not extend into the rejection region. Hence, the null hypothe-
sis that there is no significant difference in production-copy speed
developed in intermediate collegiate typewriting among the types of
drill materials used was retained. The results of the test permit one
to make the assumption that each of the four types of drill materials
utilized in the study were almost equally effective in developing
production-copy speed.

The second hypothesis with respect to the development of production-
copy speed made inquiry into the effects of levels of intelligence on
achievement in this area. The hypothesis was restated for statistical
testing purposes in the null form as follows: There is no siggificant
difference between levels of intelliggnce and production-copy speed
aghievement in intermediate collegiate typewriting, The results of the
statistical test required that the null hypothesis be rejected. The two-
way analysis of variance test of the differences in production-copy speed
achievement among the combined groups relative to levels of intelligence
is displayed in Table 4.3 on page 68.

An F-ratio value of 5.0949 was calculated when the differences
among the mean production-copy speed gains of the combined groups were
tested. That value of 5.0949 was larger than the critical value of 3.96
for l and 87 degrees of freedom at the .05 level of confidence and did
extend into the rejection region. Therefore, the null hypothesis that
there is no significant difference between levels of intelligence and
production-copy speed achievement in intermediate collegiate typewriting

was rejected.

70

As the study included only two levels of intelligence, upper
ability and lower ability, it was not necessary to construct Scheffe’
method confidence intervals in order to determine which pair of means
was responsible for or contributed to the rejection of the null hypothe-
sis. An examination of Table 4.4 will reveal that the significant dif-
ference between the production-copy speed achievement of the two combined
groups of upper-ability students and lower-ability students was in favor
of the combined group of lower-ability students. This finding will be

discussed in the non-statistical analysis section of this chapter.

TABLE 4.4

MEAN PRODUCTION-COPY SPEED GAINS FOR THE COMBINED GROUPS OF UPPER-
ABILITY STUDENTS AND THE COMBINED GROUPS OF LOWERqABILITY
STUDENTS IN THE FOUR TREATMENT GROUPS

 

 

Mean Production

 

Ability Levels Speed Gain
Upper Ability 30340
Lower Ability 5.187

 

The combined group of lower-ability students achieved a mean gain
of 5.187 gross words per minute and the combined group of upper-ability
students achieved a mean gain of 3.340 gross words per minute, yielding
a mean difference between the performance of the two groups of 1.847
gross words per minute.

The data tend to suggest that a student's mental ability does some-
what influence the level of achievement in production-copy speed. However,
in this instance, the relationship between the two factors appears to be

inverse.

71

The third of the hypotheses relating to production-copy speed
achievement was associated with the effects of an interaction between
levels of intelligence and typed of drill materials used. The hypothe-
sis was restated for statistical testing purposes in null form as
follows: There is no significant difference ingproduction-copy speed
achievement as a result of an interaction between types of drill mater-
ials used and levels of intelliggggg. The twouway analysis of variance
test of the interaction between types of drill materials used and levels
of intelligence is presented in Table 4.3 on page 68 and indicates that
the null hypothesis should be retained.

An F-ratio value of .8828 was computed for this test. That value
was smaller than the critical value of 2.72 for 3 and 87 degrees of
freedom at the .05 level of confidence and did not extend into the
rejection region. This signifies that the null hypothesis that there
is no significant difference in production-copy speed achievement as a
result of an interaction between types of drill materials used and levels
of intelligence should be retained. Thus, it appears accurate to con-
clude that the combined factors of types of drill materials used and
levels of intelligence were indistinguishable in influencing achievement

in production-capy speed in this study.

Analysis of the data on accuracy on straight-copy timed writings

The two, three—minute pre-test and post-test straight-copy timed writ-
ings which were used to determine the students' levels of straight-copy
speed were also used to determine the levels of their straight-copy accu-
racy. The percentage of accuracy of the number of gross words typed per

minute on the pre—test timed writing was compared with the percentage of

72

accuracy of the number of gross words typed per minute on the post-test
timed writing. From this data, means were computed for each of the
treatment groups.

Three of the hypotheses in this study pertained to the develop-
ment of straight-copy accuracy. The first of the three hypotheses was
restated for statistical testing purposes in the null form as follows:
There is no siggificant difference in straight-copy accuracy development
in intermediate collegiate typewriting among the types of drill materials
2322. The results of the statistical test indicated that this null hypothe-
sis should be retained.

Table 4.5 is a summary of the twoeway analysis of variance test of the
differences among the combined means of the straight-copy accuracy scores

for the four treatment groups.

TABLE 4.5

TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TREATMENT GROUPS AND
ABILITY LEVELS ON STRAIGHT-COPY ACCURACY

 

 

Sources of Sums of Mean F

Variation Squares df Squares Ratio p

 

Types of Drill
Materials 44.8737 3 14.9579 .2564 p < .5830

Ability Levels 17.7240 1 17.7240 .3038 p 1< .8566

Interaction of
Drill Materials

and Ability Levels 85.1007 3 28.3669 .4863 p .< .6928
Within Cells 5057.2027 §Z_ 58.335713

Totals 5222.9054 94

 

73

An F—ratio value of .2564 was calculated when the differences among
the means of the four treatment groups were tested. That value was
smaller than the critical value of 2.72 for 3 and 87 degrees of
freedom at the .05 level of confidence and did not extend into the
rejection region. As a result, the null hypothesis that there is

no significant difference in straight-capy accuracy development in
intermediate collegiate typewriting among the types of drill materials
used was retained. Consequently, it appears credible to assume that
the types of drill materials had almost equal effects on the straight-
cOpy accuracy achievement of the four treatment groups.

The second hypothesis concerning straight-copy accuracy made inquiry
into the effects of levels of intelligence on straight-copy accuracy
achievement. For statistical testing purposes, the hypothesis was
restated in null form as follows: W
oar-11 ~.- 2',_:11 11d. achevement

in intermediate collegiate typewriting. The results of the statistical

 

test indicated that the hypothesis should be retained. The summary of
the two-way analysis of variance test of the differences among the
combined means of the straight-copy accuracy scores for levels of intel-
ligence is included in Table 4.5 on page 72. The computed F—ratio value
of .3038 was smaller than the critical value of 3.86 for 1 and 87 degrees
of freedom at the .05 level of confidence and did not extend into the
rejection region. Hence, it appears logical to assume that levels of
intelligence produced little variance among the treatment groups in
straight-copy accuracy achievement in this study.

The last hypothesis involving straight-copy accuracy sought to deter-

mine the extent of an interaction between types of drill materials used

74

and levels of intelligence on achievement in this area. The hypothesis
was restated in null form for statistical testing purposes as follows:
There is no significance difference in straight-copy accuracy achievement
as the result of an interaction between levels of intelligence and types
of drill materials used. The statistical test indicated that there was

no significant interaction between the two factors and that the hypothesis
should be retained. Table 4.5 on page 72 may be referred to for a summary
of the two-way analysis of variance test of the interaction between types
of drill materials used and levels of intelligence on straight-copy accu-
racy. The derived value of .4863 was less than the critical value of 2.72
for 3 and 87 degrees of freedom at the .05 level of confidence and did not
extend into the rejection region. Under these conditions, the test sug-
gests that the combined factors of types of drill materials used and levels
of intelligence did not contribute in greater degree to the straight-cepy
accuracy achievement of one treatment group than to any other of the three

treatment groups.

Analysis of the data on accuracy on production copy

The 30-minute production-copy pre-test and the 30~minute production-
copy post-test which were used to obtain a measure of the students'
production-capy typewriting speeds were also used to obtain a measure
of the students' production-copy accuracy levels. The accuracy levels
were computed in terms of percentages, and a comparison was made between
the percentages of accuracy on both the pre-test results and the post-
test results. Means were computed for each of the treatment groups in
order to assess gains in accuracy levels as a result of exposure to the

experimental treatments.

75

In this study, three of the hypotheses explored the development
of productionvcopy accuracy. The first of the three hypotheses was
restated for statistical testing purposes in the null form as follows:

There is no siggificant difference in production-copy accuracy develop:
ment in intermediate collegiate typewriting among the types of drill

 

materials used. The outcome of the statistical test warranted that
this hypothesis should be retained.

A compilation of the twodway analysis of variance test of the
differences among the combined means of the production-copy accuracy

data for the four treatment groups is given in Table 4.6.

TABLE 4.6

TWO-HAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OE TREATMENT GROUPS AND
ABILITY LEVELS 0N PRODUCTION‘COPY ACCURACY

 

 

Sources of Sums of df mean P
Variation Squares Squares Ratio

 

Types of Drill
Materials 397.6032

M

132.5344 .4240 p < .7363
Interaction of

Drill Materials
and Ability Levels 192.5475 3 64.1825 .2053 p «< .8925

 

within can. 27194.6222 _s_7_ 312.581865
Totals 27791.5367 94

 

The calculations produced an F-ratio value of .4240 when the differences
among the means of the four treatment groups were tested. That value was

less than the critical value of 2.72 for 3 and 87 degrees of freedom at

76

the .05 level of confidence and did nto extend into the rejection region.
Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference

in production-copy accuracy achievement in intermediate collegiate type-
writing among the types of drill materials used was retained. It appears
that equal effectiveness may be ascribed to each of the types of drill
materials used in the development of production-capy accuracy.

The second hypothesis, with reference to the development of
production-copy accuracy, was concerned with the effects of levels of
intelligence on degrees of achievement of the students assigned to the
four treatment groups. For statistical testing purposes, the hypothesis
' was restated in null form as follows: There is no significant difference
between levels of intelligence and production—copy accuracy achievement
in intermediate collegiate typewriting. The statistical results of the
test justified retaining the null hypothesis.

For a review of the two-way analysis of variance test results, see
Table 4.6 on page 75. The F-ratio value of .0216 for ability levels
was less than the critical value of 3.86 for l and 87 degrees of freedom
at the .05 level of confidence and did not extend into the rejection
region. The null hypothesis that there is no significant difference
between levels of intelligence and production-copy achievement in inter-
mediate collegiate typewriting was retained. It was concluded that level
of intelligence was not a discriminating factor in the attainment of
production-copy accuracy in this study.

The final hypothesis of the study concentrated on the effects of an
interaction between types of drill materials used and levels of intel-

ligence on achievement in production-copy accuracy. The hypothesis was

restated
sum;
The stat
exist be
In influ
hypothes
smary
The
than the
.05 leve
As a tea
ference
interact
ligence
an inter

my ac}

Wm

M
We: ’ 35
Batu-1a]
Vatiab 1‘

the 24 E

77

restated in null form for statistical testing purposes as follows:
There is no significant difference ingproduction-copy accuracy achieve-
ment as a result of an interaction between types of drill materials
used and levels of intelligggce in intermediate collegiate typewriting.
The statistical test disclosed that significant interaction did not
exist between types of drill materials used and levels of intelligence
in influencing production-copy accuracy achievement, and the null
hypothesis was retained. Table 4.6 on page 75 may be examined for a
summary of the twodway analysis of variance test of interaction.

The table shows that the obtained F-ratio value of .2053 was less
than the critical value of 2.72 for 3 and 87 degrees of freedom at the
.05 level of confidence and did not extend into the rejection region.
As a result, the null hypothesis that there is no significant dif-
ference in production-copy accuracy achievement as a result of an
interaction between types of drill materials used and levels of intel-
ligence was retained. Therefore, the test revealed that in this study
an interaction of a magnitude necessary to modify production-capy accu-

racy achievement was not present.
Sub-Hypotheses

Twenty-four sub-hypotheses were to be tested in this study. Howe
ever, as there was no significant interaction between types of drill
materials used and levels of intelligence on any of the four dependent
variables, none were tested. (See Appendix A for a complete listing of

the 24 sub-hypotheses).

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

0f the 12 major research hypotheses included in this study, only
two were accepted. The following items are a summary of the statistical

findings:

1. There was a sigpificant difference in straight-cap: speed
achievement in intermediate collegiate typewriting among the types of

drill materials used. The Scheffe’post hoc procedures revealed that

 

 

 

the treatments which.were responsible for or contributed to the accept-

ance of the research hypothesis were Group I (computerized drill books)

and Group IV (no drills). The significant difference was found to exist
in favor of Group IV (no drills).

2. There was no significant difference in straight-copy speed
achievement between levels of intelligence in intermediate collegiate
typewriting.

3. There was no significant difference in straight-copy speed
achievement as a result of an interaction between types of drill
materials used and levels of intelligence in intermediate collegiate
typewriting.

4. There was no significant difference in production-copy speed
achievement in intermediate collegiate typewriting among the types of
drill materials used.

5. There was a sigpificant difference in production-copy speed
achievement between levels of intelligence in intermediate collegiate

typewriting. As there were only two levels of intelligence included

 

in this study, there was no need to employ the Scheffe’post hoc pro-

cedures to determine which pair of means was responsible for or

78

79

contributed to the acceptance of the research hypothesis. A simple
observation of the mean production-copy speed gains revealed that the
significant difference was in favor of the lower-ability group.

6. There was no significant difference in production-copy speed
achievement as a result of an interaction between types of drill mater-
ials used in the study and levels of intelligence in intermediate col-
legiate typewriting.

7. There was no significant difference in straight-copy accuracy
achievement in intermediate collegiate typewriting among the types of
drill materials used.

8. There was no significant difference in straight-copy accuracy
achievement between levels of intelligence in intermediate collegiate
typewriting.

9. There was no significant difference in straight-copy accuracy
achievement as a result of an interaction between types of drill mater-
ials used and levels of intelligence in intermediate collegiate type-
writing.

10. There was no significant difference in production-copy accuracy
achievement in intermediate collegiate typewriting among the types of
drill materials used.

11. There was no significant difference in production-copy accuracy
achievement between levels of intelligence in intermediate collegiate
typewriting.

12. There was no significant difference in production-copy accuracy
achievement as a result of an interaction between types of drill mater-

ials used and levels of intelligence in intermediate collegiate type-
‘writing.

II. NON-STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

This section of the chapter presents a non-statistical discussion

«of the data generated by the procedures of the study.

AnalLsis of the data on ability levels

The mental abilities of the 95 students who participated in this
study ranged from 70 to 120 as measured by the results of an admin-
istration of the Otis QuickeScoring Mental Ability Test. The weighted
mean mental ability scores for the students who were assigned to the

four treatment groups may be examined in Table 4.7.

TABLE 4.7

MEAN MENTAL ABILITY SCORES OF THE STUDENTS ASSIGNED
TO THE FOUR TREATMENT GROUPS

Upper Lower Group Group
Treatment Groups Ability Number Ability Number Means Totals

1. Computerized

 

Drill Books 96.00 9 87.33 15 90.58 24
11. Magazine
Drills 101.77 13 83.10 10 93.65 23
III. Textbook
Drills 97.38 8 83.07 15 88.04 23
IV. No Drills 98.18 17 82.88 8 90.53 25
Group Means 98.62 84.37 91.42
Group Totals 47 48 9S

 

 

The nine upper-ability students who were assigned to Group I (com-

puterised drill books) possessed a mean mental ability of 96.00, the 15

80

81

lower-ability students who were assigned to Group I possessed a mean
mental ability of 87.33, and the mean mental ability of the 24 students
aassigned to Group I combined was 90.58. The mean mental ability of the
213 students classified as upper ability who were exposed to the magazine
drills treatment, Group II, was 101.77 while the mean mental ability of
‘the ten lower-ability students exposed to the same treatment was 83.10.
'The mean mental ability of the magazines group combined was 93.65. The
‘upper-ability students who typed from the textbook drills during the
course of the experiment had a mean mental ability of 97.38, and the
lower-ability students who typed from the textbook drills had a mean
‘mental ability of 83.07. The mean mental ability of the total group of
23 textbook drills students was 88.04. The 17 upper-ability students who
typed no drills, Group IV, had a mean mental ability of 98.18, the eight
alower-ability students who typed no drills had a mean mental ability of
82.88, and the combined mental ability mean for the no drills students
‘was 90.53. The combined group of 47 upper-ability students who were
assigned to the four treatment groups had a mean mental ability of 98.62,
the 48 lower-ability students had a mean mental ability of 84.37, and the
combined mean mental ability of the total group of 95 students was 91.42.
The upper-ability students assigned to the magazine drills group had
the highest mean mental ability of 101.77 while the lowest mean for the
upper-ability students was 96.00. This group was assigned to the com-
puterized drill book treatment. 0f the lower-ability students, the group
possessing the lowest mean mental ability score of 82.88 was assigned to
the no drills group, and the lower-ability group possessing the highest
mean mental ability of 87.33 was assigned to the computerized drill book

treatment. For the combined group of upper-ability students and the

82

lower-ability students, the highest mean mental ability was 93.65, and
the group was assigned to the magazine drills treatment. The lowest
amean mental ability for the combined group of upper-ability students
and lower-ability students was 88.04, and the group was assigned to

the textbook drills treatment.

.Analysis of data for pre-test and post-test straight-copy speed
Table 4.8, which follows, presents a summary of the pre-test and post-

test data relative to straight-copy speed for the four treatment groups.

TABLE 4.8

MEAN STRAIGHT-COPY SPEED SCORES FOR PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST RESULTS,

MEAN SPEED GAIN FOR UPPEReABILITY STUDENTS AND LOWERQABILITY
STUDENTS, AND MEAN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SPEED GAINS

FOR THE COMBINED GROUPS

 

Mean Mean Mean Mean Difference
Treatment Groups Pre-Test Post-Test Speed in Speed Gains
Speed Speed Gain for Combined Groups
I. Computerized
Drill Books
Upper Ability 56.89 58.56 1.67
Lower Ability 52.00 54.87 2.87 1.20
II. Magazine Drills
Upper Ability 56.85 58.85 2.00
Lower Ability 46.80 50.70 3.90 1.90
III. Textbook Drills
Upper Ability 46.25 49.75 3.50
Lower Ability 48.20 53.00 4.80 1.30
IV. No Drills
Upper Ability 52.41 58.47 6.06
Lower Ability 51.50 57.00 5.50 .56

83

flftme Group I (computerized drill books) upper-ability students attained
am. mean score of 56.89 on the straight-copy pre-test and 58.56 on the
straight-copy post-test. These scores represented a mean gain in
straight-copy speed of 1.67 gross words per minute. The Group I lower-
ability students attained a mean score of 52.00 on the straight-copy
pre—test and a mean score of 54.87 on the straight-copy post-test which
denotes a mean straight-copy speed gain of 2.87 gross words per minute.
TIThe mean difference between the performances of the two groups was 1.20
agross words per minute in favor of the lower-ability students.

The upper-ability students who typed from magazines, Group II,
aachieved a mean straight-copy speed of 56.85 on the pre-test and a mean
tipeed of 58.85 on the straight-copy post-test. The mean difference
laetween the two test scores for the upper-ability students was 2.00 gross
awards per minute. The lower-ability students achieved a mean straight-
copy speed of 46.80 and a mean post-test straight-copy speed of 50.70.
TPhis group gained a mean of 3.90 gross words per minute. The lower-
‘ability group gained a mean of 1.90 gross words per minute more than did
the upper-ability students.

The students assigned to the textbook drills treatment, Group III,
who were classified as upper ability reached a mean speed of 46.25 on
the straight-copy pre-test and a mean speed of 49.75 on the straight-
copy post-test. This group realized a mean gain of 3.50 gross words per
minute. The students classified as lower ability reached a mean speed of
48.20 on the straight-copy pre-test and a mean speed of 53.00 on the
straight-copy post-test. This group realized a mean gain of 4.80 gross
words per minute and a mean difference of 1.30 gross words per minute

more than did the upper-ability students.

84

The no drills students, Group IV, in the upper-ability category
eaczquired a mean of 52.41 on the straight-copy pre-test, a mean speed
of 58.47 on the straight-copy post-test, and effected a mean gain of
£5..06 gross words per minute. The lower-ability students acquired a
xmuean speed of 51.50 on the straight-copy pre-test and a mean speed of
$537.00 on the straight-copy post-test. Their mean gain was 5.50 gross
words per minute. These scores revealed that .56 gross words per minute
I].ess were achieved by the lower-ability students than were achieved by

t:he upper-ability group. Table 4.9 reveals the mean gains in speed for

(each of the combined treatment groups.

TABLE 4.9
MEAN STRAIGHT-COPY SPEED GAINS FOR THE COMBINED GROUPS OF UPPER-

ABILITY STUDENTS AND LOWER-ABILITY STUDENTS IN
THE FOUR TREATMENT GROUPS

Mean Speed Mean Gain for
Treatment Groups Gain Combined Groups

I. Computerized Drill Books

Upper Ability 1.67

Lower Ability 2.87 2.42
II. Magazine Drills

Upper Ability 2.20

Lower Ability 3.90 2.83
III. Textbook Drills

Upper Ability 3.50

Lower Ability 4.80 4.35
IV. No Drills

Upper Ability 6.06

Lower Ability 5.50 5.88

 

The mean gain in speed for Group I (computerized drill books) com-

bined was 2.42, 2.83 for Group III (magazine drills) combined, 4.35 for

85

Group II (textbook drills) combined, and 5.88 for Group IV (no drills)
combined. Even though all groups gained in straight-copy speed, the
lleast effective treatment for the upper-ability students, the lower-
aability students, and the combined group appeared to be the computerized
drill books while the most effective treatment for the upper-ability
students, the lower-ability students, and the combined group appeared to
be the no drills procedure. In all instances except for the no drills
procedure, the lower-ability students excelled the upper-ability students

in mean straight-copy speed gains.

Analysis of the data on pre-test and post-test production speed
A condensation of the pre-test and post-test scores on production-

copy speed for the four treatment groups is presented in Table 4.10.

TABLE 4.10

MEAN PRODUCTION-COPY SPEED SCORES FOR PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST RESULTS,
MEAN SPEED GAIN FOR UPPER-ABILITY STUDENTS AND LOWER-ABILITY
STUDENTS, AND MEAN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SPEED GAINS
FOR THE COMBINED GROUPS

 

 

 

Mean Mean Mean Mean Difference
Treatment Groups Pre—Test Post—Test Speed in Speed Gains
Speed Speed Gain for Combined Groups
I. Computerized
Drill Books
Upper Ability 24.33 27.33 3.00
Lower Ability 18.67 23.67 5.00 2.00
II. Magazine Drills
Upper Ability 23.16 25.31 2.15
Lower Ability 18.20 23.80 5.60 3.45
III. Textbook Drills
Upper Ability 19.88 24.63 4.75
Lower Ability 19.67 25.73 6.07 1.32
IV. No Drills
Upper Ability 22.48 26.24 3.76
Lower Ability 20.37 23.75 3.38 .38

 

86

The mean production speed for the upper-ability students who
typed from the computerized drill books, Group I, was 24.33 gross
words per minute on the pre-test; and the mean post-test produc-
tion speed was 27.33 gross words per minute. The difference
between the pre-test and the post-test results indicated a mean
gain of 3.00 gross words per minute for the upper-ability students.

The Group I lower-ability students also achieved a mean gain
in production speed. The mean pre-test production speed was 18.67
gross words per minute, and the mean post-test production speed was
23.67 gross words per minute. These scores disclosed a mean gain of
5.00 gross words per minute for the lower-ability group. A mean dif—
ference between the production speed of the upper-ability students
and the lower-ability students of 2.00 gross words per minute was in
support of the performance of the lower-ability students.

The upper-ability students of Group II, magazine drills, suc-
ceeded in surpassing their mean pre-test score by 2.15 gross words
per minute. The pre-test measurement was 23.16 gross words per
minute and the post-test measurement was 25.31 gross words per
minute.

The lower-ability students also exceeded their pre-test per-
formance by a mean score of 5.60 gross words per minute. The mean
pre-test score was 18.20 gross words per minute and the mean post-
test score was 23.80 gross words per minute. The mean difference
between the increase in the production speed for the upper-ability

students and the lower-ability students was 3.45 gross words per

87

minute, with the lower-ability students' performances exceeding
that of the upper-ability students.

Students designated as upper ability who typed from the text-
book drills, Group III, were able to exceed the mean score of
their pre-test performance by a margin of 4.75 gross words per min-
ute. The mean pre—test score was 19.88 gross words per minute, and
the mean post-test score was 24.63 gross words per minute. The
lower-ability students also progressed from their pre-test speed by
6.07 gross words per minute. Their earned pre-test speed was 19.67
gross words per minute while their mean post—test speed rose to
25.73 gross words per minute. However, the mean difference between
the production speed of the upper-ability students and that of the
lower-ability students was only 1.32 gross words per minute with the
superior performance in favor of the lower-ability students.

Students who typed from production tasks, Group IV, in the upper-
ability group progressed from 22.48 gross words per minute to 26.24
gross words per minute in production speed. The mean difference
between the pre-test and the post-test scores was 3.76 gross words
per minute.

The mean production speed growth for the lower-ability students
was 3.38 gross words per minute. The post-test score was 20.37 gross
words per minute while the post-test score was 23.75 gross words per
minute. The mean production speed growth of the upper-ability group
was greater than that of the lower-ability group by a score of only

.38 gross words per minute.

88

Table 4.11 may be examined for a summary of the mean increments in

production apeed for each of the combined groups.

TABLE 4.11
MEAN PRODUCTION-COPY SPEED GAINS FOR THE COMBINED GROUP OF UPPER-

ABILITY STUDENTS AND LOWER-ABILITY STUDENTS IN
THE FOUR TREATMENT GROUPS

_._-

 

Mean Speed Mean Gain for
Treatment GT°UP3 Gain Combined Groups
I. Computerized Drill Books
Upper Ability 3.00
Lower Ability 5.00 4.25
II. Magazine Drills
Upper Ability 2.15
Lower Ability 5.60 3.65
III. Textbook Drills
Upper Ability 4.75
Lower Ability 6.07 5.61
IV. No Drills
Upper Ability 3.76
Lower Ability 3.38 3.64

 

The mean increment in production speed for Group I (computerized
drill books) combined was 4.25 gross words per minute; for Group II
(magazine drills) combined, 3.65 gross words per minute; for Group III
(textbook drills) combined, 5.61 gross words per minute; and for the
students in Group IV (no drills) combined, the mean increment was 3.64
gross words per minute.

Except for the lower-ability students receiving the no drills treat—
ment, all treatments appeared to be more beneficial for the lower-ability
students than for the upper-ability students in building production speed.
The most advantageous treatment for building production speed for the lower—

ability students appeared to be the textbook drills treatment, and the most

89

advantageous treatment for building production speed for the upper-

sbility students appeared to be the magazine drills treatment. For the
lower-ability students and the combined group of upper-ability students
and lower-ability students, the least effective treatment for building

production speed appeared to be the no drills procedure.

Analysis of the data op_pre-test and post-test straight-copyfiaccuracy
A compilation of the data derived from the pre-test and post-test

results on straight-copy accuracy may be reviewed in Table 4.12 below.

TABLE 4.12

MEAN STRAIGHT-COPY ACCURACY SCORES FOR PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST
RESULTS, MEAN ACCURACY GAIN FOR UPPEReABILITY STUDENTS AND
LOWERmABILITY STUDENTS, AND MEAN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
GAINS FOR THE COMBINED GROUPS

 

 

 

Mean Mean Mean Mean Difference
Treatment Groups Pre-Test Post-Test Accuracy in Accuracy
Accuracy Accuracy Gain Gain
I. Computerized
Drill Books
Upper Ability 93.112 92.552 -.562
Lower Ability 92.732 93.002 .272 -.292
11. Magazine Drills
Upper Ability 91.622 92.002 .382
Lower Ability 89.702 92.402 2.702 2.322
111. Textbook Drills
Upper Ability 89.882 93.132 3.252
Lower Ability 88.942 89.872 .932 2.322
IV. No Drills
Upper Ability 92.532 92.472 -.062
Lower Ability 92.252 95.002 2.752 2.692

 

The

to

aft

of

CB!

ace

and

.29

SCI.

Grc

3C!

92

th.

ab

92

81‘

fit

an

PE

ra

th

3d

90

The level of straight-capy accuracy for the upper-ability students who were
exposed to the computerized drill book treatment, Group I, was determined
to be 93.11 percent when the pre-test was administered and 92.55 percent
after the administration of the post-test. These scores indicated a loss
of .56 percent in accuracy on straight-copy material when the study was
terminated. The lower-ability students had accomplished a mean gain in
accuracy of .27 percent with a pre-test accuracy score of 92.73 percent
and a post-test accuracy score of 93.00 percent. The mean difference was
.29 percent between the straight-copy accuracy gain of the upper-ability
students and the lower-ability students.

The upper-ability students who typed paragraphs from magazines,

Group II, gained in straight-copy accuracy by .38 percent. Their pre-test
accuracy score was 91.62 percent and their post-test accuracy score was
92.00 percent. The lower-ability students of Group II gained 2.70 percent
in accuracy which was considerably greater than the mean accuracy gain of
the upper-ability students. The pre-test accuracy score for the lower-
ability students was 89.70 percent and the post-test accuracy score was
92.40 percent. The mean difference between the accuracy level of the two
groups was 2.32 percent in favor of the lower-ability students.

The percentage of straight-copy accuracy earned by the upper-ability
students of Group III, textbook drills, on the pre-test was 89.88 percent
and 93.13 percent on the post-test. This group gained in accuracy by 3.25
percent while the lower-ability students only gained .93 percent in accu-
racy. The lower-ability students' accuracy level was 88.94 percent when
the pre-test was administered and 89.87 percent when the post-test was
administered. The mean difference between the two groups' performance was

2.32 percent in favor of the upper-ability students.

91

The no drills group, Group IV, upper-ability students' level of
straight-capy accuracy was measured to be 92.53 percent when the pre-
test was administered and 92.47 percent when the post-test was admin-
istered. The mean difference between the scores revealed a decrease in
straight-copy accuracy of -.06 percent while the lower-ability students
realized a mean gain of 2.75 percent. The pre-test score was 92.25 per-
cent, and the post-test score was 95.00 percent revealing a mean difference
between the upper-ability students and the lower-ability students of 2.69
percent in favor of the lower-ability students.

See Table 4.13 for a digest of the mean increments in straight-capy

accuracy for the four treatment groups.

TABLE 4.13

MEAN STRAIGHT-COPY ACCURACY GAINS FOR THE COMBINED GROUPS OF
UPPER-ABILITY STUDENTS AND LOWEReABILITY STUDENTS IN
THE FOUR TREATMENT GROUPS

 

 

Mean Accuracy
Mean Accuracy Gain for

Treatment Groups Gain Combined Groups

 

I. Computerized Drill Books

Upper Ability -.562

Lower Ability .272 -.422
11. Magazine Drills

Upper Ability .382

Lower Ability 2.702 1.392
III. Textbook Drills

Upper Ability 3.252

Lower Ability .932 1.742
IV. No Drills

Upper Ability -.O62

Lower Ability 2.752 .842

 

A mean decrease of .42 percent in level of straight-copy accuracy

was accrued by the upper-ability students and the lower-ability students

92

of Group I combined. The three other treatment groups achieved gains
in level of accuracy. Group II gained 1.39 percent, Group III gained
1.74 percent, and Group IV gained .84 percent in straight-capy accuracy.

Except for the upper-ability students assigned to the computerized
drill books and the no drills group, all groups of students gained in
straight-copy accuracy. However, the gains were very small in the cases
of the lower-ability students assigned to the computerized drill books
treatment, the upper-ability students assigned to the magazine drills
treatment, and the lower-ability students assigned to the textbook
drills treatment.

The lower—ability students assigned to the computerized drill
books treatment, the lower—ability students assigned to the magazine
drills treatment. and the lower-ability students assigned to the no
drills treatment surpassed the mean percentage of accuracy gain of that
of the upper-ability students on straight-copy material. The upper-
ability students assigned to the textbook drills treatment surpassed
all other groups in levels of mean accuracy gain.

The least effective treatment for building straight-copy accuracy
for the upper-ability students, the lower-ability students, and the
combined group of upper-ability students and lower-ability students
appeared to be the computerized drill books treatment. The most effec-
tive treatment for building straight-copy accuracy for both the upper-
ability students and the combined group of upper—ability students and
lower-ability students appeared to be the textbook drills treatment.
For the lower-ability students, the no drills treatment yielded a level

of accuracy gain which was greater than for the other three treatments.

93

Analysis of data on pre-test and post-test4production-copy accuracy
The most impressive performance by the upper-ability students was
in the area of production-copy accuracy; however, there was no extreme
difference between their performance and that of the lower-ability
students. An observation of Table 4.14 will reveal the mean production
accuracy scores based on the pre-test and the post-test results for the

four groups of upper-ability students and lower-ability students.

TABLE 4.14

MEAN PRODUCTION-COPY ACCURACY SCORES FOR PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST
RESULTS, MEAN ACCURACY GAIN FOR UPPERPABILITY STUDENTS
AND LOWER-ABILITY STUDENTS, AND MEAN DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN SPEED GAINS FOR THE COMBINED GROUPS

 

 

__v

 

Mean Mean Mean Mean Difference
Treatment Groups Pre-Test Post-Test Accuracy in Accuracy
Accuracy Accuracy Gain Gain
I. Computerized
Drill Books
Upper Ability 74.22% 83.78% 9.56%
Lower Ability 75.49% 80.93% 5 53% 4.03%
II. Magazine Drills
Upper Ability 82.38% 88.31% 5.93%
Lower Ability 69.10% 71.20% 2.10% 3.83%
111. Textbook Drills
Upper Ability 78.63% 83.75% 5.12%
Lower Ability 72.74% 81.27% 8.53% 3.41%
IV. No Drills
Upper Ability 79.71% 83.24% 3.53%
Lower Ability 72.50% 74.00% 1.50% 2.03%

 

The mean production accuracy gain for the upper-ability students eXposed
to the computerized drill books treatment, Group I, was 9.56 percent.

The pre-test production accuracy score was 74.22 percent and the mean

post-ti
gain ft
upper-:
for th
accura
accura
in fat
1

lent i
The a.
level

the a

great

for t

level

ECCUI

treat
Pre-1
Mean
Pete
72.7
cent
Pre-
Per:
the

ECO!

94

post-test accuracy score was 83.78 percent. The mean production accuracy
gain for the lower-ability students was slightly less than that of the
upper-ability students, 5.53 percent. The mean pre-test accuracy score
for the lower-ability students was 75.49 percent and the mean post-test
accuracy score was 80.93 percent. The upper-ability group differed in
accuracy level from the lower-ability group by a score of 4.03 percent

in favor of the upper-ability students.

The upper-ability students who received the magazine drills treat-
ment increased their mean level of accuracy by a score of 5.93 percent.
The accuracy level of the pre-test was 82.38 percent and the accuracy
level of the post-test was 88.31 percent. For the lower-ability students,
the size of the increase in production accuracy, 2.10 percent, was not as
great as that of the upper-ability students. The pre-test accuracy level
for the lower-ability group was 69.10 percent, and the post-test accuracy
level was 71.20 percent. The two groups varied in level of production
accuracy by a score of 3.83 percent in favor of the upper-ability group.

The upper-ability students who were included in the textbook drills
treatment, Group III, earned an accuracy score of 78.63 percent on the
pre-test and an accuracy score of 83.75 percent on the post-test. The
mean accuracy score of this group was strengthened by a score of 5.12
percent. The lower-ability students attained a mean accuracy score of
72.74 percent on the pre-test and a mean accuracy score of 81.27 per-
cent on the post-test. The difference between the lower-ability group's
pre-test and post-test performance amounted to a mean improvement of 8.53
percent in production accuracy. The contrast between the performance of
the upper-ability students and the lower-ability students was a mean

score of 3.41 percent in favor of the lower-ability students.

95

The production accuracy level of the upper-ability students who
comprised the no drills group, Group IV, was enhanced by a mean score
of 3.53 percent after their exposure to this treatment. The mean pre-
test score was 79.71 percent, and the mean post—test score was 83.24
percent. The lower-ability students, therefore, improved their pro-
duction accuracy by a mean score of 1.50 percent. The mean pre-test
measurement was 72.50 percent, and the mean post-test accuracy measure-
ment was 74.00 percent. There was no marked degree of difference
between levels of accuracy for the two groups. The upper-ability group
and the lower-ability group differed in accuracy performance by a mean
of 2.03 percent.

Both levels of students in all four of the treatment groups were
able to improve in production accuracy. However, in some cases, the

increases were not extensive. Table 4.15 summarizes these increases.

TABLE 4.15

MEAN PRODUCTION-COPY ACCURACY GAINS FOR THE COMBINED GROUPS OF
UPPER-ABILITY STUDENTS AND LOWER-ABILITY STUDENTS IN
THE FOUR TREATMENT GROUPS

 

 

 

Mean Accuracy Mean Gain for
Treatment GTOUPB Gain Combined Groups
I. Computerized Drill Books

Upper Ability 9.56%

Lower Ability 5.53% 7.04%
11. Magazine Drills

Upper Ability 5.93%

Lower Ability 2.10% 4.26%
III. Textbook Drills

Upper Ability 5.12%

Lower Ability 8.53% 7.34%

IV. No Drills
Upper Ability 3.53%
Lower Ability 1.50% 2.88%

 

96

The mean gain in production accuracy for Group I (computerized
drill books) combined was 7.04 percent, the mean gain for Group II
(magazine drills) combined was 4.26 percent, the mean gain for
Group III (textbook drills) combined was 7.34 percent, and the mean
gain for Group IV (no drills) combined was 2.88 percent. None of the
gains increased the accuracy levels to a mean of at least 90 percent
for any of the treatment groups. The highest mean accuracy level
achieved was 88.31 percent by the upper-ability students assigned to
the magazine drills treatment.

The computerized drill books appeared to be superior to all other
types of treatments in improving the production accuracy of the upper-
ability students and for the combined group of upper-ability students
and lower-ability students. The least beneficial treatment in producing
greater production accuracy for the lower-ability students and for the
combined group of upper-ability students and lower-ability students
appeared to be the no drills treatment. The most effective treatment
for building production accuracy for the lower-ability students appeared
to be the textbook drills treatment. In all instances except for the
textbook drills group, the upper-ability students rated higher in pro-

duction accuracy gain than did the lower-ability students.

SUMMARY OF NON-STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

This section of the chapter presents a summary of the non-statistical

analysis of the data generated by the procedures of the study.

Ability levels

The mental abilities of the 95 subjects who participated in this

typewriting experiment ranged from 70 to 120 as measured by the results

97

of an administration of the Otis QuickrScoring Mental Ability Test. The
test was utilized as a means of classifying students into upper-ability
and lower-ability categories. After mental ability scores had been
arranged in descending order, the first 47 scores were designated as
upper ability; and the remaining 48 scores were designated as lower
ability. Consequently, three mental ability scores of 90 were assigned
to the upper-ability group and five mental ability scores of 90 were
assigned to the lower-ability group. Thus, the two groups were not
mutually exclusive.

0f the 24 students randomly assigned to Group I (computerized drill
books), nine were classified as upper ability and 15 were classified as
lower ability. Thirteen of the 23 students assigned to Group II (maga-
zine drills) were classified as upper ability and ten were classified
as lower ability. Eight upper-ability students and 15 lower-ability
students comprised Group III (textbook drills). Seventeen students in
Group IV (no drills) were classified as upper ability and eight were
classified as lower ability of a total of 25 students.

The mean mental ability of the four groups of upper-ability students
ranged from 96.00 to 101.77. Group I (computerized drill books) regis-
tered a mean of 96.00, Group II (magazine drills) registered a mean of
101.77, Group III (textbook drills) registered a mean of 97.38 and
Group IV (no drills) registered a mean of 98.18. For the four combined
groups of upper-ability students, the mean mental ability score was
98.62

For the lower-ability students, the mean mental ability score of
the four treatment groups ranged from 82.88 to 87.33. A mean score of

87.33 was recorded for Group I (computerized drill books), 83.10 was

98

recorded for Group II (magazine drills), 83.07 was recorded for Group III
(textbook drills), and 82.88 was recorded for Group IV (no drills). The
mental ability score for the lower-ability students in the four treatment
groups combined was 84.37.

The group mean for the upper-ability students and the lower-ability
students combined in each treatment group was 90.58 for Group I (com-
puterized drill books), 93.65 for Group II (magazine drills), 88.04 for
Group III (textbook drills), and 90.53 for Group IV (no drills). The mean
mental ability of all 95 students combined was 91.42.

The results of the onedway analysis of variance test indicated that
the mental abilities of the combined group of upper-ability students and
the combined group of lower-ability students were significantly different
at the .05 level of confidence at the outset of the study. (See Table 3.1

on page 55 for a summary of the onedway analysis of variance test).

Straight-copy speed

When a comparison of straight-copy pre-test and post-test mean
scores was made, it was determined that all treatment groups had
achieved increments in straight-copy speed. The gains in straight-
copy speed ranged from 1.67 gross words per minute for the upper-
ability students assigned to Group I (computerized drill books) to 6.06
gross words per minute for the upper-ability students assigned to
Group IV (no drills). Except for the upper-ability students assigned
to Group IV, the lower-ability students who were exposed to the other
three treatments excelled the performance of the upper-ability students

in mean straight-copy speed gains.

99

The most effective treatment for building straight-copy speed
for the upper-ability students appeared to be the no drills treatment
while the least effective treatment appeared to be the computerized
drill books. The most effective treatment for building straight-copy
speed for the lower-ability students appeared to be the no drills treat-
ment while the least effective appeared to be the computerized drill
books. The most effective treatment for building straight-copy speed
for the combined group of upper-ability students and lower-ability
students appeared to be the no drills treatment, and the computerized

drill book appeared to be the least effective.

Straight-copy accuracy

All treatment groups except the upper-ability students assigned
to Group I (computerized drill books) and the upper-ability students
assigned to Group IV (no drills) achieved an increase in straight-copy
accuracy during the course of the experiment. The accuracy percentage
scores ranged from -.06 percent for the Group IV (no drills) upper-
ability students to 3.25 percent for the Group III (textbook drills)
upper-ability students. All lower-ability students, with the exception
of Group III (textbook drills) realized a greater gain in straight-copy
accuracy than did the upper-ability students.

The most beneficial treatment for facilitating straight-copy
accuracy for the upper-ability students seemed to be the textbook
drills treatment while the least beneficial treatment seemed to be the
computerized drill books. For the lower-ability students, the most pro-
ductive treatment for facilitating straight-copy accuracy seemed to be

the no drills procedure; and the least productive seemed to be the

100

computerized drill books. The textbook drills treatment seemed to
promote greater gains in straight-capy accuracy for the combined
group of upper-ability students and lower-ability students than did
the other treatments while the computerized drill books seemed to
contribute little toward the development of accuracy in straight-capy

typewriting.

Production speed

All four of the treatment groups realized a mean production speed
gain regardless of the treatment received during the course of the
experiment. The gains of the students ranged from a low of 2.15 gross
words per minute for the upper-ability students assigned to Group II
(magazine drills) to a high of 6.07 gross words per minute for the
lower-ability students who were assigned to Group III (textbook drills).
Except for the upper-ability students assigned to Group IV (no drills),
the production speed performance of the lower-ability students was
superior to that of the upper-ability students.

The mean production speed gain scores suggest that the most
efficient procedure for building production speed for the upper-ability
students was the textbook drills treatment. The lower-ability students
who received the textbook drills treatment attained greater production
speed gains than did the lower-ability students in the other treatment
groups. The least gains in mean production speed was achieved by the
lower-ability students in the no drills group. For the combined group
of upper-ability students and lower-ability students the most advantageous
treatment appeared to be the textbook drills while the least effective of

the four treatments appeared to be the no drills treatment.

101

Production accuracy

Post-test scores revealed that all groups developed higher levels
of mean production accuracy by the end of the experiment. The increases
in production accuracy ranged from 1.50 percent for the lower-ability
students assigned to the no drills treatment to 9.56 percent for the
upper-ability students assigned to the computerized drill books treat-
ment. With the exception of the lower-ability students assigned to the
textbook drills treatment, the performance of the upper-ability students
exceeded that of the lower-ability students.

The treatment most conducive to the development of production
accuracy for the upper-ability students seemed to be the computerized
drill books treatment, and the least conducive appeared to be the no
drills treatment. The most valuable treatment for developing produc-
tion accuracy for the lower-ability students appeared to be the text-
book drills treatment while the least valuable appeared to be the no
drills treatment. The combined group of upper-ability students and
lower-ability students were able to obtain greater returns in produc—
tion accuracy by exposure to the computerized drill books treatment
and the least returns were gained by exposure to the no drills treat-

ment 0

of le‘

terms
ings

typev

type!
inte
type

PIES

inf]

w1’11

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

I. SUMMARY

The problem of this study was to attempt to determine the effects
of levels of intelligence and types of drill materials on achievement
in intermediate collegiate typewriting. Achievement was measured in
terms of straight-cepy speed and accuracy on three-minute timed writ-
ings and in terms of production-capy speed and accuracy on 30-minute
typewriting tasks. ‘

The purpose of this study was to attempt to determine whether
typewriting instructors should be concerned about the levels of
intelligence of students who enroll in typewriting classes and the
types of drill practice given as it relates to organization and
presentation of units of instruction.

If levels of intelligence and types of drill practice do, in fact,
influence achievement of speed and/or accuracy on straight-copy timed
writings and/or satisfactory performance on production copy, then it
would be beneficial for the typewriting instructor to have some knowl-
edge of the range of each student's capabilities as well as the type
of drill,practice which is likely to facilitate achievement. This
knowledge could serve as a basis for the determination of the areas of
content emphasis and for the more efficient individualization of learn-
ing activities. These activities could contribute to the optimum
development of those skills and knowledges needed to perform compe-

tently upon the completion of the typewriting course.

102

103

If, on the other hand, levels of intelligence and types of drill
work do not affect performance on either straight-cepy timed writings
or production typewriting tasks, typewriting instructors would have
some rationale for gearing their teaching activities toward other
areas which might facilitate achievement in intermediate collegiate
typewriting.

This study was important because it involved the use of two types
of drill materials which have not been utilized in scholarly investiga-
tions prior to this. One type of drill material used which fits this
category was a computerized drill book which was composed of copy
material specifically designed to analyze the student's typewriting
errors. This drill book.was based largely upon a research study con-
ducted by David H. Weaver (see Chapter III). Depending upon the number
of errors made on the first timed writing, the student is directed by
instructions contained in the book to type a remedial drill which is
geared either toward developing greater speed or greater accuracy. The
title of the book is Selective Practice Typing Drills and was published
in 1974. The book was coauthored by Alan C. Lloyd, Robert P. Poland,
Fred B. Winger, John L. Rowe, and William D. Griffith. The second type
of drill material used was ordinary English prose, such as is to be
found in magazines and books. In this study, magazines were used.

A pilot study which was similar to this investigation was con-
ducted at Michigan State University located in East Lansing, Michigan,
during the 1975 winter term in which two second-quarter typewriting
classes were used as subjects. Half of each class was randomly assigned
to one of the two treatment groups, one of which involved typing from

the computerized drill book, Selective Practice Typing Drills, and one

104

of which typed from Saturday Review Wbrld magazines for the first 15
minutes of each class period. The study was conducted for one quarter
and revealed a significant difference in straight-copy speed gains
between the two groups in favor of the students assigned to the mage-
zine drills group.

The hypotheses tested in this study which were restated for statis-
tical analysis in null form were as follows:

1. Speed in intermediate collegiate typewriting on straight-copy
material will be affected by types of drill materials used.

. 2. Speed in intermediate collegiate typewriting on straight-copy
material will be affected by levels of intelligence.

3. Speed in intermediate collegiate typewriting on straight-cepy
material will be affected by an interaction between types of drill
materials used and levels of intelligence.

4. Speed in intermediate collegiate typewriting on production-
copy material will be affected by types of drill materials used.

5. Speed in intermediate collegiate typewriting on production-
copy material will be affected by levels of intelligence.

6. Speed in intermediate collegiate typewriting on production—
copy material will be affected by an interaction between types of
drill materials used and levels of intelligence.

7. Accuracy in intermediate collegiate typewriting on straight—
copy material will be affected by types of drill materials used.

8. Accuracy in intermediate collegiate typewriting on straight-
copy material will be affected by levels of intelligence.

9. Accuracy in intermediate collegiate typewriting on straight-
copy material will be affected by an interaction between types of

drill materials used and levels of intelligence.

105

10. Accuracy in intermediate collegiate typewriting on production-
cOpy material will be affected by types of drill materials used.

11. Accuracy in intermediate collegiate typewriting on production-
cOpy material will be affected by levels of intelligence.

12. Accuracy in intermediate collegiate typewriting on production-
cOpy material will be affected by an interaction between types of drill
materials used and levels of intelligence.

In addition, 24 subhypotheses were postulated concerning the pos-
sible interactions between each type of drill material and each level
of intelligence regarding straight-copy speed, straight-copy accuracy,
production-copy speed, and production-cepy accuracy. For example:

1. There will be a significant difference in speed on straight-
copy timed writings between students classified as upper ability and
students classified as lower ability who will be exposed to Treat-
ment I (computerized drill books).

2. There will be a significant difference in speed on straight-
copy timed writings between students classified as upper ability and
students classified as lower ability who will be exposed to Treat-
ment II (magazine drills). (See Appendix A for the entire list of
the 24 subhypotheses.)

The students who participated in the study were students enrolled
in five intact classes in intermediate collegiate typewriting. Two of
the classes were students who were enrolled at Alcorn State University
in Lorman, Mississippi; one of the classes was made up of students who
were enrolled at Jackson State University in Jackson, Mississippi; and
two of the classes were students who were enrolled at Mississippi Valley

State University in Itta Bena, Mississippi.

106

The results of an administration of the Otis Quick—Scoring Mental
Ability Test were used as a means of grouping students into upper-
ability and lower-ability categories. A typewriting pre-test consist-
ing of two, three-minute timed writings and a production test was
administered prior to the initiation of the study in order to deter-
mine the typewriting proficiency of the students. The production
section of the pre-test consisted of a manuscript, a news release
containing rough-draft marks, and a letter containing rough-draft
marks and tabulations. The test was timed for 30 minutes and con-
tained a total of 1,097 words (see Appendix C for a copy of the pre-
test).

Upon the termination of the study, a post-test, consisting of the
same three-minute timed writings and a production test of different copy
but of the same type of typewriting tasks, was administered. The results
were used to measure the effects of exposure to the four experimental
treatments. The test was timed for 30 minutes and contained a total of
1,186 words (see Appendix D for a copy of the post-test). All students
were tested on identical material for validity of results.

For analyses purposes, only the better of the two, three-minute
timed writings were used which were included in both the pre-test and
the post-test. The students' pre-test and post-test scores were com-
pared in order to derive a measure of their levels of achievement on
straight—copy speed and accuracy and on production-copy speed and
accuracy as a result of exposure to one of the four experimental treat-
ments. The twodway analysis of variance technique was used to determine
whether significant differences existed between any of the four treatment

groups. When instances of significance occurred, the Scheffe’post hoe

107

procedure was used to ascertain which pair of means contributed to or
was responsible for the rejection of the null hypothesis.

Approximately one-fourth of the students from each of the classes
at each university was randomly assigned to one of the four treatment
groups by drawing a numbered slip of paper from a box. Group I typed
drills from the computerized drill book entitled Selective Practice
Typing Drills, Group II typed paragraphs which they selected themselves
from'gbggz.magazines, Group III typed preparatory drills from the text-
books which were currently being used at their respective universities,
and Group IV did not type warm-up drills. Group IV proceeded to type
those production tasks which were assigned by their instructors.

Fifteen minutes of each class day was devoted to the experimental
drill practice and one, three-minute timed writing. Each treatment
group, with the exception of Group IV, typed and quickly scored a
three-minute timed writing at the beginning of each class period; and
the remainder of the 15 minutes was devoted to additional drill work.
After the 15 minutes of drill practice was completed, the remainder of
the class period was conducted according to the discretion of the type-

writing instructors.

SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL FINDINGS

Of the 12 major research hypotheses included in the study, only
two were accepted:

1. There was a sigpificant difference in straight-copy speed
achievement in intermediate collegiate typewriting;among the types

of drill materials used. The Scheffe'post hoc procedures revealed

108

that the treatment means which were responsible for or contributed to
the acceptance of the research hypothesis were generated by Group I
(computerized drill books) and Group IV (no drills). The significant
difference was found to exist favoring Group IV.

2. There was a sigpificant difference in production-copy speed
achievement between levels of intelligence in intermediate collegiggg_
typewriting, As there were only two levels of intelligence included
in the study, it was not necessary to employ the Scheffé'post hoc pro-
cedures to determine which pair of means were responsible for or
contributed to the acceptance of the research hypothesis. A simple
observation of mean production-copy speed gains revealed that the
significant difference was in favor of the lower-ability group. (See
Table 4.4 on page 70).

No significant differences were found regarding any of the follow-
ing hypotheses:

1. There was no significant difference in straight-cepy speed
achievement between levels of intelligence in intermediate collegiate
typewriting.

2. There was no significant difference in straight-cepy speed
achievement as a result of an interaction between types of drill mater-
ials used and levels of intelligence in intermediate collegiate type-
writing.

3. There was no significant difference in production-cepy speed
achievement in intermediate collegiate typewriting among the types of
drill materials used.

4. There was no significant difference in production-capy speed

achievement as a result of an interaction between types of drill

109

materials used and levels of intelligence in intermediate collegiate
typewriting.

5. There was no significant difference in straight-copy accuracy
achievement in intermediate collegiate typewriting among the types of
drill materials used.

6. There was no significant difference in straight-copy accuracy
achievement between levels of intelligence in intermediate collegiate
typewriting.

7. There was no significant difference in straight-copy accuracy
achievement as a result of an interaction between types of drill mater-
ials used and levels of intelligence in intermediate collegiate type-
writing.

8. There was no significant difference in production-copy accuracy
achievement in intermediate collegiate typewriting among the types of
drill materials used.

9. There was no significant difference in production-copy accuracy
achievement between levels of intelligence in intermediate collegiate
typewriting.

10. There was no significant difference in production-copy accuracy
achievement as a result of an interaction between types of drill materials

used and levels of intelligence in intermediate collegiate typewriting.*

 

*See Chapter IV for a more detailed discussion of the 12 hypotheses
included in the study.

SUMMARY OF NON-STATISTICAL FINDINGS

A non-statistical analysis of the data was made in addition to the
statistical analysis. The following are a summary of the non-statistical
findings:

1. All treatment groups achieved mean increments in straight-copy
speed. The gains ranged from 1.67 gross words per minute for the upper-
ability students assigned to Group I (computerized drill books) to 5.88
gross words per minute for the upper-ability students assigned to Group IV
(no drills). Except for the upper-ability students assigned to Group IV,
the lower-ability students who were exposed to the other three treatments
excelled the performance of the upper-ability students in mean straight-
copy speed gains. Table 5.1 presents a summary of the effectiveness of

the four treatments in building straight-copy speed.

TABLE 5.1

EFFECTIVENESS 0F TREATMENTS IN DEVELOPING STRAIGHT-COPY SPEED FOR
UPPERHABILITY STUDENTS, FOR LOWER-ABILITY STUDENTS,
AND FOR COMBINED GROUPS

 

 

 

Most Effective Least Effective
Groups Treatment Treatment
Upper-Ability Students No Drills Computerized Drill Books
Lower-Ability Students No Drills Computerized Drill Books
Combined Groups No Drills Computerized Drill Books

 

The most effective treatment for developing gains in straight-capy
speed for the upper-ability students appeared to be the no drills treat-
ment while the least effective treatment appeared to be the computerized

drill books. The most effective treatment for developing gains in speed

110

111

on straight-cepy material for the lower-ability students appeared to be
the no drills treatment, and the least effective treatment appeared to

be the computerized drill books. For the combined group of upper-ability
students and the lower-ability students, the most effective treatment for
developing straight-copy speed appeared to be the no drills treatment;
and the least effective appeared to be the computerized drill books.

2. All treatment groups realized a mean gain in production-copy
speed regardless of the treatment received during the course of the
experiment. The gains ranged from 2.15 for the Group II (magazine drills)
upper-ability students to 6.07 for the Group III (textbook drills) lower-
ability students. Except for the upper-ability students assigned to
Group IV (no drills), the production speed gains of the lower-ability
students were superior to that of the upper-ability students. Table 5.2
gives a summary of the effectiveness of the treatments in building pro-
duction speed.

TABLE 5.2

EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENTS IN DEVELOPING PRODUCTION-COPY SPEED FOR
UPPERHABILITY STUDENTS, FOR LOWERQABILITY
STUDENTS, AND FOR COMBINED GROUPS

 

 

 

Most Effective Least Effective
Gr°“P8 Treatment Treatment
UppereAbility Students Textbook Drills Magazine Drills
LowerqAbility Students Textbook Drills No Drills
Combined Groups Textbook Drills No Drills

 

The most efficient procedure for building production speed for the
upper-ability students was the textbook drills treatment, and the least
effective was the magazine drills treatment. The most efficient pro-

cedure for the lower-ability students for building production speed was

112

the textbook drills and the least effective was the no drills treatment.
For the combined group of upper-ability students and the lower-ability
students, the most advantageous treatment for building production speed
appeared to be the textbook drills while the least effective treatment
appeared to be the no drills treatment.

3. Except for the upper-ability students assigned to Group I (com-
puterized drill books) and the upper-ability students assigned to Group IV
(no drills), all treatment groups achieved a mean increase in straight-copy
accuracy. All lower-ability students, with the exception of Group III
(textbook drills), realized a greater gain in straight-copy accuracy than
did the upper-ability students. However, the gains were not significant.
The accuracy scores ranged from -.06 percent for the Group IV (no drills)
upper-ability students to 3.25 percent for the Group III (textbook drills)
upper-ability students. Table 5.3 below gives a summary of the effective-

ness of the treatments in building straight-cepy accuracy.

TABLE 5.3

EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENTS IN DEVELOPING STRAIGHT-COPY ACCURACY FOR
UPPEReABILITY STUDENTS, FOR LOWER-ABILITY STUDENTS,
AND FOR COMBINED GROUPS

 

 

 

Most Effective Least Effective
Groups Treatment Treatment
Upper-Ability Students Textbook Drills Computerized Drill Books
Lower-Ability Students No Drills Computerized Drill Books
Combined Groups Textbook Drills Computerized Drill Books

 

The most beneficial treatment for facilitating straight-copy accu-
racy for the upper-ability students seemed to be the textbook drills

while the least beneficial treatment seemed to be the computerized drill

113

books. For the lower-ability students, the most productive treatment
for facilitating straight-copy accuracy seemed to be the no drills
procedure; and the least effective seemed to be the computerized
drill books. The textbook drills treatment seemed to promote greater
gains in straight-copy accuracy for the combined group of upper-ability
students and the lower-ability students than did the other treatments
while the computerized drill books seemed to contribute little toward
the development of straight-copy accuracy.

4. All groups achieved higher mean levels of production accuracy
by the end of the experiment. The mean increases ranged from 1.50 per-
cent for the Group IV (no drills) lower-ability students to 9.56 percent
for the Group I (computerized drill books) upper-ability students. With
the exception of the lower-ability students who were assigned to the text-
book drills treatment, the accuracy gains of the upper-ability students
exceeded those of the lower-ability students. The gains were not signifi-
cant, however. Table 5.4 presents a summary of the effectiveness of the

treatments in developing production-copy accuracy.

TABLE 5.4

EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENTS IN DEVELOPING PRODUCTION-COPY ACCURACY FOR
UPPER-ABILITY STUDENTS, FOR LOWER-ABILITY STUDENTS
AND FOR COMBINED GROUPS

 

 

 

Most Effective Least Effective
Groups Treatment Treatment
Upper-Ability Students Computerized Drill Books No Drills
Lower-Ability Students Textbook Drills No Drills

Combined Groups Computerized Drill Books No Drills

 

114

The treatment most conducive to the development of production
accuracy for the upper-ability students seemed to be the computerized
drill books treatment, and the least effective appeared to be the no
drills treatment. The most valuable treatment for the lower-ability
students in developing production accuracy appeared to be the text-
book drills while the least valuable appeared to be the no drills
treatment. The combined group of upper-ability students and lower-
ability students were able to obtain greater gains in production
accuracy by exposure to the computerized drill books treatment and

the least gains by exposure to the no drills treatment.

II. CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions derived from an analysis of the findings of this
study were summarized as follows:

1. Drill practice during the second semester of intermediate
collegiate typewriting is of little value in producing meaningful gains
in straight-copy speed and accuracy and in producing meaningful gains
in production-copy speed and accuracy. However, the benefits which
can be derived from emphasizing the typing of drills at the intermediate
level of instruction are more in favor of the lower-ability students than
the upper-ability students.

2. Levels of intelligence, as categorized in this study, do not
play an important role in achievement in intermediate collegiate type-
writing. However, since all treatment groups acquired mean gains in

straight-cepy speed and accuracy and production-copy speed and accuracy,

115

the amount of time in which a student engages in typewriting practice

facilitates achievement.

III. IMPLICATIONS

The implications which appear to be warranted as a result of the
findings of this study are as follows:

1. Although levels of intelligence, as categorized in this study,
do not play an important role in achievement in intermediate collegiate
typewriting, the lower-level students did achieve higher mean gains than
did the upper-level students except in straight-cepy speed and production-
copy speed for the no drills group, straight-cepy accuracy for the text-
book drills group, and all groups in production accuracy except for the
lower-level textbook drills group. Therefore, an implication might be
that drill work should vary inversely with intelligence levels in the
typewriting classes. That is, the more intelligent the student, the less
drill work he or she should be required to practice.

2. Although there are many and varied typewriting teaching materials
and techniques available which have been carefully and thoroughly devised,
the diverse findings revealed in the review of literature, together with
the findings of this study, seem to imply that it is not yet known what

techniques work best for which student in the teaching and learning of

typewriting.

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations were made on the basis of the findings

of this study:

1. A replication or replications of this study should be conducted

116

for an extended period of time to cover one semester or one full school
year to clarify, support, or refute its findings.

2. A study or studies should be conducted to attempt to determine
the feasibility of building straight-copy speed using the no-drills
approach.

3. A study or studies should be conducted to further isolate the
effects of levels of intelligence on achievement in straight-copy speed
and accuracy and production-copy speed and accuracy.

4. A study or studies should be conducted to attempt to determine
the effects of amount of time devoted to drill practice on straight-
cOpy speed and accuracy achievement and on production-copy speed and
accuracy.

5. A study or studies should be conducted on the high-school level
to attempt to determine if the results would differ from those of this

study.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. BOOKS
Koosis, Donald J. Bgsiness Statistics. New York: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., 1972.
Glass, Gene V. and Julian C. Stanley. Statistical Methods in Educa-

tion and Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-
8‘ 1, Inc., 19 Go

West, Leonard J. Acguisition of Typewriting Skills. New York: Pitman
Publishing Corporation, 1969.

B. INSTRUCTOR'S MANUAL

Lloyd, Alan C., John L. Rowe, and Fred Winger. Instructor's Manual and

Visual Re for T in 75. New York: McGraw-Eill Book Company,
1971.

C. PERIODICALS

Bober, Charles F. "Typewriting in the Elementary Schools," Business
Education Forum, Vol. 29, No. 4, January, 1975.

Brown, Eleanor B. ”Typewriting for the Gifted," Business Education
Forum, Vol. 22, No. 2, November, 1967.

Campbell, Don. "Let's Take a Look at Typewriting Accuracy. . ..
Journal of Business Education, Vol. XIV, No. 2, November, 1969.

Maxwell, Llyle. "Improved Preparation for Office work," National
Business Education Yearbook, 1966.

Rowe, John L. "Typewriting in the Seventies-eAn Overview," National
Business Education Yearbook, 1974.

Tonne, Herbert A. "Ubiquitous Typing," Journal of Business Education,
Vol. XLVI, January, 1971.

117

D. PUBLICATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT

United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Digest of
Educational Statistics. DREW Publication No. (OE) 74-11103, wash-
ington, D. C.: 1973.

United States Department of Labor. Occupational Outlook Handbook.
Bulletin 1785, Washington, D. C.: 1974-75.

 

E. UNPUBLISHED DISSERTATIONS

Byford, David Lent. "An Investigation of Language-Drill Effectiveness
in Second-Semester Typewriting on the Secondary Level," Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Houston, 1971.

Crawford, Thomas James. "The Effects of Emphasizing Production Type-
‘writing Contrasted With Speed Typewriting in Developing Typewriting
Ability," Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pitts-
burgh, 1956.

Dodson, Glenna Ardath. "The Effects of Interesting and Non-Interesting
Copy Material on Speed and Accuracy in Typewriting," Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida, 1959.

Gades, Robert Ellard. "The Effects of Short-Duration High-Speed Drills
on Speed, Accuracy, and Production Development in First-Year Type-
writing," Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, North Texas State
University, 1967.

Johnson, James Roland. "The Effects of High-Speed Drills on Speed and
Accuracy Development in Beginning Typewriting," Unpublished Doc-
toral Dissertation, North Texas State University, 1963.

Mach, Kaye Alen. "The Effects of Repetitive and Non-Repetitive Practice
on Straight-Copy Speed and Accuracy Achievement in First-Semester
Beginning Typewriting," Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Univer-
sity of North Dakota, 1971.

Nemesh, Mary. "An Experimental Study to Determine the Effects of On-
The-Job Training Materials Versus Traditional Typewriting Copy
Materials on Speed and Accuracy," Unpublished Doctoral Disserta-
tion, University of Maryland, 1971.

Theis, Norman William. "A Typewriting Experiment to Compare Class
Performance on Straight-Copy Three-Minute Writings Relative to
Speed and Accuracy Following Three Selected Conditioning Drills,"
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Dakota,
1968.

118

119

Tranquill, Cecil Joseph. "The Effectiveness of Individualized Pacing
In Improving Typewriting Speed and Accuracy," Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1965.

Weaver, David Harry. "An Experimental Study of the Relative Impact of
Controllable Factors of Difficulty in Typewriting," Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Syracuse University, 1966.

West, Leonard Jordan. "Practice Sets Toward Speed and Accuracy in a
Skill-Building Program in Elementary Typewriting," Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Columbia University, 1953.

White, Kathryn Fern. "An Experimental Study Utilizing Varied Scheduling
and Out-Of-Class Assignments in Intermediate Collegiate Typewriting,"
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 1974.

APPENDIX A

SUB-HYPOTHESES

1. There will be a significant difference in speed
copy timed writings between students classified as upper
students classified as lower ability who will be exposed
(computerized drill books).

2. There will be a significant difference in speed
copy timed writings between students classified as upper
students classified as lower ability who will be exposed
(magazine drills).

3. There will be a significant difference in speed
copy timed writings between students classified as upper
students classified as lower ability who will be exposed
ment III (textbook drills).

4. There will be a significant difference in speed
copy timed writings between students classified as upper
students classified as lower ability who will be exposed
ment TV (no drills).

5. There will be a significant difference in speed

on straight-
ability and

to Treatment

on straight-
ability and

to Treatment

on straight-
ability and

to Treat-

on straight-

ability and

to Treat-

on straight-

«cOpy timed writings among students classified as lower ability who

twill be exposed to Treatments 1, II, III, and IV.

6. There will be a significant difference in speed

on straight-

cOpy timed writings among students classified as lower ability who

"111 be exposed to Treatments I, II, III, and IV.

7. There will be a significant difference in speed on production

II

°°py between students classified as upper ability and students classified

“3 lower ability who will be exposed to Treatment I (computerized drill

boom.

121

122

8. There will be a significant difference in speed on production
copy between students classified as upper ability and students classified
as lower ability who will be exposed to Treatment II (magazine drills).

9. There will be a significant difference in speed on production
copy between students classified as upper ability and students classified
as lower ability who will be exposed to Treatment III (textbook drills).

10. There will be a significant difference in speed on production
cepy between students classified as upper ability and students classified
as lower ability who will be exposed to Treatment IV (no drills).

11. There will be a significant difference in speed on production
copy among students classified as upper ability who will be exposed to
Treatments 1, II, III, and IV.

12. There will be a significant difference in speed on production
copy among students classified as lower ability who will be exposed to
Treatments I, II, III, and IV.

13. There will be a significant difference in accuracy on straight-
copy timed writings between students classified as upper ability and
students classified as lower ability who will be exposed to Treatment I
(computerized drill books).

14. There will be a significant difference in accuracy on straight-
c0py timed writings between students classified as upper ability and
students classified as lower ability who will be exposed to Treatment II
(magazine drills).

15. There will be a significant difference in accuracy on straight-
copy timed writings between students classified as upper ability and
students classified as lower ability who will be exposed to Treat-

ment III (textbook drills).

123

16. There will be a significant difference in accuracy on straight-
copy timed writings between students classified as upper ability and
students classified as lower ability who will be exposed to Treatment IV
(no drills).

17. There will be a significant difference in accuracy on straight-
capy timed writings among students classified as upper ability who will
be exposed to Treatments 1, II, III, and IV.

18. There will be a significant difference in accuracy on straight-
copy timed writings among students classified as lower ability who will'
be exposed to Treatments I, II, III, and IV.

19. There will be a significant difference in accuracy on production
cOpy between students classified as upper ability and students classified
as lower ability who will be exposed to Treatment I (computerized drill
books).'

20. There will be a significant difference in accuracy on production
copy between students classified as upper ability and students classified
as lower ability who will be exposed to Treatment II (magazine drills).

21. There will be a significant difference in accuracy on production
copy between students classified as upper ability and students classified
as lower ability who will be exposed to Treatment III (textbook drills).

22. There will be a significant difference in accuracy on production
cOpy between students classified as upper ability and students classified
as lower ability who will be exposed to Treatment IV (no drills).

23. There will be a significant difference in accuracy on production
copy among students classified as upper ability who will be exposed to

Treatments I, II, III, and IV.

124

24. There will be a significant difference in accuracy on production
copy among students classified as lower ability who will be exposed to

Treatments I, II, III, and IV.

APPENDIX B

LOWERHABILITY STUDENTS' RAW SCORES GENERATED BY THE
OTIS QUICK-SCORING MENTAL ABILITY TEST

Student Mental Ability Student Mental Ability
Numbers Scores Numbers Scores
52 90 32 81

53 90
54 90 12 80
55 90 48 80
68 90
33 79
56 89
57 89 46 76
69 89
70 89 24 75
74 89 34 75
75 89 35 75
94 89
36 73
58 88
59 88 49 71
60 88
71 88 25 70
7 87
8 87
76 87 N - 48
77 87
9 86
10 86
20 86
21 86
22 86
78 86
95 86
23 85
31 85
79 85
80 85
81 85
82 85
19 84
ll 82
45 82
47 82

126

UPPER-ABILITY STUDENTS' RAW SCORES GENERATED BY THE
OTIS QUICK-SCORING MENTAL ABILITY TEST

Student Mental Ability Student Mental Ability
Numbers Scores Numbers Scores
13 120 88 95
l 117 65 94

89 94

14 107 90 94
37 107

50 93

38 106 66 93
39 106

5 92

15 105 30 92

16 105 72 92

73 92

17 104 91 92
67 104

6 91

18 103 92 91

40 103 93 91
61 103

43 90

2 102 44 90

26 102 51 90
27 101

28 100 N - 47
41 100
42 100
62 100
63 99
83 99
84 99
85 98
64 97
86 97
87 97
3 96
4 96
29 96

127

APPENDIX C

In a day and age when most of our men
of science are looking far beyond the skies
into the heavens of space, it is interesting
to know that other men of science are
looking in. the opposite direction, down
into the. earth itself, to see what our world
is made of. Men already know more about
the space that surrounds our globe than
they do about what is in it. We know how
to hurtle a mortal hundreds of miles into
space; but the deepest hole we have made
in the earth is one oil well five miles deep,
and the deepest mining shaft is only two
miles deep.

There is much speculation about the
nature of the globe on which we live, most
of it based on where the echoes of earth-
quakes show up, plus what has been learned
from the study of volcanoes, all of which,
taken together, is something less than what
you could learn about the elephant by
studying a flea bite on the tip of its tail.
We know the earth is not a solid chunk of
rock, for example, because quake echoes
do not run through the globe the way they
would through a solid rock. We know,
similarly, that there must be liquid and
heat and tremendous pressure under our
shoes, for volcanic action and lava require
these. Putting such scant evidences to-
gether, the scientists built a theory.

The current thought is that the earth
is an iron ball surrounded by three layers
or shells, each made up of a different ma-
terial. The iron ball, which is known as the
inner core, is about fifteen hundred miles
thick. Around this ball is the outer core, a

From TYPEWRITING 75 ADVANC- by Lloyd, Rowe, and Winger.
1970, 1964, and 1957 by McGraw-Hill, Inc. Use

the McGraw-Hill Book Company.

 

 

129

mixture of nickel and iron so hot and under
such pressure that it is liquid; geologists
say they think that this layer is about
fourteen hundred miles thick.

The next layer is the big one, called the
mantle, which is about eighteen hundred
miles thick. The mantle is made of basalt,
the lava rock, and judging from the heat
of running lava, the mantle must have a
temperature of at least five thousand de-
grees. Basalt is so heavy, even in the oozing
stage, that more granite practically floats
on it.

The final layer of the earth is the out-
side, known as the crust, made up of a thin
skin of light rocks, if you do not mind
thinking of the Rockies and Alps and other
granite mountains as being light. The depth
of this skin ranges from three miles under
some parts of Oceans to some forty miles in
the highest, thickest parts of the continents.

Now, to get to the point of the matter,
what the scientists hope to do is to learn
whether their speculation is right. To this
end, a project has been started by the Na-
tional Science Foundation to locate one of
those thin places where it may occur with-
in two or three miles of the surface of the
sea; and having found it, to drill down
through the crust at the sea bottom into
the mantle with a pipe drill that is two or
three inches across—and seven or more
miles long! It will be a dazzling triumph
when the first mantle rock reaches Science’s
hand.

To think of it puts perspective on our
own efforts, does it not?

Cepyright
d with the permission of

130

Of all the techniques that help a typist turn out a lot of work,
especially when the work involves any display, the most useful one is
centering; this technique is also the one that you will find the most
dangerous, for nothing stands out so clearly as the mark of an office
amateur as a word or line that should be centered but is not. Expert
centering, therefore, is an art that merits a great deal of practice.

The standard steps by which a typist may center a line or a word
horizontally are, of course, well known: You set the carriage at the
midpoint of the paper, you press the backspace key once for every two
characters or spaces in what you must center, and thus you attain the
starting point for typing the line or word. The one caution you must
exercise is what you do when you have a single letter left over after
backspacing for the pairs: You must not backspace for such a letter.

Once in a while the words to be centered must also be spread; in
instances of this nature, you separate letters by one blank space and
separate words by three blank spaces. To center such a line, you may
proceed in the basic way if you wish, calling off a space after every
character that you name in calling the pairs of strokes for which you
backspace, but it will dawn on you that naming the space each time is
unnecessary, and after that you will use the shortcut: You will just
backspace once for each stroke, except the last letter, that the line
normally would fill if it were not spread. The last letter has to be
excepted, for it’s not followed by the space it needs to make a pair.

But there is another way to center which is very useful and will
sometimes work better than the basic way. What you do is to set your
carriage at the beginning of the space in which you are to center the
material; tap the space bar once for each stroke in the words you are
centering, and continue tapping the space bar to the end of the space
available, counting the strokes to see how many spaces are left over.
Dividing your leftovers in half tells you how much the copy has to be
indented if it is to be centered within the space you have available.

This method may be used on many occasions. It is efficient, for
example, if you must center a heading or title between two margins of
unequal width, or a column within a ruled space, or a title below the
typewritten name at the end of a letter, or names below the rules for
signatures on a legal paper, and so on. If your backspace key is not
operating correctly, you can always use this method as a reserve one.

131

February 18, 19——

William V. Miller

1:
NEW USE OF COLOR INCREASCRPRODUCTION RATES
61 ..
ATLANTA, Cncsgéaw Feb. 18-—Painting the working.3paces in offices
re /é '
and factories with-the right color can bcigg—agzhi much higher produc-

_ recent/y
tion rates, according to the results of a practical test ’

been completed by the Research Separtment of Martin Miller & Sons, of
this city. ’-

"Using the bright color,” said Richard Miller, director of the
MM&S régggfgfi: "does not make the machinery Egn?aster or the mechanic§_

#F' . AA _ (ff this
work any harder.gBut the right color reduces eye strain' and that means
‘" zvuon
much less fatigue, and fewer accidents, and a lessenging of tension in— 7

Inca-J SC? ,
workers. Boasts.in production rates are a natural result.”

The test of "color dynamics" was made in several departments of

the Clover Mills Company, Wilmington, Delaware. The results credited
wig—A,
color with reducing absenteeisms‘by hundreds of hours andAallover pro—

:ncre ses ,\
duction b00828 of 7 pe cent in the factory and 9a in the offices.

v

The color is applied to walls, to machinery, and to work areas,--

even . . {mm outs/Va
including floors. The plan tested at Clover reduced LnSide glaremandx

at the same time. provided eye—rest areas that lessened ey§:Strain and

z
the tensions to which this usually leads. The paints used, especially

are
manufactured for the purpose y MM&S, is-nonreflective and gloss free.

132

l 7)}..- Current Date
Mr.AJ. W. Swensen

Apartment 9—J West

35-53 187th Street

Flushing, New York 11351

(W) a .11,”

We are always giad-to answer que tions from-our stockholders.

Our reporfirour Operations in this last quarter, which is now-

being printedAand figgée be mailed in about two weeks, will

show that our’Net arnings are $5.04 a share, which.is better-
a. l-D! 9g... , .

for this time of year. -These are the

 

Gross Revenue .......... WU ......... $55,999,275.oo
Net I_ncome before Fed

giraxes .......................... 9,339, 180 .00
Estimated Income Taxes ....... 4,905,227-00
Net Income ........................ 4,433,953-00
Earnings per share] ................ 5.04

We expe t mincrease infpur sales for the next quarter,
for we gig; be launching Vitaéshine, the fine new product we
have been Elma-g for more than two years@ gf Vitaf/shine
lives up to our forecasts, which are based on aAcazeful

ket E13331 then our sales and profits will show sharp gains,
putting us far ahead of any previous ' we have enjoyed.
CLJL. W way-z
.I’trust that this analysis is what you wished. If you-have
other details that you would like to have, we should be.aear
happy to send them along-to you.

Yours very tr 1y,

‘Mff’OPVille L. Mitchell

Aide to the president
urs 4

APPENDIX D

134

In a day and age when most of our men
of science are looking far beyond the skies
into the heavens of space, it is interesting
to know that other men of science are
looking in the opposite direction, down
into the. earth itself, to see what our world
is made of. Men already know more about
the space that surrounds our globe than
they do about what is in it. We know how
to hurtle a mortal hundreds of miles into
space; but the deepest hole we have made
in the earth is one oil well five miles deep,
and the deepest mining shaft is only two
miles deep.

There is much speculation about the
nature of the globe on which we live, most
of it based on where the echoes of earth-
quakes show up, plus what has been learned
from the study of volcanoes, all of which,
taken together, is something less than what
you could learn about the elephant by
studying a flea bite on the tip of its tail.
We know the earth is not a solid chunk of
rock, for example, because quake echoes
do not run through the globe the way they
would through a solid rock. We know,
similarly, that there must be liquid and
heat and tremendous pressure under our
shoes, for volcanic action and lava require
these. Putting such scant evidences to-
gether, the scientists built a theory.

The current thought is that the earth
is an iron ball surrounded by three layers
or shells, each made up of a different ma-
terial. The iron ball, which is known as the
inner core, is about fifteen hundred miles
thick. Around this ball is the outer core, a

Fron TYPEHRITING 75 ADVANCED by Lloyd, Rowe, and Winger.
1970, 1966, and 1957 by McGrswuhill, Inc.

the McGrew-Hill Book Company.

 

mixture of nickel and iron so hot and under
such pressure that it is liquid; geologists
say they think that this layer is about
fourteen hundred miles thick.

The next layer is the big one, called the
mantle, which is about eighteen hundred
miles thick. The mantle is made of basalt,
the lava rock, and judging from the heat
of running lava, the mantle must have a
temperature of at least five thousand de-
grees. Basalt is so heavy, even in the oozing
stage, that mere granite practically floats
on it.

The final layer of the earth is the out-
side, known as the crust, made up of a thin
skin of light rocks, if you do not mind
thinking of the Rockies and Alps and other
granite mountains as being light. The depth
of this skin ranges from three miles under
some parts of Oceans to some forty miles in
the highest, thickest parts of the continents.

Now, to get to the point of the matter,
what the scientists hope to do is to learn
whether their speculation is right. To this
end, a project has been started by the Na-
tional Science Foundation to locate one of
those thin places where it may occur with-
in two or three miles of the surface of the
sea; and having found it, to drill down
through the crust at the sea bottom into
the mantle with a pipe drill that is two or
three. inches across-and seven or more
miles long! It will be a dazzling triumph
when the first mantle rock reaches Science’s
hand.

To think of it puts perspective on our
own efforts, does it not?

Copyright
Used with the permission of

135

PERSONAL TITLES IN BUSINESS LETTERS

The committee appointed by Mr. Wilhelms to study the use
of personal titles in business letters found that the subject
is amply treated in many sources, most of which concur.

DEFINITION

This report deals with personal titles that are commonly
used in business letters, like Professor, Reverend, Doctor,
Dean, Miss, Mr., Mrs., and so on. This report does not con-
cern social letters or titles of rank, job, or position.

FINDINGS

l. A personal title of some kind should always be used
before a personal name that occurs in any part of a business
letter other than in the signer's typed identification, which
most often does not include a personal title.

2. Two titles, Mr. and Mrs., are always abbreviated.

3. Inaddresses, personal titles other than Mr. and Mrs.
are written in full only when the last name is given alone,
with neither a first name nor an initial; if either is given,
the title is abbreviated (if it is one that can be).

4. In a salutation, personal titles other than Mr. and
Mrs. may be either abbreviated or typed in full, as a writer
may prefer. The trend is toward the short form.

5. Inthe body, personal titles other than Mr. and Mrs.
should be abbreviated if either a first name or initial is
given with the last name; if neither is given, the title may
be abbreviated or typed in full, as the writer may prefer.

6. In the typed signature, a man does not indicate his
personal title unless his first name could be confused with
that of a woman. An unmarried woman does not indicate Miss
unless her first name could be confused with that of a man.
A married woman may (and some authorities say should) have
the personal title, Mrs., typed before her name.

Thomas F. Allerton
Virginia Saxon
Chairman

136

N E W S R E L E A S E From James M. Donald
Press Syndicate
390 West 44 Street
New York, New York 10036

Release February l7, 19--

A TYPIST CAN WRECK A NEWS RELEASES:

DATEUNE

 

NEW YORK CITY, Feb. l7-—Many a publicity iiiigi works up
a fine press release release only to have his typist Spoil any
chance of its getting aey attention on an editor' 5 desk, for
how a news release looks is/me$% important than what it says.

That is what James M. Donald, -distiegeished chief wire
editor for the Press Syndicate, told members ofutherNew York
Publicity club at their annual luncheon for newsfiéfike, which

was attended by 200 publicists at the Sevey—Pleée today.
H/ /t0n .5éatf/er'

"We,Editors receive news releases by the JSESE in every
mail," he said, "telling us about the great talent of a stage
star or the unsur assed merits of some new dog food4¥We ought
to read each handtout with great care,I know. But an editor
is so légy that he is likely to use first whichever release
will require the least change and so can be put on the press
or on the wire circuit meet easily. If you are Sefiiyg you'll
make your fileases easy for the editors to useo" ee—sabd.

EEDonald gave égbee guides for "easy to use" releases:

  
  
 

2” In the heading, indicate who vouches for the facts.

2. Give a clear title, telling the story in one glance.

fiu/:Start the story with a date line: city and date.
Vii Error-3 Inlet: OJ/éors-fi

.L4'. :Be sure the typing is correct. Lf—we—spet—ee~errer7\>

we wonder whether the release is reliable.
___”#,_1

5. Use a 5— or 6—inch line of typing, never longer.
Dad/e :

6. Keep the Estory down to one page if you can. We—like
deeble spacingffl ut if you must single: space, then do so.

 

 

 

 

   
  

 

 

 

 

A
./
‘r'; ’ 9
'ATTENE
l

c
-The re

.eld i

presic
\The r
\\‘r

137
L2 ‘- M
\\
OlFLtAdvertising Committee

- MINUTES OF THE MONTHLY MEETING
I IVA]? I May M, l9-—
l? l? ‘3?
ATTENDANCE} VN‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l l/

qiThe regular monthly meeting of the Advertising Committee was j
held in the office of Mr. Larimore,.Advertising,Director, who
presided at the meeting.9 The following were present:

 

Mr. J. Carty Mr. Fisher Miss Powell

Miss Clarke Mr. Larimore Mr. Stark i .
Miss Clooney Mrs. Pavlu Mr. Wallace
B5-~ .1 Mr. Perkins

 

 

 

The meeting began at two o'clock and adjourned at(@+96.

OLD BUSINESSl

qg'flhlfiflwnufi
Miss—Poweli read the minutes of the last meeting. They

were approved as read.

 

 

,1" ,1

 

 

 

 

CEIMr. Stark reported that t e howaa.se cards-whieh had been
prepared for dealefiJs use proved notabLy/successful His
follow-up survey among 250 dealers indicated:

“—”——‘”’_“‘3
@aleps wanting additional cards .................. 230 (92%)
ff fDealers uSing the caififig .......................... 180 (72%) 5
Dealers reporting sales increases ................. 215 (86%)

NEW BUSINESSE

QQIMr. Larimore reported that the.Department has been directed to
curtail its advertising expenditures by $2,500,60 for the com—
ing quarter. Discussiorlhinged on we possibilities:

Elimination of the space in Pgemium magazine}o®"
Reduction of Space in all magazine ads.

/Zg ¢§1;%L.jga§wv,mwm?ph

(1” Eliminafg the June/Mailing to dealers}ztwd/er
2 \l

liliNd

_———

Ciel,
be

138

f~y§$~lkf ”‘bfifW 19
MINUEmS, Advertising Committee, May‘§; l9::’,,»/”’Tfl’/;Eg;~2>

AfiLA/‘L/I /£(/ 679 3"

Mrs. Pavlue reported that the material Tor the mailing to
degaers was now on press and thahFan invest ent of'397v would
be lost ifithe mailing W339 not made. Mr./Eerkies pointed out
that ’ space in Premium would bring our year's space
in that magazine under the minimum for the special {gates that
we have been enjoying. Miss Clarke reported that nearly all
mechanicals, art:work, and engravings have a lready been made
for our present advertising schedule and would/have to be done
over, at an estimated cost of SLEOO, if the space dimensions
were reduced in our advertisements in other magazines.4}The
committee decided,éo eliminate spgfib in the nexttiux. issues

of Premium0(§:§H'MrilPerkies-demurrini?)
\

WM

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

Marguerite Powell, Secretary
Distribution:
Vice—Presidents
Committee Members
Permanent File

APPENDIX E

W-409 Owen Graduate Center
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48824
March 6, 1975

Dr. David Weaver

Gregg Publishing Company
Community College Division
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10020

Dear Dr. Weaver:

This is a request for assistance. At the suggestion of my doctoral
committee chairman, Mrs. Helen Green, I am.writing to you concerning
the possibility of the Gregg Division of the McGraw-Hill Publishing
Company supplying me with 40 copies of Selective Practice Drills by
Lloyd, Poland, Rowe, Winger, and Griffith to be used in an experi-
mental study in intermediate collegiate typewriting. I believe

Mrs. Green spoke with you briefly in Chicago last week regarding the
study which I would like to begin during the last week of March. I
am enclosing a copy of my dissertation prOposal which you may read
(and keep if you wish) for further clarification.

If the Gregg Division is willing to supply the drill books, I would
appreciate having them mailed to my home address as the study will
be conducted in Mississippi. The address is as follows:

Post Office Box 152
Mississippi Valley State University
Itta Dena, Mississippi 38941

I would also like permission to xerox a sufficient number of copies of
timed writings and production copy to be used as pre-test and post-test
materials from pages 140, 148, 194, 217, and 228 of Typing 75 Advanced
by Lloyd, Rowe, and Winger.

If you need additional information upon which to base your decision,

please call me at (517) 355-3888 before March 15 or at (601) 254-3201
after March 15. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest

convenience.

Yours very truly,

Carrie McDonald Prater

Enclosure

cc Dr. Alan Lloyd
Mrs. Helen Green

122
Nev

7

   

Gregg and Community College Division McGraw-Hill Book Company :1"
1221 Avenue of the Americas 4. .
NewYork, New York 10020 I In

May IN, 1975

Ms. Carrie McDonald Prater
W-h09 Owen Graduate Center
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 4882h

Dear Ms. Prater:

Dr. Alan Lloyd has referred your May 8 letter to me, and we are
happy to grant you permission to reproduce pages 140, 147, 1&8, 186,
19 , 217, 226, 227, and 228 from TYPING 75 ADVANCED for use in your
study.

In granting this permission, we ask that you observe the following
terms and conditions:

1. That the material reproduced will not be offered for
sale or distribution through any commercial channels
and will be solely in conjunction with your study.

2. That the material reproduced will be offered to users
free of charge.

3. That the following credit line will appear on the re-
produced material: "From TYPING 75 ADVANCED by Lloyd,
Rowe, and Winger. Copyright(:)l970, 1964, 1957 by
McGraw-Hill, Inc. Used with the permission of the
McGraw-Hill Book Company."

Please sign the enclosed copy of this letter and return it to me for
my files.

Please be sure to contact us if we can be of further assistance to
you, Me. Prater--and good luck with your study!

Cordially yours,
[A
\ ea.-. c, wry)“ '.../

-»Jamds B. Maher
Business Manager

/*

de
Enclosure
cc: Dr. Alan Lloyd

.‘
\

Approved: C. 0N1); JAN. bghldfii iii/l “:t"'\”

W

MICIH'TINHISIWHEH iiiiiiiiiiriliiiii“
31293 03175 5725