..w k c : A... .. . -1. p .. . a an C a M. .H .3 If: n.... V r... (E. .... . I. . .. 4. r?! v. 1;»: fix «é . w. «my a H. I‘- 1‘ , . 31 fl; .\ . . .,—« ”3... Afiu . .. a a h . a z .r a 2 r. .d .\ 1L.» . . t .. 2 a v . .. ... 1 tr! e .- “III I K, .2 g . 'i'flmb u I! mu; \flzlllljlflllIl In I MI 1| mm um 1| This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF CERTAIN FACTORS INFLUENCING SUCCESS IN THE LEARNING AND ACHIEVEMENT OF SHORTHAND presented by Evelyn Jane Rittenhouse has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Business Education fl) / f/ 4' av /-' -—’. / f!- .- I -' '/ Fl ._4 ‘1 _/ Maior nrnfessnr Date July 18, 1968 0-169 k ' v . ”’ _ -/ II I I ’- I ‘3' t ‘ ”z’ - 2'“ ' “‘1‘ I. in I/_ I"; ‘m/ ‘4.- A ._-.-u «M‘— L I B R A R V hdiChlgal‘l Sine . University 1 ‘llll' ..xl. .I ABSTRACT A STUDY OF CERTAIN FACTORS INFLUENCING SUCCESS IN THE LEARNING AND ACHIEVEMENT OF SHORTHAND by Evelyn Jane Rittenhouse Pugse of the Study This study was concerned with the two most common methods of shorthand teaching: the manual approach representing the science-type and the functional approach representing the language arts. Specifically, it sought to determine the effect of adding shorthand workbook practice (which represents the science-type) to the conventional-type homework practice (which lends itself to the language arts). It also sought to isolate factors within the learner which may affect achievement in shorthand as related to homework practice as well as when homework practice is not considered a factor. Procedures The sample for the first part of the study consisted of 74 students enrolled in five classes of beginning shorthand at four colleges. Three of the colleges were on the West Coast, and one was in Michigan . The sample comprising the second part of the study consisted of 222 students from seven colleges representing a cross-section of the United States. Evelyn Jane Rittenhouse The experimental design used was the Posttest-Only Control Group Design. A control and an experimental group were determined through random selection. Both groups followed the conventional-type homework practice. The experimental factor was the addition of the evolutionary drills from the 9g Shorthand Workbook (science-type practice) to the homework of the experimental group . During the final two weeks of the year, three-minute dictation tests were administered to all classes to compare the two sections. In order to deter- mine what psychological factors within the learner may affect shorthand achieve- ment, selected psychological tests were used and student scores on these tests were correlated with achievement as measured by the Dictation Test. The statis- tical procedures used were analysis of variance and correlation analysis. Findings 1 . There was no significant difference in achievement between stu- dents using the evolutionary drills from the Gregg Shorthand Workbook for supple- mentary homework practice and those using the conventional-type homework practice only. 2 . Student performance on each of the following tests--The School and College Ability Test (Verbal), the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, the Test of Critical Thinking, and selected subtests of the Edwards Personal Preference Sched- ule--did not differentiate between students who learn shorthand more effectively using the conventional homework practice only from those who learn shorthand more effectively using the workbook for supplementary homework practice . * mt. ... .50 .I Evelyn Jane Rittenhouse 3 . There was no significant difference in shorthand achievement between students ranking in the top quartile and those ranking in the lowest quar- tile on each of the following tests as well as on the battery of tests (regardless of whether they used the workbook or the conventional homework): The School and College Ability Test (Verbal), the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, the Test of Critical Thinking, and the selected subtests--order, change, and consistency--on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. Conclusions The following conclusions were based upon the findings of this study: I . That adding science-type (workbook practice) to the conventional homework does not significantly affect achievement. 2. That the psychological tests used in this study either singly or as a battery were of no value in differentiating which students would learn short- hand more efficiently by either of the methods-~science-type or language arts . 3 . That the factors determining shorthand success were not isolated as pertaining to the method or to the learner. A STUDY OF CERTAIN FACTORS INFLUENCING SUCCESS IN THE LEARNING AND ACHIEVEMENT OF SHORTHAND BY Evelyn Jane Rittenhouse A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION I968 *EECopyright by EVELYN JANE RlTTENHOUSE 1969 ACCEPTANCE This thesis has been accepted in partial fulfill- ment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Phi- IOSOphy in the Graduate School of Michigan State University. Datev fiean‘, Graduate School "’ I u/ ‘7 -f” ’ " . 1f "2’ .""|/.L./' I /" \. i ’ f I" "' ‘ 5'" .1 . '1’. — r'” / / , V ‘ -./ —/"'/ / ’1’, . ‘// .4 Chairman ,/ 222767251 /, /C~c14L Member/f / /<24ijf 74;L&xv<}\ Member /;2¢:f7 (VS/Cu we Member ii Ina-gun? 'V'UV- v R 1 I ~I v u o J I , I "in N .. '5 u "a” ' 'tv . vi: ' tn ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is a pleasure to mention some of the people whose interest and cooperation have made this study possible . Gratitude is sincerely expressed to Dr. Helen H . Green who so graciously served as chairman of the doctoral committee and director of this study. Her interest, encouragement, and indispensable guidance contributed much to the development of the thesis. Appreciation is also due the other members of the committee: Dr. Peter G . Haines for his valuable suggestions in the formulation of the problem; Dr. Mary Virginia Moore for her timely comments and editing; and to Dr. Robert Poland for his continued support and encouragement. Recognition Is also accorded to Dr. CIessen J . Martin and to Mr. Bruce Rogers for their assistance with the statistical procedures and to Dr. Gwendolyn Norrell for her helpful counsel. In particular, the researcher is indebted to her sister, Ruth, whose ifmpiration and support have been unfailing, and to Billy for help and encourage- ment . TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . Introduction Statement of the Problem Purposes of the Study Hypotheses to be Tested . Importance of the Study . Definitions of Terms Delimitations of the Study . Organization of the Thesis II . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Literature on the Teaching of Shorthand Methodology - - The Teaching of Shorthand Theory - Homework Preparation Summary Literature Concerned With Shorthand Success - Summary Page vii N-‘O‘OO dd I3 I4 I6 I6 29 55 75 Chapter III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES Description of the Study . Experimental Design Selection of the Sample for the First Year Procedural Plan of Study - - Procedures for Achieving Primary Purpose Procedures for Achieving Secondary Purposes - - Rationale for Use of Workbook by Experimental Group - Homework Assignments for Experimental and Control Groups - Instruments Used Dictation Tests - - - - - . Achievement and Psychological Tests Used - Statistical Procedures . IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Hypothesis I Hypothesis lI . Hypothesis III Analysis of Simple Correlations . Analysis of Multiple Correlations V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Nature of the Study Need for the Study Delimitations of the Study . Hypotheses Tested . Page 75 76 76 76 77 77 78 79 82 82 82 83 88 9O 9O 92 99 99 I 00 I 04 I 04 I O4 IO5 105 “"I ‘9‘- .Ivu (4’ v (.3 Chapter Summary of the Procedures Design of the Investigation Definition of the Population . Homework Practice and Materials . Collection of the Data . Criterion Test Psychological Tests . Findings Conclusions - Recommendations . BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES A. Depth Investigation of Two Teachers and Their Results B. Instructions to Participants . Dictation Material . on . Student Scores on Selected Tests E. Computer Data . F. Teacher Questionnaire . G. Participating Colleges Page I06 I06 I06 l07 I07 I07 I07 I07 I09 IO9 III II9 I41 I47 I52 I61 183 I92 vi (‘1‘! 'A Table IO. II. I2. 13. I4. I5. LIST OF TABLES . Means and Standard Deviations on the Dictation Test . Analysis of Variance Scores on the Dictation Tests . Means and Standard Deviations on Test of Critical Thinking . Analysis of Variance of Test of Critical Thinking . Means and Standard Deviations on Rokeach Dogmatism Scale . Analysis of Variance of Rokeach Dogmatism Scale . Means and Standard Deviations of School and College Achievement Test . Analysis of Variance of School and College Achievement Test . Means and Standard Deviations on Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (Order Subtest) Analysis of Variance of Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (Order Subtest) Means and Standard Deviations of Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (Change Subtest) Analysis of Variance of Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (Change Subtest) Means and Standard Deviations of Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (Consistency Subtest) . Analysis of Variance on Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (Consistency Subtest) lntercorrelations of Psychological Tests Scores and Dictation Test Scores . . . . Page 9 I 92 93 93 94 94 95 95 96 96 97 97 98 99 100 Table '16. '17. '18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25 Multiple Correlations Obtained With Psychological and Achievement Tests and the Criterion Measure Analysis of Variance for the Overall Regression . A Comparison of the Achievement of the Class Taught by the Manual Method With that of the Class Taught by the Functional Method . . . . . . A Comparison of the Achievement of the Subsection Using the Workbook With the Subsection Using the Conventional Homework in the Class Taught by the Manual Method . A Comparison of the Achievement of the Subsection Using the Workbook With the Subsection Using the Conventional Homework in Class Taught by the Functional Method A Comparison of the Achievement of the Subsection Using the Workbook in Class Taught by the Manual Method With the Subsection Using the Workbook In Class Taught by the Functional Method . . A Comparison of the Achievement of the Subsections Using Conventional Homework in Class Taught by Manual Method With the Class Taught by the Functional Method . A Comparison of the Achievement of the Subsection Using the Workbook in the Class Taught by the Manual Method With the Subsection Using the Conventional Homework in the Class Taught by the Functional Method A Comparison of the Achievement of the Subsection Using the Conventional Homework in the Class Taught by the Manual Method With the Subsection Using the Workbook in the Class Taught by the Functional Method . . Comparisons of Teachers on Selected Achievement and Psycho logical Tests viii Page 101 102 129 131 132 134 135 136 138 139 0 n '11 I ”Ina ! ‘ i l I la “a "Vb' C HA PTER I INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM I. Introduction The chief characteristic of today's world is rapid change. In such a world those who prepare secretaries dare not remain complacent. The well- qucl Iified secretary must continue to be a master of the requisite technical skills For her job and, in addition, must demonstrate greater breadth of general educa- fion , a better understanding of modern office equipment, and increased under- stand ing of accounting and economics than ever before. Not only is there a need for well-qualified secretaries, but also an ins is’ént demand for more secretaries to be prepared in less time. Since business educcfion departments are charged with this dual responsibility of preparing more and better secretaries, teachers of secretarial studies must either iustify the methods they are using or devise more efficient ones . Shorthand is one of the most important areas in the secretarial cur- rIcu ‘U m and much study has already been given to methods of teaching this s ~ . Ublect. Change and refinement have characterized the hIstory of shorthand me‘hodo logy. However, further research is needed in order to discover more eHettive means of teaching and learning this essential skill. .41. ’ID. H I. Since the teaching of shorthand was first introduced, two basic ap- proaches have emerged. These are the science-type and the language-arts methods. These two methods are undoubtedly related to the major classifications of learning theory. The science-type method appears to follow the Connection- ist's theory of learning while the language-arts approach is related to Gestalt psychology. In 1889, John Robert Gregg published his system known variously through subsequent years as the "manual, " the "anniversary, " or the "traditional" method. Because of the heavy emphasis in the early years upon the teaching of rules or generalizations, it has also been labeled the "science method." Other distinctive features of the science-type method are the early introduction of writing and the use of word list tests to ensure theory coverage . The terms "manual," "anniversary, " "traditional" and "science-type" all refer to methods 0": feaching and not to the system itself. The system is Gregg and is essentially The same system, even though there have been certain modifications throughout the Years. From the first, Gregg believed that shorthand should be taught as a ski I I or an art rather than a science. Although he did not deem the teaching of ru I es important, he knew that he had to "sell" his system which did not depend UPO" the teaching of rules to teachers who were familiar with systems that did depend upon rules. Hence, he devised a textbook containing rules, for he could “o‘- afford to insist on methods with which the teachers were not accustomed. FQ“ nearly forty years, the science-type method dominated the field of shorthand ‘QQChing in America . than! U'O' tp a: y I. l 6-: (n In 1934, Louis A. Leslie introduced a vastly different approach to the teaching of shorthand--the functional method. This method is frequently referred to as the " language arts" type of teaching because of the emphasis upon meaning extracted from symbols. Leslie explains his method by differentiating between "the art of shorthand writing" and the "science of shorthand. " His approach can- siders shorthand to be skill learning, distinct from knowledge learning. The Ia nguage-arts learner is taught to automatize the correct shorthand responses without verbalizing or consciously knowing the generalizations or rules. Accord- ing to Leslie, there are nine points of difference between the manual method and the functional method. The functional method is distinguished for: No writing at the beginning--the reading approach No formal penmanship drills No rules to be taught No questions from or to the students No tests except for administrative purposes No papers to correct except the few tests given for administrative purposes No word lists to be written No formal review No repetition practice GUI-FOON—O ‘OCDV The functional method of teaching has now been in use for over Went), years. While it has many followers, there is still a great deal of con- h'<>\’ersy regarding its superiority over the manual method. Recently a number of Teachers have been taking a new and critical look at the functional method. ern k, Condon, and LiIes are among the educators who support a greater emphasis \ ]Louis A. Leslie, Gregg Shorthand Manual for the Functional Mod, Teacher's Handbook (New York: ThiGrregg Publishing Company, \936), p. vii. :- I... ‘9. I. hp" .- . "ul .i I nn-A it "A 9“ 2"3 . .h'. ogg' In. t ”EC’ in" / / i?" ' 3- \4 'L- I 8).. I. P (K/ L 1 q on theory in teaching beginning shorthand . In stating specific outcomes for first- year shorthand, Crank says that students should develop the theory principles sufficiently to be able to form correct outlines in dictation .2 While he realizes that first-year students should not be expected to write all outlines correctly during dictation, they ought to be able to write most of them correctly. Class drills on theory principles are necessary to reach this goal. Knowledge of short- hand theory is also valuable in constructing outlines for unfamiliar words. According to Condon memorizing the rules is not necessary, but a thorough comprehension of the principles is important. He recommends that stu- dents write word lists to the point of instant response and suggests that writing wo rd lists in sequence of two or three words will provide more meaningful 3 prac tice . Liles believes that one of the maior fallacies in shorthand teaching is that knowledge of theory is unnecessary. He does not agree with those business educators who maintain that any shorthand outline that can be transcribed is an acceptable outline. If a student does not have a good knowledge of shorthand 1Lhe<>ry, valuable time will be spent thinking up outlines while taking dictation . Th is practice is undesirable for it impedes shorthand progress. LiIes emphasizes \ S 2Floyd Crank, "Basic Considerations for First-Year Shorthand," Modal Education with a Future, American Business Education Yearbook, X (Somerville, N. J.: gmerset Press, 1962), p. 62. 3Arnold Condon, " Principles for the Development of Theory and the Eu? \d ing of Writing Skills in First-Year Shorthand," Secretarial Education with 0 Eggs, American Business Education Yearbook, XIX (Somerville, N. J.: merset Press, 1962), p. 141. ‘I‘ 7; "I s 0.9! O UV . W“ at 'y' ' . I tzct that "correct shorthand will probably contribute more than any other one thing to the ultimate obiective--the mailable transcript. "4 The search to determine the best procedures and materials for teaching shorthand must and will continue. Important as it is to discover the best method of teaching shorthand, it is possible that there are psychological factors within the teacher or the learner which will affect learning success. These factors as well as method must be examined and accounted for. Years ago Tolman5 suggested that there may be a number of different kinds of learning and that the theory and laws which are ap- propriate to one kind may well be different from those appropriate to other kinds. A thoughtful consideration of these differing positions suggest a num- ber of questions which seem to deserve investigation . Can principles derived From learning theory be applied to secretarial teaching? Since shorthand lends itse IF to two different types of teaching, would it not be possible that each method 75 su itable to a certain type of teacher or student? Will the student with science- I’Ype orientation be more successful when instructed by the "manual" method and ”1 e l<=Inguage-arts orientated student do better under the "functional" method of teaching? Or does the key to shorthand achievement lie within the teacher? .\ X 4Parker LiIes, "Issues in Teaching Shorthand, " The Balance Sheet, LV (October, 1963), p. 52. 5Edward C. Tolman, "There Is More Than One Kind of Learning," Wal Review, LVI (May, 1949), pp. 144-145. 1 wet: I . 00 ( F 1 a' h' ’- III-n ‘ "~- - “I n "‘ HI '1.“ ‘ s *H. 'U "c A; ' U. ””AQ luv. iiih 11. Statement of the Problem Pu rposes of Study The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the relative merit of using the evolutionary drills in the Gregg Shorthand Workbook for supplemen- ta ry homework practice as compared with conventional homework practice only for beginning classes in college shorthand . The evolutionary drills represent the sc ience-type approach to shorthand learning, whereas the conventional method can be either science-type or language—arts but lends itself to language-arts. The secondary purpose of the study was twofold: (I) to determine the extent, if any, to which learning and achievement in the workbook homework group and in the conventional homework group were affected by selected ability and personality factors; and (2) to determine the extent, if any, to which learning and achievement in shorthand were affected by selected ability and personality Fac tors regardless of whether students used the workbook or the conventional-type homework practice. This study was designed to seek answers to the following questions: 1. Do students using the evolutionary drills from the workbook for supp lel'nentary homework practice do significantly better in shorthand achieve- meh" Than those following the conventional-type homework practice? (Primary purpOSe) 2. Do students ranking in the top quartile of the School and College Ability Test (Verbal) do significantly better in shorthand achievement than those Rink" ng in the lowest quartile when they use the workbook for supplementary homewmk practice? (Secondary purpose I) I_ ,‘ A. ‘l | 1!, I- . ‘ I u I "not A on u H. .. .~v V I ‘P‘ I! .l \ u "I. , t. It, a "‘1' ~ . E 3: - I file”. I" ’~ .I , u ‘ I‘li I s; P a v' I ‘u- "‘3' a “-9 Ir- 3. Do students ranking in the top quartile of the School and College Ability Test (Verbal) do significantly better in shorthand achievement than those ranking in the lowest quartile when they use the conventional-type homework practice? (Secondary purpose 1) 4. Do students ranking in the top quartile of the School and College Ability Test (Verbal) do significantly better in shorthand achievement than those ranking in the lowest quartile regardless of whether they use the workbook or the conventional-type homework practice? (Secondary purpose 2) 5. Do students ranking in the top quartile of the Test of Critical Th inking do significantly better in shorthand achievement than those ranking in the lowest quartile when they use the workbook for supplementary homework practice? (Secondary purpose 1) 6. Do students ranking in the top quartile of the Test of Critical Th inking do significantly better in shorthand achievement than those ranking in ”'1 e lowest quartile when they use the conventional-type homework practice? (SecOndary purpose 1) 7. Do students ranking in the top quartile of the Test of Critical Th; "k Trig do significantly better in shorthand achievement than those ranking in the I<>vvest quartile regardless of whether they use the workbook or the conven- tionq I~type homework practice? (Secondary purpose 2) 8. Do students ranking in the top quartile of the Rokeach Dogmatism ch‘e do significantly better in shorthand achievement than those ranking in the \QWeSt quartile when they use the workbook for supplementary homework practice? LS e<2c>ndary purpose I) l I D .1 \‘ .‘_ ‘ a“. v. \r‘ _ ‘0‘! Iva. V t. F New a" ' U D \a'lin "a" l‘ K x! i A L7~Vii .‘n-g I I. :n ER'TE A . . J}_ I'fi-I' 'I.‘ I‘Cr 9. Do students ranking in the top quartile of the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale do significantly better in shorthand achievement than those ranking in the lowest quartile when they use this conventional-type homework practice only? (Secondary purpose 1) 10. Do students ranking in the top quartile of the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale do significantly better in shorthand than those ranking in the lowest quartile regardless of whether they use the workbook or the conventional-type homework? (Secondary purpose 2) II . Do students ranking in the top quartile on selected personality su bscales of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule do significantly better in Shorthand achievement than those ranking in the lowest quartile when they use the Workbook for supplementary homework practice? (Secondary purpose 1) 12. Do students ranking in the top quartile on selected personality 5” l5355‘1301es of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule do significantly better in shorthand achievement than those ranking in the lowest quartile when they use I’ be cc hvenfionaI-fype homework practice? (Secondary purpose I) 13. Do students ranking in the top quartile on selected personality SUbch Ies of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule do significantly better in Shofihond achievement than those ranking in the lowest quartile regardless of wheTher they use the workbook or the conventional-type homework practice? \SeS-Onda ry purpose 2) Hypotheses to be Tested The research hypotheses were: I . There will be a significant difference in shorthand achievement between students using evolutionary drills from the Gregg Shorthand Workbook for supplementary homework practice and those using the conventional-type homework practice only. 2 . Student performance on each of the following tests--the School and College Ability Test (Verbal), the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, the Test of Critical Thinking--and selected subtests of the Edwards Personal Preference Sched- ule will significantly differentiate between students who will learn shorthand more effectively using the conventional-type homework practice from those who will learn shorthand more effectively using the workbook for supplementary homework practice . 3 . There will be a significant difference in shorthand achievement between students ranking in the top quartile and those ranking in the lowest quar- tile on each of the following tests as well as on the battery of tests (regardless of whether they use theworkbook or the conventional-type homework): The School and College Ability Test (Verbal), the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, the Test of Critical Thinking and selected subtests of the Edwards Personal Preference Sched- ule. These basic hypotheses will be tested as experimental hypotheses in null form in the Analysis of Data in Chapter IV. Importance of the Stud)I Many factors contribute to success in shorthand . A search of the literature shows that considerable attention has been given to teaching up! .9 'J; lg. ... ..—o A - 10 effectiveness in the classroom. Comparatively few studies, however, have been concerned with homework practice. Therefore, the first part of this investigation was undertaken to compare the shorthand achievement of students using the work- book for supplementary homework practice with students following the conven- tional-type homework practice only. The second and third parts of the study were concerned with isolating factors within the learner and their effect on the shorthand achievement of students using the workbook homework practice and of those using the conventional-type homework practice. An attempt was also made to isolate factors within the learner and their effect on student achievement regardless of the type of homework used. Shorthand teachers for years have been interested in the selection of students and in the prediction of their success . At the present time there is no single prognostic instrument that offers a definite prediction for success in short- hand. To date, English grades and total grade point average appear to be the factors which show the greatest promise as predictors. According to Anderson, investigations in which a combination of factors are studied may give more valuable findings than studies of single factors. She also suggests the use of personality variables as possible predictors of shorthand success as the present findings are both limited and inconclusive.6 It is recognized that affective or noncognitive variables influence academic behavior and achievement as well as cognitive variables. It may be that personality characteristics, since they 6Ruth 1. Anderson, "An Analysis and Classification of Research in Shorthand and Transcription" (unpublished Doctor's thesis, Indiana University, 1946), pp. 645-733.. "‘39“ . gi- ha- \hs unit :- Iv II. is ’an. I .151 ‘v 11 measure a different dimension than academic potential, will aid in the predictive proc ess . Definitions of Terms The following terms are defined briefly as used in the study: Evolutionary drills. Isolated words and derivative found in the Gregg Shorthand Workbook . Supplementary homework practice. Homework practice using the evolutionary drills as found in the workbook. Conventional homework practice. Homework practice consisting of copying from shorthand plates and writing large amounts of connected material usually including business vocabulary. The "functional" or "language-arts" method . These terms are used interchangeably to mean the teaching of shorthand as an art rather than as a science considering shorthand to be skill learning, distinct from knowledge learn- ing with emphasis upon the learner's being taught to automatize the correct shorthand responses without verbalizing or consciously knowing the generalizai- tions or rules. The "manual," "anniversary," or "traditional" method. These terms are used interchangeably to mean that method of teaching shorthand which relies heavily on the teaching of rules or generalizations, the use of word lists to ensure theory coverage, the early introduction of writing, and the teaching of shorthand as if it were a science. 12 Delimitations of the Study This study was concerned only with shorthand homework practice and the effects of such practice on achievement behavior of students in selected liberal arts colleges. The schools used for the study were church-related col- leges under the direction of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination . The schools were chosen for the reasons that they were readily accessible to the researcher for the purpose of experimentation and that they were felt to be representative of college shorthand classes . The students and classes were not considered atypical or differing from other college shorthand students or classes for the following reasons: I . The college enrollment is not restricted on the basis of religion. All the colleges enroll students from other religious persuasions. 2. The shorthand class sections varied in size from 30-40 students. 3. All of the colleges are fully accredited with their respective regional accrediting association which indicates adequate standards, equipment, and teaching staff. The only tests used were the School and College Ability Test (Verbal), the Test of Critical Thinking, Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, selected subtests of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, and the Criterion Test for determining shorthand achievement. "E SE Pr’e 1F“. in. ‘A 33. 13 Ill. Organization of the Thesis This study has been organized into five chapters: Chapter 1 presents the problem, its scope, the definition of the terms, the delimitations, and the hypotheses to be tested. Chapter 11 surveys the literature. It includes a review of important studies involving the two main approaches to shorthand teaching--science and language arts, while the second section reviews the research concerned with factors which contribute to success in shorthand. Chapter 111 describes the methods of procedures, the collection of the data, and the treatment of the data . Chapter IV contains the findings and the interpretation of the results. Chapter V is devoted to the summary, conclusions, and recommenda- tions . CHAPTER 11 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The research, both formal and informal, which has been concerned with the measurement of shorthand achievement and with the determination of significant factors thought to have some relationship to shorthand learning and achievement is extensive. Therefore, it is not possible to review all of the studies which are in some way related to the present investigation . Those studies most directly related are considered in this chapter. Part | reviews pertinent literature on the teaching of shorthand . This section deals specifically with the Functional versus the Manual Method of teaching shorthand with reference to: (I) methodology, (2) the teaching of shorthand theory, and (3) shorthand home- work preparation. Part II reviews the literature concerned with shorthand success. Reports of research studies in shorthand are numerous and widely spread throughout the business education literature and other educational and psychological publications. The Shorthand Secretarial Research Index which gives a complete listing of research studies from 1891 to 1965, shows 33 reports on methods of teaching shorthand and 138 reports on prognosis of success in secre- tarial studies .7 7Harves Rahe, ed., Shorthand Secretarial Research Index (New York: Gregg Division, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965), p. 66. e- V u", ’56!" nov I- . ... ,., \- nqnaq ‘4‘ "II 'vv. ' 1". . (F '- n. . I ll. 15 8 The first two studies reviewed in this chapter are by Anderson and Frink,9 respectively, who made comprehensive compilations and analyses of all research findings in the field of shorthand through the year 1957. The Anderson dissertation provides an analysis and classification of 298 research studies in short- hand and transcription conducted in the United States prior to January, 1946. All available masters' and doctors' theses and other studies of shorthand and transcrip- tion were included . The research studies were abstracted and classified into groups according to the nature of the investigation. According to Anderson's findings, 61 studies, or 20.47 percent of all the research in shorthand and transcription problems, were concerned with achievement. Forty—four of the 61 studies in this classification dealt with the measurement of shorthand achievement and 17 with the devices and tests for the measurement of achievement. 10 Frink reviewed the research pertaining to shorthand and transcription covering the years 1946 to 1957. She found that the great majority of the 117 studies and 258 items from professional literature which she analyzed and classified were concerned with prognosis. 11 Researchers studied achievement and the factors related to achieve- ment for the Specific purpose of finding an answer to the question of who can be 8Anderson,o_p. _c_it., p. 14. 9Inez Frink, "A Comprehensive Analysis and Synthesis of Research and Thought Pertaining to Shorthand and Transcription, 1946-1957" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Indiana University, 1961). loAnderson, 2. c_i_t. HFrinl<,fl3- ELI-I PP- 38-40' 16 expected to succeed in shorthand. Attempts were made to isolate factors which would predict, prior to study, the level of achievement in shorthand which stu- dents should attain . The studies by Anderson and Frink respectively are of value to the present investigation for their unusually thorough reviews of research on methodology and on prognosis in shorthand. I. Literature on the Teaching of Shorthand Because the influence of John Robert Gregg has been so largely felt in the teaching of shorthand,it seems appropriate that a review of literature might begin with a statement of his attitude: One of the most fascinating things about the "lithe and noble art of brief writing" is the infinite variety of methods that can be adopted in teaching it. For this reason I have always maintained a receptive attitude toward new methods of handling this subject. After all, system is my main interest, and any method that promised to contribute to the attainment of better results in teaching it was deserving of considera- tion . Methodology Over the years since Gregg shorthand was first taught in America, a number of methods have been developed which have interested and sometimes confused shorthand teachers. Two basic methods of teaching shorthand have emerged from the many which have been tried; namely, the Functional and the Manual methods. Among those who have compared the relative merit of the two 12Louis A. Leslie, ed., The Story of Gregg Shorthand (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964), p. 107 quoting Gregg Shorthand Manual for the Functional Method, p. iii. :f.’ ‘A) .'l“~ - .. ... ‘ I- ' h lpA. ‘0‘- '1‘ 17 methods might be mentioned Carder, '3 Lain,14 Dietrich, '5 Shuder,16 17 18 Belanger, and Schloemer. C . C. Carder was among the first to study shorthand methodology using the experimental method.'9 Using two matched groups of students,he com- pared the achievement of students taught by the Functional method with the achievement of students taught by the Manual method at the Northeast Experi- mental Junior College of Kansas City, Missouri. Results of intelligence tests and of stenographic prognostic tests were secured for all students of both classes. These tests were used to make a double matching of pairs of students from the two '3C. C. Carder, "Comparison of Functional and Non-Functional Methods of Teaching Shorthand in Northeast Experimental Junior College of Kansas City, Missouri" (unpublished Master's thesis, Kansas State College of Pittsburg, 1936). ”George E. Lain, "A Comparison of the Traditional and Functional Methods of Teaching Shorthand" (unpublished Master's thesis, University of Southern California, 1941) . Degree not conferred. '5Francis Frederick Dietrich, "Functional and Nonfunctional Methods of Teaching Gregg Shorthand Compared" (unpublished Master's thesis, Colorado State College, 1940). '6Bernice Shuder, "A Study of the Direct, Manual, and Functional Methods in the Teaching of Shorthand in Representative Schools in Northwestern Ohio" (unpublished Master's thesis, Bowling Green State University, 1941). l7Lillian A. Belanger, "A Comparison of the Manual and Functional Methods of Teaching Shorthand" (unpublished Master's thesis, Tufts College, I944). '8Carolyn O. Schloemer, "A Study to Compare the Achievement Attained in Two Methods of Teaching Gregg Shorthand--the Theory Approach Versus the Nontheory Approach" (unpublished Master's thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1964). 19Cardenfl). c_it., p. 53. I.‘ we ":3” 18 classes--twenty intelligence matched pairs and twelve stenographic matched pairs were obtained. During and at the end of the course, tests which would measure the following were given to both classes: (I) transcription ability, (2) accuracy of shorthand vocabulary, (3) shorthand penmanship, and (4) reading ability--word meaning, comprehension, and rate. Some of the findings of this study were: Transcription Ability 1. Approximately 20 percent more of the Functional than of the Non-Functional students were able to produce acceptable transcripts when measured by the percentage of accuracy. 2. Approximately 20 percent more of the Functional than of the Non-Functional students were able to take dictation at the rate of 100 words per minute. Those in the Functional class who took this speed produced more accurate transcripts than did those in the Non- Functional class who took the same Speed. 3. Approximately 13 percent more of the Functional than of the Non-Functional students attained the standard for dictation speed set for the two classes, 80 words per minute or above. Accuracy of Writing Shorthand 4. The two classes were approximately equal in the accuracy of shorthand written while writing lists of words and phrases. 5. While taking the Rollinson dictation tests of 40 words per minute, the upper third of the Non-Functional students showed a slight superiority over the upper third of the Functional students in the accuracy of shorthand written . 6. While taking the Rollinson dictation test of 60 words per minute, approximately 15 percent more of the Functional than of the Non-Functional students wrote with a shorthand vocabulary accuracy of 90 percent or above. Also, approximately 15 percent more of the Functional than of the Non-Functional students wrote with a shorthand vocabulary accuracy of 80 percent or above while taking the Rollinson dictation test of 60 words per minute . 19 Shorthand Penmanship 7. In shorthand penmanship, the two classes showed approximate equality. The Functional students, in the pairs matched by the shorthand prognostic tests, showed a very slight superiority over the Non-Functional students in shorthand penmanship. O Carder concluded that the Functional Method of teaching shorthand was superior to the Non-Functional method. Of special interest is the fact that the Functional Method produced higher achievement with every type of student-— the superior, the average,and the below average.2' The study made by George E. Lain is one of the few experimental studies which has compared the results of the Functional Method with other methods of teaching shorthand .22 Two classes in beginning shorthand, at the John H . Francis Polytechnic High School, Los Angeles, were taught by different teachers, one using the Manual Method and the other, the Functional Method. Students were equated on the basis of sex, age, mental ability, and occupation of parents. The results, at the end of the first year, were based on fifty-three cases. The criteria for determining achievement were eight tests, dictated at sixty words a minute, on which the transcription scores were computed. On each test, the Functional Method students made fewer transcription errors than the Manual Method students; and on the basis of the entire group of tests, the Manual 20Carder,_o_p. E_i_t., pp. 53-54. 21%. 22Lain,o_p. c_it., pp. 1-3. 20 Method students made 80.8 percent more errors than the Functional Method students. A follow-up check of the two classes was made at the end of the second year to determine the carry-over value of the two methods. This phase of the study was based on twenty-six students; thirteen were available for each group. Six dictation tests were given at rates ranging from 93 to 100 words a minute, and the transcription scores were computed. The average number of errors per student for the Manual group was 12.8, and for the Functional Method group, 11.3 . This represents a difference of I .5, for which the critical ratio was 1, which is not significant. Apparently, the difference at the close of the two years was less than at the end of the first year. Lain's study is interesting, but its results must be interpreted carefully because of the following factors: the small number of cases involved, the uncertainty that the teachers were of equal ability, and the fact that the apparent superiority at the end of one year seemed to have disappeared at the end of the second year. Francis F. Dietrich conducted a study in which the purpose was threefold: (I) to show how the Functional Method shorthand techniques compared with those of other methods; (2) to compare the classroom teaching results of two Functional Method shorthand classes and of four Manual Method classes in four Kansas communities; and (3) to determine the opinions and preferences of twenty- two Kansas shorthand teachers and of twenty-nine graduate students enrolled at a 23 summer session in Greeley. 23Dietrich,__c_>_p. E:_i_t., pp. 1-2. 21 The principal findings of the study were as follows: 1. Initial learning techniques of the Functional Method are based on "parts" instead of on "wholes." This is in agreement with the Manual Method, but it is not in harmony with the direct methods. 2 . The writing of shorthand outlines on the board by the teacher and the proper reading of these outlines by the students are the basic techniques of the Functional Method. 3. On brief form tests, the Functional and the Manual Method groups had almost the same median and average scores; but the Manual Method students made a better showing in the number and the percent of perfect papers. 4. The Functional Method class made slightly better average and median scores on the frequent phrase test than did the combined Manual group . 5. On the complete theory test of 200 parts, the average number of errors of the Functional Method class was 11 .0, and of the Manual Method classes, 19.5. 6. The Functional Method class had an error and omission average of 14 .8 on a 98-word letter dictated at 100 words a minute. The Manual Method classes combined had an error and omission average of 18.3 . 7. Fifty-six percent of the Functional Method students enrolled in advanced shorthand the next school year, while only 22.0 percent of the Manual Method students enrolled . This decrease would indicate either that the Functional Method gave students better preparation for 24 the advanced work, or that it succeeded in maintaining their interest. The purpose of the Shuder study was to compare the Direct-Manual and the Functional Method of teaching shorthand. Odell's Direct Method was apparently combined with the Manual Method. The results were based on 197 students from six different high schools in Northwestern Ohio .25 Although Shuder 241%., pp. iii-vi. 25$huder,3£. 51!" p. 136. 22 found the Direct-Manual Method superior to the Functional Method, her con- clusion is that "no one method is best in its entirety in attaining the obiective of all shorthand methods--recording the spoken word and in producing satisfactory transcription in the shortest time possible."26 Of special significance to the present study is Shuder's final conclusion that it is not the method which deter- mines success but it is the teacher. In 1944, Lillian Belanger compared the Functional and Manual Methods of teaching shorthand to determine which method was preferable for the students of the East Boston (Massachusetts) High School and to discover to what extent those entering the Stenography 11 class retained from their skill acquired in Stenography 1.27 Two shorthand classes taught by different teachers were used in the study of shorthand methods. Each class had 32 students with similar backgrounds and l. Q.'s averaging approximately 100. Instruction time and environmental conditions were the same for both classes. The two groups were taught together for Stenography l| . Brief form, written transcription, complete theory and dictation tests were used for evaluation . Belanger reported the following findings: 1 . A comparison of the results achieved between the two classes on the monthly brief form tests showed that, according to the median scores for the nine months, the group using the manual method was superior to the group using the functional method in the writing of correct shorthand forms from dictation . ' 2611331., p. 183. 27Belanger,_<_>_r_3. c_i_t. 23 In each of the nine months the median number of perfect papers was higher for the groups taught by the manual method than for the groups taught by the functional method. Analysis of the median errors for the two groups each month revealed that the groups taught by the manual method seemed to have an advantage in writing shorthand forms from dictation the first few months but that the group taught by the functional method reached a comparable level of achievement in the nine-month period. 2. An analysis of the transcription of word lists revealed that the groups using the functional method had more nearly perfect scores than the group using the manual method in eight of the nine months. Both groups had perfect scores for the nine months in the first quartile . Throughout the third quartile the pupils taught by the functional method transcribed their notes more accurately than the pupils taught by the manual method. This seemed to indicate an advantage to the "reading group" in the ability to transcribe shorthand notes. 3 . On the transcription tests, the average number of words tran- scribed per minute by the class using the manual method ranged from 3 to 28 words a minute and for the class using the functional method, from 8 to 35 words a minute . The differences between the two groups in average words a minute transcribed ranged from 5 to 15 words a minute. On the last transcription test, the pupils taught by the man- ual method transcribed at the rate of 28 words a minute and the pupils taught by the functional method, at 35 words a minute . 4. On the first theory test, the median score for the pupils using the functional method was one point above that of the pupils using the manual method. The scores of the pupils taught by the functional method were grouped about the median while the scores of the pupils taught by the manual method were scattered widely. On the second test, the groups using the functional method showed the greater improvement in average scores. The author concluded that the class using the functional method in which rules were not Ieamed except through reading and writing made a better showing on theory than the class using the manual method in which rules were learned. On the theory test given to the Stenography 11 pupils in the fall of 1943, the median for the 17 pupils that had been in the group taught by the manual method in first-year shorthand was 75; the median for the pupils who had been taught by the functional method was 60. 5. On the first letter test dictated at 80 words a minute, the median score for the class using the manual method was 97; for the class ‘ A a" ll! 7:! fin. ‘ '- 56:: “2‘6 24 using the functional method, 98. Scores on the test indicated that both groups could take dictation at 80 words a minute and transcribe with a high degree of accuracy. 6. On the five-minute test dictated at 60 words a minute, the error average for the class using the functional method was 12 .43; for the class using the manual method, 18.9. According to the 95 percent accuracy standards set by the Gregg Publishing Company for the test, twenty-three (72 .4 percent) of the pupils taught by the functional method compared to twenty-one (66.8 percent) of the pupils taught by the manual method passed the test. The author concluded that pupils using the functional method reached a higher level of achievement than pupils using the manual method. The main conclusion drawn by Be langer follows: In the beginning shorthand course, better results were secured with the functional method.than with the manual method. However, in the advanced shorthand class, the theory test showed that the group taught by the manual method retained more of the theory during the summer vacation than the group taught by the functional method}:9 In order to draw definite conclusions, a larger number of subjects would need to be included in each of the two groups. The groups also should have been matched on the other factors in addition to intelligence. It appears that no consideration has been given to age, grade level, English ability, or previous scholastic achievement of pupils in the two groups. Schloemer sought to determine whether the theory or nontheory approach to teaching beginning shorthand would produce the better results. The section of beginning shorthand taught using the manual method had 22 students, and the section taught using the functional method had 24 students. Three-minute dictation tests and two theory tests were the criteria used to measure 231333., pp. 262-264. 29111;}! . 25 shorthand achievement. While the findings of this study are interesting, they 30 must be interpreted carefully because of the small sample used. Schloemer's findings were: 1 . High dictation Speeds were attained by students in both classes--IOO words a minute was attained by six nontheory and four theory students . 2. Inability to take new-matter dictation was found in both classes--one person in each class was not able to pass 60 words a minute. 3 . Adequate dictation speed was attained by the majority of students in each class--80 words a minute was attained by 18 (75 percent) in the nontheory class and by 12 (73 percent) in the theory class . 4. Students in the theory class were able to write more accurate outlines on the 100-word theory tests given at the end of the of the first and second semesters. However, in both tests the least number of theory errors was found on a nontheory student's paper. 5. While students in the nontheory class were not able to write as accurate outlines on the 100-word theory tests, a check of the transcription errors on these tests indicated that they were able to transcribe the outlines they had written. The median number of transcription errors was 3 .5 in the nontheory class and 4.5 in the theory class. 6. An analysis of the shorthand notes written during dictation indicated that the theory class wrote slightly more accurate outlines. Since the four papers with the most accurate shorthand notes came from the nontheory class, however, it appears that a very high degree of accuracy can be attained without undue emphasis being placed on theory. 7. The writer concluded that it appears that there was no sig- nificant difference in shorthand achievement between the students taught by the manual method and those taught by the functional method. Therefore, the approach used in teaching shorthand may not be as 30$chloemer, _o_p. £i_t . '9 v“ C l.”- Uid~ II_._ in: u: s,”- 35.... I. ll I‘J‘n v‘ v t) ‘C cu. 26 important as the ability of the students, their motivation, or the ability of the teacher.3l Generally, these investigations support Frink's conclusion that there is no evidence to show conclusively the superiority of either the functional or the 32 manual method . After the introduction of the Functional Method, J . Francis Henderson made a study to find ways of improving the effectiveness of teaching by this method . The sub-purposes of this study were (a) to determine the con- troversial issues in teaching shorthand by the Functional Method; (b) to determine the problems or difficulties teachers have encountered in using the Method; and (c) to find possible activities or procedures to use in helping to alleviate these problems. Because many of the studies which had been made of the Functional Method showed conflicting opinions as far as the advantages and disadvantages of the method were concerned, the expert iury technique was used to determine the controversial issues about which there had been considerable debate. Thirty- seven points were identified as controversial. The second part of the study was a list of 34 problems revealed by teachers who had used the method. A large variety of possible teaching techni- ques to alleviate each problem was obtained. Some of the most significant 3l|_b_ig., pp. 38-39. 32Frink,:p. c_It. 33J. Francis Henderson, "Suggested Techniques for Improving the Teaching of Shorthand by Leslie's Functional Method" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Southern California, 1944), pp. 447-450. 27 conclusions and recommendations drawn by Henderson follow: 1. Developing in pupils the ability to write new words is one of the most difficult problems. It appears that this skill has to be developed by conscious effort and by direct instruction in the writing of such words. While techniques for developing this skill are still in a vague and uncertain stage, it is felt that previewing new words for the pupils misses the whole point of the problem, and that the Functional Method is weak in its attack upon this problem. 2. It seems unwise to postpone new-material dictation until the shorthand theory has been completed . Perhaps as soon as pupils begin writing they should be taught a method of writing new words, and in each day's dictation they should be provided experiences in initiating new outlines. 3. The essence of the problem of developing in pupils the ability to read shorthand notes fluently as well as rapidly may lie in teaching pupils to recognize words and phrases as wholes rather than to puzzle out outlines character by character through analysis, rules and synthesis, as is done with the Manual Method. 4. While there may be many advantages in having pupils read in concert, it is doubtful that this technique develops in pupils the ability to read shorthand notes meaningfully. This skill probably has to be taught directly. Leslie does not recommend concert reading only; teachers should supplement this technique with others in order to en- courage meaningful, articulate, and expressive reading. 5. It appears that reading and copying shorthand plates may not develop the ability to write facile, fluent notes. During the initial writing stage, writing movements will be diffused motions, but with directed practice there will be a gradual sloughing off of the unneces- sary motions until pupils will be able to write precise outlines with comparatively easy motion. This directed practice should consist of some type of writing precision or penmanship drills. It is recommended that the teacher check occasionally, even though he does not grade, the shorthand notes in order to be able to call the learner's attention to important techniques involved in writing a good quality of penman- ship. Certainly, pupils will not be able to write facile notes until they learn to distinguish between points of excellence in writing and vague ideas of how outlines should be written . Reading may help some- what, but the fine points of ioinings, proportion, slant and curvature will probably have to be pointed out to the pupils before they can execute skillfully-written notes. 28 6. Having the pupils use a key when reading shorthand plates, appears to be a debatable procedure . Undoubtedly, the maior advan- tage in using the key is that it saves pupils from spending too much time in deciphering outlines as has to be done in other methods. Functional Method pupils with the key are able to do a great deal more reading which probably facilitates the development of stenographic skill more than does the puzzling out of many outlines. 7. The reading approach may or may not be superior to the writing approach. But if the reading approach is used, it is doubtful that pupils should read without writing for twenty lessons. Because it is doubtful that all pupils are ready for writing at the same time, per- haps, there should not be a set time for beginning writing . It is recom- mended that teachers continue to experiment informally, as many are doing, in an effort to find criteria for determining when writing should be started. In this experimentation, workers should not neglect the study of a writing approach . 8. It would seem reasonable that the Functional Method could be modified in order to produce marketable results in a shorter time to help meet the acute shortage of stenographers. ln T946, ten years after the introduction of the Functional Method, lsaacson made a survey of 96 teachers using the Functional Method to determine the changes they had made .35 The maior variations indicated by the group were: 1. Modifications in the reading approach were made by 80 percent of the teachers . There was a tendency toward less open- book dictation. New-matter dictation was introduced earlier before the theory was covered. Writing was begun earlier, thus shortening the time recommended for the reading approach . 2. The use of brief form and theory tests was reported by 83 percent of the teachers . 341333., pp. 447-450. 35Helen l. lsaacson, "The Functional and Traditional Methods of Teaching Gregg Shorthand Combined" (unpublished Master's thesis, Colorado State College, 1946). o 0') '0. D.~ I 29 3. The correction of more papers than advocated by the functional method was reported by 8] percent of the teachers. Some dissatisfaction with the quality of the shorthand written during dictation was noted. 4. The "teaching of rules" was reported by 75 percent of the teachers. It was pointed out that teaching meant the presentation of the rule or principle and did not mean its memorization. 5. Of the teachers surveyed more than half were making changes in Leslie's Nine Points of Difference. The Teaching of Shorthand Theory As was pointed out in the preceding section, the two principal positions which have developed regarding the teaching of shorthand are the manual method and the functional method. The position held by supporters of the manual method is that knowledge of theory is essential and is best obtained through rule presentation . The position held by functional method teachers is that instruction in shorthand competency is best achieved by automatization through extensive reading and spelling of shorthand outlines and extensive dicta- tion. A great deal of the dictation is on familiar practiced material. New- matter dictation is delayed until the students have developed a background on familiar dictation material. As the relationship between theoretically correct shorthand outlines and transcription skill has not been definitely established, Wagoner and others have emphasized the need for further research of this problem. Pertinent studies are reported in support of the theory approach and of the nontheory approach in 363333., pp. 137—140. .... n.‘ . "Ar '- 'n., "V ' ' ’v' I'D 30 the teaching of shorthand.37 Fermenich found the highly significant correlation of .949 between correct shorthand and correct transcription. Outlines which were written cor- rectly were more frequently transcribed correctly. However, the converse was not as significant. The degree of relationship between incorrect shorthand and incorrect transcription was .575, which was significant at the .Ol level. This correlation was not high enough, however, to be considered as a satisfactory predictor. Apparently some outlines which were incorrectly written could be transcribed correctly. There was a correlation of .988, however, between illegible outlines and incorrect or omitted transcript.38 A study of the relationship of symbol mastery and selected dictation speeds was made by Goetz .39 Writing on the importance of shorthand theory, he says: Shorthand is an abbreviated symbol writing system based on the phonetic sounds of the English language. It is based upon principles and rules. Each word is written according to a definite symbol combination . Consequently, it becomes necessary for an individual to respond instantaneously without hesitancy to the spoken word and 37George A. Wagoner, "Improving Efficiency of Teaching Business Subjects--Especially Shorthand, " Journal of Business Education, XXXIX (May, 1964), p. 332. 38William F. Fermenich, "An Analysis of the Relationship Between Applications of Some Principles of Gregg Shorthand Simplified and Errors in Transcription" (unpublished Master's thesis, Mankato State College, 1959). Cited by Ruth Anderson, Secretarial Education With a Future, American Business Educa- tion Association Yearbook (Somerville, N. J.: Somerset Press, 1962), pp. 55-60. 39Leo G. Goetz, "The Relationship Between Symbol Mastery and Selected Dictation Speeds" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of North Dakota , 1966) . 31 then transfer this word into symbol form according to the principles of the system. It appears, that in order to experience success in dictation, thorough mastery of principles and symbols needed to be attained as the learning cycle unfolds. To measure the degree of symbol mastery possessed by each student, word list tests were given both at the beginning and at the end of the second semester to determine whether or not the students in a particular dictation speed range made any improvement during the second semester in regard to symbol mastery. Dicta- tion speed was measured by three-minute tests given at a speed range of 50-l00 words per minute. The highest speed attained by the end of the year determined the student's group classification: Group A (50-60 words a minute), Group B (70-80 words a minute), and Group C (90-lOO words a minute). Pertinent findings and conclusions include the following: i . The correlation of .82 between symbol mastery and dictation speed was highly significant at the .01 level. This indicates that approximately 67 percent of a person's dictation speed may be attributable to symbol mastery. In most cases, therefore, there must be a definite degree of symbol mastery before additional dictation achievement can take place. 2 . Those groups of students who possess the highest dictation speeds also attained the highest degree of symbol mastery. 3 . The difference was greater between Group A and Group B than Group B and Group C with an extremely large difference between Group A and C. All differences were significant at the .01 level. For the maiority of symbols 40%., p. l. 32 measured there is a difference in the degree of symbol mastery also . When com- paring Group A with Group B, 85 of the selected symbols were significant at the .05 level. When comparing Group A with Group C, 93 were significant at the .0] level. When comparing Group B with Group C, 78 were significant at the .05 level. 4. When comparing the group mean symbol mastery achievement on both selected word lists, Group C had a higher mean symbol mastery gain than Group B; Group A had a decrease in mean symbol mastery during the second semester.“ As a result of this study, Goetz recommends that thorough mastery of symbols should be an instructional objective of first-year shorthand . Because the students who attain the higher dictation speeds achieve most of their symbol mastery early, they should be identified at the semester and pushed beyond 100 words a minute. Since there is a decrease in symbol mastery during the second semester for the 50-60 words per minute speed group, these students should be identified; and remedial drills emphasizing all symbols must be given so as to raise their level of symbol mastery."2 Danielson studied the relationship between competency in shorthand vocabulary and achievement in shorthand dictation . She used 120 university stu- dents in the last three courses of the shorthand program . Competency in shorthand vocabulary was determined by administering six word list tests, each composed of 4'l_b_i_r_.l., pp. l-5. 42M' 33 250 words. These 1,500 words were obtained by sampling from the Silverthorn list. For each test, 50 words were selected at random from every 1,000 words. Any correct translation was counted correct. The outlines were not graded; the time taken to complete the transcription was not considered. The highest score that a student attained on these word lists was considered to be his vocabulary index.43 Shorthand dictation achievement was measured by dictating 30 dif- ferent sets of letters, one each week . Each set contained speed groups of 60-130, and each set was three minutes in length . After passing three tests, students were required to go to the next speed level. Danielson found that shorthand vocabulary is significantly related to shorthand dictation achievement. She pointed out that while shorthand vocabulary plays a vital role in achievement of shorthand dicta- tion, it is only one of the many factors involved. Pullis investigated the relationship between shorthand accuracy and achievement in shorthand dictation .44 He specifically sought to determine: 1. Relationship between the ability of a student to write accurate shorthand outlines and his ability to transcribe the outline. 2. Relationship between the ability of a student to transcribe shorthand outlines and his achievement in shorthand dictation. 43Harriet Ann Danielson, "The Relationship Between Competency in Shorthand Vocabulary and Achievement in Shorthand Dictation" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Indiana University, 1959). 44Joe M. Pullis, "Relationship Between Accuracy and Achievement in Shorthand" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, North Texas State University, 1966) . 34 3 . Relationship between a student's I. Q . and (a) ability to write accurate shorthand outlines, (b) ability to transcribe outlines and (c) achievement in shorthand dictation. The study sample included 135 students enrolled in four levels of shorthand instruction at North Texas State University. The major sources of data used were the results of word list tests given to each class at three-week intervals beginning with the ninth week of the semester. Both the shorthand outlines and subsequent transcription were graded . Three-minute nonpreviewed dictation tests were given weekly beginning with the twelfth week. The dictation rates ranged from 50 to 140 words per minute. In brief, the maior findings of this study were as follows: (Relationship between accuracy and dictation) The coefficient of correlation between shorthand accuracy and shorthand dictation was .8326, which was significant at better than the .05 level. The coefficient of determination indicated that approximately 69 percent of the achievement in shorthand dictation was directly associated with shorthand accuracy. (Relationship between shorthand accuracy and transcription) The value of the coefficient of correlation between shorthand accuracy and transcription was .9305, which was significant at better than the .05 level. The coefficient of determination indicated that approximately 87 percent of the student's ability to transcribe isolated shorthand outlines was directly associated with shorthand accuracy. (Relationship between shorthand transcription and dictation) The value of the coefficient of correlation between shorthand transcription and dictation was .8056, which was significant at better than the .05 level. The coefficient of determination indicated that approximately 65 percent of the achievement in shorthand dictation was directly associated with the student's ability to transcribe isolated shorthand outlines. It should be remembered that approximately 87 45-bit, p. 25. 35 percent of the student's ability to transcribe shorthand outlines was directly associated with shorthand accuracy. In a study similar to Fermenich's but based on the Jubilee Series of Gregg Shorthand, Klaseus found that correctly written shorthand outlines were transcribed correctly 96.1 percent of the time as compared with inaccurate short- hand forms which were transcribed correctly 58.8 percent of the time.47 Jester's study on transcription revealed that while inaccurate short- hand outlines did not necessarily result in inaccurate transcripts, they did cause greater hesitancy in transcription and thereby reduced transcription rate.48 Berle Haggblade investigated the relationship that exists between selected factors and achievement in shorthand.49 Tests were given to 232 fourth- semester shorthand students in 13 central California high schools. The factors examined in terms of possible influence on shorthand achievement were as follows: 1. Ability to Write Theoretically Correct Shorthand Outlines for the High Frequency Words 2. Ability to Write Theoretically Correct Shorthand Outlines for the Brief Forms 3 . Phrasing Ability “Hit, pp. 27-28. 47Richard C. Klaseus, "An Analysis of Some of the Factors that Contribute to the Difficulty of Transcription Materials in Gregg Shorthand, Diamond Jubilee Series" (unpublished Master's thesis, Mankato State College, 1964), p. 94. 48Don Jester, "A Time Study of the Shorthand Transcription Process" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Northwestern University, 1959), pp. 130-133. 49Berle Haggblade, " Factors Affecting Achievement in Shorthand" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of California, 1965) . 36 4. Quality of Shorthand Penmanship 5. Dictation-taking Speed 6. Ability to Write Theoretically Correct Shorthand Outlines for Words Falling Outside the High Frequency List 7. Typewriting Speed 8. Typewriting Accuracy 9. Transcription Speed 10. Transcription Accuracy50 The selected factors were designated as either internal or external. The internal factors were measured by examining the shorthand notes students wrote in .recording the criterion test of achievement. The theoretical shorthand accuracy of their shorthand outlines and the quality of their shorthand penmanship were determined. The external factors were measured by calculating the scores students received on separate tests designed to determine dictation-taking speed, speed and accuracy at typewriting and transcription, and shorthand reading ability. The significant findings pertaining to this phase of the study are summarized below: The ability to write theoretically correct shorthand outlines for the 5,000 words used most frequently showed the highest correlation, .76923, with shorthand achievement of any of the shorthand factors studied . This correlation suggests that there is a significant relationship between achievement in shorthand and the ability to write shorthand outlines according to the rules of Gregg theory. 501333., pp. 104-105. 37 The coefficient of determination, .5917, indicates that 59 percent of the variance in the shorthand achievement score was accounted for by this one factor.5' The findings of this study tend to support those reported by Danielson in her study of the relationship between competency in shorthand vocabulary and achievement in shorthand dictation. Danielson concluded "that shorthand vocabu- lary is significantly related to shorthand dictation achievement but that it is only one of the many factors involved."52 In commenting on the importance of theoretically correct shorthand, Anderson states: " . . . it matters a great deal how the outline is written if it affects the student's rate of recording dictation and the accuracy of transcript."53 The research studies reviewed thus far tend to emphasize the principles of shorthand and their application to writing. The next section is concerned with the views of the writers who believe that shorthand does not have to be perfect to be functional. It is recog- nized that secretaries do a satisfactory iob of transcribing even when their notes are not entirely perfect. Proponents of the nontheory approach to shorthand question the need for emphasizing theoretical accuracy of shorthand notes. Research in support of this position follows: 5'_l_b_i_d., p. 84. 52Danielson,_op. cit” p. 85. 53Ruth 1. Anderson, "Significant Implications of Research in Short- hand and Transcription," Secretarial Education with a Future, American Business Education Yearbook, 1962, p. 59. 38 Phillips and Saunders, King, and Lockwood found that shorthand notes only 71 percent accurate would produce transcripts that were at least 95 percent correct .54 Lusk sought to discover whether the theoretical accuracy of short- hand outlines written from dictation affected a student's ability to transcribe the outlines.55 Seven first-year classes, containing a total of 161 students from four different schools, were included in the study. Four five-minute dictation tests, two at 60 and two at 80, were given to determine shorthand achievement. The shorthand notes were analyzed to ascertain the degree of correct theory application . Incorrectly written shorthand outlines were classified into one of the following categories: incorrect outline, omitted outline, proportion, illegible outline, wrong outline, longhand in notes, transposed outline, and added outline . Categories were not established for line placement or phrasing . Transcription errors were classified into four categories: incorrectly transcribed word, omitted word, transposed word, and added word. Punctuation, spelling,and paragraphing were not considered in the analysis. Lusk found that students who passed the dictation (transcribed at 95 percent accuracy) wrote ap- proximately 70 percent of the outlines correctly. This should be understood to 54Herbert Tonne, Estelle Popham, and M. Herbert Freeman, Methods of Teaching Business SubLects (2d. ed.; New York: Gregg Publishing Division, McGraw-Hill Book Wmny, Inc., 1957), p. 141, citing the research by Phillips and Saunders, King, and Lockwood. 55Norman M. Lusk, "A Study of the Comparison Between Construc- tion of Shorthand Outlines According to Theory and the Accuracy of Transcrip- tion" (unpublished Master's thesis, University of Washington, 1959) . 39 mean that the students who were successful on the test were able to transcribe accurately all but 5 percent of the dictation even though 30 percent of the shorthand outlines were inaccurately written . Those who failed the dictation (transcribed at less than 95 percent) wrote approximately 50 percent of the outlines correctly. The investigator's conclusion was that the low percentage of transcription errors by students who passed the dictation was an indication that emphasis upon the writing of theoretically correct shorthand outlines may have little relationship to facility in transcription. In a study of the effect of inaccuracies in shorthand outlines on transcription, Peters found that the coefficient of rank correlation between incorrect shorthand outlines and incorrect transcription was .381 indicating significance at the .05 level. From his study he concluded that a student may department from correct theory in the writing of shorthand outlines and still retain enough of the form to enable him to transcribe with a fair degree of accuracy.57 Haggblade's study, however, does not support Peters' findings that a student may 58 possibly write incorrect shorthand outlines and still transcribe with accuracy. Hillestad analyzed the errors made in recording dictation as a means of isolating factors which might contribute to the difficulty of dictation material. She found that application of shorthand principles accounted for only 15 percent “'29. 57Robert Peters, "Effect of Inconsistencies in Shorthand on Transcription'I (unpublished Master's thesis, Mankato State College, 1958), pp. 36-42. 58Haggblade,_o_p. c_i_t., pp. 104-107. 40 of the errors made in transcription . However, the correlation between vocabulary level and the number of errors was .81 . This means that over 65 percent of what- ever causes errors in recording shorthand is accounted for by the vocabulary level. Therefore, it would appear that more emphasis should be given to the principles of word construction .59 Klein found hesitancy before and within outlines to be the main dif- ference between the writing of experts and that of students. Too much emphasis on absolute accuracy of shorthand outlines, he concluded, may result in hesitant writing.60 Strong support of the nontheory approach in the learning of shorthand is found in the writings of the inventors of Gregg shorthand. In his early writing and teaching, Gregg appears to have favored a science-type approach to short- hand learning. However, later in his career his attitude changed. This is re- flected in his writing regarding shorthand rules when he said: " . . . When I first taught shorthand, I, too, made much ado about rules. Then gradually I began to do less and less with them. The less I did, the more fluent became the writing of 61 my students." He believed that the learner should know the reason for practice 59Mildred Hillestad, "Factors Which Contribute to the Difficulty of Dictation Material" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1960) . 6C)Abraham Klein, "Variations in the Speed of Writing of Symbol Combinations in Gregg Shorthand" (New York University, 1949), p. 292. 6'Harm Harms and B. W. Stehr, Methods in Vocational Business Education (Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western Publishing Company, 1963), p. 152. 41 and understand the principles to which his practice applied. In 1916, he wrote that a practical understanding of the application of a rule is vastly more important than a knowledge of the exact wording. For years he emphasized that shorthand was easily learned from the shorthand outlines as they were given without question- ing the exact way each form should be written . Leslie, as well as Zoubek, considered attention to outline construc- tion or analysis of shorthand forms as detrimental. Awareness of outline detail, F they insist, focuses attention on the mechanical aspects of writing and prevents one from acquiring skill in the art of writing. In interpreting what happens when [ conscious attention is given to the writing of shorthand outlines, psychologists point out that attention causes a difference in the movements of skill which may result either in improvement or impairment of the skill. Leslie, however, argues that conscious direction always tends to impair or to inhibit the skill. Leslie frequently emphasized the idea thatproper handling of initial diffuse movements or irradiation will greatly shorten the period of skill learning . It is characteristic of all motor skill learning that the learning process starts with a period of slow, awkward performance. The teacher's task during this stage is to be patient and to provide encouragement. Leslie maintains that insistence on perfectt performance from the beginning of each level of skill learning is contra- dictory to the natural performance of early learning. Emphasis on theoretical correctness serves only to reduce the likelihood that the outline will be con- structed with sufficient speed to be of any practical value. Although this point is strongly argued, Leslie insists that the shorthand outline seldom has any effect on legibility. Emphasis on premature perfection hampers the acquisition of skill. 42 Leslie and Zoubeck disapprove of the use of shorthand rules in learning shorthand by saying that "at no time, in any way, for any reason, should the lean rner be given any reason to suppose that shorthand rules exist."62 It might appear that shorthand outlines which are written by students who have not been fought to write according to rules would differ from book outlines. Leslie indi- ca fes that this is not the case. An investigation by Rudolph reveals that writers who know the rules actually made more theoretical errors under stress of dictation 63 the n writers who do not know the rules but who have autornatized their writing. The principle that rules are relatively unimportant in the learning of shorthand appears to have psychological support.64 Thompson, Gardner and Di Vesta sic: fez Understanding and control develop slowly and attempt to give long-winded, involved, detailed explanations or demonstrations, espe- cially at the beginning, are worse than useless. Trials are the chief sources of data for improvements in the pupil's skill . Practice helps to reinforce the more useful behaviors and to eliminate the inappropriate, less efficient ones. The teacheri's function is that of directing attention to the essential features of the activity. 62Louis A . Leslie, Methods of Teaching Gregg Shorthand (New York: Gregg Publishing Division, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1953), p. 114. '3 63Sister M. Clemens Rudolph, "An Investigation of the Errors Made R y Sfudents of the Functional Method of Gregg Shorthand and a Comparison of es}, Its With Those of the Manual Method Students" (unpublished Master's thesis, h ' Versity of Notre Dame, 1942) . “Lb??- A 65George G. Thompson, et al., Educational Psychology (New York: pp'eton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1959), p. 370. ¥ -.o m- .‘zM'J—w ' l' u- ' 1 "- :- 43 Writing on this same point Lawther states: As quickly as the beginner can get the general idea of the act, he should begin his practice trials and revisions. These first individual movements he makes are only partially identified, if at all. They are continaully adjusted and changed, anyway, as learning progresses. Only the gross errors need corrections at this stage; minor errors are unimportant. The teacher should avoid detailed verbal explanations in the early stages. Word explanations have very little meaning for the beginning learner of a motor skill. In a study of the influence of knowledge of mechanical principles on th e learning of motor skills, Colville found: 1 . There was no evidence that instruction concerning mechanical principles utilized in the performance of a motor skill facilitates the initial learning of the skill to any greater extent than an equivalent amount of time spent in practicing the skill. 2. There was no evidence that such knowledge facilitates sub- sequent learning as evidenced in the performance of a similar or more complicated skill to which the same principle is applicable.67 While Leslie and Zoubek question the value of conscious knowledge of ru les, their frequent mention of unverbalized generalization apparently indi- COI’es the need for some knowledge of the shorthand system. While unverbalized generalizations may not always result in accurate outlines, they appear to assist the Writer in making legible outlines which can be transcribed correctly. The teacher's role, according to Leslie, is that of providing the learn er with a good model for imitation and trying to keep the learner from Ono l)’2ing and verbalizing . The most important objective of shorthand learning is \ Ch 66John D. Lawther, " Learning Motor Skills," Educational Psychology, 1 9 cries Skinner, Editor (4th ed.; Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 5'9‘) . p. 505. by 67Frances M. Colville, "The Learning of Motor Skills as Influenced X L6 r‘owIedge of Mechanical Principles," The Journal of Educational Psychology, " (October, 1957), pp. 321-327. ...-.11. the a bility to construct rapidly a legible shorthand outline for any word in the Eng I ish language. The less the learner is conscious of the mechanical details of the skill, the more effectively he will be able to accomplish this obiective. Another controversial aspect of theory instruction is concerned with the proper time to introduce new-matter dictation. From the extensive research 68 on fh is issue, the Mc Kenna and Persing69 dissertations were selected for review. Mc Kenna sought to discover whether students taking new-matter dic fation early in their training would achieve greater success in taking dictation and franscribing at the end of twenty weeks of instruction than students who were i taught by the language-arts method in which no new-matter dictation was intro- duc ecl during the period when theory was being learned . In an experimental study conducted at Michigan State University, MC Kenna used students in the winter and spring classes of beginning shorthand. In fhe section taught using the science-type method, new-matter dictation was 'nTrOduced beginning with the eighth class period. The dictation consisted of a shori’ letter containing a few words which the students had never read or written befo re but which they should have been able to construct from the shorthand pFENC iples previously covered . Selected words from the Silverthorn 1500-word " 3" <=I no! other less common words constituted the "new words" which were used \ of 68Margaret Mc Kenna, "An Experimental Comparison of Two Methods v Teaching Shorthand" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State Uni- ersity, 1955). B - 69Bobbye Sorrels Persing, "A Classroom Investigation of When to dig ' '1 New-Matter Dictation in Gregg Shorthand" (unpublished Doctor's serfation, The University of Oklahoma, 1966). ¥ 45 in the dictation letters. While the letters were not previewed, they were post- v iewed by the teacher who placed the outlines of the new words as well as others on the blackboard. The letter was then dictated a second time. Two theory tests and a series of dictated letters constituted the criteria for determining possible d ifferences in the two sections . The findings of the study were: F ‘ 5'1: k.- 1 . There was no statistically significant difference between the ac h ievement of the two groups on the dictation tests or on the theory tests. Also, fh ere was no difference between the two groups on the number of shorthand or trc: nscription errors made on those tests. 2 . Transcription achievement as measured by the dictation tests cor- re lated with knowledge of theory as measured by the word tests in each section and in the two sections combined.7o Based on these findings, the conclusions drawn were: 1 . That the early introduction of new-matter dictation does not result in an increase in the ability to take and accurately transcribe new-matter dictation material as measured by the existing departmental standards at Michigan State University. 2. That the early introduction of new-matter dictation does not, as claimed by some experts, retard the students in their ability to take and transcribe new-matter dictation material as measured by the existing departmental standards at Michigan State University. 3 . That students taught by the functional method in which no emphasis is given to the principles of outline construction do not differ in knowledge of shorthand theory as measured by word tests from the students taught by a science-type approach in which rules and the principles of outline construction are discussed . \ 70McKenna, fl. c_it., pp. 53-54; Abstract. 46 4. That there is a relationship between transcription achievement as measured by the ability to take dictation and transcribe accurately and knowledge of theory as measured by word lists.71 An experiment similar to McKenna's was conducted by Bobbye Persing at Central State College, Edmond, Oklahoma, during three semesters in 1964- I 965. Comparative groups, involving a total of 91 students, were randomly es- fa b I ished and were determined, through chisquare testing, to be equal (.05 level), " measured by ages, collegiate grade point averages, and ACT composite and Eng I ish national percentile rankings. The groups were taught and tested in iden- tical I fashion except for the early and continued training in new-matter dictation i For one of the groups. The results showed that there was no significant difference ( .05 level) in achievement in theory, familiar-matter dictation and new-matter 72 d ic fotion . Persing concluded that because the new-matter dictation debate may be much ado about an issue yielding opposing, yet validly equivalent and counter- ba I(arming arguments, the recommendation is that each shorthand teacher should be aware of the merits of the arguments and employ in optimum manner those pro- cedu res which prove pragmatically best for him.73 Work Preparation A review of the literature on shorthand homework preparation 71.2,} 72Persing, 3p._c_1_1., pp. 100-105. 73553., p. 105. 47 re vealed marked variation in the opinions of business educators regarding home- work practice. While it is not possible to identify each practice with a specific method, certain practices may be associated with the functional method and other practices tend to be followed by the manual method supporters. All of the authorities agreed that homework should be regular and we I I planned and that the techniques for doing homework should be taught in c lass. Harms and Stehr indicate the importance of preparing students for home- wo rI< by recommending that assignments should be an essential part of the daily c Iassroom plan and should tie in with the major and minor obiectives of the cou rse .74 The Functional Method .--The homework during the early stages of the course differs with the approach used. According to Leslie, the reading ap- Proach is the best means of producing all the learning outcomes which are de- SIrc‘lble at this stage. He recommends that the reading approach be followed for The first twenty assignments. With the aid of the key the learner spells and reads The Words and connected matter aloud once, spelling aloud any outline that causes he$ifction in reading.75 In the following quotation, Harms and Stehr show the v0 IUe of spelling: Although it may be difficult to find the exact psychological principle undergirding this concept, there seems to be something in the spelling aloud of the shorthand words in the beginning stages of the course that conditions the organism to the fluent writing of \ 74Harms and Stehr, 2p. c_it., p. 149. 75Leslie,_o_;_)._c_it., p. 89. 48 sounds according to certain principles found later in the course. . . . Spelling aloud in the proper setting, with the proper asso- ciation, does facilitate the writing from sound and does pay dividends later when the student is required to take new-matter dictation . Advocates of the reading approach believe that problem solving should not be a part of the homework . When reading contextual material, the lea rner should be encouraged to use the printed key often so that he does not lose ti me in figuring out the outlines. Leslie asserts that the primary reason for un- sa‘l’ isfactory homework in the functional method is failure to obtain from the key the full advantage that is intended. The proper procedure for using the key, known as reading with two fingers, is described as: . . the only technique of using the key that will enable the pupils to complete the homework assignment in a reasonable length of time with the symptoms of learning that may properly be expected and demanded at this stage of the learning process. . . . The index finger of the left hand is put under each shorthand outline as it is read. When it is necessary to consult the key, the finger of the left hand is left planted firmly under the shorthand outline that the learner was unable to read . The index finger of the right hand is kept firmly planted under the last word that was consulted in the key. Thus, as the learner turns back to the key, his finger is still under the last previous word for which he looked--seldom more than a line or so away from the new word for which he is looking. Therefore, very little time is wasted looking for the word in the key. When the learner turns back from the key to the shorthand page, he finds his finger still firmly planted under the shorthand outline. Therefore, he is able to locate the place and to continue reading in a second or two.77 The standard homework assignment after writing has been introduced 76Harms and Stehr, _loi. c_it. 77Leslie, pp. 53., pp. 104-105. 49 consists of reading the lesson, then copying the entire lesson once, saying each word aloud as it is written . Leslie maintains that the most effective practice, minu te for minute, is the copying of large amounts of graded connected material onc e . According to Leslie and Zoubek, the more shorthand material the learner reads and copies, the more rapidly skill will develop. Benefits ascribed to this p rac tice are that: 1. It reinforces learning of the shorthand principle presented in the assignment; 2 It provides a continuous, automatic review of word-building principles and abbreviating devices presented in previous assignments . 3. It impresses on the learner's mind the correct ioining of the alphabetic strokes in many different combinations; and 4. It exposes the learner to an ever-expanding business vocabu- lary.78 Since it is believed that re-creation rather than mere repetition is the cause of learning, the learner is asked to write only the connected material. There is some evidence to indicate that merely repeating an outline is of little Va '08 and that the maximum benefit results from having to re-create the outline 'n ”We mind each time that it occurs in the various contexts of the lesson. Leslie says that the ability to construct an outline for any word is ‘3fo ined by practicing outlines for thousands of different words to obtain the \ G 78Louis A. Leslie and Charles E. Zoubek, Instructor's Handbook for WShorthand Functional Method, Diamond Jubilee Series (New York: c <3raw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1965), pp. 2-3. 79Louis A. Leslie, "Fallacies in Teaching Shorthand, 1-4," cation World, XXX (February, 1951), pp. 303-305. WHO ¥ 50 :test familiarity with the sound and symbol combinations of the language. In 'ing, the repetition of the shorthand outline in constantly different contextual erials aids in forming the pattern of response and perception .80 Tonne, Popham, and Freeman agree with Leslie that extensive copy- of connected material is better than repetitive, intensive copying of connected arial .81 Many years ago Rowe indicated the importance of copying shorthand es for homework practice. He recommends that the student preview through ling until he knows all outlines, and only then should he proceed to copy the es . The student will learn more by copying six pages of assigned plate 82 arials once than he will by copying two pages three times. The Manual Method.--Homework assignments given by teachers who >w the science-type approach vary widely. Dry and Dry favor a reading ap- ch during the first three days and introduce writing as part of the homework ‘ the fourth lesson.83 This approach to reading conflicts with the Teacher's ibaok for the Gregg Shorthand Manual which suggests that reading be con- :d for the first two weeks of beginning shorthand . A typical assignment might > read and copy once or twice each word appearing in the list at the beginning 801.55 8lTonne, Popham, and Freeman, _o_p. 53., p. 170- 82John L. Rowe, "Shorthand Practice, " Business Education World, lcnuary, 1931), p. 26. 83Samuel W. and Nellie Ellison Dry, Teaching Gregg Shorthand Transcription, A Practice Approach (Portland, Maine: J . Weston Walch, )I p. 8., 51 of the lesson . A variation might be to write once or twice each second or third word in the word list. Condon believes that greater emphasis should be placed on writing theory words. He says that: Currently the practice of intensive writing of theory word lists is looked upon unfavorably. It is debatable, however, whether the usual reading and copy practice is sufficient to insure the desired mastery. Many students will benefit from a more intensive writing of those lists. Such practice should not be too time-consuming. It should 3:. be done rapidly and with purpose. . . . Writing several repetitions of ' two or three words successively is probably preferable to the practice 5 of iust repeating each word several times individually. For one thing, 7 it demands attention . Repetition is worthwhile only so long as atten- tion is maintained. . . . At the end of such practice, the student _ should give himself a self-test by writing the entire list once, using ' I the key as a stimulus, and then check his outlines with the plate and do any necessary remedial practice. Homework assignments on the connected material of each lesson also vary from requiring that all the connected material be written once to having a small amount written repetitively. A number of writers support the practice of self-dictation . Condon believes in teaching students the self-dictation technique to make their practice work of the most value. He says that it is not necessary that the student know how rapidly he is talking . The goal is for the student to do repetitive practice of a phrase, a clause, or whole sentence until he can keep up with his normal speaking voice .85 Wagoner also believes that homework should be from self-dictation instead of mere copying . This procedure requires the student to read aloud, 84Condon,_cla._c_i_t_., p. 137. 85%. 52 looking at a portion of a sentence and re-creating these outlines in the notebook from oral stimulus.86 Another recommended procedure is that of translating from the printed key into shorthand. In commenting on this practice, Pearlis says: " . . . translating from print into shorthand requires a knowledge of shorthand, re- quires a great amount of thought, and develops the ability to construct new 1187 words. There is considerable disagreement regarding this practice. Leslie expresses his disapproval of writing from a printed key in these words: Copying from print into shorthand is not only of little value; it is definitely harmful to the learner. The one prime requisite of good shorthand teaching and learning is that every teaching and learning procedure should contribute to fluent and rapid writing . Anything that contributes to hesitation in writing should be avoided. No one factor in shorthand teaching contributes more to the develop- ment of a hesitating style of shorthand writing than copying from print into shorthand. The learner working on his homework is writing at his leisure. When he comes to a word presenting some shorthand dif- ficulty, he will stop and think it over. He will consider the various possibilities, hoping to strike upon the best outline. Nothing can be more harmful and more opposed to correct shorthand learning . It is much better that he learn to write any outline instantly than that he learn to write the best possible outline after some hesi- tation. After reading, therefore, copying should be from printed shorthand .88 Because copying contextual material from shorthand plates may be- come a monotonous repetitive practice, Condon suggests the following various methods for students to use in homework practice: 86Wagoner,gp. c_i_t., p. 332. 87Lillian Pearlis, "Effective Homework in Shorthand," Balance Sheet, XXXIX (November, 1957), p. 132. 88Leslie, Methods of Teaching Gregg Shorthand,fi>. c_i_t., p. 7. 53 1 . The whole sentence copy method . The students should read one sentence from the shorthand plate and then write the sentence from memory. Each sentence is taken in this manner until the entire take has been read and written . The students then repeat once or twice, trying to write more rapidly on each successive writing . 2. The time copy method. The students time themselves with an ordinary watch or clock for two or more successive timings on a given portion of the material. If properly used, this encourages repetitive writing and fluent writing style . 3 . The sentence repetitive method. The student reads an entire sentence (in the case of a very long sentence, a clause) until he can repeat it from memory. He then writes it slowly enough to ensure read- ability. He then repeats the sentence three times, each time striving to write faster. If he is really pushing for speed, his outlines show some evidence of pressure . He writes the sentence one more time, slowing down iust enough to ensure legible outlines. This same procedure is followed for all the sentences in the take. 4. The student reads a sentence from the shorthand plate . He then writes the sentence in his notebook . This process is continued until he completes a paragraph . He then reads his own notes from the entire take until he can read as fluently as from print. He reads (aloud if feasible) at a moderate reading rate and traces his notes, forcing his hand to keep up with his voice. He repeats this reading and tracing process four times, and his final dictation-reading should be at least as fast as his normal Speaking rate . 5. The scribble-writing method. The student reads and rereads a shorthand paragraph until he can read it with considerable fluency. He then self-dictates at a normal reading rate. He writes the sen- tences on one line in the notebook, keeping eyes on the shorthand plate, while reading and writing . He occasionally drops down to an- other line so as not to wear a hole in the paper. He repeats this about four times forcing his dictation rate to a high Speed . 6 . The bUiId-up method . The student reads two or three words or a short phrase, then he writes the section several times. He reads another small section and writes it several times. He then combines the two sec- tions and writes several times. He continues adding a section, writing and combining until the entire sentence has been practiced . He continues with each of the remaining sentences in the paragraph . 7. The line-skip method. After the usual reading practice the student writes a paragraph or letter in shorthand, but skips 3 to 5 lines between each line of writing . He then reads his own notes and writes the shorthand from self-dictation on the first blank line. He continues to take self-dictation for each of the remaining blank lines, striving to write more rapidly on each repetition.89 Studies made by Clevenger90 and Crandall9' are two of the few ex- perimental investigations on methods of studying shorthand. Earl Clevenger com- pared matched groups of students--one group emphasized reading (Plan A) in preparing the daily assignments and the other group emphasized writing (Plan B). The two groups were subdivided on the basis of ability in order to compare the work of the best students with that of the average, and below average students. The major findings include: 1 . Shorthand achievement scores made by students in the upper third of the classes showed that Plan A students excelled Plan B students by six points. In the middle third of the class, Plan B students exceeded Plan A students by four points, and in the lowest third Plan A exceeded Plan B students by four points. 2 . At the end of the study, students were asked to give their opinions of the two plans of study. The students making the better grades pre- ferred to use Plan A while those making the lower grades preferred Plan B. The study appears to indicate that "the student who studies the entire lesson by writing 89Condon,_<_>_p._c_i_t_., pp. 147-148. 90Earl Clevenger, "How Do You Study Shorthand," The Journal of Business Education, Xll (January, 1937), pp. 21-22. 9'Lars G . Crandall, "An Experimental Determination of the Merits of Two Methods of Studying Shorthand--Reading as Against Writing Shorthand Out- lines" (unpublished Master's thesis, Brigham Young University, 1945). 55 each character only once (reading approach) has a more effective means of study- ing shorthand than the student who writes an outline several times (manual method) before studying the next outline."92 Since only 19 pairs of students were included in the study, no definite conclusions should be drawn. Crandall also investigated the relative merits of practicing shorthand exercises by reading and by writing . He found that pupils who practiced the exercises solely by reading increased in the rate of writing more rapidly than pupils who practiced by copying . Pupils who practiced shorthand by copying were more accurate than the pupils who practiced by reading . Eighty-four percent of the pupils preferred to practice shorthand outlines by writing than by reading .93 Summary Part of this chapter has presented both the theory and the nontheory position with regard to the fundamental principles of shorthand and their appli- cation to shorthand learning. The research on the teaching of shorthand theory revealed marked variations in the emphasis on accuracy and the degree of accuracy required in the application of shorthand principles. While a case for the theory as well as for the nontheory approach can be made, the majority of shorthand teachers find a com- bination of the manual and the functional approach preferable to the use of either method alone . 92Clevenger, _I_<->_c_. c_i_t., p. 69. 93Crandall, _o_p . £1_t . ll. Literature Concerned With Shorthand Success The literature reveals the early and continued interest of researchers in determining the specific factor or factors which contribute to success in short- hand. Among the variables which have been studied are intelligence, scholastic achievement, English grades, foreign languages, typewriting, reading ability, and personal characteristics. The majority of the studies on shorthand have been concerned with prognosis. From their comprehensive reviews, both Anderson94 and Frink95 found that none of the shorthand prognostic tests could be used as a single predictor. While many of the studies showed contradictory results, a number of investigators found that English marks, school achievement, and foreign language grades are among the best measures yet found to predict success or failure in shorthand. Tschider summarized the research on prognosis from 1914 to 1960. In agreement with Anderson and Frink, she found that a battery of tests is more effective for prediction than a single test?6 With regard to further study, she recommended that: 94Anderson, o_p_. c_it., pp. 733-735. 95Frink, _o_p.c_it., p. 40. 96Irene R. Tschider, "A History of Selected Studies in Shorthand Prognosis from 1914 to 1960" (unpublished Master's thesis, University of North Dakota, 1960), p. 82. 57 1 . More research should be conducted on standard instruments which predict ability in shorthand. 2. Additional investigations should be conducted using four or five factors as criteria rather than using a single factor in the prediction of shorthand achievement. 97 Missling investigated the predictive efficiency of the Turse Shorthand Aptitude, the Henmann-Nelson Test of Mental Maturity, grades in all high school courses excluding English grades and typewriting grades. In her study of two be- ginning shorthand classes, she obtained correlations of .51 and .54 between the Turse Aptitude Test and shorthand achievement. The highest correlations were between shorthand grades for each year and the average high school grades in all subjects exclusive of English . The correlation for Class 1 for the first year was .74; for Class 2, .73. The correlation for Class 2 for the second year was .67.98 With regard to these findings, Frink noted that coefficients of .74, .73, and .67 would seem to indicate that students doing a good job in their high school courses have usually developed good work habits and are likely to succeed in shorthand .99 Hunt investigated the degree of relationship between the Education Research Corporation Stenographic Aptitude Test as well as other factors and achievement in first-year shorthand . The other factors considered were: high 9711511., p. 87. 98Lorraine Missling, "Prognostic Testing in Shorthand" (unpublished Seminar report, University of Wisconsin, 1954), p. 81 . 99Frink,_<3p. git” p. 230. 1 17"". 1 3‘ IV In" ( I ‘1 gr» 1 i v Ht" 1 . I.t o, Idea :2- » a l: 1' (I) C. (D Fat-j, Uh. i""’rp f V H . 2:: e: fr." 5’, 1 58 school average, previous shorthand instruction, English Placement Test Percentile rank, General Aptitude Percentile rank, average of all college subjects prior to enrolling in shorthand, total hours of college credit prior to enrolling in short- hand, and averages of grades in first-year English . Evaluative criteria were mail- able letters, speed, and final grade. The sample included a total of 400 students enrolled at the University of Tennessee. Although not statistically significant, th e General Aptitude Test percentile rank ( .553) was found to be the best pre- dictor of shorthand success. Hunt suggests that this correlation may indicate that shorthand ability is not separate from general ability to learn . '00 The correlations obtained by Hunt between college average and final ach ievement in the first (.420); second, (.459), and third, (.299) quarter of sho rthand do not support the recommendation made by Jones'O' in another study, 1110 1- college average be considered as a factor in predicting achievement in short- '10 nd. In a prognostic study on the university level, Jones found a correlation of .499 between final achievement and General Aptitude Percentile rank. Hunt found a correlation of .497 between the E. R. C. Stenographic AID" itude Test and final achievement in shorthand. With respect to the findings of '1‘ i 5 study, she recommended that the E. R . C. as well as the other factors not be looLillian Alice Hunt, "The Use of the ERC Stenographic Aptitude 1931‘ and Other Selected Factors for Prediction of Achievement in First-Year S"Orthand" (unpublished Master's thesis, University of Tennessee, 1954), pp. 80- 10' Lena Ruth Jones, "Prognosis of Shorthand Achievement at the U" i versity Level" (unpublished Master's thesis, University of Tennessee, 1951). 59 used for predictive purposes. '02 Whittle studied the relationship between student achievement in first- semester shorthand and the following factors: 1. High school grades (English, foreign language, general scholastic average) 2. Attendance record in high school 3. Quartile rank in high school grade or class 4. The University of Texas Admission Test score (verbal, numerical, total) 5. The University of Texas English Placement Test scores (Reading Comprehension, English Unit Examination) 6. I. Q. scores 7. Each student's reason for electing shorthand'03 Whittle found that the University of Texas Admission Test score (total) yielding a coefficient of .759 indicated a rather significant degree of relation- ship to shorthand achievement. The general scholastic average of high school grades had a correlation of .586. The investigator found no single variable by which shorthand success can be predicted accurately. The five factors (University of Texas Aptitude Test scores, English Unit Examination of the University of Texas Placement Test score, high school grades, scholastic averages and the reason for electing shorthand) was found to be sufficiently related to success in beginning lozHunt, ES: c_1t . 'oaMarie Whittle, "The Relationship Between Certain Variables and AChievement in Beginning Shorthand at the University of Texas" (unpublished Master's thesis, University of Texas, 1959), pp. 3-6. 60 shorthand as to be of value in the shorthand guidance program at the University 104 of Texas. Pauk's study compared the predictive efficiency of the subtests of the Turse Shorthand Aptitude Test. He also included the ACE Psychological Examina- tion for High School Students as a predictor of shorthand success. He found that the four verbal subtests of the Turse combined predicted shorthand much better than did the combined three mechanics of shorthand subtests (.66 vs . .34) . The verbal subtests individually or in combination predict shorthand with the same proficiency (.56 to .66) as the total Turse test (.63) . The L-Score of the ACE predicts shorthand as well as the total Turse test (.63 vs. .63) .105 A prognostic study by Sanders included among other variables the ACE as a predictor of shorthand achievement .106 She found: (1) that there was no relationship between what was achieved in shorthand classes in high school and what was achieved later, (2) that there was no relationship between years of prior shorthand experience and ACE Percentile rank, and (3) that there is a signi- ficant relationship between ACE Percentile rank and achievement in college shorthand classes . '07 104'.b_lf.l' '05Walter Pauk, "What is the Best Way to Predict Success in Short- hand," Business Education World, LXlll (April, 1963), pp. 7-8, 34. '06Celene Honeycutt Sanders, "A Study of the Relationship Between Certain Radford College Students' ACE Scores, Years of Shorthand in High School and Achievement in Shorthand" (unpublished Master's thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1962). 107113??- in! IV c D a! '1 'Fl '5 ‘v‘ 61 Veon investigated the relation of learning factors found in certain modern foreign language aptitude tests to the prediction of shorthand achievement in college. The study extended over three years and included 299 shorthand stu- dents at the George Washington University. In conducting the study, Veon used the following tests: 'American Council on Education Psychological Examination for College Freshmen; Iowa Placement Examination, Foreign Language Aptitude; Symond's Foreign Language Prognosis Test; Luria-Orleans Modern Language Prognosis Test; Carmichael's Shorthand Learning Test, Semester 1 . The Carmichael Test was used as the criterion of shorthand achievement. '08 The findings revealed the following correlations for selected prognostic factors with the shorthand criterion of achievement: The Iowa Placement Examination's Forei n Lan ua e 9 9 9 Aptitude Test, Form M .6374 The Symond's Foreign Language Prognosis Test .7192 The Luria-Orleans Modern Language Prognosis Test .3165 The American Council on Education Psychological Examination for College Freshmen .5102'09 The multiple correlation was found to be .5421 . Although the combination of tests used in this study may not be of value for prediction purposes, some of the subtests revealed somewhat significant correlations. Lang investigated the relationship between factors considered to be 108Dorothy Helene Veon, "The Relationship of Learning Factors Found in Certain Modern Foreign Language Aptitude Tests to the Prediction of Shorthand Achievement in College" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, George Washington University, 1948) . 109%., pp. 60-62. 62 pertinent to success in the study of modern foreign languages and in shorthand achievement: aptitude for foreign languages, linguistic ability, vocabulary, general scholastic aptitude. Data for statistical analysis were provided by 184 elementary, intermediate, and advanced stenography students at the University of Missouri . The tests used in the study were: The Iowa Placement Examination in Foreign Languages Aptitude, the Cooperative Vocabulary Test, and the ACE Psychological examination provided measures of the psychological and linguistic factors. 1 '0 The results showed a positive and in most cases a substantial relation- ship between the measure o'f the psychological and linguistic factors and shorthand achievement at the three instructional levels. However, no single measure or combination of measures was high enough for prediction use. I H Byers approached the problem of shorthand prediction by constructing aptitude tests designed to measure: Phonetic Perception, Retention Ability, Observation Aptitude, Pattern from Parts, and Hand Dexterity. The tests were administered to three groups of students--college, junior college and business school, and high school. The Dickinson's Semester Shorthand Achievement Test was the criterion measure of shorthand achievement. It consisted of seven letters, each 112 two and a half minutes in length, which were dictated at progressive speeds. noMary Jane Long, "The Relationship Between Certain Psychological Tests and Achievement in Shorthand at Three Instructional Levels" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, The University of Missouri, 1960) . "'_lb_id. 1'2Edward E. Byers, "Construction of Tests Predictive of Success in First-Year Shorthand" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Boston University, 1958). 63 Listed below are the multiple and subtest correlations between the Aptitude Tests and shorthand achievement. multiple subtest correlation correlation College Group (128 students) .76 Phonetic Perception .36 Retention Ability .44 Observation Aptitude .18 Pattern from Parts .28 Hand Dexterity .68 Junior College and Business College (142 students) .59 Phonetic Perception .52 Retention Ability .27 Observation Aptitude .37 Pattern from Parts .31 Hand Dexterity .27 3 High School Group (137 students) .62 Phonetic Perception .49 Retention Ability .24 Observation Aptitude .32 Pattern from Parts . Hand Dexterity .47":3 The results of the study showed a significant relationship between the Aptitude Tests and shorthand achievement for the College Group and a substantial relationship for the Junior and Business College Group as well as for the High School Group. Byers believed that the aptitude tests together with other factors such as motivation and intelligence could be useful in predicting group performance for each sample population . For the College Group, the combined Aptitude Tests 1131331., p.76. 64 and the other factors could be useful in individual prediction of first-year short- hand success . As was indicated above, Byers was able to show a multiple correla- tion of .76 between proposed aptitude tests and results on the semester shorthand accomplishment test. However, he believes some teachers are consistently more successful than others and that high correlations probably depend as much on the type and quality of the teaching as they do on any intrinsic relationship existing between the learning involved in shorthand and the various types of activities 114 represented in aptitude tests. In an attempt to evaluate the Byers Aptitude Tests, Wright adminis- tered the tests to prospective shorthand students. The results of the tests were compared with student achievement in shorthand after a year of shorthand instruc- tion. She obtained a correlation of .3737 between the Byers Test and shorthand achievement and a correlation of .6822 between the Phonetic perception subtests of the Byers test with shorthand achievement. The highest Phonetic subtest obtained by Byers was .52. None of the correlations obtained by Wright were high enough to be considered useful as predictors of shorthand success. I '5 Although this part of the present study is concerned with the pre- diction of shorthand achievement, it is worthwhile to review relevant prediction 114w. ”5Ellen M. Wright, "A Summary of Recent (1940-1962) Selected Findings in Shorthand Prognosis with Specific Reference to the Use of the Byers First-Year Shorthand Aptitude Tests at the High School in Southington, Connecticut" (unpublished Master's thesis, Central Connecticut State College, 1963) . 65 studies of general college achievement. Of special importance to this study are the following investigations which have used the same tests as predictors. Weeks studied the predictive efficiency of the ACE Test, Form A, and the SCAT, Level 1 . These tests were given to 122 new students at Eastern Michigan College. In comparing test scores and college grades, it was found that the SCAT total score had a higher correlation (.42) than did the ACE Test total score (.19). On the basis of this study, SCAT had a general superiority over the ACE Test as a pre- dictor of college grades . ' '6 The predictive validity of five different aptitude tests was compared by Joula . The tests used in the analysis were the College Qualifications Test (CQT); the School and College Ability Test (SCAT); the Ohio State Psychological Examination (OSP); and the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)."7 The tests were given to 910 entering freshmen at Michigan State University. Correlation co- efficients between test scores and first-quarter grade point averages indicated little difference in the predictive value of the tests. The correlation coefficients between the GPA and the tests were as follows: '16James S. Weeks, "The Predictive Validity of ACE and SCAT," Personnel and Guidance Journal, XXXVIII (September, 1959), pp. 52-54. 1'7Arvo E. Joula, "Predictive Validity of Five College Level Academic Aptitude Tests at One Institution," Personnel and Guidance Journal, XXXIX (April, 1960), pp. 637-641. 66 PREDICTIVE ABILITY OF SELECTED APTITUDE TESTS men women ACE 0.50 0.52 car 0.59 0 .55 SCAT 0.55 0.58 SAT 0.53 0 .58 05? 0.52 0.55‘ ‘8 The School and College Achievement Test and high school grades were the subject of a study at Alma College by Lugh and Bierley.H9 In com- paring SCAT scores and college grade point averages for one semester, their study revealed coefficients of .54 and .59 for men entering in 1956 and 1957 respec- tively. Coefficients for the women for the some years were .51 and .67. The high school grade point of the men and college grades showed a correlation of .58 for men entering in 1956 and .53 for those starting the following year. High school grade point and college average showed correlations of .65 (1956) and .68 (1957) for women . Multiple correlations were determined by using SCAT results and high school grade point as predictors and first semester grades as the criterion. The multiple correlation proved to be significantly higher than the zero-order correlations previously mentioned. For men entering in 1956 the R was .67 while for women entering in the same year the coefficient was 68.120 The only study which was found reporting the use of the SCAT as a predictor of success or failure in shorthand was conducted by Carter. She “818131., p.538. 119Henry L. Lugh and Robert Bierley, "The School and College Ability Test and High School Grades as Predictors of College Achievement, " Educational and Psychological Measurement, XIX (Winter, 1959), pp. 625-626. ”GEES" wary" iv 1 ' fires, 67 compared final grades received by 103 beginning shorthand students with English grades, Differential Aptitude Verbal Test Scores, SCAT Verbal Test Scores, and I. Q . Ratings. The correlations for each of the variables used in the study follow: English .720 Differential Aptitude .585 SCAT .531 I. Q. .527‘21 Carder concluded that the scores of the DAT verbal and SCAT Verbal Test would not be valid for shorthand prognosis. The I. Q. ratings could be of some benefit for shorthand prognosis, but the best combination would be the I. Q. ratings and tenth-grade English grades.'22 Other investigators have found English aptitude as being correlated with achievement in shorthand. For example, Cheney and Goodish reviewed shorthand diagnostic studies and concluded that the greatest efficiency of the various methods was accorded to English, spelling,and general scholastic average derived from the Differential Aptitude Test Battery, to predict accomplishment in shorthand.‘23 Selden also listed both English grades and the results of language or English aptitude standardized testing as important criteria for shorthand '2'Mary Lou Carter, "The Possibility of Using Tenth-Grade English Grades, School and College Ability Verbal Test Scores, Differential Aptitude Verbal Test Scores, and I. Q. Ratings as Predictors of Success or Failure in Be- ginning Shorthand" (unpublished Master's thesis, Southern Illinois University, 1965), p. 27. I221-b-Ld- . '23Truman M. Cheney and Naomi Goodish, "Analysis Between Certain Variables and Achievement in Beginning Shorthand, " Journal of Business Education, XXXVlll (May, 1963), p. 318. 68 prognosis.124 Finally, Anderson concluded from her analysis of research in short- hand and transcription that English ability measurement is listed as among the best measures yet selected .'25 One of the stated purposes of the studies conducted by Coleman, '26 Mc Kenna, '27 and Varah, '28 respectively, was to discover possible predictors of shorthand achievement. Coleman investigated the relationship between student performance on the MSU Test Battery and final grades in beginning shorthand. The findings revealed that none of the correlations between the subtests of the Entrance Test Battery and achievement in beginning shorthand yielded sufficient control for the accurate prediction of shorthand success. During the "t" test phase of the study, Coleman discovered that those students who received a terminal grade of A and D differed significantly as to their performance on the College Qualifica- tions portion of the Entrance Test Battery which was represented by the total score for the Verbal, Informational, and Numerical subtests. '29 '24William Selden, "Criteria for Selection of Stenographic Students," Journal of Business Education, XXVII (December, 1961), p. 106. '25Ruth .I . Anderson, "Research in Shorthand and Transcription, Part II," Journal of Business Education, XXIII (February, 1948), p. 20. I26Brendan G. Coleman, "The Effect of a Tape-Laboratory Instruc- tional Approach Upon Achievement in Beginning Collegiate Shorthand Classes" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State University, 1964). '27McKenna, op. c_it . '28Leonard J . Varah, "Effect of Academic Motivation and Other Selected Criteria on Achievement of First and Second Semester Shorthand Stu- dents" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State University, 1966) . 129E. thtnt 1.30? r “EC (1‘;- ....‘e A Mr "Us 69 In her study, Mc Kenna replicated the portion of Coleman's study in which the subscores of the MSU Test Battery were used as predictors of achieve- ment in beginning shorthand. The scores of the subtests on the MSU Test Battery were also analyzed to determine if a relationship exists between the aptitudes as indicated by the scores and success or failure in shorthand when taught by a language-arts or science-type approach . This phase of the study was reviewed in an earlier section of this chapter. '30 Mc Kenna lists the following findings with respect to prognosis: That performance on the Michigan State University Entrance Test Battery does not provide an accurate measure for predicting in- dividual success in beginning shorthand at MSU. The English subtest was the best single predictor with a correlation in the combined sections of .61 and a coefficient of determination of .37 indicating that 37 percent of achievement in shorthand is accounted for by whatever is measured by the English test. '3 In the continuing search for more effective predictors of shorthand success, the more recent writers have turned to evaluating such factors as tem- perament, interest, motivation, and other personality variables. These investiga- tions give much support to Eysenck's statement made years ago . The works of Alexander, Holziner, Vernone, Braddock, and others show with surprising unanimity that there is a factor common to all scholastic subjects which cannot be identified with '9', 'v', 'k' or any other ability factor. . . . It appears to be resultant on all noncognitive factors in so far as these influence success at school or college. '30Mc Kenna, 155 . git . 13135151., p. 88. 132H. J . Eysenck, "Student Selection by Means of Psychological Tests," The British Journal of Educational Psychology, XVII (February, 1947), pp. 20-39. 70 Among those who have studied personality variables are Varah and Powell. In his own words Varah describes the purpose of his dissertation: To determine the predictive value, if any, of the Michigan M- Scales, a test of academic motivation, total score or subscore for predicting achievement of eleventh grade girls in first and second semester of Gregg Shorthand when used individually or in combination with the total score or a subscore of an estimate of mental ability. This predictive value was then compared with the predictive value of academic grade point average, ninth grade English grades, and tenth grade English grades to determine the most accurate predictor of shorthand achievement. '33 The data for the study came from the first and second semester short- hand classes of eight senior high schools in Central and Southern Michigan. The following information was compiled for each student: (1) an estimate of mental ability, (2) grades for ninth and tenth-grade English and overall academic grade point average, and (3) a motivation score as measured by the Michigan M-Scales. Shorthand achievement was measured by grades at the end of the first and second semester and by a shorthand examination at the end of the first and second semester... The major findings of the study were: I . Academic motivation as measured by the Michigan M-Scales is a factor in learning in first semester Gregg Shorthand but is not a factor in learning in second semester Gregg Shorthand. 2 . The Michigan M-Scales when used in combination with an estimate of mental ability did significantly increase the precision of prediction by an estimate of mental ability in predicting the achieve- ment of eleventh grade girls in first semester Gregg Shorthand. 3. The word rating list, a subtest of the Michigan M-Scales, was found to be a consistently significant predictor of shorthand achievement for both first and second semester of Gregg Shorthand . '33Varah, _o_p. .c_1t.; Abstract. 71 It was concluded that the academic self-concept of the student as measured by the word rating list is a factor in learning in first and second semester of Gregg Shorthand. 4. The best single predictors of first semester Gregg Shorthand were: grade point average, ninth grade English grades, tenth grade English grades and estimate of mental ability. '34 Powell made a study of shorthand dropouts and continuants. Her report analyzed the following factors: National test scores, personal factor ratings by teachers, English grades, foreign language grades, typewriting grades, shorthand grades, attendance, part-time work activities of the students, educa- tional and vocational plans, reasons students gave for dropping shorthand, and teachers' opinions of the reason students dropped shorthand . '35 Powell found that differences do exist between shorthand dropouts and continuants as indicated by the teaching program of a particular school. In each case the scores of the continuants were higher than those of the dropouts. The areas of differences in the testing program are as follows: 1 . Of all the tests, the Science Research Associates Reading Record was the most significantly different. The dropouts-failures received a significantly lower score here than did the continuants. 2 . The total score from the Reading Record has the greatest degree of statistical significance of any of the test scores used in the study with the dropouts-discontinuants receiving the lower scores. 3 . Other Reading Record test scores of marked statistical sig- nificance were the sentence meaning score and the vocabulary score. '34Varah,_o_p. c_it., pp. 35-36. '35Georgia Faye Powell, "An Analysis of Shorthand Dropouts at Ottawa Township High School" (unpublished Master's thesis, Illinois State Normal University, 1961) . 72 4. The national test score from the Science Research Associates Primary Mental Abilities Tests having the greatest statistical significance for shorthand success was the verbal meaning score. 5. The correctness in writing score on the Iowa Tests of Educa- tional Development was the one found to have the greatest statistical significance from that group of tests. 6. Eight of the fourteen dropout means were below the national means, while twelve of the fourteen continuant means were above the national means.' Of particular interest to the present investigation were the following additional conclusions: Students continuing shorthand tend to rate higher than the drop- outs on all personality factors used in the study. The three factors of greatest significance were industry, initiative, and responsibility. Average grades for the continuants tend to be higher than those of the discontinuants. Summary A review of studies related to the prognosis of shorthand achieve- ment indicated that there was a distinct superiority in multi-variable prediction in comparison to the use of a single factor. Studies have consistently indicated that high school grade point average is the best single predictor of shorthand success. Further, the studies mentioned in this chapter have shown the range of coefficients of correlation to be from .381 to .7974 between high school GPA and shorthand grades. l36Powell, op. c_i_t., p. 78. “371%., pp. 79-80. 73 Several conclusions may be drawn from the evidence presented in this chapter: 1 . The use of several variables produces higher correlation coeffi- cients than do single predictors. 2. High school grade point average, English grades, foreign language grades and/or aptitude scores are the three most effective predictors of success in sho rthand . 3 . At the present time the maximum coefficients of correlation that can be expected in multi-variable prediction is approximately .75. 4. Greater accuracy in prediction is largely dependent upon greater refinement of grading practices. This review of the literature indicates that much study has been given 1’0 the teaching and learning of shorthand. The research on methodology has I:OC-used upon the two main methods of shorthand teaching--the manual and the TUNCfional methods. The writers have shown the differences and similarities which exist between the two methods. The emerging trend appears to be a recognition ”‘0? there are more points of similarity than there are of differences. This chapter has also reviewed the research on shorthand prognosis. WI" I le many of the studies showed contradictory results, a number of investigators Found that a battery of tests including general scholastic average, grades in Eng I 38h, and intelligence test scores to be among the best measures yet found to p rediet success or failure in shorthand. Further research is necessary to find better D [- . ed lCtors of shorthand achievement. k 74 It was found that comparatively limited study has been given to shorthand homework and to the psychological factors thought to influence success in shorthand. This study, therefore, was undertaken to investigate homework in- vo Iving the use of the Gregg Shorthand Workbook and its effect on shorthand ach ievement, and to investigate the effect of selected cognitive and affective Factors within the learner and their relationship to shorthand learning and achieve- ment . CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES In Chapter I attention is called to the fact that many methods of g teaching shorthand have been advocated, but today almost all teachers use either the Functional (language-arts) or the manual (science-type) method or a combina- tion of both . This study examined two methods of shorthand homework practice at the college level. The primary purpose was to investigate the effect of using the Gregg Shorthand Workbook in addition to the conventional homework practice. The workbook pertains to the science-type method while the conventional home- Work is typically a language-arts method . The secondary purpose was to discover Wheth er selected psychological tests could be used to differentiate students who Wou Id be successful in shorthand with each of the two main methods of homework P rac ti ce . This experiment was conducted during the two academic years 1963- ] 964 and 1964-1965 with beginning classes of college shorthand . During the first Yea r, experimental procedures were used (1) to compare the shorthand achievement OF Sfud'EEnts using the workbook for supplementary homework practice with the short- hand achievement of students using the conventional homework practice only and ( 2 ) . TO 'hvestigate selected cognitive and noncognitive variables relating to the ¥ _# 76 shorthand achievement of students using the workbook for supplementary homework practice and of students using the conventional homework practice only. The second year involved further investigation of the psychological Factors relating to shorthand achievement regardless of the type of homework used. 1. Description of the Study Experimental Design I The experimental design followed was the Posttest-Only Control Group Design. Regarding this design, Campbell and Stanley say: I" While the pretest is a concept deeply embedded in the thinking of research workers in education and psychology, it is not actually essential to true experimental designs. For psychological reasons it is difficult to give up "knowing for sure" that the experimental and control groups were "equal" before the differential experimental treatment. Nonetheless, the most adequate all-purpose assurance of lack of initial biases between groups is randomization. Within the limits of confidence stated by the tests of significance, randomi- zation can suffice without the pretest. _S_e;lection of the Sample for the First Year Seventy-four students enrolled in beginning shorthand from four Se leC ted colleges constituted the sample for the first year of the study. The names of 1'he colleges appear in the Appendix. Three of the colleges provided one sec- f '0“ each of beginning shorthand,and one of the colleges provided two sections of b - . e9 ”1" Ing shorthand. An experimental and a control group for each of the five \ Qu . 138Donald T. Campbell and Julian C. Stanley, "Experimental and a h :3 ' ‘Experimental Designs for Research on Teaching, " Handbook of Research 9 'I ;°Ching, ed. N. L. Gage (Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1963), - 6 . ‘ 77 sections was determined through random selection . The teacher of each section placed the names of her students in a container from which the names were drawn to make up the experimental and the control group in the section . Combined there were 39 students in the experimental group and 35 students in the control group. Procedural Plan of Study AW.- To achieve the primary and secondary purposes of the study, it was organized into two parts. Part I covers the research conducted during the year, 1963-1964; Part II covers the research conducted during the two years, 1963-1965 . Procedures for Achieving Primary Purpose As stated at the beginning of the chapter, the primary purpose was to investigate the effect of using the Gregg Shorthand Workbook in addition to the Con ventional homework practice. Five sections of beginning shorthand classes Were taught by experienced teachers and met for fifty minutes each day, five days 0 Week, for the academic year, 1963-1964. The chairman of the department from each college gave approval for the teacher and students from her respective col- lege to participate in the study. Each of the five teachers had been asked to divide her section of be- 9 in" ing shorthand students into subsections by the random method described above. BOTH Subsections were taught together and both used the conventional homework . The addition of the workbook for one subsection constituted the experimental Vat-3° ble . The workbooks and the directions outlining the specific procedures '. Q be followed were mailed to each teacher on September 18, 1963. On May 18, ‘ 78 1964, the shorthand dictation tests which were used as the criterion measure were sent to each teacher with instructions for administration . All workbooks, tests, and student papers were returned to the investigator at the close of the school year. A copy of the materials sent to the teachers is included in the Appendix. Th is material constituted the data for Part I of the study . _ a. 2K, Procedures for Achieving Secondary Purposes The secondary purpose of the study was first to discover whether se Iec ted psychological tests could be used to differentiate students who would be j successful with each of the two chief methods of homework practice and second to determine the‘extent, if any, to which learning and achievement in shorthand were affected by Selected ability and personality factors regardless of the type of 1'10 mework used . During the year 1963-1964, each teacher involved in the study c=|_co «to; poem 38 5.58.83 _ao_mo_o;u>ma can. oomov Becca? cocoon: oZ 38 388.5 _oumoo_o;uxma ..oe oomov _ucaocat p.833. 02 0:590 cam soc 33 >76 “Bronco: ooxuoxu 3:96 a ouco 3mm: 3: p.03 o>aO £3. Econ. e25 :0 Eco flamenco: segues—U £3. Econ. meta x3333 m>oO 3.32:6 co 3:: £033 .0: 20 m 3503 Acetone .82: 3.03 :33? mutuai 36: 39...: 3:0. *3: 03:5 00:0 :03. 0:.) can name 11.33.08 oos3ccou cO _Eoz, guao :09. .25 some 1133* S: p.63 :0 thmEZOfima. $526.20.... 33* 7.: Po; .._o 33530: :0 xuaSuua eooo— “3:363. £th 7.: p.53 mo 3:230 _ucaxtosm co xuoSuoo £502 cotaamm 543* 7.: p.95 :0 $3330.: oco 35:30 ocofcofi oedema—U 34333 38: Soc .0 03:: at: .803 o>aO «an: Eco“. cots :0 $3530.: oco 3:230 “69.3.5 £3. .50» “.25 x3303 o>00 3.32:3 ca 33. 350.96 >¢OmI._. < 39.23... mm_x<<<<<3m 123 Bronco: ca .305qu £03 “00:33. 3:0 5:030: “00:00.0 “000% £000 .0... 30s cotafixo 0:0 pot-60¢ “0001... 5:323 0c «30* 0355109,: “005 _aacaE co co:0_anu 0.80: cotatxo 3:08:30: 30209:: 3:038 20: octet. 0.80s _otosoE “3003005 p05 3:036 2:: 30209:; c032 £c00290 :33 potasm £35 cotatumca: oca xcacot3o>0 o00200i m 3:000... 3:030: :0 .305000 o\omo “30:563. Eco 32030.: $001.90 oooam £000 coo 3.5.2 cot—30:0 _ac0>0... “00:33”. p009. 5:323 2 £3. 0358100cé com: .0258 m0 20203800 0.80: cotasumo 3:06130: 30300:... .2338 30: 9.2.2.... 0.633 .3336 “0002003 new: 3:036 out: “30300.5; 3.3:. 203505 :93. £290 :33 .00th OZ_._._~_>> ...O ZOEUDQOEZ. ...:to cotatuea: pea baco$3o>0 30:00:— 11mv_ooov_._0>> :0 .4 3:00: 9555258 322205030 20 mmmzoeme ”.0 54.22:... 124 oovm Axumm n*me o\oo— «Bronco..— nwas 35:30 _uca:to:m 11:33:03.0; ”3:030; o\oo— £3. 3.: oco>> 3.5.2 Ecoc corn £09.». £3. .50» h3:5 0.009103 £00m 35:30 :00: :09. sea «.00. o. b:_:< mo<¢0 QZ> 024. 30.54.". m 3:003. < ..0:000._. $035208 m~=¢<<<<_ (15.3, The "Within" Sum of Squares . 2 .2 x2=ZX2 - 93339 (15.4)* The Person r: r: NZXY - (2X)(2Y) (8 4)* \/[ NZXZ - (51x)2 ][N£Y2 - (2Y)2] 1lN. M. Downie and R. H. Heath, Basic Statistical Methods (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1959), pp. 85, 161-163. 16fl3 wm\__\~o whouu>u.wm=o=zmhh_¢.m.mp =o:m.¢~mo¢~.mon _c.nvo . 3023306” 16fl4 oooooooo. _om ooooocooémm. p 98 8888.3 _ ex} .5303 2. wzo:<>mummo 458. sown—mom: wzofigmmmmo ..S—o... 522.3538 35. 4:0... oooooooo.~. m 28 ooooouooémw N :o< ooooooooé. s oooooooo. _ . Ac.wuv.o.nu.o.mm.o.nu.o._E.xnv ho¢ummo z<¢ hm. mozooum oc.° warp hzmzmao bm ...o «5:52 >5:qu II . o u z = 1655 4mmmmo¢o.w~m~ no.0 __o_v.o mnmoowmm.nmo_ .HF_4.mmc wzo_h<.>wa om u o m _ m > a < z < m_~_vw.mn vam~.~o.o- an oooooo.v_ma n_m~oo.¢ enm~¢.~n.m- an cocooo.ooom _mm_om_n.¢- vp oooooo.e_oo_ Cszmxoz. z pzuozu.uo r m o w m h < o mazooum 0... mt.» hzuxmzo hm<4 moz_m ammm mo womaom ooooooo_ oooooo.o rmoauhov wmww<40m=w 4 mo m_m>4szluzo II _ a m z a 166 ms mmwmsmm~omms¢ ~o-mnmmovm Nfi mmmv.mm~.mmmv mm.o mmmowo. ommmwooo.~w _ ommmmoooomm ohh_4_m hzwaaueua m 4 m < h w o z < . z < > u o w . w > 4 < z < mazoowm mo.o “2.2 hzummzo Emwo mwmmo om m o o m h < o z o < u m o u w o . p w _ h < p w mozooww meoo wz_h hzwngo pw mo womsow oooooo._ oooooo.o >moompov mumm Lo m.»>u(3awzo as _ o u z a 167’ _moo oph.4.mwo 3:20” ...o Em mozooum oo.o mm\__\~o w~wo az u 0 mt.» pzwmxzo hw<4 woz.w ommm<4m wt.» h2wmmso oooooo.mmvn_~_ oooooooo_~mwo_ ooocoo.mm_.omm wum z o a w h < o z wz.h pzummao hm<4 woz_w omwm<4m mz_h hzmmmao vm¢mo..ot pzuzwmoz_ z no m_w>4<3quo II ¢o_momvo.omm_n c_mo_omw.mom_m ovnsmmmmoo wmm<=om ...0 75” m . m > 4 < z < mm oooooo.wwmm mm ooooooovm_o v» oooooooowm~_ Oman ram m o . h w _ h < h w 4 mo mezzo» coooooo_ ooooo0oo >mommhov _ o w z a 168 2. $32 .maonw :. 252 8382.3 N» $5232.32. 33.833 2.2:) 5.2 .32-co 332.36. _ 2302226. ”328:3 zuflfiuo J.:” ... ...o :3338... 0.3.235 ... H.228 ztuz 58qu 3:20» ...o r...» mczc.¢<> 323... :8.» £02.84 no gamma .3 3:28 p ma a.a>4§Iu8 II _ a u a 2 169 as 2-n2~92.¢~22 achoh 2222.22.22 2 33.22.28 8.2833 :25: -.2 vmwm..2 222~2~2.... . 22n~2~2.... nu.zooup .2 2.m>a2v 223: 2....— toc .. 22.2.52 225202 ..2 52 525222. 52: 5m: 32... 52 nzo.h<.>22 22<22<~2 22520» ...2 .22 222 A2 Vx ». u..¢..¢> pan-cueu2 >2222~<2 2242 22. 22.»2.» <3 ”:2 8 u 8.. wt: 525.22 385822 #22222 $2.35.. ..2 2.25:: 81.2.2 I . a m z 2 170 .2.2 ..vmmoo ohh.4_2<22¢m o_»m_h z o 2 u h < 2 up camcevcuoupm. us uanavc__o~nm. _ nn_on¢v~on zoauuzu «madaoa ma 2:» no .amua vs .. u..¢..¢. pun-numua u o z < _ z c > m a a _ a > a < z 1 nnovmmoo Nuvcnm.uoo_ an cococooun~ oouvawocl 22~¢_~no.2_ on ochGOoNno nn.nn_mnoo. t» occcoc.onn_ h 2255:. :5: int SE ‘5 Va 2. 2......» pang-2.22 : o < m a o m n o . h a . h < h a agha— nu_¢8w.=o 3.2:) nu_¢aombsu nqu—wn wand-ad» no Macao» 888. _ 888... EH8 3.3.2.8 2358..” 3.3:. 322...; 3 23.3: >138 I. . 2 u a _. 17] 22.2 .2422 2 20 >h.2_2<2222 202<0_2_22_2 .22222< 222.2.2 2.22p—

2 o 2 _ 2 > 2 < z < 2222022 22.2 22.2 2222222 h2<4 202.2 2222(22 22\._\.o 2... 22 - .~__ v~2222.v._ 222222.22 22.22..22. 2z<2z 222 £022 22022<.>22 222(202 22 :22 222222.. 222222.. 222.22.. zo_p<.>22 22<22

2 2 2 2 h 4 2 2 0 < 2 2 0 2 2 o . h 2 . h < h 2 2222022 22.2 2:.» 2222220 22¢; 222.2 2222<22 22\..\.o 2... 22 . .~.. 2:.» 2222220 4(22» «2.2022220 2.2:) 22.2022h<0 2221522 202<.2<> 20 202222 222222.. 222222.2 >2222h<2 .....2>o. 2222(20222 2<20222 .woz<.2<> 2o 2.2>2=4u>u.uw=o=zuh~.c.m.mh cozm.¢~mo¢~.moa -mm¢c . mozuaouw 1314 oooooooo.mmmm m ooooooooom_ m are oooooooo.w. o monOmm no.0 omwm<4m mo I N__N pzmmmzo 4m hmom mz_h mozoOmw o.oo owmm<4w mo I N__N hzmmmso 4m hmom mz.h wozoomm 0000 m2.» hzmmmso mm\n.\~o mbmmwmo 3mwwmo 4mmwmo 4mmmmo 3mmmmo 3.m cuh¢w>z_ x_zbwo cmx wm< com man ”do cwwm<4m hzwzmzo mz_h ~ ooooo._ zoo wzo c -m~ooc cocoa.— oooooooo.m_mom oooooooo.mmmm~ oooo¢ooo.mmm~v oooooooo.m_wmmm oooooooo.momoo~o oooooooo.ommvm. oooooooo.wcmm~mo_ mum<=0m to 22m wmqm<.m<> amz=Oumzwo o¢ .8..sz_§§>uc...~\:._ x: 200 are amo h_m hm<4 4<> wm< ...—9:. mo... mam .Nouo.m owh¢u>z_ x.¢p (Hum mmozmu .opm zo.wmwmwwm mwso.o «Nu mwsN.o zo_mmummum 44<¢w>o «Om >o< N: _N___~__omomm_v momvm~__owmovwm >.¢wmmmmoNNo.m 33:8 go 2.5 .zo__<¢up. >¢m>m cupmwaoum ”Edam“: =o< A. vxuuuao..g«. pguasu.ua Ammm¢uwmo Az.m hw<4 4<> mm< w” .No-o.m .ho>_m mo; mm“ 1: omhmw>z. x_¢h ”coax“ .abm mummo _NN .~__.~_..aomm.¢ Azo co; >o< .zo_h<¢mh_ >mw>u aNHmNDON: whdzmmm F m 200 30440m z. 44_hm wwam<.¢<> axe :3 A. 3.83:...» 2.3.2:. Amum<=om _m 1378 NchN.N->_a hw<4 4<> mm< El... .83.. me 9: NNN¢N>2. x.¢~ ”Nazca .ohm (hum «coezu .ohm zo.mmN¢mN¢ _NtN.o _mmo.o mmNN.o _mNo.o NNN ¢¢ummo _NN _N. . E 18%: A5: 58: .32 N_N N.NNNNN..¢NNVNN soczu ¢ mo_.NNNm.¢mm.N Azo No. >o< .zo_h¢N>m NNNNNDONN whdawmm ¢ N N o 28 :8 $8 :5 2:28 :ONNQN 2. 44.5” mwdm<_m<> wxo Am vx ”<2 _ zo_mN»_mu >m NNNNNNN NNN<_NN> zo< A. ANN¢.m hw<4 4<> mm< _NoIo.m uho>_m mom mam awhmm>z_ x_mh ”memmw .ohm (NNN ”mommm .ohm zo_mwumoux NomN.o mNoo.o N¢NN.o mmNo.o NNN ¢muwmo _NN _N___N...Nomn_v Azo com >o< .zo_hNN>N aupmwaon mpdzmwm N N N o zoo _NN» hmo h2¢hmzoo zoddou z. NN__m NNNN<_N<> moo RN Vx ”<2 . zo_zwh_mo >m NNPNNNN N4m<_z<> zo‘ A. vxlluan: c4» bauostuo ANN¢<=om NN «2 _NoIo.N 1.0:... m8 «mu NNN¢N>2. x_mh Na Nmummo _NN .N___N__.momn.¢ Azo ecu >o< .zo.pN awhmmaouc whdamum N v o :00 h Nco aN vx «<3 . zo.mwh_¢o No NNNNNNN m4m<_¢<> zo< A. vxaum.....«. N3NN¢NNNQ ANN=<=oa NN04 .zo.~zm>w omhmu30um mhgamum ohm: zo_mw~.¢o uoz 2:: no can v~w_NN~_o. v h zo.mwu¢wm¢ NNN wzo.h<>¢womo :3: 585 .52 cozmw :5: 58: 6535: v o h humonuguo ANN¢<=ON hm