DO-C t KENT -P. E

ED 033 229 24 VT 009 488By -Ruddle. Eleanor S. .

The Sight Method. of Teaching Typewriting Technique and Keyboard. Final Report.Fairfax County Schools. Va.

_

Spons Agency-Office of Education (DHEW). Washington. D.C. Bureau of Research.Bureau No-BR -9 -C -006Pub Date Aug 69Crant OEC -3 -9 -09006 0019010Note -29p.EDRS Price MF -S025 HC -$1.55Descriptors-Control Croups. Educational Research. Experimental Croups. Office Occupations Education.

*Teaching Methods. TypewritingThe purpose of the study was to test the hypothesis that students who watch

their fingers in the beginning weeks of typewriting instruction will develop bettertechniques as shown on tests of speed and accuracy at the end of the school yearthan student who watch only their copy in accordance with the conventional teachingmethod. The major experimental and control groups consisted of 56 sophomorestudents matched individually by age. sex. grade average. and intelligence quotient.After the second quarter. the remaining students who could not be individugymatched were used as additional experimental and control groups of 51 studentseach. Although the experiment failed to confirm the hypothesis in terms of grossspeed there were differences significant at the 1 percent level in terms of net speedon the basis of errors in the timed writing in favor of both experimental groups. Astrong relationship was found between the control variables and gross speed but notbetween the contr 31 variables and errors or net words. The results of this researchindicate that the sight method merits trial by teachers. (UK)

C\I

reN oefiseOO

FINAL REPORTProject No. 9-C-006

Grant No. OEG-3-9-090006-0019 (010)

THE SIGHT METHOD) OF TEACHING TYPEWRITINGTECHNIQUE AND KEYBOARD

Eleanor S. RuddleFairfax County Public Schools

10700 Page AvenueFairfax, Virginia

August 1969

U.S. DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Office of EducationBureau of Research

s.

FINAL REPORT

Project No. 9-C-006

Grant No. OEG-3-9-09006-0019 (010)

THE SIGHT METHOD OF TEACHING TYPEWRITINGTECHNIQUE AND KEYBOARD,

Eleanor S. Ruddle

Fairfax County Public Schools

Fairfax, Virginia

August 1969

The research reported herein was performed pursuant to a

grant with the Office of Education, U.S. Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare. Contractors undertaking

such projects under Government sponsorship are encouraged

to express freely their professional judgment in the

conduct of the project. Points of view or opinions stated

do not, therefore, necessarily represent official Office

of Education position or policy.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Office of EducationBureau of Research

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE

PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION

POSITION OR POLICY.

omogaratior040.41.,

TABLE OF CON' E,NTS

Page

SUPEARY 1« 4 41. .

Part

INTRODUCTION **

Purpose 0

Pr obicm-Jastification o

II. PROCEDURES USED Ia THE STUDY

7

9

Description of Traditional hc!thod of TeachingTypt!:writing (Control Group) . . . . . . 9

Description of Experimental Method of Teaching I A

, , 0 A . Typ,2,uriting- (Experimental Group) 10Design of Research . 11Method of Analysis OOOOO 12

III. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS ..

A. First Analysis .

,

.

.

B. Second Analysis

12

12

3-11

Predictability of Typing Scores 14

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REFERENCES 'LIST OF FIGURES

31

35

Figure

.1. Comparison of Net Words Per Minute of Matched Groups 15

2. Comparison of Typewriting Errors of Experimental andControl Groups by Quarters - Matched Group 17

Change Per Quarter of Gross Words, Error and NetWords Means of Matched Groups 19

4. Fourth Quarter Comparison of Gross Words, Errorand Net Words of Unmatched Pairs 21

opytncrif.AVVRIEarevM "- ",alerc, 44C - ""

,,,,,6164,043-161P4.),,6444,16,trt

LIST OF TABLES

TablePage

1. Significance of Difference in Means Between OneGroup of Pupils Taught Typing by the bight Method(Experimental) Matched With a Group Taught byConventional Methods (Control)

23

Significance of Differences in Means Be teen TwoUnmatched Groups of Pupils Taught Typing by theSight Method (Experimental) and by ConventionalMethods (Control) 0 ***** 25

.

3. List of Variables Entered Into Regression Formulato Predict Gross Words in Order altered andCorresponding RegresSlon Coefficients, Proportion

, of Variance Pxplained (R2) and Multiple CorrelationCoefficients s-(R) 0

00 270

b. , List of Variables Entered Into Regression Formula toPredict Errors in Order Entered and CorrespondingRegression ToJfficients, Proportion of VarianceExplained (R2) and Multiple Correlation Coefficients 00. 27^

5. List of Variables Entered Into Regression Formula toPredict Net. Words in Order Entered and CorrespondingRegression Coefficients, Proportion of VarianceExplained (R2) and Multiple Correlation Coefficients (R). . 29

6., Simple Correlation ,Coefficients. For Variables Usedto Describe First Year Typing Students33

1 I 0

3

11

rIte. ..4-4445 4.444444.44,444 44,7,4'4, 44, 4.414444

THE SIGHT METHOD OF TEACHING TYPEWRTfING TECHNIQUE AND KEYBOARD

SUMMARY

Purpose: The primary objective of this research was to test thishypothesis: That students who watch their fingers in the beginningweeks of typewriting instruction will develop better technique asshown on tests of speed and accuracy at the end of the school yearthan students who watch only their copy and refrain from looking attheir fingers according to the conventional teaching methods.

A secondary objective was to determine if sex, reading ability,intelligence quotient, piano, and grade average contribute or relateto the number of gross words, errors, and net words that pupils areable' to type after one year of instruction.

Problem Justification: The research hereby proposed would have thebeginning typist watch his fingers until the keyboard has beenlearned and the correct techniques have been developed. Emphasis isplaced on how the fingers move rather than on the material typed.The time required for this learning period will, of course, varywith the individual but should be, on the average, of about the firsttwelve to fifteen hours of instructional time.

In recent years, typewriting specialists have suggested that thesight method of teaching beginning typists has merit, for, example,Dr. Leonard J. West of the City University of New York, wrote anarticle in the Business Education World, September, 1967, in whichhe says, "The kinesthietic findings should make it apparent thatthe conventional insistance on non-visual operation at the startof learning is seriously wrong and decided longer tolerance ofsight typing is required than even the boldest of today's teachersimagine or permit. Surely a study that points to an about-face onthe central feature of instruction should be considered useful.0

Further justification of the-theoretic principles underlying thisresearch is the fact that typewriting is classified as a psycho-motor skillLtherefore, typewriting teachers should benefit from thetheories, of muscular learning used by coaches and instructors in theother fields that.involve muscular learning.

Specialists teaching in the field of physical education advocatethe use of visual analysis to evaluate and improve performances.As in the fields of physical education so-in the field of typewriting,muscular learning needs visual aid because-the feel alone may bedeceptive.

1 Leonard J. West, "Teachers' Perceptions'of Research,"Business Education World, (Sept, 1967), p. 34.

georyit4,440.4.44.44,4,041,4444-$4,44444.4,44,4,44,44,44,....4.444,1,44.,....14,4.4.4.44411 44444,11,1,44.7.

1

Alaxw TOM .711Wif',VitX-4,WVI,Tr",414Vrig,444,'

4,444-4,4,14g, ,44,144.41;4,44'r4V4, 414.441.4444m ,

.1,44 t te,

Educators have long recognized the fact that the employment of themaximum number of senses produces the most efficacious learningexperiences. Therefore, the sense of sight as well as the senseof hearing needs to be used in the teaching of typewriting.

Neuro-muscular integration is important to a typist and can beimproved only with correct typing. To unlearn an incorrect tech-nique and relearn correct responses is difficult; therefore, whenthis becomes necessary, most students become discouraged to the"dropping oat" point. The hours spent on technique, watching thefingers and developing correct feel, are not only essential for themuscular learning but are important in developing a good mentalattitude toward typewriting.

Through employing to the fullest the sense of sight for the purposeof learning, criticizing and evaluation his own skills and technique,the student should develop a correct pattern that becomes inherentin his continued growth and performance.

Procedures Used In The Study: The major experimental sample con-sisteciof two beginning typewriting classes composed of 56 sophomorestudents in each group. The students in the groups were matchedindividually according to four variables; age, sex, grade averageand intelligence quotient.

After the second quarter, the remaining students who could not beindividually matched were used to form a second experimental andcontrol group of 51 students in an attempt to further validate theresults from the first analysis.

The experimental groups (sight method) were taught at HayfieldHigh-Intermediate School and the control group was taught at EdisonHigh School. Both schools are in Fairfax County, Virginia and.servethe same general area. .

Three well qualified teachers taught the control group and twoteachers including the instigator of this research taught the ex-perimental groups.

The control group teachers had always used the teaching procedureas recommended by the 20th Century Typewriting Manual Published bythe South- Western Publishing Company and agreed to continue thisprocedure during the research school year.

For the first twelve hours the students taught by the sight methodwatched their fingers and used no copy primarily to see that thefingers moved correctly and secondarily to learn the key location.

After twelve hours of using the sight method of teaching, the experi-mental class started using the textbook and watching the copy.After thirty more hours, the experimental group was on the.samelesson in the text as the control group. Subsequently both groupsof classes were taught in the same way for the remainder of the schoolyear with one exception. Lamely, each nine weeks for one hour theexperimental group had a typing technique review. lesson.

2

.1 '14 1.1 P

Timed writing tests were used for comparing the two groups. Eachstudent took two timed writings and the better .of the two were checkedfor the research.

Three-minute timed writings on new material were given to both groups.on November 7-8, 1968. Gross words errors and net words per minutewere recorded for both. groups. New words were computed by takingthree words from the gross words for each error.

A five minute timed writing test was adglinistered January 30-31,April 1-2, and May 2627, 1969. Gross words, errors and net words

per minute were recorded. Two words were subtracted from the grosswords for each error mad- to obtain the net speed.

Students were asked whether or not they played the piano and thiswas recorded to see if this related,learning affected the typing

skill. Students were not matched according to this criterion.

Aallysis and Interpretation of Studyt The hypothesis stated thatstudents using the sight method in the beginning weeks of typewritinginstruction would have greater speed than students taught by theconventional method. This did not prove true of gross typewritingspeed. However, when net speed is the consideration the experi-mental group attained significantly higher net scores.

Figure 1 gives the comparison of, the two groups in net words,typedat the end of the second and fourth quarters. This illustrationclearly shows that the frequency distribution was not normal for thecontrol group for either the second or the fourth quarters. Theexperimental group showed a bell shaped curve which became more pro-nounced in the last quarter of testing. This would seem to indicatethat in the experimental groups good techniques, developed through"finger watching" would permit continued speed development and thatthe control group taught by the conventional method, would have fargreater difficulty increasing their speed beyond their earlier level.

Table 1 and Figure 3 show the comparison of means of students taughtby the two methods. Those taught by the sight method appear togain in the number of gross words typed at about the same rate asthose students who were taught by the conventional methods. Thestudents taught by the sight method tended to make fewer errors asthey progressed through their academic year while students taughtby the conventional method gained in the number of errors per minutedThe result was that students taught by the sight method were ableto type significantly more net words per minute. A further validationof this result is shown in Figure ) and Table 2 where the resultsare shown of 51 additional students in each group studied from thetwo groups for the last two quarters of the school year. Thisstatistic showed the same pattern of no great difference in thenumber of gross words typed but fewer errors and greater net speedfor the experimental group. The level of confidence was beyondthe .01 level.

,1111,VMMVAtg., , , t, FM-MI - ,

WT4,

0

r. ra1NP IM

The secondary objective of the research was to determine if sex,reading dbility, intelligence quotient, piano, and grade averagecontributed or related to the nlimbor gross words, errors, and networds that pupils are able to type after one year of instruction.

As indicated in Table 3, the gross words which a student will beable to type may be predicted with 34 per cent accuracy (R2=0.30)with the following predictor variables: piano, reading ability, sex,intelligence quotient, and grade average. These variables are listedin the order in which they tended to increase the predictability of.the equation, that is, piano permitted the greatest predictabilityfollowed by reading ability combined with piano and followed by sexin combination with the other four.

Neither errors or net words per minute could be effectively predictedby the five predictor variables.

A strong relationship was found between the control variables andgross words, but not between the control variables and errors or networds.

Conclusions and Recommendations: The hypothesis stated that studentsusing the sight method in the beginning weeks of typewriting instruction would have greater speed and accuracy at the end of the firstschool year than students who had been taught by the more conventionalmethod.

This experiment failed to confirm the hypothesis regarding grossspeed. However, when net speed, calculated on the basis of errorsmade on the timed writings is the consideration, the experimentalgroup of both analysis attained results significant at the 1 per centlevel of confidence.

The number of errors is significantly fewer in both analysis ofthose taught by the sight method. This method results in fewererrors at about the same gross speed as those taught the conventionalway. The error mean increased for the experimental group to a peakthe second quarter then remained constant. However, the controlgroup errors increased steeply through the third quarter and flattenedout; and the error mean remained much higher then the mean for theexperimental group. Evidentially the sight method is effective inincreasing accuracy in typewriting.

A strong relationship was found between the control variables andgross speed in typewriting but not between the control variablesand errors or net words. This implies that the two groups matchedon these variables had about the same potentiality for successfulachievement in learning the typewriting skill. Since the errors ornet words could not be predicted through control variables, it issafe to assume that the difference shown in the two groups wascaused by the difference in the two teaching methods.

cr,10.,..,111,0,10:,,,..

4

rtn'XIps,,f4V,,J,0,01,1,-,.:4,,,,ov-81f,,,

,44oasdx art.,

p,

4

Il

The multiple correlation betT,A.,,,en t.1.13 gross words and the controlvariables in the savles indi.Q.ates that piano ba.ckgrounds readingability s sex., intelligence votient axid grade average would. begood potential in predicting a.cr-devanent in gross typewriting speed.

The reoults of this research thus indicates that the sight mthodof teaching typewriting merits trial by teachers. Further research.is recommendc3d involving a larger sample in varioas locations andusing a greater number of teachers.

5

THE SIGHT METHOD OF TEACHING TYPEWRITING TECHNIQUE AND KEYBOARD

Part I, INTRODUCTION*

Puuoee: The primary objective of this research was to test thishypothesis: That students who watch their fingers in the beginningweeks of typewriting instruotion will develop better technique asshwn an tests of speed and accuracy at the end of the school. yearthan students who watch only their copy and refrain from looking attheir fingers according to tho conventional teaching method.

A secondary objective was to determine if sex, reading ability,intelligence quotient, piano, and grade average contribute or relateto the number of gross words, errors, and net words that pupils areable to type after one year of instruction.

Proble-Justificabion: In recent years, typewriting specialists haveRE5aerfErEESight method of teaching beginning typists hasmerit. For exnmple, Dr. Leonard J. West of the City University ofNew York, wrots, an article in the Business Education World, September,1967, in which he says, . "nonvisual typing at the outset amountsto the, futile expectation that learning can take. place withottt re-

inforcement. The kinesthesis findings should make it apparent that theconventional insistence on noavimal operation at the start of lonrningis seriously wrong and that decidedly longer tolerance of sight typingis required than even the boldest of todayls teachers imagine or permit.Surely a study that points to an about-face on the central feature ofinstruction should be considered useful. The many instructional detailson how to handle sight typing in the classroom remain to be worked out;at the outset, perhaps in trial-and-error fashion by teacher. '1

The instigator of this research, who has been using the visual method ofteaching the keyboard for ten years,. feels that this study shouldhelp reduce the "trial-and-orror" difficulties. The purpose of theresearch described in this paper is to prove whether or not this visualmethod of teaching beginning typists is effective and to what. degree.

The research hereby proposed would have the beginning typist watch hisfingers until the keyboard has been learned and the correct techniqueshave been developed. The time required for the learning period will,of course, vary with the individual but should be, on the average,about the first fifteen hours of instructional time

,

Further justification of the theoretic principles underlying thisresearch is the fact that typewriting is classified as a psychomotor

If

lieonar J. West, "Teachers' Perceptions of Research,"Business Education World, (Sept. 1967)1. p.34.

4d.R, .4.11411,0.S41 44.4,SVI 1 .M,I.M...v,'"VCr-r4r,g,',V", a ,^473,,,,, zNp-1771., Arr, 6 .7*-,7P4,14','N.'",'41';41.P."4.1.41,;',7r"

P.`

skill; therefore, typewriting teachers should benefit from the theoriesof muscular learning used by coaches and instructors in the other fields

that involve muscular lemming.

Specialists teaching in these areas advocate the use of visual analysis

to evaluate, and improve performance. Coach Iyle Braga of the University

of Rochester said "It is often a revelatdon to an individual player towatch his own performance through the camera's eye. "1 Coaches have madeit possible for an athlete to watch his own performance to encouragehigher levels of achievements. The athlete performs while the coachtakes snapshots or movies. Analysis of the picture is followed by morepractice and more pictures until the technique is as nearly perfect as

possible. Dancing instructors, as well as coaches, have found that thebody movements are not always what the performer thinks they are, For

example the beginner in dancing vetches his feet to see what they aredoing and where they are going. While watching his feet perform correctly,the dancer develops the "feel" of the action, gaining confidence throughseeing and feeling, until he can perform without watching his feet;however, to prevent any lapse, mirrors are placed around the room sothat the dancer can see his posture and movements.

As in the fields of physical educaLion so in the field of typewriting,muscular learning needs visual aid because the feel alone may be de-

ceptive. Dr. Edward E. Wan us of. South-Western Publishing Company andother educators have advocated having television screenE, by the student'sdesk to enable the typist to watch his SIngers for the purpose of improving his strokes.2 This method is prohibitively expensive.

Educators have long recognised the fact that the employment of themaximum number of senses produces the most efficacious learning experi-ence. For example, many teachers have achieved good results by usingthe sense of hearing in connection with the kinesthetic sense bycalling out the keys as the students strike them. The kinestheticsense tells one how it feels when he selects the right amount ofmuscular force and applies it at the right time in the proper direction.

Neuro.emuscular integration is important to a typist and can be improvedonly with correct practice. Dr. Lee Cronbach states, "If a personpractices before he knows the correct general pattern of the task, heis likely to practice wrong action. "3 To unlearn an incorrect techniqueand relearn correct responses is difficult; therefore, when this becwesnecessary, most students become discouraged to the "dropping out" point.The hours spent on technique, watching the fingers and developingcorrect feel, are not only essential for the muscular learning but areimportant in developing a good mental attitude toward typewriting.

41:6 Brown, "Greater Coaches"; Athletic Journal: Sept. 1966;

p.

2Edward E. Wanous, lecture given in Fairfax County to Teachers'in-service meeting - Spring 1967.

nee J. Cronbach; Educational Psychology,, (New York and Burlingame:Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1965); p. 014:-

8

The sense of sight will also help the student remember whore the law is

located. A .9 tudy made by Guy H, Weaver in 1938 proved the sight method

as a learning device to be effective in learning the keyboard. His

study did not emphasize the vatchi qg of fingers to develop correct tech-

nique but to learn where keys are located. Weaver concluded, "There is

no evidence to the contrary that the teaching of key. locations by the

sight method W13 in ally way an interference to the pupils learning to

type by the touch method. Key locations may be learned in less time

with advantageous transition from the letter keyboard' through sight to

the touch method of operation. "1

As far as can be determined, no research has been done on teaching

typing by watching the .fingers to gain correct technique and to avoid

wasted rnotion. As has been shown, often in the beginning of a new

muscular .activity the body .does not perform as the subject thinks it

is performing.- Because of this tendency, the beginning typist should

watch the fingers to see that they are moving in the correct patterns.

Through employing to the fullest the sense of sight. fel^ the purpose of

learning, criticizing and evaluating his on skills and technique, the

student will develop a correct pattern that becomes inherent in his

continued growth and performance.

Part 11. PROCEDURES USED IN THE STUDY

The major experimental samples consisted of two beginning typewriting

classes of 56 sophonore students in each group. The students in the

groups were matched individually according to four variables. The

individual matching was done to help control extraneous variables.

After the second quarter, the remaining students who could not be

individually matched were used to form a second experimental and

control group of 51 students in an attempt to further validate the

results from the first analysis..

Description of Traditional Method of 2.,,mairiting, (Control Group)

The control group was taught in the traditional manner as outlined

by the .authors.of.South-Mestera Publishing Company text: .

Economy in learning time will result from the use of a uniform

. .pattern for teaching the new reach-strokes. Direct the students

to look at the textbook illustration and note the visual cues

that identify the controlling finger; then have them look at the

keyboard of the typewriter and locate the key to be controlled

and get an "eye picture" of the direction and the distance of

the reach of the new key. Have them watch the finger make a

few experimental reach-strokes. Sight effectively guides the

finger in making the initial reach. This watching the finger

-TFE-Ogaver, "The Effectiveness in Teaching Keyboard.,Locations on the Typewriter by the Sight Method." Master Thesis,

University of Iowa, 1938.

9

is limited to the initial practice and discouraged in the con-tinuity typewriting. It is not permanent and will not persistunder the epur of presure for increased stroking.1

Description of Experimental Method of Teaching Tzpewriting (Experi-mental Group)

The primary difference between the sight method and the conventionalmethod of teaching typewriting is that students do not use printed copyfor the first twelw.1 to Moen boar=s of typewriting. Emphasis isplaced on bow the fingerr5 move rather than on the material typed.The teacher describes and demonstrates correct stroking of the key andexplains that all fingers not used in the stroking of the key remainover home keys. The students watch their fingers to see that theyremain in correct position and that correct technique is used instroking the key. The teacher checks each student before anotherstroke is practiced and, if necessary, demonstrates individuallycorrect technique.

As the students stroke the key, they are encouraged to say the letterbeing typed to themselves to help develop neuro-muscular integrationin mastering the key position. Therefore, students learn the keyswhile developing good technique.

Keys are presented in the same order as in the 20th Century Typewritingtext published by South-Wes Bern Publishing Company.

After the students have practiced and reviewed all letter keys, theshift key, and space bar, the instructor calls out letters and wordswhile he and the students watch finger movements.

From twelve to fifteen hours are spent watching fingers and using nocopy. The teacher will judge when the class is ready to be transferredto copy watching. In this research, twelve hours were spent in watchingfinger technique.

When the students transfer to watching the copy, the teacher continuesfor about six weeks to observe the students so faulty technique can becorrected. The students appear to have no difficulty in making thetransfer from finger watching to copy watching. They seem to haveconfidence and, therefore, feel less need for looking at the keyboard as they are often observed doing in the conventional classes.

When students begin to watch the copy, they start with the firstlesson in the text and they cover from one to three lessons a dayuntil they have typed the text introduction to the keyboard.

The number row is taught when presented in the text by the samemethod as was used for letter keys.

115757173ssenberry, T. James Crawford, and Lawrence W. FA-iekson,20th Century. Tsfeoeuri_Lim Teachers Manual (New Rochelle, New York: South-Western Publishing Co., 1.965T, p. 167

NM,

Design of Yet- eeareh

For this research fifty-six sophalleres from. Hayfield High-IatermediateSchool C IT d the c;:xpezeimey,Ji,a1. grolIT) and if I t-.3 pb acyj,- g3 r 014

Edison High School made up the control group. Both schools are inFairfax County, Virginia, and serve; the seare general area°

The students used in the two groups were matched and indAvidually

paired according to the following variablesz

1. Age - All students were in a twelve-mnth age bracket and inthe tenth grade as this could reflect motivation and/or

coordination,

2. Sex - Students were at according to sex as the femalestudent may be better coordinated and more highlymotivated than the male student.

3. Grade average - Pairs were matched with the same grade amrageas this could reflect motivation to all learning.

Intelligence - The California nentel Maturity Test was usedand pairs of students were matched within five points.

Table I show; that two groups were well matched and that there was nosignificant difference on these pre-treatment variables. Fifty .-one

students in each school who could not be individually matched weregroup matched. Table 11 in the appendix show; that these additionalfifty-one students were matched with no significant difference on the

above-mentioned variables. They were tested during the last twoquarters to see whether they reinforced the findings on the test of theindividually matched groups.

Teachers used for the groups were well qualified. The control group

teachers were Mrs. Ford, B. A. Degree and four years' teaching exper-ience; Mrs. Hail, B. A. Degree and six years' teaching experience, andMrs. Norton, M. A. Degree and nineteen years" teaching experience.

The originator of this research taught two experimental classes andhad a B. S. Degree and twenty years' teaching experience. Miss HillianB. S. Degree with three years' teaching experience, taught a class

using the sight method by playing audio tapes made in the other exper-

imental classes.

In an effort to avoid the Hawthorne effect, students were not told they

were participating in a research project.

The Edison teachers had always used the teaching procedures as recommended

by the 20th Century Typewriting Manual published by South-WesternPublishing Company, and they agreed to continue this procedure during

this school year.

After twelve hours of using the sight method of teaching, the experi-mental class started using the textbook and watching the copy. Afterthirty more hours, the experimental group was on the same lesson in

11

,

avo

,,,,M774}7 ,..43.11,,V7 4.77

-10,5.4.,W7.r,'

5.

the text as the control group. Subsequently both groups of classeswere taught in the same way for the remainder of the school year withone exception. TiaWA each nine weeks for one hour the experimentalgroup had a typiag technique review lesson.

Manual typewriters were used in both classes andthe only teacher'said. in the way of audio-visual equipment was rhythm. records. Allclasses used these records for about an equal amount of time.

Students were asked whether or not they played piano and this wasrecorded to see if this related learning affected the typing skill.They were not matched according to this criterion.

Timed writing tests were used for comparing the two groups. Eachstudent's paper was checked by his own. teacher and by a teacher of theother research group. At least two teachers were present when testswere being administered. Each student took two timed writings and thebetter of the two was checked for the research.

Three-minute timed writings on new material were given to both groupson November 7-8, 1.968. Gross words, errors and net words per minutewere recorded for both groups. New words were computed by taking threewords from the gross words' for each error.

A fiverminute timed writing test was administered January 30-31,April 1-2, and May 26-27, 1969 Gross words, errors and net wordsper ndnute were recorded and two words were subtracted from thegross words for each error made.

Methods of AnalysisT 0.0..10Inly0C,Mar.M71.11,0

The results in the matched control and experimental samples wereanalyzed by analysis of variance taking into account the effect ofmatching.1 The cross-validation samples of unmatched groups werecompared by ordinary "t" tests.

Part III. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

A. First Amly1512

As previously explained, the central problem of this research pro-ject was to determine if pupils who had been taught .typing by thesight method obtained higher typing scores, that is, more words perminute and with fewer errors than students who had been taught typingby more conventional methods. The experimental group was consideredto be those students who had learned typing by the sight method andthe control group was those students who had learned through theconventional method. In the first analysis, one group of 56 students

Psycholorfical Statistics, (New York: Urley& Cons, 1962), p. 101.

V.4,71611^

12

VMA. ..,qe,Ar-VOlin 3,

were individually matched with. another group of 56 students. Students

on the variables of sex grade point average, reading ability, and

.intelligence quotient scoi'es.

As expected, the comparloon. reported in Table 1 indicates that the

were no significant differences between the matched groups in grade

average, reaching ability, or intelligence quotient. This simpindicates that the students were wval matched on these variables.

As may be seen in Table 1, at the end of the first quarter the con-trol group was able to type slightly more gross words than w6z theexperimental group, but they also made a few more errors. The re-suit was that the net words they were able to type was approximatelythe same.

By the end of the second quarter, there was no significant differencein the number of grcos words which tho two groups were able to type.How6ver, the experimental group made considerably fewer errorsminute than did the control group (0.01 level of confidenoe), andbecause of ti _s the net words typed, was slightly :in favor,of theexperimental group.

At the end of the third quarter, the same trend seen during thesecond was evidenced, except that the net words typed was even morein favor of the experimental group (0.01 level of confidence). Bythe end of the (hth quarter) , there was still no difference in thenumber of gross words typed.

The greatest difference between the typing skills of the two groupsduring the last half of the year was in the number of errors made intyping a timed writing which of course, effected the net speed.Figure 2 cmpares errors made on timed tests through out the year.By the end of the year the experimental group had significantlyfewer errors than the control group. Of the 56 students in eachgroup, 43 (76.7%) of the experimental group typed with fewer than6 errors at the end of the year, while 17 (30.3%) of the eontrolgroup had reached this goal.

Figure 1 shows the comparison of the two groups in net words typedat the end of the second and fourth quarters. This illustrationclearly shows that the frequency distribution was not nomal forthe control group for either the second or fourth quarter. The ex-perimental group showed a bell shapcd.curve which became more pro-nounced in the last quarter of testing. At the end of the secondquarter there were 34 students in the control group and 33 in theexperimental with fewer than 21 words per minute. At the end ofthe year, 27 of the control group had not progressed above this speedwhile only 8 in the.experimental group were in this lower speed range.This would seem to indicate that in the experimental group, goodtechniques developed through "finger watching" would permit continuedspeed development and that the control group taught by the conven-tional method, would have far greater difficulty in increasing netspeed beyond their earlier level.

44.4a84t4Pgl,.42VAMTF.."XM11, "-

eif2.:2At

e.,,,,001.

In suriaary, and as shorn in the comparison of means in Figure. 3,students who were taught by the sight method Eppoaoed to gain inthe numtr of gross words ttyped at about the sane rate as those stu-dents who were taught by convcntional methods. The students taughtby the sight method tended to make fewer errors as they progressedthrough the academic year, while students taught by conventionalmethods gained in the number of erron., per minute. The result wasthat students taught by the sight method wore able to type signifi-cant3y more net words per minute.

B. SccondAnal:ysis.SMPeMra.M f,1,a..":"R4Wrni.

In order to further validate the above reported findings, 51 pupilswho had studied by the sight method and 51 pupils who had studiedby conventional methods wore also cozipared and not individuallymatched. These students were compared for differences in sex, whetheror not they had had piano, grade point averages, reading ability andintelligence quotients. As indicated in Table 1 there were no signif-icant differences between the groups in their means on the controlvariables. This second selection of students (Figure 4) showed thesame pattern of change in the number of gross words typed, the numberof errors, and the Dumber of net words typed. The number of grosswords typed was about the same at the end of both the third andfourth quarters, but the control group made more errors at the endof both quarters and as a result scored, fewer net, words per, minute.Again, the level of confidence was beyond the .01 level.

P-A7edictability. of Typing Scoresyam. wAte,.;2...rvarau.

The purpose or this st:2ction is to examine the relationship betweenthe con',,ro3r variables, i.e., sex, piano .n., and gross words, errors,and net words typed per minute by the students and to test the de-gree to which gross words, errors, and net words may be predictedfrom the just mentioned control variables.

The Table 6 presents the correlation matrix for the different vari-ables used in the report. The variable,"sex" was fairly well cor-related with gross words per minute (r=0.315), and net words6:=0.314), but not too well with the number of errors per minute(r=0.12).). The correlation indicates that the girls were able totype more gross words and net words. The students' grade point av-erages were correlated with gross words (r=0.318), but not with thenumber of errors or net words. Reading ability was correlated withgross words and net words, but not with the number of errors perminute, The students' intelligence quotients were correlated at0.269 with gross words, but intelligemce quotients were uncorrelated

, with either errors or net words. Students who had studied pianotended to type more gross words per rdnube (r=0.35)3) and slightlymore net words (r0.208), but tended to .sake about the same numberof errors per minute.

The number of gross wordt was not correlated with the number of errorsper minute (r=0.009) which indicated that students who tended totype fast make no more mistakes than students who type more slowly.

1)4

72,:,12124.2,4V.,t0A7:411-4,4se4,0

CO

MPA

RIS

ON

CV

NE

TW

OR

DS

PaM

INU

TE

Off

'M

Arr

cHE

D G

RO

UPS

(N

f.X

PESI

MR

.13

TA

LI

C3 ;

=tw

os.

Gao

l; e

Lti 0

0L

I

1/4.

9

00

to0

L7

OG

5

r1/4

1ti

toto

7sz

rN

I?in

\.sr%

c1(

7)to

ND

( 71

NE

T W

OO

S '9

R. 1

4 11

4SE

CO

ND

qv

Ave

rsa_

15 14 I

,-

, 1 ,

.4./

GR

OU

P .

Ln

0t4

1

0=

tn,

(\I

Co

oC

oSI

')

I

Nto

A i

4-st

)

A14

gtr

3

Ip

II

NE

T W

OR

VS

PER

IllN

irrE

u tz

TH

Quz

a-R

seL

lz

0

CO

M.P

DIS

ON

017

1YPE

W.,

TIN

G D

IR.R

OR

.5

OF

EX

Pr:R

IME

NT

AL

AN

D C

oNT

Rob

RoU

PS Y

10.J

P.R

.TE

RA

5 8-

4 II

AT

C1-

1ZD

GR

OU

P

SEC

ON

Dlie

1/4;

:&A

....i

CO

1--n

-S10

1.-

GR

eut7

-

I2

3 4

5" 6

7 2

9 1

0 11

1 2

13 1

4 )5

16

17 (

8 (9

20

01/£

1Z20

4U14

SZR

.. O

F a

fevo

R s

13-

12

, J1.4

1R.V

Q C

JAtZ

TZ

ii

FI

. ___

; ---

i--4

----

-1,-

i.--.

-:. ;i1

7'F.

.t....

7 01

i`tio

lpe

1,4:

14ki

.

1li

le.1

i1

-,-

I'C

ON

TR

OL

GR

OU

P

0

C1

2 3

4 S

Ga

9 s

IIla

to is

PS

16i7

s8

Nun

iPE

RO

F E

RR

OR

S

Z3 II 1-0 9 8 '7 5 4 5

9:7Q

UIR

TIz

i

)CPE

Rir

visN

TA

LC

oRO

uP

19 2

0O

YE

R20

01

2 3

466

7.99

1011

12.

13

(415

16 1

7 18

19

2.0

evE

R

Num

Era

Rc3

12R

OR

S

of

4

r,

N

Ft ca-t ClvAnIeri:

f3ECONc.A. QUARTE.R.

Ili MD QUA 141,

gv

Az-t OR° 55 wovs3s tri.muntrz-,

N l'') t) tl t) 10 4,3 to (II c.) co (Al ei 6) 0 01 co 01 .4 A N Qi A / Co J t6 0 CI pe o + tvi .6:1.1.1_ CO C.4) o -- ,,W12.1,ftrat.U;41,==$.2Vats ..,a.

..c'.'-=<,',21,,,,c.....,.ribraAvAnzr...uanirrraar,,....intstacar,imam..,A-......,..r.: ...St, ' r A Abo utx...:CIAIN2L. t A 21artilin.....

- I

1 6 O

..._. 1 -1

1

.

....._ i g) pi - ..,,,............. i 0 y, 1 r ; T .,,.,..

_ 11) 73

1

2 i

1 to 2

..a.--

r

Foutztt4

F t ft T Opm141 VOK

SECO NI 0.4.,1 n E R.

11-4? R D Qv A RI e.,R

FOL112111 QUARTE R..

O

t R F &O R 41:41tINTS

CI) u4 4 (1 as -1 tt) 7, It N11...101Z ssmore=ure. 17...maxesh poem zeOrao Aar ....rommocuregi,.....=mr.XV-,ASImerrsioww.

S y.

MEAN 111--.:31 NY 0 R.TDS P E, R.,.

aft. 17) 61 4

Ft itz5^T CZVP4 YLTE

V ECOND GpARTER

'THIRD Cat.,ATER

FOUR TN QUA9T ER,

t.) 6, -4 co 0 N

h) to tu 13 >3 )3 IQ 4/

am...OWN sae al. ram ma

7 'n7..7'7,1,146

.777

r

19

P.A1

r-Arrfrir4,1-14I,trerr rfirrerr

12 1 6 u R.F 6ra 1 y-x A ,,,,,y; r)COLTRni "Ly.6.11.1..,_or.... 0-mpARIF;01.71 oil G()sfo APIC:1).471)c-'34,01;,... -,. ......,,,,,..-,...,

AND NT WORT:Y-6 OF, tImPfTel-TED 1.---A1Pc" I. i,,,,

GRo s WORDS

I

I I

12

i0

87

43

N. Worx-

I

II

I

In 0 Li) 0 En 0 In -0 Is) 0 IQ 0 Lc)1 7 T r\t ,N1 CY) tt) t,r) in

(0 I & I I- 2 ;Co o(NI en g Nt- ix) ,C0

( C

10

z 91L1 8t- 7

Cr)6

0 5ix 4111

ED 3

2

1

0

EXP gIR I ME-WEAL Ciro:JP

CONTROL'GROUP

to 0 In o 1) 0 1.1.) 0 in 0 LI)cm c\l M Cc) V. sA- Lc)

ro :o ci- i:1- tri

I

I

r

,

1 i---t -----4__-___

;. I

,

/I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ( I 1 2. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2.0 Tr

Ntlivit5ER. OF lROR

21

Table 1

SIGNIFICANCE CF DIFFERENCE IN MEANS

BETWEEN ONE GROUP OF PUPILS TAUGHT TYPING

BY THE SIGHT METHOD

(EXPERIN=AL) MATCHED WITH A GROUP TAUGHT

BY CONVENTIONAL METHODS (CONTROL)

Variable

iv,ean

(Experimental)

Mean (Y)

Control)

N= 6

- Y

-value

Si.nificance

Pre-test

Grade average

2.27

2.27

0.02

1.01

n.

s.

Reading ability

64.61

65.00

-0.39

0.45

n.

s.

Intelligence quotient

107.00

107.61

-0.61

1.42

n. s.

Post-tests

1st quarter

Gross words

22.66

24.30

-1.65

1.77

0.05

Errors

3.55

4.79

-1.23

1.97

0.05

Net words

13.16

11.91

1.25

'

0.76

n.. s.

2nd quarter

C)

CN

Gross words

31.59

32 96

-1.37

0.71

n.

s.

Errors

5,61

8.79

-3.18

3.29

0.01

Net words

20.29

16.66

3.63

1.90

0.05

3rd quarter

Gross words

37.93

38.36

-0.43

0.36

n. s.

Errors

5.05

10.09

-5.04

5.43

0.01

Net words

27.88

18.89

8.98

4.19

-0.01

4th quarter

Gross words

39.55

40.21

-0.66

0.51

n.

s.

Errors

5.04

9.95

-4.91

4.83

0.01

Net words

29.91

22.07

7.84

3.59

0.01

Variable

Pre-test

Table 2

SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES IN MEANS BETWEEN TWO UNMATCHED

GROUPS OF

PUPILS TAUGHT TYPING BY THE SIGHT METHOD (EXPERIMENTAL)

AND BY CONVENTIONAL METHODS (CONTROL)

Mean (X1)

Standard

Mean (X2)

Standard

(Experimental)

Deviation

(Control)

Deviation

N=51

(Si)

N=51

(S2)

- 52

t-value

Significance

Sex (1=F, 2=M)

1.39

0.49

1.47

0.50

0.08

0.08

n. s.

Piano (1=yes, 2=no)

1.90

0.30

1.80

0.40

0.10

1.42

n. s.

Grade

average

2.35

0.90

2.47

0.82

0.12

0.68

n. s.

Reading ability

63.45

23.81

60.04

26.54

3.41

0.68

n. s.

Intelligence quot.

106.02

11.45

103.94

13.55

2.92

1.16

n. s.

Post-test

3rd quarter

Gross words

36.94

7.95

37.71

8.20

0.76

0.47

n. s.

Errors

5.67

4.08

9.53

5.42

3.86

4.03

0.01

Net words

25.76

10.78

19.82

13.67

5.94

2.41

0.01

4th quarter

Gross words

38.39

7.89

40.61

8.43

2.22

1.36

n. s.

Errors

4.18

2.71

10.04

7.68

5.86

5.09

0.01

Net words

-30.25

8.33

22.59

13.69

7.67

3.38

0.01

Table 3

LIST OF VARIABLES ENTERED INTO REGRESSION FORMULA TO PREDICT GROSS WORDS IN ORDER

ENTERED AND CORRESPONDING REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS, PROPORTION OF VARIANCE

EXPLAINED (R2) AND MULTIPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS (R)

Regression

Variable Coefficients R2

Piano (1=yes, 2=no) -4.085

Reading ability 0,055

Sex (1=F, 2=M) -5.795

Intelligence quotient 0.152

Grade average 13.664

(Intercept) 31.389

0.125 0.354

0.215 0.464

0.283 0.532

0.332 0.576

0.340 0.583

Table 4

LIST OF VARIABLES ENTERED INTO REGRESSION FORMULA TO PREDICT ERRORS IN ORDER

ENTERED AND CORRESPONDING REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS, PROPORTION OF VARIANCE

EXPLAINED (R2) AND MULTIPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS (R)

Variable

RegressionCoefficients R2

Sex (1=F, 2=14) 1.539 0.015 0.124

Grade average 10.417 0.021 0.146

Reading ability -0.034 0.030 0.172

Intelligence quotient 0.035 0.032 0.178

Piano (1=yes, 2=no) -0.058 0.032 0.179

(Intercept) 1.699

27

nMkNOC:.-10

Table 5

LIST OF VARIABLES ENTERED INTO REGRESSION FORMULA TO PREDICT NET WORDS IN ORDER

ENTERED AND CORRESPONDING REGRESSION COEbTaCIENTS, PROPORTION OF VARIANCEEXPLAINED (R2) AND MULTIPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS (R)

Variable

RegressionCoefficients R2 R

Sex (1=F, 2=M) -8.795 0.099 0.314,

Reading ability 0.132 0.160 0.400

Piano -3.047 0.173 0.416

Intelligence quotient 0.111 0.177 0.421

Grade average -16.282 0.182 0.426

(Intercept) 25.74.7

cm" 4 ;6

29

I' ',Sr` 1141V,Vg,

01, 00,

4 rf 1,,/,,,ern

The inter.correlations indicated that the boys tended to have slightlyhigher intel3igence quotients (r=0.278) and fewer of the boys re-ported taking piano (r:,0.288) .

As indicated in Table 3, the gross words which a student will be ableto type may be predicted with 34 per cent accuracy (0-0.3)40) withthe following predictor variables: piano, reading ability, sex,intelligence votimt, and grade average. These variables are listedin the order in which they tended to increase the predictability ofthe equation, that is, "piano" permitted the greatest predictabilityfollowed by "rt,mding ability" in caabinatioa with piano, and thenfollowed by "sex" in combination with the other four. In fact, thisvariable increased the proportion amount of variance explained bythe equation from 33.2 per cent to 34.0 per cent, an increase ofonly .8 per cent. The number of gross word typed per minute wasfairly well correlated with the five predictor variables (Pc-0.583).From Table 3, an appropriate formula for predicting gross words isas follows:

Y = 31.39 - 4.08 Xi, + 0.05 X2 - 5079 X3 + o.15 xh +13.7X5where .

Y = predicted gross wordsX1 = piano (1=yes, 2=no)X2 = reading abilityX3 = sex ( 1=female, 2.male)X4 = intelligence quotientX5 = grade point average

,

As suggested by the preceding correlation analysis, the number oferrors made by each student could not be effectively predicted bythe five predictor variables. The five variables in combinationexplained only 3.2 per cent of the variation in the number of errorsper minute (R2=0.32). There was little relationship between the numberof errors, and sex, grade averages, reading ability, intelligencequotient, or whether or not the students had studied piano. Thenumber of errors by each student was, therefore, dependent on themethod of teaching or, perhaps, same concomitant variable.

The number of net words per minute could not be predicted with theefficiency with which the gross words per minute were predicted.As indicated in Table 5, only 18.2 per cent of the variation in networds was predicted by the five independent variables (R2=0.182).

In summary, a strong relationship was found between the controlvariables and gross words, but not between the control variablesand errors or net words.

Part IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The hypothesis stated that students using the sight method in thebeginning,weeks of typewriting instruction would have greater speedand accuracy at the end of the first schoOl year than students whohad been taught by the more conventional method.

31

4

This experiment failed to confirm the hypothesis regarding gross

speed. However, when net speed, calculated on the basis of errorsmade on the tiirLed writings is the consideration, the experimentalgroup of both analysis attained results significant at the 1 per cent

level of 'confidence.

The number of errors is significantly fewer in both analysis of thosetaught by the sight method. This method results in fewer errors atabout the same gross speed as those taught the conventional way.The error mean increased for the experimental group to a peak thesecond quarter then remained constant. However, the control grouperrors increased steeply through the third quarter and flattenedout; and the error mean remained mach higher then the mean for, theexperimental group. Evidentially the sight method is effective inincreasing accuracy in typewriting.

A strong relationship was found between the control variables andgross speed in typewriting but not between the control variables

and errors or net words. This implies that the two groups matchedon these variables had about the same potentiality for, successful

achievement in learning the typewriting skill. Since the errors ornet words could not be predicted through control variables, it issafe to assume that the difference shown in the two groups was causedby the difference in the two teaching methods.

The multiple correlation between the gross words and the controlvariables in the samples indicates that piano background, readingability, sex, intelligence quotient and gra,:le average would begood potential in predicting achievement in gross typewriting speed.

The results of this research thus indicates that the sight methodof teaching typewriting merits trial by teachers. Further researchis recommended involving a larger sample in various locations andusing a greater number of teachers.

,

r I

I' r : t

; 7 : 1..= ", ;

32

r

,-

A

8

Table 6

SIMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR

VARIABLES USED TO

DESCRIBE FIRST YEAR TYPING STUDENTS

(N=112)*

Variable

Sex

GrA

Rd. Ab.

I.Q.

Piano

Gr. Wd.

Er.

Net.Wds.

Sex (1=F, 2=M)

1.000

0.098

0.116

0.278

0.288

-0.315

0.124

-0.314

Grade

average

0.098

1.000

0.579

0.550

-0.064

0.318

0.089

0.085

Reading ability

0.116

0.579

1.000

0.487

0.010

0.296

-0.015

0.208

Intelligence quot.

0.278

0.550

0.487

1.000

0.011

0.269

0.097

0.083

Piano (1=yes, 2=no)

0.289

-0.064

0.010

0.011

1.000

-0.354

0.020

-0.208

Gross words

-0.315

0.318

0.296

0.269

-0.354

1.000

-0.009

0.623

Errors

0.124

0.089

-0.015

0.097

0.020

-0.009

1.000

-0.712

Net words

-0.314

0.085

0,208

0.083

-0.208

0.623

-0.712

1.000

=*..........

*An r of 0.25 is

significantly different from zero at 0.01 level, an

r of 0.19 is significantly different from

zero

at 0.05 level

ria.

Brown, Lyle.1966, p.

REFERENCES

"Greater Coachess" Athletic Jou, September,

480

Cronbach, Lee J. Educational Ps, cholo New York and Burlin-game: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1963.

Lessenber20thNew

McNemar,19

Wanou.s

, D. D., Fames Crawford, and Lawrence W. Erickson.Centurz,Typewritina Teachers Manual. New Rochelle,

York: South-Western Publishing ComPany, 1965.

Q., Psycholoalcal Statistics, New York: Urlcy & Sons;

62, p. ibl.

, Edward E. Lecture given in Fairfax County to Teacher'sIn-Service Meeting - Spring, 1967.

Weaver, Guy H. "The Effectiveness in Teaching Keyboard Locationson the Typewriter by the Sight Method." Master's Thesis,

University of Iowa, 1938.

West, Leonard J. "Teacher's Perceptions of Research," BusinessEducation World, September, 1967, p. 34.

35

1Prmor".. nr.,,-,..t9ip-pckifiV,MIP: