Relationship of augmented feedback and directed practice in the improvement of typewriting accuracy

• Main Author: Rankine, Frederick Charles
• Language: English
• Published: University of British Columbia 2011
• Subjects: Typewriting
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/2429/36060

The problem of this study was to determine what effects the experimental manipulation of augmented feedback, remedial practice, and their combination have for the improvement of typewriting accuracy. The problem was generated from the research literature on skill learning which points out the efficacy of supplying additional information to students undertaking improvement in the skill area. The pertinent literature dealing with typewriting fails to take advantage of the psychological principles found useful to skill development. The general hypotheses were that augmented feedback, remedial practice, and their combination would benefit students at specified levels of typewriting skill. Measures of type-writing performance were obtained from one hundred and thirty-five students in two local high schools. The sample represented two schools, four teachers, and eleven typewriting classes. Students were assigned to a skill level on the basis of their demonstrated performance, and then randomly assigned to treatment groups. The obtained criterion measures were analyzed by analysis of variance. The results generally support the hypotheses at the letter level and word level of performance. The hypothesis made for the phrase level of performance was not supported. The results for each experimental hypothesis are given below: Hypothesis 1: The superiority of augmented feedback was predicted for students at the letter level of performance. The measure of repeated errors confirms this prediction, while the measures of test errors and drill errors approach significance. The measure of net words was not significant. Hypothesis 2: The superiority of augmented feedback was predicted for students at the word level of performance. This prediction was not confirmed by any of the criterion measures. Hypothesis 3: The superiority of remedial practice was predicted for students at the letter level of performance. The measures of drill errors, repeated errors, and test errors confirm this, while the measure of net words approached significance. Hypothesis 4: The superiority of remedial practice was predicted for students at the word level of performance. The measure of drill errors was significant. The measures of test errors and net words approached significance, while the measure of repeated errors was not significant. Hypothesis 5: The superiority of remedial practice was predicted for students at the phrase level of performance. This prediction was not confirmed by any of the measures. Hypothesis 6: The superiority of the combination of augmented feedback and remedial practice was predicted for students at the letter level of performance. This prediction was confirmed by measures on drill errors and repeated errors. The measure of test errors approached significance, while the measure of net words was not significant. The predictions for the letter-level students are confirmed. Both augmented feedback, remedial practice, and their combination result in significant gains in typewriting accuracy. The predictions for the word-level students are partially supported. Augmented feedback did not contribute to any significant gains in accuracy, but remedial practice was found superior in two of the four measures used. The prediction for the phrase-level students was not confirmed. Remedial practice did not appear to have any effect on the accuracy of the students at the phrase level. === Education, Faculty of === Graduate