Evaluating the Effectiveness of an Individualized Progress Method of Teaching Intermediate Typewriting at Utah State University

• Main Author: Klemin, Vernon W.
• Format: Others
• Published: DigitalCommons@USU 1973
• Subjects: Teaching; Intermediate; Typewriting; Utah; State; University; Education; Educational Methods
• Online Access: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/2200; https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3203&context=etd

The purpose of this study was to compare the achievement and attitudes of students who experienced two different methods of intermediate typewriting teaching at Utah State University. This experimental research was conducted in the Department of Business Education and Office Administration at Utah State University, Logan. Utah, during the winter quarter of 1973. The statistical population included forty-two control group students and eighteen experimental group students. An instructional model was developed to allow the control group to move through the instructional model as a traditional structured group while the experimental group proceeded through the instructional model on an individualized progress basis. The design of the model included eight learning units. videotaped instruction. individual and group testing, and group administered skill building. Two teachers were used in the study. Each teacher taught a control and experimental group.To evaluate the effectiveness of the model, two major categories of null hypotheses were tested. They were: (1) hypotheses testing the overall effects of the experiment, and (2) hypotheses testing the effects of each individual learning unit. Teacher-made pretests and posttests were developed to measure the overall achievement in typewriting theory, straight-copy, five-minute timed writing speed, accuracy, and proofreading. Also, pretests and posttests were developed to measure typewriting theory, production speed, and-production accuracy for each of the learning units used in the study. Sixteen selected questions from the nlinois Course Evaluation, Form 66, 1965, were used to measure the attitudes of students. A report was made by each teacher stating the number of days it took each student to complete the course requirements. Two-way regression analysis of covariance was employed to test the hypotheses related to the achievement of students on theory tests, straightcopy timed writing tests, and unit production tests. The hypothesis related to the attitudes of students was tested by two-way regression analysis of variance on each of the sixteen questions. The following findings were reported: There were no significant differences with respect to treatment groups, teachers, and method-teacher interaction on all overall achievement measures, on four of the six learning units tested, or on twelve of the sixteen attitude There was a significant difference between teachers in favor of Teacher One but not treatment groups nor method-teacher interaction on each of these questions: "The instructor seemed to be interested in students as a person." "The lnstructor had a thorough lmowledge of his subject matter. " "The instructor seemed to consider teaching a chore or routine act. " There was a significant difference between treatment groups in favor of the control group but not teachers nor method-teacher interaction on the question, "It was a very worthwhile course," although both groups agreed that the course was worthwhile. There was a significant difference between treatment groups in favor of the control group on manuscript production speed. No other Significant differences in the manuscript unit were found. There was a significant difference between teachers in favor of Teacher One on simple tables production speed. No other significant differences in the simple tables unit were found. The control group had thirty-nine students who completed the course requirements at the end of the normal quarter and had three students who finished late. The experimental group had eight students who completed the questions. course requirements early, nine students who finished at the end of the normal quarter, and one student who finished later. The major recommendations were: 1. Business educators should consider the individualized progress method of instruction as a viable alternative to the traditional structured-group method of instruction in all areas of intermediate typewriting achievement except on manuscript production speed development. 2. Business educators should consider the individualized progress method of instruction as a viable alternative to the traditional structured-group method of instruction when favorable attitudes toward intermediate typewriting are important. 3. To utilize the current typewriting facilities at Utah State University more efficiently and to accommodate the needs of individual students, a minimum of two sections of intermediate typewriting should be offered in the typewriting curriculum of Utah State University. One of these sections should be a traditional structured-group method of instruction and the other should be an individualized progress method of instruction.