A Comparative Study of the Performance of Students in Gregg Shorthand, Diamond Jubilee Series, and Forkner Shorthand in the Seattle Public Schools
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Central Washington University ScholarWorks@CWU All Master's Theses Master's Theses 1967 A Comparative Study of the Performance of Students in Gregg Shorthand, Diamond Jubilee Series, and Forkner Shorthand in the Seattle Public Schools Pearl M. Ribling Central Washington University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/etd Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, and the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons Recommended Citation Ribling, Pearl M., "A Comparative Study of the Performance of Students in Gregg Shorthand, Diamond Jubilee Series, and Forkner Shorthand in the Seattle Public Schools" (1967). All Master's Theses. 763. https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/etd/763 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses at ScholarWorks@CWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@CWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS IN GREGG SHORTHAND, DIAMOND JUBILEE SERIES, AND FORKNER SHORTHAND IN TEE SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the School of Education Central Washington State College In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Education by Pearl M. Ribling July 1967 ';Qll'.J::1TIO:J l\ll:JidS APPROVED FOR THE GRADUATE FACULTY ________________________________ Eugene J. Kosy, COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN _________________________________ Clifford Erickson _________________________________ Kenneth K. Harsha ii ACKNOWIEDGMENT To Dr. Eugene J. Kosy, who served as an inspiring Chairman, this writer is deeply indebted. Grateful acknowledgment is also made to Dr. Clifford Erickson and to Mr. Kenneth Harsha for their assistance and constructive criticism which have been of great help in preparing this study. Acknowledgment is also accorded the administration and teachers from the Seattle Public Schools, whose interest and cooperation helped make this study possible. A special word of thanks is due the writer's husband, Tom, whose patience and assistance played an important part in the completion of this thesis. 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. TEE PROBLEM, THE SHORTHAND SYSTEMS USED, DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED, AND PROCEDURES • • • • 1 The problem • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 Statement of the problem • • • • • • • • • • • 1 Importance of the study • • • • • • • • • • • • 2 The shorthand systems used in this study • • • • 2 Forkner shorthand • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2 Gregg shorthand, Diamond Jubilee Series • • • • 3 Comparison of Gregg and Forkner systems •••• 4 Definitions of terms used • • • • • • • • • • •• 5 Delimitations of the study • • • • • • • • • • '). 9 Procedures • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 10 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE • • • • • • • • • • • • 12 Literature relating to vocational competency • 12 Literature relating to student achievement • • 14 Literature relating to error analyses • • • • • 16 Literature relating to other factors affecting performance • • • • • • • • • • • • 17 Literature relating to comparison of shorthand systems • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 18 Literature relating to the method of research • 22 iv CHAPTER PAGE III. ORGANIZATION OF MATERIALS AND TEST PROCEDURES •• 25 Selecting the sample • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 26 Comparing test results ••••••••••••• 27 Test materials ••••••••••••••••• 30 Preparing and using the tapes • • • • • • • • • • 34 Administering the practice tests •••••••• 34 Ad.ministering the tests • • • • • • • • • • • • • 36 Scoring the tests ••••••••••• • • • • • 38 IV• IN'mRPRETATION OF DATA ••••••••• . • 41 Transcription Rates; Typing, Spelling, Punctuation, and Transcription Errors; Wrong words and Words Omitted ••••••••• 41 Test at 60 wpm •••••••••••••••• • 41 Comparison--typing rate and transcription rate • 45 Teat at 80 wpm ••••••••••••••••• 46 Tests at 100 and 120 wpm ••••••••••• • 48 Variations in transcription rates •••••••• 50 Median scores by dictation rates in each GPA range • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 51 Error competency levels • • • • • • • • • • ••• 56 Speed competency levels • • • • • • • • • • • •• 56 Cumulative error analysis ••• • • • • • • • • • 59 Test at 60 ••••••••• • • • • • • • • • 60 Teat at 80 ••••••••• • • • • • • ••• 63 v CHAPTER PAGE IV. Test at 100 •• . • • • • • • . • • • 67 Test at 120 •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 70 Misspelled words • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 74 Tests at 60 and 80 • • • • • • • • • • • ••• 74 Test at 100 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 77 Test at 120 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 79 Word substitution analysis • • • • • • • • • • • 81 Same shorthand form • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 81 Similar shorthand form • • • • • • • • • • • • 82 Proportion or writing error • • • • • • • • • • 82 Similar word or careless proofreading • • • • • 83 Phrasing • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 83 Cumulative punctuation and grammar error analysis 85 Comparison of student achievement • • • • • • • 85 Error analysis • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 87 Commas omitted • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 87 Commas added • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 87 Other punctuation and grammar errors • • • • • 88 v. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • • • • • • • • • 89 Summary •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 89 Comparisons of student achievement • • • • • 89 Transcription rates •• • • • • • • • • • • • 89 Comparison--typ1ng rate and transcription rate89 Median scores in each GPA range • • • • • • 90 vi CHAPTER PAGE v. Comparison--Gregg 2 juniors and seniors • • 90 Error competency level • • • • • • • • • • 91 Speed competency level • • • • • • • • • • 91 Cumulative error analysis • • • • • • • • • 92 Misspelled words • • • • • • • • • • • • • 93 Word substitution analysis • • • • • • • • 93 Punctuation and grammar analysis • • • • • 93 Conclusions • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 95 Recommendations • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 98 BIBLIOGRAPHY • • • • • . • • • • • • • • •• 101 APPENDIX A • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • lll. Tables APPENDIX B • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 133 Materials and Instructions for Practice tests APPE'NDIX C • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • l '72 Materials and Instructions for 1965 shorthand tests APPENDIX D • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 182 Variables considered when selecting the population of the study APPENDIX E • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 183 Transcripts of four shorthand tests vii LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. Distribution of Grade Point Averages and Median GPA in Each Range • • • • • • • • • • • 28 II. Analysis of Shorthand Tests • • • • • • • • • • 31 III. Total Errors--Test at 60 •••••••••••• 42 IV. T-S-P Errors--Test at 60 • • • • • • • • •••• 42 v. Transcription Errors--Test at 60 •••••••• 43 VI. Wrong Words--Test at 60 • • • • • • • • • • • • 43 VII. Words Omitted--Test at 60 • • • • • • • • • • • 44 VIII. Transcription Rates--Test at 60 •••••••• 44 IX. Typing Scores • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 45 x. Total Errors--Tes t at 80 • • • • • • • • • • • • 46 XI. T-S-P Errors--Test at 80 •••••••••••• 47 XII. Transcription Errors--Test at 80 •••• • • • • 47 XIII. Wrong Words and Words Omitted--Test at 80 • • • 48 XVIII. Total Errors--Tests at 100 and 120 •• • • • • • 49 XIX. Transcription Rates--Tests at 80 and 100 • • • • 50 xx. Median Scores by Dictation Rates • • • • • • • • 52 XXI. Error Competency Levels • • • • • • • • • • • • 57 XXII. Speed Competency Levels • • • • • • • • • • • • 58 xxnn. Cumulative Error Analysis--Teat at 60 ••••• 61 XXIV. Cumulative Error Analysis--Test at 80 • • • • • 64 xxv. Cumulative Error Analysis--Test at 100 • • • • • 68 XXVI. Cumulative Error Analysis--Test at 120 • • • • • 71 viii PAGE XXVII. Misspelled Words--Test at 60 • • • • • • • • • • 75 .xxvrrr. Misspelled Words--Test at 80 • • • • • • • • • • 76 XXI.X.. Misspelled Words--Test at 100 • •• • • • • • • 78 .xxx. Misspelled Words--Test at 120 • • • • • • • • • 80 xx:xr. Word Substitution Analysis ••• • • • • • • • • Al15* XXXII. Cumulative Punctuation and grammar Error Analysis • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 86 XXXIII. Typing Scores--Range and Median in each GPA rangeA126 xxx:rv. Median Scores by Dictation Rates in Each GPA range--Test at 80 • • • • • • • • • • • • Al27 xxxv. Median Scores by Dictation Rates in Each GPA range--Test at 100 • • • • • • • • • • • • Al29 xxx:vr. Median Scores by Dictation Rates in Each GPA range--Test at 120 • • • • • • • • • • • • Al31 * Page numbers preceded by an A are located in Appendix A. CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM, THE SHORTHAND SYSTEMS USED, mtFINITIONS OF TERMS USED, AND PROCEDURES One of the most serious problems facing shorthand teachers today is the amount of time now required to teach students to become proficient stenographers and secretaries. The time factor is becoming more and more troublesome with the current emphasis upon taking the students into more fields and taking them there faster than ever before. Many investigators have compared the learning time and achieve ment levels acquired in two or more systems of shorthand, but there has been no previous study comparing Gregg Short hand, Diamond Jubilee Series, Functional Method, and Forkner Shorthand. I. THE PR OBI.EM Statement of the problem. It was the purpose of this study (1) to compare end-of-the-year achievement of the students taking Gregg Shorthand with those taking Forkner Shorthand in the Seattle Public Schools, (2) to make an error analysis of student