University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan Copyright By
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
This dissertation has been 62-819 microfilmed exactly as received TOOTLE, John C., 1924- TYPEWRITING IN THE WRITTEN COMMUNICA TION ACTIVITIES OF THE FIFTH GRADE. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1961 Education, theory and practice University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan Copyright by John C. Tootle 1962 TYPEWRITING IN THE WRITTEN COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES OF THE FIFTH GRADE DISSERTATION Presented In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By John C„ Tootle, B. S., M. A. ****** The Ohio State University 1961 Approved by ( A d v i s e r Department of Education ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The study reported here could not have been accomplished without the assistance of many people. It is a pleasure to acknowledge publicly some of the important contributions made during the progress of the study. Among members of the staff of The Ohio State University, Dr. J Marshall Hanna has been a considerate and understanding adviser. His professional guidance and warm friendship have made my entire doctoral program an enjoyable experience. Dr. Ruth B. Streitz has given generously of her time and assistance throughout the study. Dr. Inez Ray Wells read the study and gave many helpful suggestions. Mr. L. 0. Andrews, Miss Norma Cheeseman, Mrs. Melba Griffin, Mrs. Verna Reece, and Mrs. Esther Whaley also have contributed generously to the study. Dr. L. Edwin Smart and Miss K. C. Haynes of the Department of Economics did the statistical treatment of the data and prepared the material in Appendix E. Their advice and assistance strengthened the study considerably. Dr. Charlotte Huck, Judy Angus, Thelma Bounds, Eulah C. Grim, Eron M. Haines, Maryanne Mamakos, and Virginia H. Weaston assisted in evaluating the creative writing of students involved in the study. The Remington Portable Typewriter Division of the Sperry Rand Corporation made the experimental part of the study possible by the loan of 95 portable typewriters. Phil Pepe and Jack Shayne of the New York office and Jack Palmer of the Columbus office have been particularly helpful throughout the study. ii iii The Upper Arlington School System co-operated in providing the experimental and control classes for the study. The three experimental teachers, Mrs. Sally Bishop, Mrs. Marylou Bowers, and Mrs. Julie Hipp, probably did more than any other persons to ensure the success of the study. Their willingness and enthusiasm resulted in a professionally rewarding experience and warm personal friendship for me. Mr. Donald Guss, Mrs. Dorothy Herbert, Mrs. Marcia Janton, Mrs. Carol Jones, Mrs. Ruth Ward, and Mrs. Narwista Willis, who taught the control classes, were always co-operative and encouraging despite many disruptions of their normal classroom routines. Mr. Ralph E. Ater, supervising principal of elementary schools, and Mrs. Anna Hune, principal of Wickliffe School, Mr. Louis McPeek, principal of Barrington School, and Mr. Morris Taylor, principal of Fishinger School, contribute advice and assistance at many stages of the study. Charles Albig, Gerald DeVault, Hendley Diehl, Barbara Jones, Don Jones, Stanley Justice, Don Trevett, and Ronal Wall helped in many in stances by moving and checking typewriters, scoring tests, and so on. My brother-in-law and sister, Gordon and Jeri McDowell, have provided moral and material support throughout my doctoral program. They have made a most essential contribution to this study. Finally, it is appropriate to acknowledge the contributions of the students in the experimental classes. They were ideal learners; they also were very effective teachers of such things as enthusiasm and affection. J.C.T. CONTENTS Chapter Page I. THE PROBLEM .............................................. 1 Nature of the Problem .............................. 1 Purpose of the S t u d y .............................. 2 Importance of the S t u dy ............................ 3 Limitations of the Study .......................... 3 Methods Used for the S t u d y ........................ 4 Organization of the Study .......................... 4 II. RELATED RESEARCH ................................... 6 The Wood-Freeman Study ............................ 6 The University of North Dakota Study ............. 8 The Royal McBee Study .............................. 9 S u m m a r y ............. 12 III. PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS ............... 13 Unit I: Learning To T y p e .......................... 13 Unit II: Improving Typing S k i l l .......... 20 Unit III: Thinking At The Typewriter ............. 21 Unit IV: Typing Letters ............................ 22 Explanatory Notes for Teachers ................... 23 S u m m a r y ................................ 24 IV. PROCEDURES USED AND SCHOLASTIC SETTING FOR THE EXPERIMENTAL PART OF THE STUDY .......... 25 The Schools ......................................... 25 The Teachers Involved in the S t u d y ............... 26 Characteristics of Students Involved in the Study . 28 Testing in Other Subject Areas .................... 34 S u m m a r y ............... 37 V. EXPERIMENTAL USE OF THE TYPEWRITER .................... 38 Procurement of Equipment ................. 38 Physical Facilities ................................. 39 Time Schedule . ................................... 41 Unit I .............................. .......... .. 41 Unit I I .............................. 45 Unit I I I .............................. 46 Unit I V .............................................. 48 iv V Chapter Page Integration of Typewriting Ability ............... 48 Summary ....................................... 51 VI. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY .................................... 52 Mastery of Typewriting ............................ 52 Effects of Typewriting on Written Activities . 54 Effects of Typewriting on General Educational Development ......................... 62 Evaluations by Teachers and Administrators .... 67 S u m m a r y ................................ 73 VII. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 75 Summary of F i n d i n g s ................................ 75 Conclusions......................................... 76 Recommendations ..................................... 78 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................... ..... 80 APPENDIX A ......................................... ..... 84 Explanatory Notes for Teachers ................... 85 Instructional Materials ............................ 94 APPENDIX B .................................................... 152 Illustrations of the Typewriter in Fifth-Grade . 153 APPENDIX C ..................... 155 Samples of Work Typewritten by Students ........... 156 APPENDIX D .................................................... 161 Spelling Tests Used in the S t u d y ................. 162 Form Used for Evaluating Creative Writing ......... 163 Frequency of Use of Fitzgerald's 100 Spelling B o n e r s ......................................... 164 Frequency of Use of Rinsland's 500 Words Most Common to Fifth Grade .......................... 165 APPENDIX E .................................................... 170 Statistical Treatment of the D a t a ................. 171 TABLES Table Page 1. The Experimental and Control Groups Equated According to Sex, Age, Intelligence Quotients, Spelling Ability, and Creative Writing Ability ............. 29 2. Gross Typing Speeds Achieved and Errors Made on a One-Minute Test After the First 22Lessons .... 44 3. Gross Typing Speeds Achieved and Errors Made on a One-Minute Test at the End of Unit I I ............. 46 4. Gross Typing Speeds and Total Errors Achieved by Experimental Students on Three One-Minute Typing Tests During the S t u d y ............................ 53 5. Beginning and Final Spelling Scores for Experimental and Control Groups .............................. 57 6. Comparison of Handwriting Speeds of Experimental and Control Students at Beginning and Conclusion of E x p e r i m e n t ................. 58 7. Comparison of Handwriting Quality of Experimental and Control Students at Beginning and Conclusion of E x p e r i m e n t ......................................... 59 8. Comparison of Creative Writing Quality of Experimental and Control Students at Beginning and Conclusion of Experiment ................................ 60 9. Total Creative Writings Produced by Experimental and Control Groups During a Six-Weeks Period ......... 61 10. Comparison of Science Achievement of Experimental and Control Groups at Beginning and Conclusion of E x p e r i m e n t ........... •............................ 63 11. Comparison of Social Studies Information Achievement of Experimental and Control Groups at Beginning and Conclusion of Experiment ............... 64 12. Comparison of Social Studies Study Skills Achievement of Experimental and Control Groups at Beginning and Conclusion of Experiment ...................... 65 vi vii Table Page 13. Comparison of Reading Achievement of Experimental and Control Groups at Beginning and Conclusion of Experiment ................................ 66 14. Comparison of Arithmetic Achievement of Experimental and Control Groups at Beginning and Conclusion of Experiment ....................................... 67 15. Test Scores Before and After Use (Experimental Group) and Non-Use (Control Group) of Typewriter by 48 Matched Pairs of Fifth-Grade Students ............. 171 16. Differences in Means of Test Scores Before and After Use (Experimental Group) and Non-Use (Control Group) of Typewriter by 48 Matched Pairs of Fifth-