Publication Date

1965

Document Type

Dissertation/Thesis

First Advisor

Stehr, B. W.

Degree Name

M.S. (Master of Science)

Department

Department of Physics

LCSH

Typewriting--Study and teaching

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the comparative effectiveness of two methods of teaching proof readings (1) The students were taught what errors to look for when proofreading, but they had no oral reading from the teacher, (2) Students were taught what errors to look for when proofreading; then, the teacher orally read straight-copy timed writings as students simultaneously proofread the typewritten copy. Two groups were involved in the study, a control group and an experimental group. These groups were equated on the basis of I. Q. and reading scores. The control group proofread without the oral reading demonstration of the teacher. The experimental group proofread as the teacher orally read the straight-copy timed writings to them. Proofread timed writings ware collected throughout the year to determine if a point was reached beyond which the method used with the experimental group had little value in developing additional proofreading skill. Timings were collected at the end of the year and compared with factors of I. Q., composite wooding scores, typing speed, and typing accuracy to determine the cooperative effectiveness of the two methods. A comparison based an the per cent of errors undetected by the control and experimental groups was also made. The findings of this study were of limited value because of the small number of cases involved. It could not be determined from the data collected if a point was reached beyond which the method used with the experimental group was of little value in developing additional proof reading skill. There was a probable indication that the method used with the experimental group tended to develop the better proofreaders from those students who had the lower I. Q. scores, lower reading levels, and poorer typing accuracy. Proofreading ability did not seem to be affected by typing speed. Throughout the learning period the control and experimental groups did equally as well, but when both groups proofread on their own at the end of the learning period, the experimental group did significantly better than the control group.

Comments

Includes bibliographical references (pages 41-43)

Extent

46 pages

Language

eng

Publisher

Northern Illinois University

Rights Statement

In Copyright

Rights Statement 2

NIU theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from Huskie Commons for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without the written permission of the authors.

Media Type

Text

Share

COinS