Sevier, Russell Leon2016-11-232016-11-231972https://scholarworks.montana.edu/handle/1/11418Purpose: To determine the effectiveness of using the micromolar approach and the early new-matter approach to the teaching of beginning shorthand and if there would be a significant difference between the two. Method and Sources: a. The study involved two shorthand classes at Dawson County High School. Thirty-six students and one teacher were randomly assigned to the two groups. b. Students in Group A were taught using the early new-matter approach, and students in Group B were taught using the micromolar approach. c. The clerical interest and academic ability of the students in both groups were compared prior to the beginning of shorthand instruction. d. Practice dictation material was taken from the shorthand textbook, and from 'Shorthand Dictation ABC's, Third Edition', by Allien R. Russon. Test dictation material was taken from the latter. e. All of the techniques outlined for the early new-matter approach were used in Group A. f. A constant dictation rate of 100 words a minute, using tracing plates, was maintained by the students in Group B. g. Dictation speed attempted and percent of accuracy attained by each student in Groups A and B were used for the final comparison. h. A "t" test of 1.96 was used to test the significance of all data. Summary of Findings a. Both the early new-matter approach and the micromolar approach are effective in the teaching of beginning shorthand b. There was no significant difference at the five percent level of confidence between the achievement of students taught by these two approaches, as measured by 3-minute new-matter dictation tests.enShorthand--Study and teachingProfessional PaperCopyright 1972 by Russell Leon Sevier