The primary purpose of the investigation was to determine the status of word processing centers within the Urban Corridor of Virginia. The problem was an identification of the factors in the word processing conversion process and of the typing and nontyping tasks performed and the employment tests administered in the word processing centers.
Participants in the study were 19 organizations with word processing centers. Nineteen supervisors, 17 correspondence secretaries, and 2 administrative secretaries were interviewed.
To obtain the needed data, the Word Processing Interview Guide was developed by the investigator and validated by a jury panel. In the analysis of the data, frequency distributions and percentages of the responses were calculated. To determine the extent of the difference of the job tasks performed by word processing supervisors and secretaries, the Chi-square statistic was computed. In addition to the statistical analysis, 19 case studies were developed.
The following conclusions were derived from the results of the study:
1. Most participating organizations converted to a word processing system because of their desire to improve the quality and quantity of correspondence in their office.
2. In most organizations, the decision to convert to a word processing system was made by upper-level management.
3. As a technique employed in the conversion process, most organizations procured the assistance of a word processing sales representative.
4. Reluctance on the part of personnel to accept the word processing concept was the major problem encountered in making the transition to word processing.
5. Most organizations preferred the five-minute straight-copy typewriting test as a method for determining the typewriting speed for secretaries entering word processing work.
6. The minimum straight-copy typewriting rate required by most organizations was 50 words a minute.
7. Clerical skills in basic math, English grammar, filing, proofreading,and spelling were generally not part of the pre-evaluation of word processing applicants.
8. Most word processing employers did not consider previous office work experience a hiring requirement for word processing positions.
9. The ability to take shorthand dictation was not a requirement for secretarial employment in any of the participating word processing centers.
10. Previous experience in the use of a Selectric typewriter and of a dictation machine was not considered an essential qualification for word processing positions by most word processing employers.
11. Most of the automatic typewriters and dictation units installed in the participating word processing centers were manufactured by International Business Machines Corporation.
12. On-the-job instruction in the operation of equipment was provided by most word processing employers.
13. Some method of measuring correspondence secretaries' typing tasks was used by most of the organizations. The most frequently used method of measurement was the number of lines produced.
14. There appeared to be some overlap in the nontyping job tasks performed by supervisors and correspondence secretaries. Although supervisors were responsible for most nontyping activities, correspondence secretaries also performed some nontyping tasks.
15. There appeared to be some overlap in the typing job tasks performed by supervisors and correspondence secretaries. Although correspondence secretaries principally performed typing tasks, supervisors also engaged in some typing activities.
16. The majority of word processing centers had not adopted the administrative support function. / Ed. D.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:VTETD/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/38674 |
| Date | 22 June 2010 |
| Creators | Spring, Marietta |
| Contributors | Vocational and Technical Education |
| Publisher | Virginia Tech |
| Source Sets | Virginia Tech Theses and Dissertation |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Dissertation, Text |
| Format | x, 191 leaves, BTD, application/pdf, application/pdf |
| Rights | In Copyright, http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ |
| Relation | OCLC# 05719319, LD5655.V856_1977.S68.pdf |
Page generated in 0.0021 seconds