This experiment compared the typing performance of nontypists on two typewriter keyboards, one with a standard key arrangement and the other with keys rearranged in alphabetical sequence. The analysis included only the results for 40 5s whose scores in a pretest were lower than 2.00 strokes per sec The 5s were divided into two groups. Following pretests on both standard and alphabetical keyboards, each group practiced on one type of keyboard only. At regular intervals, 5s took 10-min. tests on the assigned machines; and at the end of the practice, all Ss were tested again on both machines. The results indicate that untrained typists can enter correct data faster on a standard typewriter keyboard than on the sequential alphabetical keyboard Reviewing the history of the so-called standard typewriter keyboard, Dvorak (1943) noted that the original keyboard design was based on the assumption "that typists would 'hunt and peck' with the first finger of each hand," and that the designer, C. L. Sholes, to avoid mechanical problems, was therefore in 1873 forced to locate "in different quadrants of the typebar circle the letters most frequently used in words [p. SI]." The result was, Dvorak asserted, "one of the worst arrangements possible" for the modern touch typist. Declaring that "There is a better typewriter keyboard [Dvorak, Merrick, Dealey, & Ford, 1936, p. 219]," he then proposed what has since been generally known as the "Dvorak-Dealey keyboard." Although convincing evidence was submitted (Davis, 1935;Griffith, 1949) to support his claim, Dvorak's design did not (for reasons that need not be discussed here) displace the original 1873 Sholes arrangement, and keyboard configurations continue to be a subject of investigation.Keyboards, however, appear to present some of their investigators with relatively peculiar problems, such as the difficulty that arises when an experiment is intended to yield results applicable to data-entry keysets in general. The difficulty is associated with
This study examines how students explain their conceptual understanding of protein function using visualizations. Thirteen upper secondary students, four tertiary students (studying chemical biology), and two experts were interviewed in semi-structured interviews. The interviews were structured around 2D illustrations of proteins and an animated representation of water transport through a channel in the cell membrane. In the analysis of the transcripts, a score, based on the SOLO-taxonomy, was given to each student to indicate the conceptual depth achieved in their explanations. The use of scientific terms and non-conventionalized expressions in the students’ explanations were investigated based upon a semiotic approach. The results indicated that there was a positive relationship between use of scientific terms and level of education. However, there was no correlation between students’ use of scientific terms and conceptual depth. In the interviews, we found that non-conventionalized expressions were used by several participants to express conceptual understanding and played a role in making sense of the visualizations of protein function. Interestingly, also the experts made use of non-conventionalized expressions. The results of our study imply that more attention should be drawn to students’ use of scientific and non-conventionalized terms in relation to their conceptual understanding
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.