CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OVERVIEW This chapter presented summary of the results obtained in the study

in tables and indicates which hypothesis was supported and those that were not supported. It further discusses the result obtained hypothesis by hypothesis and links them with previous literature in the area. RESULTS The hypothesis of the study was tested using the univariate analysis of variance. This is because the research design was a 2X2 factorial design, which is, three independent variables each on two levels measured on the same dependant variable. Participants in the computer screen presentation group will have a lower proofreading accuracy than participants in the paper print out presentation group The first hypothesis that participants in computer screen presentation will have a lower proofreading accuracy than participants in the paper print out presentation was tested using the analysis of variance. The result obtained shows that there was no significant difference (F (1,119) = 2.048 p= .155) between the computer screen presentation group (M = 9.19, SD = 3.09) and paper print out group (M = 8.51 SD = 2.46) in error detection in the material presented. That is the mode of presentation does no influence the detection of error. This hypothesis was not supported by the result of the study. Details are presented in table 4.1 and 4.2

Participants in the computer screen presentation/big font size group will have a higher proofreading accuracy than participants in the paper print out presentation/big font size group The second hypothesis that Participants in the computer screen presentation/big font size group will have a higher proofreading accuracy than participants in the paper print out presentation/big font size group was tested using the univariate analysis of variance. The result obtained shows that although both mode of presentation and font size did not significantly influence the detection of an error during proof reading respectively but the interaction effect was significant (F details.
(1, 119)

= 20.504, p = .000). See table 4.1 and 4.2 for

Table 4.1 Summary of Means, and standard deviation of font size and mode of presentation on detection of error Font size of the Form of Std. material presentation Mean Deviation N Small font size paper 7.42 2.391 31 computer screen 10.24 2.668 29 Total 8.78 2.882 60 big font size paper 9.63 2.008 30 computer screen 8.17 3.174 30 Total 8.90 2.735 60 Total paper 8.51 2.461 61 computer screen 9.19 3.093 59 Total 8.84 2.799 120

Table 4.2 Summary o univairate analysis of variance of font size and mode of presentation on Detection of error Type III Sum Mean Source of Squares df Square F Sig. Font size .15 1 .15 .022 .883 Mode of presentation .155 13.77 1 13.77 2.05 Font size * mode of presentation Error Total 137.87 779.99 10313.00 1 116 120 137.87 6.72 20.50 .000

Corrected Total 931.99 119 a R Squared = .163 (Adjusted R Squared = .141) A multiple comparisons (least significant difference) was computed to determine which means significantly differed from each. The result obtained shows that there was significant difference (M = 2.21) between the mean of small font size paper and big font size paper. The result also shows that there was a significant difference (M = 2.82) between the mean of small font size paper and small font size computer screen. It was also observed that there was a significant difference (M = 1.47) between the mean of big font size paper and big font size computer screen. Also there was a significant difference (M = 2.08) between the mean of small font size computer screen and big font size computer screen see table 4.3 for details.

Table 4.3 Summary of LSD for the interaction effect of font size and mode presentation on error detection (I) Interaction effect Small font*paper (J) Interaction effect Big font*paper Small font*computer screen Big font*computer screen Small font*paper Small font*computer screen Small font*computer screen Big font*computer screen Small font*paper Big font*paper Big font*computer screen Big font*computer screen Small font*paper Mean Difference (I-J) -2.21* -2.82* -.75 2.21* -.61 1.47* 2.82* .61 2.08* .75 -1.47* -2.08*

Big font*paper

Big font*paper Small font*computer screen * The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

There is a significantly positive relationship between familiarity with mode of presentation and detection of error The third hypothesis that there is a significantly positive relationship between familiarity with mode of presentation and detection of error was tested using the Pearson Product Moment Correlation. Summary of the result obtained is presented in table 4.3 below.

Table 4.3 Summary of Pearson Product Moment Correlation between familiarity with mode of presentation and detection of error Familiarity with mode of presentation Familiarity with mode of presentation Detection of error .268**

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). The result obtained shows that there is a significantly positive relationship (r(59) = 0.268, p< 0.01) between familiarity with the computer screen and detection of error on the computer screen. That is the more familiar the participant is with the computer screen detected more errors than those who where not familiar with the computer screen and read from the screen. This hypothesis was supported by the finding of the present study. Summary of the results The study had three main hypotheses which it sought to test, some of these hypotheses were supported whilst others were not supported or rejected. Hypotheses that were supported Hypothesis 2: Participants in the computer screen presentation/big font size group will have a higher proofreading accuracy than participants in the paper print out presentation/big font size group Hypothesis 3: There is a significantly positive relationship between familiarity with computer screen and detection of error on the computer screen Hypotheses that were not supported Hypothesis 1: Participants in the computer screen presentation group will have a lower proofreading accuracy than participants in the paper print out presentation group