eText and Typing Research

TypeSmart uses an innovative method based on extensive research. It has been designed and tested by psychologists, trainers and consultants.

How effective is typing tutor software?

In 1995-1996 META Consultants undertook market research to investigate the general effectiveness and user satisfaction of existing typing software. A sample of over 90 business and professional people completed the questionnaire Typing Software - How Was It For You? regarding existing typing tutorial software.

What were the results?

Q.  How do you feel about using existing typing tutor software?

Stressful, boring or indifferent	70%
Enjoyable or satisfying	30%

Q.  How would you rate the effectiveness of existing typing tutor software?

Poor or very poor	56%
Satisfactory	23%
Good or very good	21%

• Largely ineffective at teaching professional and managerial people basic keyboard skills unless they persist for an average of 28 hours.
• Slightly effective for people who have already learned traditional typing. These people can expect to increase their skills by small to modest amounts with an average input of 12 hours.

Q.  Are you interested in hearing about an alternative method of teaching keyboard skills?

Definitely	75%
Undecided	19%
Declined to comment	6%

This research indicated that the eText Method and Software should be seriously considered as an alternative method of teaching keyboard skills. This applies particularly to professional and managerial people who have limited time but need keyboard proficiency to be creative and fully productive.

A PDF copy of the report, prepared by META Consultants Pty Ltd, can be obtained on request.

So how do people feel about conventional typing tutor software?

Examples of comments META Consultants received on conventional typing tutors between 1996 and 2001 included:

“my keying skills are reprehensible and the power age has increased my email volume to 200+ pieces daily, all of which i attempt to respond to. (key word: attempt) i have tried mavis and others but still can't 'home row'...”

J.O'G. - Philadelphia

“I tried [name of product] and found it awful. I gave up after half-an-hour.

T. C. - Government official

“With [well-known typing tutor package], I often just got stuck there, frozen, because of a total mental block as to where the damn letter was! .... this has not happened once since I started using typeSmart ”.

B.A. - Small Business Manager

“As for my lack of success with these products … mostly, its the home row thing, I just can't get my hands to sit on it. Both of these products use it …. TT99 [Typing Tutor 99 Platinum] uses CETM (sic) which has the same finger patterns as eText but is fixated on the home row.

Another problem I have is that I'm dyslexic and the purely visual/mechanical teaching method doesn't work well with me. Mavis recommends saying the letters as typed, which helped but then there was that darn home row thing and it beeping like crazy whenever I got off target.”

David A. - Head Information Systems

 

Supervised Trials

eText 3 Trial - Bendigo Regional Institute of TAFE, Australia

A partly supervised trial of the eText 3 typing tutor software was conducted at the Bendigo Regional Institute of TAFE, an adult education college in Victoria, Australia in 1999 (typeSmart was originally called eText, for electronic text).

The trial indicated that 10 students achieved basic keyboard and typing skills, comprising an average speed of 23 words per minute with an average accuracy of 95 percent in an average of 4.3 hours. All achieved All Finger keyboard and typing skills.

A PDF copy of the report eText 3 Results and Satisfaction in Adult Education, 23 February 2000, prepared by META Consultants Pty Ltd, can be obtained on request.

eText Version 1 Trial - City of Vancouver, BC, Canada

In 1997, META Consultants engaged an independent research consultant to undertake a trial of eText Version 1 with a group of employees of the City of Vancouver (typeSmart was originally called eText, for electronic text).

The consultant was Judy Village, C.P.E. M.Sc., Principal of Judy Village and Associates, Ergonomic Design, Consulting and Education of North Vancouver. The Summary of her report is reproduced here:

“From October 1997 to June 1998, 47 employees of City of Vancouver agreed to participate in a trial of eText typing tutorial software. Thirty participants completed the program and returned post-questionnaires (63.8%). Those that did not complete the program most commonly stated lack of time and workload as reasons. One-third of participants completed the full six hours of eText, and two-thirds completed four or more hours.

“Participants generally found eText easy to use, fairly enjoyable, that it kept their interest and they were satisfied with the program. Statistically significant differences were found from pre to post eText training in the percentage of participants who reported using all their fingers when they type. Participants were significantly faster after training, with an overall 27% increase in typing speed for the group. The percentage of time participants reported looking at their fingers dropped significantly, an average of 47% for the group. There were no significant differences in actual or perceived accuracy pre to post eText training.

“Participants perceptions of their overall keyboard skills pre to post eText training improved significantly, their perceptions of their typing speed increased significantly and participants were significantly more satisfied with using a computer following eText training. There were no increases in pain or discomfort following the eText training.

“Based on the trial conducted at City of Vancouver, it is recommended that the City offer eText typing tutorial to employees wishing to improve their typing skill - specifically use of all fingers, typing without looking at keys, speed and overall keyboard skills and satisfaction.

“It is recommended that META Innovation improve some of the user aspects of the computer program - such as setting up the progress report and moving between skills. More variety in the exercises would also improve satisfaction with the program. Finally, it is recommended that a variety of techniques be used to encourage participants to continue with the program once they show interest, such as offering incentives, providing in-person support, etc.”

Judy's recommendations encouraged us to design and develop eText Versions 2 and 3 and typeSmart, and her suggestions were incorporated into these products.

A PDF copy of the report prepared by Judy Village and Associates can be obtained on request.

typeSmart 3.3 Trial - Victoria University of Technology, Australia.

Report being prepared.

 

Dvorak Keyboard Layout

The Dvorak keyboard layout was designed in the 1930s by Dr August Dvorak, a distant cousin of the Czech composer Dvorak. There are a number of variants on it, generally referred to as the Simplified Keyboard, including layouts designed for languages other than English.

In theory, the Dvorak keyboard layout should be superior because of the simplified and more logical design of the layout. In particular, 70% of strokes are made with the Home Keys, compared to 32% for the QWERTY layout.

Published research indicates that the Dvorak layout is probably superior for traditional typing, as distinct from computer keyboards, in terms of learning time, typing speed, accuracy and travel distances.

However, there is conflicting data and opinion as to the quantum of the benefits. Vested interests of typewriter designers and instructors have probably confused the conclusions (Cassingham, 1995; Navy Department, 1944; West, 1983).

In our assessment, the advantages may be valid but have not been demonstrated to be worthwhile compared to the:

• Retraining time, expected to be 20-40 hours for expert typists using typing tutor software.
• Potential difficulty of switching frequently between the two layouts in many business and education environments that would have a mixture of the two layouts.

We are not aware of any research comparing the two layouts relative to computer keyboards, as as distinct from typewriters, and we would gratefully accept any relevant data.

However, for better or worse QWERTY is the industry standard and we do not have the resources to swim against the tide. Good luck to those who do! There have been very few enquiries regarding including instruction for the Dvorak layout in eText typeSmart over recent years, and thus there is not sufficient interest to justify the investment and possible confusion it could cause in workplaces.

Our eText Method reduces the gap — real or imagined — of the Dvorak over the QWERTY keyboard by avoiding the root cause of the problem relative to computers, namely the Home Keys Technique. Dvorak studied only the layout of the keyboard and neglected to challenge the method of learning to use it, as we have done.

 

Leonard West's Research

Leonard West was a prominent researcher and expert on typing teaching methods.

Nonsense drills

Nonsense drills were used to teach the individual keystrokes for copy-typing on mechanical typewriters with high precision in the traditional typing method and again have been slavishly applied to the modern computer keyboard.

Combinations of characters such as ‘frf’ and ‘juj’ used in conventional typing tutorial software are not part of our language and imprint 'junk chunks' in the mind that need to be erased or 'over-written' before learning to type real words, such as ‘from’, for example.

Leonard West identified the problem of these nonsense exercises and recommended the minimal use of these in typing teaching methods (West, 1983). Because of his dependency on the Home Keys Technique, he was unable to eliminate these from his own teaching method.

TypeSmart teaches only the phonemes and syllables of our language and provides progression onto short, long words and phrases, etc. and employs the Direct Reach method, which helps typists to easily find any key.

West retired not long after his book was published. We believe that if he had continued his research he would have developed the eText method before us, as the next two sections suggest.

Direct Reach

Our close observations of high-speed typists (100 wpm or more) indicated that they do not reach out from the Home Keys and return while typing at high speed. Instead they have instinctively learned the Key-Finger Groups as a psychomotor skill (like driving or playing sport). They sometimes rested their hands on the Home Keys when not typing, but as just a habit.

The advantage of direct reaching was confirmed by the the prominent typing researcher Dr Leonard West in the 1970s and 80s. He recommended: "direct reaching for the keys will happen automatically. Do not discourage direct reaching for the keys; do not insist on a return to the home keys after each stroke" (West, 1983, page 69).

Thus, West is advising that typists have to drop the Home Keys Technique in order to become expert, fixation on these being an impediment to high-speed typing.

Expert typists do not waste time going to the Home Keys. They type like a concert pianist plays. Even though they invariably started with learning the Home Keys, they have let them go and correctly learned the Key-Finger Groups after hours of practice or years of experience. Out of habit they may rest their hands on the Home Keys when about to start or when not actually typing, but once they begin typing the Home Keys Technique becomes superfluous.

By comparison, the eText Method encourages direct reaching on the flatter and more compact computer keyboard right from the beginning. We disagree with West's suggestion that direct reaching happens "automatically" — our research indicates it takes many hours (in excess of 20) of training and practice to break the Home Keys reach-and-return habit devoloped by conventional touch typing methods.

Typewriting rhythm

Easy keystrokes speed up the flow and awkward keystrokes slow it down.

The Home Keys Technique requires the mastering of many awkward finger-keystroke techniques resulting from keeping, or trying to keep fingers in contact with the Home Keys.  This means that any real flow to text creation is difficult.

This is consistent with the research done on type-writing rhythm reviewed by Leonard West who concluded: "there is no place whatsoever in type-writing instruction for so-called rhythm drills" (West, 1983, page 69).

typeSmart uses the Direct Reach method, rather than the Home Keys Technique. This brings all keystrokes to a more or less uniform level of required dexterity, except perhaps for the little fingers, thereby allowing for the possibility of flow or even rhythm. This is similar to expert typists who have been able to 'let go' of the Home Keys to achieve speed and flow.

Covering the keyboard

West concluded that the research indicated that covering the keys so that the student is forced to find the correct keys without looking at the keys provided no learning advantage. The eText method follows this conclusion by allowing the student to look at the keys initially at the same time as employing a method that encourages the student to look at the screen.

 

Typing in Elementary Schools

TypeSmart was designed in response to adults in business, professions and administration desperately wanting a typing tutor designed for adults. However, this section provides information on research on teaching typing in elementary schools.

Note: META Innovation mentions these resources in good faith but is not responsible for the information provided, or the currency of the links.

Papers addressing the teaching of typing in Elementary Schools have been written by Hunter, Benedict and Bilan (1993) and Kahn and Freyd (1993). See References. There seems to be general agreement that keyboard skills are important for elementary school students but on the other hand computer resources are limited and thus there is a need to minimize the time spent on teaching typing.

References

Books

Buzan, Tony, with Barry Buzan, The Mind Mapping Book, Plume/Penguin 1993

Cassingham, R. C. (1995) The Dvorak Keyboard. Freelance Communications, California.

Gilkey, D., & Williams, H. (1994) Ergonomics & CTD: The Problems, Causes, Enforcement and Solutions. ACA Journal of Chiropractic, August.

Hunter, W. J, Benedict, G. & Bilan, B. (1993) On a Need-to-Know Basis: Keyboarding Instruction for Elementary Students. The Technology Age Classroom. Ed. Cannings and Finkel: Franklin, Beedle & Associates Inc., Oregon.

Kahn, J. & Freyd, P. (1993) Touch Typing for Young Children: Help or Hindrance? The Technology Age Classroom. Ed. Cannings and Finkel: Franklin, Beedle & Associates Inc., Oregon.

National Safety Council, Working Safely with your Computer, 1991

Navy Department (1944) A Comparison of Typist Improvement from Training on the Standard Keyboard and Retraining on the Simplified Keyboard. Navy Department. Training Section.

Rose, C., and Malcolm Nicholl, M., Accelerated Learning for the 21st Century. Dell/Bantram, New York, 1997.

West, Leonard J. (1983) Acquisition of Typewriting Skills, Methods and Research in Teaching Typewriting and Word Processing. 2nd Edition: Bobbs-Merrill educational Publishing, Indianapolis (out of print).

Internet

Wright, K.S. & Wallach, D. S. (1997) Typing Injury FAQ
http://www.tifaq.com/

Click here for further references and resources.