@CUE
Problems of Computer Keyboarding inan EFL Context
Eric Gondree
Konan University
Computer skills have become a necessary prerequisite for functioning in amodern, computerized society. Not only have computers become a ubiquitous
tool in academia and the workplace, but computer use is also an important partof the portfolio of skills that the future workforce should possess in technologyrich environments (OECD, 2013). Individuals who fail to develop these skills
may face significant disadvantages such as an inability to effectively accessand use computer technology in today’s increasingly interconnected world.
As educators, we wish to prepare our students for the modern workplace andprovide them with the tools they need to succeed in their ongoing educationaland career aspirations, such as an ability to do computer-based work in English.
However, using a computer keyboard has its own set of inherent difficulties thatstudents must grapple with in order to complete their work successfully.
Japan routinely ranks high in international measures of technological literacy(OECD, 2013), but Japanese university students nonetheless enter their studies
with low keyboarding abilities ( Johnson & Brine, 2000; McDonald & Foss,
2007). Although most Japanese grow up in a technologically rich environment
and are adept at using portable phone-based applications for purposes ranging
from social networking to email, these skills may not necessarily be transferrable
to keyboard use in an academic context (Lockley & Promnitz-Hayashi, 2012).
This may be due to the fact that portable devices frequently employ numericpads or thumb-operated virtual keyboards rather than full-sized keyboards for180Problems of Computer Keyboarding in EFL, OnCUE Journal, 7(3), pages 180-187

two-handed typing.
The literature on the topic of second language (L2) computer keyboarding
is limited. Although there is a significant body of work done on the use ofcomputer keyboards in the context of first language (L1) instruction, issues
surrounding the issue of keyboard use in L2 contexts are often anecdotal, withlittle in-depth study (McDonald & Foss, 2007). While Lee (2002) and Wolfeand Manalo (2004) have noted that typing can be described as a source ofproblems in L2 writing output, such statements are accompanied by limited
elaboration. Other authors credit improvement in L2 typing performance by
exposing students to practice but lack evidence to support the claim ( Johnson &Brine, 2000). Additionally, the problems in L2 keyboarding have been noted but
remarked upon incidentally (Shin, 2006) because the topic is beyond the focusof the paper. A few studies treat keyboarding as a form of input and measure its
effects upon L2 learner memory instead of focusing on keyboarding as a form of
output (Gascoigne, 2006; Sturm, 2006). As a result, much of the existing studies
on the topic are not conducive to answering the question of how L2 learners canbecome better typists.
The only two studies the author could find which explicitly address theimpact of typing instruction on student output in a university-level L2 context
were conducted by McDonald and Foss (2007, 2009). McDonald and Foss
(2007) noted that exposure to regular typing instruction, such as dedicatingclass time to the use of online typing activities and games, did result in a slight
improvement of student typing speed and “considerable” improvements in
typing accuracy over the course of a semester. However, the authors were unable
to draw conclusions about the most effective ways of improving typing skills
or whether the investment in class time was worthwhile. In a follow-up study,
the authors (McDonald & Foss, 2009) examined L2 student typing speed
and accuracy to gauge the effectiveness of typing instruction. They found that
although improvements in typing were notable in all observed groups, thedifferences between highly-practiced groups and control groups without typing
practice were statistically insignificant. This suggests that students’ typing speed
and accuracy improve even without paying direct attention to typing instruction181

Gondreein class. The authors concluded that more research is needed to enhance
understanding of the most effective ways of improving L2 learners’ typing skills.

BackgroundMy students are enrolled in a skills-based, study abroad preparatory program ata small private university. These first- and second-year undergraduate students
take English for Academic Purposes (EAP) for three semesters with the intent
of attending universities in the United States or Canada. This program places aheavy emphasis on essay writing and TOEFL iBT preparation because these arenecessary prerequisites for entering and meeting course expectations in American
and Canadian universities. Writing homework is given on a regular, frequentbasis, and assignments range from short paragraphs to essays; all homework
is to be typed. As a result, the use of computers is mandated for students tosuccessfully complete much of the course material that they encounter andnecessitates the development of basic keyboarding skills. Basic keyboarding skills
are defined in this paper as the ability to type at a relatively high speed (above 35
words per minute) and with high accuracy in concert with correcting, deletingand navigating through a text.
From observations made over the last few years, it has become evident to me
that keyboarding skills, especially in terms of speed and accuracy, were lacking
among many of my students, and this had a negative impact on their productionof written work. For example, some students stated that typing their homework
was difficult and time-consuming. Additionally, some students complainedthat they were unable to finish their essays in the allotted time during iBTpractices. Indeed, using a keyboard on the iBT is significant enough of an issue
that Educational Testing Service (2014), the company that produces the iBT,
recommends that test-takers practice typing prior to taking the test in order tofamiliarize themselves with the keys and keyboard layout.
As an English teacher who wishes to successfully integrate technology into
the classroom, questions emerged concerning university students and their
computer use. What are the problems inherent in keyboarding for EFL learners?
How do these problems complicate students’ completion of assignments and182Problems of Computer Keyboarding in EFL, OnCUE Journal, 7(3), pages 180-187

their acquisition of skills in written English? What are the best ways to help
students develop a well-formed typing ability?

Problems
In addition to the many problems and difficulties involved in learning to write ina foreign language, my students’ challenges were complicated by the requirementof using a keyboard, a computer input device which is both non-intuitive anduncomfortable. In their previous educational experiences from elementary
school to high school, computer use was not emphasized in the curriculum
despite being a stated policy of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology (McDonald & Foss, 2007). Although many Japanese
students are familiar with the layout of a standard QWERTY keyboard forJapanese-language applications, they may be less familiar with typing in English
because the input processes are different (Houser & Thornton, 2004). Many
students therefore arrive ill-prepared for keyboard use at the university level.
The QWERTY keyboard is the default standard keyboard device forcomputers. Despite being the most widespread keyboard format, there are
a number of problems inherent in the QWERTY keyboard that can create
difficulty and discomfort for users. For example, when using it, a user’s left handtypes more frequently than the right hand despite the fact that over 70% of users
are right-handed (Cassingham, 1986). Thousands of common key combinations
can be typed by the left hand while only several hundred can be typed with theright hand. Right-handed keyboard users therefore have greater demands placed
upon their left hands.
Many of the most common letter keys on the QWERTY keyboard areinconveniently located for fast and easy typing. About 16% of typing is donein the lower row while 52% is done in the top row. This means that only 32%
of typing is done in the center row, or “home” row, which is the row of keys
best-situated for users’ fingers to reach the most easily (Cassingham, 1986).
These design issues mean that the QWERTY keyboard is not optimized for
comfortable or fast typing.
Using a keyboard may also place additional cognitive demands upon learners
183

Gondreeof English because it requires them to engage in multiple, near-simultaneoustasks. For example, Cohen and Wickland (as cited in Sturm, 2006) found thattyping involves several component abilities which must work in concert: theparsing of words into letters, the conversion of letters into finger movement
specifications, and the integrated execution of specified movements. Wolfeand Manalo (2004) have hypothesized that typing on a computer requires L2students to form their writing cognitively in their first language while using
keyboard strokes to access the computer. As a result, students must translate
their thoughts into English and translate the English into keystrokes. This“double translation” effect increases the cognitive load that the writer must bear.
This could interfere with the writing output and generate errors; however, more
research needs to be conducted to test this hypothesis.
A lack of keyboarding skills impedes students in their work because it
can turn even a relatively small writing assignment into an arduous and timeconsuming ordeal. For example, extra time and energy are needed to hunt for
the right keys. Fumbling with keys can generate spelling and punctuation errors.
Extra time and energy are needed to find and correct typing mistakes. Poor
keyboarding skills therefore affects students’ ability to complete course-related
tasks, projects and assignments ( Johnson & Brine, 2000; McDonald & Foss,
2007) and may further limit the ability of students to participate in computermediated communications (CMC) activities, such as live online chats (Shin,2006).
Developing keyboard proficiency takes time and practice, though exactly
what kinds of practice are most efficacious is not clear (McDonald & Foss,
2009). Requiring lengthy writing homework to be typed by students who do nothave the benefit of sufficient practice is to demand work which may be difficult
beyond the curricular requirements of the assignment itself. Such homework
is asking students to use an input device that can be inherently difficult andfrustrating to relative newcomers. English teachers, who have acquired goodtyping skills over many years of practice, should become more conscious of theability of their students to complete their written homework assignments on acomputer.
184

Problems of Computer Keyboarding in EFL, OnCUE Journal, 7(3), pages 180-187

There is little doubt that students should be exposed to frequent
opportunities for keyboard use (McDonald & Foss, 2009). Grabowski (2008)
observes that there may be multiple ways of developing keyboard proficiency
which may or may not include explicit typing instruction since users may intuit
keyboarding strategies on their own. In my own writing classes, free online
typing exercises and online typing games are introduced early in each semester(Table 1); students are strongly advised to use these software-based keyboarding
exercises on a regular, independent basis for practice. Furthermore, throughout
the semester, students are required to type all of their English homeworkassignments because this provides them with consistent opportunities to use the
keyboard. Finally, regular iBT writing practices are conducted in the computerlab throughout the semester. These practices are timed and organized to simulate
actual iBT test-taking conditions. By teaching with these kinds of activities
over three semesters of writing classes, students can receive multiple avenues topractice keyboarding and develop improved keyboarding abilities for different
computer-based tasks.
Table 1
Online Keyboarding Resources
PowerTyping
http://www.powertyping.com

Free typing lessons focusing on keycombinations for QWERTY and Dvorak
keyboards. Includes several keyboarding
games.

TypingWeb
http://www.typingweb.com

Free typing lessons and tutorials withdifferent levels of difficulty ranging frombeginner to advanced. Includes a teacher
portal, keyboarding games and keyboarding
tests.

Gamequarium
http://www.gamequarium.com/
keyboarding.htm

Free keyboarding games and keyboarding
courses to increase typing speed.

FreeTypingGame.Net
http://www.freetypinggame.net

Free keyboarding games, lessons and tests.
The keyboarding lessons focus on two keys
at a time to reach customizable words-perminute goals.

185

GondreeKeyboarding is an important skill for English language learners to develop.
Nonetheless, the difficulties of using the QWERTY keyboard have multiple
sources, and the demands of typing may generate frustration among many
learners of English. These problems can compound the normal difficulties
that arise when learning to write in a foreign language; they may also affectstudents’ abilities and attitudes towards their work. Just as I did not initiallyrealize the kinds of problems that my students were experiencing in the courseof their computer use, other teachers may be similarly unaware. Because
keyboarding skills take time and practice to develop, teachers should take this
into consideration when designing student assignments which require keyboard
proficiency. Teachers need to be aware that the act of typing in English may be
more challenging for some students. Further research is needed in determining
which methods are most effective towards developing well-formed typing
abilities among English language learners.

References
Cassingham, R. (1986). The Dvorak keyboard. Boston, MA: FreelanceCommunications.
Educational Testing Service. (2014, April 1). TOEFL Tips. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ets.org/toefl/ibt/prepare/tips/
Gascoigne, C. (2006). Toward an understanding of incidental input
enhancement in computerized L2 environments. CALICO Journal, 24(1),147-162.
Grabowski, J. (2008). The internal structure of university students’ keyboard
skills. Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 27-52.
Houser, C., & Thornton, P. (2004, March). Japanese college students’ typing speed
on mobile devices. Paper presented at the 2nd IEEE International Workshop
on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, JungLi, Taiwan.
Johnson, E. M., & Brine, J. W. (2000). Design and development of CALL
courses in Japan. CALICO Journal, 17(2), 251-268.
Lee, L. (2002). Synchronous online exchanges: A study of modification devices
on non-native discourse. System, 30(3), 275-288.
186

Problems of Computer Keyboarding in EFL, OnCUE Journal, 7(3), pages 180-187

Lockley, T., & Promnitz-Hayashi, L. (2012). Japanese university students’
CALL attitudes, aspirations and motivations. CALL-EJ, 13(1), 1-16.
McDonald, K., & Foss, P. (2007). A look at first-year students’ English typing
abilities. OnCUE Journal, 1(1), 55-63.
McDonald, K., & Foss, P. (2009). Another look at first-year students’ English
typing abilities. OnCUE Journal, 3(1), 48-66.
OECD. (2013, March 31). OECD skills outlook: First results from the survey ofadult skills. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264204256-en
Shin, D. (2006). ESL students’ computer-mediated communication practices:
Context configuration. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 65-84.
Sturm, J. (2006). The effect of keyboarding and presentation format on therecall of accent marks in L2 learners of French. Columbia University
Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 1-15.
Wolfe, E., & Manalo, J. (2004). Composition medium comparability in a direct
writing assessment of non-native English speakers. Language Learning &Technology, 8(1), 53-65.

Author’s bio
Eric Gondree has taught English at Konan University in Japan for over five years.
Additionally, he has instructed at the English Language Institute at the State
University of New York at Buffalo. He has an MBA and a Masters in Education
specializing in TESOL from the State University of New York at Buffalo. egondree@
center.konan-u.ac.jp
Received: March 19, 2014
Accepted: June 4, 2014

187