Research Digest
A Look at First-Year Students’ English Typing
Abilities
Kurtis McDonald
Kwansei Gakuin University
Patrick Foss
Kwansei Gakuin University
Introduction
College and university EFL educators in Japan are well aware of theubiquitous role that computers play at the post-secondary level today.
In many ways, Japan stands at the forefront of integrating computerassisted English instruction at the post-secondary level. Whether or notparticular colleges or universities provide computers for in-class use in
their English classes yet, most post-secondary English programs acrossJapan now take student access to and use of computers for English course
work as a given. Indeed, much of the English language curricula being
employed around Japan is tacitly based on students using computers
to complete assignments, especially for English writing classes where
the use of word processing software has nearly eradicated the more
traditional pen-and-paper writing of the past.
While the access to computers enjoyed by university students inJapan creates a wide variety of opportunities for course-related tasks,
projects, and assignments in English writing classes, it may also be
problematic for students hindered by limited typing skills (Berens,
1986; Chapelle, 2003; Johnson & Brine, 2000; Li & Cumming, 2001;
van der Linden, 1993). Surprisingly, although typing has long been an
55

McDonald & Foss

item of research and discussion in L1 educational settings (Borthwick,1993), it has drawn very little attention in relation to second or foreign
language learning. Most studies on typing in L2 settings have primarily
focused on the effects of word processing on the writing process andquality of written work produced, often with inconsistent findings(Li, 2006; Li & Cumming, 2001). In much of the related L2 research
conducted to date, the role of basic typing ability itself has been
mentioned only anecdotally in connection with a need for generalcomputing skills (Lam & Pennington, 1995; Li & Cumming, 2001).
The general consensus in these brief mentions seems to be that a lackof both general computing skills and basic typing skills may serve to
make using computers for the already challenging task of writing in
English even more of a challenge for many English language learners(Berens, 1986; Lam & Pennington, 1995; Li & Cumming, 2001). While
several studies suggest that providing typing training and practice may
work to improve L2 students’ typing abilities (Johnson & Brine, 2000;
Kitao, 1995; Lam & Pennington, 1995), they offer little to no evidence
to support this claim.
Even in the pre-personal-computer age, it was noted that
English language learners could benefit from typing training (Bernstein,1982). However, as computer-based writing has now become a vital
component of many Japanese post-secondary EFL programs, it seems
even more reasonable to conclude that students need basic typing
skills to effectively participate. Furthermore, popular assessment
tools for English language learners like the Test of English as a Foreign
Language (TOEFL) now require test-takers to type written responses
on computers as well. The fact that the Educational Testing Service(2007), the company that administers the TOEFL, currently encourages
test takers to practice typing prior to the test only underscores the needfor students to possess basic typing skills. However, how effective istyping instruction at the college or university level?
The purposes of this study were (1) to determine the English typing
56

OnCUE Journal

abilities of incoming first-year university students, (2) to ascertain
the general improvement in typing speed and accuracy of thesestudents over the course of a semester, and (3) to investigate whether
providing limited typing training and practice in writing classes resultsin improved typing abilities for the students involved, and, if so, thedegree to which the amount of class time allotted for such training
might affect the outcome. Additionally, questionnaires administered tothe participants sought to determine the students’ assessment of theirown typing abilities, sense of improvement after one semester, andreaction to the typing training and practice activities themselves.

MethodThis preliminary study was conducted during the Spring 2007
academic semester at a large private university. Students in six writingclasses served as the participants of the study (N = 152); each class
was assigned to one of three groups: high attention to typing (n = 65),
low attention to typing (n = 42), and control/no attention to typing(n = 45). All six classes met for 90-minute class periods once a week
for twelve weeks. Also, all six classes were conducted in classrooms
equipped with notebook computers with Internet access available foreach student. Two online resources for typing instruction were utilized
in class by the high attention and low attention groups: a free, online
touch typing program (Molkho, n.d.), with 15 successive lessons eachfocused on cumulatively practicing two new typing keys, as well as
Typer Shark (PopCap Games, Inc., 2002), a free, online typing game.
All participants completed both a questionnaire and a typing testat the beginning of the term and again at the end of the term. The prequestionnaire asked all students to rate their own English typing ability
according to one of the following choices: very bad, bad, average,
good, or excellent. The post-questionnaire asked all students to rate
their own English typing ability again with the same choices available:
57

McDonald & Fossvery bad, bad, average, good, or excellent. In addition, the postquestionnaire asked all participants if they felt that their English typing
ability had improved over the semester. Both the high attention groupand the low attention group were asked if they felt that the typing
training and practice that they had received in class helped their typing
to improve, while the control group was asked if they wished they
had received typing training and practice. Finally, all students wereasked if they felt that English typing skills were important or not. The
typing pre- and post-tests each consisted of three 3-minute typing tests
offered online by TypingMaster (TypingMaster Finland, Inc., 2007), awell-known maker of typing training software and provider of online
typing tests primarily for business purposes.

Procedure
Each of the three groups in the study received a different level oftyping instruction. The high attention group received approximately
15-20 minutes of typing training and practice each week for ten weeks(150 minutes over the term; 14% of the total class time) using the online
touch typing program and online typing game mentioned previously.
The typing training consisted of an introduction to the basic principles
of touch typing. The keyboard home rows were illustrated using thegraphic on the website and the correct finger placement positions foreach key were introduced. The students completed 3-4 lessons on thewebsite each week for four weeks until all the lessons were completed.
At this point in the semester, the students were then directed to theonline typing game, Typer Shark, for approximately 15 minutes ineach of the six remaining class meetings. The instructor monitored thestudents throughout the practice sessions and reminded them to use
correct finger placement position and to look at the screen rather than
the keyboard while typing. The low attention group accessed the same
websites in class to introduce and practice typing but did so for a total

58

OnCUE Journalof only five weeks (75 minutes over the term; 7% of the total classtime). The control group did not receive any direct typing instruction
or online practice, though it was estimated that students in all groups
each typed approximately 2000 words related to writing course workover the entire semester.

Results
The results of the typing pre-tests revealed the students’ average net
speeds and average accuracy levels at the beginning of the semester. For
this study, only the means of the group net speeds, calculated by Words
Per Minute (WPM), and accuracy scores, calculated by the percentage
of correctly typed characters, were determined. These pre-test results
established the general level of each test group’s typing abilities atthe beginning of the semester. At the end of the semester, after eachgroup had received its designated typing instruction (or lack thereof),
post-tests were given. The results of both the typing pre-tests and posttests can be seen in Table 1, along with a summary of the differencein average improvement for each group. By comparing the group net
speed and accuracy score means from the pre-test with the post-test,
each group’s averages were seen to improve, with the high attention
group demonstrating the most substantial improvement in both mean
net speed and accuracy.
Table 1. Typing Pre-Test, Post-test, and Improvement Results
Test group(N = 152)
High attention(n = 65)
Low attention(n = 42)
Control (n =45)

Pre-test
Net speed Accuracy
(WPM)
(%)

Post-test
Net speed Accuracy
(WPM)
(%)

Improvement
Net speed Accuracy
(WPM)
(%)

12.98

83.8

17.77

89.5

4.79

5.7

15.98

84.8

19.49

88.8

3.51

4.0

14.33

87.6

17.67

89.2

3.34

1.6

59

McDonald & Foss

The results of the pre- and post-questionnaires administered to thestudents were collected and analyzed according to the percentage of
respondents in each group, as seen in Table 2. The first column represents
the students’ pre-rating of their own typing abilities while the second
column represents their post-rating at the end of the semester. The thirdcolumn shows each group’s sense of improvement in typing skills at
the end of the semester. The fourth column represents the reaction of
the high attention and low attention groups toward the limited typing
instruction and practice done throughout the term, while also detailingthe control group’s wish to have studied and practiced typing in class.
Finally, the last column shows the student’s overall sense of importanceof English typing skills.
Table 2. Questionnaire Results
Test
group
(N = 152)High
attention(n = 65)

Low
attention(n = 42)

Pre-ratingof typing ability

Post-ratingof typing ability

Excellent0%

Excellent

0%

Good

0%

Good

5%

Average

23%

Average

38%

Bad

28%

Bad

37%

Very bad49%

Very bad20%

Excellent0%

Excellent0%

Typingability
improved

In-class
practice
helpedTypingskillsimportantY – 94%

Y – 94%

Y – 100%

N – 6%

N – 6%

N – 0%

Good

5%

Good

9%

Average

33%

Average24%

Y – 83%

Y – 95%

Y – 100%

Bad

36%

Bad

38%

N – 17%

N – 5%

N – 0%

Very bad

26%

Very bad29%
Wish hadin-class
practice

Control(n = 45)

Excellent0%

Excellent

0%

Good

2%

Good

0%

Average

22%

Average

24%

Bad

40%

Bad

53%

Very bad36%

Very bad

22%

60

Y –73%

Y – 89%Y – 96%

N – 27%

N – 11%N – 4%

OnCUE Journal

Discussion
The results of the typing tests reveal that all three test groups
improved in both their net typing speed and accuracy over thecourse of the semester. Although the results demonstrate only a slight
improvement of +1.28 WPM and +1.45 WPM in the mean net speed ofhigh attention group when compared to that of the low attention groupand control group respectively, the improvement in accuracy of thehigh attention group at +1.7% over the low attention group and +4.1%
over the control is considerable. While the improvement in net typing
speed of the low attention group over the control group at +0.17 WPM
is negligible, the +2.4% improvement in accuracy is worth noting.
The responses to the questionnaires reveal that most of the first-year
students involved in this study had a low self-assessment of their own
typing abilities both at the beginning and end of the semester, though
the students in the high attention group did rate themselves noticeably
better at the end of the term. While a great majority of the students
involved in the study felt that their typing abilities had improved during
the semester, the percentage was again higher for the high attention
subjects. When asked if the typing lessons and practice done in class
had helped them improve, nearly all students in both the high attention
and low attention groups felt that it had been beneficial. Interestingly,
89% of the students in the control group stated that they wished they
had received typing instruction in class. Clearly, too, English typing
skills were seen as important by nearly all students involved in the
study, with 100% of the students in both the high attention and low
attention groups noting the importance.

Conclusion
Most of the first-year students involved in this study began thesemester with an extremely low level of English typing ability. The
writing course work that required approximately 2000 words to be
typed over the course of the semester is presumably much more English
61

McDonald & Foss

typing than most students had experienced in high school. Possibly asa result of this required typing, even the control group involved in the
study noticeably improved their typing ability over the course of thesemester. While the high attention group made slightly larger gains inaverage net speed and accuracy, the 14% of total class time dedicatedtyping instruction and practice was significant. Although the students’
responses to the questionnaires seem to indicate that the class timespent on typing was seen as valuable, it is not clear from the results ofthis study whether this instruction was effective enough in improving
typing abilities to warrant the class time and attention required. Whilethe low level of first-year students’ typing abilities is clearly an area ofconcern for Japanese college and university English programs in which
computer-based writing plays a large role, further studies are needed
to more accurately determine the most effective way to improve typing
skills. In the meantime, instructors should at least be cognizant of theirstudents’ potentially low level of typing abilities and design coursework
accordingly.

References
Berens, G. L. (1986). Using word processing in the ESL composition
class II. TESOL Newsletter, 20(6), 13.
Bernstein, R. (1982). A nontraditional approach to ESL instruction:
Typewriting. 34th Annual Conference of the National Association
for Foreign Student Affairs. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED224343)
Borthwick, A. G. (1993). Effects of keyboarding/typewriting on
the language arts skills of elementary school students. Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (pp.
2-45).
Chapelle, C. (2003). English language learning and technology:
Lectures on applied linguistics in the age of information and62

OnCUE Journal

communication technology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Educational Testing Service. (2007). Test of English as a Foreign
Language information and registration bulletin for Internet-based
testing (iBT) TOEFL-iBT. Retrieved June 24, 2007, from http://
www1.ets.org/Media/Tests/TOEFL/pdf/toefl_ibt_bulletin_07_
08.pdfJohnson, E. M., & Brine, J. W. (2000). Design and development of
CALL courses in Japan. CALICO Journal, 17(2), 251-268.
Kitao, K. (1995). Effects of English CBI at Doshisha University. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED381011)
Lam, F. S., & Pennington, M. C. (1995). The computer vs. the pen: A
comparative study of word processing in a Hong Kong secondaryclassroom. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 8, 75-92.
Li, J. (2006). The mediation of technology in ESL writing and its
implications for writing assessment. Assessment Writing, 11, 5-21.
Li, J., & Cumming, A. (2001). Word processing and ESL writing: A
longitudinal case study. International Journal of English Studies, 1,
127-152.
Molkho, E. (n.d.). Free Touch Typing Program [Online typing lessons].
Retrieved June 14, 2007, from http://www.sense-lang.org/typing/
PopCap Games, Inc. (2002). Typer Shark [Online typing game].
Retrieved June 14, 2007, from http://get.games.yahoo.com/prodd
esc?gamekey=typershark
TypingMaster Finland, Inc. (2007). TypingMaster Online Test [Online
typing test]. Retrieved June 14, 2007, from http://www.typingtest.
com/
van der Linden, E. (1993). Does feedback enhance computer-assisted
language learning? Computers and Education, 21(1/2), 61-65.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Nat Carney for his assistance with thisstudy.
63