As the creation transition from analog to digital , computer skills are more crucial than ever . But — at least in some orbit — formal classes may not be . A discipline of coach and self - teach typists published in theJournal of Experimental Psychology : Human Perception and Performancefound that the two group could be comparably speedy when it came to practical project .
The keyboards on which we type have shift dramatically in the last 40 years , but our approximation about proper proficiency really have n’t . The gold monetary standard is still touch typing , in which typist use eight fingers , place on the " menage row , " and have no need to look at the keyboard . Everyone knows this is the fastest , most efficient , and most professional way to typewrite .
Logan Laboratory / Vanderbilt University
Buthowdo we recognise this ? And is it even honest ?
To find out , researchers at Vanderbilt University add 48 keyboard users into the lab . They asked each subject which fingers they would use to typecast various words , which sorted the touch typists from those who used a nonstandard , or self - instruct , technique . Next , they seated each player at a computing gadget place under a video camera and put them through a serial publication of typing tests , test their fastness and truth in typecast sentence , paragraphs , words , and frill phrases . Sometimes the letters on the keyboard were cross , and sometimes they were visible . The typists were also expect to identify where on the keyboard each missive belonged .
The researchers believed the results would support what we all mean we know : that touch typists would be fast and more effective , since they ’re using more digit and not stopping to look at the keys .
This proved partially true . prepare touch typists were fast when it came to traditional typing test ( they clock in at about 80 word of honor per minute ) . But at 72 words per bit , the nonstandard participants were n’t far behind ( although , when the key were covered , their stop number reduced and their error charge per unit increased ) . “ We even had one two - finger typist who could handle 60 words per minute , ” study Centennial State - author Gordon Logansaid in a command . “ That is good enough to pass a typecast proficiency trial . ”
But Logan and his workfellow realize that standardized typing tests are a somewhat poor reflection of the kind of typewrite most of us do nowadays . We do n’t just transcript text edition ; we write our own emails , memos , and terminal figure papers . When the researcher asked their participants to typecast their own Book , the playing sphere was leveled reasonably quickly ; even the speed of one " skilled typist " plummeted from 78 to 45 words per minute .
The researchers also find some strike inconsistencies between the fashion the great unwashed thought they typed and their actual technique . Fourteen out of the 24 ego - identified touch typists were actually using nonstandard typing method , make “ standard ” typing far rarer than the so - called nonstandard style .
Many schools still call for scholarly person to pick up to type , and the eld at which those class begin has gottenyounger and youngeras standardized trial run move onto the computer . Teachers understandably want their student to be prepared for the run ’ mechanically skillful elements . Yet given the nonstandard typist ’ achiever , the researchers wonder if teaching kids to type is deserving the elbow grease .
" The benefits of earlier breeding may not be large enough to outweigh the toll the typist and educational system would have to yield , " Logan said . “ Similarly , our results raise the dubiousness of the value of remedial preparation for nonstandard typist . "
Know of something you think we should cover ? Email us attips@mentalfloss.com .
