Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Abstract
The experiment investigated the impact of the touch and hunt-and-peck typing methods on speed and accuracy aspects. A Black/African American female senior UNF undergraduate student was considered for the experiment. The entire activity ran from Monday, February 22nd, 2021 to April 16, 2021, starting from 6:00 p.m. to 6:10 p.m. The speed was calculated as the mean time taken to type a given time. The participant took 5.23 and 7.16 minutes to type the given paragraph using the touch and hunt-and-peck typing techniques, respectively. Therefore, touch keyboarding is faster than the hunt-and-peck typing method. The accuracy was established by determining the spelling errors of the two approaches. It was found that the spelling error of touch and hunt-and-peck typing were 15% and 22%, respectively. Therefore, the touch-typing strategy is more accurate than the hunt-and-peck technique. The results are not definitive because of the small number of participants. Only one candidate was considered, and she had underlying conditions that might have affected her performance. Therefore, future analysis should consider a larger pool of participants to ensure the accuracy of the results.
Background
Currently, there is a widespread use of computers in different sectors from workplaces to schools. Therefore, typing is a frequent activity for many people and needs to be developed for beginners. The speed and accuracy vary among individuals, mostly because of different typing styles. Some of the common techniques include hunt-and-peck and touch typing (Rieger & Bart, 2016). The latter strategy is also referred to as 10 fingers, and when typing, one does not look at the keyboard, but focuses on the screen (Rieger & Bart, 2016). The hunt-and-peck typing involves using one finger of each hand, and the person looks at the keyboard instead of the screen (Rieger & Bart, 2016). Some studies allude that the speed and accuracy of typing are influenced by the different approaches employed. However, little research has been conducted in this respect, as a result, the current study aims to assess the gains associated with touch typing regarding speed and accuracy. It is expected that touch typing has a positive effect because individuals can correct mistakes made without the need for proofreading and is based on kinesthetic feedback, making it faster to type and concentrate.
Literature Review
Limited studies have been conducted to investigate the impact of different styles on the speed and accuracy of typing. van Weerdenburg et al. (2019), performed an analysis to assess the effects of touch-typing on spelling and narrative-writing skills. The authors considered 207 students in Grades 4, 5, and 6 using a pre-test-post-test method. The 154 students experimental group utilized the touch-typing strategy, whereas the rest in control used different techniques. It was found that participants in the experimental cohort showed better progress in typing, spelling, and narrative writing. Therefore, the touch-typing approach influences some aspects, such as spelling and narrative writing.
Rieger and Bart (2016) conducted another study that examined how typing style and using different sources of information affect typing. The authors consider 10 finger and idiosyncratic typist, and they found that the former category paid less attention to the keyboard and more attention to different templates of information compared to the latter. Therefore, the accuracy of typing using touch keyboarding is expected to be high because an individual focuses on the task.
Donica et al. (2018) conducted an experiment to compare techniques that can be employed to improve keyboard skills for elementary students. The authors acknowledge an increase of using computers by students for different undertakings. Therefore, they need to develop typing skills to help them write essays and assignments. Donica et al. (2018) claim that touch-typing is more automatic, faster, and accurate than the hunt-and-peck approach. The authors compared the development of keyboarding skills using the KWT® curriculum and free web-based exercise. However, the study does not investigate this hypothesis, confirming the need for further assessment to compare the speed and accuracy of touch-typing and hunt-and-peck approach.The literature review illustrates that some studies have been conducted to determine the effects of different typing styles. The articles considered have not focused on how techniques influence speed and accuracy. Therefore, the current experiment aimed to determine the impact of hunt-and-peck and touch-typing on the speed and accuracy of typing.
Background/Theoretical
The experiment investigated the impacts of hunt-and-peck and touch-typing methods on the speed and accuracy of typing. The performance of the two methods was determined using statistics tools. The mean values for the speed and accuracy of hunt-and-peck and touch-typing strategies were compared, and a conclusion was made. The speed was measured based on the time required to write a given paragraph. The method that requires less time can be considered to have a higher speed of the two. The accuracy was determined based on the percentage of spelling error, which was determined by the number of deviations made, divided by the total words in a paragraph.
The method with a smaller spelling error is the most accurate of the two strategies.
Aim, Hypotheses, and Scope
The study aimed to assess how touch and hunt-and-peck typing techniques affect speed and accuracy. It was hypothesized that the touch method is faster and more accurate than the hunt-and-peck typing strategy because it is more automatic, is based on kinesthetic feedback, and a person can detect errors easily. It is expected that participants will require less time and make few spelling errors when typing using the touch keyboarding strategy. The scope of the study involves investigation of similar literature, compare the accuracy and speed of touch and hunt-and-peck typing techniques from an actual experiment, and lastly, outline the findings in a formal report.
Methodology
Apparatus
The experiment was conducted using Keybr, a program aimed at helping to learn touch typing (Typing Practice, 2020). For this study, touch typing was defined as typing through muscle memory without using the sense of sight to find the keys on the keyboard (Typing Practice, 2020). The participant completed this study using an iMac (Retina 5k, 27-inch, 2020) Processor 3.8 GHz 8- Core Intel Core i7 to access Keybr (Typing Practice, 2020).
Participants, Location, and Training
The participant in this study was a Black/African American cis-gender female senior UNF undergraduate student. She was 23 years of age at the time of the experiment. There were a few limitations that could prevent the participant from performing at the maximum capability. She was diagnosed with dyslexia, dyscalculia, and ADHD. The participant was right-handed and had all fingers with cut-down nails at the time of this study. The experiment was conducted at the participants home office due to the Covid-situation. The location was quiet, and noise or any other destruction was not experienced. Keyboarding is a skill acquired through training, and it involves the combination of visual and kinesthetic feedback to locate keys. It is a complex motor activity that involves different sequences to become efficient. Therefore, the participant was trained on the Keybr program and the typing techniques before conducting the test.
Procedure
The tests were conducted at a consistent time and days starting from Monday, February 22nd, 2021, to April 16, 2021, starting from 6:00 p.m. to 6:10 p.m. The participant was subject to training by logging onto her computer and accessing the Keybr website. She then spent 10 minutes familiarizing herself with the program, as well as train on the different types of typing. Time was tracked on her iPhone 11 during the training sessions. During testing, the participant followed the same procedure to access materials. The accuracy was determined using a spelling task, which was undertaken through diction with 10 sentences. The number of misspelled words was divided by the total words to obtain the spelling error. Every deviation from the original spelling was considered to be an error. The speed was determined by measuring the time taken to type are paragraph using both the touch and hunt-and-peck typing strategies.
Results
Descriptive statistics were calculated, and the mean score and standard deviations are recorded in Table 1. Figure 1 compares the computed average duration required to type the same paragraph using touch and hunt-and-peck typing strategies. Figure 2 illustrates the means score for the spelling errors for the two methods considered in the analysis. The accuracy was determined using percentage spelling errors, which were established by counting the number of words that deviated from the original spelling.
Table 1. The calculated mean score and standard deviations for the speed and accuracy for touch and hunt-and-peck typing strategies.
Discussion
The study focused on determining the speed and accuracy of touch and hunt-and-peck typing strategies. The speed was measured by determining the time taken to write a given paragraph. The mean time was used as the measure for speed. The average mean time for tying the paragraph was obtained as 5.23 and 7.16 minutes for the touch and hunt-and-peck typing techniques, respectively. It was found that the time taken to type using the touch method was less compared to the duration required when using hunt-and-peck typing strategies, as illustrated in Figure 1. Therefore, it can be concluded that the touch technique is faster than the hunt-and-peck typing method.
The accuracy of the two methods was also determined using spelling errors. The values were obtained using equation 1, where the number of words that deviated from the original spelling was counted and then divided with the total words in the given paragraph. The method of the smallest spelling error is the most accurate of the two strategies. The mean spelling errors were calculated as 15% and 22% for the touch and hunt-and-peck typing techniques, respectively. Hence, the touch tying method has the smallest spelling error, as illustrated in Figure 2. Therefore, it is the most accurate technique compared to the hunt-and-peck typing techniques. Moreover, the strategy gave the smallest standard deviation for both the accuracy and speed test (2.18 and 1.45), an indication that the findings are much accurate than those of the hunt-and-peck typing technique. However, the method takes more time to train because one must know the position of the keys by memory. Some individuals might take a longer time to train on touch-keyboarding than others. Therefore, the performance of the touch keyboarding might be subject to the experience, training level, or mental capabilities of an individual.
The findings confirm a claim by Donica et al. (2018) that the hunt-and-pick method is not an efficient typing strategy. The authors state that it can be employed as a functional technique for beginners. They also suggested that the touch-typing method is efficient because it is fast. Therefore, the results confirm this hypothesis because it was found that touch keyboarding requires less time to type a given paragraph, and also the spelling errors are fewer compared to the hunt-and-pick technique. Donica et al. (2018) state that touch-typing is efficient because it involves using both hands that work synchronously to navigate and press the keys when typing. Furthermore, a person relies on kinesthetics feedback rather than visual to locate keys, which is much faster. Additionally, the authors argue that kinesthetics feedback enables an individual to focus on the task, which enhances performance in terms of speed and accuracy. Therefore, it is recommendable to train using touch-typing to improve on speed, accuracy, and quality.
The results obtained are preliminary, and not definitive because only one participant was considered. More accurate data can be attained by considering more individuals. Controls groups should also be considered to determine the speed and accuracy of the different methods. The findings agree with the literature that touch keyboarding is efficient than the hunt-and-pick method (Donica et al.,2018). Therefore, they can be considered to be correct with a recommendation for more investigation in the future.
Conclusion
The objective of the study was to compare the performance of touch keyboarding and the hunt-and-pick typing method. The analysis was motivated by the scarcity of literature on the impacts of different typing strategies on speed and accuracy. A single participant was considered in the analysis, where she was first trained to use the Keybr program and tying using the two methods. After this, the speed and accuracy were determined by measuring the time taken to type a given paragraph and the spelling error calculated. It was found that touch keyboarding was the fastest and more accurate technique because the participant took less time to type the paragraph and made fewer spelling errors compared to the hunt-and-pick typing method. Therefore, it was concluded that the touch-typing method is superior to the hunt-and-pick strategy, and individuals should consider training on the former to improve their performance with respect to speed, accuracy, and quality. The hypothesis was confirmed, but it was suggested that future experiments with a large sample size should be undertaken because the study considered only one participant.
References
Donica, D. K., Giroux, P., & Faust, A. (2018). Keyboarding instruction: Comparison of techniques for improved keyboarding skills in elementary students. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention, 11(4), 396-410. Web.
Rieger, M., & Bart, V. K. (2016). Typing style and the use of different sources of information during typing: an investigation using self-reports. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(1908), 1-12. Web.
Typing practice. (2020). Keybr. Web.
van Weerdenburg, M., Tesselhof, M., & van der Meijden, H. (2019). Touchtyping for better spelling and narrativewriting skills on the computer. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(1), 143-152. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.