Key evidence & numbers
| Group in the laboratory study | Mean WPM | Important qualification |
|---|---|---|
| Touch-trained participants | 57.83 | Self-reported training classification |
| Participants without a typing course | 58.93 | Varied self-taught strategies |
| Random-string task, trained | 27.43 | Different task from normal transcription |
| Random-string task, self-taught | 27.02 | Illustrates the importance of familiar text |
These values are from Table 2 of How We Type. The sample was small, and the training groups were not randomly assigned to learn different methods. A nonsignificant difference is not proof that formal instruction never helps. It does demonstrate why finger count alone is an incomplete explanation of observed skill. Feit et al., 2016
What did the movement recordings reveal?
The study examined gaze, hand movement and finger-to-key behaviour. Consistent key assignments, preparation of upcoming movements and limited unnecessary movement were associated with better performance. These are descriptions of skilled behaviour, not a randomised test of a lesson plan that guarantees a particular WPM gain. Feit et al., 2016
The much larger desktop study also found varied typing patterns. Faster typists differed in the timing of letter pairs and overlapping keypresses, among other features. A simple count of fingers misses how movements are organised over time. Dhakal et al., 2018
Why familiar words matter
Both groups were substantially slower on random strings than on ordinary text. Typing includes recognizing and processing the source as well as executing keypresses. Classic research describes perceptual, cognitive and motor components; a change in test text can therefore produce a large score change without a change in finger count. Feit et al., 2016 Salthouse, 1986
What affects it?
Does this mean you should avoid learning touch typing?
The evidence does not support that conclusion either. The laboratory comparison asks how existing typists behave, not which training method is optimal for a particular beginner. Practice-history research in everyday typists supports examining what people practise and how, while leaving causal questions about the best instruction open. Keith et al., 2007
Phone typing is another reminder that the useful technique depends on the device. The large mobile study includes different finger-use patterns and assistance features. Its results cannot be used as a direct test of a desktop ten-finger curriculum. Palin et al., 2019 MacKenzie and Soukoreff, 2002
What should you track while learning?
Measure correctly entered text alongside rate, on comparable unfamiliar passages. Corrected mistakes consume time even when the final output looks accurate; uncorrected mistakes represent a separate cost. The text-entry measurement literature explains why final error rate, correction effort and speed each provide different information. Soukoreff et al., 2003 Soukoreff et al., 2001
Keeping keyboard, language, passage type and correction rules steady makes a comparison easier to interpret. There is no evidence here for a fixed number of minutes per day, a guaranteed time to proficiency or a rule that everyone should rebuild an established technique. Those would require different intervention evidence. Keith et al., 2007 MacKenzie and Soukoreff, 2002
The practical conclusion is that skill is more than a finger-count rule. Formal touch typing is one organised method; experienced self-taught typists can also become proficient. The outcome to evaluate is accurate performance in the tasks you actually use, rather than whether a person's hands resemble one prescribed model. Feit et al., 2016 Dhakal et al., 2018
Try the related free test
Typing speed test
Use the typing test to compare your own technique under the same conditions. If you change your method, keep that change in your notes and use unfamiliar passages. A temporary score difference alone cannot establish which method will work best over time.
Common questions
Can two-finger typists be fast?
Some self-taught typists perform well with fewer fingers, but the study does not supply a guaranteed speed for any particular finger count. Feit et al., 2016
Did the study prove touch typing is useless?
No. It compared existing groups in a small sample; it did not randomise beginners to training methods. Feit et al., 2016
Should I focus only on WPM?
Speed should be interpreted with errors and correction effort. A higher raw rate can conceal less useful output. Soukoreff et al., 2003
Sources
- Dhakal et al. (2018). Observations on Typing from 136 Million Keystrokes.
- Palin et al. (2019). How do People Type on Mobile Devices?.
- Feit et al. (2016). How We Type.
- Soukoreff et al. (2003). Metrics for text entry research.
- Soukoreff et al. (2001). Measuring errors in text entry tasks.
- MacKenzie and Soukoreff (2002). Text Entry for Mobile Computing: Models and Methods, Theory and Practice.
- Salthouse (1986). Perceptual, cognitive, and motoric aspects of transcription typing..
- Keith et al. (2007). A deliberate practice account of typing proficiency in everyday typists..
Explore your daily routines in Helibrain
The app has short tests of reaction time, working memory, self-control, reasoning and creativity. Retake them whenever you like, see your trend, and find habits that may help.
Start free in your browser
