Research history demonstrates that the argument for teaching children to type is not new, nor is it driven by fleeting technological trends

itype data shows:

itype data shows that students who learn and maintain correct home position continue to improve, while those students who maintain the hunt and peck method to touch type often plateau and cannot attain the speed of those students with their hands in home position to touch type. Schools using itype report measurable improvements in typing speed, accuracy and student confidence.

From 1989 researchers encouraged touch typing instructions for students

Research spanning more than three decades demonstrates a consistent conclusion: children need systematic instruction in touch typing to support learning, writing, and effective computer use. While technologies have evolved, the cognitive demands of writing with a keyboard and the educational consequences of poor keyboarding skills, have remained remarkably stable.

As early as the late 1980s, studies showed that students with touch typing skills experienced reduced cognitive overload when composing text on computers. Morrow’s (1989) research found that when students no longer needed to concentrate on locating keys, they were better able to focus on higher-order writing processes such as idea generation, organisation, and composition. This finding, mirrors contemporary concerns: without automated typing skills, students’ working memory is consumed by mechanics rather than meaning.

By the early 2000s, keyboarding was explicitly framed as a foundational, rather than cosmetic, digital skill. Reilly (2002) argued that formal keyboarding instruction is not intended merely to create fast typists, but to develop efficient computer users. Although keyboarding may lack novelty or “glitz,” its importance lies in enabling students to interact fluently with digital tools that increasingly mediate learning across the curriculum.

More recent research reinforces and extends these earlier insights. As writing expectations have increased across all levels of schooling, the need for touch typing proficiency has become more pronounced. Poole and Preciado (2016) highlighted that sustained writing demands in modern classrooms implicitly require students to type efficiently. Without explicit instruction, many students fail to develop the fluency necessary to meet these expectations.

Studies from the late 2010s further clarify why informal or self-taught approaches are insufficient. Touch typing is now understood as a complex cognitive, affective, and psychomotor skill that requires structured instruction and extensive practice (Weigelt-Marom & Weintraub, 2018). Students who rely on “hunt and peck” methods often plateau in speed and accuracy, whereas those who learn and maintain correct home position continue to improve over time. This distinction has significant implications for equity, particularly for students with learning difficulties, for whom touch typing can help narrow performance gaps.

Importantly, weak keyboarding skills continue to be linked to diminished writing quality. Weerdenburg et al. (2019) found that novice typists focus primarily on key location rather than text composition, spelling, or narrative flow. This echoes findings from decades earlier, underscoring the enduring relationship between typing fluency and written expression.

Contemporary school-based programs such as itype align with this historical body of research. Schools using itype as a structured typing instruction, report measurable improvements in typing speed, accuracy, and student confidence. Evidence consistently shows that when students learn correct hand placement and practise systematically, typing becomes an automated skill that supports learning in the long term rather than constraining it. Acara have requirements for students to achieve automaticity on the keyboard by year 5.

Taken together, this research history demonstrates that the argument for teaching children to type is not new, nor is it driven by fleeting technological trends. Rather, it reflects a sustained evidence base showing that touch typing reduces cognitive load, enhances writing, and enables students to engage more fully with learning in digital environments. The lesson from the past is clear: when typing is treated as a foundational skill, it becomes an invisible support for learning rather than a barrier.

References

Morrow, J. A. (1989). The effect of keyboarding instruction on middle school students’ compositions written using word processing (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Poole, D. M., & Preciado, M. K. (2016). Touch typing instruction: Elementary teachers’ beliefs and practices. Computers & Education, 102, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.06.008

Reilly, R. (2002). Keyboarding—It’s not glitzy, but it’s sure important. MultiMedia Schools, 9(5), 36–41.

Weerdenburg, M., Tesselhof, M., & van der Meijden, H. (2019). Touch‐typing for better spelling and narrative‐writing skills on the computer. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(1), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12323

Weigelt-Marom, H., & Weintraub, N. (2018). Keyboarding versus handwriting speed of higher education students with and without learning disabilities: Does touch-typing assist in narrowing the gap? Computers & Education, 117, 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.10.008

From 2025

It is generally assumed that the automatisation of lower-level skills enables students to allocate greater cognitive resources to higher-order compositional demands. However, despite the inclusion of writing instruction within the language arts curriculum, computer literacy instruction, particularly in typing and word processing has received comparatively limited attention (Gahshan & Weintraub, 2025).

Reference

Gahshan, N., & Weintraub, N. (2025). Effect of an Instructional Program for Word Processing and efficient typing on ‘Year 4 students’ composition. Reading & Writing, 38(9), 2661–2683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-024-10613-9