Why Handwriting Still Matters

Fountain Pens and Typewriters

When I was little, I believed that owning and using a fountain pen was the ultimate sign of maturity. I still remember the Winnie the Pooh design on the pen I received one Christmas (which, in hindsight, shows I was not as mature as I hoped!). I spent hours writing letters to my Opa and recording the stories I made up about Viking souls, which, in my imagination, visited the tiny island I lived on.

Later, inspired by my Nana; a prolific letter-writer who kept a daily diary, I asked Santa for an electric typewriter. The kids’ electric typewriter I received felt like advanced technology in the late 90s, and again I believed typing away on it would further evidence my maturity and sophistication. Sadly, it never quite captured my imagination. The keys clicked and clacked, but it lacked the personal connection I had with my pen and the joy that came from forming each pretty letter. Before long, I was back to my pen, spending my pocket money on cartridges and engaged in the rhythm of handwritten words once again…

Being left-handed meant I had to write slowly, carefully avoiding the dreaded smudge of ink as I wrote. Little did I know that this seemingly small challenge was influencing my relationship with writing in a way that would later become important in understanding the role of handwriting in learning.

The Draw of Digital Tools

As a teacher with a keen interest in pupil wellbeing, I’ve recently found myself reflecting on how we optimise pupil experiences and support excellent outcomes in an increasingly digital world.

One of the key considerations has been the increasing presence of digital devices in our classrooms and the subsequent shift from traditional handwriting to typing. 

A technology-rich school is often a badge of honour, representing a wealth of resources and a progressive outlook. Many workplaces, colleges and universities solely use technology rather than pen and paper, so it makes sense to ensure pupils are given the chance to acquire these skills.  

At first glance, the use of technology appears to be an intuitive tool for supporting pupils, especially those with diagnosed (and undiagnosed) SEND needs.  The promise of digital tools adapting and scaffolding lessons for these pupils is undeniably appealing. However, as I engage more with research, I appreciate the importance of handwritten approaches.

The Cognitive Benefits of Handwriting

First let’s consider the benefits of using a pen or pencil.  Studies have shown that writing by hand has cognitive benefits that typing simply doesn’t replicate. Research by Longcamp et al. (2006) and Mueller & Oppenheimer (2014) shows that handwriting improves memory recall, enhances spelling accuracy, and promotes better letter recognition. 

More recently, a study by Van der Weel and colleagues (2024) demonstrated that handwriting—specifically, the fine motor movements involved in forming letters—activates different brain regions compared to typing, with more widespread brain connectivity associated with handwritten notes. This suggests that the process of handwriting may help consolidate learning in a way that typing cannot.

For learning to be retained and recalled, the learner needs to expend some mental effort.   Research from many, including de Bruin et al., (2020), and Seufert, (2020) suggests that learning becomes optimal when it pushes the learner just beyond their current ability level (in line with cognitive load theory), which allows for the development of skills, deep understanding, and long-term memory to form. For teachers, this means that tasks designed to be within this optimal difficulty range, encourage pupils to engage meaningfully and promote cognitive effort, which is crucial for forming durable memories.  Using automated methods, including typing or speech technology, may enable pupils to complete tasks and hit benchmarks, but they diminish the likelihood of the learner expending as much mental effort as they would have had they written their notes or answers.

Pen Vs Keyboard

Digital devices, although helpful in high stakes assessments and exams when knowledge and abilities are being summarised, should not be used in place of methods that promote genuine learning and acquisition of new learning. Passive, automatic methods like typing may feel convenient, but they can undermine our pupils’ opportunities to internalise and retain knowledge in the long term. 

In an earlier study measuring electrical brain activity, Van der Meer and Van der Weel (2017) concluded that drawing by hand activates larger networks in the brain compared to typewriting, and they found that the intricate, hand movements involved in note-taking, rather than pressing a key on a keyboard, may offer greater benefits for learning, especially when encoding new information. Some research suggests that we risk doing students a disservice if we don’t address the opportunity cost of these measures.

The Opportunity Cost of Technology in Education

In light of this, we must be mindful of the need for sound pedagogical approaches that establish long-term memories. Technology can play a valuable role in education, but it’s essential to balance its use with evidence-informed practices that promote deep cognitive engagement. 

By considering the opportunity cost of technology, we can ensure that we’re not inadvertently making it harder for our pupils to truly learn and grow, especially those for whom other challenges and barriers are already present.

References

de Bruin, A. B. H., Roelle, J., Carpenter, S. K., Baars, M., & Efg, M. R. E. (2020). Synthesizing cognitive load and self-regulation theory: A theoretical framework and research agenda. Educational Psy- chology Review, 32(4), 903–915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09576-4

Longcamp, M., Boucard, C., Gilhodes, J., & Velay, J.L. (2006) ‘Visual and cursive handwriting produces different brain patterns.’ NeuroImage, 29(2), pp. 499–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.08.046

Mueller, P.A. & Oppenheimer, D.M. (2014) ‘The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking.’ Psychological Science, 25(6), pp. 1159-1168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614524581

Seufert, T. (2020). Building bridges between self-regulation and cognitive load—An invitation for a broad and differentiated attempt. Educational Psychology Review, 32(4), 1151–1162. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10648-020-09574-6

Van der Meer, A.L.H. & Van der Weel, F.R.R. (2017) ‘Handwriting but not typewriting leads to widespread brain connectivity: A high-density EEG study with implications for the classroom.’ Frontiers in Psychology, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1219945

Van der Weel, F.R.R., Van der Meer, A.L.H. (2024) ‘Handwriting but not typewriting leads to widespread brain connectivity: A high-density EEG study with implications for the classroom.’ Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1219945. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1219945