Does Writing by Hand Change How We Think and Learn?

More than a decade ago, I was asking a question that I didn't realise I would still be thinking about today.

What do we lose when writing becomes typing?

At the time, I was working as a Digital Pedagogy Facilitator. Tablets, laptops and touchscreen technology were becoming increasingly present in classrooms, and I was deeply interested in what those technologies could make possible.

But I was also interested in something else.

The pen.

What happens when the hand remains involved?

I had been reading the work of researcher Sharon Oviatt, whose book The Design of Future Educational Interfaces explored how computer interfaces could be better designed to support our ability to produce ideas, think and solve problems.

It led me to think differently about how we were introducing technology to students.

I didn't want the arrival of a tablet or laptop to automatically mean that writing became typing.

So we experimented.

Students used styluses and digital pens. They wrote essays by hand on screens. In mathematics, they worked through calculations with a digital pen.

Across the school, from early childhood through to senior students, we explored how handwriting could remain part of the digital experience rather than simply being replaced by the keyboard.

At the time, this technology was relatively new.

More than a decade later, researchers are still exploring remarkably similar questions.

Handwriting and the brain

In a 2024 study, researchers at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology recorded brain activity from 36 university students as they wrote words by hand or typed them on a keyboard. What makes the study particularly interesting is that the handwriting wasn't done on paper. Participants used a digital pen on a touchscreen.

The researchers found more elaborate patterns of brain connectivity during handwriting than during typing, particularly in parietal and central brain regions. They suggested that the combination of visual information and the precisely controlled hand movements involved in forming letters may contribute to these patterns.

It's tempting to turn findings like this into the headline:

Handwriting is better for your brain.

But that's not what the study proves. It involved 36 university students completing a specific laboratory task. Different patterns of neural connectivity don't establish that handwriting will always lead to better learning.

What the research does show is something subtler, and perhaps more interesting.

Handwriting and typing are not the same activity.

Does handwriting help us learn?

Note-taking research gives us another perspective. A 2024 meta-analysis brought together 24 studies from 21 articles comparing handwritten and typed lecture notes among college students.
Students who typed captured substantially more notes.
Students who took and reviewed handwritten notes showed a modest advantage in academic achievement across the studies analysed.

That raises an interesting question.

Is capturing more information the same as processing it?

Typing can be wonderfully efficient. We can capture information rapidly, sometimes almost word for word.

Writing is slower.

That limitation may require us to select, summarise, organise and decide what is worth recording. But this isn't a reason to declare a winner.
Research findings vary, and the effectiveness of any tool depends on the person, the task and how it is being used.
Sometimes typing is exactly the right tool.
Sometimes handwriting may ask something different of us.

Perhaps it isn't paper versus digital

This is the part of the research I find most interesting.

Years before I encountered the recent brain-connectivity study, Oviatt and colleagues had compared high-school geometry students working with pencil and paper and several different digital interfaces.

They found that as the interfaces moved further away from students' familiar pen-based ways of working, cognitive load increased and aspects of performance declined.

The lesson isn't that technology is the problem.

Oviatt's broader work was concerned with designing better technology, interfaces that work with human cognition rather than asking people to unnecessarily adapt familiar ways of thinking to the limitations of a machine.

Looking back at my own classroom experiments, I realise this was the question I was trying to explore too.

Not:

Should learning be analogue or digital?

But:

How can we use technology without unnecessarily losing useful ways of thinking and working?

Different tools ask different things of us

A keyboard, a digital pen and a pencil can all produce words. But that doesn't make the actions interchangeable.

Typing involves one kind of physical interaction. Writing involves forming each letter through a sequence of movements. Drawing allows ideas to become spatial, connected through lines, diagrams, shapes and relationships. Each tool changes what is easy, what is difficult, what is fast and what requires us to slow down.

Perhaps that's why the most useful question isn't:

Which tool is better?

It is:

What kind of thinking am I trying to support?

More than a decade after putting digital pens into the hands of students, I find myself returning to that question.

Technology has changed enormously. The question hasn't.


Charli Fels
ONE FOCUS Founder
Clarity on paper

Related Articles

• • Why Do We Still Put Pen to Paper in a Digital World?
    

    A reflection on writing to think, the messy first draft and why the blank page still has a place alongside all the digital tools available to us.

  • Why Clarity Matters More Than Productivity