HANDWRITING VERSUS TYPING
Selina Harvey argues there is a place for both in the classroom, but at the discretion of the teacher.
Is digital working?
Digital devices have rapidly become part of the everyday classroom landscape. According to the Department for Education’s Technology in Schools Survey 2022–23, 43% of IT leads in secondary schools report that their school operates a Bring Your Own Device policy. The trend signals modernisation, but is increased technology improving learning?
The same survey shows a significant perception gap. Education leaders are notably optimistic, with 67% saying technology has contributed to improved pupil attainment over the past three years. Teachers, however, are more cautious, with only 45% agreeing. Looking ahead, 83% of leaders expect digital tools to enhance learning in the next three years, compared with 64% of teachers.
This divide suggests more than differing attitudes. It points to a deeper debate about how students learn best and whether replacing handwriting with typing is inadvertently weakening a valuable cognitive skill.
The importance of handwriting
Handwriting has long been central to learning, not simply because it is traditional but because it is cognitively powerful. Compared to when students type, handwriting connects more visual and motor networks in the brain (James and Guthier, 2006). Being able to write legibly, comfortably and at speed with little conscious effort allows a student to concentrate on the higher-level aspects of writing composition and content.
There is also a practical consideration. With GCSE, A Level and IB exams still primarily assessed on handwritten exams, fast and legible handwriting remains a critical skill. Michael Gove, in his Education Act 2011, referenced a correlation that he had deduced between countries that occupied the top four positions in the PISA 2012 league table – Japan, Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong. All place great emphasis on traditional pedagogical skills relying on handwriting as a key discipline in providing a structured mind, cognitive skills and the student’s ability to possess and retrieve textual information (Doug, 2019).
Handwriting versus typing
Mueller and Oppenheimer’s (2014) research compared note-taking on paper versus typing on a keyboard to see if there was a difference in students’ understanding when recording information. It concluded that handwritten notes were superior.
Flanigan, Wheeler and Colliot’s (2024) meta-analysis took this research further. Reviewing 24 studies, they examined how note-taking methods affected the volume of notes taken and test performance with US college students. They found that the students typing took a greater amount of notes. These students captured significantly more words and more detail but performed worse on conceptual assessments. Typing encourages fast, verbatim transcription. The slower act of handwriting, forces students to engage with the content, select key ideas, summarise text and paraphrase. These processes support deeper learning by making connections between the lesson content and the student’s own existing schemas (Piaget, 1952).
Emerging evidence from younger students points in the same direction. A study by Horbury and Edmonds (2020) showed that after a one‑week delay, 10- and 11-year-old boys who had handwritten their notes demonstrated significantly better conceptual understanding than those who had typed them. Even at primary level, handwriting promotes the active processing that underpins long‑term learning.
The conclusion is clear. Typing produces more notes, but handwriting produces greater understanding.
How to encourage good practice in classrooms
Three practices can help teachers balance technological benefits with cognitive evidence.
- Retain handwritten work for some tasks
Not all tasks need to be completed digitally! Maintaining routine handwriting helps students preserve:
- fluency
- legibility
- stamina
All essential for handwritten public examinations. Occasional extended handwritten tasks ensure students are “exam‑ready” and reinforce writing endurance.
- Teach note‑taking
Many students do not intuitively know how to take effective notes. Whether writing on paper or typing on a laptop, they often copy without engaging.
Introducing structured approaches, such as the Cornell Note‑Taking System, can significantly improve the quality of notes. In this method, the page is divided into three sections: Cue, Notes and Summary (Paul et al, 2010).
- Notes: key information, brief explanations, symbols and diagrams
- Cues: questions, prompts, comments and connections. These will help students to organise the information either in the lesson or afterwards
- Summary: a short explanation of the learning, written soon after the lesson
This structure encourages students to move between details and overarching concepts, supporting retention and retrieval. Crucially, it works just as well digitally as on paper.
- Encourage digital handwriting where appropriate
For students who prefer using digital devices, stylus‑based writing on tablets offers an effective compromise. Research suggests that writing by hand on a touchscreen activates similar cognitive processes to writing on paper while also offering digital advantages such as easy editing, storage and organisation (Payne et al 2016). Students would still be required to summarise material in their own words.
Conclusion
Technology has undeniably transformed education, offering new ways to engage and support learners. Yet the assumption that increased device use automatically boosts attainment is not reflected in the evidence or in teachers’ lived experience. Handwriting, far from being obsolete, remains a powerful cognitive tool that promotes the deep-thinking essential for learning.
The goal is not to choose handwriting over typing or vice versa but to integrate both thoughtfully. Classrooms that combine the efficiency of digital tools with the cognitive benefits of handwriting are likely to serve students best. Ultimately, it is not the device or the pen that determines learning quality, but the informed decisions teachers make about when and why to use each.
Selina Harvey is Teacher of Classics at Sevenoaks School. Read the full article in the latest edition of Sevenoaks School’s academic journal, Innovate, online.
References
Department of Education (2023) Technology in schools survey report. Available at: Technology in schools survey report: 2022 to 2023 – GOV.UK
Doug, J. (2019) ‘Handwriting: Developing Pupils’ Identity and Cognitive Skills,’ International Journal for Education and Literacy Studies, Volume 7 (issue 2). Available at: https://journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/ IJELS/article/view/5367/3944#
Flanigan, A.E., Wheeler, J., Colliot, T. et al. (2024) ‘Typed Versus Handwritten Lecture Notes and College Student Achievement: A Meta-Analysis’, Educational Psychology Review, Volume 36, article 78. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09914-w
Horbury, S. R. & Edmonds, C. (2020). ‘Taking Class Notes by Hand Compared to Typing: Effects on Children’s Recall and Understanding’, Journal of Research in Childhood Education, Volume (issue1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2020.1781307
James, H & Gauthier, I. (2006) ‘Letter processing automatically recruits a sensory–motor brain network’ Neuropsychologia, volume 44, issue 14. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsycholo gia.2006.06.026
Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). ‘The pen is mightier than the keyboard: advantages of longhand over laptop note taking,’ Psychological Science, volume 25 (issue 6). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614524581.
FEATURE IMAGE: by Getty Images For Unsplash+
Support Images: by monkeybusinessimages on iStock, and the kind permission of Sevenoaks School
