I've always written everything by hand before typing. Staring at a blank word document doesn't inspire the words to come.
But a blank paper and a blue pen and the words come at a steady pace.
As traditional handwriting is progressively being replaced by digital devices, it is essential to investigate the implications for the human
aaaand here's a link to the paper :)
There's a pretty damning commentary on this paper: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1517235/full
In short:
they didn't actually measure changes in learning; they measured theta waves which don't have a clear link to learning
They evaluated adults, not children
They didn't have participants do any encoding activities; they were mindlessly typing the same thing over and over
They didn't allow participants to actually type; they had them 'type' with one finger of their right hand, when there's plenty of evidence that using both hands while encoding information leads to increased brain activity.
They couldn't see what they were typing (no visual feedback), so any error-correction processes the brain would usually run were impaired
The handwriting part of the experiment was completely normal and representative of using handwriting to record information.
They didn't actually report the raw data or conduct any statistical analysis for the two parts of the experiment individually; only the differences between the two groups.
Honestly, that is....shockingly bad. Like I'm surprised this passed peer review and it makes me wonder about the journal. Of course educational science is a joke of a field anyway with little scientific rigour over the last 50 years, so maybe that's not surprising. But this sure as hell sounds like this researcher walked into this project already convinced that handwriting is better for children's learning than typing and screens, and then rigged an experiment to support that bias. If I were the editor I would retract the paper, not just include a link to the commentary.
"almost nobody outside of her field has read her paper" was a big red flag for me actually and I've been bothered by this study since I first saw this post. there's this intense urge to posit researchers with fringe ideas as being intentionally ignored. but no, this study was just done abhorrently. This is a bad study with ill intent and a biased design. Nobody was talking about this because there's nothing to talk about other than "these findings are unsound and unreliable."
And I don't wanna be too accusatory but I do worry about the way people who immediately ate this shit up view disabled people who require assistive speech devices. Like it's pretty clear this study was set up to imply that technology is making people stupid, and people who require TTS were not being considered, but that's kinda my point.
"typing lets your brain coast" is a crazy sentiment to so confidently assert. As someone who spends most of my time typing these days, I can assure you that I am actively thinking about what I'm writing as I write it, not just "coasting" on default scripts and assumptions. And when we look at the methodology of this study, well.... hunt-n-peck typing with a single finger from a single hand doesn't seem like "coasting" on anything it seems frustrating and unengaging.
And then, there's so many variables being ignored here. What about language differences? What about differing levels of grammatical skill and understanding? Why were children not part of this study even though the conclusion focuses on children's learning? Are the people engaged with the study trained in typing, which is in fact a skill that is learned over time and has structure and rules unto itself?
I think if you find it easier to start writing by hand on paper, than to start typing onto a blank word document, that is a personal mental barrier influenced by skill level and familiarity. I've been a writer my entire life and a blank paper versus a blank text doc are the same.

























