I've always been pretty skeptical of the data which says handwriting is better for learning than typing. Yes, handwriting causes more brain activity, but just because your brain is doing more does not mean it's doing the right thing!
For example, if I asked you to code FizzBuzz while riding a unicycle, I'm pretty sure you would show more brain activity than if you were just sitting at a desk. This does not mean it's an efficient way to program, nor that coding on a unicycle is better for learning.
I know lots of people do say they learn better when handwriting, just like some people say they learn better while going for a walk. This does not translate into a universal theory of learning.
Handwriting notes engages your spatial memory, which is incredibly powerful (see: the ancient method of loci/memory palace techniques)
There were times in college where I blanked on important information during an exam, but was able to recall it by visualizing the physical sheets I had written my notes on. I aced several infamously difficult classes like OChem and OChem 2 using that technique.
I’ve never found it possible to do that with typed notes.
Have you tried a virtual board, like Miro?
Not above commenter but I have. I have done OneNote, Miro, and several other canvas style apps. And for me it still just doesn’t click in my brain like writing it down.
When I take notes when typing, I can transcribe the content word-for-word without knowing what I am hearing and without thinking about it.
When I hand write, I am generally forced to either slow down and repeat what I am listening/watching (if an option), or actually think about what is being said, and choose the important parts to write down, or rephrase it in a more efficient-to-write way.
I am taking a course right now and I find repeatedly that I understand the concepts from taking down the notes (many aha moments), and then I remember. I rarely if ever actually look at the notes I take - they are objectively inferior as a product compared to the official course notes or the textbook.
Maybe typing would be efficient for learning if I was bad it - could be an interesting hypothesis to test.
Give subjects a chopstick for each hand and say you have to hold one end and type with the other, and then test recall/understanding? That could be interesting
For myself, a significant difference is that writing a single word longhand "feels like" a single long unified action whereas typing a word "feels like" several short distinct actions. The motor-sensory action of writing matches that of speaking a bit more closely than typing, especially if you're a scribbler. OTOH I suspect typing is better cognitively for transcriptions, meeting minutes, etc., where deep understanding is unnecessary. I am sure you can cook up a study that proves or negates any one of these suspicions.
Sometimes I get benefit taking notes on a computer, e.g. I read Wittgenstein with notes in org-mode, took lots of notes about software/CS directly in the comments of the program implementing the ideas, etc etc.
This is how it was explained to me by a tutor: handwriting is better for learning because it's slower. The need for brevity forces you to mentally engage the material in ways that are more conducive to understanding and recall.
If you can replicate that mental engagement while typing, you'd probably get similar results.
This makes a lot of sense to me in light of what we know about how learning happens. I have never seen any research on brain activity though, and my tutor didn't cite any.
I've heard this theory too—but I feel it doesn't match how we do anything else in life. For example, you could make typing slow too by forcing people to type with two fingers, or use a really tiny keyboard. Are touch typists worse at learning?
This doesn't really refute the theory—maybe touch typing is worse—but it doesn't match my logical intuition at all.
> Are touch typists worse at learning?
Wish I had a definitive answer. I do know from personal experience that when I'm touch typing notes while reading a book or listening to a lecture, my thoughts drift fairly often. (I'm a fairly fast touch typist though, 140+ wpm.) I'm also more likely to be thinking, "damn, that's a lot of notes!" rather than about the material, lol. Whereas while handwriting, I'm heavily engaged with the material, to the point where I lose sight of the fact that I'm in the middle of taking notes.
Oh and because it's so easy to make quick edits while typing, I find it hard to resist the impulse to correct a typo or add an extra word here and there, which further distracts me from the material.
Also, I can touch type for long stretches without the slightest mental fatigue, but I need a tiny mental break after 30-60 seconds of handwritten note taking.
[dead]
IME it's not just about slower. It's about forcing you to think about how words go together, where line breaks fall, how you're laying out bullet points, etc.
Since you can change all of this on computers (or it happens automatically), you don't have to give it thought before writing it down.
> I know lots of people do say they learn better when handwriting, just like some people say they learn better while going for a walk. This does not translate into a universal theory of learning.
If lots of people said they code better while riding a unicycle, I'm not sure I'd just dismiss it off hand.
That's completely the wrong analogy. It's fairly well established through studies that language acquisition in preliterate kids is improved through handwriting (as opposed to typing or tracing letters).
Riding a unicycle and coding are not complementary activities - you are multitasking. Writing is aligning different parts of your brain to the same task, perhaps it is just creating additional focus.
There is no logical connection between moving a pencil to construct letterforms and deciding what you want to say. They have traditionally happened together, because before computers (or to some extent before typewriters) there was no better way to do one without the other.
You think about words, those words become physical movements, those physical movements create a mark on paper, the brain reads those physical marks, which causes it to think about words, which become physical movements, which become physical marks, which are read, which causes...
I'm sure if you drove the unicycle through a trough of paint and then used it to make words you'd have a similar experience.
The studies I'm familiar with have tested recall at various intervals, not brain activity.
It probably depends on the task. I find that writing things out by hand is extremely helpful for memorizing.
>your brain is doing more does not mean it's doing the right thing!
the thing it's doing when writing with your hand is fine motor control, one of the most important and distinguishing abilities that humans have.
I tutor in a makerspace and one thing I've observed it's that it's now easier to teach old people how to solder than younger kids, and that in my experience has never been the case before. Due to growing up on impoverished digital interfaces I see lack of dexterity that I've never seen in young people before. Same reason I suspect you see a decline in people picking up tactile musical instruments like the guitar or violin.
I agree that fine motor control is important, I just don't think forcing people (especially kids) to write by hand is necessarily the best way to do it. For example, if the kids went to your makerspace, they could learn fine motor control and probably enjoy themselves more.
Forcing people to handwrite both makes writing more laborious and takes away from what is actually important in writing, which is forming your thoughts. At minimum, when handwriting you can't go back and insert words or rearrange sentences to try out different ideas.
I do still think kids should learn how to write by hand, because it's culturally important. However, I think it could be emphasized somewhat less, and I don't think schools should teach cursive (which, anecdotally, I think is actually having a small resurgence in many schools).
It actually is difficult to find an exercise for developing fine motor control that is as complete and as cheap as practicing handwriting.
All other exercises would need more expensive tools and after inventing a sufficient number of different patterns for other activities, that would be practically equivalent with writing a different alphabet on another medium than paper, e.g. carving wood or stone, etc.
I did not like to use handwriting for things like taking notes at school or at the university, and I switched to typewriting as soon as I could afford a computer. For work purposes I now use only typewriting.
Despite this, I am very grateful that in the first years of school I was forced to practice handwriting, even if I have abandoned decades ago the style of handwriting that I was taught.
The reason is exactly what the previous poster has said, that this practice of handwriting as a child was essential for developing the motor control that I needed later as an electronics engineer for soldering or for assembling and disassembling various miniature devices.
>from what is actually important in writing, which is forming your thoughts
for one it's not clear to that this is what is actually important in writing or unrelated. That's just a bias in a culture that systematically neglects embodied practice.
In Japan there's an increasing phenomenon of Kanji-illiteracy among the young. Turns out there is a close connection between writing them out, the order of strokes and the physical activity and the memorizing of meaning of the Kanji, just passive observation or digital input can't replicate. There's a reason calligraphy is such an important tradition. There's an inherent connection from your hand, to your working memory to the processing of symbolic meaning.
This mirrors the discourse you see in math. "Rote memorization, writing equations, isn't important, you need to be able to think" turns out it really isn't and countries that teach traditionally excel at math. We live in an educational culture of thinking-pilled people who disregard the physical world and practice with abysmal results.
> "Rote memorization isn't important, you need to be able to think" turns out it really isn't and countries that teach traditionally excel at math.
...this is very much not my understanding of the literature on math education, I'm not sure what you're referencing.
The problem is you immediately assume studies haven’t thought of that
Do you know that is how simplistic these studies actually are?
Well, it's not only my criticism. For example, here is one on the very study TFA links: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10....
A lot of education research is shockingly bad. (And, to be clear, a lot of it is also really good!)
I mean, be skeptical all you want, but at least TRY it.
I know I retain more if I handwrite notes. It's my lived experience, so that's what I do in meetings, generally. These notes get transcribed back into some orderly data store for later reference, but the initial notes are pen and paper.