How do we write? Or, to be more precise, how do we expect, or require, our students to write? I have recently read an article in El Pais on the issue of how handwriting is gradually being side-lined by keyboard writing, using mobile phones and laptops. Let me summarise the issues raised, and discuss what we might learn from them.

The article cites a number of expert studies which suggest that using handwriting aids engagement and memory of the content. One study followed the progress of a group of people learning an Asiatic language – half of them used handwriting and half used keyboard writing. Initially, there was no difference between the two groups in terms of understanding and memory; but over a few months, it was observed that the keyboard writers had not retained as much as the hand writers. Other studies reported, by experts in linguistics or in neurology, support these results, from different angles.

Why should handwriting make memory more effective? In essence, because handwriting activates and uses more of the brain – it engages the psychomotor system, thus combining the physical, technical movements of the hand with the psychology of the writer. We can observe this all the time in the often wildly different styles of handwriting (sometimes only semi-legible!), and we all make assumptions about the personality of the writer from the style of handwriting. The assumption behind various expert interpretations, then, is that because handwriting is a more complex mental process, it engages more understanding of the content being written. This interpretation can be seen as basically a neurological approach: considering the physical operation of the brain.

On the other hand, there is evidence that keyboard writing is more efficient at recording. A study of students at Princeton showed that students using keyboard writing could produce an average of 33 words per minute as opposed to the hand writers’ average of 22 words per minute. But we should surely make a distinction between recording - and understanding and consequently remembering. Recording can be seen as an automatic process, whereas understanding necessarily requires conscious thought and assessment.

One interpretation of the Princeton study might be that keyboard writing is more of a passive process than handwriting. If you are experienced using keyboards, your hands simply follow what is lodged in short-term memory, automatically. Because handwriting is more laborious, it could be argued, we spend more time trying to summarise concisely… which in turn requires some degree of understanding, or at least translation.

The comments above are basically related to the process of note-taking – of recording ideas, whether spoken or written. But what about note-making – the use of notes to create ideas, to explore one’s own thoughts? I would argue that handwriting is essential for creative thinking… based on my own personal experience over many years. This is because handwriting is inherently more flexible than keyboard writing – handwriting can be as messy as you like; while keyboard writing is much more rigidly controlled, with rules about where the next line comes, and how you can inset phrases. My views on this are set out definitively in the page  NET SIEVE SPINE  – you might like to scan the arguments put forward there.

There are systems which can be used to make keyboard writing more flexible and creative. For instance, the OpenOffice ‘Drawing’ tool allows you to enter words and phrases as individual objects, which can then be dragged around the page into any sequence or pattern you like. This is very helpful for the SIEVE and SPINE procedures: you can add research notes to the boxes/objects – and you can order and re-order them in order to find the best sequence for presentation and argument.

And finally, as a secondary component of the debate, there is the challenge of AI – of whether we can be sure that the work a student has handed in is their own, or is a product of ChatGPT. A text handwritten in class, with the laptop turned off, must be considered reliable evidence on which to base accurate assessment… and possibly the only reliable basis?

All of this – and there are many articles available on the internet discussing the issue – suggest to me that handwriting should not be excluded from the teaching of English B (or, actually, any subject). Teaching should deliberately include activities based on handwriting alongside activities based on keyboards – and the choice should be based on whether the activity is fundamentally based on open creative thinking or focused presentational thinking.