Author: Atheena Johnson, Docteure en linguistique appliquée, Université Paris Nanterre

Over the decades, technological devices have been gradually integrated into language learning, as is recently the case with generative artificial intelligence (AI). Does the sophistication of these tools eventually render pencils and pens obsolete? Or can digital uses be combined with handwriting? How does writing keep its value for the human being?

handwriting

Photo: Micah Boswell / Unsplash

Pen or keyboard: an impact on memorisation

Handwriting has long been associated with memory and learning. It was in 1829 that the keystroke first appeared. It, thereafter, became common in 1867 thanks to the first manual typewriter. While students of the past learned to write exclusively by hand, today’s students alternate between screens and paper. However, research shows that these modalities do not have the same effects on memorisation and retention, and essentially, the acquisition of knowledge.

In a 2014 study, students were better able to answer analytical questions if they took their notes by hand. A 2017 study found that 20-25-year-old students retained the information they wrote by hand longer than the information that they typed on a keyboard.

In addition, it was discovered that students who used artificial intelligence from the stage of their
first draft remembered very little of what was actually written when they were tested for their ability to cite a text, unlike those who had composed their own texts from the draft stage. Finding a balance between written and digital production is, therefore, very important.

Less lexical richness in digitally produced written work

In an experiment conducted in 2019, before the generative AI boom that we know, we compared the handwritten and typewritten productions of students in English. We found a lesser lexical richness in typed productions, which confirmed the trends mentioned above.

There were 58 university participants in the study, each producing a typewritten text and a handwritten text at an interval of one week. The experiment took place as part of the preparation for a final evaluation. Participants could not use resources during the production: no dictionary or self-correction tools.

The objective of the study was to determine whether there were linguistic differences according to the mode of production. We were interested in the stylistic aspects, such as the informational value of the texts and the way they were arranged, as well as lexical aspects.

The majority of the texts showed a statistically similar informational value and textual organisation. This suggested that the mode of production did not influence the stylistic approaches used.

Regarding lexical diversity, however, the observation was not the same. Lexical richness was much greater in most handwritten productions. The typed productions had lexical weaknesses that were not present in the handwritten productions of the same participants.

These results may have implications for teaching English and how students are encouraged to produce their written texts.

Handwritting develops capabilities that the keyboard does not

Since the digital transition has been condoning the pen to the closet, several countries have looked at the impact of digital uses on written skills: Spain, the United States and France.

However, recent studies highlight the importance of specific writing strategies for student progression, such as planning or proofreading. If handwritten production develops capabilities that the keyboard does not develop, keyboard mastery remains an essential but demanding skill.

The difficulties in writing today are primarily due to the place that it is given, receiving less priority in school curricula in Europe, the United States or China. What is of fundamental consideration is that the production methods are different at three levels.

Firstly, typewriting and handwriting take place in distinct spatial frameworks. Writing occurs in a unified space while typing takes place in two separate spaces: on the screen and on the keyboard.

Secondly, the way in which the individual composes with the spatial differences when planning, transcribing and revising a text is also very different. Finally, the perception and uses of students vary according to the production methods.

This is why it is important to continue to emphasise the cognitive benefits of handwriting at school and elsewhere, while becoming aware of the formal training that digital writing implies so that students reach the same level of fluidity on screen as on paper. In class, it is a matter of thinking about the options offered in terms of writing tools. It remains to be seen what the impact of the increasing use of AI will be on written production, where writing mastery is equally essential and demanding.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Original article.

The post Why we shouldn’t abandon handwriting at school appeared first on Mapping Ignorance.