2 ms·

> I wish they would do studies like this with children / teenagers. They have. I don't have said studies in front of me. But the gist of it seems to be that ty

> I wish they would do studies like this with children / teenagers. They have. I don't have said studies in front of me. But the gist of it seems to be that typing is a quicker lower process skill (pushing a button), where as handwriting is a slower higher intensive process, (thinking about the letters you write). My opinion is that physical note taking, when not transcribing, requires you to process the information you are given, then summarizing it in your own words. With the benefit of handwriting being that you have more time to process the information.

makeitdouble 5y ago
I'm not sure there are much variety. For context, there is long debate between schools/parents who think keeping handwriting at school is a waste of time, and those who argue it is primordial to learning. And it's not just theoretical, some schools are really pushing hard one direction or the other. While I don't completely agree with the first camp, most studies done by the second camp are focused on how copying stuff during lectures brings better retention when handwritten compared to typed. My issue with that view is that copying lectures on a computer is mildly stupid in the first place. Why don't they share the slides and text and let the students focus on hearing and understanding the lecture instead ? Ideally they don't need any notes except for future reference on numbers, names or formulas. Students should be typing to produce content on their own, not to transcribe speeches. If learning has to happen on computers, IMO it needs to be done differently and not just an ersatz of what we were doing with pen, paper and blackboards. That reflection is already happening in some way, it just has nothing to do with the political fights around removing hand writing from school.

2 ms·

> I wish they would do studies like this with children / teenagers. They have. I don't have said studies in front of me. But the gist of it seems to be that ty

by asciimov 5y ago

makeitdouble 5y ago
I'm not sure there are much variety. For context, there is long debate between schools/parents who think keeping handwriting at school is a waste of time, and those who argue it is primordial to learning. And it's not just theoretical, some schools are really pushing hard one direction or the other. While I don't completely agree with the first camp, most studies done by the second camp are focused on how copying stuff during lectures brings better retention when handwritten compared to typed. My issue with that view is that copying lectures on a computer is mildly stupid in the first place. Why don't they share the slides and text and let the students focus on hearing and understanding the lecture instead ? Ideally they don't need any notes except for future reference on numbers, names or formulas. Students should be typing to produce content on their own, not to transcribe speeches. If learning has to happen on computers, IMO it needs to be done differently and not just an ersatz of what we were doing with pen, paper and blackboards. That reflection is already happening in some way, it just has nothing to do with the political fights around removing hand writing from school.