In an era where digital technology increasingly permeates early education, the role of traditional handwriting in developing literacy skills has come under scrutiny. A groundbreaking study conducted by researchers at the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU) has shed light on this issue by directly comparing the effects of manual handwriting practice versus keyboard typing on children’s ability to learn letters and words. This research has profound implications for how literacy development should be approached in classrooms that are rapidly transitioning to digital tools.
The impetus behind the study was the observation that modern classrooms often rely heavily on computers and tablet devices, with students performing learning exercises primarily through typing rather than writing by hand. This shift raises an important question: Does learning through keyboard typing affect the acquisition and retention of alphabetic and orthographic knowledge differently compared to traditional handwriting? Joana Acha, the lead researcher, explained that the study aimed to explore the impact of this change, focusing particularly on how the physical act of writing by hand—referred to as the graphomotor function—influences literacy skills.
To investigate this, the researchers designed an experiment involving children aged five to six years, chosen because this developmental stage is generally when children begin to acquire reading and writing skills. Fifty children with a basic level of reading comprehension were selected to participate. Importantly, the study utilized letters from the Georgian and Armenian alphabets, as well as pseudowords created by the researchers. Using entirely novel alphabets and pretend words ensured that the children had no prior exposure to these symbols and sounds, allowing the researchers to isolate the learning process and avoid biases associated with familiarity.
Half of the children were assigned to the handwriting group, where they copied the letters and pseudowords manually onto paper. The other half practiced by typing the same stimuli on a keyboard. This design enabled the research team to examine the role of hand movements in letter and word learning more precisely. Unlike handwriting, which requires fine motor control to shape each letter, typing demands less nuanced hand movements and does not require tracing the letter’s form, potentially diminishing the role of proprioceptive and motor feedback in learning.
After the training period, the children underwent a series of assessments designed to measure their proficiency in recognizing, writing, and pronouncing the new letters and words. These comprehensive tests revealed a striking pattern: children who had learned via handwriting consistently outperformed those who practiced using keyboards. The advantage was particularly evident in tasks involving pseudowords, where the keyboard group struggled to sequence letters correctly. This finding strongly supports the hypothesis that the graphomotor function—a neural and motor process engaged during handwriting—is essential for encoding and memorizing letter shapes and word structures effectively.
The study also delved deeper by exploring how variability in practice influenced outcomes. Each primary group—handwriting and typing—was further divided into two subgroups during their learning phase. For those practicing handwriting, one subgroup traced dotted guides outlining the letters (a method inducing low variability), while the other wrote freely on blank pages (high variability training). Similarly, the typing group either consistently used the same font or practiced with multiple fonts to introduce variability in letter shapes. This nuanced approach allowed the researchers to evaluate how varying the sensory and motor experience during learning affects literacy.
Results showed that variability played a significant role within the handwriting condition. The children who practiced writing freely, without guides, achieved the best performance. This suggests that once children develop basic motor control, allowing them to generate their own letter shapes enhances the learning process, possibly by engaging cognitive and sensorimotor networks more dynamically. However, even under free-writing conditions, handwriting outpaced typing in fostering letter and word learning, underscoring the superiority of manual practice.
Joana Acha emphasized the educational implications of these findings. While initial guided handwriting may be helpful to develop fine motor skills, transitioning to free handwriting appears crucial for solidifying literacy knowledge. Moreover, the study advocates for prioritizing manual writing practice over keyboard typing in early education, arguing that although digital tools have their place, reliance on them should be complementary rather than primary in literacy instruction.
From a neuroscientific perspective, these outcomes align with theories suggesting that handwriting activates multiple brain areas related to motor planning, visual perception, and memory consolidation. The tactile and kinesthetic experience of forming letters by hand likely strengthens neural circuits underpinning reading and writing abilities. In contrast, keyboard typing bypasses many of these processes, resulting in weaker associations and poorer retention of orthographic patterns.
The significance of this research extends beyond pedagogical strategy, touching on cognitive psychology and developmental neuroscience. Understanding how sensorimotor interactions shape the brain’s language systems can inform the design of educational technologies and interventions. For instance, integrating stylus- or pen-based input that mimics handwriting might be more effective than conventional typing in promoting literacy in young learners.
Furthermore, the use of unfamiliar alphabets and pseudowords in the study enhances its methodological rigor. By controlling for familiarity effects, the researchers could ascertain that observed differences stemmed genuinely from the mode of practice, not prior knowledge. This methodological choice strengthens the conclusions and provides a robust foundation for arguing the benefits of handwriting in acquiring new symbolic systems.
Educators and policymakers may find these findings particularly relevant as they navigate the balance between embracing digital innovation and preserving effective traditional methods. With many schools investing in computer-based learning, this study cautions that indiscriminate adoption of typing may undermine crucial aspects of literacy acquisition. Strategic integration of handwriting activities could safeguard children’s reading and writing development while leveraging technological advances.
In sum, this UPV/EHU study provides compelling evidence that the motor skills engaged during handwriting play an indispensable role in learning letters and words. While digital devices offer convenience and engagement, they currently fall short in replicating the sensorimotor richness of manual writing. For educators aiming to cultivate strong literacy foundations, these insights advocate for a blended approach where handwriting is central and technology serves as a supportive adjunct.
As literacy continues to evolve in the digital age, research such as this serves as a critical reminder that embodied cognition—the integration of mind and body—remains foundational to learning. The tactile connection children form with letters through handwriting is not merely a residual legacy of the past but a vital educational tool shaped by neuroscience and developmental psychology, one that technology alone cannot yet replace.
Subject of Research: The effects of handwriting versus typing practice on children’s letter and word learning abilities, and its implications for literacy development.
Article Title: The impact of handwriting and typing practice in children’s letter and word learning: Implications for literacy development
News Publication Date: 2-May-2025
Web References:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2025.106195
Keywords: Students, Teaching, Early education, Educational programs, Cognitive psychology, Education, Social psychology
