http://www.newsweek.com/id/67956

Interesting article. Thanks!

Yes, the points made in the article seem intuitively correct to me. Something happens differently in the brain when you write by hand.

Thanks for the link.

I'm disappointed in these school teachers. They make the big mistake of confusing correlation with causation. There might be a correlation between good handwriting and academics, but there's no causal link between the two. For all we know, the children could possess a higher faculty for language skills simply because they are more motivated to learn. The article doesn't mention a single specific scientific study, or even how they controlled for confounding variables to isolate handwriting as a causal factor for learning. The claim made in the article would have seemed a lot stronger if they had provided some statistical data to give a clearer picture of how they came to that conclusion. Throwing "this person believes that... " or "they're starting to notice this..." is simply not enough evidence to make an assertion.

Sorry for my skepticism, but many of my professors in college, majority of who were involved in scientific research, often made an effort to point out how the media often gives out wrong or misinformed information. The people working in media (editors, journalists, news anchors, etc.) are hired because they know how to write a good article or report the news, not because they're good at analyzing and interpreting scientific data.

UPDATE: Edited to provide more clarification.

blak000 - I agree.

And if evolution has anything to do with it, soon those with good handwriting will be farther from the front of the pack, and those with good keyboard skills will be closer.

I don't think I agree, though I admit I don't have citations to back up the position off the top of my head. I think there are significant developmental advances that happen in children in the process of learning how to translate thoughts to written representation on paper, and doing so manually is not the same as using a keyboard and screen. It's an integration of cognitive ability and motor skill that is developmentally important.

Can I prove it? No, not at all... but it does seem to me to be there, nonetheless.

Well, chud, I'm not saying whether there is or isn't a causal link... but simply that the article suggests this without providing any real evidence. They can't go off of people's notions and simple observations to make a claim. They need more proof... statistical or scientific data of some kind.

What utter bull. Folks seem to forget that sometimes, no matter how much instruction a child receives in penmanship, some kids are just going to have lousy handwriting, and it's going to be split down the middle between the smart kids "who just think too fast" and the dumb kids "who just aren't paying attention". I got penmanship instruction in school and at home, and my poor mother did everything she could think of to bribe me into better handwriting when threats and punishments and downright begging didn't work.

My handwriting is still horrific despite having improved when I started using more appropriate-for-me writing instruments. I've done Palmer method cursive, modern italics, spencerian, copperplate, specialized little programs for smart kids with hand/eye coordination problems, everything short of finding a nun to beat me with a ruler. My signature has evolved into a completely abstract-impressionistic (but consistent!) scrawl that is equally unreadable on the checks I don't write anymore and my MENSA card.

You need to be able to read and write and type and word process and spreadsheet and grok file naming conventions, understand document and file format, and have a basic understanding of written communication, surf the web, run all the programs you're going to use, be competent at data verification, and be able to find references that will tell you how to do things you don't know how to do yet. It's not just reading, writing and 'rithmatic anymore, folks, and it's impossible to mine the time out of the day to instruct fine penmanship like our grandparents had. The ability to write is important, absolutely, but mastery isn't anymore, and specifically the printing/Palmer Method rigmarole is past it's prime. We have to figure out how to meet in the middle.

I have always felt that the process and skills needed to write something worth reading and the ability to make clear, fluid readable letters are two very different things. I think the goal of legibility is a good one but beautiful handwriting is not the source of intelligent thought or great writing. Being able to recognize handwritten information is a good skill but is not critical thought or the ability to reason clearly. In my eyes practicing handwriting functions like exercise does to improve someones athletic ability. I view penmanship as an "art" and legibile handwriting as a "tool" to facilitate the transfer of information.

An interesting article. One thing of note.

Writing by hand, in addition to voicing the words either silently or aloud to yourself, significantly increases the efficacy of transference from short term memory to long term memory. This has been known to cognitive neuroscience for quite awhile now.

Recent studies show that the act of typing, or keyboarding, the same data does not have the same effect. It does improve transference but not nearly to the same extent.

Issues of neatness aside - I always tell my students to organize and re-write their notes by hand. It is an act of repetition yes, but the deliberate, cognitive act of writing by hand will, and does, vastly improve their retention of materials.

And yes I always ask for papers - and even "homework" and lab assignments to be "typed". I want to be able to read them.

Both skills are necessary in today’s world

.