The article makes it sound as if the benefit of handwriting vs. typing is a settled matter. But a recent metaanalysis finds no overall benefit of handwriting over typing:
I cannot access the paper right now, but the abstract mentions that most research might have been confounded by the distractions provided by computers rather that by typing/handwriting.
Which is actually a big problem, but suggests that there is a need for better tools --for example support of 'activities' at the Desktop Environment level, such as KDE, which might only give access to a subset of the available applications. This would allow one to have archived and searchable notes typed at full speed --rather than the slow handwriting which might be hard on the wrists-- and not suffer from the distraction problem.
I would even go one step further: while I was translating a book, I used a dictionary on my computer to check some words from time to time. Nowadays I would just use wiktionary to do so, but that means that google might suck you into a rabbit hole at the first failing of will; it would be even better to have the ability to block any other sites when in this activity.
Yeah it makes no sense that it would. It's probably measuring secondary effects like effort put in to take the notes and tools proficiency.
Most peoples, even "digital natives" are much worse at inputting freeform information on a computer in the first place. The hardware/software to make this possible has only been recently available. Basically before tablet proliferation, free form input was a major waste of time at best ; so it has only been 10 years (barely) that you could argue the tools were sufficient. And even then it only works if you buy a sufficiently expensive tool that is sufficiently fast and precise (started making sense at first iPad Air era).
So of course, they are comparing people using a skill they had decade(s) to hone versus a skill that can only have been acquired very recently.
And I think it doesn't make sense to have pure typing vs pure handwriting, it often all the little things around the written language that help tremendously learning and recalling. The way the information is architected with various levels of "call to attention", small drawings, schemas, etc...
A handwritten wall of notes is way more useless than a typed wall of notes because at least in the second case, it's gonna be easier to restructure it and make it much more "parseable". Then again, having to re-write it would increase the time/effort spent on it and translate as a "better learning". If you matched the time/effort on the typing part I doubt you would see a difference. But the reality is that the guy who typed stuff did it for efficiency in the first place so it's more likely than he won't spend as much time re-reading the notes which of course will translate in worse learning whatever that means.
In the end all of this goes back to nonsense that learning things "by heart" is useful and a useful way to grade/rank peoples competence/capacity for comprehension. Handwriting like learning by heart is something that favors women (they are much more applied and they generally have much better handwriting) and it is not even surprising that this is pushed as truth.
I cannot access the paper right now, but the abstract mentions that most research might have been confounded by the distractions provided by computers rather that by typing/handwriting.
Which is actually a big problem, but suggests that there is a need for better tools --for example support of 'activities' at the Desktop Environment level, such as KDE, which might only give access to a subset of the available applications. This would allow one to have archived and searchable notes typed at full speed --rather than the slow handwriting which might be hard on the wrists-- and not suffer from the distraction problem.
I would even go one step further: while I was translating a book, I used a dictionary on my computer to check some words from time to time. Nowadays I would just use wiktionary to do so, but that means that google might suck you into a rabbit hole at the first failing of will; it would be even better to have the ability to block any other sites when in this activity.