Does Handwriting Still Matter in a Maths Classroom?

A student works through an equation, crosses out a step, tries another approach and eventually reaches the answer.

It might look messy, but that page captures something important: the process of thinking through maths.

In our Why Maths Isn’t Sticking webinar, we explored why successfully completing a problem today doesn’t necessarily mean a student will remember how to solve it next week. Strategies such as retrieval and spaced practice can help students build knowledge that lasts.

But there may be another part of the learning process worth considering: how students physically interact with maths.

As classrooms become increasingly digital, what does research tell us about handwriting and learning? And do teachers really need to choose between pen and paper and technology?

Does handwriting help students remember what they learn?

Research suggests that handwriting and typing engage the brain differently.

A 2025 review of neuroimaging research found that handwriting involves interconnected motor, sensory and cognitive processes. Writing requires us to coordinate fine motor movements with visual and sensory feedback as we physically form letters and symbols.

A 2024 EEG study similarly found more widespread brain connectivity when 36 university students wrote by hand using a digital pen compared with typing. Some of the patterns observed were in brain regions and frequencies previously associated with attention and memory processes.

That doesn’t mean writing something down automatically makes us remember it. The study involved university students writing words rather than school students solving maths problems, and it didn’t directly measure long-term retention.

But the research does suggest an important distinction: handwriting and typing aren’t cognitively identical activities.

Why might handwriting be particularly important in maths?

In maths, handwriting isn’t simply a way to record information. It’s often part of the problem-solving process.

Students form equations, rearrange expressions, sketch graphs, draw diagrams, cross out mistakes and work through multiple steps before arriving at an answer.

That working can make mathematical thinking visible.

A final answer tells a teacher whether a student got the question right. Their working can reveal how they got there, where their understanding broke down and what they tried along the way.

This also connects to retention.

As we explored in Why Maths Isn’t Sticking, learning that lasts requires students to actively retrieve and apply knowledge rather than simply recognise information.

Handwriting doesn’t guarantee that deeper thinking will happen. But working through a problem by hand can provide students with a flexible space to actively construct their mathematical reasoning.

Is pen and paper better than digital learning for maths?

Not necessarily.

Research into handwriting shouldn’t become an argument against digital learning.

Pen and paper and digital tools offer different advantages.

Handwriting gives students freedom to show their thinking naturally. They can write, draw, annotate, calculate and reorganise their work without needing their reasoning to fit a particular format.

Digital learning can solve different problems.

Students can receive immediate feedback while they’re still thinking about a question. Practice can respond to their level of understanding. Previously learned concepts can be brought back through spaced and retrieval practice.

Teachers can also gain immediate insights into where students are struggling, making it easier to decide who needs additional support and what needs to be retaught.

The question, then, isn’t which is better?

It’s what is each better at?

What can digital learning do that pen and paper can’t?

One of the biggest advantages of digital learning is immediate feedback.

On paper, a student might complete an entire exercise before discovering they’ve misunderstood something. Digital learning can identify that misconception much earlier and give students an opportunity to respond.

It can also give teachers visibility at scale.

Rather than relying only on manually reviewing every student’s work, teachers can use learning data to identify patterns across a class and provide targeted instruction where it’s needed.

Technology can also make learning strategies such as retrieval and spaced practice easier to implement consistently.

These are benefits we shouldn’t lose.

But neither should we lose the valuable thinking that can happen when students freely work through maths themselves.

Do maths teachers need to choose between handwriting and technology?

No.

Australian educators are increasingly discussing the need for students to develop both handwriting and digital skills. Professor Beryl Exley of Griffith University, for example, has argued for a hybrid approach in which students become competent in both modes rather than one replacing the other.

In maths, that might mean using digital practice when immediate feedback and personalised learning are valuable, then moving to pen and paper when students need to explore a problem, show their working or practise independently.

The challenge is that those experiences can still feel separate.

Handwritten work can contain rich information about a student’s mathematical thinking, but understanding it requires teachers to interpret that work themselves.

Digital learning can provide immediate feedback and insights, but students often need to communicate their mathematics in ways technology can understand.

That leaves an interesting question:

How can we preserve the freedom and thinking of handwritten maths while keeping the responsiveness and insights of digital learning?

What should the future of maths learning look like?

Perhaps we need to stop treating pen and paper and technology as opposing approaches.

Research gives us good reason to preserve handwriting. Digital learning gives us good reason to keep innovating.

The goal should be to use technology where it genuinely strengthens learning while preserving the processes that encourage students to think, retrieve, practise and show their reasoning.

Because ultimately, it doesn’t matter whether learning happens on a page or a screen if students can’t retrieve it when they need it.

The future of maths learning isn’t about choosing between handwriting and technology. It’s about finding better ways for the two to work together.

References

Marano, G., et al. (2025). The neuroscience behind writing: Handwriting vs. typing—Who wins the battle? Life, 15(3), 345.
https://doi.org/10.3390/life15030345

Van der Weel, F. R. R., & Van der Meer, A. L. H. (2024). Handwriting but not typewriting leads to widespread brain connectivity: A high-density EEG study with implications for the classroom. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1219945.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1219945

Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x

Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354

Hammond, N. (2026, January 26). What does the rise of digital devices and decline of handwriting mean for how we live and learn? ABC News.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-01-26/handwriting-decline-education-digital-devices-learning/106231320