Cahier avec stylo et clavier et souris sur fond rose

La différente écriture manuscrite et dactylographique (épisode 276)

Au niveau cérébral, écrire en utilisant un stylo ou un clavier, ne serait pas tout à fait identique, mais cela semble assez normal.

L’utilisation de papier et de stylo ou du clavier d’un ordinateur pour écrire et prendre des notes pose pas mal question. Mais existe-t-il des différences, au niveau cérébral, lorsque nous écrivons avec un stylo ou un clavier ? Et si c’est le cas, laquelle de ces formes d’écriture serait à privilégier ?

Chronique diffusée le 21 mars 2024. L’ensemble des chroniques est accessible sur une playlist dédiée.


Pour aller plus loin :

« L’écriture manuscrite favorise l’apprentissage », par Pauline Gravel. Publié sur Le devoir, le 06/02/2024. Consulté le 12/03/2024. Lien : https://www.ledevoir.com/societe/science/806717/science-ecriture-manuscrite-favorise-apprentissage?.


Un autre épisode du podcast en lien :

« La Tête Dans Le Cerveau #175 – Le controversant apprentissage manuscrit et numérique ».


Sources :

Allen M. et al. (2020). Is the pencil mightier than the keyboard ? A meta-analysis comparing the method of notetaking outcomes. Southern communication journal, 85 (3) : 143-154.

Alonso M.A.P. (2015). Metacognition and sensorimotor components underlying the process of handwriting and keyboarding and their impact on learning: an analysis from the perspective of embodied psychology. Procedia – Social and behavioral sciences, 176 : 263-269.

Arnold K.M. et al. (2017). Understanding the cognitive processes involved in writing to learn. Journal of experimental psychology : applied. 23 (2) : 115-127.

Askvik E.O. et al. (2020). The importance of cursive handwriting over typewriting for learning in the classroom. Frontiers in psychology, 11 (1810) : 1-16.

Barak M. et al. (2006). Wireless laptops as means for promoting active learning in large lecture halls. Journal of research on technology in education, 38 : 245-263.

Benedek M. et al. (2014). Alpha power increases in right parietal cortex reflects focused internal attention. Neuropsychologia, 56 : 393-400.

Berens S.C. et Horner A.J. (2017). Theta rhythm : temporal glue for episodic memory. Current biology, 27 (20) : 1110-1112.

Bland B.H. et Oddie S.D. (2001). Theta band oscillations and synchrony in the hippocampal formation and associated structures : the case for its role in sensorimotor integration. Behavioural brain research, 127 (1-2) : 119-136.

Brownsett S.L. et Wise R.J. (2010). The contribution of the parietal lobes to speaking and writing. Cerebral cortex, 20 (3) : 517-523.

Bullmore E. et Sporns O. (2009). Complex brain networks : graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems. Nature review neuroscience, 10 : 186-198.

Clouter A. et al. (2017). Theta phase synchronization is the glue that binds human associative memory. Current biology, 27 (20) : 3143-3148.

Cunningham A.E. et Stanovich K. E. (1990). Early spelling acquisition : writing beats the computer. Journal of educational psychology, 82 (1) : 159-162.

Di Vesta F.J. et Gray G.S. (1972). Listening and note taking. Journal of educational psychology, 63 (1) : 8-14.

Fears N.E. et Lockman J.J. (2018). How beginning handwriting is influenced by letter knowledge : visual-motor coordination during children’s form copying. Journal of experimental child psychology, 171 : 55-70.

Hall C. et al. (2021). A laptop for every child ? The impact of technology on human capital formation. Labour economics, 69 (101957) : 1-50.

Jansen R.S. et al. (2017). An integrative review of the cognitive costs and benefits of note-taking. Educational research review, 22 : 223-233.

Kay R. et Lauricella S. (2011). Exploring the benefits and challenges of using laptop computers in higher education classrooms : a formative analysis. Canadian journal of learning and technology, 37 (1) : 1-18.

Kiefer M. et al. (2015). Handwriting or typewriting ? The influence of pen- or keyboard-based writing training on reading and writing performance in preschool children. Advances in cognitive psychology, 11 (4) : 136-146.

Klimesch W. (1999). EEG alpha and theta oscillations reflect cognitive and memory performance: a review and analysis. Brain research reviews, 29 (2-3) : 169–195.

Li J.X. et James K. H. (2016). Handwriting generates variable visual output to facilitate symbol learning. Journal of experimental psychology : general, 145 (3) : 298-313.

Longcamp M. et al. (2005). The influence of writing practice on letter recognition in preschool children : a comparison between handwriting and typing. Acta psychologica, 119 (1) : 67-79.

Longcamp M. et al. (2006). Remembering the orientation of newly learned characters depends on the associated writing knowledge : a comparison between handwriting and typing. Human movement science, 25 (4-5) : 646-656.

Longcamp M. et al. (2008). Learning through hand- or typewriting influences visual recognition of new graphic shapes : behavioral and functional imaging evidence. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 20 (5) : 802-815.

Luo L. et al. (2018). Laptop versus longhand note taking : effects on lecture notes and achievement. Instructional science, 46 : 947-971.

Mangen A. et Balsvik L. (2016). Pen or keyboard in beginning writing instruction ? Some perspectives from embodied cognition. Trends in neuroscience and education, 5 (3) : 99-106.

Mitra A. et Steffensmeier T. (2000). Changes in student attitudes and student computer use in a computer-enriched environment. Journal of research on computing in education, 32 : 417-432.

Morehead K. et al. (2019). How much mightier is the pen than the keyboard for note-taking ? A replication and extension of Mueller and Oppenheimer (2014). Educational psychology review, 31 : 753-780.

Mueller P.A. et Oppenheimer D.M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard : advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological science, 25 (6) : 1159-1168.

Osugi K. et al. (2019). Differences in brain activity after learning with the use of a digital pen vs. an ink pen : an electroencephalography study. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 13 (275) : 1-9.

Patterson R.W. et Patterson R.M. (2017). Computers and productivity : evidence from laptop use in the college classroom. Economics of education review, 57 : 66-79.

Pei L. et al. (2021). Temporally resolved neural dynamics underlying handwriting. Neuroimage, 244 (118578) : 1-14.

Raghavachari S. et al. (2001). Gating of human theta oscillations by a working memory task. The journal of neuroscience, 21 (9) : 3175-3183.

Singer W. (1993). Synchronization of cortical activity and its putative role in information processing and learning. Annual review of physiology, 55 : 349-374.

Skolnick R. et Puzo M. (2008). Utilization of laptop computers in the school of business classroom. Academy of educational leadership journal, 12 : 1-10.

Smoker T.J. et al. (2009). Comparing memory for handwriting versus typing. Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, 53 (22) : 1744-1747.

Van der Meer A.L.H. et Van der Weel F.R. (2017). Only three fingers write, but the whole brain works : a high-density EEG study showing advantages of drawing over typing for learning. Frontiers in psychology, 8 (706) : 1-9.

Van der Weel F.R. et al. (2019). Infants’ brain responses to looming danger: degeneracy of neural connectivity patterns. Ecological psychology,  31 (3) : 182-197.

Van der Weel R.F. et 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) : 1-9.

Vinci-Booher S. et al. (2016). Visual-motor functional connectivity in preschool children emerges after handwriting experience. Trends in neuroscience and education, 5 (3) : 107-120.

Yamamoto K. (2007). Banning laptops in the classroom : is it worth the hassle ? Journal of legal education, 57 : 477-520.


Source image :

Lum3n – Silver apple keyboard et Magic Mouse sur une surface rose (2017). https://www.pexels.com/fr-fr/photo/silver-apple-keyboard-et-magic-mouse-sur-une-surface-rose-399161/



OpenEdition vous propose de citer ce billet de la manière suivante :
Christophe Rodo (21 mars 2024). La différente écriture manuscrite et dactylographique (épisode 276). Cerveau en argot. Consulté le 21 juillet 2024 à l’adresse https://doi.org/10.58079/w28d


Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse e-mail ne sera pas publiée. Les champs obligatoires sont indiqués avec *

Ce site utilise Akismet pour réduire les indésirables. En savoir plus sur comment les données de vos commentaires sont utilisées.