The group getting left out: What the ‘Writing vs Typing’ research actually found
Last week I walked through what a viral video about handwriting left out from the full speech behind it, including the part where it drew a line between individuals with significant, visible disabilities and individuals whom were referred to with “milder learning needs”. That framing matters, because the individuals on the wrong side of that line are the ones many of us spend our careers with - individuals with dyslexia, dysgraphia, working memory challenges, processing speed differences, or attention challenges, often paired with average or above average IQ - which is exactly what makes these challenges so easy to dismiss from the outside.
Have you seen this before? A conversation about handwriting and typing that treats the answer as obvious in one direction or the other. I went looking for the actual research this week, expecting a clean answer. What I found instead was something worth sitting with.
The Brain Architecture
Here is why it matters: What the research on dyslexia and dysgraphia actually shows
The most direct research on this exact question comes out of Virginia Berninger's lab at the University of Washington, and it does not support a simple typing wins framing.
In a 2009 study, second, fourth, and sixth graders with and without handwriting disabilities wrote essays by pen and by keyboard. Across every grade, including the individuals with handwriting disabilities, they wrote more and faster with a pen. Keyboard only won for writing the alphabet itself.
A later study by Beers, Mickail, Abbott, and Berninger looked specifically at grades four through nine with diagnosed dysgraphia or dyslexia, comparing stylus to keyboard composition. The results were not a clean win for either mode. Stylus composition produced fewer words and took more time. Keyboard composition produced fewer pauses per minute. The two diagnostic groups even responded differently from each other to the same intervention.
A separate study by Alstad and colleagues found that for typically developing individuals in grades four through seven, cursive handwriting was the one mode that consistently predicted stronger spelling and composing across every grade measured. Keyboard only became predictive of composing in grades five through seven.
This is the piece most people miss. Berninger's own conclusion, after years of this research, was not that individuals with dysgraphia or dyslexia should be moved off handwriting entirely. She found that simply handing a student a laptop does not solve the underlying transcription problem on its own. She referred to these individuals as bilingual writers and said they need real competence in both handwriting and keyboarding, built through explicit instruction, not a single accommodation swapped in for another.
Here is why it matters: What the ADHD research actually measured
A 2023 systematic review by Puyjarinet, Chaix, and Biotteau looked at handwriting product and process in individuals with ADHD compared to typically developing individuals. It is worth naming this plainly, this systematic review is essentially the only substantial body of research on handwriting specifically in individuals with ADHD. Nearly all the methodologically sound studies found impaired handwriting quality and legibility, and most found differences in the physical process of writing. Only a quarter found a difference in speed.
What it looked at: a systematic review of 21 studies on handwriting product (quality, legibility, speed) and process (the physical mechanics of writing) in individuals with ADHD compared to typically developing individuals.
What it found: nearly all methodologically sound studies found impaired handwriting quality and legibility, and most found differences in the physical writing process. Only a quarter found a difference in speed.
This review is about handwriting quality within a population with ADHD. It is NOT a typing versus handwriting comparison, and it is worth being precise about that distinction when this research gets cited, since the two questions get conflated constantly in this conversation.
Here is why it matters: The narrower gap underneath all of this
It is worth naming this gap precisely, because it is easy to state it too broadly or too narrowly, and both versions would mislead the individuals reading this.
On working memory, there is real research, but it is not the research this conversation usually assumes exists. Piolat, Olive, and Kellogg studied cognitive effort during note taking and found that working memory span affects how demanding note taking is and how well the material gets recalled later. A separate study out of Italy found working memory predicted spelling accuracy and handwriting speed in young children learning to write. Both are genuine findings about working memory and writing. Neither one is a study that set handwriting against typing, and measured working memory as the variable that decided the outcome. Working memory shows up in the literature on writing broadly. It does not show up in the literature comparing writing modes directly.
On processing speed, the gap is not narrow at all. Across everything reviewed for this piece, no study treats processing speed as a measured variable in a handwriting versus typing comparison, for individuals with ADHD or for any other population. This is not a case of thin evidence pointing one direction or another. It is an absence.
Processing speed itself is not an executive function. It is a distinct cognitive construct that frequently travels alongside EF challenges and often gets folded into this conversation as though it were the same thing. Given how often processing speed comes up when we talk about individuals who struggle with the physical demands of writing, its complete absence from this specific research is worth sitting with. If we want to speak to how processing speed relates to handwriting or typing mode specifically, we are speaking from clinical observation and the underlying science of what processing speed is, not from a study that tested it directly. That is a legitimate way to reason through a case for the individual in front of us. It is not the same as citing a finding, and this framework depends on knowing the difference.
Where cursive fits into all of this
Several of the studies above point specifically to cursive, not print, as the mode most consistently linked to stronger outcomes for struggling writers. That detail matters more than it might seem, because cursive instruction has largely disappeared from classrooms. An individual who might genuinely benefit from the specific research on cursive rarely has access to it in the first place.
Think about the unique brain in front of you
None of this research supports treating typing as a universal upgrade for individuals with dyslexia, dysgraphia, working memory challenges, processing speed differences, or ADHD. It also does not support treating handwriting as the one true path back to deep learning for any of these individuals.
What it supports is exactly the foundation this framework is built on - the right mode depends on the individual in front of you, the specific skill being measured, and whether real instruction is happening alongside whatever tool is in use. That holds whether the individual you are working with has a documented processing speed weakness, a working memory profile that makes note taking exhausting, an ADHD diagnosis, or dyslexia and dysgraphia specifically. The research base looks different for each of these groups, sometimes direct and sometimes largely absent, but the underlying principle does not change with the diagnosis.
For professionals supporting executive functions, this is where interpretation matters: not simply knowing what the research says, but understanding what it does and does not tell us about the individual in front of us.
Next in The EF Interpreter, I am looking at voice to text specifically, since that research tells a more settled story than either handwriting or typing does on its own.
Join us for these Upcoming Events!
Mastering Executive Function Course - REGISTER!
Join us to become an Executive Function Strategist!
Sept 10, Strategists Tough Conversations
Register for our EF Course to join these community sessions.
Sept 24, Strategists Q&A Session
Become an Executive Function Strategist to join these conversations!
Oct 8, Strategists Q&A Session
Register for our EF Course to join us.
Oct 15 @ 7:00pm EST, WORKSHOP! - REGISTER!
Before You Intervene: Assessing Executive Function Skills
Oct 22, Strategists Tough Conversations
Register for our EF Course and join the community!
Oct 29, Interpretive Coaching Circle
More details coming soon!
Sources:
Berninger, V. W. (2009). Research findings reported in "The pen may be mightier than the keyboard," University of Washington News, September 16, 2009.
Beers, S., Mickail, T., Abbott, R., and Berninger, V. (2017). Effects of transcription ability and transcription mode on translation, evidence from written compositions, language bursts and pauses when students in grades 4 to 9, with and without persisting dyslexia or dysgraphia, compose by pen or by keyboard. Journal of Writing Research, 9(1), 1 to 25.
Alstad, Z., Sanders, E., Abbott, R. D., Barnett, A. L., Henderson, S. E., Connelly, V., and Berninger, V. W. (2015). Modes of alphabet letter production during middle childhood and adolescence, interrelationships with each other and other writing skills. Journal of Writing Research, 6(3), 199 to 231.
Puyjarinet, F., Chaix, Y., and Biotteau, M. (2023). Is there a deficit in product and process of handwriting in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder? A systematic review and recommendations for future research. Children, 10(12).
Piolat, A., Olive, T., and Kellogg, R. T. (2005). Cognitive effort during note taking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 291 to 312.
Bigozzi, L., Malagoli, C., Pecini, C., Pezzica, S., Vezzani, C., and Vettori, G. (2021). Attention components and spelling accuracy, which connections matter? Children, 8(7), 539.
