Abstract
While digital technology is entering today’s classrooms and learning environments, handwriting remains primarily taught using regular pencil and paper. In our research we explore the potential of digital writing tools to augment the handwriting process while preserving its cognitive benefits. In particular, we are interested in (1) how the characteristics of digital writing tools influence children’s handwriting experience and quality, compared to regular pencil and paper and (2) what kind of feedback may be beneficial to digitally augment the handwriting process and how this can be integrated into handwriting technology. Here we describe findings of a study we conducted at a primary school to investigate how existing digital pens (iPad and stylus, WACOM tablet, and Livescribe pen) affect children’s handwriting quality and the handwriting experience. As part of this, we discuss our methodology for evaluating handwriting quality, an inherently subjective activity. Furthermore, we outline the potential design space that digital writing tools open up when it comes to augmenting the handwriting process to facilitate learning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
References
Bara, F., & Gentaz, E. (2011). Haptics in teaching handwriting: The role of perceptual and visuo-motor skills. Human Movement Science, 30(4), 745–759.
Bara, F., Gentaz, E., Colé, P., & Sprenger-Charolles, L. (2004). The visuo-haptic and haptic exploration of letters increases the Kindergarten-children’s understanding of the alphabetic principle. Cognitive Development, 19(3), 433–449.
Bavelier, D., Green, C. S., & Dye, M. W. G. (2010). Children, wired: For better and for worse. Neuron, 67(5), 692–701.
Bonnard, Q., Jermann, P., & Legge, A. (2012). Tangible paper interfaces: Interpreting pupils` manipulations. In proceedings of ITS, pp. 133–142.
Cornhill, H., & Case-Smith, J. (1996). Factors that relate to good and poor handwriting. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 50(9), 732–739.
Eid, M., Mansour, M., El Saddik, A. H., & Iglesias, R. (2007). A haptic multimedia handwriting learning system. In proceedings of Emme, pp. 103–108.
Falk, T. H., Tam, C., Schellnus, H., & Chau, T. (2011). On the development of a computer-based handwriting assessment tool to objectively quantify handwriting proficiency in children. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 104(3), 102–111.
Geyer, F., Budzinski, J., & Reiterer, H. I. (2012). A hybrid workspace and interactive visualization for paper-based collaborative sketching sessions. In proceedings of NordiCHI, NordiCHI '12, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2012), pp. 331–340.
Guan, C. Q., Liu, Y., Chan, D. H. L., Ye, F., & Perfetti, C. A. (2011). Writing strengthens orthography and alphabetic-coding strengthens phonology in learning to read Chinese. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 509–522.
Longcamp, M., & Boucard, C. (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., Zerbato-Poudou, M.-T., & Velay, J.-L. (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., Boucard, C., Gilhodes, J.-C., Anton, J.-L., Roth, M., Nazarian, B., & Velay, J.-L. (2008). Learning through hand or typewriting influences visual recognition of new graphic shapes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(5), 802–815.
Los Angeles Unified School District. Common core technology project. http://cctp-lausd-ca.schoolloop.com/. Accessed 15 Dec 2013.
Mangen, A., & Velay, J. (2010). Digitizing literacy: Reflections on the haptics of writing. In M. H. Zadeh (Ed.), Advances in Haptics, ISBN: 978-953-307-093-3, InTech, DOI: 10.5772/8710. http://www.intechopen.com/books/advances-in-haptics/digitizing-literacy-reflections-on-the-haptics-of-writing.
Overvelde, A., & Hulstijn, W. (2011). Learning new movement patterns: A study on good and poor writers comparing learning conditions emphasizing spatial, timing or abstract characteristics. Human Movement Science, 30(4), 731–744.
Oviatt, S., Arthur, A., & Cohen, J. (2006). Quiet interfaces that help students think. In Proceedings of UIST, pp. 191–200.
Palluel-Germain, R. (2007). A visuo-haptic device Telemaque increases Kindergarten children’s handwriting acquisition. In Proceedings of EuroHaptics, pp. 72–77.
Piper, A. M., & Hollan, J. D. (2009). Tabletop displays for small group study: Affordances of paper and digital materials. In Proceedings of CHI, pp. 1227–1236.
Puranik, C. S., & AlOtaiba, S. (2012). Examining the contribution of handwriting and spelling to written expression in Kindergarten children. Reading and Writing, 25(7), 1523–1546.
Read, J. C. (2007). Children using digital ink for writing. In Pen-Based Learning Technologies, 2007, IEEE, pp. 1–5.
Read, J. C., MacFarlane, S. J., & Casey, C. (2002, August). Endurability, engagement and expectations: Measuring children’s fun. In Interaction Design and Children (Vol. 2, pp. 1–23). Eindhoven: Shaker Publishing.
Read, J., MacFarlane, S., & Casey, C. (2004). CobWeb—a handwriting recognition based writing environment for children. In Proceedings of Writing'04.
Read, J., Horton, M., & Mazzone, E. (2005). The design of digital tools for the primary writing classroom. In P. Kommers & G. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 1029–1035). AACE (Montreal, Canada, June 2005).
Read, J. C., MacFarlane, S., & Horton, M. (2005). The usability of handwriting recognition for writing in the primary classroom. In S. Fincher, P. Markopoulos, D. Moore, & R. Ruddle (Eds.), People and Computers XVIII—Design for Life (pp. 135–150). London: Springer.
Rosenblum, S., Weiss, P., & Parush, S. (2003). Product and process evaluation of handwriting difficulties. Educational Psychology Review, 15(1), 41–81.
Smith, J. L. (2013). Meet your Child’s New Teacher: the iPad. The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10230335/Meet-your-childs-new-teacher-the-iPad.html. 2013. Accessed Sept 2013.
Song, H., & Grossman, T. (2009). PenLight: Combining a mobile projector and a digital pen for dynamic visual overlay. In Proc. of CHI, pp. 143–152.
Song, H., Guimbretiere, F., Grossman, T., & Fitzmaurice, G. (2010). MouseLight: Bimanual interactions on digital paper using a pen and a spatially-aware mobile projector. In Proc. of CHI, pp. 2451–2460.
Steimle, J. (2012). Survey of pen-and-paper computing. In Pen-and-Paper User Interfaces (pp. 19–65). Heidelberg: Springer.
Wellner, P. (1993). Interacting with paper on the digitalDesk. Communications of the ACM, 36(7), 87–96.
Acknowledgements
We thank all our study participants and the teachers who helped us analyse our study data. We would also like to thank the primary school involved in our study for their generous support of our study. Last but not least we thank our colleagues of the SACHI group for their invaluable support and feedback on this work. This work is funded by EPSRC and SICSA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mann, AM., Hinrichs, U., Quigley, A. (2015). Digital Pen Technology’s Suitability to Support Handwriting Learning. In: Hammond, T., Valentine, S., Adler, A., Payton, M. (eds) The Impact of Pen and Touch Technology on Education. Human–Computer Interaction Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15594-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15594-4_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-15593-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-15594-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)