Why the Best Classrooms Blend the Old and the New
Share
Digital tools have unquestionably widened young people’s access to information, but the most persuasive evidence still shows that learning and behaviour flourish when those tools supplement, not supplant, slower, more tactile, and highly structured experiences. Consider handwriting. High-density EEG work reveals that forming letters by hand activates broad sensorimotor and memory networks that remain comparatively quiet when the same words are typed (Van der Weel and Van der Meer). A recent meta-analysis of 31 classroom studies likewise reports medium-to-large literacy gains for pupils who practised letters with pencil and paper, gains that did not appear in keyboard-only groups (Hobe). These converging neural and behavioural data argue for daily handwriting, especially in early literacy, even in one-to-one-tablet schools.
Extended writing offers a complementary cognitive workout. When children plan, draft, and revise multi-paragraph essays they must retrieve knowledge, weigh evidence, and impose structure on their ideas. A landmark synthesis of 115 experimental studies in Grades 1-6 shows that such essay-rich instruction produces robust improvements in both writing quality and content learning (Graham et al.). Short, auto-scored screen prompts rarely stretch students in the same way.
Memory work with poetry is another “old” practice vindicated by new data. An experiment with 126 Chinese pupils found that a schema-based mnemonic routine for memorising classical verse led to faster, longer-lasting recall and more sophisticated literary appreciation than standard study methods (Liu, He, and Yan). Recitation demands rhythmic timing, imagery, and working-memory rehearsal, all scarce in the quick-scroll digital environment.
Such deep work happens reliably only in orderly classrooms. A meta-analysis of 54 intervention studies links clear rules, predictable transitions, and explicit routines to gains in achievement, behaviour, and motivation across primary grades (Korpershoek et al.). For disruptive behaviour, the Good Behavior Game remains a gold-standard; randomised trials with 4,700 pupils show moderate, consistent reductions in off-task and aggressive acts (Smith et al.). Apps can support these routines—for example, by displaying visual timers—but they cannot replace them.
Educational technology shines when embedded within that structured, multisensory fabric. Blended models routinely outperform both fully online and fully analogue designs on achievement and motivation. Yet more screen time is not automatically better. A 2025 survey of 537 pupils found each additional recreational hour predicted lower test marks and higher anxiety (Sidiq et al.). Neuro-imaging from the ABCD cohort corroborates the biological side of that pattern: heavy screen use correlates with accelerated cortical thinning in regions tied to attention and memory (Paulus et al.). Reflecting such evidence, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry now recommends capping non-educational screen exposure at roughly an hour per weekday for children aged two to five and emphasizes balanced offline activity thereafter (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry).
Taken together, these findings suggest an additive approach to innovation, not substitutive. Handwriting, essay composition, poetry by heart, and well-rehearsed routines build neural, cognitive, and social foundations that make later technology use more effective. New platforms should be welcomed, but their arrival does not oblige us to abandon practices that generations of educators—and a growing body of peer-reviewed research—continue to vindicate.
Works Cited
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. “Screen Time and Children.” AACAP, updated 2024, www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/FFF-Guide/Children-And-Watching-TV-054.aspx. Accessed 4 July 2025.
Cao, Wenwen. “A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Blended Learning on Performance, Attitude, Achievement, and Engagement across Different Countries.” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 14, 2023, article 1212056, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1212056.
Graham, Steve, et al. “A Meta-Analysis of Writing Instruction for Students in the Elementary Grades.” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 104, no. 4, 2012, pp. 879-96, doi:10.1037/a0029185.
Hobe, John. “Should We Teach Handwriting in Elementary School? A Meta-Analysis.” Georgia Educational Research Association Conference Proceedings, 2 Feb. 2024, digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/gera/2024/2024/16.
Korpershoek, Hanke, et al. “A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Classroom Management Strategies and Classroom Management Programs on Students’ Academic, Behavioral, Emotional, and Motivational Outcomes.” Review of Educational Research, vol. 86, no. 3, 2016, pp. 643-80, doi:10.3102/0034654315626799.
Liu, Dawei, Ping He, and Huifen Yan. “An Empirical Study of Schema-Associated Mnemonic Method for Classical Chinese Poetry in Primary and Secondary Education Based on Cognitive Schema Migration Theory.” Scientific Reports, vol. 13, 2023, article 20720, doi:10.1038/s41598-023-47826-x.
Paulus, Martin P., et al. “Screen Media Activity and Brain Structure in Youth: Evidence for Diverse Structural Correlation Networks from the ABCD Study.” NeuroImage, vol. 185, 2019, pp. 140-53, doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.10.040.
Sidiq, Mohammad, et al. “Screen Time Exposure and Academic Performance, Anxiety, and Behavioral Problems among School Children.” PeerJ, vol. 13, 2025, e19409, doi:10.7717/peerj.19409.
Smith, Stephanie, et al. “A Meta-Analytic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of the Good Behavior Game.” Behavior Modification, vol. 45, no. 4, 2021, pp. 641-66, doi:10.1177/0145445519878670.
Van der Weel, F. R. (Ruud), and Audrey L. H. Van der Meer. “Handwriting but Not Typewriting Leads to Widespread Brain Connectivity: A High-Density EEG Study with Implications for the Classroom.” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 14, 2024, article 1219945, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1219945.