Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Logo

Esperienze e progetti

No. 43 (2026)

Professional Writing in the Era of the Electronic School Register

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/qds2026oa22839
Submitted
maggio 21, 2026
Published
2026-06-30

Abstract

Several years after the introduction of the electronic register, it seemed appropriate to conduct an exploratory survey focusing on three areas: a) the impact on the handwriting practices of teachers and pupils; b) the impact on the drafting of disciplinary notes and assessments, taking into account any perceived external control and self-censorship; c) changes in the relationship between school and family as a result of shifts in communication patterns. Two questionnaires were therefore administered to separate samples of teachers and parents from primary, lower secondary and upper secondary schools, with the aim of identifying perceptions, habits and critical issues related to the adoption of the electronic register. After presenting the survey results, a number of proposals are put forward aimed at encouraging handwriting and influencing relations between school and family with a view to improving them.

References

  1. Angelini V. (2023a). Formare i docenti alla scrittura manuale: nostalgia o necessità?. Annali della Didattica e della Formazione Docente, 25 (supplemento): 156-170. DOI: 10.15160/2038-1034/2636.
  2. Angelini V. (2023b). Educare il gesto grafico: la riscoperta di una didattica funzionale all’apprendimento della scrittura manuale. Graphos. Rivista Internazionale di Pedagogia e didattica della scrittura, 2: 43-52. DOI: 10.4454/graphos.18.
  3. Barron B. (2006). Interest and Self-Sustained Learning as Catalysts of Development: A Learning Ecology Perspective. Human Development, 49(4): 193-224. DOI: 10.1159/000094368.
  4. De Feo A. (2024). Educare alla scrittura: è solo una questione di dispositivi?. Graphos. Rivista internazionale di Pedagogia e didattica della scrittura, 5: 47-57. DOI: 10.4454/graphos.96.
  5. Huang K., Liao Y., Luo R. (2024). Does Parent-Teacher Communication Truly Boost Students’ School Performance?. MPRA Paper. University Library of Munich, Germany, 123072, https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/123072/1/MPRA_paper_123072.pdf.
  6. Marano G., Kotzalidis G. D., Lisci F.M., Anesini M.N., Rossi S., Barbonetti S., Ron-sisvalle A., Artuso L., Falsini C., Caso R., Mandracchia G., Brisi C., Traversi G., Mazza O., Pola R., Sani G., Gaetani E., Mazza M. (2025) La neuroscienza dietro la scrittura: la scrittura a mano vs. la digitazione ‒ chi vince la battaglia? https://www.fondazioneluigieinaudi.it/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/paper-la-neuroscienza-dietro-la-scrittura-giugno-2025.pdf (consultato il 30.4.2026).
  7. McKnight S.J. (2020). Parent-Teacher Online Communication and Third- Through Fifth-Grade Student Academic Achievement. Walden University Dissertations and Doctoral Studies. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11246&context=dissertations.
  8. Mueller P.A., Oppenheimer D.M. (2014), The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking, Psychological Science, 6: 1159-1168. DOI: 10.1177/0956797614524581.
  9. Perla L. (2010). La didattica dell’implicito. Ciò che l’insegnante non sa. Brescia: La scuola.
  10. Perla L. (Eds) (2012). Scritture professionali. Metodi per la formazione. Bari: Progedit.
  11. Selwyn N., Banaji S., Hadjithoma-Garstka C., Clark W. (2011). Providing a platform for parents? Exploring the nature of parental engagement with school Learning Platforms. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27: 314-323. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00428.x.
  12. Travaglini R. (2017). Un bene comune da non perdere: la scrittura. Il piacere naturale di scrivere a mano. Raccontandosi. MeTis. Mondi educativi. Temi, indagini, suggestioni. Il primato pedagogico dei “beni comuni”, 7(2): 225-240 https://www.metisjournal.it/index.php/metis/article/view/24/66.
  13. Travaglini R. (2022). Scrittura a mano versus scrittura digitale: conflitto o integrazione?. Graphos. Rivista internazionale di Pedagogia e didattica della scrittura, 1: 35-46. DOI: 10.4454/graphos.8.
  14. Umejima K., Ibaraki T., Yamazaki T., Sakai K.L. (2021). Paper Notebooks vs. Mobile Devices: Brain Activation Differences During Memory Retrieval. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 15: 1-11. DOI: 10.3389/fnbeh.2021.634158.
  15. 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 Psycholy, 14, 1219945. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1219945.
  16. Vertecchi B. (2016). I bambini e la scrittura. L’esperimento Nulla dies sine linea. Coordinamento di Gabriella Agrusti e Cinzia Angelini. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  17. Zaky H. et al. (2026). The Digital Panopticon: How Learning Management Systems Transform Educational Surveillance and Student Agency. Journal of Global Research in Education and Social Science, 20: 27-45. DOI: 10.56557/jogress/2026/v20i110132.
  18. Sitografia
  19. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/technology/at-waldorf-school-in-silicon-valley-technology-can-wait.html (ultima consultazione 24 aprile 2026).
  20. https://startupitalia.eu/lifestyle/scroll-ai-era-penna-colletti/ (ultima consultazione 16/05/2026).
  21. https://www.mim.gov.it/documents/20182/0/Nuove+indicazioni+2025.pdf/cebce5de-1e1d-12de-8252-79758c00a50b?version=1.0&t=1741684578272 (ultima consultazione 10/04/2026).
  22. https://www.ossmed.info/progetti_ossmed/candidatura-unesco-della-scrittura-manuale/ (ultima consultazione 15/05/2026).