Studies like these can never convince everyone to change their behavior but one cannot deny the finding that our brain is more active when we write by hand. The article referenced the three parts of the brain that show increased activity to those who typed or traced and did not show any special activity. I believe that hand writing is a better way to learn and store information rather than taking notes by typing. Typing is very quick and convenient but I still hand write notes as often as I can because it has always been the best way for me to learn. There would be too much at stake to completely change my habits now as my classes move very rapidly and the learning curve would take far too much time. Most of my instructors prohibit a laptop anyways and want us to take notes by other means. It seems like common sense that something that requires more effort and thought would provoke increased brain activity.
I would use this source in a research paper. If I were making an argument that brain activity is higher during hand writing than during typing than this would be a very good reference. With regards to purpose, “The Everyday Writer” wants us to ask what the source would add to the research project. This source would provide excellent evidence for the hypothetical argument above, communicated simply. The article is relevant because it directly addresses brain activity during writing and other word creating activities. Based on the fact that this source is not from a scientific journal and its simplistic writing, I can assume this was written for the general public. This would fit into my paper as it would not be for experts in the field and would be written simply enough for the general public to understand. The publisher is a respected newspaper which releases a constant stream of articles. Many experts were consulted and directly quoted. Links to the actual studies referenced in the article were provided. The article was published in 2014 which in the grand scheme of science is not that recent but it is recent enough where the findings are still relevant and in good standing with the scientific community. The source, as mentioned before, registers good accuracy because it consulted many experts in the field and provided the actual studies that were referenced. Overall the source presents a “small t truth”. The article does not, however, push the idea that hand writing always provokes higher brain activity than other word creating activities.