There's good evidence for handwriting, but the honest answer is "it depends on how you do it, not just the tool."
The case for handwriting:
- Studies (notably Mueller & Oppenheimer, 2014) found that longhand note-takers showed better conceptual understanding and retention, likely because you can't write as fast as someone talks, forcing you to summarize and process ideas rather than transcribe them verbatim.
- Handwriting engages motor memory, which may help with learning symbols, diagrams, and languages.
Important caveat: Later replication attempts (e.g., Morehead et al., 2019) found weaker or inconsistent effects. The advantage appears to depend on how people take notes, not the medium itself.
Where laptops shine:
- Speed — capturing more detail is genuinely useful for content-heavy material (legal, technical, medical).
- Searchability and organization — easier to review, revise, and link notes later.
- Better for people with motor difficulties or slow handwriting.
What actually matters most:
- Avoid verbatim transcription — the main downside of laptops is that people copy word-for-word and disengage. If you use a laptop, paraphrase deliberately.
- Review and revise notes afterward — retrieval practice beats the note-taking method itself.
- Active processing beats passive capture — summarize, question, and connect ideas while taking notes.
Practical recommendation: If you can write fast enough and the material is conceptual (philosophy, history, theory), handwrite. If it's dense and detail-heavy, use a laptop but force yourself to summarize in your own words. Either way, spend 10 minutes reviewing within a day — that matters more than the tool.