SpringMath Accelerate

Five Reasons To Bring Back Paper-and-Pencil Math Tasks

Read any education news publication from the last six months, and the odds are high that it will mention the rising edtech backlash washing across districts all over the U.S.

While concerns about screen time and digital tools’ efficacy are not new, they come at a particularly sensitive time for K–12 district leaders. Many face rising costs and reduced student enrollments amidst turbulent changes to federal oversight of education. Additionally, many states are enacting new mathematics policies to address persistently low scores. These circumstances force the question of how to best and most effectively use every learning resource to drive student achievement. For instructional technology, administrators seek more than ever to appropriately use taxpayer dollars to reap its benefits, without incurring the negative consequences of overuse.

For math instruction, the solution may be deceptively simple: embracing more paper-and-pencil tasks.

Let’s explore five reasons why paper-and-pencil activities (really) matter for math learning and how to balance the benefits of digital solutions with the impact of analog learning strategies.

1. Hand-writing math solutions makes it easier to process and retain information.

Unlike digital math programs, where a student is clicking on a screen or even using a stylus to manipulate a math problem, paper-and-pencil tasks force a student to interact with math physically by writing their solutions and strategies. Using motor systems like this supports the student’s working memory, which is part of how human brains process, use, and remember information (Marvel, Morgan & Kronemer, 2019).

Research has found a significant relationship between students’ working memory capacity and their academic achievement, not only in math but in other subjects like science (Wang & Kao, 2022; Anjariyah, Juniati, & Siswono, 2022). For specific types of assignments, such as math reasoning tasks, working memory may have even greater effects. Interestingly, researchers have also noted that students with higher levels of working memory may be more negatively affected by math anxiety while completing a math fluency task (Cuder, Živkovic, Doz, Pellizzoni, & Passolunghi, 2023).

Despite the complex relationship working memory seems to have with students’ math anxiety, it’s clear that handwritten math solutions help students navigate working memory demands when learning new skills.

2. Paper-based tasks create visual representations of math and other problems.

Teachers often create multiple ways for students to engage with a learning task. In math, visual representations of problems can help illustrate a math problem for students to more easily solve.

Paper-and-pencil tasks themselves require students to lay out a problem on paper, creating a more manageable representation of the steps involved in solving it. Laying out the problem on paper makes it easier for students to understand what they are being asked to solve as well as key information will help them do so. A better visualization of the steps required to solve a problem also supports students to solve math problems more effectively (Rif’at, Kusumastuti, & Siregar, 2022).

Paper-based math tasks can also involve other visual tools like math manipulatives, which are especially helpful for making abstract math concepts accessible and even enjoyable for younger students (Paramie-Decin, 2023). Older students continue to use paper-and-pencil tasks to translate more complex assignments from conceptual understanding into clear mathematical representations necessary to solve them (Latifa, Indrasari, Pramuditya, & Asnawati, 2025).

3. Paper-and-pencil math tasks mitigate cognitive overload.

Humans naturally break down large challenges into smaller steps all the time. Recipes lay out individual tasks for cooking a delicious meal. Outlines help a writer structure an essay or story before drafting it. Teachers create sequential tasks that help students solve a complicated math problem.

Breaking down problems reduces the cognitive load required to solve them, making it more likely that a person will succeed without getting overwhelmed and giving up. Paper-and-pencil math tasks basically force a student to “chunk” their work into smaller steps. This instructional strategy can reduce that cognitive load on a student solving a task while also improving their self-regulated motivation, engagement, and even achievement in class (Evans, Vansteenkiste, & Parker et al., 2024).

In short, paper-and-pencil assignments create better learning conditions for a student to succeed in solving math problems.

4. Hand-solving math problems improves metacognition.

“Thinking about our thinking” (or metacognition) is another unique trait of the human brain. Considering what strategies to use to solve any problem, or how potential errors might impact our solution, is an important executive function in any workplace or higher education environment, as well as a K–12 classroom.

By construction, writing math solutions on paper requires a student to actively consider how they will approach the problem given the specific demands of the problem, the level of precision required in the answer, and their existing math knowledge. Writing math solutions by hand also assists with monitoring their step-by-step problem solving to detect errors they may make along the way. Practicing this approach naturally strengthens their metacognition. This and other “metacognitive” instructional strategies, which explicitly encourage students to reflect on and apply various problem-solving strategies, has a significant effect on students’ math achievement (Hidayat, Saad, & Wewe, 2025; Sercenia & Prudente, 2023).

5. Pencil-based tasks complement, not replace, the right digital tools.

Despite today’s growing concerns about the overabundance of technology and screen time in classrooms, teachers cannot afford to go back to ye-olde analog methodologies for instruction (at least, not entirely). Doing so risks leaving students unprepared to navigate new, rapidly evolving technologies that permeate the world beyond the classroom.

At the same time, research on the impact of digital learning tools on math achievement remains largely inconclusive. Some studies found moderate to no significant difference in achievement when students received computer-based versus analog tasks for math assignments (Kromminga & Codding, 2024; Peterson-Brown et al., 2019). Other research points to moderate math gains related to correlations between students’ levels of digital engagement and teachers’ use of digital pedagogy in math instruction (Saliao & Cajandig, 2025).

What is clear is that we cannot leave students to their own devices with digital tools, even ones as “simple” as calculators, and expect them to master core math concepts.

This paradox calls for a balanced approach, where math teachers, curriculum directors, and specialists reap the benefits of digital tools while also leveraging analog assignments that build students’ cognitive skills according to what research tells us about how students learn.

These two pillars underpin SpringMath, a complete, school-wide MTSS solution for math instruction. Grounded in the science of learning, SpringMath offers personalized, data-driven instruction that blends digital tools for teachers with paper-based approaches for students. The result of this combination is that balanced (and scalable) approach to math learning and intervention. Technology does the complex data analysis to guide teachers to deliver the right instruction to the right student at the right time. In parallel, students across every tier boost their math learning incrementally, every day through teacher-led instruction, paper-and-pencil practice, and paired learning.

Rebalance Math Instruction Today for Tomorrow’s Academic Growth

Despite the efficiency and data that many digital tools offer, educators can no longer treat technology as a silver bullet for math achievement. Current debates about screen time are a good opportunity to right-size instructional strategies and lean back into the many benefits that teacher-directed instruction and paper-based approaches offer for students’ growth in math and beyond.

Interested in Infusing Math Instruction with a Proven Paper-Based Solution?

Take a look at SpringMath. Our human-, not screen-, centered solution builds students’ math confidence and mastery working together in pairs, small groups, and individually using paper-based materials. Yet teachers get all the benefits of advanced technology to adjust instruction weekly based on student learning so gaps can be addressed and closed quickly.

Resources

  • Anjariyah, D., Juniati, D., & Siswono, T. Y. E. (2022). How Does Working Memory Capacity Affect Students' Mathematical Problem Solving? European Journal of Educational Research, 11 1427-1439. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1353071
  • Cuder, A., Živkovic, M., Doz, E., Pellizzoni, S., & Passolunghi, M. C. (2023). The relationship between math anxiety and math performance: The moderating role of visuospatial working memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2023.105688.
  • Evans, P., Vansteenkiste, M., Parker, P. et al. (2024). Cognitive Load Theory and Its Relationships with Motivation: a Self-Determination Theory Perspective. Education Psychology Review, 36, 7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09841-2.
  • Hidayat, R., Saad, M. R. M., & Wewe, M. (2025). A metaanalysis of the effect of metacognitive instruction on mathematics achievement, Cogent Education, 12:1. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2517510.
  • Kromminga, K. R., & Codding, R. S. (2024). The impact of intervention modality on students' multiplication fact fluency. Psychology in the Schools, 61(1), 329–351. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.23054.
  • Marvel, C., Morgan, O. P., & Kronemer, S. I. (2019). How the motor system integrates with working memory. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 102, 184-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.04.017.
  • Latifa, U., Indrasari, P., Pramuditya, S. A., & Asnawati, S. (2025). Connecting Concepts and Representations in Mathematics: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Contemporary Studies in Education (IJ-CSE), 4(2), 100–113. https://doi.org/10.56855/ijcse.v4i2.1483
  • Parame-Decin, B. MA. (2023). Visual Representations in Teaching Mathematics. Spring Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(05), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.55559/sjahss.v2i05.107.
  • Petersen-Brown, S. M., Henze, E. E. C., Klingbeil, D. A., Reynolds, J. L., Weber, R. C., Codding, R. S. (2019). The use of touch devices for enhancing academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychology in the Schools. 56, 1187–1206. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22225.
  • Rif'at, M., Kusumastuti, N., & Siregar, N. (2022). Visual representation in solving mathematics problems. AIP Conference Proceedings, 11 Aug 2021. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0096126.
  • Saliao, M. D., Cajandig, A. J. S. (2025). Integration of Technology in Teaching Mathematics: Assessing the Influence of Digital Pedagogy on Learning Engagement and Achievement among Grade 8 Students. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 9.4, 4476-4493. https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90400320.
  • Sercenia, J. C., & Prudente, M. S. (2023). Effectiveness of the Metacognitive-based Pedagogical Intervention on Mathematics Achievement: A Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Instruction, 16(4), 561–578. Retrieved from https://e-iji.net/ats/index.php/pub/article/view/33.
  • Wang, T. H., Kao, C. H. Investigating factors affecting student academic achievement in mathematics and science: cognitive style, self-regulated learning and working memory. Instructional Science 50, 789–806 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-022-09594-5