1. Separate handwriting from decorative penmanship
This original lesson explores the place of handwriting alongside digital writing in school. The model’s opinion is a teaching example, not a statement of your beliefs. You can argue another position if you develop it consistently. No examiner score is claimed, and the prompt is not an official past paper. Task 2 requires at least 250 words; allow about 40 minutes, following official IELTS format guidance.
Original practice task
As most written work can now be completed on digital devices, schools should stop teaching handwriting and use that time to teach typing and digital communication. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
The proposal is to stop teaching handwriting, not merely to devote less time to elaborate penmanship. You can disagree with removing the skill while supporting more typing instruction. Define what you defend: functional handwriting that another person can read is different from spending extensive time on decorative letterforms. This distinction creates a manageable position.
The prompt also pairs typing with digital communication. Typing is a method of entering text; digital communication includes decisions about audience, clarity, format and appropriate sharing. An essay that discusses keyboard speed alone would cover only part of the proposed replacement. You can acknowledge the wider skills without claiming that handwriting teaches none of them.
2. Compare purposes rather than declare a winner
A useful plan assigns a role to each medium. Digital writing supports revising, sharing and handling longer texts. Basic handwriting supports situations where devices are unavailable, unsuitable or simply unnecessary. The conclusion can favour a limited foundation in handwriting followed by substantial instruction in digital writing. That is a clear rejection of “stop teaching”, with a practical limit on what is retained.
- Digital case: students need practice composing, editing and sharing text through tools they may use in further study or work.
- Handwriting case: readable manual writing remains useful for short notes, forms or diagrams in situations without a suitable device.
- Curriculum trade-off: extended drills in decorative penmanship may compete with more broadly useful writing practice.
- Position: preserve functional handwriting while increasing purposeful digital-writing instruction.
Choose an example that shows a distinct use, such as adding a quick label to a paper diagram during a group activity. Do not turn this into a scientific claim about handwriting improving memory or intelligence. This lesson supplies no research to establish such effects, and the practical argument does not need them. Similarly, avoid claiming that every future workplace will use only screens.
3. Keep the key concepts separate
“Legibility” means that writing can be read. “Penmanship” often concerns the style and quality of handwriting. “Composition” concerns forming and organising ideas, whether the final text is handwritten or typed. These distinctions prevent the common mistake of treating neat letters as the same achievement as a well-developed argument.
When discussing digital communication, use concrete activities: editing a paragraph, choosing a clear subject line, checking the intended audience or presenting information in an appropriate format. Do not rely on the vague phrase “computer skills” to cover everything. A student can type rapidly and still write an unclear message; another can write clearly but need help using an unfamiliar tool. Effective instruction may need to address both language and the medium.
Try your own response
Your writing stays in this page only. It is not submitted or saved. Copy your draft before leaving. The word counter checks approximate length, not quality.
4. Read an original handwriting essay
Read the original model response
Digital devices have changed how many people produce and share written work, so schools should teach typing and digital communication well. However, I disagree that handwriting should be removed from the curriculum entirely. A limited foundation in readable handwriting can coexist with a stronger emphasis on digital writing.
The argument for giving more time to digital skills is convincing. Students need opportunities to draft, revise and organise text using tools that may be important in later study or employment. Typing alone is not enough: they also need to learn how to present information clearly and communicate appropriately with different audiences. For example, a classroom task could ask pupils to turn notes into a concise message for a teacher and then adapt it for classmates. This would connect the use of a device with purposeful communication rather than treat keyboard speed as the only goal.
Nevertheless, basic handwriting has practical uses that do not disappear simply because digital tools are available. A short note, a label on a paper diagram or a form completed where no suitable device is provided may still require manual writing. Students should be able to make such writing readable without depending on another person to record it for them. This argument does not require schools to spend years pursuing elaborate penmanship. The relevant objective is functional competence, not decorative perfection.
The timetable should reflect this distinction. Once pupils can write legibly, additional writing practice can increasingly focus on composition and digital methods. Schools should also consider the tools available to their students rather than assume that every child has identical opportunities to practise at home. Providing both foundations would leave pupils with a choice of methods instead of making them dependent on one.
In conclusion, digital communication deserves substantial attention, but stopping handwriting instruction would be an unnecessary loss. A balanced curriculum should retain a modest practical foundation in handwriting and use the remaining time to develop effective writing across different media.
The model never claims that the two skills need equal classroom time. Its argument concerns a minimum useful foundation, so it directly rejects abolition while accepting a shift in emphasis. The examples are practical illustrations, not evidence of a scientifically proven learning advantage.
5. Solve two precision revisions
Exercise A: remove an unsupported learning claim
Revise: “Handwriting makes every child more intelligent, so schools must spend the same time on it as on computers.” Retain a reason to teach handwriting without claiming a universal cognitive effect or an unexplained time allocation.
Check a worked solution
A sound revision is: “Schools should preserve enough handwriting instruction for pupils to produce readable notes and complete simple paper-based tasks.” This gives a concrete objective. It does not establish that equal teaching time is necessary; the amount should follow from the skill being taught, not an unsupported claim about intelligence.
Exercise B: answer the actual proposal
A thesis says: “I agree that digital communication is useful, and handwriting is also useful.” Rewrite it as a clear response to stopping handwriting instruction.
Check a worked solution
One option is: “Although digital communication should receive more classroom time, I disagree with ending handwriting instruction because students still need a basic level of legible manual writing.” The concession identifies the change accepted, and the main clause rejects the proposed abolition. The reason specifies what would be lost.
6. Check for a false either-or choice
Review your draft for sentences that assume schools must choose one medium for every purpose. The prompt proposes replacement, but your response can challenge that framing. To do so convincingly, explain what is retained, what receives more emphasis and why. A conclusion that merely says “both are important” leaves those decisions unresolved.
For another attempt, defend ending extended handwriting drills after a basic threshold is reached. That position is narrower than stopping instruction altogether, so make the distinction explicit. Practise stating the exact level of agreement in one sentence before writing the body paragraphs. This habit is useful for many opinion tasks that contain strong words such as “only”, “all” or “completely”.
Format reference checked on 15 October 2026: official IELTS Academic Writing guidance. All prompts, models, data and exercises here are original teaching material. This independent page is not an official past paper or an examiner-marked answer.