在學校情境下，采用紙筆手寫和鍵盤拼音輸入練習漢字的實驗任務，比較了75名小學六年級兒童在兩種練習方式下的漢字學習及復習效果，并進行了保持效果的追蹤。結果發現，紙筆手寫和鍵盤拼音輸入對兒童的漢字復習具有同等積極作用，在再認選擇和回憶書寫上效果均相當;對兒童的漢字學習積極作用不一致:在再認選擇上兩者積極效果相當，但在回憶書寫上，手寫明顯優于拼音輸入。另外，經紙筆手寫和鍵盤拼音輸入復習和學習的漢字，其記憶保持隨時間變化的趨勢一致。以上結果說明了對具有書面語言經驗的兒童，拼音輸入與手寫都有助于形成和鞏固漢字在心理詞典中的義音形聯結，但手寫動作更有利于漢字從正字法代碼向書寫動作程序的轉換;"提筆忘字"現象可能是正字法遺忘的結果，并非由使用拼音輸入法造成。

A long-standing point is that the operational motion of handwriting has a special role in word encoding and retrieving, indicating that word representation may consist of a handwriting movement component. If so, highly frequent use of keyboarding may change the mental representation of words and further affect word learning. Thus, it is highly possible that performance in learning new Chinese characters with Pinyin keyboarding(which is widely used among Chinese teenagers) is worse than with handwriting. Further, the movement memory codes of learned characters may be weakened because of long-time Pinyin keyboarding and lack of handwriting track feedback. In addition, the glyphs of Chinese characters will be more likely to be forgotten when reviewed with Pinyin input than with handwriting. To test the above propositions, we compared Chinese character learning and retention between two groups of 6 graders, with one group using paper-pen writing and the other using Pinyin keyboarding. First, we used the traditional method to teach 2 classes of students 30 low-frequency characters in classrooms and participants were labeled as "mastered" or "un-mastered" according to their dictation performances. Then, these 2 classes were assigned randomly to practice with handwriting or Pinyin input. Thereafter, participants were instructed to practice with handwriting or Pinyin input once a week for six weeks and then tested in recognition and writing twice, one week and three months after the practice. We found that, in the first test, for the un-mastered group, the positive effects from the two practice methods were similar in recognition, but the writing performance after the handwriting practice was significantly better than that after the Pinyin keyboarding practice. For the mastered group, performances in recognition and writing after the two kinds of practices were similar and dictation and writing performances before and after the practice were also similar. In the second test, children’s performances were similar after handwriting and Pinyin keyboarding practices in both recognition and writing. The results suggested that Chinese characters learned with Pinyin keyboarding practice were not more likely to be forgotten than characters learned with handwriting practice. In conclusion, although handwriting and Pinyin keyboarding practices have different positive effects on learning Chinese characters, i.e., similar positive effects in recognition but a greater effect for handwriting than Pinyin keyboarding in writing, they have the same positive effects on reviewing characters. This suggests that compared with English words, Chinese characters learning is more dependent on the feedback of handwriting movement, which may be related to spacial features of Chinese characters. These results also suggest that we may use Pinyin input to teach children to read Chinese characters and use traditional handwriting to teach them to write. In addition, memory retention of the mastered characters after the two practices are similar after an interval without practice, suggesting that character amnesia may not be caused by the Pinyin keyboarding specifically, but by a weakened orthographic code due to lack of practice of handwriting or Pinyin input on a long-term basis.