QUANZHOU, China — Sun Siyuan of Quanzhou Normal University examines how digital process visualization can support primary and secondary school students in learning Chinese brush calligraphy. Published in 2026, the study finds that digital recordings of brush movements, speed, pressure, and posture can help teachers and students observe writing processes that are difficult to recall after a stroke has been completed. However, the technology alone does not demonstrate that students have developed independent brush-calligraphy competence.
Calligraphy learning involves more than the final form of a character on paper. The way a brush begins a stroke, changes direction, accelerates or slows down, applies pressure, lifts, and finishes also determines the resulting mark. These movements often occur within a very short period, making them difficult for beginners to observe and remember. As a result, students may judge their work mainly by whether the final character looks similar to the model without fully understanding the movements that produced it.
Digital technology provides a way to preserve these temporary actions. Cameras, motion sensors, pressure sensors, and computational systems can record brush trajectories, movement speed, pressure, and hand posture. The resulting information can then be replayed, compared, and discussed by teachers and students. Sun Siyuan's analysis considers digital technology not simply as a modern classroom device, but as a tool for locating writing problems and helping learners connect specific movements with the marks produced on paper.
The study uses a problem-oriented narrative literature synthesis and conceptual analysis. The literature search was conducted through August 8, 2026, using educational policy sources, CNKI, official journal websites, and international research databases. A total of 29 materials, including policies, regulations, standards, and academic literature, were included. Six representative empirical studies were then compared according to participants, writing tasks, process information, feedback design, and evidence of retention and transfer.
The findings indicate that digital process visualization is particularly useful for making temporary brush movements available for repeated observation. Slow-motion recordings, trajectory data, pressure curves, and sequential writing records can help teachers identify the moment when a stroke becomes stiff or deviates from the model. Students can also compare information displayed on a screen with the marks on paper and with the physical sensations experienced while writing.
More information, however, does not automatically produce better learning. A complete recording may contain so many details that it increases cognitive load rather than clarifying the problem. Teachers therefore need to select information that directly relates to the student's current difficulty. A difference between a demonstrated trajectory and a student's trajectory also does not automatically prove the cause of an error. Digital evidence needs to be considered alongside the writing on paper, teacher observations, and the student's physical experience of using the brush.
Previous research reviewed by Sun Siyuan illustrates both the potential and limitations of this approach. The CalliSense study, for example, used video, inertial sensors, and pressure sensors to record brush posture, finger pressure on the brush handle, and movement rhythm. An evaluation involving four teachers and 12 learners indicated that the system could support joint observation and feedback discussions and was associated with higher self-reported understanding of brush techniques. However, the study did not establish independent writing performance, long-term retention, or transfer after digital assistance was removed.
Another study involving 50 second-grade students in Singapore used a tablet-based system to support Chinese character writing with a hard pen. The experimental group showed greater improvements than the control group in stroke-order errors, extra or missing strokes, and stroke-direction errors. Yet the pre- and post-tests were conducted within the digital system, without delayed testing or transfer to brush-and-paper writing.
These differences led Sun Siyuan to distinguish four levels of evidence: process recording, diagnostic evidence, regulatory evidence, and learning evidence. Process recording describes what happened during a movement. Diagnostic evidence requires process information to be considered together with paper traces, teacher observations, and students' physical sensations. Regulatory evidence appears when students translate a diagnosis into an observable motor adjustment. Stronger learning evidence requires students to maintain the adjustment after support is reduced and apply it to similar strokes or new characters.
This framework means that improved performance during digitally assisted practice is not enough to establish lasting learning. If a student writes better only while prompts remain visible on the screen, the improvement may reflect dependence on external support. Teachers therefore need to gradually reduce assistance and examine whether students can perform the movement correctly without the digital prompts.
The analysis also highlights differences between educational stages. Younger primary school students may need short demonstrations and simple prompts focused on grip and basic stroke direction. More experienced primary students can begin comparing stroke rhythm and turning positions. Middle school students can move toward discussions of stylistic differences and the reasons why similar strokes may have more than one valid treatment.
For education, the findings position digital technology as a supporting tool rather than a replacement for teachers or direct writing practice. Sensors and algorithms can record and compare movements, but determining the causes of writing difficulties and deciding how students should practice next still require pedagogical judgment. Brush-and-paper practice remains essential for verifying whether information displayed on a screen has actually become motor competence.
Sun Siyuan concludes that current evidence remains insufficient to estimate the overall effectiveness of process-visualization technologies for brush-calligraphy learning in primary and secondary schools. Existing studies differ in participants, writing tools, writing systems, duration, and measurement methods. Future research therefore needs to examine these technologies in authentic classroom settings while reporting educational stage, script style, task difficulty, feedback design, intervention frequency, and students' ability to retain and transfer skills after digital support is removed.
Author
Sun Siyuan
Quanzhou Normal University, Quanzhou, China
Research Source
“Mechanisms and Limits of Digital Process Visualization in Brush-Calligraphy Copying in Primary and Secondary Schools”
East Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, Vol. 5, No. 9, 2026, pages 3983–4000
DOI: https://doi.org/10.55927/eajmr.v5i9.321
Journal link: https://journaleajmr.my.id/index.php/eajmr
0 Komentar