Cursive Is Quicker Than Printing (?)

[KateGladstone]

Re this whole is-cursive-faster query:it's a bit strangedthat the biggest cursive-promoting organization in North America — the Zaner-Bloser handwriting publishing firm — will tell the public (on this issue) only that the company "feels" (direct quote) that cursive is faster: http://www.tinyurl.com/ZBfeels .Either they've never actually investigated, or they investigated but didn't like what they found ... either way, that's a bit surprising in a company that's been selling cursive handwriting for 120+ years.The Z-B staffer who's ultimately in charge of what the company puts out regarding handwriting is Kathleen Wright — who isn't particularly hard to contact through zaner-bloser.com . She, if anyone, would be the person who could tell you why the company doesn't provide (about this issue,at least) any hard stats or research, but merely a "feeling."

[KateGladstone]

Interesting in this context: the following two research-citations found that fully joined writing was no faster than Unjoined: the fastest writing was semi-joined.      Citations: Steve Graham, Virginia Berninger, Naomi Weintraub and William SchaferDEVELOPMENT OF HANDWRITING SPEED AND LEGIBILITY       IN GRADES 1—9The Journal of Educational ResearchVol. 92, No. 1 (Sep. - Oct., 1998), pp. 42-52 Steve Graham, Virginia Berninger, and Naomi WeintraubTHE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HANDWRITING STYLE AND        SPEED AND LEGIBILITY.The Journal of Educational ResearchVol. 91, No. 5 (May  - June 1998), pp. 290-296      Downloadable at:http://www2.sbac.edu/~werned/DATA/Brain%20research%20class/handwriting%20speed%20style%20legibility%20berninger.pdf

[KateGladstone]

Most of use can read writing-styles we cannot write (e.g., the "Olde Englishe" fonts on Christmas cards), and at least two handwriting-programs teach students to read the cursive that they aren't being taught to write.

 

If writing a style provided the only way to learn to read it, then those (few) who are born with physical limitations that precludeall use of a pen would never learn to read cursive — or anything else. Yet they are not excused from learning how to read cursive along with other writing.

[Mickey]

  On 3/1/2012 at 9:43 PM, KateGladstone said:

Most of use can read writing-styles we cannot write (e.g., the "Olde Englishe" fonts on Christmas cards),

 

Come on, Kate. Those fonts are bogus. They were designed to be readable by folk who wouldn't know black letter from black feet.

 

I have a German / English dictionary from the beginning of the 20th century and the German entries are all in black letter. I'm familiar enough with the script and they're still a chore to read. I wouldn't give the average schmoe a snowball's chance in Abu Dhabi of reading them.

[mirosc]

  On 3/1/2012 at 10:45 PM, Mickey said:

I have a German / English dictionary from the beginning of the 20th century and the German entries are all in black letter. I'm familiar enough with the script and they're still a chore to read. I wouldn't give the average schmoe a snowball's chance in Abu Dhabi of reading them.

Well, happy skiing in Abu Dhabi!

We don't teach our teenagers in High School how to read German black letter, we just expect them in history lessons to be able to. And they are, even if they never see black letter in real life. Sometimes they mix up s/f, A/U and B/L, but that's it. The fun part is that at university my students are much less capable of doing so. Degradation by age?

 

Edited March 1, 2012 by mirosc

[KateGladstone]

More peope can read German Blackletter than can write it.If you had to write a style to read it, that wouldn't happen.

[KateGladstone]

I meant "people" ... But you could read my typo without reproducing It.:-)

[Mickey]

  On 3/1/2012 at 11:57 PM, KateGladstone said:

I meant "people" ... But you could read my typo without reproducing It.:-)

 

What about us peope?

[radellaf]

Neither "ball and stick" or ZB cursive were good choices for me, and I find writing or reading "loopy" cursive hands to be a chore. Note, I did flip "b" and "d" a lot in my younger years, and I still can't reliably, at speed, tell left from right.

By necessity (college notetaking) I developed a personal semi-joined hand that was a good compromise of comfort, speed, and legibility. FWIW, to me, a major component of legibility involves being able to scan quickly through writing to find parts of interest. Class notes aren't love letters. You want them to be as easy to pick stuff out of as a book. Here is where I find all "loopy" writing fails.

 

Anyway, partly thanks to Kate, and to Fahrney's catalog, I studied "Write Now" and am happier with my writing. It's not _that_ much better than my homegrown style, but it is a little nicer. Also, and here was a major motivation, the letters hold their form better with wider nibs. I was in college when the Waterman Phileas came out and all I could get was the wet double-broad that they called "M". Ended up using the back of the nib a lot for practical writing.

 

So, I have to cast my vote for a semi-joined Italic hand as the fastest, _legible_, style. Seems the only one with any science behind it. I think of it as the Verdana of handwriting. Does seem like the results of the handwriting competitions would be the definitive way of showing what the limit of possibility is for any kind of handwriting, though. Not sure if photos and stats are available, but I'd call that the best way to answer the OP's question without including anyone's personal preferences, skills, or bias.

[Mickey]

  On 3/1/2012 at 11:48 PM, mirosc said:

  On 3/1/2012 at 10:45 PM, Mickey said:

I have a German / English dictionary from the beginning of the 20th century and the German entries are all in black letter. I'm familiar enough with the script and they're still a chore to read. I wouldn't give the average schmoe a snowball's chance in Abu Dhabi of reading them.

Well, happy skiing in Abu Dhabi!

We don't teach our teenagers in High School how to read German black letter, we just expect them in history lessons to be able to. And they are, even if they never see black letter in real life. Sometimes they mix up s/f, A/U and B/L, but that's it. The fun part is that at university my students are much less capable of doing so. Degradation by age?

 

 

Not growing up around real black letter (you don't see it much in the U.S., especially the more ornate versions) the situation here is somewhat different. Navigation in a foreign language AND in an unfamiliar language can be tough.* I spent much of my undergrad years haunting the historical sets, so I got comfortable reading pretty much whatever got dropped in front of me. I was surprised in grad school to learn that this was not a universal virtue.

 

I'm curious about your "degradation by age" conjecture. Who knows? It might very well hold more water than a rusty sieve.

 

* Much of the English I've seen in authentic black letter is nearly a foreign language to some, filled with moribund words, eccentric spelling, even the odd "dead letter," like the thorn. It makes filling in the blanks from context something of a challenge. I remember in the 50s, my grandmother showing me a recent newspaper from her home town (near the Scottish border). While it was not in block letters, it was still nearly indecipherable to my 6 year old eyes, as it featured many Gaelic borrow words set in a flavor of English which still retained many Germanic forms and spellings (e.g., cht substituted for ght). I'm curious how easy a time I'd have with it now.

[KateGladstone]

"the results of the handwriting competitions ... " — which handwriting competitions did you have in mind?

 

;-)

[Columba Livia]

  On 3/2/2012 at 12:35 AM, radellaf said:

a semi-joined Italic hand as the fastest, _legible_, style. Seems the only one with any science behind it.

 

What science is that?

[radellaf]

  On 3/2/2012 at 1:13 AM, KateGladstone said:

"the results of the handwriting competitions ... " — which handwriting competitions did you have in mind?

 

IDK, whatever someone mentioned earlier in the thread. I assumed they weren't just talking out of of their... endcap.

 

[ edit ] - oh, I see, you're one of the directors of one of them...

Edited March 2, 2012 by radellaf

[FLZapped]

  On 3/1/2012 at 8:13 PM, KateGladstone said:

Re this whole is-cursive-faster query:it's a bit strangedthat the biggest cursive-promoting organization in North America — the Zaner-Bloser handwriting publishing firm — will tell the public (on this issue) only that the company "feels" (direct quote) that cursive is faster: http://www.tinyurl.com/ZBfeels .Either they've never actually investigated, or they investigated but didn't like what they found ... either way, that's a bit surprising in a company that's been selling cursive handwriting for 120+ years.The Z-B staffer who's ultimately in charge of what the company puts out regarding handwriting is Kathleen Wright — who isn't particularly hard to contact through zaner-bloser.com . She, if anyone, would be the person who could tell you why the company doesn't provide (about this issue,at least) any hard stats or research, but merely a "feeling."

 

Great example of the pot calling the kettle black. You have rejected research that disagrees with your stance. You have used research that is poorly done. You are selling a handwriting product, which is in direct competition with Z-B. Some of your statements have been shown to be patently false, made right here on FPN.

 

Oh, in case you missed it, here are some of the studies cited by Z-B: James & Atwood, 2009; James & Gauthier, 2006; James, Wong, & Jobard, 2010; Longcamp et al., 2008; Denton, Cope, & Moser, 2006; Cutler & Graham, 2008. All right there in one of the links you provided.

 

So now, what is it they haven't researched?? What is it they've rejected? You think that maybe you need to revise your statement? All the studies cited are newer than the 2001 study you cling to, which is a poorly done study. The researchers started with presumptions, admitted that the handwriting of the subjects being studied wasn't fully developed, and introduced their own variables which affected the outcome. In fairness, I don't doubt that some of the sources cited by Z-B are also poorly done, I haven't the time to track them down.

 

You live in a glass house. It might be advisable that you stop your rock throwing and get a good dose of honesty whilst you're at it.

[mirosc]

  On 3/2/2012 at 12:59 AM, Mickey said:

Not growing up around real black letter (you don't see it much in the U.S., especially the more ornate versions) the situation here is somewhat different. Navigation in a foreign language AND in an unfamiliar language can be tough.* I spent much of my undergrad years haunting the historical sets, so I got comfortable reading pretty much whatever got dropped in front of me. I was surprised in grad school to learn that this was not a universal virtue.

 

I'm curious about your "degradation by age" conjecture. Who knows? It might very well hold more water than a rusty sieve.

 

* Much of the English I've seen in authentic black letter is nearly a foreign language to some, filled with moribund words, eccentric spelling, even the odd "dead letter," like the thorn. It makes filling in the blanks from context something of a challenge. I remember in the 50s, my grandmother showing me a recent newspaper from her home town (near the Scottish border). While it was not in block letters, it was still nearly indecipherable to my 6 year old eyes, as it featured many Gaelic borrow words set in a flavor of English which still retained many Germanic forms and spellings (e.g., cht substituted for ght). I'm curious how easy a time I'd have with it now.

 

Just saw your reply. Sorry, took some time to see that...

Of course it's difficult to understand a foreign language in a different hand. I'm doing quite well in Latin, but everytime I'm in the archive, brooding over some documents from the 6th or 14th century, almost no word spacing, full of strange, individual abbreviations... well, it takes its time. But usually it's quite ok to decipher it. Experience and many years of doing that definitely help.

 

The fun part, though, is that you lose some of your freshman creativity. Take the Old Roman cursive: the letter B looks like today's d, a or T. But definitely not like a B. When you show that to kids, they are mostly capable of solving the problem how the letter had developed; older students usually have difficulties. But you shouldn't take that conjecture too seriously, it was more an ironic sidenote.

[KateGladstone]

To those who want me to agree with Z-B:Two weeks ago,material on the Z-B web-site included two statements (attributed to a 2006 research paper) stating that cursive was faster than other writing-styles — and attributing that finding to a 2006 research-paper that in fact (if one looked it up) was about handwriting vs. keyboarding (with no claims or evidence forms superiority specific to cursive.) Within the past two weeks, after the original researcher and I each found the misquotation and queried Z-B, the statement aboutmthemresearch had been changed to a statement that "Zaner-Bloser feels" that cursive is faster: with no research support given, by Z-B for this point, I will provide substantiating info (e.g., links to the old and new visions of the documents) if someone will please explain why Zaner-Bloser is now talking about their feelings.

[KateGladstone]

I actually agree with you about the problems with "hybrid" and the I advisability of excluding from "cursive" those styles with pen-lists. Te problem is tat I must talk to people who don't see it that way, soi have to use their terms for a while at least. Suggestions?

[Mickey]

  On 3/5/2012 at 8:58 PM, KateGladstone said:

I actually agree with you about the problems with "hybrid" and the I advisability of excluding from "cursive" those styles with pen-lists. Te problem is tat I must talk to people who don't see it that way, soi have to use their terms for a while at least. Suggestions?

 

I think you may be over thinking the matter of pen lifts. Most people (will) readily accept that Spencerian is cursive, and it has plenty of pen lifts other than those between words. For example the letter 't' which has one lift (other than the cross bar) unless it is the end of the word alternative form (which has no lifts and no separate cross bar), likewise the letter 'd'. Depending on which method book you consult and which form variant you choose, the letter 'c', 'p', and (I believe) 's' also require pen lifts.