Would You Teach Your Child To Write In Cursive?

[domnortheast]

Ancalagon,

Your teaching career must have perfectly straddled the transition from handwritten or typewritten scholarly work to word processed work although as you say, handwritten work is still accepted and indeed encouraged in many schools. What has been your experience of this?

 

Within the HE sector (at least where I work) it is expected that all written work is word processed and electronically submitted...a depressing state of affairs I find...even to me as a learning technologist.

 

Dom

[domnortheast]

Perhaps not exactly on point, but I want to start teaching my soon to be five year old Great grand daughter to write in some form of cursive and would would like suggestions for the 'best' programs I can find to use in the instruction phase. I learned so long ago that about all I remember is that we spent some time 'tracing' letters.

Any advice?

Hi Tberry010,

There was a thread on the forum a few days ago about an interesting new method for teaching cursive, I will see if I can find it...it was called...kickstarter...or something. I haven't tried it so can't speak of its efficacy though. I'm sure there are many who have vastly more experience than I at teaching cursive at primary school level and hopefully they will come up with some suggestions.

 

Dom

[ancalagon]

On a computer it is so easy to throw ideas on a page juggle them around until they make some semblance of sense; delete this, copy and paste that, let the spell checker do it's work and feel quite self satisfied with an impressive looking chunk of text. I think there is often a great breadth of digitally produced work but often, outside of professional and academic arenas, very little depth...it is just so easy.

 

Handwriting on the other...er hand promotes articulacy by encouraging more in the way of pre-writing planning and composition; planning that goes on in the head before hand is set to page and is driven, for me at least, by the fact that it is a 'one shot affair', once it's down on the page I can't re-shuffle text without a major re-write each time so I need to know what I am going to say. Take this very text for example, if I had handwritten it I would have given this response far more thought and planning and probably got my point across with great articulacy and elegance....but, I am lazy...typing is just so easy and the spell checker reminds me where I've produced a typo. Easier but not better.

Edsger Dijkstra (a hero of mine) basically shared your opinion on this. I'm not convinced yet, but at least you're in good company.

 

I usually find myself thinking out what I'm going to say pretty thoroughly before I type it when posting on the internet. I use copy/paste to move things around and edit, but not that much.

 

Too much editing and you aren't thinking, but trying to avoid it completely seems like a bad idea to me. I find that putting ideas down on paper (or onscreen) helps me think about them, as I don't have to spend mental effort to keep everything in my head, I can spot errors or flaws more easily, and it keeps my ideas from getting away with being too vague. Often, I'll have a vague idea, but it seems clear enough to me -- until I try to write it down, and I find out that it's too vague for that.

 

Trying to finish baking half-baked ideas is something that I do best with a pen or keyboard, and when I do that, it tends to be an iterative process.

 

The strength of computer communication lies in its potential for the dissemination and linking of ideas.

It also prevents problems with illegibility and has enormous storage capacity.

 

Your teaching career

I'm not a teacher.

[domnortheast]

I'm not a teacher.

 

Sorry Ancalagon, it was Tsherbs who has been a teacher for 29 years.

 

Dom

[domnortheast]

It also prevents problems with illegibility and has enormous storage capacity.

 

That's one of my issues with it. I don't believe it does prevent illegibility, it just masks it behind layers of software along with (too often) poor composition, grammar and spelling. It is like the argument for ABS in cars, yes it may lower accident rates from skidding but it doesn't create better drivers. Training and experience creates better drivers, the technology just hides the areas that need improving and allows one to ignore them.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Stanley Howler

[Cryptos]

As we all love pens here, right? Now would seem the ideal time to indulge in a little experiment.

 

Let's say that for the next 3 - 5 posts, of at least moderate quantity content (i.e. not one-liners), we write down what we want to say before typing it and hitting 'post'.

 

We may see some subtle or not so subtle changes in our styles. At the very least we get to play with the instruments that brought us to this forum. Looks like a win-win to me!

 

 

<typed post, not handwritten>

[TSherbs]

That's one of my issues with it. I don't believe it does prevent illegibility, it just masks it behind layers of software along with (too often) poor composition, grammar and spelling. It is like the argument for ABS in cars, yes it may lower accident rates from skidding but it doesn't create better drivers. Training and experience creates better drivers, the technology just hides the areas that need improving and allows one to ignore them.

ok, but isn't having more children alive and fewer of them maimed more important than having this idea of "better drivers"? I, for one, am more interested in fewer people maimed or killed than that we all make better unassisted braking. Honestly. Who cares, as long as the result is less suffering and hardship? Should race car drivers not wear fire-retardant clothing?

 

And why, then, care whether something is written in cursive versus straight printing or D'Nealian (for example)? I don't believe that anyone here has actually argued against teaching children handwriting (writing by hand). But does it have to be cursive? No, I would argue, it does not because there has been no real measurable efficacy demonstrated for it that outweighs its drawbacks or recommends it above other handwriting forms (there are other choices out there now, and schools adopt different models).

[sirgilbert357]

I can't remember if I've already posted in this thread yet or not, but I'll just say that both of my girls will know how to write in cursive. They will go to the private school my wife teaches at and it is part of the curriculum there, with absolutely no plans to drop it....

[domnortheast]

As we all love pens here, right? Now would seem the ideal time to indulge in a little experiment.

 

Let's say that for the next 3 - 5 posts, of at least moderate quantity content (i.e. not one-liners), we write down what we want to say before typing it and hitting 'post'.

 

We may see some subtle or not so subtle changes in our styles. At the very least we get to play with the instruments that brought us to this forum. Looks like a win-win to me!

 

 

<typed post, not handwritten>

Good idea for an experiment.

 

ok, but isn't having more children alive and fewer of them maimed more important than having this idea of "better drivers"? I, for one, am more interested in fewer people maimed or killed than that we all make better unassisted braking. Honestly. Who cares, as long as the result is less suffering and hardship? Should race car drivers not wear fire-retardant clothing?

 

And why, then, care whether something is written in cursive versus straight printing or D'Nealian (for example)? I don't believe that anyone here has actually argued against teaching children handwriting (writing by hand). But does it have to be cursive? No, I would argue, it does not because there has been no real measurable efficacy demonstrated for it that outweighs its drawbacks or recommends it above other handwriting forms (there are other choices out there now, and schools adopt different models).

 

 

I can't remember if I've already posted in this thread yet or not, but I'll just say that both of my girls will know how to write in cursive. They will go to the private school my wife teaches at and it is part of the curriculum there, with absolutely no plans to drop it....

Good to hear they are learning it and their school sees the relevance.

 

The only danger or fear there is that it eventually only becomes taught in private schools ('public' here in the UK) then it will once again become an elitist skill not taught to those children in state education and the effort of the last 200 or so years to instil each child with the basic skills for written communication with the simplest of tools will be lost. Over-reactionary? me?...probably.

 

Dom

Edited February 12, 2015 by Stanley Howler

[GClef]

20150212_075454.jpg

 

 

 

[TSherbs]

Good idea for an experiment.

 

20150212_075454.jpg

 

Good to hear they are learning it and their school sees the relevance.

 

The only danger or fear there is that it eventually only becomes taught in private schools ('public' here in the UK) then it will once again become an elitist skill not taught to those children in state education and the effort of the last 200 or so years to instil each child with the basic skills for written communication with the simplest of tools will be lost. Over-reactionary? me?...probably.

 

Dom

cool reply!

 

If quickness and ease were the only reasons that keyboarding were taught, I might agree a little more with you. Although there is not much wrong with a task being done more efficiently. Fortunately, however, using a computer for writing actually assists/improves several aspects of the writing, revision, and drafting process. This is well-established empirically. Some people still use paper and pen/cil for drafting (as I often do for speeches and other presentations or papers that I give), but that is my personal preference and is not based on anything empirical about the nature of reading or writing. I even change the locations where I write every 30 mins or so. Also my pens. Also tea is helpful! I have a friend who writes better than I (and more), and he does every draft on yellow paper with #2 pencils, which I consider crazy because I have to push so hard to write with pencils to make them legible enough for my liking. But he is a lefty, which changes everything (which I also said about cursive--it discourages left-handed writing).

 

Again, no one here has been arguing against the teaching of handwriting. Nor is handwriting being dropped from the teaching of literacy. It is critical, and we teachers know this. I really don't see the beef here, unless it is worry mongering. I just see no advantage of cursive over, say, D'Nealian, nor has any ever been demonstrated to exist. It's just a matter of subjective preference. Even your note above is not true cursive, but a personalized hybrid that works for you.

Edited February 12, 2015 by TSherbs

[domnortheast]

cool reply!

 

If quickness and ease were the only reasons that keyboarding were taught, I might agree a little more with you. Although there is not much wrong with a task being done more efficiently. Fortunately, however, using a computer for writing actually assists/improves several aspects of the writing, revision, and drafting process. This is well-established empirically. Some people still use paper and pen/cil for drafting (as I often do for speeches and other presentations or papers that I give), but that is my personal preference and is not based on anything empirical about the nature of reading or writing. I even change the locations where I write every 30 mins or so. Also my pens. Also tea is helpful! I have a friend who writes better than I (and more), and he does every draft on yellow paper with #2 pencils, which I consider crazy because I have to push so hard to write with pencils to make them legible enough for my liking. But he is a lefty, which changes everything (which I also said about cursive--it discourages left-handed writing).

 

Again, no one here has been arguing against the teaching of handwriting. Nor is handwriting being dropped from the teaching of literacy. It is critical, and we teachers know this. I really don't see the beef here, unless it is worry mongering. I just see no advantage of cursive over, say, D'Nealian, nor has any ever been demonstrated to exist. It's just a matter of subjective preference. Even your note above is not true cursive, but a personalized hybrid that works for you.

 

Edited February 12, 2015 by Stanley Howler

[LionRoar]

Good idea for an experiment.

 

20150212_075454.jpg

 

Good to hear they are learning it and their school sees the relevance.

 

The only danger or fear there is that it eventually only becomes taught in private schools ('public' here in the UK) then it will once again become an elitist skill not taught to those children in state education and the effort of the last 200 or so years to instil each child with the basic skills for written communication with the simplest of tools will be lost. Over-reactionary? me?...probably.

 

Dom

 

Cursive isn't a basic skill for written communication. It's a skill to impress other people that you can write in cursive. Thus not a skill that's economically useful to society as a whole, which is why we are moving in the right direction by removing it as a requirement from what in the U.S. are called public schools.

[TSherbs]

20150212_123022.jpg

D'Nealian manuscript letters are not connected. D'Nealian cursive is. So again, cursive connects letters and keeps the pen/cil on the page. D'Nealian manuscript (the basic teaching of D'Nealian) does not. D'Nealian is actually offered as a precursor to cursive, IF one wishes to teach cursive. Look around their website. They aregue that cursive is not remediable, meaning that it is too complex to remediate if one does not do it well. They also argue that it is more "drawing" than "writing." So they offer a more logical building block for the development of literacy and handwriting. Cursive then becomes what it more rightly actually is: an aesthetic refinement not necessary for nor even better suited for literacy or communication or the training of children in the mastery of letters, spelling, words, and written language making.

 

see here: http://www.dnealian.com/samples.html

[TSherbs]

 

Cursive isn't a basic skill for written communication. It's a skill to impress other people that you can write in cursive. Thus not a skill that's economically useful to society as a whole, which is why we are moving in the right direction by removing it as a requirement from what in the U.S. are called public schools.

+1

[GClef]

 

Cursive isn't a basic skill for written communication. It's a skill to impress other people that you can write in cursive. Thus not a skill that's economically useful to society as a whole, which is why we are moving in the right direction by removing it as a requirement from what in the U.S. are called public schools.

 

http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m496/gclef1114/Gibberish/0212151333a-1.jpg

[Occipital Lobe]

Getting back to the original question: NO!!

I can't even get them to chew with their mouths closed yet, so I'll postpone cursive writing to a more appropriate time...

[GClef]

I can't even get them to chew with their mouths closed yet

 

http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m496/gclef1114/Gibberish/0212151432a-1.jpg

[domnortheast]

D'Nealian manuscript letters are not connected. D'Nealian cursive is. So again, cursive connects letters and keeps the pen/cil on the page. D'Nealian manuscript (the basic teaching of D'Nealian) does not. D'Nealian is actually offered as a precursor to cursive, IF one wishes to teach cursive. Look around their website. They aregue that cursive is not remediable, meaning that it is too complex to remediate if one does not do it well. They also argue that it is more "drawing" than "writing." So they offer a more logical building block for the development of literacy and handwriting. Cursive then becomes what it more rightly actually is: an aesthetic refinement not necessary for nor even better suited for literacy or communication or the training of children in the mastery of letters, spelling, words, and written language making.

 

see here: http://www.dnealian.com/samples.html

Thanks for the link TSHerbs. I wasn't aware D'Nealian Manuscript was taught as a standalone script. I had only heard of it as a lead-up to joining the letters.

 

 

Cursive isn't a basic skill for written communication. It's a skill to impress other people that you can write in cursive. Thus not a skill that's economically useful to society as a whole, which is why we are moving in the right direction by removing it as a requirement from what in the U.S. are called public schools.

 

Edited February 12, 2015 by Stanley Howler

[AndrewThomas]

I agree. There are many worthwhile skills that aren't economically useful. Playing a musical instrument, wood sculpture, blacksmithing, a familiarity with ancient texts, the writing of sonnets, painting. We could go on and on to enumerate them. And each of them provide cultural and cognitive skills that are invaluable. They each have intrinsic worth--they educate, edify, enrich, entertain, and enlighten. They are of clear benefit, even if not of quantifiable economic value.

 

The flaw in the pro-mandated cursive argument, however, is that it picks one of those many, many, many skills out of a hat and insists that it should be taught to everyone. It takes a one-size-fits all approach to what should be personalized and specific.

 

So I entirely agree, Mr. Fowler, that a great many skills worth having don't have any obvious economic use. No one would disagree. What makes less sense, however, is to randomly pick one of those skills and argue that it should be universally in the curriculum. Just as it would be draconian and short sided to make every child learn the same musical instrument or a certain craft, it's absurd to pick one extra-economic skill as the one that's most important. If we know that there is a limited amount of time in a human lifetime for the acquisition of skills, and there is an even more limited amount of time for the acquisition of non-economically motivated skills, from what basis are you going to dictate to other people's children what skill will most enrich them?

 

 

What is most ironic about the argument is its historical dubiousness. Cursive enters into history precisely because of its economic use: clear, standardized, teachable written communication. There was a time when it was precisely useful for its practicality. Now that it has somewhat faded out of usefulness, trying to maintain its place in the curriculum using an entirely different set of criteria is just silly. It's like trying to argue that every one should learn how to ride a horse, even though horseback riding is no longer a common form of transportation, because the skills that come with horseback riding are wonderful. No doubt they are. But I'd never be so arrogant as to say that everyone "ought" to learn horseback riding.

Edited February 12, 2015 by AndrewThomas