Would You Teach Your Child To Write In Cursive?

[domnortheast]

I'm reminded of the following graphic which is based off information from a study years ago. The above is true not only of cursive, but of print as well:

 

http://englishwithmsjj.weebly.com/uploads/2/0/8/9/20890384/5126292_orig.png

exactly.

[Kataphract]

I'm reminded of the following graphic which is based off information from a study years ago. The above is true not only of cursive, but of print as well:

 

http://englishwithmsjj.weebly.com/uploads/2/0/8/9/20890384/5126292_orig.png

Yes, I can read that - I can read upside down and sideways, too. But scramble the letters and have the individual letters unreadable? That would defeat me. I found that in college I started transitioning away from cursive because I wanted to be clear when reviewing my notes. I sacrificed speed for accuracy (maybe this was a function of taking a boat load of science courses).

 

Oh, and not sure I'd choose to defend cursive handwriting by saying people can read any ol' thing as long as it was within spittin' distance. Just saying. ;-)

 

Edit in: and oddly, I turned the jumbled word stuff upside down to see if I could read that and it became easier - I had to actively look at the individual letters to see if the word was misspelled at times.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Kataphract

[Michigan]

I have a kindergartener. Now that she is writing, we are working to improve her penmanship. Cursive will likely follow.

 

We need to really rethink only teaching children what some authority figure or curriculum setter thinks is important. Along that path lies conformity and philistinism.

 

The point of education is not getting your kids just smart enough to work the machines and fill out the paperwork but still too dumb to question the system (to channel George Carlin). And having only rudimentary communication skills keeps people in their place. The cursive discussion fits into that larger topic.

[domnortheast]

I have a kindergartener. Now that she is writing, we are working to improve her penmanship. Cursive will likely follow.

 

We need to really rethink only teaching children what some authority figure or curriculum setter thinks is important. Along that path lies conformity and philistinism.

 

The point of education is not getting your kids just smart enough to work the machines and fill out the paperwork but still too dumb to question the system (to channel George Carlin). And having only rudimentary communication skills keeps people in their place. The cursive discussion fits into that larger topic.

Whole heartedly agree; knowledge and communication as tools to free people, to encourage them to think independently, to be creative rather than as a means to train them into bovine compliance.

[Cryptos]

If cursive and other exotic forms of writing are seen as anachronistic, why do most word processors have such fonts included?

 

My biggest gripe about 'progress' is that it often enthusiastically supported at the expense of something else, something that is seen as hard to define or intangible, such as art. As has been noted elsewhere, the advent of the camera has not diminished the number of people actively pursuing graphic arts. The advent of the computer/tablet/cellphone/whatever will not diminish the number of people who wish to create written work that has aesthetic value. A crafted letter has values across a range. A word processed letter has considerably less. I am not just talking about simply passing on information here. There is the human element too.

 

That's my opinion. Not trying to thrust it on anyone else, just putting it out there for consideration or interest.

 

 

Oooh look! Is that a tumbleweed?

Edited February 9, 2015 by Cardboard_Tube

[domnortheast]

If cursive and other exotic forms of writing are seen as anachronistic, why do most word processors have such fonts included?

 

My biggest gripe about 'progress' is that it often enthusiastically supported at the expense of something else, something that is seen as hard to define or intangible, such as art. As has been noted elsewhere, the advent of the camera has not diminished the number of people actively pursuing graphic arts. The advent of the computer/tablet/cellphone/whatever will not diminish the number of people who wish to create written works that has aesthetic value. A crafted letter has values across a range. A word processed letter has considerably less. I am not just talking about simply passing on information here. There is the human element too.

 

That's my opinion. Not trying to thrust it on anyone else, just putting it out there for consideration or interest.

 

 

Oooh look! Is that a tumbleweed?

 

Maybe, in a world of discreet digital values, there is no room for things which are 'hard to define', 'intangible' or which contain a 'human element'.

 

Hot out here in the desert ain't it......quiet too

[Cryptos]

Nice and quiet... and no cellphone reception. Win!

[TSherbs]

Whole heartedly agree; knowledge and communication as tools to free people, to encourage them to think independently, to be creative rather than as a means to train them into bovine compliance.

True.

 

Independence from an antiquated form of writing that discourages left-handedness and promotes superficial elitism (based on the elegance of one's "hand") might be a start.

[TSherbs]

If cursive and other exotic forms of writing are seen as anachronistic, why do most word processors have such fonts included?

 

My biggest gripe about 'progress' is that it often enthusiastically supported at the expense of something else, something that is seen as hard to define or intangible, such as art. As has been noted elsewhere, the advent of the camera has not diminished the number of people actively pursuing graphic arts. The advent of the computer/tablet/cellphone/whatever will not diminish the number of people who wish to create written work that has aesthetic value. A crafted letter has values across a range. A word processed letter has considerably less. I am not just talking about simply passing on information here. There is the human element too.

 

That's my opinion. Not trying to thrust it on anyone else, just putting it out there for consideration or interest.

 

 

Oooh look! Is that a tumbleweed?

true.

 

There have been indie music groups who have included band members who "play" the typewriter, and the machines are chosen carefully for their aesthetics (both the look and the sound of the keys on the platen).

[domnortheast]

True.

 

Independence from an antiquated form of writing that discourages left-handedness and promotes superficial elitism (based on the elegance of one's "hand") might be a start.

Hmm, by removing a skill?

 

By that logic if we stopped building with bricks or wood then we wouldn't need super elitist carpenters or bricklayers. The same applies to any learned skill.

 

I don't know that 'elegance' has been a sought after result for decades (at least not in the UK), maybe something for some people to aspire to, but neatness and legibility have, I think, been the main goals. Legibility and neatness in written communication, using the simplest of tools without reliance on a whole complex infrastructure of computer technology.

 

Also not sure when the last attempt to 'discourage left-handedness' was made in a school. Does it still go on today. I think it's more to the point that typing (especially my one fingered typing) requires very little 'skill' beyond the ability to plop ones finger/s down on buttons in the correct order at a rate of knots.

 

I believe learning and mastering any skill requires lots and lots of (currently unfashionable) effort and determination on the part of the learner but prevalent attitudes seem to lean towards 'why bother?' & 'will it earn me money? No. Then what's the point?'

 

Dom

Edited February 9, 2015 by Stanley Howler

[LionRoar]

Isn't that where one of the fundamental differences between reading and writing cursive script and reading and writing print script lies though?

 

In print script the block unit is the letter and words are constructed by bunching together groups of solitary letters whereas in a cursive script the word itself is the block unit so it is the overall shape of the word and context in which it appears that are (up to a point) more important than the formation of the individual letters themselves.

 

Certainly when I am reading cursive I read the word shapes themselves rather than the individual letters, only being forced to break words down into letters if I come across an unfamiliar word or a word in an unexpected context, but then that is also connected to my general grasp of grammar and syntax and my knowledge of the subject being written about (I wonder - do doctors, on average, understand each other's handwriting better than patients do?).

 

I guess the point I am trying make is that I think 'legibility' is tied to more than just the presentation of well formed individual letters.

 

Sounds like an admission that in cursive you can't always make out the individual letters but you can figure out the intent from the context of what makes sense given the word or the sentence.

 

If the goal is legibility, this is obviously a flaw.

[LionRoar]

You can navigate studies without having to know it perhaps- but maybe someone finds letters written by a grandparent or great grandparent and finds they can't readily read them (something that was in the linked article). My point is simply that it seems like a shame.

 

If there was a letter from my great grandparent, it would have been written in a foreign language so no, I would not be able to understand it.

 

This is just the normal progress of civilization. Eventually only expert scholars can read old documents. That they are handwritten is the least of the problem. They are also written in foreign languages or archaic versions of our own language.

 

We need to teach children for the present. An hour a day spent on learning modern things will be more useful than an hour a day practicing handwriting from the 19th century (which some children just aren't good at).

[GClef]

http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m496/gclef1114/Tutuguans/2015-02-09_13-18-38_247-1.jpg

[HollyGolightly]

This is just the normal progress of civilization. Eventually only expert scholars can read old documents. That they are handwritten is the least of the problem. They are also written in foreign languages or archaic versions of our own language.

 

We need to teach children for the present. An hour a day spent on learning modern things will be more useful than an hour a day practicing handwriting from the 19th century (which some children just aren't good at).

To me your argument seems really rooted in what is practical and useful and I don't believe every skill people posess need be the most efficient way to do something, or the most practical way. Surely if that had been the only concern when I was in school, they'd have never bothered to teach me art or music?. My point is that there are things that enrich us in other ways without being what you deem to be most efficient. Why then should we even teach children of history then- if they should focus soley on "modern things"?

 

You're certainly entitled to your opinion though it's clear we have different views when it comes to the idea that modern things are more useful/should replace other skills- and that's okay as well. We can agree to disagree. That's part of what keeps life interesting.

Edited February 9, 2015 by HollyGolightly

[KateGladstone]

Re:

 

Also, I thought that I had read about a study that linked cursive handwriting specifically to greater development of "right brain" artistic conceptual development. It has been several years ago, so I can't remember which study or the specific correlations they described.

I've seen & heard many claims that such a study existed. Often, the claims are made by legislators testifying in support of a cursive mandate bill that they are introducing or supporting. Without exception, so far, when anyone seeks to ascertain the source of the claim (to find the source of the researchthat has been adduced but has not been cited), either no source is discoverable, or any source that is cited turns out to have been severely misquoted by the person or organization adducing it as proof that cursive helps the right hemisphere (or whatever other advantage has been claimed).

[TSherbs]

Hmm, by removing a skill?

 

By that logic if we stopped building with bricks or wood then we wouldn't need super elitist carpenters or bricklayers. The same applies to any learned skill.

 

I don't know that 'elegance' has been a sought after result for decades (at least not in the UK), maybe something for some people to aspire to, but neatness and legibility have, I think, been the main goals. Legibility and neatness in written communication, using the simplest of tools without reliance on a whole complex infrastructure of computer technology.

 

Also not sure when the last attempt to 'discourage left-handedness' was made in a school. Does it still go on today. I think it's more to the point that typing (especially my one fingered typing) requires very little 'skill' beyond the ability to plop ones finger/s down on buttons in the correct order at a rate of knots.

 

I believe learning and mastering any skill requires lots and lots of (currently unfashionable) effort and determination on the part of the learner but prevalent attitudes seem to lean towards 'why bother?' & 'will it earn me money? No. Then what's the point?'

 

Dom

no, my point was that teaching cursive discourages left-handedness, especially with a fountain pen. Are you left-handed? If not, then you might not have thought about this from the "sinister" point of view.

 

And who mentioned "money"?

[KateGladstone]

Yes, Duvall was a late 20th-century italic curriculum in Great Falls, Montana. Its author, Betty Duvall, also did some educational research (filed on ericae.net) comparing her program with conventional programs. She did some years ago, quite embittered because school districts that had piloted her program had (some of them, at least) used parents'/teachers'/administrators'/other citizens' observations of its advantageous results (greater legibility, and at higher speeds) as a reason to DISCONTINUE the program; on the grounds that it was embarrassing to adults to have it noted (even by their own children) that the adults in the community now wrote less well than their own children. (This may sound incredible, but was confirmed for me some years ago, by school administrators there, when I asked them whether the Duvall program was still in use.)

 

I was in grade school in the 90s and at that point we weren't even taught "cursive" but some form of connected printing I think called Duvall. I turned to printing in early high school because I liked the way it looked a lot better and it was easily read by both myself and others. I didn't learn to write in cursive until my first year in law school when I was bored on evening and decided to learn cursive instead of study I agree that one can print pretty quickly, but I think that if you are comfortable writing in cursive it is faster than printing.

 

I'm sad to see handwriting given less and less focus in schools, but unless we increase the amount of productive time in a school day I'm not sure how we could ask teachers to find time to teach it as well as the myriad other things they're tasked with. In this electronic age I think learning computing skills takes precedence over learning cursive handwriting. But, hopefully some people will at some point take the time to learn cursive. I see it as perhaps becoming a niche-like thing similar to our use of fountain pens over other writing instruments.

[KateGladstone]

I suspect that Stanley (in referring to how cursive discourages left-handedness) has in mind the reality that many left-handers cannot produce many of the joins of cursive except by resorting to certain positions (of pen, hand, and/or paper) which are forbidden by the very programs that require all of those joins.

[KateGladstone]

I agree with LionRoar on this.

 

I disagree with this. It's easier to write legible print, and print degrades much better. Rapidly written cursive turns into an unreadable scrawl. Only people who practice a lot can write legible cursive.

 

Cursive has the problem that loopy letters "c" "a" "e" and "o" can all look like each other, "w" joins awkwardly with a lot of letters, etc.

Edited February 9, 2015 by KateGladstone

[TSherbs]

Hmm, by removing a skill?

 

By that logic if we stopped building with bricks or wood then we wouldn't need super elitist carpenters or bricklayers. The same applies to any learned skill.

 

I don't know that 'elegance' has been a sought after result for decades (at least not in the UK), maybe something for some people to aspire to, but neatness and legibility have, I think, been the main goals. Legibility and neatness in written communication, using the simplest of tools without reliance on a whole complex infrastructure of computer technology.

 

Also not sure when the last attempt to 'discourage left-handedness' was made in a school. Does it still go on today. I think it's more to the point that typing (especially my one fingered typing) requires very little 'skill' beyond the ability to plop ones finger/s down on buttons in the correct order at a rate of knots.

 

I believe learning and mastering any skill requires lots and lots of (currently unfashionable) effort and determination on the part of the learner but prevalent attitudes seem to lean towards 'why bother?' & 'will it earn me money? No. Then what's the point?'

 

Dom

oh, and "elegance of hand" is the historical social root of artistic script. I am referring to the social judgements--and their history--that are made against those who print or who write in a less aesthetically pleasing style or form. There is much great social embarrassment and even shame still lingering around this. Even in children (I am a teacher). And there is NO correlation between handwriting and intelligence (of which there are multiple forms) and/or aptitude.

 

With your comment on neatness and legibility I could not agree more. All that really matters is literacy. The rest is ornament, pleasing to some, superfluous to others (and all subjective).