Jump to content

Economist Article - The Comeback Of Cursive


catbert

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • therecorder

    8

  • TSherbs

    7

  • estie1948

    5

  • rwilsonedn

    4

People keep quoting these articles but I do not think they mean what people think they mean.

 

The Economist article suggests that cursive may be better than hand printing but does not provide more than one suggestive study. The NYT article is unreferenced and makes wholly unsupported assertions. They may or may not be true; they are not supported. For example, based on that article I predict that people who are academically successful are more likely to include cursive writing in their accomplishments. It is the same correlation as cursive leads to academic accomplishment and equally valid, if either is valid at all, or both grounded in something else.

 

In the very first article linked by therecorder, none of those I checked being an academic paper, I noted this:

In learning to write by hand, even if it is just printing, the brain must:

  • Locate each stroke relative to other strokes.
  • Learn and remember appropriate size, slant of global form, and feature detail characteristic of each letter.
  • Develop categorization skills.

Cursive writing, compared to printing, should be even more beneficial...

My emphases.

 

Note the reference to printing and the conjecture about cursive. This is not compelling.

 

Perhaps the most beneficial writing cognitively is Japanese / Chinese / Arabic. Who knows? I am happy to recognise the common thread that handwriting is beneficial compared with typing and that this appears related to sensorimotor exercise in concert with neural complexity in character formation. Mind you, have any studies considered the sensorimotor benefits of being a fast touch-typist (ten-fingered, blind) whilst forming semantically and grammatically sound text in a single pass allowing only minor edits?

Editing again to fix the bullets

Edited by praxim

X

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People keep quoting these articles but I do not think they mean what people think they mean.

 

The Economist article suggests that cursive may be better than hand printing but does not provide more than one suggestive study. The NYT article is unreferenced and makes wholly unsupported assertions. They may or may not be true; they are not supported. For example, based on that article I predict that people who are academically successful are more likely to include cursive writing in their accomplishments. It is the same correlation as cursive leads to academic accomplishment and equally valid, if either is valid at all, or both grounded in something else.

 

In the very first article linked by therecorder, none of those I checked being an academic paper, I noted this:

My emphases.

 

Note the reference to printing and the conjecture about cursive. This is not compelling.

 

Perhaps the most beneficial writing cognitively is Japanese / Chinese / Arabic. Who knows? I am happy to recognise the common thread that handwriting is beneficial compared with typing and that this appears related to sensorimotor exercise in concert with neural complexity in character formation. Mind you, have any studies considered the sensorimotor benefits of being a fast touch-typist (ten-fingered, blind) whilst forming semantically and grammatically sound text in a single pass allowing only minor edits?

Editing again to fix the bullets

Granted this is a generous concession you almost make. However, while you and the others who are critical of this article are very quick to demand references, I've notice that not one of you have provided any. Not one reference sited be it an academic paper or Mad Magazine. It is legitimate and right and not offensive to ask for references, but having asked, it is also right to expect criticism to be supported by references. To demand references and be only critical of the references without offering a single reference becomes most offensive! As for supposition, perhaps the most beneficial form of "handwriting" is done with the writing instrument held in the teeth or the toes? But then, as you say, "Who knows?"

 

-David (Estie).

No matter how much you push the envelope, it will still be stationery. -Anon.

A backward poet writes inverse. -Anon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given I and some others are observing that the claimed connection between cursive and learning rather than handwriting and learning, is doubtful of support, it is unclear what you seek. It is the articles which are claiming a link and various people have mentioned that support appears lacking for the conjectures embarked upon. If the contention lacks support, what reference are we supposed to provide? Are you asking me to prove the null hypothesis?

X

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being older, partially disabled, and living alone, I have a lot of free time. I was thinking about this thread, and I began to wonder if the correct question was being posed. Should the current benefits of a specific form of writing determine whether it is taught to children? In reaction, I wrote (printed, all capitals) the following in my journal:

(17:22) Existence - Sense - Perceive/Process - React/"Create"... Skill Set"s" - Children - Education - More skills = More ways to react/create - No two skills produce the same reaction/creation - The computerized society is taking away the individuality in the individual - Seems like such a waste - But, perhaps it is best for the species, as a whole... What would these thoughts say/be if I had used cursive to express them? If I had used a keyboard to express them? If I had used pastels and pastel paper to express them? If I had used photography/a video to express them? The interaction of reactions is unique to that occurrence - No two reactions are ever the same, individually, and/or comparatively... This is a "good" thing - Each human should be as unique as possible - Lots of "skill sets" are necessary for making this possible..... (18:19) Previous seems quite "chaotic" - Was a "free thinking" thing.

I will probably write much more in my journal (concerning expression skills). What I'd like to say, though, is that (imho) if we don't teach cursive to our children, we are (in a manner of speaking) cheating them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted this is a generous concession you almost make. However, while you and the others who are critical of this article are very quick to demand references, I've notice that not one of you have provided any. Not one reference sited be it an academic paper or Mad Magazine. It is legitimate and right and not offensive to ask for references, but having asked, it is also right to expect criticism to be supported by references. To demand references and be only critical of the references without offering a single reference becomes most offensive! As for supposition, perhaps the most beneficial form of "handwriting" is done with the writing instrument held in the teeth or the toes? But then, as you say, "Who knows?"

 

-David (Estie).

Hi David,

 

One does not have to provide research results to argue that there are "no research results". The fact is that there are no research results either way: this is why it is entirely true to state that there are no research results showing that cursive is more efficacious in developing cognition or memory. No one has ever provided research to suggest this.

 

Plenty of people claim or assert that cursive is better for these things, but no researcher has ever confirmed this. One does not have to produce research to the contrary to reject what is an unconfirmed claim to begin with. It simply is not objectively true until it is demonstrated to be true.

 

The SAT reference above is clearly a case of unexamined correlation. The only time I saw this referenced elsewhere it was to suggest grading bias: that the essay graders were preferring cursive and awarding essays written in cursive higher scores. That, too, was an unconfirmed claim, if I remember correctly. And even if the essays written in cursive were, objectively, better essays, this is not necessarily because the students had better cognition and memory because they had learned cursive (correlation is not causation). Very sophisticated research must be conducted--and is very difficult to achieve--in order to determine causation in the arena of human cognition. And around human handwriting forms, my guess that it is basically impossible and no one bothers even to try.

 

Until someone actually conducts a reputable study on the matter, claims about specific letter forms and cognition (especially with matters beyond basic literacy) are specious, and typically just masks for some other form of cultural debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In TSherb's defense here, before we get into too emotional a debate: I believe he is correct that many of the articles actually talk about any kind of handwriting at all being different from keyboarding, and they either only mention cursive in passing, or they sloppily use cursive as a synonym for handwriting. Part of his point is that the two are not synonymous for research purposes.

I haven't read the original papers because I am too cheap to buy them (what ever happened to the real Scientific American, that used to publish such things? sigh ...) but it appears that the mentions that actually do specifically involve cursive as contrasted against block printing seem to end up with one or the other of two studies: one that linked cursive (and not printing) to improvement in dyslexia, and another which in some way saw differences in dynamic brain scans between cursive and printing. I would be more suspicious of the latter since a recent article threw into question the entire dynamic scan methodology after finding bugs in the analysis software.

ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being older, partially disabled, and living alone, I have a lot of free time. I was thinking about this thread, and I began to wonder if the correct question was being posed. Should the current benefits of a specific form of writing determine whether it is taught to children? In reaction, I wrote (printed, all capitals) the following in my journal:

 

(17:22) Existence - Sense - Perceive/Process - React/"Create"... Skill Set"s" - Children - Education - More skills = More ways to react/create - No two skills produce the same reaction/creation - The computerized society is taking away the individuality in the individual - Seems like such a waste - But, perhaps it is best for the species, as a whole... What would these thoughts say/be if I had used cursive to express them? If I had used a keyboard to express them? If I had used pastels and pastel paper to express them? If I had used photography/a video to express them? The interaction of reactions is unique to that occurrence - No two reactions are ever the same, individually, and/or comparatively... This is a "good" thing - Each human should be as unique as possible - Lots of "skill sets" are necessary for making this possible..... (18:19) Previous seems quite "chaotic" - Was a "free thinking" thing.

 

I will probably write much more in my journal (concerning expression skills). What I'd like to say, though, is that (imho) if we don't teach cursive to our children, we are (in a manner of speaking) cheating them.

 

I read happily until the last sentence. It reminded me that I found my distant years of Latin useful for picking up meanings in words, but what was I denied by not being taught Ancient Greek? At school, one of our children looked into obtaining special Latin classes but they were not readily available. Nonetheless, they found other complexities of language and logic with which to grapple. Most useful, I assume, was simply that they read keenly and enquiringly.

 

Reiterating, I can see an argument that learning writing by doing it is useful both as a learning process and for the utility. I am wholly unconvinced that we can point to a particular instance of such learning (i.e. english cursive among all possible letter forms) and say that alone is the bee's knees.

X

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In TSherb's defense here, before we get into too emotional a debate: I believe he is correct that many of the articles actually talk about any kind of handwriting at all being different from keyboarding, and they either only mention cursive in passing, or they sloppily use cursive as a synonym for handwriting. Part of his point is that the two are not synonymous for research purposes.

 

 

What are the odds that some sub-editor at the Economist equated handwriting and cursive for the sake of an alliterative headline? Even if the benefits of cursive over other kinds of handwriting are overstated (non-specialist reporting of research tends to do that), I thought it was good to see some thoughtful mainstream coverage about fountain pens that went beyond the collecting/lifestyle aspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an interesting side note to this discussion, I heard on the news today that one of the neighboring school districts (Pittsburgh suburbs) is considering the re-introduction of cursive into their curriculum.

Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth

"It's very nice, but frankly, when I signed that list for a P-51, what I had in mind was a fountain pen."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

What are the odds that some sub-editor at the Economist equated handwriting and cursive for the sake of an alliterative headline? Even if the benefits of cursive over other kinds of handwriting are overstated (non-specialist reporting of research tends to do that), I thought it was good to see some thoughtful mainstream coverage about fountain pens that went beyond the collecting/lifestyle aspect.

great points

 

The way that mainstream media covers research often gives it a spin (to boost sales) that does not reflect the actual conclusions of the study. Drives me crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

great points

 

The way that mainstream media covers research often gives it a spin (to boost sales) that does not reflect the actual conclusions of the study. Drives me crazy.

That's the way today's world goes... As the old the expression goes: "if you to want to talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk."

Edited by therecorder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi David,

 

One does not have to provide research results to argue that there are "no research results". The fact is that there are no research results either way: this is why it is entirely true to state that there are no research results showing that cursive is more efficacious in developing cognition or memory. No one has ever provided research to suggest this.

 

Plenty of people claim or assert that cursive is better for these things, but no researcher has ever confirmed this. One does not have to produce research to the contrary to reject what is an unconfirmed claim to begin with. It simply is not objectively true until it is demonstrated to be true.

 

The SAT reference above is clearly a case of unexamined correlation. The only time I saw this referenced elsewhere it was to suggest grading bias: that the essay graders were preferring cursive and awarding essays written in cursive higher scores. That, too, was an unconfirmed claim, if I remember correctly. And even if the essays written in cursive were, objectively, better essays, this is not necessarily because the students had better cognition and memory because they had learned cursive (correlation is not causation). Very sophisticated research must be conducted--and is very difficult to achieve--in order to determine causation in the arena of human cognition. And around human handwriting forms, my guess that it is basically impossible and no one bothers even to try.

 

Until someone actually conducts a reputable study on the matter, claims about specific letter forms and cognition (especially with matters beyond basic literacy) are specious, and typically just masks for some other form of cultural debate.

Okay, you may call me dense. I think I am beginning to see what the objections to the term "cursive" are and why you do not recognize or accept what I am saying about its benefits.

 

Now, I have already admitted to being dense, so please help me here a bit more (I am being very sincere and not just trying to stir things up. I am really trying to understand.). Did you not just deny that handwriting of any sort has no "real" research demonstrated benefit over typing?

 

I honestly won't take offence. I have missed the part where there is a scientifically provable benefit of handwriting of any sort is of demonstrated benefit over typing, just point it out to me. I really wanted to believe, actually have believed for many years, that writing in cursive was more beneficial to the student than printing. Now, I acknowledge there is no real research to demonstrate that this is true. Will you provide me some real research to allow me to hang on to at least the belief that handwriting of any sort is more beneficial than typing?

 

I am an old, old man. I have made my living for the greatest part of my life by writing. I have a number of published books (The fact that I am a published author has no bearing on what we are discussing and I don't mean to suggest that it does). I have always written out my research, all aspects of my book prep, and even my manuscripts by hand with my trusty fountain pens. Of course, to get my manuscripts read and then published, I had to type them first on a typewriter and then in later years on a computer. In the 1970's, I signed with my current publisher who is part of a group of publishing companies and who graciously hired a typist to convert my handwritten manuscripts to computer discs. In the 1990's, the typist I sent my manuscripts most often retired. I was given addresses to younger typists. Two of the youngsters refused to type my manuscripts. I thought my handwriting (I call it cursive, forgive me) had gotten so bad they could not read it. However, the publisher's rep that I work with said it was not my handwriting with which these typists had difficulty. It turns out that they could not read anything but print. I felt badly because they were fired. The publisher had no use for them since all they could read was print. The publisher's rep tells me that there are about a dozen authors for whom the publishing group provides this service of providing typist. All of us have had at least sixteen books published with the group, are older, prefer to write our manuscripts in cursive, and, if the man can be believed, write with fountain pens.

 

You see, I am quite an advocate of cursive writing (Palmer method or what ever) and try always to rally to its defense. I have spoken to a number of school boards and to state legislative bodies about its importance. I am quite deflated to find I have been guilty of basing these efforts on something that is not supported by real, scientifically demonstrated research, but, rather, is nothing more than my personal preference. I am even guilty of teaching my great grand daughter and some of her classmates to write cursive in their fourth grade class. I feel now that I am doing them a disservice and should stop at once. They have already been taught to type.

 

-An especially ancient David (Estie).

No matter how much you push the envelope, it will still be stationery. -Anon.

A backward poet writes inverse. -Anon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

estie1948

 

Read this article, and feel better... I'm sure that the naysayers will find a way to prove that this is not proof, but perhaps (to be trite), "The proof is in the pudding."

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/memory-medic/201308/biological-and-psychology-benefits-learning-cursive

 

PS Perhaps I should call myself artie1947 :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Losing track of what's been linked, but here are two very recent pieces:

 

PRO... http://davidsortino.blogs.pressdemocrat.com/10221/brain-research-and-cursive-writing/

 

CON (but sort of not willing to fully commit... from less than a week ago)... http://nautil.us/issue/40/learning/cursive-handwriting-and-other-education-myths

 

However, what really bugs me about all of this, is that no one ever seems to seek user information... How do children feel about learning to print, or learning cursive? If they have been taught both, which do they prefer to use (like better), and what do they use it for? How do adolescents feel about these issues? How do adults feel? There doesn't seem to be any organized, gathered data on these feelings/opinions, at least not in the articles that I've been reading. IMHO, scientific data shouldn't be the deciding factor on this issue (unless someone can show some negative data against learning cursive). This should mainly be about enjoying to write, throughout a lifetime... another vehicle for self-expression and communication.

Edited by therecorder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Estie,

 

I really appreciate your lengthy response. I see how engaged and invested you are in your handwriting. There is nothing wrong with teaching cursive nor in promoting it. But it is important not to make false claims for it (as this is important for anything).

 

But yes, cursive is mostly a cultural artifact, but it also has value and it should be held onto as an option for all those persons for whom it is easier to manage than printing. Whatever works better for any individual is, ultimately, what should be used. It is the act of writing that should be encouraged, more than whichever form of handwriting is used to achieve it. The method should be in service to the act. And cursive should be one of the options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

praxim asked: "It reminded me that I found my distant years of Latin useful for picking up meanings in words, but what was I denied by not being taught Ancient Greek?"

 

Interesting question. I have one friend who was compelled to take Greek in public school, who claims to have learned nothing from it but a tolerance for pain. I think to this day he hates verbs, even in English. But I have other friends, philosophers and clergy, who came to Classical Greek as adults and say that they learned a world view, a precision in their use of words, and a way of constructing thoughts that they would not have encountered elsewhere. I rather envy them.

One of the profound problems with allowing skills to slip from the curriculum is that after a short while no one really knows what was given up. Was it a simple skill that had become obsolete, or was it something much more than that? Someone earlier in this thread mentioned Plato's argument that writing things down was inferior to memorizing them. It sounds silly now. But it sounds silly because we have no idea what it was like to live in a mental world where vast bodies of information are accurately recorded in our memories, and where, when we encounter something new, our first response is to pay enough attention to memorize it. Most of us just don't have that ability, so we don't really know what it was that Plato feared we were giving up.

ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

praxim asked: "It reminded me that I found my distant years of Latin useful for picking up meanings in words, but what was I denied by not being taught Ancient Greek?"

 

Interesting question. I have one friend who was compelled to take Greek in public school, who claims to have learned nothing from it but a tolerance for pain. I think to this day he hates verbs, even in English. But I have other friends, philosophers and clergy, who came to Classical Greek as adults and say that they learned a world view, a precision in their use of words, and a way of constructing thoughts that they would not have encountered elsewhere. I rather envy them.

One of the profound problems with allowing skills to slip from the curriculum is that after a short while no one really knows what was given up. Was it a simple skill that had become obsolete, or was it something much more than that? Someone earlier in this thread mentioned Plato's argument that writing things down was inferior to memorizing them. It sounds silly now. But it sounds silly because we have no idea what it was like to live in a mental world where vast bodies of information are accurately recorded in our memories, and where, when we encounter something new, our first response is to pay enough attention to memorize it. Most of us just don't have that ability, so we don't really know what it was that Plato feared we were giving up.

ron

That's very interesting. Are we mentally lazy for not memorizing? Today it does seem that there are many more things to learn and keep track of.

 

I studied French, German, Spanish and Latin in school. It helped greatly, but I did sometimes feel that Greek would have helped also. The idea that if something is dropped we will be unable to assess the effects of it is also thought provoking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Most Contributions

    1. amberleadavis
      amberleadavis
      43844
    2. PAKMAN
      PAKMAN
      33474
    3. Ghost Plane
      Ghost Plane
      28220
    4. inkstainedruth
      inkstainedruth
      26573
    5. jar
      jar
      26101
  • Upcoming Events

  • Blog Comments

    • Shanghai Knife Dude
      I have the Sailor Naginata and some fancy blade nibs coming after 2022 by a number of new workshop from China.  With all my respect, IMHO, they are all (bleep) in doing chinese characters.  Go use a bush, or at least a bush pen. 
    • A Smug Dill
      It is the reason why I'm so keen on the idea of a personal library — of pens, nibs, inks, paper products, etc. — and spent so much money, as well as time and effort, to “build” it for myself (because I can't simply remember everything, especially as I'm getting older fast) and my wife, so that we can “know”; and, instead of just disposing of what displeased us, or even just not good enough to be “given the time of day” against competition from >500 other pens and >500 other inks for our at
    • adamselene
      Agreed.  And I think it’s good to be aware of this early on and think about at the point of buying rather than rationalizing a purchase..
    • A Smug Dill
      Alas, one cannot know “good” without some idea of “bad” against which to contrast; and, as one of my former bosses (back when I was in my twenties) used to say, “on the scale of good to bad…”, it's a spectrum, not a dichotomy. Whereas subjectively acceptable (or tolerable) and unacceptable may well be a dichotomy to someone, and finding whether the threshold or cusp between them lies takes experiencing many degrees of less-than-ideal, especially if the decision is somehow influenced by factors o
    • adamselene
      I got my first real fountain pen on my 60th birthday and many hundreds of pens later I’ve often thought of what I should’ve known in the beginning. I have many pens, the majority of which have some objectionable feature. If they are too delicate, or can’t be posted, or they are too precious to face losing , still they are users, but only in very limited environments..  I have a big disliking for pens that have the cap jump into the air and fly off. I object to Pens that dry out, or leave blobs o
  • Chatbox

    You don't have permission to chat.
    Load More
  • Files






×
×
  • Create New...