Fans of cursive check this out. Why cursive should come first

[msacco]

Very itnteresting read. Cursive always made this kind of sense to me.

 

 

How Should We Teach Our Children to Write? Cursive First, Print Later! By Samuel L, Blumenfeld

The question then becomes: How shall we teach children to write? And my answer is quite dear: Do not teach your child to print by ball-and-stick, or italic, or D’enelian. Teach your child to write a standard cursive script. And the reason why I can say this with confidence is because that’s the way I was taught to write in the first grade in a New York City public school back in 1931 when teachers knew what they were doing.

In those days children were not taught to print. We were all taught cursive right off the bat, and the result is that people of my generation generally have better handwriting than those of recent generations. Apparently, cursive first went out of style in the 1940s when the schools adopted ball-and-stick manuscript to go with the new Dick and lane look-say reading programs. Ball-and-stick was part of the new progressive reforms of primary education.

But ball-and-stick has produced a handwriting disaster. Why? Because by the time children are introduced to cursive in the third grade, their writing habits are so fixed that they resent having to learn an entirely new way of writing, the teachers do not have the time to supervise the development of a good cursive script, and the students are usually unwilling to take the time and do the practice needed to develop a good cursive handwriting.

The reason for teaching ball-and-stick first, we are told, is because first graders do not have the motor skills or muscular dexterity in their fingers to be able to write cursive at that age. But that argument is totally false. Prior to the 1940s virtually all children in public and private schools were taught cursive in the first grade and virtually all learned to write very nicely. All were trained in penmanship and did the various exercises – the ovals, the rainbows, the ups and downs - that helped us develop good handwriting. We were also taught how to hold the writing instrument (or stylus) correctly, cradled between the thumb and the forefinger (also known as the index finger) with the tip of the writing instrument resting on the long finger next to the forefinger, in a very relaxed position, enabling a writer to write for hours without tiring.

How Cursive Helps Reading

A question most often asked by parents when I assert that cursive should be taught first is: won’t learning cursive interfere with learning to read printed words? The answer is: not at all. All of us who learned cursive first had no problem learning to read print. In fact it helped us. How? Well, one of the biggest problems children have when learning to read primary-school print and write in ball-and-stick is that so many letters look alike - such as b’s and d’s; f’s and t‘s; g’s, q’s, and p’s - that children become confused and make many unnecessary reading errors. In cursive, however, there is a big difference between a “b” and. a “d”. In cursive writing, a “b” starts like an l while a “d” begins like writing the letter “a”. In other words, in cursive, children do not confuse b’s and d’s, because the movements of the hand make it impossible to confuse the two letters. And this knowledge acquired by the hand is transferred to the reading process. Thus, learning to write cursive helps learning to read print.

Another aid to reading is that cursive requires children to write from left to right so that the letters will join with one another in proper sequence. The blending of the sounds is made more apparent by the joining of the letters. In ball-and-stick, some children write the letters backwards, and often the spacing is so erratic that you can’t tell where one word ends and another begins. Cursive teaches spatial discipline. Another important benefit of cursive is that it helps the child learn to spell correctly since the hand acquires knowledge of spelling patterns through hand movements that are used again, and again in spelling. This is the same phenomenon that occurs when pianists or typists learn patterns of hand movements through continued repetition. Another question often asked by mothers of six-year-olds is ‘what will their children do when asked on a job application to “please print.”’ My answer is that I don’t advocate not teaching a child to print, I simply say teach cursive first, print later. Besides, that child will have plenty of time to learn to print between the first grade and applying for a job as a teenager.

The Ease of Cursive

I am often asked: “Isn’t cursive harder to learn than print?” No. It’s just the opposite.

It is difficult, if not unnatural, for children to draw straight lines and perfect circles, which is required in ball-and-stick, when they would much rather be doing curves and curls. In fact, all of cursive consists of only three movements: the undercurve, the over curve, and the up and down. That’s all there is to it.

If you’ve wondered why your grandparents usually have better handwriting than you do; well now, you know the answer. If you teach cursive first, you can always develop a good print style later. But if you teach print first, you may never develop a good cursive style. Thus it is absolutely essential to teach cursive first.

Should people with dysgraphia use cursive writing instead of printing?

For many children with dysgraphia, cursive writing has several advantages. It eliminates the necessity of picking up a pencil and deciding where to replace it after each letter. Each letter starts on the line, thus eliminating another potentially confusing decision for the writer. Cursive also has very few reversible letters, a typical source of trouble for people with dysgraphia. It eliminates word-spacing problems and gives words a flow and rhythm that enhances learning. For children who find it difficult to remember the motor patterns of letter forms, starting with cursive eliminates the traumatic transition from manuscript to cursive writing. Writers in cursive also have more opportunity to distinguish b, d, p, and q because the cursive letter formations for writing each of these letters is so different. (Excerpt from an article on handwriting problems on The International Dyslexia Association web site, www.interdys.org. The fact sheet is by Diana Hanbury King and is the summary of work by Ruthmary Deuel, M.D., Betty Sheffield, and Diana Hanbury King.) From Teaching Language-Deficient Children: Theory and Application of the Association Method for Multisensory Teaching by N. Etoile Dubard and Maureen K. Martin Educators Publishing Service, Cambridge, Ma. 1994, pp. 47f

 

[ginigin]

Very itnteresting read. Cursive always made this kind of sense to me.

 

 

How Should We Teach Our Children to Write? Cursive First, Print Later! By Samuel L, Blumenfeld

The question then becomes: How shall we teach children to write? And my answer is quite dear: Do not teach your child to print by ball-and-stick, or italic, or D’enelian. Teach your child to write a standard cursive script. And the reason why I can say this with confidence is because that’s the way I was taught to write in the first grade in a New York City public school back in 1931 when teachers knew what they were doing.

In those days children were not taught to print. We were all taught cursive right off the bat, and the result is that people of my generation generally have better handwriting than those of recent generations. Apparently, cursive first went out of style in the 1940s when the schools adopted ball-and-stick manuscript to go with the new Dick and lane look-say reading programs. Ball-and-stick was part of the new progressive reforms of primary education.

But ball-and-stick has produced a handwriting disaster. Why? Because by the time children are introduced to cursive in the third grade, their writing habits are so fixed that they resent having to learn an entirely new way of writing, the teachers do not have the time to supervise the development of a good cursive script, and the students are usually unwilling to take the time and do the practice needed to develop a good cursive handwriting.

The reason for teaching ball-and-stick first, we are told, is because first graders do not have the motor skills or muscular dexterity in their fingers to be able to write cursive at that age. But that argument is totally false. Prior to the 1940s virtually all children in public and private schools were taught cursive in the first grade and virtually all learned to write very nicely. All were trained in penmanship and did the various exercises – the ovals, the rainbows, the ups and downs - that helped us develop good handwriting. We were also taught how to hold the writing instrument (or stylus) correctly, cradled between the thumb and the forefinger (also known as the index finger) with the tip of the writing instrument resting on the long finger next to the forefinger, in a very relaxed position, enabling a writer to write for hours without tiring.

How Cursive Helps Reading

A question most often asked by parents when I assert that cursive should be taught first is: won’t learning cursive interfere with learning to read printed words? The answer is: not at all. All of us who learned cursive first had no problem learning to read print. In fact it helped us. How? Well, one of the biggest problems children have when learning to read primary-school print and write in ball-and-stick is that so many letters look alike - such as b’s and d’s; f’s and t‘s; g’s, q’s, and p’s - that children become confused and make many unnecessary reading errors. In cursive, however, there is a big difference between a “b” and. a “d”. In cursive writing, a “b” starts like an l while a “d” begins like writing the letter “a”. In other words, in cursive, children do not confuse b’s and d’s, because the movements of the hand make it impossible to confuse the two letters. And this knowledge acquired by the hand is transferred to the reading process. Thus, learning to write cursive helps learning to read print.

Another aid to reading is that cursive requires children to write from left to right so that the letters will join with one another in proper sequence. The blending of the sounds is made more apparent by the joining of the letters. In ball-and-stick, some children write the letters backwards, and often the spacing is so erratic that you can’t tell where one word ends and another begins. Cursive teaches spatial discipline. Another important benefit of cursive is that it helps the child learn to spell correctly since the hand acquires knowledge of spelling patterns through hand movements that are used again, and again in spelling. This is the same phenomenon that occurs when pianists or typists learn patterns of hand movements through continued repetition. Another question often asked by mothers of six-year-olds is ‘what will their children do when asked on a job application to “please print.”’ My answer is that I don’t advocate not teaching a child to print, I simply say teach cursive first, print later. Besides, that child will have plenty of time to learn to print between the first grade and applying for a job as a teenager.

The Ease of Cursive

I am often asked: “Isn’t cursive harder to learn than print?” No. It’s just the opposite.

It is difficult, if not unnatural, for children to draw straight lines and perfect circles, which is required in ball-and-stick, when they would much rather be doing curves and curls. In fact, all of cursive consists of only three movements: the undercurve, the over curve, and the up and down. That’s all there is to it.

If you’ve wondered why your grandparents usually have better handwriting than you do; well now, you know the answer. If you teach cursive first, you can always develop a good print style later. But if you teach print first, you may never develop a good cursive style. Thus it is absolutely essential to teach cursive first.

Should people with dysgraphia use cursive writing instead of printing?

For many children with dysgraphia, cursive writing has several advantages. It eliminates the necessity of picking up a pencil and deciding where to replace it after each letter. Each letter starts on the line, thus eliminating another potentially confusing decision for the writer. Cursive also has very few reversible letters, a typical source of trouble for people with dysgraphia. It eliminates word-spacing problems and gives words a flow and rhythm that enhances learning. For children who find it difficult to remember the motor patterns of letter forms, starting with cursive eliminates the traumatic transition from manuscript to cursive writing. Writers in cursive also have more opportunity to distinguish b, d, p, and q because the cursive letter formations for writing each of these letters is so different. (Excerpt from an article on handwriting problems on The International Dyslexia Association web site, www.interdys.org. The fact sheet is by Diana Hanbury King and is the summary of work by Ruthmary Deuel, M.D., Betty Sheffield, and Diana Hanbury King.) From Teaching Language-Deficient Children: Theory and Application of the Association Method for Multisensory Teaching by N. Etoile Dubard and Maureen K. Martin Educators Publishing Service, Cambridge, Ma. 1994, pp. 47f

 

Actually the bones of the hand are not sufficiently developed to print until later elementary age. Beginning with cursive is the most developmentally appropriate way to teach writing and also supports reading skills. Beginning with print tends to lead to a claw grip as well as misformed letters. Sometimes it amazes me to find out how at odds modern teaching methods are with science.

[Yuki Onitsura]

I was taught cursive (or 'running writing' as it was known) and print at the same time. However, the cursive was never really enforced by my teachers except in the attaining of a 'pen license' in grade 4 (until one acquired a pen license, one was stuck using pencils) after which going back to print was fine. I only recently started training myself to write in cursive again when I started using fountain pens.

 

Yuki

[caliken]

Do not teach your child to print by ball-and-stick, or italic, or D’enelian. Teach your child to write a standard cursive script.

Can we assume that 'cursive' in the US sense, means script derived from Spencerian/business script?

 

I suspect that 'cursive' elsewhere, just means writing which is largely joined-up. In my case, it means italic - "Cancelleresca Corsiva or Chancery Cursive" and I believe that this is the case with most contributors from Europe and elsewhere.

 

This is very confusing, and misleading.

 

If it's referred to as "American or US cursive" then we all know what is meant...............if I've got it right!

 

caliken

Edited September 11, 2009 by caliken

[Ondina]

Actually the bones of the hand are not sufficiently developed to print until later elementary age. Beginning with cursive is the most developmentally appropriate way to teach writing and also supports reading skills. Beginning with print tends to lead to a claw grip as well as misformed letters. Sometimes it amazes me to find out how at odds modern teaching methods are with science.

 

Just yesterday the teacher of a bunch of 4 year olds explained the same to the families. Why they will start learning how to write in cursive and not in print and made a practical demonstration with a square, the letter O and M and a couple kids. Made my day!

Edited September 11, 2009 by Ondina

[FrankB]

Thank you for this thread. I learned something new today.

 

I am among those who learned to print first. In the mid-1950's, I learned to print in the first grade. In the second grade, my class was taught cursive, literally relearning how to write. I am now near 60 and the local school district still teaches handwriting the same way. In fact, it is worse. Not only are the kids taught to print in the first grade, they go through preparatory training in Kindergarten. Then, after all that emphasis on printing, they relearn how to write when they learn cursive. All of my nieces and nephews have poor handwriting.

 

It looks like the educators are the ones who need education!

[tnmike1]

Ironically, this morning on Fox and Friends Rebecca Diamond--who hosts the Financial's "Happy Hour"--and the two male commentators whose names i forget did a segment on the loss of penmanship in today's schools and the fact that schoolchildren today have no idea how to handwrite in attractive writing==or the lost art of penmanship.

 

Curious this thread was just started and the topic comes up the morning on national TV. Maybe they read these forums?????

[professionaldilettante]

I've tried to relearn cursive, seems better suited to fountain pens, as well as something interesting to learn again.

[gross]

 

Can we assume that 'cursive' in the US sense, means script derived from Spencerian/business script?

 

I suspect that 'cursive' elsewhere, just means writing which is largely joined-up. In my case, it means italic - "Cancelleresca Corsiva or Chancery Cursive" and I believe that this is the case with most contributors from Europe and elsewhere.

 

This is very confusing, and misleading.

 

If it's referred to as "American or US cursive" then we all know what is meant...............if I've got it right!

 

caliken

 

 

I taught sixth grade and we stressed handwriting. One problem we faced was that every five years the school system adopted a new spelling book. The spelling book dictated the correct letter formation. One factor that was never considered in the selection of the new spelling textbook was what handwriting it used. There are quite a few forms. So, every few years the correct formation of a letter changed.

 

I taught in a military town. Student's were always transferring in and having to adapt to a different style. All of this is not meant as an excuse, for we soldiered on as best we could.

 

Now, would it have been different if cursive had been taught first in the lower grades? I cannot say for these would not be major problems either way. I do know that both my parents had beautiful handwriting and neither was prone to print. In fact, while I was in first and second grade, they would write a note to me in cursive and then marvel at the fact that I, a good reader, could not read it.

 

Perhaps there will be a change in basic education that teaches cursive first once again. However, I am afraid that the future may not include cursive at all. Even though I am retired, I still follow the new innovations being pushed on the modern educators. There is a group that proposes the elimination of the teaching of any form of handwriting, be it printing or cursive. They maintain that today's students are entering school familiar with the use of computers and cell phones and should be taught simple keyboarding skills. While educators are screaming in protest to such thinking, state legislators (who, after all, determine what will be taught in public school classrooms) are listening. In fact, if it were not for the cost of insuring that every student had a laptop, I believe the change would have already been made in my state. These are the same people that maintain basic math facts should no longer be taught since every child has access to a calculator. Here it is not I think, therefore I am, but rather I think, therefore I am an oddity.

[Inka]

I learned how to print first, in Kindergarten, using a #2 pencil the size of a Churchill cigar.

Went through the First Grade still printing but graduated to the standard #2 pencil at that time.

It wasn't until 2nd Grade that I'd learned how to write in Cursive, letter-banners encircled the tops of the school-room walls.

My Second Grade teacher started the school year teaching us how to write Cursive, spent the first month doing nothing else but practicing.

It is true that after many years of writing in Cursive it has taken me more time to re-learn how to print, using a Cursive Italic nib actually aids my printing now.

Interesting idea, to teach Cursive first and printing afterward.

[vlada]

I agree with the fact that cursive should be taught before print. I was taught cursive and print at the same time. Cursive was always my preference. It's easier and faster for writing and much quicker to learn (at least for me). Although in Serbia, cyrillic alphabet is learned first and latin (english) a year after, I prefer to write with the serbian latin alphabet (which is pretty much the same as in the western world, only a couple of letters are different). In school, every test had to be written in cursive, it was a rule. Only in college, on one occasion, it was obligatory to write the test in print. I was shocked because I have been writing cursive since the first grade and barely had the time to finish the test, because I have partially forgotten to write in print and because it is slower than cursive.

And it is true that the bones in the hand are not fully formed until puberty. Because of that, I encoutered a lot of people who have misformed grip and therefore it is harder for them to learn cursive properly. Children also have a tighter grip when writing print and that leads to tiring the hand muscles more often.

It's a shame how the teachers and the school system teaches children today.

Edited October 5, 2009 by vlada

[Donald594]

I agree. I was taught how to print first in Kindergarten. I then learned cursive in 3rd grade, and HATED it. 2 years ago, when I was in the 8th grade, I started writing with a Lamy Al-Star fountain pen, and I joined fpn, and I was like... cursive hmmm...

 

To make a long story short, I looked at my old cursive charts, learned them, and as of 3 months ago, I have been able to call myself fluent in the cursive handwriting.

[Donald594]

These are the same people that maintain basic math facts should no longer be taught since every child has access to a calculator.

Now THAT is scary. I am with the International Baccalaureate and most of our tests are long, timed, and complex. On top of that, there is no calculator. What will happen when they run out of batteries, or the power goes out??

[Inka]

My Cursive has also improved dramatically once getting back into fountain pens, after way too many years having been absence from them.

An FPN friend had not long ago sent me my first RHODIA paper to try, a small orange-covered #14 BLOC pad with graphed sheets and that helps with my writing in Cursive too.

The graph lines make it easier for me to keep my Cursive letters uniform and to see the angles at which I write, now finding my hand-writing improving even more since writing on that graphed paper.

The silky-smooth RHODIA paper makes a world of difference too, my fountain pens just glide across the surface as if writing on oiled glass and makes my hand-writing look more fluid than it had previously.

Now I've made up a template so I can print out a graph on regular blank paper, waiting to find some blank sugarcane bagasse printer paper to make into graph paper since I cannot afford letter-size RHODIA at this time.

After reading the article about a childs' hand not developing until later, about how they advocate teaching Cursive first, that it seems the next logical step would be to teach them to write Cursive using fountain-pens-only and that even the paper-type can help tremendously during the training stages.

[caliken]

In the 1940s, I was taught printing and then a form of cursive - not cursive in the American Spencerian sense, but more a simplified, upright copperplate. My children in the 70-80s were taught printing and then italic cursive, and my grandchildren aged 8 and 10 are following the same routine. This route to the production of acceptable handwriting, is well tested and has caused none of us any problems.

[Shangas]

I've always been proud of the fact that I was taught cursive handwriting...

[JakobS]

I would have to wonder if the poor grip that many students have does not simply come from the type of handwriting that they are taught, but the type of writing instrument that they use. Just yesterday night, I was talking with my girlfriend about an Esterbrook LJ I sent her, and she told me part of the problem with her having poor handwriting, though i don't think it's the worst by far, is that she never presses down hard enough with a ball point pen, so a fountain pen is perfect because you don't have to press down at all! She said it is really smooth to write with the Esterbrook. Another point though in forming of the grip, is that many ballpoints especially the Bic and Papermate stics are so skinny and rigid that to grip them you have to use a great amount of force to simply hold them, and then you have the additional force of having to push down on them which is bound to cause strain and fatigue of the hand after a short period of writing. If you consider the student fountain pens on the market, ie. the Pelikano Junior, and the Lamy ABC, you will see not only are these pens quite thick but they all come with some form of gripping to help hold the pen in a comfortable way. As some of the student pens advance such as the Lamy Safari, they still are a little thicker than many fountain pens, and still have a gripping to hold a pen comfortably, though I know for some, this isn't the case. Beautiful handwriting comes in many forms beyond one type of cursive, and Ken makes some great points, I would actually prefer to have learned italic cursive in primary school than Spencerian!

 

I think the teaching of handwriting should be about enjoying writing in all its forms, and beautiful handwriting can be found in print, italic, or any of the many forms of handwriting out there, even if only one child may ever use it. That all other handwriting is measured against cursive is I believe unfortunate in not letting students form their own individual hands made of many, one, or none of the established forms out there, but is beautiful all the same. Legibility over all I believe, is the important aspect of any hand, many people who write cursive have this problem as much as those who print, and the first step to improving legibility is providing pens and pencils that are far better to grip, and smoother to write with than what many use now.

Edited October 7, 2009 by JakobS

[ajd]

I agree. I was taught how to print first in Kindergarten. I then learned cursive in 3rd grade, and HATED it. 2 years ago, when I was in the 8th grade, I started writing with a Lamy Al-Star fountain pen, and I joined fpn, and I was like... cursive hmmm...

 

To make a long story short, I looked at my old cursive charts, learned them, and as of 3 months ago, I have been able to call myself fluent in the cursive handwriting.

This is how I was taught in a Catholic school in the early 80s. The nuns would make use use cursive for everything after 2nd grade. Once everyone left the elementary school in the 7th grade most switched back to printing. I think part of it was just to rebel against the nuns.

 

Almost 20 years later I still remember how to form the letters, but my cursive handwriting is down the drain. I want to start forcing myself to practice again, but I never do.

Edited October 7, 2009 by ajd

[antoniosz]

The superiority of cursive is one of the most widespread fallacies in the educational system. Unfortunately it keeps been parroted by people that feel good about what they say but unfortunately what they say is at best unscientific.

 

Repeat after me:

 

Cursive is OK. Cursive may look nice when done well. Cursive is NOT superior for any reason. Cursive does not offer ANY educational advantage.

Italic is OK. Italic is Fast. Italic is not a problem, in fact it maybe slightly preferable due to speed.

Printing is OK. Printing is readable. Printing is NOT a problem.

 

In fact ANY handwriting is acceptable as long as it is readable.

Please pay attention to the posts of Caliken. Caliken is a caligrapher and a master of most scripts.

See what he said above:

 

"In the 1940s, I was taught printing and then a form of cursive - not cursive in the American Spencerian sense, but more a simplified, upright copperplate. My children in the 70-80s were taught printing and then italic cursive, and my grandchildren aged 8 and 10 are following the same routine. This route to the production of acceptable handwriting, is well tested and has caused none of us any problems."

Edited October 7, 2009 by antoniosz

[leprechaun]

It looks like the educators are the ones who need education!

Sad but true in many cases. Although there are many exceptions, the old statement "those who can't, teach" is once again reinforced.