The Great Cursive Writing Debate: Lost Art Or Vital Skill?

[ParkerDuofold]

...But if your fancy letter results only in a "proper handshake" and nod of the head, I am not sure that I would call it a very effective love letter.

Hi TS,

 

(I'll take one more stab at this). Your quote above is the polar opposite of what happens when a love letter is written with style, class and from the heart... (and not from the glands)... and is presented as such.

 

Romance is an art of the heart... and this is my point.

 

Be well.

 

 

- Anthony

[ParramattaPaul]

... when Jan (supporter of cursive) references studies that show children remember more accurately and fully content that was hand written than content they typed, Morgan (non supporter of cursive) is unable to counter that argument. His argument is that people rely on keyboarding and computing more than cursive, so it is not worth teaching in schools.

 

NBC Nightly news Sept 08: Pros and cons of cursive in 21st century curriculum

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/pros-and-cons-of-cursive-in-21st-century-curriculum-47244355518

 

Just an observation here, but from the above Morgan's, the non-supporter, response was essentially a bit like that of a 'flat-earther' replying to a statement of a piece of scientific evidence that the earth is indeed round.

[TSherbs]

You take things too seriously.

Certainly one needs to be able to read the prescription on a medication or read the instructions on how to assemble an IKEA night stand for example, but it certainly won't bring much satisfaction if that's all there is to read. If you teach poetry, I would hope you could appreciate the value of poetry and how it could enrich someones life and has an equal standing as math, physics or computer programming.

Too seriously? Me? HA!

 

I am the one who keeps quipping here.

 

I could easily live without poetry and fountain pens. I mean, come on, really. Millions and millions of human beings have done so. I just keep wanting to get some people to see beyond their own attachments to fountain pens and connected handwriting. We get so fixated our our own sentiments that we fail to see the value of living without the things we like. This idea that the reduction of use of cursive is a sign of the deterioration of culture or a loss of romance or a loss of aesthetic sensibility is, for me, to put it bluntly, just nonsense (narrow thinking). That printing or some other form of connected handwriting is a lesser form of communication or sophistication is, in my view, a form of cultural prejudice and elitism left over from the past. The bulk of humanity in its struggle for food and health and love does not give a (bleep) about such superficial things, and for good reason. Our access to connection to other humans and to the divine is not mediated in any substantial way by the nature of the lettering that we chose to use in written documents. To me, this is like insisting that modern ballet is not as moving because it is not always performed in tutus. A small group of aesthetes will disagree, which is their prerogative. I, too, occasionally seek comfort and connection in aestheticism. We seek solace in facing awesome eternity where we can.

 

Is this too serious?

 

Disclaimer: I teach the skill/art of writing.

[ParramattaPaul]

Too seriously? Me? HA!

 

I am the one who keeps quipping here.

 

I could easily live without poetry and fountain pens. I mean, come on, really. Millions and millions of human beings have done so. I just keep wanting to get some people to see beyond their own attachments to fountain pens and connected handwriting. We get so fixated our our own sentiments that we fail to see the value of living without the things we like. This idea that the reduction of use of cursive is a sign of the deterioration of culture or a loss of romance or a loss of aesthetic sensibility is, for me, to put it bluntly, just nonsense (narrow thinking). That printing or some other form of connected handwriting is a lesser form of communication or sophistication is, in my view, a form of cultural prejudice and elitism left over from the past. The bulk of humanity in its struggle for food and health and love does not give a (bleep) about such superficial things, and for good reason. Our access to connection to other humans and to the divine is not mediated in any substantial way by the nature of the lettering that we chose to use in written documents. To me, this is like insisting that modern ballet is not as moving because it is not always performed in tutus. A small group of aesthetes will disagree, which is their prerogative. I, too, occasionally seek comfort and connection in aestheticism. We seek solace in facing awesome eternity where we can.

 

Is this too serious?

 

Disclaimer: I teach the skill/art of writing.

 

Well said, and true.

[pajaro]

Too seriously? Me? HA!

 

I am the one who keeps quipping here.

 

I could easily live without poetry and fountain pens. I mean, come on, really. Millions and millions of human beings have done so. I just keep wanting to get some people to see beyond their own attachments to fountain pens and connected handwriting. We get so fixated our our own sentiments that we fail to see the value of living without the things we like. This idea that the reduction of use of cursive is a sign of the deterioration of culture or a loss of romance or a loss of aesthetic sensibility is, for me, to put it bluntly, just nonsense (narrow thinking). That printing or some other form of connected handwriting is a lesser form of communication or sophistication is, in my view, a form of cultural prejudice and elitism left over from the past. The bulk of humanity in its struggle for food and health and love does not give a (bleep) about such superficial things, and for good reason. Our access to connection to other humans and to the divine is not mediated in any substantial way by the nature of the lettering that we chose to use in written documents. To me, this is like insisting that modern ballet is not as moving because it is not always performed in tutus. A small group of aesthetes will disagree, which is their prerogative. I, too, occasionally seek comfort and connection in aestheticism. We seek solace in facing awesome eternity where we can.

 

Is this too serious?

 

Disclaimer: I teach the skill/art of writing.

Makes sense. A real issue is hurricane Irma. That's a real problem.

 

Cursive or lack thereof is a joke. I had to print all my instructions when I worked in IT. They got it.

 

Look how many things go by the wayside when something more efficient comes along.

 

Fountain pen collectors might have to join the buggy whip collectors.

 

You might want to collect boats in an era of global warming.

[TSherbs]

Hi TS,

 

(I'll take one more stab at this). Your quote above is the polar opposite of what happens when a love letter is written with style, class and from the heart... (and not from the glands)... and is presented as such.

 

Romance is an art of the heart... and this is my point.

 

Be well.

 

 

- Anthony

 

Are "glands" lower in esteem than the other body organs, like the heart, or just lower in body-geography?

 

 

edited to add:

>>something relevant from Walt Whitman's "Song of Myself," which I much admire:

 

 

Clear and sweet is my soul, and clear and sweet is all that is not my soul.

 

Lack one lacks both, and the unseen is proved by the seen,

Till that becomes unseen and receives proof in its turn.

 

Showing the best and dividing it from the worst age vexes age,

Knowing the perfect fitness and equanimity of things, while they discuss I am silent, and go bathe and admire myself.

 

Welcome is every organ and attribute of me, and of any man hearty and clean,

Not an inch nor a particle of an inch is vile, and none shall be less familiar than the rest.

 

 

Peace.

Edited September 8, 2017 by TSherbs

[TSherbs]

In this exchange between two professionals discussing the pros and cons of cursive in the modern school curriculum, when Jan (supporter of cursive) references studies that show children remember more accurately and fully content that was hand written than content they typed, Morgan (non supporter of cursive) is unable to counter that argument. His argument is that people rely on keyboarding and computing more than cursive, so it is not worth teaching in schools.

 

NBC Nightly news Sept 08: Pros and cons of cursive in 21st century curriculum

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/pros-and-cons-of-cursive-in-21st-century-curriculum-47244355518

 

Yes, studies have shown a slight advantage for long-term memory of handwriting (non-specific about what kind of handwriting) over typing.

 

Jan's first claim that connected writing is a faster form of writing is not supported by any research. This is true for some writers, and usually only for those already proficient and comfortable with the skill. Which makes tautological sense, right? Those who are good at cursive are good at cursive.

 

The same is equally true of printing. Besides, if speed is what you want, then learn shorthand. Which will only be faster for those who can manage shorthand fast.

 

There has been one "study" I have found referenced that concludes that connected writing aids students impaired with a form of dysgraphia. Unfortunately, this study was conducted by a company that then tries to sell their program of writing to assist with the condition. In other words, the study itself is not available for reading (I couldn't find it), and it is not from an independent source.

[TSherbs]

Just to put this thread back on track, here are some more studies supporting the benefits of cursive.

They say adults when they reach a certain age is impossible to change their firm held beliefs, so it's probably all moot anyways, but for some of the audience with an open mind:

 

Biological and Psychology Benefits of Learning Cursive

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

 

What’s Lost as Handwriting Fades

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/science/whats-lost-as-handwriting-fades.html?mcubz=0

 

the only part of either of these that seems salient to cursive is this from your first article:

 

"The thinking level is magnified in cursive because the specific hand-eye coordination requirements are different for every letter in the alphabet. Moreover, in handwriting the movements are continuously variable, which is much more mentally demanding than making single strokes, as in printing A, E, F, H, and so on. Even so, because cursive letters are more distinct than printed letters, children may learn to read more easily, especially dyslexics."

 

The claims here are weak, if not spurious. "Thinking level" is not an empirical or measurable or even professional term in neuroscience. I don't know what this means. He also claims that cursive writing is "continuously variable," which is just as true (and vague) of printed letters (He includes as examples, of course, only those printed capital letters that have no curves (ignoring all the printed letters that involve curves) and assumes, without reasoning, that a child's focus and control over trying to keep a line straight is somehow less demanding than making a curve. I consider this claim specious, as drawing straight lines in freehand is virtually impossible. And lastly, he claims that cursive letters are "more distinct" than printed letters. This, too, is a vague and non-professional term for analyzing graphics. Even the basic fact that the letters are joined in connected writing would suggest the opposite claim to be true. But the "distinctness" of characters is a vague and debatable quality to begin with. After all, how distinct is a capital F and capital T, or a capital Q and the number 2? Or lower case j, q, y, and z?

 

As I have noted above, I have investigated everything that has been posted on these several threads, and done some more looking myself, and I have not yet found a single source from a reputable, independent researcher in the field who has determined connected writing to be superior to print in any measurable cognitive or learning outcome.

 

All the rest has been preference, sentiment, anecdote, or weak thinking.

[TSherbs]

 

 

Ooo, I have read some. I will have to find them.

 

Had a chance to look yet?

[pajaro]

Arguments about the merits of cursive become meaningless if schools cease to teach cursive, as is starting to be the case. Change seems to be happening.

 

It is true that cursive helps learning what you write down, as I did in college, taking notes. If I had used notehand, or if I had used shorthand, the same result would have obtained.

 

Change will roll on.

[max dog]

Too seriously? Me? HA!

 

I am the one who keeps quipping here.

 

I could easily live without poetry and fountain pens. I mean, come on, really. Millions and millions of human beings have done so. I just keep wanting to get some people to see beyond their own attachments to fountain pens and connected handwriting. We get so fixated our our own sentiments that we fail to see the value of living without the things we like. This idea that the reduction of use of cursive is a sign of the deterioration of culture or a loss of romance or a loss of aesthetic sensibility is, for me, to put it bluntly, just nonsense (narrow thinking). That printing or some other form of connected handwriting is a lesser form of communication or sophistication is, in my view, a form of cultural prejudice and elitism left over from the past. The bulk of humanity in its struggle for food and health and love does not give a (bleep) about such superficial things, and for good reason. Our access to connection to other humans and to the divine is not mediated in any substantial way by the nature of the lettering that we chose to use in written documents. To me, this is like insisting that modern ballet is not as moving because it is not always performed in tutus. A small group of aesthetes will disagree, which is their prerogative. I, too, occasionally seek comfort and connection in aestheticism. We seek solace in facing awesome eternity where we can.

 

Is this too serious?

 

Disclaimer: I teach the skill/art of writing.

 

I guess this debate about cursive will not be settled here as we all stand firm in our camps. It seems though the "keyboarding and skills with computers are much more relevant skills" believers have an edge, as young experts with limited and narrow insight into th world, like Morgan in that NBC debate, have killed cursive in the school curriculum.

 

I will depart here with one thought:

Without Art, the crudeness of reality would make the world unbearable.

George Bernard Shaw

Edited September 9, 2017 by max dog

[TSherbs]

oops

Edited September 9, 2017 by TSherbs

[TSherbs]

 

Edited September 9, 2017 by TSherbs

[TSherbs]

wow, sorry about that. My computer is being dodgy

[TSherbs]

Max, check this out:

 

[inkstainedruth]

Wow. If that's a "childish scrawl" I can just imagine what GBS would have thought of my niece's handwriting (which really did look like of a third grader just learning to write cursive; the problem of course was at the time she was in high school...).

Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth

[Shaggy]

This debate reminds me of the debate about men not wearing hats, and the hand-wringing over JFK never wearing one.

 

The war is over. Time to put the gun down.

Edited September 9, 2017 by Shaggy

[TSherbs]

Wow. If that's a "childish scrawl" I can just imagine what GBS would have thought of my niece's handwriting (which really did look like of a third grader just learning to write cursive; the problem of course was at the time she was in high school...).

Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth

 

I have had a parent of one of my students call my handwriting "juvenile." He should have seen the juvenile thoughts running around my head in response.

[amberleadavis]

I have had a parent of one of my students call my handwriting "juvenile." He should have seen the juvenile thoughts running around my head in response.

OH YEAH, let me show you juvenile!

[amberleadavis]

T-

 

I can't find what I originally read though I'm sure I got started with the New York Times articles. So, I spent some time on Google Scholar for 2017 articles and I looked around and here is some of what I found.

 

 

I did see some suggestions that the muscles and bones in a growing hand are better suited to learn cursive.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1440-1630.12393/full

 

 

And this study suggests that cursive is best for college student notes:

 

https://search.proquest.com/openview/ccd67627ba23166cac92d5500ad8e1bd/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=28796

 

 

Some Articles:

 

From the UK:

http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/45299/1/What%E2%80%99s%20the%20use%20of%20handwriting.pdf

 

The complex nature of writing has been recognised not only in models of writing (Hayes, 1996) but also by policy makers (DfEE/QCA, 2000), teachers (Wray et al., 2002) and young writers themselves (Wray, 1993). Handwriting has been seen as part of the translation of ideas, or transcription. However, in pedagogic practice this has often meant that handwriting is seen not as a part of the composing process, but as a presentation skill. Despite this, research suggests that fast, automatic handwriting may have a significant effect on children’s composing. This research suggests that for writers who do not produce letters swiftly and automatically, the actual production of written letters may interfere with their ability to compose text. A key issue emerging from a major programme of research (e.g. Berninger et al, 2006; Berninger & Graham, 1998) is the recognition that handwriting is far from a purely motor act. Berninger and Graham (1998) stress that it is “language by hand” and point out that their research suggests that orthographic and memory processes (the ability to recall letter shapes) contribute more to handwriting than do motor skills (Berninger & Amtmann, 2004). Handwriting is not just about training the hand; it is about training the memory and hand to work together to generate the correct mental images and patterns of letters and translate these into motor patterns of letters - automatically and without effort! If this is the case, then handwriting is an important part of writing, and a language act, rather than just a motor act used to record writing

 

PBS: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/scary-clown-rumors-serious-business-schools/

 

“Consider all the fonts computer users can choose from for word processing. Apple’s Steve Jobs was an accomplished calligrapher before he became a pioneer in technology tools to support writing—and that is one of the reasons we have so many font styles to choose from in computer writing!”

 

https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21706459-once-derided-relic-past-handwriting-looks-poised-revival-comeback-cursive

 

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/04/30/should-schools-require-children-to-learn-cursive/the-benefits-of-cursive-go-beyond-writing

 

The 2014 NYT Article: https://people.rit.edu/wlrgsh/Handwriting.pdf

 

Nautilus: http://nautil.us/issue/40/learning/cursive-handwriting-and-other-education-myths

 

Take a 2014 article in The New York Times about the pros and cons of handwriting. This alluded to a 2012 study allegedly demonstrating that cursive may benefit children with developmental dysgraphia—motor-control difficulties in forming letters—and that it may aid in preventing the reversal and inversion of letters. It’s a common claim, and so I began to delve into it.

I was taken to a paper by education researcher Diane Montgomery, describing a study that used an approach called the Cognitive Process Strategies for Spelling (CPSS) to try to help pupils with spelling difficulties, generally diagnosed as dyslexic. This method involves teaching these children cursive, with no comparison to other handwriting styles.

Cursive was chosen for use with CPSS, says Montgomery, because “experiments in teaching cursive … have proved highly successful in achieving writing targets earlier and for a larger number of children.” In support of that claim she cites two studies in journals from the early 1990s so obscure that even the British Library doesn’t stock them, but which were in any case conducted on non-dyslexic cohorts and so say nothing about benefits for dyslexics.

Montgomery writes that other dyslexia remediation projects have used cursive too, but cites only one “proven” advantage: a 1998 study allegedly reporting that “cursive script appeared to facilitate writing speed.” Not only is this claim contradicted by Bara and Morin’s work, but the 1998 paper doesn’t even make it. It simply reports how, for children taught a new cursive style in Australian schools, faster writing slightly decreases legibility.

Montgomery also cites a 1976 paper that allegedly advocates “the exclusive use of cursive from the beginning.” Except that it doesn’t do that at all. It describes a study comparing letter reversals and transpositions for 21 children at one school, taught cursive from the outset, with 27 from another taught first manuscript and then cursive. The first set showed slightly fewer of these mistakes, but the author acknowledged that, given the tiny sample size, “we in no way wish to offer the present data as documenting proof of the superiority of cursive over manuscript writing.”

So there we have it. But how many people will now be convinced that the benefits of cursive have been affirmed by The New York Times, based on the findings of academic research? No wonder teachers are confused.

 

Cursive First Program Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld: http://donpotter.net/PDF/cursive-first.pdf

 

A comment from FPNer GiniGin.

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.

 

​Dysgraphia: http://socal.dyslexiaida.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2016/07/dysgraphia.pdf

 

 

Studies about efficacy. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11145-016-9674-4

 

Some studies with Autism Spectrum:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10803-016-3019-7

These findings provide a clearer indication of the specific nature of handwriting impairments in children with ASD, and suggest a relationship with core clinical symptom severity, attention and motor behaviours.