Writing in Cursive, Not Taught in Many Public Schools?

[essayfaire]

1 hour ago, OleJuul said:

That's totally on track with the book I just started reading.

 

The History and Uncertain Future of Handwriting - by Anne Trubek

 

Here's a review.

I think I read another review of the book and decided that my TBR pile was fat enough, but the topic is fascinating!

[dms525]

In Classical Athens, I have read, many lamented the growing prevalence of literacy. The fear was that children would no longer have to remember important stuff; they could just write it down. They would lose the ability to memorize. This fear was probably justified, but culture is very slow to change. As recently as 100 years ago, memorizing poems and famous speeches was a significant feature of education. My grandfather had the entire old testament committed to memory. I have a pretty good memory for my generation but don't have any poems longer than a limerick memorized.

 

The printing press, the typewriter, the personal computer and more recent technological devices have all been regarded as portending the doom of handwriting. The smart phone and Twitter may finally have done the deed. Or not.

 

I am a developmental pediatrician. 30 years ago, when I advocated for patients with dysgraphic (a learning disability for handwriting) to be allowed to take notes and submit homework by keyboarding, I met with resistance from teachers. Now, they have stopped teaching handwriting.

 

Last week, I heard a talk by a local University Professor of Archaeology. He was doing research that included analysis of store ledgers from about 75 years ago. They were handwritten in cursive. He said very few of his (university) students could read cursive.

 

Each technological advance in recording and saving human language has had its advantages and costs. My personal opinion is that the deletion of handwriting from the standard curriculum in so many areas is just a piece of the more global deletion of eduction in the arts and humanities. Our eduction system is still trying to catch up with the Soviets, who launched Sputnick and scared the U.S. into enhancing math and physical science eduction ... tragically at the cost of what makes us human.  But following that line of causation is for another day.

 

David

[txomsy]

Nice considerations. Still, we tend to abide by Platonic view of the world, where body and soul were unrelated, and where souls lived in a realm of ideas and not subject to real world limitations.

 

Yet, we are subject to real world. And for me, that means that evolution applies. Those best fit will survive and predominate ultimately substituting the less efficient. We are being sold that illiteracy is more efficient than hand writing, that googling is better than memorizing, that computers do away with the need to do mathematics, and so on...

 

From my point of view, that ignores what are we doing it for: which is ourselves in the end. If we want to learn about ourselves we cannot live in the realm of ideas, google, social networks and YouTube, we need to read, write, memorize, practice handcrafts, and relate in person to understand each other.

 

Ignoring these is like denying we have a body (and a social body) and a history, denying first-hand experience (which is the only way to learn for most of us) and betraying our own nature.

 

I do not say we should be luddites. I say we should welcome the new, but not ignore the old. Sadly there is a new generation that grew loving the new and hating the old, who make great consumers, who take anything sold as an advance without criticism(1) and who have become the new teachers. For the common benefit I hope they are right, though what I learned from History doesn't seem to be on their side.

 

I do not know which will be the final outcome, but I am sure time will tell. For now, what can we do? Just decide what we think is better, what we would like to succeed and stick to it. Whether we are right or not only time will tell. Whether we feel that we betrayed ourselves or were coherent with ourselves only we can tell.

 

(1) Maybe that is what we should do: offer handwriting as a new, advantageous technology that offers a connection with novel ways to develop oneself. Maybe that is why we are here: because once you get tired of the ideal world you seek some contact with the real one, like in handwriting. Maybe next generation will grow without these prejudices.

[essayfaire]

20 hours ago, dms525 said:

 

I am a developmental pediatrician. 30 years ago, when I advocated for patients with dysgraphic (a learning disability for handwriting) to be allowed to take notes and submit homework by keyboarding, I met with resistance from teachers. Now, they have stopped teaching handwriting.

 

 

David

My understanding of the current state of research is that (of course making allowances for those with dysgraphia or other problems) students who handwrite their notes are much more likely to retain information than those who type/keyboard them.  This isn't just because of the attention difference of  whether one is paying more attention to the teacher or the document, but because letters are formed differently from each other.  When we type we don't form the same type of kinesthetic memories of how are fingers worked as the tactile response of pushing on any key is not different from that of pushing on any others.

[dms525]

1 hour ago, essayfaire said:

My understanding of the current state of research is that (of course making allowances for those with dysgraphia or other problems) students who handwrite their notes are much more likely to retain information than those who type/keyboard them.  This isn't just because of the attention difference of  whether one is paying more attention to the teacher or the document, but because letters are formed differently from each other.  When we type we don't form the same type of kinesthetic memories of how are fingers worked as the tactile response of pushing on any key is not different from that of pushing on any others.

 

The result you cite have been replicated in several studies and is the strongest pedagogical rationale for encouraging handwritten notes. The neuropsychological mechanism is a matter of speculation at this time.

 

Many professional authors describe handwriting as opposed to typing enhancing the creative process. Some say the slower speed of recording their thoughts is advantageous.

 

I have been using a personal computer for almost 30 years. I type much, much faster than I can handwrite legibly. I find I can go from thought to typing without any conscious attention to the motor act. I prefer typing for academic tasks. However, I very much enjoy handwriting letters to friends and relations. I believe it adds emotional value to the communication and, since I write letters in cursive italic, it provides me and my reader an aesthetic bonus that typed letters do not.

 

David

[ParramattaPaul]

txomsy, essayfaie, and dms525, inciteful comments, thank you.

 

 

[femamerica13]

I am replying to this thread as someone who just graduated high school in the past couple of years in the US, and it was mostly public (for reference I started 3 years after No Child Left Behind was passed and was in high school for Common Core), and while there are many problems with US public education system, I think that teaching cursive isn't the most important thing and mandating that without talking and doing a pilot program should be made mandatory (standardized testing isn't the best way to measure knowledge, and causes students to develop test anxiety. My dad is a professor in my major, and there was an entrance exam for most of the upper division courses. He found that there was barely any effect only for the first midterm, and afterwards it was just noise). I think one style of handwriting should be taught, with focus on having it be readable, which in college I still have issues with as my friends like me to get me with. I did learn cursive from 2nd to 6th grade, but during the time periods it was not required I went back to print. While I can read most cursive and sign my name, I am much more comfortable printing since I don't remember all the letters. And Common Core had some good ideas for math, trying to get students see why the algothrim works (helpful for completing the square in my controls systems course), the implementation wasn't good (I did wish they taught matrix math and partial fraction decomposition in high school, since my math professors assume we did that. At least they then taught it.)

[TgeekB]

On 4/29/2021 at 12:57 AM, femamerica13 said:

I am replying to this thread as someone who just graduated high school in the past couple of years in the US, and it was mostly public (for reference I started 3 years after No Child Left Behind was passed and was in high school for Common Core), and while there are many problems with US public education system, I think that teaching cursive isn't the most important thing and mandating that without talking and doing a pilot program should be made mandatory (standardized testing isn't the best way to measure knowledge, and causes students to develop test anxiety. My dad is a professor in my major, and there was an entrance exam for most of the upper division courses. He found that there was barely any effect only for the first midterm, and afterwards it was just noise). I think one style of handwriting should be taught, with focus on having it be readable, which in college I still have issues with as my friends like me to get me with. I did learn cursive from 2nd to 6th grade, but during the time periods it was not required I went back to print. While I can read most cursive and sign my name, I am much more comfortable printing since I don't remember all the letters. And Common Core had some good ideas for math, trying to get students see why the algothrim works (helpful for completing the square in my controls systems course), the implementation wasn't good (I did wish they taught matrix math and partial fraction decomposition in high school, since my math professors assume we did that. At least they then taught it.)

 

Thank you for your comments.

It amazes me (I'm 60) how many people think we should not advance and continue to do things the same way forever. Afraid of change, we make excuses for advancing because it isn't comfortable. Not that we cannot do what we enjoy, whether it is new or old, but we think we have to criticize change and attempt to prove it somehow isn't equal to or better than our previous processes. 

I know I'm in the minority in a forum that enjoys the hobby of fountain pens, as I do, of writing with an instrument that has long seen it's better days but lets not ignore the advancements of our current generation who are leading us into the future, finding cures for diseases, advancing science, and all this, somehow, without cursive.

Please take this as an alternative viewpoint rather than a knock. I feel the opposing viewpoint was being ignored.

[femamerica13]

9 minutes ago, TgeekB said:

 

Thank you for your comments.

It amazes me (I'm 60) how many people think we should not advance and continue to do things the same way forever. Afraid of change, we make excuses for advancing because it isn't comfortable. Not that we cannot do what we enjoy, whether it is new or old, but we think we have to criticize change and attempt to prove it somehow isn't equal to or better than our previous processes. 

I know I'm in the minority in a forum that enjoys the hobby of fountain pens, as I do, of writing with an instrument that has long seen it's better days but lets not ignore the advancements of our current generation who are leading us into the future, finding cures for diseases and all this, somehow, without cursive.

Please take this as an alternative viewpoint rather than a knock. I feel the opposing viewpoint was being ignored.

Ah okay, I felt like I was being attacked not by you, but more the whole vibe of the fact if you want to work on your handwriting in the fountain pen community cursive is assumed. It's more I usually don't hear younger generations talking about it. I'm more pick a style to teach everyone, but give resources to people who want to learn more. 

[TgeekB]

5 minutes ago, femamerica13 said:

Ah okay, I felt like I was being attacked not by you, but more the whole vibe of the fact if you want to work on your handwriting in the fountain pen community cursive is assumed. It's more I usually don't hear younger generations talking about it. I'm more pick a style to teach everyone, but give resources to people who want to learn more. 

 

I agree. There is absolutely nothing wrong with cursive. I write by printing, because it's comfortable and fits my style. I think a lot of the fountain pen community assumes you should write in cursive because they think it fits the narrative. It, somehow, enhances a memory of old days and a false belief in "better days". My point is either is doable and our future does not depend on teaching our younger generation a style of writing. 

 

Writing, in whatever style, is a form of communication. Our spoken words have changed but, somehow, we find ways to continue our path to the future. 

[ParramattaPaul]

2 hours ago, TgeekB said:

 

Thank you for your comments.

It amazes me (I'm 60) how many people think we should not advance and continue to do things the same way forever. Afraid of change, we make excuses for advancing because it isn't comfortable. Not that we cannot do what we enjoy, whether it is new or old, but we think we have to criticize change and attempt to prove it somehow isn't equal to or better than our previous processes. 

I know I'm in the minority in a forum that enjoys the hobby of fountain pens, as I do, of writing with an instrument that has long seen it's better days but lets not ignore the advancements of our current generation who are leading us into the future, finding cures for diseases, advancing science, and all this, somehow, without cursive.

Please take this as an alternative viewpoint rather than a knock. I feel the opposing viewpoint was being ignored.

I would offer that while there are people who resist change, be it from fear or whatever reason, there are far more who embrace change while respecting the qualities of what 'was'.  I suggest that in this manner an appreciation of cursive, a skill, is no different from an appreciation of the skills of carpentry or metal working in this age of polymers, and that the appreciation of fountain pens is not dissimilar to an appreciation of vintage motor vehicles.

 

I will add that I do not view your comments as an 'knock, but as you said they are and as what they truly are -- an alternative viewpoint.

[txomsy]

There are simply circuits in our brains, complex circuits that work synergistically. The more synergies you make, the more strongly you learn. Mens sana in corpore sano refers to the fact that our intellectual mechanisms are not purely so, they benefit when coupled with physical exertion.

 

I value modern technology over the "old" ways, and am cursing continuously when I have to fix something "old" (how could us be so brain-dead?). And yet, I still find I cannot live without changing light-bulbs, some  knowledge of carpentry, gardening, plumbing, electricity, knife sharpening, cooking and of course hand-writing (specially as a memory reinforcer). I could hire someone to do all that (as I could offload memory to Google), but that would drain irreparably all my resources. YMMV, I know.

 

So, while I advocate that common students (the immensely wealthy may hypothetically not need it) learn computers (and tablets!, and not just smart-thingies as they do now), I also think they need to master some "old" techniques. Modernized (I use plastic instead of plumb for pipes, I prefer (un)screwing instead of soldering, automatic screwdrivers, drip irrigation, abhor DDT, use LEDs instead of fluorescent light, etc...), but learn them all the same.

 

It is not a question of computers/Google vs. handwriting, but of using each thing in its own measure and the best tool for each task. typing is not the best tool for many  things.

 

I went to a vineyard recently. They still write with chalk on caskets. They could use undecipherable symbols, but that would hamper the workflow, they could use tablets as many supermarkets, but that would cost in electricity and require special equipment in humid caves. Would it be more efficient and cheaper than a quick chalk scribble? I doubt so. I can identify thousands of situations where typing or electronic devices would be equally inefficient.

 

May be the problem is we like FPs. FPs are normally used in office environments. So we tend to come mostly from this background and to ignore the vast array of activities where hand-writing is (and will always be) the best solution. Cursive? Printing? Italic? Gothic? Whatever, but for goodness sake, teach the kids to write neatly!

 

[BigBlot]

2 hours ago, txomsy said:

There are simply circuits in our brains, complex circuits that work synergistically. The more synergies you make, the more strongly you learn. Mens sana in corpore sano refers to the fact that our intellectual mechanisms are not purely so, they benefit when coupled with physical exertion.

 

I value modern technology over the "old" ways, and am cursing continuously when I have to fix something "old" (how could us be so brain-dead?). And yet, I still find I cannot live without changing light-bulbs, some  knowledge of carpentry, gardening, plumbing, electricity, knife sharpening, cooking and of course hand-writing (specially as a memory reinforcer). I could hire someone to do all that (as I could offload memory to Google), but that would drain irreparably all my resources. YMMV, I know.

 

So, while I advocate that common students (the immensely wealthy may hypothetically not need it) learn computers (and tablets!, and not just smart-thingies as they do now), I also think they need to master some "old" techniques. Modernized (I use plastic instead of plumb for pipes, I prefer (un)screwing instead of soldering, automatic screwdrivers, drip irrigation, abhor DDT, use LEDs instead of fluorescent light, etc...), but learn them all the same.

 

It is not a question of computers/Google vs. handwriting, but of using each thing in its own measure and the best tool for each task. typing is not the best tool for many  things.

 

I went to a vineyard recently. They still write with chalk on caskets. They could use undecipherable symbols, but that would hamper the workflow, they could use tablets as many supermarkets, but that would cost in electricity and require special equipment in humid caves. Would it be more efficient and cheaper than a quick chalk scribble? I doubt so. I can identify thousands of situations where typing or electronic devices would be equally inefficient.

 

May be the problem is we like FPs. FPs are normally used in office environments. So we tend to come mostly from this background and to ignore the vast array of activities where hand-writing is (and will always be) the best solution. Cursive? Printing? Italic? Gothic? Whatever, but for goodness sake, teach the kids to write neatly!

 

I regularly receive compliments on my handwriting, and each time I recall I was at the bottom of penmanship tests in school. I don't think my handwriting has improved that much, only that people write less clearly now.

[TgeekB]

10 hours ago, ParramattaPaul said:

I would offer that while there are people who resist change, be it from fear or whatever reason, there are far more who embrace change while respecting the qualities of what 'was'.  I suggest that in this manner an appreciation of cursive, a skill, is no different from an appreciation of the skills of carpentry or metal working in this age of polymers, and that the appreciation of fountain pens is not dissimilar to an appreciation of vintage motor vehicles.

 

I will add that I do not view your comments as an 'knock, but as you said they are and as what they truly are -- an alternative viewpoint.

Well said, better than my attempt!

Nope, I wasn’t knocking cursive as I’m someone who embraces some older technology like fountain pens, mechanical watches and double edge razors.

As an example, there are many in the mechanical watch world who look at quartz watches negatively because they believe mechanicals were “skillfully made to last”. I didn’t know much about quartz but once I studied up on it, especially Seiko who grows their own to extremely high tolerances, you learn there is skill at that also! We tend sometimes, as humans, to believe we are heading in the wrong direction when it comes to manufacturing (cheaply made, throw away) and in some situations that may be true. In others our skills have grown and the change that is occurring leads us to a better and more enjoyable life. It’s all in how we view it. 

[TgeekB]

6 hours ago, txomsy said:

There are simply circuits in our brains, complex circuits that work synergistically. The more synergies you make, the more strongly you learn. Mens sana in corpore sano refers to the fact that our intellectual mechanisms are not purely so, they benefit when coupled with physical exertion.

 

I value modern technology over the "old" ways, and am cursing continuously when I have to fix something "old" (how could us be so brain-dead?). And yet, I still find I cannot live without changing light-bulbs, some  knowledge of carpentry, gardening, plumbing, electricity, knife sharpening, cooking and of course hand-writing (specially as a memory reinforcer). I could hire someone to do all that (as I could offload memory to Google), but that would drain irreparably all my resources. YMMV, I know.

 

So, while I advocate that common students (the immensely wealthy may hypothetically not need it) learn computers (and tablets!, and not just smart-thingies as they do now), I also think they need to master some "old" techniques. Modernized (I use plastic instead of plumb for pipes, I prefer (un)screwing instead of soldering, automatic screwdrivers, drip irrigation, abhor DDT, use LEDs instead of fluorescent light, etc...), but learn them all the same.

 

It is not a question of computers/Google vs. handwriting, but of using each thing in its own measure and the best tool for each task. typing is not the best tool for many  things.

 

I went to a vineyard recently. They still write with chalk on caskets. They could use undecipherable symbols, but that would hamper the workflow, they could use tablets as many supermarkets, but that would cost in electricity and require special equipment in humid caves. Would it be more efficient and cheaper than a quick chalk scribble? I doubt so. I can identify thousands of situations where typing or electronic devices would be equally inefficient.

 

May be the problem is we like FPs. FPs are normally used in office environments. So we tend to come mostly from this background and to ignore the vast array of activities where hand-writing is (and will always be) the best solution. Cursive? Printing? Italic? Gothic? Whatever, but for goodness sake, teach the kids to write neatly!

 

I’ve made bold what I believe is the most important part of what you said. I might add it goes for everyone, not just kids, as I know many professionals who do not write clearly. Writing is a form of communication and must be done so, written or otherwise, clearly in order to meet its intended goal.

[Karmachanic]

51 minutes ago, TgeekB said:

I know many professionals who do not write clearly

 

Only because they don't think clearly.

Kids aren't taught to think clearly either, so why would they bother to teach them how to write.

 

You can find me under my desk, ducking and covering.

[inkstainedruth]

On 3/31/2021 at 2:35 PM, willl said:

As a somewhat newly-minted father myself, I'm horrified that cursive writing (and handwriting in general) are being dropped throughout the US in schools; there are literally millions upon millions of volumes of information which, within only another generation or two, will be completely inaccessible to modern kids in their original format. Yes, many of the "most important" documents will be transcribed into block letters or digital formats, but these transcriptions and "updates" of texts to modern language often result in a loss of the original context and meaning.

 

I was just looking at such a digital format a week or so ago (one of the NaPoWriMo prompts this year).  And the "transcription"?  HORRIBLE.  And we're not even talking cursive here -- we're talking a printed book (just one from IIRC the 18th or 19th century).  The transcription didn't parse the long "S" for instance.  And clearly NOBODY did any sort of corrections to the transcription -- they apparently just assumed that the computer got it right.... 

Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth

[willl]

4 minutes ago, inkstainedruth said:

I was just looking at such a digital format a week or so ago (one of the NaPoWriMo prompts this year).  And the "transcription"?  HORRIBLE.  And we're not even talking cursive here -- we're talking a printed book (just one from IIRC the 18th or 19th century).  The transcription didn't parse the long "S" for instance.  And clearly NOBODY did any sort of corrections to the transcription -- they apparently just assumed that the computer got it right.... 

Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth

Hah, and that's another issue too -- the accuracy of OCR (optical character recognition). I was more referring to scanning artifacts, poor scan quality (part of the page was off the scanning bed, for example), or translation/transliteration issues (Ex: "Red Sea" vs "sea of reeds" in the bible). The whole thing is just fraught with peril; from what I see, too many people naively assume that technology is a panacea and doesn't make mistakes... All too often, they are very wrong -- sometimes with horrible consequences (see the recent news articles about a man who went to prison for a crime he didn't commit due to a bad face-matching algorithm, or the ~800 Britons who were falsely accused of embezzling gov't funds due to bugs in the gov'ts accounting software). Crazy times, indeed, though folks have always said that about the era in which they were living. 🤣

[dms525]

52 minutes ago, Karmachanic said:

 

Only because they don't think clearly.

Kids aren't taught to think clearly either, so why would they bother to teach them how to write.

 

You can find me under my desk, ducking and covering.

 

I beg to differ. I cannot speak for every profession, but I can speak for physicians. There is no evidence that writing legibly and thinking clearly are correlated. What evidence exists suggests the opposite. Apparently the same goes for neat vs cluttered desks.

 

In medical school, the quantity of information fed to you, as my biophysics professor put it, "machine gun fashion" forces you to take notes at an unnaturally rapid velocity. This effectively re-programs your motor memory for handwriting, so that, later, even if you write at a normal speed, your handwriting remains awful. 

 

This can be overcome with diligent retraining and practice, which I have done. However, most physicians have neither the time nor the incentive to do so.

 

This tradition of illegible doctors' writing is currently changing with many students taking notes with keyboarded devices and the ubiquity of electronic medical records (EMRs).

 

BTW, the majority of practicing physicians hate EMRs, because they take more time than handwritten progress notes. That's another long story.

 

Happy (legible) writing!

 

David

[Karmachanic]

Guess that depends upon what one infers by" clearly" as opposed to "legibly".