It will probably never be studied, but I’m skeptical that people who learned something like d’Nealian cursive are any better at reading the original text of the Declaration of Independence or Constitution than people who only ever learned to “print.” (Never mind that nobody, not even the Supreme Court of the United States, goes to a handwritten copy when they need to have a look at what the Constitution says. Unless maybe there’s a worry about something being a smudge or a comma, but there aren’t exclusively cursive commas and smudges.)
I had to learn to write three times. The first was normal modern handwriting (“printing”), the second was a special pre-cursive form of “printing” with little tails but no connection, and the third was cursive.
I have a strong suspicion that I learned to write the way I did because it made triple the money for the companies that sell all the posters and workbooks.
I am always amazed by the number of people who actually listen to NPR. Personally, it bores me to death (not saying that people who listen to it are boring; in fact, most of them that I know are quite interesting.) And Dianne Rehm (bless her heart…)
Anyway, I haven’t done any research on the topic of handwriting, but cursive has always been easier for me. I believe that children should at least get some exposure to cursive in elementary school, and then have the choice of whether or not to continue once they get into middle school. As some have more or less said already, they might later be at a disadvantage without some knowledge of the script. (I wish it was still mandatory at the school boards where I live…)
I’ve mentioned this before, but the US view that handwriting has to be either “printing” or “cursive” still baffles me. In the UK, children are just taught “handwriting”. Simple letter shapes that resemble printed letters - none of those Victorian-era loops and curlicues - but joined up.
Here’s an example. Obviously this rather rigid style is only used when teaching the basics. Children soon learn and adapt it to their personal style.
It’s fast and easy to write, and it’s clearly legible. What’s so difficult about this that it requires legislation?
Many of the educators–or should I say school board members and lawmakers–here in the States are not exactly what you would call “open-minded.” I agree with you that it doesn’t make sense. Just like the fact that this country has not and probably never will adopt the Metric system…
This is fascinating. One of the arguments I’ve heard in favor of teaching cursive is that it’s the original form of writing. That struck me as nonsense, but I’ve never been able to disprove it–even looking at, say, Charlemagne’s writing, it was joined together. The simple idea that joining letters together != cursive hadn’t even occurred to me.
That makes about as much sense as “if they can read ancient Hebrew and koine Greek, then they can read the Bible.”
Digressing a bit, I did take a year of biblical Hebrew in college, and it did add some insight into what we Christians parochially call the Old Testament. But it’s a pretty significant cost in terms of time to get that added insight, so the difference needs to be important to you.
Returning to the point, it’s hard for me to see what additional insight one might get into the Founders’ thoughts by reading the American founding documents in their original form, rather than printed up in a nice booklet in Times New Roman font, or on a computer screen in whatever font strikes one’s fancy.
Nope, that was my dad. We used a limited amount of trig points; the idea was to learn how to do things “by hand” and SEE the relationships between different concepts (such as the six trig functions) rather than have it all be just numbers you pulled out of a machine.
This research from the 1930s (sorry, paywall) says that there is no difference in writing speed or legibility between an all-cursive style and an all-manuscript style. It also says the best results come from a mixed style with more cursive than manuscript. How it defines the two styles, I don’t know.
It’s possible I said the same thing to the person making that argument :). I also may have mentioned druids and their memorization of epic poems and the benefits that conferred to long-term memory.
I’m wondering… do Americans learn their letters separate from their writing? We were taught the alphabet after we knew the basics of writing, not before, and didn’t do any exercises that were “letters by themselves”. I’ve never had to think about how to connect the letters, the connection is part of the letter. We had calligraphy (no artsy stuff, just “writing exercises so your handwriting is understandable”, although depending on which school you attended “understandable” had different values), but writing was writing was writing. W R I T I N G I N A L L C A P S takes me a lot longer than regular handwriting.
I was taught in a “phonics” style that began by treating individual letters as single sound units. (Then went on to letter combinations.) So yes, we learned letters first, then simple words, then certain letter combinations, then certain less simple words, and so on.
I came to this thread after helping my wife complete the documents for a marriage at our church. She has excellent, joined up, handwriting and there are certificates and ledger entries that have to be made in indelible ink with a fountain pen kept for the purpose.
My job is to make sure that she gets the spelling right as there is no allowance for corrections. She once wrote proffesional in the occupation box for a groom.
It’s obviously fast if you’re accustomed to write that way. I never learned to write anything else than cursive (this being France) and obviously how to tie the letters is an automatism exactly as writing the letters themselves.
Also, reading your post, I realize where “crossing your t and dotting your i” (or something like that…can’t remember the exact wording) comes from. I assume you’re taught to cross the t and add the dots on the i after writing the word. I was never taught that, either. Writing the letter included the cross/dot/accent/whatever..then only you’d go to the next letter.
Doesn’t mean it’s necessarily faster than print, though. How would I know and how would I compare? Obviously it would take me more time, simply because I would have to think about how each letter is written in print, then draw it, and even though it wouldn’t take a long time, it would necessarily be much slower than writing automatically without thinking in cursive.
Thank you for this. Fascinating and enlightening. That appears to have the best qualities of both modes of writing. Some of the cursive letters that I learned were quite odd, especially the “Z” and “z”. I understand also that there is a new version of cursive that dispenses with some of the weirder curlicues.
In my work environments, almost every hand written note is done in manuscript. Sometimes it is quite legible, especially if the engineer has drafting experience. There also seems to be more a variation in cursive styles than in manuscript styles, but my sample size is relatively small as the vast majority of communications are done via electronic methods and are, of course, created using a keyboard.
But, the idea that the fluidness of cursive would somehow enhance cognitive capabilities seems to me to be a testable hypothesis. I can’t imagine studies haven’t been done more recently than those referenced earlier. Personally, the idea that people who have not been properly trained to teach children are in charge of the curricula is more of a concern to me. These kind of decisions shouldn’t be made ‘from on high’ but should, instead, be based upon empirical evidence that support the hypothesis. I can hear you all laughing at this all the way up here in the mountains, but a man can dream can’t he?
I don’t see that much difference between that and the cursive I was taught–it dispenses with some of the oddball capitals (like the S) and lower case (like the b).
Maybe I’m slow this morning, but I don’t understand what this means. If you were taught to write without knowing the alphabet, then just what was it that you were writing?
