I came across this article about the declining use of cursive writing today. Its an interesting article, and I think that they have some good points, particularly with respect to the speed of writing, sentence/thought complexity correlation.
I started thinking about my own writing some after reading it. I can print, or write in cursive, but most of the handwriting that I do is in my own mix of both. For instance some words, 'the', 'and' and 'of', I find very difficult to print. These seem to degenerate some too, with the 'h' in 'the' and the 'n' in 'and' only appearing about half of the time. There are also some lowercase letters that I don't ever seem to use, particularly, 'n' and 'b', (I use smaller capital letters instead.)
My handwriting used to be much worse than it is now. But struggling to read my own notes or having difficulty going back over several pages of math sort of forced me to shape up some. Now I can say that when math is involved, my writing is impeccable, (unless some of the more annoying Greek letters are involved.) And its easily legible all of the time.
When I was in middle school (the last stage of my schooling when reports and such were required to be handwritten) I remember having terrible hand cramps when writing more than a page or so, but I seem to have out grown that too. Which is really nice since for most things, given the chance I would rather do the first draft on paper. Since I find that my thoughts can usually keep up better with my writing than with my typing.
I find that when printing I can't write an unbarred z or 7. The z I understand, since thats relatively recent, but the 7 dates back to when I thought a barred 7 looked cooler. I have never written 1s with a flag so the bar on the 7 is kinda extraneous.
So cursive or printing?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
When I get thinking really fast, it's chickenscratch.
-pH
Posted by Friday (Member # 8998) on :
I almost never use formal cursive, but I too tend to adopt elements of cursive when writing. Unfortunately when I write quickly I find that my c's and e's as well as u's and n's become indistinguishable.
Also I tend to put flags on my 1's about half the time, with no apparent pattern.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
To say my handwriting is even half-cursive, is an insult to the artistic script.
My roommate does all her writing in cursive. I have a hard time reading it but it works for her. I was always taught to write my cheques in cursive but I'm so terrible that I just print now.
I remember growing up, if a person left their name off an assignment for class, the teacher could always guess the gender based on the handwriting. Pretty print or cursive was always girls while chicken-scratch always meant a boy. My papers were always mistaken for belonging to a guy. I was always jealous of the girls with their pretty handwriting and heart-dotted Is.
I get alot of abuse from teachers because I never do rough-drafts by hand. Thankfully in college, most of my professors don't mind me bringing in a laptop for an in-class final essay exam. My handwriting is hard enough for me to read. I took keyboarding my freshman year in high school and never looked back. Typing is so much closer to the speed of my thoughts.
People say good handwriting is a dying art, but I sure don't miss the hand cramps. Maybe it'll be a different story when thirty and suffering from carpal tunnel.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Do any nations outside the US even teach cursive anymore for English?
I think it's good to keep for cultural reasons, and because it really isn't that big a deal to teach in the early grades. My handwriting was so bad in elementary school I had to take a remedial handwriting class, which improved my handwriting from illegible to nearly illegible.
I say keep teaching it, just don't force kids to use it.
By the way, isn't it still standard practice in business and in everything else really to sign AND print your name on most forms? You have to sign checks don't you? And we sign letters? By which to say, it's all done in cursive. It's not DEAD as an artform, just on lifesupport.
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
Before you can take the LSAT, you have to copy a statement in cursive saying the work is your own and you are who you say you are. Someone in the row behind me raised his hand and asked, "But what if we don't know how to write script?"
A lot of people laughed, but the poor guy was serious.
The proctor shrugged and told him he'd have to do his best.
As for my own writing, it's mostly print, but the f, t, i, and y will almost always come out in cursive. I like standard lowercase cursive and will use it in letters, but my uppercase is messy and I improvise instead of following the rules.
I think legible handwriting is what matters, cursive or not. If cursive becomes obsolete, I'm not going to miss it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Uh. When I was in elementary school, they told us that we HAD to learn cursive because highschool teachers don't accept work in print. My highschool teachers didn't accept work in cursive! I mean, my teachers really just pretty much lied to me to get me to learn it... and I NEVER use it. What concievable reason would I have?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Tradition.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Celaeno - you have to do the same thing for the GRE. My Nepalese friend who was taking the test at the same time as me didn't know how to write in cursive (but I think he did learn at some point...) so he just printed it out.
My cursive is much faster than my printing, because when I print I feel this need to be legible... Very few people can read my cursive, mainly because the letters have degenerated into some strange other script. For instance, my l's are almost always a straight line while my t's typically have a loop. I also have the problem that I mix German-type script in with English-type script (the Germans form some letters differently in cursive), which result in confustion for all.
If I have a nice fountain pen, however, my cursive looks very pretty and is clear - at least until I smear the ink with my hand.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Tradition.
Lots of traditions are stupid.
Like fraternities. ::ducks::
::sings::
Tradiitioooonnn Tradition!!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Tradition.
Lots of traditions are stupid.
Like fraternities. ::ducks::
::sings::
Tradiitioooonnn Tradition!!
And many traditions are wonderful, unique and enriching. Honestly? I think cursive is worth preserving, just not emphasizing.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
I had to learn cursive in first and second grade. I almost never use it unless one of our teachers required it. My reading teacher last year made us write in cursive for every assignment we turned in. It was hard, esspesically since it was also required to be in ink, and most of us would turn in papers with crossouts all over it.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I'm really surprised. My cursive is so much faster than my printing that even when I start out printing, I end up morphing into cursive. Some of my letters are sort of a cross between cursive and print, but for the most part it's cursive.
I don't understand why it would be so much more difficult than printing ... to me, having to lift my pen between every letter is more time-consuming and physically tiresome than cursive writing. Cursive flows. Which, of course, is why we learn it - it's supposed to be easier.
Of course, given the choice, I'd rather type. Posted by libertygirl (Member # 8761) on :
I learned cursive very young but never ever use it. I've pretty much completley forgotton how and I had that same problem with the SAT when they asked for that pledge or whatever in cursive. I just kinda made up a sort of squiggly type of writing My handwritting is horrible though so maybe I should reteach it to myself....
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Okay, before I launch into a rant about cursive, I want to make absolutely sure what we mean by that term. Cursive = any kind of joined-up handwriting, right? Or are we talking a very specific type of handwriting?
quote:Do any nations outside the US even teach cursive anymore for English?
If the first, of course, and apparantly far more successfully than America. When I moved from England, aged ten, I was a fluid cursive writer, having been writing in joined-up letters for a couple of years.
I was shocked to discover that children my age hated cursive and whenever they were given a writing assignment would say "please, please can we print it?"
What was this word, "print"? Printing was what the very smallest children did back home. Printing wasn't allowed. Joined up handwriting and writing in pen was absolutely mandatory at my age. It was simply unacceptable at the school I came from in England (not a stuffy or even a particularly good one) to write in "print" once you had learnt cursive. As a result, everyone learnt to write joined-up, whether they did it correctly or not.
Cursive is taught because it is faster. It is also more adult. I've seen enough people who print worse than my seven year old sister (who taught herself cursive) to know that it is important to learn to write, rather than print letters on a page.
So, yeah, I'm firmly in the cursive camp.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:I was shocked to discover that children my age hated cursive and whenever they were given a writing assignment would say "please, please can we print it?"
My third-grader has always had difficulty writing. It's hard for him to do and hard for others to read. Sometime during second grade he started teaching himself cursive, and does much better with it than with printing. I don't know whether it's actually easier for him, or whether he's just more interested in it because it's a skill he taught himself and he feels proud of being able to do something the other kids can't do yet.
I still cannot comprehend how printing could be easier for some people, or why anyone would prefer to print (which takes longer and is more start-and-stoppish), when they can write in cursive (which is smoother and faster).
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
I don't write in cursive, but a lot of the letters in what I write are joined together. The joined-together letters are still in the normal print shape usually, though, if that makes sense. I just don't like the way a lot of cursive letters look, especially the capital s. I refuse to use a cursive capital s in my signature. I thought pretty much everyone wrote in a combination of print and joined-together letters once they got past the elementary school grade or grades that required cursive.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: I'm really surprised. My cursive is so much faster than my printing that even when I start out printing, I end up morphing into cursive. Some of my letters are sort of a cross between cursive and print, but for the most part it's cursive.
I don't understand why it would be so much more difficult than printing ... to me, having to lift my pen between every letter is more time-consuming and physically tiresome than cursive writing. Cursive flows. Which, of course, is why we learn it - it's supposed to be easier.
Of course, given the choice, I'd rather type.
Agreed 100%.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:And many traditions are wonderful, unique and enriching. Honestly? I think cursive is worth preserving, just not emphasizing.
But is it worth sacrificing far more usefull math or reading skills that could be taught during that time instead? Or, perhaps, is it worth sacrificing recess?
It should be no suprise that many kids don't like school, if school often includes forcing them to spend their time learning things they largely will never need for the sake of tradition...
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:largely will never need
I use my cursive every day.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Being in the military, all forms must be filled out in capital print. Unless of course it is typed. For my personal notes, I make a mix of print and cursive. Some words I write faster in print.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- largely will never need --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I use my cursive every day.
But do you *need* to? Could you perform the same tasks in noncursive handwriting?
I think the argument is that cursive handwriting isn't needed, not that no one uses it.
Cursive is a specialized handwriting skill that gets very little use outside of elementary school. Those who use it choose to - and aside from tests like the LSAT never *need* to use cursive again for the rest of their lives (and even then, you can print that statement without invalidating your test).
A rough parallel would be learning to drive a big rig. Though there are people who do it, it's not really a needed skill. Schools have driver's ed for cars, which is education most people will need in their lives. The general course usually does not include specialized training for motorcycles, big rigs, tanks, or other vehicles. (and it shouldn't - people wishing to learn these skills can find specializaed courses suited to their individual needs)
I suppose the only thing cursive is really "needed" for is for signatures - and even then, a signature is only just a stylized version of your name, and doesn't *have* to conform to the rules of cursive.
A swath of time spent learning and grading students on cursive could be condensed to simply teaching each student how to sign their name, and maybe offering an afterschool program for those interested in learning cursive handwriting.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I disagree that cursive is a redundant skill. I understand what you mean by needing to, but the amount of joined-up writing I have done in my life time far out weighs places when I have had to use printing on forms and envelopes and things.
Writing in cursive enables me to write quickly and neatly in all situations; in-class essays, exams, class notes, handwritten letters. While doing so, I come across as an educated person. To me, being able to write cursive, like being able to write in grammatically correct sentences is a sign of maturity, education and intelligence and I am always surprised when an otherwise mature, educated and intelligent person cannot or does not want to because it's simply to hard.
quote: A swath of time spent learning and grading students on cursive
Very little time of my childhood education was spent on actually learning cursive. We were taught each of the letters, told to write them a couple of times as the teacher perused the class. Most of the learning followed as we had to write short stories and reports in cursive writing. You learnt because you had to- I have a number of comments on my early work saying things like, "Remember to write more neatly next time". Not everyone's writing was very neat, but everyone learnt and everyone became a quick and fluid joined-up writer.
Learning to write cursive also taught me to take pride in the aesthetic side of my work.
Learning to write in cursive is nothing so specialised as like learning to drive a big rig. It's like learning to ride a bicycle vs. learning to ride a car. A bicycle gets you around, but more slowly and with less professionalism. A car is both faster, gets you further and is more professional. Most people learn to ride a bicycle first, then go on to a car.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:To me, being able to write cursive, like being able to write in grammatically correct sentences is a sign of maturity, education and intelligence and I am always surprised when an otherwise mature, educated and intelligent person cannot or does not want to because it's simply to hard.
I would argue that it is essential for us to teach our children to use much more accurate signs than handwriting to judge maturity and intelligence.
Posted by crescentsss (Member # 9494) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: I suppose the only thing cursive is really "needed" for is for signatures - and even then, a signature is only just a stylized version of your name, and doesn't *have* to conform to the rules of cursive.
especially since from high school and on almost all written work is typed, not handwritten.
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
quote:Or, perhaps, is it worth sacrificing recess?
Woah, don't get me started on that one.
I am usually in the cursive camp. I think for kids, learning cursive is a sign of growing up. My daughter loved learning cursive, my son is chomping at the bit to learn. Whether they use it again in their lives is up to them but it's a rite of passage, like heels are (used to be?) for girls.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I disagree that cursive is a redundant skill. I understand what you mean by needing to, but the amount of joined-up writing I have done in my life time far out weighs places when I have had to use printing on forms and envelopes and things.
It's not redundant, but specialized. If no students had ever been taught cursive, it would not have impacted your life in the slightest.
quote:While doing so, I come across as an educated person.
I've read countless terrible essays written in cursive, and countless brilliant essays written in print. Style of writing does not affect how you come across - at least not to teacher's I've worked with. Neatness counts, but you can be neat in print or in cursive.
quote:To me, being able to write cursive, like being able to write in grammatically correct sentences is a sign of maturity, education and intelligence and I am always surprised when an otherwise mature, educated and intelligent person cannot or does not want to because it's simply to hard.
I could learn the wingdings font and write gramatically correct sentences in it, and it doesn't make me any more mature or intelligent. I'm educated only in the sense that I've memorized a new set of characters.
It's not that it's too hard - anything can be memorized and used - but that it's needless. It's time wasted. We are teaching students 52 new symbols to use, and then spending time grading their ability to use those 52 new symbols. Time wasted for the student, and for the teacher.
I'd much prefer that time being used in early grades to teach students how to type, and doing away with cursive entirely. We might as well be teaching calligraphy, or stone etching.
quote:We were taught each of the letters, told to write them a couple of times as the teacher perused the class.
Students are taught letters, then required to write them several times each. Letters are not all presented in a single day, normally with a couple letters a day scattered over the course of the year.
If you spend only 10 minutes of class per day handing out paper, teaching students how to write a single letter (both capital and lower case), then collecting and grading the papers, you have wasted 260 min (over 4 hours!) of class time. This is just on the letters themselves, not including practice connecting them (including special cases like coming off an "o" into another letter).
Because you don't remember the time it took, doesn't mean it took no time at all. Time was wasted, on something essentially needless. Teachers might as well explain slide rules or the abacus in math class.
quote:Learning to write cursive also taught me to take pride in the aesthetic side of my work.
Pride in aesthetics can be taught with print handwriting as well.
quote:Learning to write in cursive is nothing so specialised as like learning to drive a big rig. It's like learning to ride a bicycle vs. learning to ride a car. A bicycle gets you around, but more slowly and with less professionalism. A car is both faster, gets you further and is more professional. Most people learn to ride a bicycle first, then go on to a car.
First, as an aside, how is a bicycle less professional than a car?
Second, your analogy is the wrong way round. A bicycle is learned in your youth and then mostly abandoned, except for those who choose to continue to ride. It requires added skills of balance and physical exertion, and an entirely different set of symbols for communicating with other drivers that are only used by the majority of the public in very rare circumstances. Those who ride bicycles primarily defend their choice passionately, and sometimes look down on motor vehicle drives as being less educated/caring (in this case, about the environment).
Sounds a lot more like cursive, to me.
And schools don't teach you to ride a bike - they figure if it's something you want to learn, you can do it on your own. I think cursive should fall in that same boat.
quote:Whether they use it again in their lives is up to them but it's a rite of passage, like heels are (used to be?) for girls.
I don't buy this reasoning, either. There are a lot of rites of passage we've abandoned in all our respective cultures.
[ October 13, 2006, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: FlyingCow ]
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
quote:There are a lot of rites of passage we've abandoned in all our respective cultures.
Just because many rites of passage have been abandoned, doesn't mean that the ones that are still around aren't valid.
I'd like to think there are some fine motor skills being learned and maybe something aiding different learning styles...although I'll have to google around to see if I can find anything to back that up...but I'll have to do it later, I need to go and pick up my child from school (yes, the same one who is so excited to learn to write in cursive that he can hardly wait until Januray when they will get to learn it in school).
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:(yes, the same one who is so excited to learn to write in cursive that he can hardly wait until Januray when they will get to learn it in school).
I had my students super excited to learn binary, too. It doesn't mean they'll use it.
I taught binary because a) it helped them understand the concept of place value, b) it was my honors class, and c) I finished a topic two days early and had the time to add it to the curriculum.
I'm not saying to never teach cursive ever and it should be wiped from the history books. I'm saying that it shouldn't be a mandated part of the curriculum, and should fall under more of an "enrichment" model.
The study in the article drew a correlation between essays written in cursive on the SAT and slightly higher scores. Of course, this correlation ignores the fact that students who still write everything in cursive in their junior year in high school are generally those who are more studious to begin with. They accepted their teacher's word that cursive was important, chose to learn this specialized form of writing in addition to their other perfectly functional (and likely very neat) form of print writing, and quite possibly saw their cursive as "setting themselves apart from" (or above) other students who were not so quick to absorb what the teacher instructed them to do.
In short, I think writing in cursive is more a product of a positive view towards academics and schoolwork, rather than the other way around. Those who use it exclusively are already a certain "type" of student - a student who values academic accomplishment. Of course these students will score slightly better on average.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
I realize this is off topic, but your a math teacher and you don't see any learning value in either the slide rule or the abacus in math classes? (The abacus obviously for the much lower grades)
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Not at all what I said.
There's learning value in all manner of things.
However, teaching students how to do addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, squares, and square roots on an abacus is not something we should be focusing on.
Why? Because we don't use the abacus anymore for calculation.
Similarly, we don't use the Incan system of knots and string for numerical records, either, and it's not something we should be focusing on in the classroom.
We also don't use roman numerals for higher math either. I wouldn't, for instance, spend two days teaching students long division with roman numerals.
Sure there is value in nonstandard topics - but with X amount of time in the classroom, I really don't want to divide that constant into smaller parts. All the time spent on the abacus or roman numeral math is less time spent on learning division using arabic numerals.
Given 180 days with 40 min per class, then factoring in fire drills, assemblies, assessments, standardized testing, etc... you're dealing with a relatively small amount of time to cover a host of topics.
Off-the-beaten-path topics like abacus calculation, using a slide rule, roman numeral calculation, binary and non-decimal systems, etc. are of interest for enrichment purposes, but are not something I'd ever support being part of the standard curriculum for all students.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:We also don't use roman numerals for higher math either. I wouldn't, for instance, spend two days teaching students long division with roman numerals.
Indeed you wouldn't, it would take you at least a year. There's a reason scribes were rare and prized in Rome.
As for cursive, I learned it well enough to satisfy my teachers, but I never practised it enough that it became more natural than block writing. I can't say I really care if nobody else learns it either.
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
quote:I'm not saying to never teach cursive ever and it should be wiped from the history books. I'm saying that it shouldn't be a mandated part of the curriculum, and should fall under more of an "enrichment" model.
Oh okay, I don't have a problem with that. We had a calligraphy class in elementary school that was hugely popular and fun...and I don't use it anymore. Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Cursive takes too much effort to make legible, so when I write someone a note I print. I also take notes in a combo of print and cursive that is mostly print but resorts to cursive for the easy stuff, e.g., of, the, it. Otherwise, I'm afraid I couldn't read my own notes.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
My cursive, for some reason, is much more legible than my print. I wasn't very aware of this for awhile.
Then in my senior year of college, an English professor of mine, after seeing my cursive, informed me that if I had written all my essay questions in cursive instead of print, I would've gotten A's in her courses.
And cursive lowercase z's are teh awesome.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I actually used cursive for "x", "y", and "z" in algebra to make them easier to recognize, and encouraged students to do the same.
"x" and "y", if written hastily, can sometimes be confused with one another - but only if the "x" is written as two straight crossed diagonal lines and the "y" is a long straight diagonal touched by a short straight diagonal.
If the "x" has a curvy diagonal crossed with a straight line, it is impossible to confuse it with a "y" written with a looped tail.
Similarly, students would write "z" and "2" very similarly, especially if they were written hastily. A "z" with a crossbar is easily distinguished from a "2".
Posted by Eduardo St. Elmo (Member # 9566) on :
Whenever I'm writing something that's meant only for myself I don't think about the type of handwriting I use and it ends up looking like a mess. But if I write something that I know is going to be read by others then I take more care to ensure my handwriting is legible. It's no surprise however that handwriting is slipping, since children today are growing up with computers, mobile phones and what have you... the need to be able to write legibly and smoothly decreases. Today you can just jot down your notes in the memo section of your mobile phone. Or record your thoughts as you utter them vocally. No need for a pen, maybe a stylus but no more than that. While I don't necessarily think that this is a bad thing, it does change the way we handle information. Basically I kinda agree with Giles when he explains to miss Calendar that the learning process needs to be a hands-on activity. But then again what do I know?
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: Do any nations outside the US even teach cursive anymore for English?
We - as in Jerusalem, Israel, in English Speakers - were taught in 3rd grade how to read and write cursive, though I doubt we finished the alphabet. I had occasional trouble for another 2 years with a letter or two in each case, often changing, as I developed my style. To this day, my capital "T", "F" and "J" look rather similar (luckily, my capital "I" is written quite differently); I'm no calligraphist, and I'm still trying to train myself to write my capital "T"s differently. But if I take my time on a page with lines, and don't write *too* much, my writing can look even "exquisite" on the right day.
All of my poetry I type up and print, though; the same goes with school-papers. I am no typographical match for the Styles and Formatting abilities of Microsoft Office Word 2003, and I personally like the "Gentium" typeface to my handwriting. The only time I still write is when I don't have a PC around (in which case I type it all up later) or when I send personal snail-mail.
But in my class (Year 11), to this very day, many of the kids write illegibly and/or in print. Some of them lived in the States until the age of 14-15. We are not forced to write in any particular way, just as long as the writing is legible (if it's not, the teacher may assume the letter as a different one and take points off for spelling - or worse - grammar). We have been encouraged, however, not to write "absolutely cursive" to the slanted extent of letters losing their resemblance to the original print form. I.e., your lowercase "p"s should have their loops joined to the stems, rather than looking like a horizontal mirror reflection of a Greek "Mu".
Hebrew speakers aren't taught cursive, I believe, or maybe they just don't bother learning a "new alphabet"...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I went to Catholic grade school. We learned how to write in cursive AND have neat penmanship. I was seriously instructed in this and paid attention when the nun said you aren't allowed to lift pen from paper in the middle of word! It was a real eye-opening experience to have an English teacher in 8th grade (still in Catholic school) who had horrid penmanship and would actually PRINT some letters in the middle of a word. It was down-right Earth-shattering to me.
The person with the neatest penmanship in our class was also a top athlete and a straight-A student. He would've been universally despised by the rest of the males except that he was such a nice, humble guy. I still have this weird junior-high level reaction to the idea that he could actually be a heterosexual with penmanship like that. It was beautiful!
Of course, I've learned since then that many great calligraphists are heterosexual males and that junior-high-level understandings of what "gay" means are little bit fuzzy on the concept anyway. At least they were where/when I went to school.
But it turns out he married some woman that I supposedly know, and even took to my high school prom. Of course, since I never went to a high school prom, I'm rather dubious on the whole thing and wonder if perhaps the guy, his penmanship, and his wife aren't all figments of someone's imagination.
Suffice it to say that as a purposeful statement of my clear sexual leanings, starting in about 7th grade, I developed horrible penmanship. I thought I had the worst penmanship in the world (barring sufferers of various neuro-muscular conditions), until I met dkw.
She actually insisted that I address our wedding announcements on the theory that people would be momentarily fooled into thinking we'd hired someone to do them for us. Or at least on the theory that the Post Office would be able to read them.
It turns out that those lessons back in the day from Sister I can't remember her name really paid off. If I take my time, I can actually do a fairly decent job of writing with proper cursive strokes.
Except, for the life of me, I can't figure out how to make a capital Q...and my capital H's look suspiciously like a slanty version of a printed H. But other than that, I'm pretty much letter-perfect.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Like a lot of people have said, I'm a half-and-halfer, basically whichever style of each letter would get my pen tip fastest to the next letter. So when I have an e before a t, the t will be cursive because the pen lines up perfectly for it.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
See, when I think about "cursive", I'm not thinking of a script that is totally different from regular printed script. Mine is a definately a hybrid- only joined up. Some of the letters have changed, but they aren't completely unrecognisable.
To me, this makes sense to learn. It's not a whole new set of symbols, it's just a time-and-hand saver that is very useful to know when you grow up. It's readable to a person who can read print.
And although it pains me to say it, I can't say that elementary students really have so much to learn that they can't spend a few minutes a day on writing out the letter 'a' a couple of times. There are twenty 26 letters in the alphabet and more than 200 days of class. 15 minutes a day at the beginning of class on cursive, and we'd get it done.
I also don't understand exactly how this would take long to 'grade'. We're not giving kids a mark here- they're in like grade two!- we're flipping through the sheets to see how they are doing, and if anyone's seriously not getting it (hence the need to walk around while the children are writing).
Cursive isn't rocket science!
And FlyingCow, it's unsurprising that my analogy doesn't stand up to interrogation, but I hope you are able to see what I mean- 'what cursive means to me'.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
It is interesting and a bit shocking to me that so many people feel so hostile toward cursive writing. Personally, I think it speaks volumes about our culture that something would be so reviled merely because it isn't "useful" in some specific way. I also think it says something (and not anything flattering) that people are commenting that they don't like to write in cursive because it is "too hard". Only easy things are worth doing? Really?
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
Not too hard. Too pointless.
Posted by crescentsss (Member # 9494) on :
quote:Originally posted by Avatar300: Not too hard. Too pointless.
beautifully put Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
My handwriting was always terrible when I was a kid. Somewhere along the way I made the jump to "legible."
I preferred print to cursive until I took my first class where I had to take extensive notes. The teacher absolutely filled the board with notes. I asked if I could print, and he said he didn't care, but I had to copy it all down. I was the. slowest. one. in the class. Other kids were helping me to keep up after copying their own notes down. Finally I gave up and switched to cursive, and I was much faster. Cursive is worth teaching because it is useful. Obviously you will write more quickly if you don't lift your pen between letters than if you constantly stop and start again. It's not about the aesthetics--in fact, I think upper-case cursive letters are probably not worth emphasizing. My capital T and F just look like print T and F. (My upper case Q also looks like a Q, but I was taught this was an acceptable alternative to the one that looks like a 2.)
I would think anyone who can print lowercase letters can easily learn to print cursive letters. I just don't see what the big deal is.
Interestingly enough, the handwriting recognition feature on my tablet PC can recognize my handwriting better if it's in cursive than in print.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Icarus says well what I've been trying to say very poorly .
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Why have you been trying to say it poorly? Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Well, that's ironic. I even said that poorly. I mean, I've been struggling to express why I think handwriting is important and saying all sorts of wacky things and you said it in a short succint post very well.
I haven't been trying to say it poorly, it just came out that way.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*patpat*
It was a joke.
See, now it was I who could not communicate well!
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
(I wondered if it was a joke. But you never know for sure. So I decided to answer straight, which is my general philosophy in these situations.
You communicate wonderfully, Icarus. It's my sarcasmo-metre that is busted. Or non-existent or something.
*bangs on top of metre*)
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Perhaps I'm sensitive to time management in the classroom having had to deal with it as a very real problem when I was teaching.
The school year generally has 180-185 days. Of these, 4-6 are devoted to standardized testing. Another 4-6 are lost to assemblies, guest speakers, field days, and other class disruptions. Assuming you give some sort of period-long evaluation once every two weeks (conservative), you lose an additional 20 days there. The instructional time spent in the classroom has now shrunk to 150 days. It's a safe bet to knock of 2 days at the start and end of the year, too, for going over classroom/school procedures and final "end of the year" cleanup/organization. So, 146 days of instructional class time - barring additional testing/assessment or field trips.
I'll assume an average academic instructional day of roughly 4 hours (taking out lunch, gym, art, etc). To take even 15 minutes out of every day is to take 1/16th of the time allotted for all the various and sundry topics that must be covered in elementary school. 1/16th of the time available works out to roughly 9 days of your 146 day year - on something that has little need outside the classroom.
It just seems pointless to be spending so much time on a unnecessary skill when that time could be spent on mathematics, science, history, or english.
I am curious, though, about the question posed earlier.
Do people write in script in other countries, but even more specifically in other languages? Do French students write french in cursive? What about writing german or swedish in cursive? Is there a greek cursive script, or an arabic one? Do any of the asian languages have separate cursive scripts, or does cyrillic? Is this a phenomenon native to english?
I know we have hatrackers who are not native english speakers - is cursive taught for other languages as well?
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
As someone who knows a significant amount of alphabets (working on the last patches of Cyrillic, a couple of coronal fricatives and their affricates yet baffle me), I can assure you that English cursive is a useful scripting-system. If you know how to write print "properly", it takes a long time to write. A "j" is written downwards, and the dot added afterwards; wouldn't it be easier to do it the other way round? Less of a "commute" than from the tip of the hook to the place of the dot. If any of you studied how to read and write in Arabic, you'd see how insane print can be.
Also, don't forget lowercase letters are also a way of shortening the time of writing. When I post snail-mail, I write "Jerusalem" in lowercase and "ISRAEL" in capitals, and even though the former to the latter has a ratio of 8:5 lowercase letters:capitals (taking the first letter off), it's still quicker to write. This resembles Aramaic print & script (which is the modern Hebrew alphabet). Lowercase is fater to write if you're not carving, cursive can be even faster - that's why it was developed.
Do you *really* think the trend would have developed and stuck in the first place if it had no use?
EDIT: Scientific terminology.
Posted by crescentsss (Member # 9494) on :
yes - hebrew has print and cursive. but cursive isn't connected letters. cursive is easier to write because letters in print have corners, and cursive rounds them out and changes some of the harder to write print letters. everyone writes in script, and computers type in print.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: Do people write in script in other countries, but even more specifically in other languages? Do French students write french in cursive? What about writing german or swedish in cursive? Is there a greek cursive script, or an arabic one? Do any of the asian languages have separate cursive scripts, or does cyrillic? Is this a phenomenon native to english?
Latin languages all use the same general cursive, I've seen my grandmother write in Czech and German with the same basic cursive that I learned in 3rd grade.
Hebrew has one case, print and script - and like Crescent said, it's rounded letters. Greek is generally rounded in lowercase, and as far as I know there's script just for a few letters that *aren't* written in one stroke. Cyrillic is quite blocky, so I don't know, but I can ask a Russian guy in my grade, he might know. Arabic has print (computer-style), cursive (fast-written, one of, if not the most efficient and time saving alphabetic system, especially considering the letter-conservation) and calligraphy - which I am incapable of reading, and so are many non-natives. Arabic calligraphy is an actual art in its own right.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I would assume almost every language has calligraphy, but that's more for artistic purposes than useful ones. Form over function.
This is interesting.
I'm curious why two different forms of writing developed, too. I mean, we don't have two sets of numerals - those are pretty universal, with only some variation.
If we're going for speed, shorthand is faster than cursive. If we're going for easy readability, print letters are clearer than cursive (you don't see stop signs in cursive, for instance).
Seeing that more than 99.99% of the words the average person sees every day are not in cursive, it seems like we should devote less than 0.01% of our classroom time to the topic. Knowing that teaching this topic takes more than 0.01% of the available time, it shouldn't be a part of the required curriculum.
If my students had 15 more minutes per day of fractions instead of cursive in elementary school, I'd have had a much easier time teaching them in middle school.
Posted by Princesska (Member # 8954) on :
I learned cursive in fourth grade and remember enjoying it. By seventh grade, I'd switched to it completely and my neglected print looked like a child's. I had two basic handwritings in high school: cursive for myself (quick, sloppy) and for essays (straight, neat).
Lately I've been using print more often, for notes to other people. So it's not childlike anymore, but loopy and occasionally illegible in an adult way. Also, I tend to use the same capital letters in print and cursive -- of the print style when there is a deviation (like G and S) but curvy with some flash.
Penmanship should be taught in schools. Not extensively, but handwriting is important. You don't want future co-workers puzzling over a note you left on their desks, do you?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I have to initial things at work...my cursive now looks very pointy and skinny. Actually, my handwriting for my signature looks a whole lot like my father's, which is kind of weird. Anybody else notice a writing similarity to his/her parents?
-pH
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Teshi, your meter's first problem is that you are spelling it wrong.
I agree with Ic. As a (former) teacher who required my students to take notes (they were collected and graded, although it was an easy A for most of my students), the ones who were comfortable with cursive -- whether the formal version that is usually taught, or some adaptation of their own -- did much better at note-taking than the vast majority of their printing peers.
The notion that so many people view cursive as non-useful astounds me.
Then again, I also agree with lma that usefulness should not be the only yardstick we measure by.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: Anybody else notice a writing similarity to his/her parents?
Yes, to some extent. Due to the fact that my father was the main person helping me become legible in Years 6-8, some of my legibility in writing is taken off his amazing handwriting.
Posted by Princesska (Member # 8954) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Anybody else notice a writing similarity to his/her parents?
Oh yeah. I cross my 7's mainly because I saw my father doing it and thought it looked cool.
Also, one of my friends and his father have almost the exact same signature: thin printed letters that look like they were constructed from sticks. Legible and very stark. But then, I think a lot of engineer/scientist types sign their names in print instead of cursive.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Princesska, my boyfriend has handwriting kind of like that, but only sometimes. He prints in these very neat, small, boxy kind of letters that I thought had been printed by computer at first.
I think it's weird that I sign just like my dad, since he didn't really have much to do with my handwriting at all. 'course, handwriting was always my worst grade in elementary school. What a stupid thing to grade. It's legible; what more do you want?
-pH
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I think when something is significantly useful - as cursive is - it doesn't have to be "necessary" for life in order to have a place being taught in schools. To say that because we don't need cursive we should waste school time on learning it doesn't make sense to me. It is much faster than printing, and is useful to know; and we spend a lot of time in schools teaching things that they won't "need" but are useful to know and will be helpful in life.
I guess there are some people who never write anything but their signatures ... I guess they don't need to know cursive. I do write things, take notes occasionally, write letters, write stories sometimes (on PAPER!), make lists ... all these things are easier to do in cursive. I use cursive a heck of a lot more than I use trigonometry. It was worth my time learning it back then, to save as much time and hand-aches as it saves now.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I still don't get it.
If speed is the goal, we should be teaching shorthand. If style is the goal, we should be teaching calligraphy. If clarity is the goal, we should be teaching print.
Cursive seems like a bastard child of these three reasons, sort of like an esparanto of the script world.
As for my parents, my mother uses very rounded loopy cursive and always has and my father uses an all-caps diagonally slanted block printing (mainly because he was a marine and police officer). Personally, I use a flowing print style that connects letters (looping into an "e" for instance, or going from the top of an "o" into the next letter), but it is far from the stylized script form (using print versions of "b", "f", "r", "s" etc).
quote:To say that because we don't need cursive we should waste school time on learning it doesn't make sense to me.
While teaching, I constantly heard the phrase "a mile wide and an inch deep" used to describe our curriculum. We covered all manner of useful topics - so many that no one topic could be truly covered in very much depth.
So much has been added to curriculums that could be useful, or might be useful, or can be useful that the topics that are absolutely needed get less time and coverage.
From a math teacher's perspective, the biggest jilted concepts are decimals, fractions, and division.
I've had high honors sophomores who couldn't add two fractions together, as they didn't get enough time with that concept in earlier grades. Division of decimals was so foreign as to be another language, and most didn't even know where to begin without a calculator - nor could they tell if their calculator-given answers were at all reasonable.
From an english teacher's perspective, the biggest jilted concepts are grammar, spelling and punctuation.
I have two friends who are high school english teachers who were never taught grammar in school. Never. They were never given rules for commas or taught how to use colons or semicolons. Those english teachers I've worked with teach grammar as a matter of personal principle, as there was nothing in the curriculum about the topic. Grammar has slowly slipped out of the required curriculum in school districts around the country.
When you have X amount of time and 100 topics to cover, you cannot give each topic the same attention as if there were only, say, 80 topics to cover. How we managed to drop grammar and keep cursive, I'll never know.
[ October 16, 2006, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: FlyingCow ]
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
My cursive takes about ten times the time that my hybrid-print takes to write. Am I the only one slower in cursive than print?
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)