Whatever happened to good handwriting?
October 23, 2006 — Daniel LivingstoneWell, lets be honest, only a small percentage of people really ever learned to write that neatly. My father’s writing, for example, was so un-intelligible that he would have to ask my mother for help in deciphering it. Yet, I still find the news of the death of cursive writing to be thoroughly depressing. Even more depressing, is all the dancing on the grave that followed the news here. Well, not everyone was celebrating but many were. I wonder if they actually took time to read the article? After all it does contain the following information:
Several academic studies have found that good handwriting skills at a young age can help children express their thoughts better — a lifelong benefit.
Thanks to the wife for the links.
p.s. From reading the metafilter comments, it may be the case that US cursive is a more rigidly defined system than the joined-up writing we are taught in the UK. Anyone able to confirm?
October 23, 2006 at 7:25 pm
Yes on the PS - there has been a history of “methods” falling in and out of favor. The differences were silly, for example kids were taught very specifically which way to start the stroke of each letter, then next year, that would change and they would be punished for it. Probably to sell more workbooks or something.
However, the link to the washington post article described some research that said that kids wrote more and were more expressive after handwriting instruction and practice, which allowed them to write faster. Seems to me it’s just as likely that keyboarding would have the same result (speed), not that there was some connection between the physical act of writing and better written expression.
October 24, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Yikes on the history of handwriting teaching. I think the UK has been much less prescriptive. I think being able to write reasonably legibly, and at a reasonable speed is a very useful skill though - and any student who is capable of being taught this certainly should.
The point in the article about block-print SATS scoring lower is an interesting one - but may also be related to other factors: families with history of academic achievement may put more value on handwriting, and thus the block-print SATS may be likely to be disproportionately from students with poorer and less academic backgrounds, and with greater obstacles for academic achievement. Tough to say for sure though.
But I’d hate to think that we are bringing up a population who are totally averse to working ideas out on paper. The paper by Flynn and Newbutt in the Italics issue I edited recently (
http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/italics/vol5iss3.htm ) had the observation that film students were increasingly unwilling to sketch storyboards!
I’m not sure if there is a link there, but to me it is a scary thought.
October 24, 2006 at 12:48 pm
Another point regarding writing by hand (as opposed to handwriting) is that it allows for a non-linear presentation of ideas…mind maps, flow charts, arrows off to the side, annotation etc, that may not be as easy produced by keyboard.
I realise these aren’t quite what the article’s about, being to do with formal essay writing, but even if you can plan or sketch out your essay by hand, you have the ability to order your work in the way that suits you and reflects your mental processes as well.
Oh yes, and you can doodle happy faces all over your work as well, can’t you…?
November 18, 2007 at 9:16 am
I believe that kids just don’t know what good handwritting looks like. I’m 16 and don’t even know what good handwritting looks like just average or very sloppy handwritting my handwritting sucks but i’m trying to improve it. but i really don’t know what to make it look like.