Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cursive Handwriting and Other Education Myths (2016)

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 150 posts

Re: Cursive Handwriting and Other Education Myths (2016)

#91

Post by Bromskloss »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #30
thatfrenchguy wrote: post #11

> Or is what children learn determined more by precedent and cultural or institutional norms Yeah, it always is, that’s just how human societies work.

I remember learning how to write official letters at school. Dear Sir. Dear Madam. Yours faithfully. Yours sincerely. Your obedient servant. In the classroom, we were told it was so very important to get the language right. In fact it was a complete waste of time. I used the language a handful of times - the stylings were already becoming archaic - then email conventions took over. Now we have "Hi", or maybe "Hello",…

> the stylings were already becoming archaic

Let's do something about that! :-)

Re: Cursive Handwriting and Other Education Myths (2016)

#93

Post by CodeWriter23 »

> But imposing cursive from an early age is another matter.

Once she saw some cursive writing, our daughter demanded we teach her. I attribute that to our choice to greatly limit screen time. She’s fantastic at it. And even though she now spends a healthy portion of her screen time budget FaceTiming and texting friends and grandparents, she also sends handwritten letters and notes.

Re: Cursive Handwriting and Other Education Myths (2016)

#94

Post by kevin42 »

autocorr wrote: post #81

I'm surprised that I didn't see hand fatigue mentioned, which is probably the number one reason cursive is actually useful, not that it is fast or "aided in cognitive development". Business scripts (like Spencerian in the early 20th c) were developed if you were Clerk or someone who had to scribe stuff out for hours on end, and it had to be legible and consistent. The mechanics of it are quite simple. If you hold a p…

Unless you are left handed, in which case none of these things are true. I quickly get hand fatigue when I (try to) write in cursive.

I really struggled with cursive in grade school because very little of the mechanics of right handed writing work for left-handed kids, and the teachers didn't have anything to offer other than criticism of the writing I could do. Most lefty's I have talked to had the same experience.

Re: Cursive Handwriting and Other Education Myths (2016)

#95

Post by CodeWriter23 »

__david__ wrote: post #19
echion wrote: post #2

Seems to ignore the fact that picking up and putting down the writing point is actually harder for small children than just sliding the writing implement along the paper. Also consider the popularity of "Swype"-style keyboards, since continuous sliding a finger across a surface is, for many, easier than discrete screen presses. Sources: personal experience and anecdotes from teachers of 4-6 yr olds (an age range not…

I didn't "ignore" that, it directly refuted it. The article sites studies that claim cursive takes far more fine motor skills than non-cursive and was harder to teach to younger children.

...as if that’s a bad thing. I think just about any surgeon would disagree with that assertion.

Re: Cursive Handwriting and Other Education Myths (2016)

#96

Post by Bromskloss »

brandonmenc wrote: post #63

I went to Catholic school in the 80s and 90s, and was forced to use cursive the entire time. Starting in 1st grade, I'd get straight As - except in "handwriting" - always a B there - and it kept me from ever getting "First Honors." It was arbitrary and unfair, and it made me hate school. And cursive.

> It was arbitrary and unfair

Can you expand on why you think so?

Re: Cursive Handwriting and Other Education Myths (2016)

#97

Post by [deleted] »

kevin42 wrote: post #94
autocorr wrote: post #81

I'm surprised that I didn't see hand fatigue mentioned, which is probably the number one reason cursive is actually useful, not that it is fast or "aided in cognitive development". Business scripts (like Spencerian in the early 20th c) were developed if you were Clerk or someone who had to scribe stuff out for hours on end, and it had to be legible and consistent. The mechanics of it are quite simple. If you hold a p…

Unless you are left handed, in which case none of these things are true. I quickly get hand fatigue when I (try to) write in cursive. I really struggled with cursive in grade school because very little of the mechanics of right handed writing work for left-handed kids, and the teachers didn't have anything to offer other than criticism of the writing I could do. Most lefty's I have talked to had the same experience.

[deleted]

Re: Cursive Handwriting and Other Education Myths (2016)

#98

Post by gozur88 »

bearbearbear wrote: post #88
gozur88 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a check rejected at the bank. My signature didn't match the card on file closely enough, so they sort of put me through the ringer before they cashed it. Wasn't even a lot of money.

You got lucky. Bank managers will have clerks randomly pick a stack of checks and reject them so their clients feel like there's some auditing going on.

I was right there. I watched her try to match the signature.

Re: Cursive Handwriting and Other Education Myths (2016)

#99

Post by Bromskloss »

ghaff wrote: post #8
notl4wy3r wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course not, but some non-zero eventual utility is a desirable trait. There are a variety of actually beneficial things children could spend their time doing, which are currently being displaced by being forced to learn a useless handwriting style.

For that matter, I'd have zero issue with more classroom time spent on art, music, or other subjects of that type. But the fixation on an aesthetically pleasing copperplate writing style has about the same justification as universally teaching ancient Greek because it's part of a traditional Western upper class education.

> part of a traditional Western upper class education

Such reasons have actually started to become a bit compelling to me, and might lead me to learn Greek, though I might do Latin first. It places you next to others who have learnt the same things through the centuries. Joining the same learning tradition grounds you in a common language and a common literature. It helps you understand intellectual conversations from today and from past generations. So I imagine, at least; I'm still just an ἰδιώτης.

Re: Cursive Handwriting and Other Education Myths (2016)

#100

Post by discoursism »

JPKab wrote: post #69
chis wrote: post #68

It seems like there's value in rote practice of tasks for improving focus and discipline. I'd argue that's part of why learning piano helps kids so much. I can't name any specific reason to practice cursive though.

Cursive is the most efficient method for writing by hand. Also, for many, it's much easier for them to write in a readable fashion with cursive. My son is 11, and was never taught cursive in public school. His print writing is legible, but not neat. He just learned cursive (it took him less than two weeks at the private school we just put him in, where all the other students learned it years ago). His writing is much…

I don't understand why so many people in this thread are making claims about cursive's efficiency, when the article cites scientific investigations that say it isn't.
Post reply on HN