Posted on 10/11/2006 8:16:23 AM PDT by Millee
The computer keyboard helped kill shorthand, and now it's threatening to finish off longhand.
When handwritten essays were introduced on the SAT exams for the class of 2006, just 15 percent of the almost 1.5 million students wrote their answers in cursive. The rest? They printed. Block letters.
And those college hopefuls are just the first edge of a wave of U.S. students who no longer get much handwriting instruction in the primary grades, frequently 10 minutes a day or less. As a result, more and more students struggle to read and write cursive.
Many educators shrug. Stacked up against teaching technology, foreign languages and the material on standardized tests, penmanship instruction seems a relic, teachers across the region say. But academics who specialize in writing acquisition argue that it's important cognitively, pointing to research that shows children without proficient handwriting skills produce simpler, shorter compositions, from the earliest grades.
Scholars who study original documents say the demise of handwriting will diminish the power and accuracy of future historical research. And others simply lament the loss of handwritten communication for its beauty, individualism and intimacy.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
I agree. I bet only 1 in 10 men have decent legible penmanship.
My handwriting and printing are both very neat. Unfortunately, that's about the only skill I have.
There are no "i's" in my name.
I'm about the only non-Italian in my company.
Well, their you go. Just one more thing that they're seems to be in decline. It's decline has gone from best, to gooder to baddest to worse of all. Yep, you know your in trouble if you're communication skill's are worser then other's. Than what will writing be like for there children?
My sister (also a south-paw) has horrible handwriting/printing (it's a mix between the two); it's big, loopy and sloppy.
If you think the notes I write for public consumption are bad, you should see the one's I write only for myself.
SD
At work I like to print because it looks neater and more organized and I'd rather have my boss see that, than a bunch of chicken scratch on my work.
Then there are certain people (such as my kooky, ultra-leftwing brother in law) who actually spent time to 'perfect' a signature that is totally illegible, unique and (to them, apparently) stylish. I mean, it might as well be Prince's unspeakable name. It bears no resemblance whatsoever to cursive handwriting.
My kids' handwriting is deplorable. Schools are too busy teaching self-esteem, sex ed. and anti-bullying to give a rip about something as mundane as handwriting.
I almost never use cursive. We had to from 2nd grade to 6th, but upon entering middle school they gave us a choice. I never looked back. It takes me too long to make it legible.
However, if I take time my cursive does look mighty fine.
Same here. And my signature doesn't look like much--you can make out my first name sort of but my last name is a bunch of squiggly lines.
Hey, nothing wrong with working on a signature you like. You never know who is judging you by how it looks.
I switched to block letter writing in 8th grade. I do enjoy seeing a nice cursive hand, but I like the boldness of blocks.
Granted, when I see a signature that looks too much like a finely-crafted work of pop art and not at all like cursive handwriting, I figure that person intends for it to scream, "Look at me! I'M SPECIAL!"
Exactly. Joining letters is faster than picking up and setting down the pen, if the pen happens to be in the right place for the join. Teaching that all letters must be joined, that "i"'s must be dotted and "t"'s crossed only after everything else in the word is written, that the verticals on letters like "b" should have loops in them, and that capitals like "G" should use letterforms that are only remotely related to anything resembling the "normal" ones, improves neither speed nor legibility.
Sure all those loops may look pretty, but if they don't make handwriting easier to read (and they don't) what's the real point?
If cursive is in decline, I'd suggest it's becaue the version that has been taught for years isn't practical and never was. Had a more practical form been taught, it might have been able to better compete with keyboards.
Nonsense.
What part do you disagree with?
The style of cursive taught in many schools adds a level of embillishment which may lend a more attractive air to invitations or other formal personal correspondance, but which makes the letterforms more difficult to write and to read.
A font like this may be nice for wedding invidations, but it's not as easy to read as Times Roman, nor even as easy as a more conservative style of handwriting.
If someone is handwriting a document whose purpose is to convey information legibily, does it make any sense to expend extra effort to alter the letterforms in a manner that detracts from legibility? If not, does it make any sense to require students to do so?
The easiest styles of handwriting to write and to read are in many cases those which connect many of the letters but are not slavishly devoted to the concept. Flourishes which may be attractive and fairly harmless when done well can greatly impair legibility if done poorly. Someone trying to write too quickly will almost certainly mangle such things, and it woudl be better to omit them altogether.
"does it make any sense to expend extra effort to alter the letterforms in a manner that detracts from legibility"
I don't understand if you're for or against cursive generally.
"Expend extra effort" - it is NOT extra effort. Cursive is MEANT to be easier to write than "print" which means constant up-lifting the pen and wasting time.
I agree that much can be "illegible" (I jab my mom about that). But it's not the fault of the "method" that I can see. Most people use the same method, using the same basic form and connection points, but their personality comes through and some just plain are more illegible than others, whether beautiful or downright ugly (which is also illegible, and I've seen plenty of that in "print").
BTW, the best "printers" are those who had serious training in Drafting - NOT today's CAD systems, but who had to write it out themselves on drawings. Shows you that again, it doesn't matter whether it's print or cursive, anything can be illegible and anything can be trained to be better than nature tends.
For it, generally, but with some simplifications to the letterforms as compared with some of the versions commonly taught.
"Expend extra effort" - it is NOT extra effort. Cursive is MEANT to be easier to write than "print" which means constant up-lifting the pen and wasting time.
Indeed, when used with sensible letterforms cursive is faster. But which is faster to write--a "G" that looks like the General Mills logo, or a "G" that looks like a "C" with an extra line on the right? Which is easier to read? I find the "General Mills" style both slower to write and harder to read. So what's the point?
To be sure, many of the annoyances of common cursive styles aren't exactly new. Indeed, some of the Founding Fathers' documents seem to show such features (and symptoms thereof, such as uncrossed t's).
While I do not agree with everything Kate Gladstone has to say, I think she makes some sense. A key point is that letters should be connected when doing so improves efficiency and/or legibility. In cases where it does neither, stretching letterforms to allow the connection is worse than simply allowing a momentary pen lift.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.