.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Okay, here it is:
Did you immediately agree? Immediately disagree? Maybe a "Yes, but..." or "No, but..." reaction?
Perhaps you were totally ambivalent about this statement. Perhaps...but in my experience, very few people I've talked to about teaching cursive have an ambivalent response. Many have an immediate, almost visceral reaction--whether positive or negative.
Why is this? What is it about handwriting brings up such strong reactions?
I'm not really sure, honestly. But I recognize that many--probably most--people have strong feelings about this topic.
One of my longtime Twitterfriends, Stephen Ransom, tweeted this one out this morning:
A cartoon that perfectly shows the conflated argument for/against handwriting in schools. Makes the pro side more emotionally charged. pic.twitter.com/ZsRheyfNr3— ✜ Stephen Ransom (@ransomtech) January 24, 2018
I think he's right about this. There is definitely emotion at play in this debate over whether or not we should continue to teach students to write in cursive.
How about it, teachers? Those teaching in elementary schools, are you still teaching cursive? Or has your school/district abandoned penmanship long ago?
How about it, parents? Do you believe your kids should learn to write in cursive? (And if so, why?) Or do you believe this is a waste of time? (And if so, why?)
Does teaching penmanship have a place in the 21st century classroom? Should it? I'd love to hear your thoughts in response!
The only time I ever use cursive is when I write a check. As an adult I have no need of it. So I wonder if we should teach it.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, I do wonder about the interesting brain research that suggests that cursive helps build certain aspects of the brain.
Yes, but for different reasons than we used to, and therefore in a different manner.
ReplyDeleteIt used to be a life skill that everyone had to master because you'd use it for the rest of your life. Writing in cursive, once you get good at it, is faster than printing. Because fewer of us do large amounts of handwriting, and those who do often prefer the aesthetic of printed letters over cursive, that is no longer a good reason to teach it.
But, it still is a great exercise for improving eye-hand coordination; for the ability to read historical documents (and other cases where they'll need to read it if not write it); for the appreciation of the art of the matter; for the simple discipline of mastering a long-needed skill; some students who don't often experience "success" in school may turn out to be great at producing beautiful flowing text, and can benefit from the ego-boost this gives.
The way it should be taught, then, would change from mastery of efficiency to mastery of beauty and form. That is, it's an art.
Of course, this same argument could be made for numerous other "practical" skills, like sewing, leather working, carpentry, or cooking; some of these are also semi-obsolete in terms of necessary work-place skills, but even without practical importance, they can play an important role in helping teacher play a shaping role in the overall development of the students.
So, my answer (as a non-grade-school educator) is: Yes, we should keep teaching it, but as part of the visual art curriculum rather than as a standalone skill. (And, while we're at it, we should expand the arts curriculum in general.)
I have always found this research interesting that teaching cursive first potentially can help students to be more successful readers! All though I haven't found much scientific evidence that it actually works. But the idea of it makes sense!
ReplyDeletehttp://swrtraining.com/cursive-first/rationales/