|
Post by verasthebrujah on Dec 6, 2011 0:26:02 GMT -5
My cursive is generally far more legible than my printing. I find it easier to write quickly in cursive than in print, and my hand simply cannot keep up with my brain when I print. Beyond that, I think that they need to have the skill of reading cursive more than writing it. Yes, most writing is done digitally now, but many students in many career fields will have to deal with handwritten instructions or reviews in the course of their careers. They need to be able to understand that. I never said digital, and I'm not sure how handwritten=cursive when you can write in print. It's what I have done for every single job I've ever had and my bosses would have been pissed if I wrote in script because it is less legible. Cursive is basically becoming the new calligraphy, it can look pretty if you focus on it, but it's not really a practical method of writing. Is there nothing else they could be doing with their time? I'm also not sure what you mean by "spare time." I know that was a few pages ago, but it was a direct question, so I feel I should answer it. I know you didn't say digital. I brought it up because I felt that it is relevant to the point that I am making. I think that the growth of computer use is a strong factor contributing to the decline of handwriting in general and cursive specifically. Handwritten does not necessarily mean cursive, but it very well may. Moreover, I said that they need the ability to READ cursive in case they are GIVEN handwritten instructions. Sometimes handwritten instructions will be printed. Sometimes they will be in cursive. They need to be able to read it either way. I'm a grad student, and if I receive handwritten comments on a paper or project, they are often, if not usually, in cursive. I know for certain that this is something that they have to deal with because I, as their Social Studies teacher, have done exactly the same thing to them. I try to print when grading Junior High homework, but it just does not come naturally, and I often accidentally slip into cursive if I am concentrating on what they wrote instead of how I'm writing. By "spare time," I mean the time toward the end of class when they have nothing else immediate to do. I am under the impression that they usually work on cursive after their spelling and/or vocab tests when there isn't enough time to move on to the next class topic, but there is still enough time to get some work done. They all move through it at their own pace, but (the last time I checked) they all seemed to be moving quite rapidly. As a point of fairness, I don't know if that would work in a typical school. I teach at a very small private school for gifted/high ability kids, so they are extraordinarily bright, and are generally capable of working very quickly. Either way, is there something better that they could be doing? I suppose they could work on homework for other classes, but they have a couple hours of study hall a week, so they shouldn't need the time. Besides, by the time that they figure out what they need to do, get it out (read this as go to their locker and screw around so they don't have to work) and get started, it's basically time to go to the next class. The English teacher keeps the workbooks on a shelf in the corner of the room. When they finish, the just grab their copy, find where they left off, and work for 10 or 15 minutes. As far as all of the people who keep saying that it is wrong to force students to write one way or the other-- I completely agree. Students should write however they are comfortable. Teaching them cursive gives them another option that they might be more comfortable with. And, I must reiterate, I think that the ability to read cursive is a useful skill. Is there a better way to teach this that to have them learn to write it?
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Dec 6, 2011 0:47:15 GMT -5
Learning cursive is basically learning a 2nd alphabet, only I actually remember the French alphabet.
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Dec 6, 2011 0:59:01 GMT -5
Lithp kinda hits the nail on the head. Cursive is essentially an entirely redundant second alphabet to learn. And it doesn't even have the benefit of being for another language. We spend years teaching kids that "this is how you write an A, it always looks like this" and then go "Oh, wait, here's an entirely separate way of writing As that you will likely never use outside of writing your signature".
I do realize some people write primarily in cursive. But continuing to teach cursive will also continue this divide in alphabet usage.
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Dec 6, 2011 1:02:55 GMT -5
I learned in second grade. I can still remember my teacher scribbling on the board and saying, "That's what an adult's handwriting looks like, because they don't practice their cursive. When you get older, you'll have handwriting like that unless you practice. And do you want do have your handwriting look like a doctor's handwriting?"
I took that to heart and wrote faithfully and legibly in cursive until about sixth grade, then went back to cursive when it was required (in black or blue pen) for every assignment in eighth grade Catholic school.
Right now, I'm told I have very lovely handwriting, though it tends to slur together when I'm writing really fast and then I can't read it. I can actually write it better than I read it. And in response to that link above, I learned #2 in the early 2000s, but my teacher was set to retire that year.
And in response to the SAT thing: the second time I took the SATs (once was for a contest in 8th grade, two were for actual college requirements), one kid actually asked how to write a capital letter P in cursive, completely seriously.
I kind of wanted to smack him, especially since I did all my SATs in cursive. My APs were printed.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Dec 6, 2011 1:09:11 GMT -5
I'm guessing we should make it mandatory for kids to learn all languages, because at one point in their lives they may receive written instructions in Spanish, Japanese, French, or whatever.
Actually, that sounds like a pretty good idea, because unlike cursive, that'd actually have a point to it.
Saying "People should use it because people use it" is so circular it's almost a period. Especially when there's as many styles of cursive as there are people.
Don't get me wrong, I can read cursive, but I am not better for it.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Dec 6, 2011 1:15:03 GMT -5
I have a question, do you actually NEED to write your signature in cursive? I have a friend whose only discernable letter is a T & the rest is pretty much 2 lines, & it never seems to trouble him.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Dec 6, 2011 1:26:53 GMT -5
I have a question, do you actually NEED to write your signature in cursive? I have a friend whose only discernable letter is a T & the rest is pretty much 2 lines, & it never seems to trouble him. No. A lot of people just do the first letter then it's squiggles after. Like me and many doctors and politicians.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Dec 6, 2011 1:27:36 GMT -5
Wow. Okay. So cursive really IS useless, that's not even a hyperbole.
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Dec 6, 2011 4:23:01 GMT -5
I agree 100%!! Some balance between encouraging individuality and enforcing standards needs to be found, which will gradually lean more towards individuality the older a student gets. However, you cannot tell a 2nd grader "Write how you feel, so long as it's legible" because you're always going to end up with a scribbled mess. Very young children need direction.
I should clarify that by "mandatory cursive" I didn't mean these lawmakers want to force students to write cursive; they want to re-instate it as a mandatory part of the curriculum, meaning students will have to learn it, not be forced to use it (once cursive instruction has ended). I can't stand it when students ask "Bahh when am I ever going to have to use trigonometry?!" They probably never will, but they've at least been exposed to it, so they can know they don't like it. Some students may discover they love trigonometry and that will motivate them to pursue a math career where they will use it.
Many people, such as myself and other posters on this board, find cursive writing to be much more comfortable, much faster, and more efficient. I would not be able to take notes in class without knowing cursive because I just cannot keep up by printing. If I didn't learn cursive, I would be at a disadvantage. If other people don't like cursive, then of course they shouldn't be forced to use it. But they've learned it, so now they know they don't like it, and can move on. Other people find it incredibly useful. Even if you don't end up using it, having cursive learning units re-inforces the importance of having clean, legible handwriting whether it be in print or script.
If you do not operate in a Spanish-language, Japanese-language, etc. environment, then no you will not receive written instructions in Spanish. This is not comparable to operating in an environment where people have to write things down (which is pretty much anywhere).
It should be "People should know it because people use it." While there are many different styles of cursive, letterforms all follow a basic structure or else it's not legible.
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Dec 6, 2011 4:39:41 GMT -5
It should be "People should know it because people use it." While there are many different styles of cursive, letterforms all follow a basic structure or else it's not legible. If it stops being a mandatory part of grade school education, people will stop using it. And considering it serves no practical function, I don't see why tax dollars should be going to teach it to kids. If someone wants to preserve it, it should be some kind of elective course.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Dec 6, 2011 4:49:43 GMT -5
It should be "People should know it because people use it." While there are many different styles of cursive, letterforms all follow a basic structure or else it's not legible. If it stops being a mandatory part of grade school education, people will stop using it. And considering it serves no practical function, I don't see why tax dollars should be going to teach it to kids. If someone wants to preserve it, it should be some kind of elective course. But by God it's tradition to do cursive in school! No matter what! Fuck what the kids think! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Dec 6, 2011 5:07:33 GMT -5
Cursive was always a huge pain in the ass for me, and I can print at least twice as fast. As soon as I found out I could turn in assignments printed, that's what I did. Cursive was a complete waste of time.
My signature used to be my name fully written out in cursive, but over time has degenerated to my initials followed by squiggly lines.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Dec 6, 2011 5:11:17 GMT -5
I love my squiggly signature and nobody can tell me to do it differently. >=[
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Dec 6, 2011 5:24:46 GMT -5
For some people, it does have a practical function. Some people just write much better and much faster in script than print. Once you learn both, you can make the decision for yourself. And you will also have the advantage of being able to read both, so script-users can read printed handwriting, and print-users can read script handwriting.
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Dec 6, 2011 7:17:57 GMT -5
The children should be taught Fraktur type, so they can read it if they encounter it and use it if they like it.[/sarcasm]
No joke though, my brother had a small fit as a child because a restaurant's menu was typed in Fraktur and he couldn't read it.
|
|