The Importance of Handwriting
Even if you learned to write way back in Grade 3 and don’t choose to use it any more, the neuro-pathways you used to develop the skill are still there, and can easily be re-activated. Resurrecting your handwriting skills, therefore, would be a much easier task than to learn it as an adult.
Studies have indicated that after handwriting becomes an automatic skill, we shift focus to the information we’re learning or communicating. Therefore, the more cursive writing practice we do, the faster we’ll be able to write. Students who have more handwriting practice in their early ears are better at reading and spelling. Being able to write in cursive means you will also be able to read in cursive.
With fewer pen lifts from the paper, cursive writing is faster than printing—each pen lift takes time and slows down the speed of your writing.
Did you know that literacy rates are higher when students are required to master handwriting skills? One possible reason for this is teachers must use the “See it, Say it, Do it” teaching method to incorporate the visual, auditory and kinesthetic abilities of each student in the process of learning to cursive write. Therefore, we can conclude that should learning handwriting decrease, so will literacy.
Cursive writing results in less confusion for children who have learning disabilities because the smooth flow of cursive connected letters is easier for children to master. In addition, there is less confusion between directions of letters such as ‘b’ and ‘d’ or ‘g’ and ‘p’.
Computer competence can be taught at a later age; however, reading and writing has a ‘window of opportunity’ that occurs before the age of 9 or 10. This is one of the reasons handwriting is so important by grades 2 and 3.
Studies have shown positive side effects of handwriting include reducing depression, blood pressure and boosting the immune system (Swedlow 1999). Learning to write helps children focus and concentrate and, in addition, helps to calm the emotional part of the brain. Over 3,000 nerve endings in each fingertip directly connected to the brain are stimulated when writing.
Marketing research shows that those receiving hand-addressed envelopes are seven times more likely to open that letter.
Be sure to view my 5-minute “Power of the Pen” DVD on my Home Page at www.handwritinganalysistoronto.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Thank you for your interesting blog. Did you realize that my new award winning book, See It. Say It. Do It! discusses the multi-sensory approach to learning. It provides tools for parents and teachers on how to help their children become successful students and confident kids. See It (Visualize), Say It (Declare) and Do It (Take action) is the Model utilized throughout the book not only for handwriting, but also for reading, spelling, math, sports preparation, test anxiety and other life skills. Please check it out at:
www.SeeItSayItDoIt.com
Dr. Lynn F. Hellerstein
Re:
> Studies have indicated that after handwriting becomes an automatic skill, ...
So far, this addresses (somewhat) the importance of handwriting -- not the importance of cursive. Looking at the next part (where it does become a paean to cursive), I see:
>.Therefore, the more cursive writing practice we do, the faster we’ll be able to write.
Research shows (citation on request) that the fastest handwriters -- as well as the most legible -- avoid cursive.
Highest-speed highest-legibility handwriters join some, not all, letters -- making the easiest joins, skipping the rest -- and tend to use print-like, not cursive-style, forms for those letters whose printed and cursive shapes disagree.
Therefore, the more of these efficient handwriting practices we adopt -- no matter how they must horrify the worshipers of cursive -- the faster we'll be able to write.
love such things?
Re:
> With fewer pen lifts from the paper, cursive >writing is faster than printing—each pen lift >takes time and slows down the speed of your >writing.
That is half true.
Certain connections -- such as those in the words "an" and "on" -- are indeed more efficient and rapid than lifting the pen.
Other connections -- such as those in the letter-combinations "gh" and "sc" and "nd" and "qu" -- must be done more slowly, to be done well at all, because of their complicated curvature. Done properly and legibly, they take more time than lifting the pen and moving it directly from one letter to the next.
Even if connections prescribed for cursive did not include such gross inefficiencies, other slowdowns arise from the immensely complicated nature of most cursive capitals. Compare how far a pen must travel in a cursive "G" with the much shorter pen-path of an Italic or even a printed "G."
>
> Did you know that literacy rates are higher >when students are required to master >handwriting skills?
Please provide a source for that assertion.
> Cursive writing results in less confusion for >children who have learning disabilities
I have learning disabilities and -- like many others who have them -- I was immensely confused by cursive writing although the teacher kept telling me that I couldn't and shouldn't be!
Among the many children (and adults) with learning disabilities who come to me for handwriting help, ALL had found that cursive writing confused them vastly and made things far, far worse for them.
Re:
> the smooth flow of cursive connected >letters is easier for children to master. In >addition, there is less confusion between >directions of letters such as ‘b’ and ‘d’ or ‘g’ >and ‘p’.
I was immensely confused -- and so have been others with my (and other) learning disabilities -- by the directions of these cursive letters as well as the directions of many other letters in cursive (including some which pose problems in cursive but not in other styles. Throughout many years of desperate cursive practice, I perennially reversed -- for instance -- the cursive "J" and the cursive "f": and I am far from the only one who has done that. Most of my cursive capitals tended towards reversal, too. When you tell me that cursive "is easier ... there is less confusion" for people with my problems, you are telling me actually that -- according to your theories -- I don't exist.)
> ... reading and writing has a ‘window of >opportunity’ that occurs before the age of 9 or >10.
Please substantiate that assertion. My first student (myself) was age 24 -- my second student was age 68 -- and at least half of my other students have been over 40.
Re:
> This is one of the reasons handwriting is so >important by>grades 2 and 3.
My second- and third-grade teachers (and subsequent teachers) believed as you do: that a "window" closes after that age. Should I have believed them?
Re:
> Studies have shown positive side effects of >handwriting include reducing depression, >blood pressure and boosting the immune >system (Swedlow 1999). Learning to write >helps children focus and concentrate and, in >addition, helps to calm the emotional part of >the brain.
Is the sentence following your Swerdlow citation also supported by Swerdlow? If so, that citation should have followed (not preceded) that sentence. If not, what substantiates that second assertion?
Re:
> Over 3,000 nerve endings in each fingertip >directly connected to the brain are stimulated >when writing.
The same is true of anything involving the fingertips -- e.g., video-gaming, or many other pursuits (licit and illicit) that one can readily think of.
Re:
> Marketing research shows that those receiving
>hand-addressed envelopes are seven times >more likely to open that letter.
So what? If those receiving misspelled envelopes in purple crayon were 14 times more likely to open them, would you urge us to write in purple crayon with frequent misspellings?
Re:
> Handwriting is an independent skill that >doesn’t rely on technology that at times may >not work. The portability of handwriting >allows it to be used when a laptop or other >electronic equipment would be less than >efficient. Many wonderful ideas have been >quickly written on serviettes or small pieces of >paper in restaurants. ...
Here, I agree.
Re:
> ... fine motor >skills required for handwriting can easily be >transferred to professions such a[s] dentists, >doctors and woodworkers.
Most dentists and doctors -- including a large number of expert surgeons -- have abominable handwriting. So do many highly skilled woodworkers. Plainly, they got there without the help of handwriting. The fact that handwriting demands fine motor skills does not make handwriting a good means of transferring those skills into dentistry, medicine, or woodworking (although handwriting helps members of any of those three professions keep their records).
> For teachers: Requiring students to write in >cursive throughout their elementary schooling >will facilitate the creation of the neurological >pathways for handwriting
Please substantiate: why, in your view, does only *cursive* (I presume) facilitate the creation of neurological pathways for handwriting?
> and increase their speed and stamina
Proficient cursive writers write /a/ fewer letters per minute (less speed) and /b/ less stamina (as measured by length of writing and willingness to write at length) than equally proficient non-cursive writers using Italic. Fact /a/ is from Percy Wood's 1952 observations of 20,000 UK students aged 7 through 19 who had been trained in a variety of writing methods, and is also corroborated by my own observations over the past 23 years: fact /b/ is purely from my own observations and the self-reports of others (students and their family members/schoolteachers/colleagues).
The difference of speed and stamina (between proficient cursive writers and equally proficient Italic writers) is a ratio of 3:2 in favor of Italic writers. (In other words, Italic writers produce 1 1/2 times as many letters per minute -- and can keep it up, legibly, 1 1/2 times as long.)
Re:
> … discipline and pride in >doing their best. … >students who maintain handwriting are better >at spelling, punctuation, sentence structure, >grammar and composition. ..
Again -- this supports handwriting; it fails to support, specifically, cursive.
>.Like the Traditional generation,
What is "the Traditional generation"? The first generation to learn cursive as we know it (the looped 100%-joined cursive that I believe you're advocating) was several hundred years later than -- hence, several hundred years less "Traditional" than -- the first generation to learn Italic. (As the style used in the first handwriting books published in our alphabet, Italic has a far stronger claim to tradition than any other style in use: as Italic is the oldest -- hence, most traditional -- handwriting style still being taught to any children.)
Re:
> People who are more interested in connecting >with others are also often more inclined to use >handwriting. By allowing enough time to be >given during a student’s education process to >master cursive writing,
Again: why are you saying or implying that only one style -- cursive -- brings the benefits of handwriting?
> ...children who develop a fluid style of writing >tend to excel in other subjects.
If "fluidity" has anything to do with speed of writing, then cursive (at best) is only second-best here: again, the fastest handwriters avoid it.
Yours for better letters, Kate Gladstone
http://www.HandwritingThatWorks.com
http://bit.ly/BetterLetters
Re:
> Handwriting is an independent skill that >doesn’t rely on technology that at times may >not work.
True -- but, again, this applies to all handwriting, not just to cursive.
Re:
> ... fine motor >skills required for handwriting can easily be >transferred to professions such a[s] dentists, >doctors and woodworkers.
Most dentists and doctors -- including a large number of expert surgeons -- have abominable handwriting. So do many highly skilled woodworkers. Plainly, they got there without the help of handwriting. The fact that handwriting demands fine motor skills does not make handwriting a good means of transferring those skills into dentistry, medicine, or woodworking (although handwriting helps members of any of those three professions keep their records).
> For teachers: Requiring students to write in >cursive throughout their elementary schooling >will facilitate the creation of the neurological >pathways for handwriting
Please substantiate: why, in your view, does only *cursive* (I presume) facilitate the creation of neurological pathways for handwriting?
> and increase their speed and stamina
Proficient cursive writers write /a/ fewer letters per minute (less speed) and /b/ less stamina (as measured by length of writing and willingness to write at length) than equally proficient non-cursive writers using Italic. Fact /a/ is from Percy Wood's 1952 observations of 20,000 UK students aged 7 through 19 who had been trained in a variety of writing methods, and is also corroborated by my own observations over the past 23 years: fact /b/ is purely from my own observations and the self-reports of others (students and their family members/schoolteachers/colleagues).
The difference of speed and stamina (between proficient cursive writers and equally proficient Italic writers) is a ratio of 3:2 in favor of Italic writers. (In other words, Italic writers produce 1 1/2 times as many letters per minute -- and can keep it up, legibly, 1 1/2 times as long.)
Re:
> Handwriting is an independent skill that >doesn’t rely on technology that at times may >not work.
True -- but, again, this applies to all handwriting, not just to cursive.
Re:
> ... fine motor >skills required for handwriting can easily be >transferred to professions such a[s] dentists, >doctors and woodworkers.
Most dentists and doctors -- including a large number of expert surgeons -- have abominable handwriting. So do many highly skilled woodworkers. Plainly, they got there without the help of handwriting. The fact that handwriting demands fine motor skills does not make handwriting a good means of transferring those skills into dentistry, medicine, or woodworking (although handwriting helps members of any of those three professions keep their records).
> For teachers: Requiring students to write in >cursive throughout their elementary schooling >will facilitate the creation of the neurological >pathways for handwriting
Please substantiate: why, in your view, does only *cursive* (I presume) facilitate the creation of neurological pathways for handwriting?
Re:
> ... and increase their speed and stamina
Proficient cursive writers write /a/ fewer letters per minute (less speed) and /b/ less stamina (as measured by length of writing and willingness to write at length) than equally proficient non-cursive writers using Italic. Fact /a/ is from Percy Wood's 1952 observations of 20,000 UK students aged 7 through 19 who had been trained in a variety of writing methods, and is also corroborated by my own observations over the past 23 years: fact /b/ is purely from my own observations and the self-reports of others (students and their family members/schoolteachers/colleagues).
The difference of speed and stamina (between proficient cursive writers and equally proficient Italic writers) is a ratio of 3:2 in favor of Italic writers. (In other words, Italic writers produce 1 1/2 times as many letters per minute -- and can keep it up, legibly, 1 1/2 times as long.)
Re:
> … discipline and pride in >doing their best. … >students who maintain handwriting are better >at spelling, punctuation, sentence structure, >grammar and composition. ..
Again -- this supports handwriting; it fails to support, specifically, cursive.
>.Like the Traditional generation,
What is "the Traditional generation"? The first generation to learn cursive as we know it (the looped 100%-joined cursive that I believe you're advocating) was several hundred years later than -- hence, several hundred years less "Traditional" than -- the first generation to learn Italic. (As the style used in the first handwriting books published in our alphabet, Italic has a far stronger claim to tradition than any other style in use: as Italic is the oldest -- hence, most traditional -- handwriting style still being taught to any children.)
Re:
> People who are more interested in connecting >with others are also often more inclined to use >handwriting. By allowing enough time to be >given during a student’s education process to >master cursive writing,
Again: why are you saying or implying that only one style -- cursive -- brings the benefits of handwriting?
> ...children who develop a fluid style of writing >tend to excel in other subjects.
If "fluidity" has anything to do with speed of writing, then cursive (at best) is only second-best here: again, the fastest handwriters avoid it.
Yours for better letters, Kate Gladstone
http://www.HandwritingThatWorks.com
http://bit.ly/BetterLetters
Re:
> ... and increase their speed and stamina
Proficient cursive writers write /a/ fewer letters per minute (less speed) and /b/ less stamina (as measured by length of writing and willingness to write at length) than equally proficient non-cursive writers using Italic. Fact /a/ is from Percy Wood's 1952 observations of 20,000 UK students aged 7 through 19 who had been trained in a variety of writing methods, and is also corroborated by my own observations over the past 23 years: fact /b/ is purely from my own observations and the self-reports of others (students and their family members/schoolteachers/colleagues).
The difference of speed and stamina (between proficient cursive writers and equally proficient Italic writers) is a ratio of 3:2 in favor of Italic writers. (In other words, Italic writers produce 1 1/2 times as many letters per minute -- and can keep it up, legibly, 1 1/2 times as long.)
Re:
> … discipline and pride in >doing their best. … >students who maintain handwriting are better >at spelling, punctuation, sentence structure, >grammar and composition. ..
Again -- this supports handwriting; it fails to support, specifically, cursive.
>.Like the Traditional generation,
What is "the Traditional generation"? The first generation to learn cursive as we know it (the looped 100%-joined cursive that I believe you're advocating) was several hundred years later than -- hence, several hundred years less "Traditional" than -- the first generation to learn Italic. (As the style used in the first handwriting books published in our alphabet, Italic has a far stronger claim to tradition than any other style in use: as Italic is the oldest -- hence, most traditional -- handwriting style still being taught to any children.)
Re:
> People who are more interested in connecting >with others are also often more inclined to use >handwriting. By allowing enough time to be >given during a student’s education process to >master cursive writing,
Again: why are you saying or implying that only one style -- cursive -- brings the benefits of handwriting?
> ...children who develop a fluid style of writing >tend to excel in other subjects.
If "fluidity" has anything to do with speed of writing, then cursive (at best) is only second-best here: again, the fastest handwriters avoid it.
Yours for better letters, Kate Gladstone
http://www.HandwritingThatWorks.com
http://bit.ly/BetterLetters
Well I was looking some legal procedure for my case testimonial about Handwriting expert and Handwriting analyst in Google although I have done lot of research and development about Handwriting analysis before suddenly my search stopped me at your blog I really enjoyed reading it. I'm supposed to be somewhere else in a minute but I stuck to reading the story. I love Your Blog……..
Forged documents
Post a Comment