3 ms·

In peer-reviewed studies, writing cursive has been linked to deeper processing of the language than printing, just as printing has been over typing. Early L1 d

In peer-reviewed studies, writing cursive has been linked to deeper processing of the language than printing, just as printing has been over typing. Early L1 development concerns aside, learning cursive was a pretty good ROI for me given how little time it took as a seven year-old, and how much time cursive has saved me over the years since. Related research: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7399101/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7399101/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4274624/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4274624/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5422512/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5422512/

Macha 4y ago
So despite containing cursive in the title, the first study appears to be comparing handwriting as a whole vs typing, not print vs cursive handwriting. The second study compares handwriting vs tracing vs typing, again no cursive vs print. The third study compares drawing vs typing, it doesn't address handwriting. Also all of them are using proxy measures like brain activity and not recall of the studied material. I could actually accept the more laborious and slower process of handwriting may slow kids down and therefore spend more time thinking about a subject as a hypothesis, but that's not what was tested here. Such a hypothesis would however favour print handwriting more than the theoretically faster cursive.
- AlchemistCamp 4y ago
  Here’s one more narrowly focused on what you’re looking for. It compares students taught cursive writing, printing and a mix of both. The students who only printed lagged on every metric: https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/langandlit/index.php/langandlit/article/download/11028/13067 https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/langandlit/index.php/la...
  - robocat 4y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_c... Does the paper have any relevance to whether teaching cursive helps (causes) learning more generally?
  - titoCA321 4y ago
    Enough with "studies." I have multiple studies correlating that smokers survive COVID-19 hospitalization better than non-smokers. Should we adopt smoking as a health policy against COVID? I don't think it would be a wise recommendation when factoring in other health risks associated with smoking. There's a few studies showing how SAT scores declined once American studies stopped praying in school.
IIAOPSW 4y ago
Deeper processing isn't necessarily better. I would bet it also takes "deeper processing" to learn all the characters in written Chinese. There's been movements to simplify Chinese, but never movements to complicate English. Language is best when it uses as little processing as possible. Its meant to be a medium, not a mental task in its own right. So taking your research claims at face value, that's not actually evidence that cursive is good. In fact, its the opposite.

Macha 4y ago

So despite containing cursive in the title, the first study appears to be comparing handwriting as a whole vs typing, not print vs cursive handwriting. The second study compares handwriting vs tracing vs typing, again no cursive vs print. The third study compares drawing vs typing, it doesn't address handwriting. Also all of them are using proxy measures like brain activity and not recall of the studied material. I could actually accept the more laborious and slower process of handwriting may slow kids down and therefore spend more time thinking about a subject as a hypothesis, but that's not what was tested here. Such a hypothesis would however favour print handwriting more than the theoretically faster cursive.

AlchemistCamp 4y ago
Here’s one more narrowly focused on what you’re looking for. It compares students taught cursive writing, printing and a mix of both. The students who only printed lagged on every metric: https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/langandlit/index.php/langandlit/article/download/11028/13067 https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/langandlit/index.php/la...
- robocat 4y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_c... Does the paper have any relevance to whether teaching cursive helps (causes) learning more generally?
- titoCA321 4y ago
  Enough with "studies." I have multiple studies correlating that smokers survive COVID-19 hospitalization better than non-smokers. Should we adopt smoking as a health policy against COVID? I don't think it would be a wise recommendation when factoring in other health risks associated with smoking. There's a few studies showing how SAT scores declined once American studies stopped praying in school.

IIAOPSW 4y ago

Deeper processing isn't necessarily better. I would bet it also takes "deeper processing" to learn all the characters in written Chinese. There's been movements to simplify Chinese, but never movements to complicate English. Language is best when it uses as little processing as possible. Its meant to be a medium, not a mental task in its own right. So taking your research claims at face value, that's not actually evidence that cursive is good. In fact, its the opposite.