588
I've heard some schools are reintroducing it now, but that doesn't help those that never learned.
(startrek.website)
this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
588 points (94.1% liked)
Microblog Memes
5793 readers
2858 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think it should still be taught, but maybe just do it in a higher grade and don't treat it as an important lesson.
It's honestly something where you can learn 95% of it just by seeing it over and over again.
But why learn it at all? There are a lot of useful things that could be taught in schools but aren’t. Why should cursive have a spot?
Because there's lots of old documents and letters written in cursive, so it's a useful skill for anyone interested in history.
Any historically significant document has been / will be transcribed so it’s not so much “useful” as it is a niche “novelty.” That would certainly make it a fun learn for history geeks who want to read historical documents in their original form, however that doesn’t make it a very practical skill to teach the majority of school students across the country.
Being able to read my not-transcribed great-grandmothers letters to my mom is a nice perk of being able to read cursive. And it's really not hard to learn, and takes little class time.
I don’t think it’d be prudent to add cursive to standard curriculums across the nation so that the nations children can read your great-grandmothers letters to your mom. That’s a good case for an extracurricular lesson or two perhaps, for you personally.
Yeah, cause I'm the only person out there with ancestors.
Are you being purposefully dumb?
Of all the challenges our education system needs to improve on, from basic financial literacy to appropriate and sex and health education, your suggestion is to take up valuable classroom time that’s in short supply as it is to teach kids across the nation to be able to read their great grand parents love notes that may or may not exist? If we’re throwing the word dumb around…
Maybe if you personally have a treasure trove of ancient ancestor love notes that you need to be able to read so badly, you could engage in extracurricular cursive learning? And save our nations children’s valuable class time for something that’s more applicable to their daily life than one niche use case?
You are massively overestimation how much time it takes to learn cursive.
Also I learned cursive in first grade, when classes on basic financial literacy and sex education are entirely useless.
You really are just being dumb. Learning cursive is a useful skill, and takes almost no class time at an age when advanced subjects will just be forgotten or not at all understood.
You are massively overestimating how useful of a skill cursive is. The only use case you could come up with was “reading ancient family letters” as if that warrants literally any time in the US education system.
What you don’t seem to understand is that we used to teach cursive in school. It was determined that reading great grand dad’s love letter to great grand mom was not useful enough to continue teaching it. We have adults today who never learned cursive and objectively speaking absolutely nothing of value was lost. So if you want to make the case that it’s worth teaching again you’re going to have to come up with a whole host of much better reasons. There are many things that take varying levels of time and effort to teach in schools of all grade levels, and I don’t think cursive can beat out any of them. American society as a whole disagrees with your entire premise and I’m inclined to agree with them.
And what other skills can we effectively teach six year olds that we aren't already teaching them at that age? Skills they can actually understand and remember.
And it's being able to read any historical documents, family letters are just one example I gave. And being able to read documents yourself means you either transcribe it yourself, or verify others transcriptions. If no one can read cursive, you can;t trust the accuracy of previous transcriptions.
So yeah, it's still somewhat useful, and a lot more useful than most things we can get 6 year olds to remember.
Man, you are dying on dumb hill here.
We are currently teaching six year olds skills they need, without cursive. I don’t think any of them are good candidates for removal. And if we were to add more, cursive would certainly be at the bottom of the list.
And we’ve already gone over historical documents, they’ve been transcribed. Some irrational fear of transcription isn’t a good reason to teach cursive. There are far more historical documents that exist in other languages, than there are in modern English cursive, so in your scenario we’d have to teach every kid to read and write in every single language that currently exists or used to exist just so that every single person in the country can verify the authenticity of every transcription ever made? If you can’t trust ANY historian or educator to relay information accurately then what are we supposed to do, abolish the school system entirely? Nobody can learn anything from anybody else because nobody can trust anyone but themselves? Ok bud you keep your tinfoil hat on?
It’s unlikely I’m on the dumb hill since I’m on the hill that has already prevailed. I stand on this hill with the rest of American society and educators who seem to be doing just fine… you can die alone on your hill I guess.
Name them. I learned cursive and a bunch of other subjects at 6, and I don't feel like cursive needed to be replaced by anything.
And by your logic we should just stop teaching history, because it's already been studied. Let's stop teaching math because we already created calculators. Let's stop teaching second languages, because other people have already translated things.
hahahahaha, American education is garbage these days, no wonder you're stuck on dumb hill.
Cursive has been replaced by keyboarding and computer skills. Both far more useful and relevant in the age we live in.
Uh, that would be your logic. Because you don’t trust somebody who studied history to teach it to you, because in your mind you can only trust things you’ve seen yourself, remember? We teach history out of books that were written by historians and educators, just like we study historical documents transcribed by historians and educators.
Calculators don’t do math for you. You have to understand math to use a calculator.
We don’t learn second languages in order to transcribe things which have already been translated. You learn a second language to speak a second language.
Maybe I’d be less dumb if I didn’t waste so much time learning cursive?
And maybe if you wasted less time learning cursive you could have learned how to follow your own thread of logic? You’re literally all over the place and you’re devolving into more and more nonsense. It’s shocking how much energy you’ve wasted championing a dead and buried art for absolutely no reason.
I took those as well as cursive. Plenty of time for both.
And it's always better to have the skills to read them yourself. And being able to read cursive opens up lots of interesting documents, many of which have not been transcribed.
And once again, cursive is extremely easy to learn.
And to read in that language, and to translate from that language. Learning cursive is like learning a language, yet it is extremely easy to learn.
What time? Cursive takes almost no time to learn. I learned it at the same time as learning print writing. It added almost no time to our writing classes, and I have the ability to read and write in both.
Why are you wasting your energy on this then? You could have shut up many comments ago
The cognitive impacts of handwriting vs typing are actually pretty major especially for cursive. Handwriting does things to your mind that typing just doesn’t do nearly as well.
Not sure that means cursive needs to be taught in school, I don’t feel that strongly on it either way, but handwriting is easy to dismiss as an outdated method of recording information without realizing the greater value it has as a generative thinking process that facilitates mental plasticity.
We haven’t figured out how to replicate that power yet with keyboards and computers. I imagine eink tablets with styluses do a similar thing to the brain but that is still handwriting just on a digital screen.
It makes me sad sometimes that a lot of adults I know will just laugh at the idea of using a pen and paper to handwrite something and totally miss the point that handwriting things is only tangentially about recording information.
In that case we should learn tachygraphy/stenography, that would be a game changer for note taking.
Could you elaborate (the italicized part)?
My understanding was that its purpose was about notation/writing speed, in an age before typewriters/keyboards.
To use an analogy, it's the morse code of writing, something that's not really needed today.
I understand that perspective, no doubt typewriters and keyboards are a fantastic technology. Not that this really needs to be said but I don't want to make it seem like I am just shaking my fist angrily at the future.
However, the pen/pencil and paper is an extremely powerful technology and in many senses the rise of typewriters, keyboards and computers in general has made it more clear precisely what is so powerful about the technology.
It is a reasonable approximation to think of the process of handwriting as thinking of words you want to write and then just writing them out. The reality though is the physical motor task of handwriting feedbacks back into the cognition and impacts your thinking and memory retention. The specifics of that are complex on the neuroscience side, but we don't really to go deep down into the science. All you need to really understand is that the medium that we record and process information has an effect upon how our brain processes that information. Different connections are made, different things are obvious, different mistakes and discoveries are made.
One straightforward example is for many people when they are experiencing intense emotions or a difficult decision, the process of simply writing down how they feel can have a surprisingly significant impact on helping process those emotions. It isn't the notes the person makes at the end that matter, it is something about the process of handwriting (independent of metrics like how quickly information can be recorded) that does something that typing the same thing out on a computer doesn't do as well. Try it.
A more abstract advantage of pen and paper is that the process of idea generation can proceed extremely far before any explicit context needs to be defined for the idea. On a computer before you begin a project or try to flesh out an idea you have to decide what digital format to put your notes in (a word document? plain text? spreadsheet? a notes app? google doc?), create a file somewhere and then decide how many files of that type you will have for that project, how you will organize them and other decisions that are necessary to contextualize the idea you are developing. Whatever file type and subsequent software you choose to type in sets certain strict limitations on how you can extrapolate and manipulate on what you write. It makes certain kinds of directions an idea can travel in much much more difficult. A pen and paper has strict limitations too, a limited amount of space, a limited capacity to erase and no fast way to search for specific information but these limitations don't frontload the need for careful categorization at the beginning of the process. What you begin to write on a piece of paper can become anything, it can radically transform from one type of idea or data into another in a natural fashion. Your brain can make creative connections, uncover insights and most importantly radically recontextualize information when using a pen and paper in a way that nothing except an eink tablet with a stylus or maybeee org mode in emacs can even hope to come close to.
I am super ADHD, I lose everything includes notes, so I try to type important things up in digital documents. However I take out a pen and paper (or my supernote) and handwrite out my ideas and thoughts all the time. For big projects or ideas after I have developed an idea enough to understand the best digital context for it I can just transfer it (that transfer "cost" of having to type it out just being another mental processing step in reality) into some kind of digital form after context and structure has become a lot easier to define. For small projects the idea can live its whole life on the paper and never need to be recorded, the benefit living in solely in my head.
In general I think we should think deeply about why we have such narrow definitions of "technology" and what unconscious biases are embedded in it ("technology" must be hardware with computer chips or touchscreens or advanced sensors).
It’s not a matter of handwriting vs typing, we still teach handwriting in school and always will, and we don’t teach typing at all.
It’s a question of whether we teach cursive in addition to handwriting. Non-cursive print is necessary as most official writing Americans will do in their lives requires it. It’s also more than good enough for journaling, note taking, and personal letters. Those who hand write a lot will even use joined-up writing to increase their writing speed, which just leaves no purpose left for the use of cursive besides the elegance.
I had typing classes.
Typing classes were briefly popular during the advent of the computer workstation, but they’re pretty rare these days. They’re not part of required curriculums so not a lot of schools teach typing or “keyboarding”. Some may still teach it, though some still teach cursive.
Cursive isn't necessarily more difficult for all students, for some students cursive is easier to grasp (and helps them learn to write print better as well).
It’s not a matter of difficulty, it’s a matter of benefit vs the cost of resources. You can’t eliminate the teaching of print handwriting, so if you want to teach cursive you have to do that in addition to teaching print handwriting. There is limited space in a school’s curriculum, and though there would be some personal benefit to teach cursive, there isn’t enough practical benefit to include it over other subjects.
You have to remember that school is compulsory in the U.S. and so public schools need to choose subject matter that will best prepare the average student for adult life. Cursive is more useful as an art form than as a practical skill, and there are better art forms to teach in school as well that allow for more creative expression.
Cursive writing might be personally enlightening for students that enjoy it, but it’s not something that needs to be or should be taught as part of the required curriculum.
I suppose it shows the lack of cursive education that y’all are calling cursive an art for . Definitely not. You want calligraphy. Cursive is connected writing with modifications to make it smoother and more efficient to write
We have connected writing with modifications to make it smoother and more efficient to write. This is often taught in school and is very commonly used. “Cursive” to an American however refers to a very specific type of script which is much closer to calligraphy than it is regular handwriting and it’s this type of script that the post is referring to.