Actually, I do look at the keys when I type. Not because I can't type without doing so, but because I just do it faster this way.Loonyyy said:
Kansas may halt cursive education
- Thread starter senordesol
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think you should know cursive but you shouldn't be required to use it. Some basics of it should be taught,in school, though, alongside typing.
I have my own style of shorthand that's evolved from my cursive that's incomprehensible to anyone else.
Taking notes with a laptop isn't always the most practical way. Especially if you study subject where you have to make notes on a field or in a lab. Electronic devices are getting smaller and better, but still, most people who study the same subjects I do (geology, biology, chemistry) take notes by hand.Aris Khandr said:
I have my own style of shorthand that's evolved from my cursive that's incomprehensible to anyone else.
Cursive looks nicer, but in this computer age you don't really write much by hand except for signatures and grocery lists...
I wrote cursive from when I was taught it(by the age of eight I believe) until I was thirteen, then my Swedish teacher forced me to write "normally" since she couldn't read what I was writing.
Can't say I care about this matter. Print writing looks like a childs handwriting in most cases though.
I wrote cursive from when I was taught it(by the age of eight I believe) until I was thirteen, then my Swedish teacher forced me to write "normally" since she couldn't read what I was writing.
Can't say I care about this matter. Print writing looks like a childs handwriting in most cases though.
Printing isn't any faster or slower than handwriting (aka "cursive") by default. The speed of your writing hinges on legibility and your fine motor skills.aba1 said:
The more legible your handwriting/printing is, the slower it becomes. People who print tend to favor and prioritize legibility so they tend to be slower, whereas people who handwrite tend to favor and prioritize speed so their legibility suffers. But studies show that handwriting tends not to be any faster than printing for people who undergo extensive penmanship workshops for both printing and handwriting (i.e. are roughly equally skilled in both). This is because people with illegible handwriting tend to have illegible printing, and people with neat printing tend to have beautiful handwriting. It's hypothesized that handwriting and printing take roughly the same number of strokes of the same general length to form words, and that releasing the pen/pencil from the page when preparing to print another letter really isn't that different from or slower than not releasing the pen/pencil from the page when handwriting.
I'm one of the minority of printers who writes quickly and messily (in fact, I'm in such a minority that I print faster than most writers). My wrist and arms tend to cramp up rather quickly if I try to print quickly after long stints of not printing at top speed, though.
=PKeyMaster45 said:
Seriously, you didn't notice that that was a typo and had to be all arrogant about it?
My intention of that was never look at the keyboard - I am always looking at the screen or at my notes. What's the point of subconsciously knowing the layout of the keyboard if you're just going to look at it the whole time?
Its not that hard, and being an ass about a typo is almost hypocritical given your 'snot-brained kid' comment.
Point being, I don't need to position my fingers and think about where each key is in relation to them - like you are taught to in touch typing - nor look at the keyboard to be able to type entire books worth of content at high speeds with few errors that aren't caused by my brain not being focused on what I'm typing [Like with my first post] - I just instinctively know where everything on the keyboard is and can move my hands according to the needs of the word, rather than keeping them in a fixed position so my style of typing doesn't screw up. If anything it requires less thought than touch typing as the entire process just goes on without me even thinking about it - like speaking in everyday life; you don't think about how you should move your mouth to pronounce each word, you just pronounce them.
Hence why touch typing, IMO, should be based around intensive keyboard usage rather than a rigid technique. If you use a keyboard loads, you learn the layout without even trying, and you gain the ability to type without looking. All that keeping your hands in fixed positions does is slow you down whilst your learning, and force you to occupy those fixed positions until you get good enough at that style of touch typing to learn the layout of the keyboard and not rely on positioning of hands and fingers.
Fixing that typo now, thanks.
To the people saying cursive is faster: it isn't.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/996624?uid=3739960&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101286207793/
There are other studies out there, but they generally end up the same. The fastest, most legible hand writing is a combination of cursive joining at certain points with mostly print style letters. Neither printing nor cursive is inherently faster than the other in its pure form.
Also in terms of recognizing script vs cursive:
http://lianza.org/files/cursivevsprint.pdf
A study that tried to show that the type of writing we are accustomed to will be recognized faster but it turned out that print was more quickly recognized than script in all cases. There are, of course, some warnings in the discussion about reading too much into a correlational study and some of the limitations but, again, if you want to search you will find largely the same results with other studies.
Granted, there are benefits to teaching cursive writing, especially in developmental stages of childhood. But in terms of value as a communication medium, it really doesn't have much leg to stand on.
I personally think that the time spent teaching children an alternative writing form, since they teach print first regardless (here in the US, anyway), would be better spent teaching other languages, something the US does a piss poor job of.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/996624?uid=3739960&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101286207793/
There are other studies out there, but they generally end up the same. The fastest, most legible hand writing is a combination of cursive joining at certain points with mostly print style letters. Neither printing nor cursive is inherently faster than the other in its pure form.
Also in terms of recognizing script vs cursive:
http://lianza.org/files/cursivevsprint.pdf
A study that tried to show that the type of writing we are accustomed to will be recognized faster but it turned out that print was more quickly recognized than script in all cases. There are, of course, some warnings in the discussion about reading too much into a correlational study and some of the limitations but, again, if you want to search you will find largely the same results with other studies.
Granted, there are benefits to teaching cursive writing, especially in developmental stages of childhood. But in terms of value as a communication medium, it really doesn't have much leg to stand on.
I personally think that the time spent teaching children an alternative writing form, since they teach print first regardless (here in the US, anyway), would be better spent teaching other languages, something the US does a piss poor job of.
I use it, but not the general accepted form of it. I use it mostly just because I like mathematical x's.Aris Khandr said:
Good, I've never liked cursive. It's hard to read if you aren't used to it. Takes time to get good with. Plus it's totally incompatible with the digital age.
All 95% of us need it for is signatures, and signatures should be phased out anyway, they're a ridiculous concept when you think about it. They never look like anything, are easily forged. They're archaic. I'd much rather use thumbprints or something else more easy and practical.
All 95% of us need it for is signatures, and signatures should be phased out anyway, they're a ridiculous concept when you think about it. They never look like anything, are easily forged. They're archaic. I'd much rather use thumbprints or something else more easy and practical.
I remember my elementary teachers telling me, "You'll need cursive in middle school!" Outside of a refresher course in sixth grade, never used it. Said my teacher, "You'll use cursive for everything in high school!"
High school rolls along, and... what the fuck is a cursive?
I never use cursive. Not even for signatures. Good on Kansas.
High school rolls along, and... what the fuck is a cursive?
I never use cursive. Not even for signatures. Good on Kansas.
All very well, but until exams are held on computers cursive needs to stay. I have a slightly heavy-handed writing style, although very legible, that made it incredibly difficult for me to write even a decent-sized essay in my HSC exams. I practically sawed my own fingertips off with the adjacent fingernails. But even that aside, you don't need nearly as much time to learn how to type as you do to write properly. It's not something you perfect, it's something you know, and I doubt kids do as much cursive writing in their free time as they do typing.
This is good news. I hated cursive, and now the only thing I use it for is my signature... like pretty much everyone else.
And, as stated, your signature doesn't even have to be legible. In fact, the less legible it is, the better. I sign mine with multiple smiley faces. Yes, multiple smiley faces. I am an artist.
And, as stated, your signature doesn't even have to be legible. In fact, the less legible it is, the better. I sign mine with multiple smiley faces. Yes, multiple smiley faces. I am an artist.
People aren't necesserily sitting in front of a computer their whole life, FFS America do you really want your next generation to only be able to communicate through a fricken keyboard?
Get rid of cursive, then handwriting alltogether I'm guessing - hell, whatever makes it even harder for your kids to find a job - why bother learning English, or social skills, or anything at all that isn't spoon fed through a computer screen. Hell, why do we even need teachers these days if handwriting is on it's way out. God damn pens and pencils holding us back.
Get rid of cursive, then handwriting alltogether I'm guessing - hell, whatever makes it even harder for your kids to find a job - why bother learning English, or social skills, or anything at all that isn't spoon fed through a computer screen. Hell, why do we even need teachers these days if handwriting is on it's way out. God damn pens and pencils holding us back.
I agree. I was forced to learn it at primary school, then forced to unlearn it at secondary school, where teachers demanded written work be printed (so they could read it more easily).Aris Khandr said:
I tend to write notes to myself cursive because it's slightly faster. But I don't write anything cursive that needs to be read by anyone else.
I have never heard of "Cursive" before. I looked it up and it is apparently an old way of saying joined up handwriting. I never write in this way because it slows me down. I like to write things by hand, but I never join the letters.
My opinion is that it should still be taught as handwriting can be useful in a large number of areas, but it needs to take less of a prominent role.
My opinion is that it should still be taught as handwriting can be useful in a large number of areas, but it needs to take less of a prominent role.
They're getting rid of lessons in a style of handwriting, not lessons in handwriting in general. Cursive writing is difficult to do well, and difficult to read even when done well. "Pretty" handwriting is far less important then being able to write clearly.surg3n said:
I was forced to learn cursive at primary school (we called it "joined up writing") then had to unlearn it very quickly at secondary school (where the teachers demanded printed handwriting to make it easier for them to read and mark).
I write things with a pen on paper almost every day, I find it difficult to understand how people wouldn't.Aris Khandr said:
Could you help me with something? Is "cursive" handwriting in general or just when the letters are joined? If it is the latter your statement makes perfect sense to me.
I do not write with joined letters because it is awkward and uncomfortable for me. My writing is much more legible without. I don't see how it would be an issue in schools or in life whether someone joins their letters or not.Gavmando said:
If you can't read it, it's not done properly.ohnoitsabear said:
The letters still need to be legible otherwise it's no better than messy printed writing.
I think cursive is great, if you want to use it use it. But I also think it's a waste of time.
It's like dancing. I think it's great, but forcing everyone to do it is stupid because most people can't/don't want to do it.
I never learned cursive because I despised it and refused.
I had a friend who was banned from it due to how messy his writing was.
If you can't do it properly, don't do it at all. I don't think it's worth teaching, handwriting in general still needs to be taught, but not cursive specifically.