Wouldn’t shorthand (stenography) be a better solution then?
Cursive was very specifically a solution to quill/fountain pens of old, where you needed to reduce the times the pen touched the paper.
I think there’s validity in learning/teaching cursive, if you’re proficient it’s a much faster way of writing. Handwritten notetaking has been shown to be more effective than digital in terms of concept retention (you’re not just regurgitating content verbatim), and cursive can facilitate better notetaking. I’d argue its setting students up for better outcomes in secondary and post-secondary institutions.
Regardless of that I do agree with your view, we should not just continue things for the sake of tradition, young people aren’t “terrible” for forsaking certain traditions. If anything, re-evaluating what we hold as important is a useful exercise, especially when it comes to education.
Nollij@sopuli.xyz 4 days ago
mushroommunk@lemmy.today 4 days ago
Reading through these comments and I’m just now realizing something; I’ve never gone searching to see data on if cursive actually is faster on average and if so, how much. And does that handwriting improves memory fact apply more to cursive or print writing or equally just because it uses more muscles in general?
I’d imagine it would partially depend on the script chosen, ligature vs looped, Spencerian vs New American vs D’nealian etc for speed but the memory thing I’ve got no guess.