Montessori for Everyone Logo
Sign up for our email newsletter:       

Cursive vs. Printing: Is One Better Than the Other?

Recently, one of my colleagues emailed me some interesting thoughts about cursive and asked for my input. I was happy to dive into this controversial topic!

People are often surprised to see that cursive script is taught before print in many Montessori classrooms. In fact, the Montessori materials in numerous 3-6 classrooms are all in cursive: sandpaper letters, movable alphabet, green boards, chalkboards, and all handwritten materials. However, there are also Montessori schools that teach printing first and then cursive. Is one better than the other? Should cursive always be taught first? Here’s a look at some pros and cons of each.

Benefits to teaching cursive first:


1. Cursive writing is a more natural way of writing. The pencil flows along the paper without frequent stops within words.

2. There is less confusion and reversal between the cursive forms of the letters 'b', 'd', 'p', and 'q' as there is in the print form.

3. Words written in cursive are clearly separated from each other. Run-on words are not as common in cursive.

4. The child who can read cursive can also read manuscript, but the reverse is not true.

5. Cursive is a better exercise for strengthening fine motor skills. The connecting letters help the child to produce smooth, rather than choppy, strokes with the pencil.

Benefits to teaching printing first:


1. Print is much more widely used. Most books and educational materials use printing.

2. The printed movable alphabet is easier to use than the cursive one. The cursive movable alphabet is a sort of "imposter" cursive: the letters are formed in a cursive style, but they’re not connected. This can pose difficulty to a child who's trying to transcribe a story written with the cursive movable alphabet.

3. A child may learn printing at home, but form some letters incorrectly. In terms of muscle memory, they might be better served by learning printed letters correctly first, before learning cursive. They may also be in situations where they are required to print (a testing form, for instance) when knowing cursive only would be a drawback.

4. Cursive is less legible and harder to read. Need proof? Any form that says "Please print". Post offices prefer printed addresses for the same reason.

5. In terms of writing, it's very true that a cursive "b" and "d" look less like each other than their printed versions. However, current research into dyslexia and other learning disabilities show that there's far more happening in the brain than a simple flip-flip. Children who struggle with reading and writing are experiencing a disconnect between the part of the brain that "sees" letters and the part of the brain that "identifies" letters.

Since the majority of books and learning materials use print rather than cursive, is learning the cursive versions of reversible letters actually going to help the child? Perhaps it will help them when writing, but most likely not when reading. At some point, the child will have to learn to print "b"s and "d"s correctly, and delaying that process by teaching cursive first might actually be detrimental. (For more on how the brain translates letters into sounds and then words, please see my article How Do Children Learn to Read?)

Some additional thoughts:


There are many other ways to strengthen fine motor skills than learning cursive. The question is this: is cursive necessary for the refinement of fine motor skills? Is it the best way to teach fine motor skills? We offer all sorts of work in 3-6, from small puzzle knobs and tweezing to punching and bead stringing. Is cursive a necessary addition to this mix? Since most of us learned cursive in elementary school, it's obviously possible to do so without learning it in preschool.

One common reason mentioned in favor of cursive is that it's faster. I was delighted to find several studies online that concluded that cursive is not faster than printing. The fastest way of writing, interestingly, was a combination of cursive and printing that joined some letters but left others unjoined. I laughed when I read this, because that's exactly how I take notes when I need to be writing quickly. For many children, writing in cursive is much slower than using printed letters.

Throughout most of human history, writing consisted stick figures, not circular or flowing figures (and the stick figures were not attached to each other). In at least two common forms of historic cursive, the letters are rounded but not joined (Hebrew Cursive and Latin or Roman Cursive). Cursive as we know it began in the mid-1700’s; almost yesterday in terms of humans and written forms of communication. Cursive is actually a recent development, and one that might be on the way out as technology continues to grow.

Some schools have decided to use D’Nealian script – a sort of cursive/print hybrid – as an answer to the printing/cursive debate. I have no experience with D'Nealian, except that Sister Mary, my Montessori elementary trainer, felt that kids who use it never quite learn printing or cursive very well. She taught printing first and then started cursive at the beginning of second grade. My opinion is completely subjective, but I will say this: in the ten years of my teaching career post-training, almost everything Sister Mary taught me has been proven true, and the children in her classes always had beautiful penmanship.

Can you tell that I have a bias towards printing? I tried to hide it but couldn't. As a left-hander, I find it much easier to keep from smudging when I use printing (I think it has to do with the angle of the pen and paper needed for cursive.) While I was researching this issue, I began to feel that Montessorians continue to champion cursive is because it hearkens back to an earlier era in the history of the Western world. A time when all the things we value – beautiful penmanship, lovely manners, time spent in nature rather than in front of the television – were the norm for children everywhere. It's one more way for us to be anti-culture. And there's nothing wrong with bucking current trends, as long as our decisions are truly beneficial to children, and not just for the sake of being different.

Please share your own experiences with printing, cursive, and handwriting in general. I would love to hear opinions on both sides of the debate. Let’s learn from each other!

Comments:

    5:51 AMBlogger Theresa said…

    HI Lori.
    I, too am a fan of printing for the very young.I can also see the benefits of learning cursive, but I just don't think it should be first.
    I think the goal in preschool should be preparing the child to learn to read, and printing does that better than cursive, as most books are in print (this is also why I don't teach italic handwriting to littles, though I think it is lovely). I also think that, as you pointed out, there are plenty of ways in which small motor development are addressed in the Montessori pre-school without adding cursive to the mix.
    I do admit, however that I have not read very much on the proposed benefits of cursive first, so I am open to changing my opinion on this.
    The one thing I will never change my opinion on, however, is D'Nealian. Yuck! Your mentor was right on target about that! My oldest son was homeschooled for pre-K and K and had beautiful print handwriting. Then I had to send him to school for awhile, where they taught him D'Nealian. His lovely handwriting became rapidly illegible and has never recovered.I saw the same pattern time and time again as a middle school teacher, with kids with completely illegible writing. Most of them, it turns out, were D'Nealian graduates.

    Your historical perspective on cursive is very interesting.I guess if one takes the long view, cursive itself could be seen as a "fad" that may or may not stick around. I personally do not see why it should, given the modern prevalence of word-processing.It could be that cursive will die out altogether and just end up one of those quaint customs of the past.

     

    6:29 AMBlogger montessori_lori said…

    I really appreciate your thoughts, Theresa. Especially your real life experience with D'Nealian. Very good information.

    One thing I read over and over was that typing is an extremely important skill that all kids should learn in school. When they reach junior high/high school, they *must* know how to type well in order to use a computer for research and writing. The only thing they need to be able to do in cursive is sign their name.

     

    7:39 PMBlogger Lorraine said…

    Thanks Lori for this thoughtful post! I've struggled for a while with this and have changed my mind twice already about what to teach first. I guess I'm pretty happy that my daughter writes anything at all. I don't push her either way right now, but I think she prefers print over cursive since all books are in print. She reverses b's and d's some times, but less often than before so I think it will improve with time. And it is funny to read about the fastest writing being a combination of print/cursive... that's how I write too :)

     

    9:19 PMBlogger montessori_lori said…

    You make a great point - if Montessori is about following the child, then it might be good to look at what the child prefers. If they prefer one over the other, you can go with that one.

    The reversals do improve with time, and are completely normal, so I don't think that's a sign that the child should switch to cursive.

     

    9:41 PMAnonymous Anonymous said…

    Very interesting comments about the cursive vs print debate. I have to chime in as in favor of teacing cursive before printing for the following reasons.

    1- When working with the sandpaper letters I find the cursive letters less confusing for the children, the staring point is always the same (base line, going up. Print on the other hand has how many different starting points(?).

    2- The cursive letters can be taught in four basic groups (later when working on pennmanship). Take c, a, d, g, q, for example. The child practices with the cursive "c" and gains skill, the "a" can be practiced by making the "c" and adding a small line up to close the gap, trace down and leave a loop. When the "a" is looking good he can move on in this same way to the "d" then "g" and so on. Amazingly enough each of the letters fits well into one of 4 groups like this.

    3- My experience over the years has been that the children do not have any issues learing to write cursive and read in print. I use cursive sandpaper letter, the first moveable alphabet in cursive, and the first reading works, books and lists in cursive. The moveable alphabet for phonograms and puzzle words I use in print. Language works after those introduction ones are a mixtre of different fonts, both cursive an pring. By the time the children are reading in "Bob" books there read both print and cursive.

    4- In kindergarten the children begin to practice print on their own from just natural curosity,they see it everywhere. It is easy to pick up because it straight lines,diagonal lines, circles, and semi-circles. I give lessons as necessary, just as I do with cursive to practice and encourage good penmanship.

    5- It is expected that children learn to write cursive by third grade (state standard even). Why teach writing twice?? Those with no exposure don't like the change in third grade (ask any parent or third grade teacher). For those at least exposed in the primary class who go on to public school and use print the transition should be a lot easier as it was taught during the time of the absorbent mind. Same reason we teach so much math, geo, science, etc. so it will be there later.

    I dont mean to go on and on. Maria Montessori was a genius in her time and still today. Every year I discover something new when giving lessons.

    When I ask others who teach print the usual answers are "thats just what I've always done", "most of my kids go on to public school and have to print" or "I feel more comfortable with it". While I can certianly see that, my experience is that cursive first works very well. It was a difficult change for me in the begining,now I feel stongly that in the end the children benefit from learning cursive.

    I am new to your site and loving it!! You have great topics for thought!!

    THANKS

     

    9:46 PMBlogger montessori_lori said…

    Ooo, I like your thoughts. Especially points one and two - those help so much with the "how" of teaching cursive first, if someone chooses to do so. Also interesting that kids kind of learn to print on their own, just by seeing it around them.

    Thank you so much for stopping by, and I'm really glad you like my site!

     

    6:39 AMAnonymous MJE said…

    Instead of print or cursive, how about italic? I have been using the Portland Italic series and I think it results in much more legible handwriting. It is, as you say, a combination—rounded strokes, but not all connected. You connect when it is convenient and don't when it's not.
    It seems to me that the point of handwriting is that others (and you) can read it. Portland Italic does that.

     

    7:58 AMBlogger montessori_lori said…

    Italic is an interesting idea, but as with D'Nealian, the child may never learn print or handwriting well. And there will be times when they need to print (forms) and times when they need true cursive (signature) so italics wouldn't be of help in either situation.

    As Theresa said in her comment, when her son was taught D'Nealian (which is basically italic), his handwriting became illegible and never recovered.

     

    6:37 AMBlogger Michelle Irinyi said…

    Hi Lori,

    What a great blog. It's nice to see both arguments presented together. The most important decision when choosing to teach print or cursive first is to be consistent. I have worked at schools that decide to teach cursive in the Children's House, but not all classrooms do so. When the children arrive in 1st grade on the first day, some are startled when they realize that Lower Elementary teachers write in cursive on the board, in their copybooks, etc. They immediately panic, which adds to the difficulty of the 1st grade transition period. All of a sudden, they think they can’t read at all!

    Whether you (or your school) decides to teach print or cursive first, my one suggestion is, for the sake of the children, be consistent!

     

    6:48 AMBlogger montessori_lori said…

    Yes, excellent point, Michelle. Inconsistency is so confusing to children. It's probably a good idea for preschool and elementary teachers to meet together and decide on one approach.

     

    3:10 AMBlogger KateGladstone said…

    Re worries that Italic may leave someone unable to fill in forms or produce a signature:
    In the fifteen years that I've taught Italic, my students and I hav e never seen that happen.
    Writing Italic on "please print" forms doesn't get the form rejected, even if you use the joined version of Italic. (Italic allows you to use or omit the joins. For forms, I recommend omitting all the joins, but as an experiment my students and I have written joined Italic on "please print" forms and nothing awful happened: nobody rejected, misprocessed, or misunderstood the form.)
    As to signatures: any lawyer will confirm for you that the law doesn't require cursive for signatures. Legally, "your signature" means however you actually sign your name: print, cursive, Italic, D'Nealian, some mixture, or even anything else you habitually use for your signature (such as a rubber stamp or even a thumbprint if you habitually use that instead of writing your name). For legal info backing this up, see the material in the "signatures" question on the Frequently Asked Questions page of the Handwriting Repair web-site at http://www.learn.to/handwrite .... or just skip the legal material and keep in mind that anyone claiming "signatures require cursive" has either knowingly or unknowingly misrepresented the law of the land. (I do not have a law degree, so in providing this information I relied on the advice and fact-checking of an attorney with whom I consulted on this issue.)

     

    3:20 AMBlogger KateGladstone said…

    "D'Nealian is basically Italic"?!
    As someone who has taught Italic for fifteen years in a city where half the schools teach D'Nealian, I must correct this.
    When D'Nealian students go from separate letters to joined letters, they learn to join letters 100% of the time and they also learn they must change the shapes and/or starting-points of almost all of the capital letters and most of the lower-case letters (despite the program-brochure claims that "no transition is made")
    When Italic students go from separate letters to joined letters, they learn to join some, but not all, letters (which fits what we know about high-speed high-legibility handwriting) and they keep the basic shapes and starting-points of the letters that they already know from unjoined writing.
    To see the differences for yourself, compare D'Nealian and Italic unjoined & joined alphabets online at http://www.educationalfontware.com

     

    3:34 AMBlogger KateGladstone said…

    Learning cursive as a child, I made numerous reversals in cursive
    (such as cursive "J" <-> cursive "f").

    Also, whenever I tried to write in cursive and use the idea that "each letter starts on the baseline," I found that this gave wrong results for any cursive letter that happened to come after a cursive "b," cursive "o," cursive "v," or cursive "w." For literally every lower-case cursive letter, in order to use it in cursive you have to learn two different starting-points for that letter (and also learn which letters require which starting-point for the next letter after them). To see what I mean, write in cursive the words "part, past, port, post" and then, in each word, make a mark at the point where the "r" or the "s" actually starts. In the first two words, the "r" and the "s" start on the base-line, sure — but in the next two words, the "same" letters "r" and "s" start 'way above the base-line.
    To me, consistency requires starting a letter in the same place every time you write it. Starting a letter sometimes in one place, sometimes in another place (which cursive requires) does not strike me as consistent at all. Of course, I realize that my learning disabilities probably have something to do with my experiencing things this way.

    ;-)

     

    5:09 AMBlogger montessori_lori said…

    That's good to know, Kate! Thank you!

     

    2:29 AMAnonymous Anonymous said…

    like most of us, i learned to write in print first then cursive later and i write better in print than in cursive,however, cursive serves me better when writing a longer article because cursive writing can sort of keep up with my brain.i must say, cursive must be taught first for ease of writing because we almost always carry to adulthood waht we have learned from preschool.

     

    6:33 PMAnonymous Anonymous said…

    Two of my children learned D'Nealian at their Montessori school over twenty years ago. Each has beautiful handwriting. Neither had trouble converting to cursive. However, my two sons who learned print, NEVER made the switch. Their handwriting is terrible dispite extensive work with them at home in this area. They type instead of write.

    I guess it depends on the child, not necessarily the method. Girls have an easier time learning to write than boys.

     

    12:25 PMAnonymous Anonymous said…

    Most people these days print. Older people are more likely to be writing in cursive.

    Reading someone's handwriting in print is likely to be easier than that someone's cursive.

    I don't have any sources, but maybe just look at the notes taken by college class.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home

 
Privacy Policy    Terms of Use    Site Map
All content copyright ©2005-2008 Montessori for Everyone