By Dr. David Sortino
Most
children are taught to print the first few years of grade school and, depending
on the school, either they stay with printing throughout their school careers
or they are also taught cursive, usually in second or third grade.
Is learning cursive still important in an age of
texting and email?
Most definitely, yes. I
particularly side with those who recommend teaching cursive handwriting as a
strategy to stimulate brain synchronicity. That is, cursive handwriting helps
coordinate the right side of the brain - or visual side - with the left side -
or verbal side - of the brain. According to some researchers, the debate is a
little like comparing the act of printing versus cursive to painting by numbers
versus the flowing rhythmic brush strokes of a "true artist."
For
example, Rand Nelson of Peterson Directed Handwriting believes when children
are exposed to cursive handwriting, changes occur in their brains
which allow a child to overcome motor challenges. He
says, "the act of physically gripping a pen or pencil and practicing the
swirls, curls and connections of cursive handwriting activates parts of the
brain that lead to increased language fluency."
Moreover, the work of Iris Hatfield, creator of the New American Cursive
Program, also believes in the connection between cursive writing and brain
development as a powerful tool in stimulating intelligence and language
fluency. The movement of writing cursive
letters helps build pathways in the brain while improving mental effectiveness,"
she said. "And, this increased effectiveness may continue throughout the
child's academic career."
Further,
Shadmehr and Holcomb of Johns Hopkins University published a study in Science Magazine showing that their
subjects' brains actually changed in reaction to physical instruction such as
cursive handwriting lessons. The researchers provided PET (Positron Emission
Tomography) scans as evidence of these changes in brain structure. In addition,
they also demonstrated that these changes resulted in an "almost immediate
improvement in fluency," which led to later development of neural
pathways. In addition, as a result of
practicing these handwriting motor skills, the researchers found that acquired
knowledge becomes more stable.
There are the psychosocial benefits
as well. According to author, Mathew Geiger, "As our brains learn to
connect our inner worlds to the external universe, we begin to recognize
abstract ideas like awareness of others and perception."
Cursive writing (ability)
affords us the opportunity to naturally train these fine motor skills by taking
advantage of a child's inability to fully control his fingers. This means
cursive writing acts as a building block rather than as a stressor, and
provides a less strenuous learning experience.
Parents can
be the final deciders as to whether or not to use cursive writing.
You have the research, you have the child. I encourage you to give it a
try. Go to any school supply store and purchase a wide
lined paper pad, appropriate pencils, a white board to copy the alphabet, etc.
And then merely support their writing those thank you notes in cursive or sit
down with them and practice together. By them a journal and suggest they
practice in a daily diary.
It could be quite a learning experience for them and a
sharing experience for you.
David
Sortino, a Graton resident, is a psychologist, retired teacher. He is currently
director of Educational Strategies, a private consulting company catering to
parents and students.E-mail him at davidsortino@comcast.net
When David Sortino began addicting Shadmehr's and Hokcomb's work, I contacted both researchers (Reza Shadmehr and Henry Holcomb) to get the story straight from them. Each researcher pointed out, from their published paper, that Sortino is misrepresenting their research — the Shadmehr/Holcomb research Dino's cover cursive (or any) handwriting at all.
ReplyDeleteDr. Shadmehr, Dr. Holcomb, and I therefore contacted Dr. Sortino and asked him to explain the discrepancy between his statements and the research he claimed to be summarizing. He never answered Shadmehr, Holcomb, or me. (I later learned that he had told several of his colleagues that he believes it is wrong for such questions to be raised.)
What do the ethics of graphology say about using material which misrepresents the research findings of a quoted/cited source? Would graphologists agree with Sortino that noticing and querying the discrepancy was poor ethics?
I meant "adducung," not "addicting."
ReplyDelete