Cursive handwriting, often celebrated for its flowing style, is experiencing a resurgence in interest, even in our increasingly digital world. While print handwriting remains the more commonly taught style, cursive, also known as joined-up writing, offers a distinct and arguably more elegant approach to forming letters and words. Understanding the relationship between cursive and print, and the best practices for teaching both, is crucial for educators and parents alike.
Print vs. Cursive: Defining the Key Differences
To begin, it’s important to distinguish between cursive and print handwriting. Print handwriting, sometimes referred to as manuscript writing, involves forming letters individually, without connecting them. Each letter stands alone, though words are formed by placing letters in close proximity. Cursive handwriting, in contrast, is characterized by connecting the letters within a word using flowing strokes. This connected style gives cursive its unique appearance and rhythm.
Alt text: An image showcasing the word “Connecting” visually emphasizes the linked nature of cursive script, highlighting the flowing strokes that join each letter together in contrast to the separate forms of print.
The Evolution of Handwriting Standards: Cursive Makes a Comeback
Interestingly, while print handwriting has long been a staple in early education, cursive instruction faced a period of decline. Over a decade ago, many states adopted academic standards that emphasized teaching students print handwriting by the end of first grade. Cursive was notably absent from these initial standards. However, this trend is now shifting. Recognizing the value of cursive, numerous states are now reintroducing or emphasizing cursive handwriting in their educational frameworks.
Recent years have seen a wave of states incorporating cursive back into their curricula through new standards and legislation. States like Iowa, Oklahoma, and California have recently adopted new guidelines that mandate or recommend cursive instruction. Iowa, for example, now aims to introduce cursive in second grade and make it a primary focus of writing instruction in third grade. This renewed focus underscores the growing recognition of cursive’s importance in a well-rounded education.
Bridging Cursive and Print: Best Practices for Instruction
With this renewed emphasis on cursive, educators are considering the most effective ways to teach it, especially in relation to existing print handwriting instruction. A fundamental difference between cursive and print lies in the connecting strokes. Beyond simply linking letters, cursive also involves variations in letter formation. Many letters, such as “b” and “s,” take on significantly different shapes in cursive compared to print. In fact, it’s estimated that a large percentage of letters differ in shape and stroke when written in cursive versus print.
Given these differences, a sequential approach to handwriting instruction is often recommended. It’s generally considered beneficial to establish a solid foundation in print handwriting before introducing cursive. For young learners still mastering print, simultaneously learning cursive can lead to confusion. Focusing on print first reinforces the crucial connection between reading and writing in early literacy development. Children are initially taught to read print, not cursive, so mastering print handwriting alongside print reading strengthens letter recognition and formation skills. Research, though more extensive for print, suggests that a strong print foundation benefits students before they transition to cursive.
Studies support this approach. One study found that early elementary students who received consistent print handwriting instruction in first and second grade outperformed peers who received split instruction (print in first, cursive in second) in handwriting fluency and spelling accuracy. This suggests that cursive instruction is likely more effective in later elementary grades. Research indicates that cursive can positively contribute to spelling and composition skills in upper elementary and middle school grades (fourth to seventh grade).
These findings suggest a pedagogical model where print handwriting is the primary focus in early grades, with a gradual introduction of cursive in later elementary years. This aligns with typical cursive introduction timelines in many parts of the United States. While specific grade levels for cursive instruction vary by state – California aiming for introduction between first and sixth grade, Iowa starting in second with focus in third, and Oklahoma beginning in third – the general trend is towards later introduction compared to print. It’s also worth noting that in some countries, cursive is introduced as early as kindergarten or first grade, highlighting the global variation in handwriting education. Further research is needed to understand the optimal milestones for handwriting development across different languages and educational systems.
Handwriting Programs and Instructional Approaches: Style vs. Instruction
For educators and parents seeking resources for cursive handwriting instruction, a variety of programs are available. These programs can be purchased individually or integrated into broader literacy curricula. As cursive instruction gains importance, it’s natural to consider the differences between these programs and whether certain styles are more effective for students.
Handwriting programs encompass materials like specialized paper or software, instructional procedures such as modeling and guided practice, and specific handwriting styles for both print and cursive. Common handwriting styles include D’Nealian, Zaner-Bloser, and Handwriting Without Tears. These styles differ subtly in letter formation, connecting strokes, and slant, often developed with the aim of simplifying handwriting learning. However, the impact of style itself on learning cursive remains somewhat unclear.
A key challenge in determining the best approach is that research often doesn’t isolate handwriting style from instructional methods. It’s difficult to discern whether a program’s effectiveness stems from its specific style or its instructional strategies. Limited research comparing handwriting programs suggests that there may not be significant differences in student improvement based solely on the program style.
Despite the need for more research to fully understand program variations, targeted handwriting instruction, regardless of the specific program, is demonstrably beneficial for students. Certain instructional components appear particularly effective for cursive learning:
- Systematic and Explicit Instruction: This involves teachers clearly modeling letter formation, guiding students through practice, and assessing their independent writing.
- Memory Retrieval Practice: Encouraging students to recall letter shapes and names from memory, such as viewing a cursive letter model, stating its name, and then attempting to write it from memory.
- Contextualized Practice: Practicing cursive letters not just in isolation but also within words, emphasizing the connecting strokes that define cursive writing.
Currently, resources like the IRRC’s LIFTER program focus on print handwriting. However, recognizing the growing need for cursive support, the IRRC is developing CLIFTER (Cursive Letter Identification and Formation for Transcription and Early Reading), an eLearning module and application dedicated to cursive handwriting, planned for release by summer 2025. This tool will offer interactive features, including video models of letter names, sounds, and letter formation within words, alongside reproducible cursive handwriting activities. Such resources will empower educators to effectively teach cursive and connect it to reading cursive text.
References
A.B. 446, 2023–2024 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2023), https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB446
Alstad, Z., Sanders, E., Abbott, R. D., Barnett, A. L., Henderson, S. E., Connelly, V., & Berninger, V. W. (2015). Modes of alphabet letter production during middle childhood and adolescence: Interrelationships with each other and other writing skills. Journal of Writing Research 6(3), 199-231. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2015.06.03.1
Bara, F., & Morin, M.-F. (2013). Does the handwriting style learned in first grade determine the style used in the fourth and fifth grades and influence handwriting speed and quality? A Comparison between French and Quebec Children. Psychology in the Schools, 50(6), 601–617. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.uiowa.edu/10.1002/pits.21691
Datchuk, S. M., & Kubina, R. M. (2013). A review of teaching sentence-level writing skills to students with writing difficulties and learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 34(3), 180-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932512448254
Engel, C., Lillie, K., Zurawski, S., & Travers, B. G. (2018). Curriculum-based handwriting programs: A systematic review with effect sizes. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72(3), https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2018.027110
Graham, S. (1992). Issues in handwriting instruction. Focus on Exceptional Children, 25(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.17161/foec.v25i2.7543
H.B. 3727, 2024 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Okla. 2024), http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2023-24%20ENR/hB/HB3727%20ENR.PDF
Iowa Department of Education. (2024). Iowa Literacy Standards Documents. https://educate.iowa.gov/pk-12/standards/academics/literacy
Limpo, T., & Graham, S. (2020). The role of handwriting instruction in writers’ education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 68(3), 311-329. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2019.1692127
Morin, M. F., Lavoie, N., & Montésinos-Gelet, I. (2012). The effects of manuscript, cursive or manuscript/cursive styles on writing development in Grade 2. Language and Literacy, 14(1), 110-124. https://doi.org/10.20360/G21S3V
Ray, K., Dally, K., Rowlandson, L., Tam, K. I., & Lane, A. E. (2022). The relationship of handwriting ability and literacy in kindergarten: a systematic review. Reading and Writing, 35(5), 1119-1155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10224-8
Santangelo, T., & Graham, S. (2016). A comprehensive meta-analysis of handwriting instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 225-265.
Shimel, K., Candler, C., & Neville-Smith, M. (2009). Comparison of cursive handwriting instruction programs among students without identified problems. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 29(2), 170-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/01942630902784738
Wolf, B., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (2017). Effective beginning handwriting instruction: Multi-modal, consistent format for 2 years, and linked to spelling and composing. Reading and Writing, 30, 299-317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9674-4
