The acquisition of handwriting in the UK (1994) | Hacker News Reader

The acquisition of handwriting in the UK (1994)

unask.com

28 pointsdcminter48 comments

This is interesting but ancient; some things it mentions definitely are not the case today. We don't even have 'Teacher Training Colleges' that it mentions in the same way today; the normal route now is for people to study for a degree and then do a qualification called a PGCE (or a similar but slightly different qualification called a PGDE in Scotland)

I work in this area.

The main route in for people who would've gone to a teacher training college would now be via a SCITT (School-centred initial teacher training) provider. Often SCITT courses will include a PGCE but some don't; either way once you've completed a course you'll be ready to teach. The benefit of these courses over a college-based approach is that the teachers spend a lot of time in classrooms by comparison with other methods. It gives ample opportunity to work out whether or not they're on the right path.

https://www.ucas.com/teaching-option/school-centred-initial-...

Note -- make sure you click on the links that look like section titles as you read through it -- these are actually links to the illustrations!

Ha, my handwriting was so bad I had to use one of those handwriting pens instead of a fountain pen for a while.

I seem to of been taught looped cursive even though I was in Primary school in the late 90s but I just print everything nowadays because my handwriting is bad, nobody cares after primary school.

I think things have changed rather a lot since I was young. As I understand it, a large number of UK schools have standardised on continuous cursive, a trend which has been hastened by teachers using centralised resources from websites like "Twinkl".

This can cause significant problems, as schools often tell parents that their children are learning "cursive". This confuses a lot of people, as default cursive is a slightly different style to continuous, and resources provided by schools can be lacking.

When I tried discussing this with my sons' school, they were not very forthcoming.

See this link for an explanation of some of the issues:

https://teachhandwriting.blog/2019/08/29/be-school-ready-wha...

Interesting, I definitely learned continuous cursive in the late 80s. Still, I have typist's handwriting.

In the early 80s I first learned a rounded style, then changed school at 8 and had to relearn writing in italic. So in one sense standardisation is a good thing, but a monoculture is always a bad thing. I love seeing different types of handwriting. The artistry in the handwriting of my parents' and their parents' handwriting is wonderful.

The article mentions the popularity of Marion Richardson in the Midlands and South. I was taught handwriting at primary in Derbyshire (Midlands) in the early to mid 70s, and can clearly remember the looping exercises, and that the method used was Marion Richardson.

It’s 2021. Handwriting at scale has no business in the world. Printing letters is a legible way of conveying information if it needs to be.

The amount of school time wasted on prescriptive joined up writing for kids who won’t even be adults until the 2030s is distressing.

Sometimes we need to write. Just because we have devices that assist us there is no reason not to learn it.

I don’t disagree with you, but I suspect learning to write single characters accelerates learning to read. Joined up writing is totally bogus and most of the time I encounter it it makes the author harder to understand, not easier.

I think joined-up writing is about making it faster to write, not easier to read.

can confirm. My joined-up writing is write-only.

> I think joined-up writing is about making it faster to write...

Totally. If I have to record what people said in a meeting, accurately because I want to quote rather than summarise them, joined up writing is invaluable.

> ... not easier to read

This is the downside. At the end of a meeting where I was responsible for taking minutes, I'd usually check back through my note book to make sure I could actually interpret what I'd written.

And in case people say - Why didn't I just record the meeting - there are still places where electronic recording devices are disallowed for security reasons.

Learning to write is a process. Hand writing is a slow and intense step, requiring both intellectual and physical efforts. I would guess the "joined up" part is about "flow" and aesthetics.

I am not sure whether the education I received formed the appreciation I have of this process or if it was something universally well thought, but even today, writing helps me thinking. Walking, running, doing handwork too. Moreover, I still find handwriting a thing of beauty, may it be notebooks or artistic calligraphy.

I doubt you would find my handwriting a thing of beauty.

UK primary schools have advanced a lot in recent years, but there seems to be a lot of inertia. They still focus heavily on things like cursive and rote learning of multiplication tables. There's a lot of emphasis on things you can test: memorise the names of the continents, but don't waste any time actually explaining what continents are or how they're formed.

My kids' teachers' response to the fact that children don't recognise coins any more (because no one carries cash) is not to spend less time teaching about money, but to ask parents to show their kids more coins.

> rote learning of multiplication tables

How can you do maths if you can't multiply single-digit numbers? Doesn't knowing long multiplication help with learning algebra?

> don't waste any time actually explaining what continents are

Is Europe a continent or is Eurasia?

[edit]

Quoting Wikipedia: "A continent is one of several large landmasses. Generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria ..."

> How can you do maths if you can't multiply single-digit numbers? Doesn't knowing long multiplication help with learning algebra?

I eventually learnt my times tables, but I was always able to multiply in my head quick enough that I didn't really need to. In any case I think the issue is taken with an over-focus on this. The OP is not suggesting that times tables shouldn't be taught at all.

> rote learning of multiplication tables

I'm curious - doesn't rote learning of multiplication tables make it easier to do a bunch of K-12 (in the UK, Foundation through Sixth Form - I think) math?

Also, yes, coins are less important now, but I always thought those problems teach little children how to solve a particular type of knapsack problem, which has learning benefits beyond knowing how to wrangle coins.

I'm all for making math more approachable, but not at the cost of producing people who're utterly out of sorts without a calculator. What am I missing?

There seems to be an idea, which I find deeply odd, that kids don’t need to be taught something once an alternative appears:

arithmetic —> calculators coins -> contactless cursive -> typing

I just find it bizarre how quickly people are willing to throw things out, leaving children utterly reliant on the new tech.

You've just reminded me how wonderful the principle of the slide rule appeared, when I eventually encountered one after a childhood using calculators.

I wasn't suggesting that it should be thrown out, but mabe a shift in emphasis is needed. Multiple hours on times tables 2-12 is a lot of time out of the school week.

Maybe my own memories of frustration at school, plus having to calm down a deeply upset, bored, son after school so many times affect my perception of the system.

Sure, but multiplication tables are fundamental and are useful lifelong. Coins are still a very common feature of life and also useful for teaching addition, also very useful for life.

I appreciate we have to move with the times (I’m not pushing for reintroducing log tables) but it seems useful that kids come out with a solid grasp of fundamental reality around them —- reading an analogue clock, knowing the shape of the world in broad outline, being able to count change.

To use a programming analogy, it is better to teach someone JS and how to do DOM manipulation, so that they see it’s a pain, and then show them React and how it’s useful, than just jumping straight into the current state of the art.

Well the US and UK coins are just the worse for recognition. Why is a 10 cents coin smaller than a 5 cent one? Canada at least has $1/$2 making coins more useful.

Compare this with Euro coins with sizes and weights/features proportional to their value.

The Euro coins are rubbish. There's very little differentiation in size, and the 1 cent coin is too small.

(Also, note, the 10 Euro cent coin is smaller than the 5 Euro cent coin, the 50 Euro cent coin is both bigger and heavier than a 1 Euro coin).

Several countries retired the 1 cent coin in Europe (also in Canada)

Their main differentiations are on the rim pattern besides the size.

> the 50 Euro cent coin is both bigger and heavier than a 1 Euro coin

By 1mm (I had to check), but they are sufficiently different from the 50 cent coin to be set apart by a glance

I think it's historical: The value of a coin was once a function of the material it was made from and the size of the coin. The lowest value coins were made from bronze; the next lowest were made from silver; and the most valuable were made from gold. Among coins made from the same metal, those which were bigger were more valuable. This explains the size and look of different British coins.

This explanation works for US dimes, quarters, and half-dollars as well (plus the old, giant, dollar coins). At one point I worked out that they’re all $20/lb.

I've never seen a UK school teach cursive, only joined-up writing.

I'd agree with you, but writing relatively clearly at speed has benefits in some types of exams (that are not multiple choice).

It may also help if you choose to enter a profession which still relies on written notes (e.g., law or law enforcement). And digital handwriting hardware is way more accessible now (e.g. iPad and Pencil) so learning how to write more efficiently than printing isn't all useless -- at the very least, you'll probably have an easier time taking notes, say as a student.

I take written notes all the time in my data science and programming work, as well as at home. It is much easier to take "nonlinear" notes on paper than in any app I have ever tried. Penmanship is a productivity skill for me.

Printing characters is more legible, but takes longer. Hence joined up handwriting.

My kids are now in secondary school in the UK. I can tell you that the amount of time taken up learning decent joined up writing was pretty minimal.

Probably less than than the time saved by not having classes of primary kids faffing about waiting for shitty laptops to boot or struggling while software updates occur in the middle of a lesson.

'Take out your pencils and exercise book' is a remarkably simple process to troubleshoot.

That's your opinion, mine is that yours is extremely uneducated.

Besides teaching how to be organized and meticulous and it involving manipulative materials (which happens to be something you should do in education), it being an aide to study any kind of material, and providing you with the essential skills to do Maths by yourself using a pen in the future, either you develop fine motor skills at that age or you won't. It's as simple as that.

I totally disagree. Joined up writing is just more comfortable and has a relaxing cathartic quality. Just think that in East Asian countries they have to learn 1000s of Han characters, I think in the west we can find time to learn our 26.

I think based on this, and learning writing in a scottish primary school in the sixties I probably did round hand.

Hard to be sure: I write like the doctor I am not.

Haha, I just learned doctor's handwriting is universal. For unknown reason I always assumed it's my country's thing

I've just discovered why my f is 'weird'. Partway through learning our Round Hand letters, we had a sub who knew Looped Cursive.

Interesting read. Just a pity the accompanying illustrations are:

1. Not actually part of the document. but linked to

2. Illegibly small GIFs with overly reduced colour palette

The web page probably hasn't changed much since it was put online in 1994, except perhaps some maintenance until around 1998-9.

It says the original layout is kept "for archeological reasons": http://www.unask.com/website/biblio.htm

Even the replacement website is so old that it has a page on how to use the World Wide Web: http://www.unask.com/website/intro/beginners.html

Would be interesting to track the use now. There was a return to enforced "joined up" writing as part of the national curriculum for exactly the reason outlined here : non-joined writing is seen as childish. Print script more or less goes away by age 6/7.

Anecdotally, I went to school in ireland. Around age 9, cursive became mandatory, however I suffered from pretty illegible handwriting (to the point of multiple interventions between parents and teachers over 3-4 years). It was awful for me, and I was forced to continue with it. When I went to secondary, cursive was optional, and I returned to printing, but I was the only one. By the time I made it through university, I would hand wave it around 50-50 between cursive and printed.

One interesting thing I've noted with my group of friends and my partners friends are that those who have poor handwriting tend to be better typists..

Needs (1982) in title, or some other clarification of how long ago the research was done.

1994 according to the footer

>Books are not cheap, and the cost of providing each class, let alone each pupil, with a complete set of copybooks and replacing them whenever they disintegrate is beyond the reach of most schools.

This is shocking to me. Is it still the case?

Does writing joined up make it easier to spell words correctly, compared to printing at least? Something about muscle memory.

I suspect it varies by person. I certainly spell letter by letter no matter what style I'm using.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com