Blogs

Think about when a student struggles to take notes, decode a word they knew orally, or recall new vocabulary. What if one instructional tool could support all three vital skills? Literacy and neuroscience research reveal a solution that harkens teachers back to implementing a writing strategy, long considered obsolete, that connects how a student writes to how they read, think, and learn. What’s the forgotten tool? Cursive writing. Historically, cursive writing was associated with literacy and the well-educated (Thornton 1996). Before the modern typewriter’s invention in the mid-19th century, cursive was the standard method of written communication, and penmanship remained central to American schooling for decades. 

Early 20th century research framed the manuscript-versus-cursive debate around speed, legibility, and personal preference. The Journal of Educational Research reported that manuscript writing “1) is easier for the beginner to learn, 2) is typically more legible, 3) gives greater satisfaction to students”.  Advocates of cursive writing rebutted that “1) cursive is typically more rapid, and 2) cursive is more useful; satisfying demands for rapid personal uses as well for legible business and social needs” (Gates and Brown 1929).  In the same decade, Long et al. (1931) argued that cursive supports early motor-skill development and that the continual pencil lifting in manuscript reinforces poor alignment, especially when speed is emphasized. Arnold (1933) observed that the rhythmic movement natural in cursive helps students to overcome misalignment common in manuscript writing and strengthens fine-motor fluency. These insights, if considered, may have shifted later instructional practices. 

By the 1960s, introducing cursive in the fourth grade had widespread public support. Yet a shift toward manuscript instruction began when studies demonstrated that manuscript could be equally or more effective. Groff (1960) noted that, despite evidence supporting manuscript, most school districts hesitated to alter long-standing cursive expectations unless a strong belief emerged that handwriting practices require reform.  

The 1980s explosion of personal computers brought major changes to classroom writing expectations. Typing became more prevalent in classrooms, and handwriting lost instructional priority (Preminger et al. 2004). By the early 21st century, cursive nearly disappeared from the curriculum after the Common Core standards emphasized typewritten communication and digital literacy (Heubeck 2023, Cravens 2004). The Common Core sought to prepare students for a digital world where keyboarding overshadowed traditional penmanship (National Governors Association Center 2010).  Growing pressure for data-driven results on standardized tests pushed skills like cursive, unmeasured on high-stakes exams, out of the curriculum (Sloane and Kelly 2003; Stecher 2002). Some argued that since students primarily read block text, schools should only teach manuscript to best transfer understanding of letter shape. Supon (2009) contended that teaching cursive writing alongside manuscript confused cognitive demands; thus, the shift to manuscript emerged. 

However, emerging neurological research suggests that removing cursive from early instruction may have unintentionally weakened critical aspects of brain development. While critics call cursive obsolete, neuroscience finds that it enhances cognitive growth in ways that typing and manuscript do not (Semeraro et al. 2019).  Cursive activates motor, visual, and language processing regions simultaneously, triggering neural development (Askvik et al. 2020). The synchronization required between eye and hand movement, and language processing strengthens communications between brain hemispheres (Graham and Santangelo 2012). Repeated cursive patterns reinforce neural pathways that enhance long-term retention of letter shapes, reading fluency, and written-language retrieval (James and Engelhardt 2012). Cursive involves continuous motion, which frees working memory and allows students to focus on critical thinking rather than letter formation (Askvik et al. 2020). Semeraro et al. (2019) found that cursive encourages seeing words as whole units rather than letter-by-letter decoding. Pontart et al. (2013) stipulated handwriting fluency predicts success on more complex cognitive tasks. Once writing becomes automatic, learners can devote mental resources to reasoning (Field 2013). Early handwriting fluency has also been identified as a transferable skill that strengthens performance across academic disciplines (Bonneton-Botte et al. 2018). 

Micro-motor skill development is a crucial aspect of early learning. Young students must train their brains to manipulate the writing tools, control speed and pressure, and coordinate fine-motor movements. These high-level cognitive functions support academic success and independence (Cahill 2009).  Well-developed fine-motor skills correlate with achievement in reading, writing, and everyday tasks such as signing documents or producing written communication (Medwell and Wray 2007). 

Call to Action: Instructional Strategies for Teaching Cursive Writing 

Neuroscience emphasizing the importance of fine motor skill development through early cursive instruction warrants professional development that helps teachers reintegrate handwriting into the curriculum. After decades of focusing on digital literacy, research now emphasizes the neurological benefits of cursive practice. With over half the U.S. states reintroducing cursive writing and many requiring proficiency by the end of fifth grade (Schultz 2024), teachers must receive training to support handwriting instruction. Best practices include:  

Upstroke/Curve-Over Letters – a, d, g, q, c, o 

These begin at the baseline, curve up, over, and back down. They share the same initial counterclockwise curve and reinforce consistent starting points 

Midline Connector Letters- i, t, u, w, e 

These start at the baseline, rise to the midline, and have an exit stroke. They emphasize rhythm, spacing, and smooth left-to-right movement 

Loop-Up Letters – l, h, k, b, f 

These include tall loops that rise above the midline and require controlled vertical loops and reinforce height consistency  

Loop-down Letters – j, y, g 

These letters include looks that extend below the baseline. When practiced together, they strengthen control of descending strokes and baseline awareness  

Reverse Curve Letters – r, s 

These letters involve changes in direction and retracing. Once basic strokes are mastered, focus on these visually distinct letters 

Capital Letters 

Capital letters are typically introduced after lowercase fluency is demonstrated consistently. Capitals may vary in style, but common groupings include 

Oval-based capitals- A, C, O, Q, G 

Loop-based capitals- L, H, F 

Straight-line capitals- E, I, T, K 

Conclusion 

Research supporting early fine-motor fluency development confirms the value in reintroducing cursive writing into the curriculum. Once dismissed as outdated, cursive now reemerges as a powerful cognitive tool that strengthens neural development, supports literacy, and prepares students for complex academic demands. After thoughtful cursive instruction and modeling, students who once struggled with vocabulary recognition and reading fluency may begin to write with greater confidence as words flow more easily and critical thinking becomes more accessible. 

References 

Alstad, Z., E. Sanders, R. D. Abbott, A. L. Barnett, S. E. Henderson, V. Connelly, and V. W. Berninger. 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. 

Arnold, E. W. 1933. “The transition from manuscript to cursive writing.” The Elementary School Journal 33 (8): 616–20. https://www.jstor.org/stable/996302. 

Askvik, E. O., F. R. Van der Weel, and A. L. H. Van der Meer. 2020. “The importance of cursive handwriting over typewriting for learning in the classroom: A high-density EEG study of 12-year-old children and young adults.” Frontiers in Psychology 11: 1810. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01810. 

Berninger, V. W., and B. J. Wolf. 2016. Dyslexia, dysgraphia, OWL LD, and dyscalculia: Lessons from science and teaching. 2nd ed. Brooks Publishing. 

Bonneton-Botté, N., F. Bara, N. Marec-Breton, F. De La Haye-Nicolas, and C. Gonthier. 2018. “Perception of the cursive handwriting movement in writers and pre-writers.” Reading and Writing 31 (4): 927–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9838-5. 

Cahill, S. M. 2009. “Where does handwriting fit in?: Strategies to support academic achievement.” Intervention in School and Clinic 44 (4): 223–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451209333572. 

Cravens, J. 2004. “Is teaching cursive a waste of time? It motivates students to learn.” American Teacher 88 (6): 4. 

Field, A. 2013. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage. 

Gates, A. I., and H. Brown. 1929. “Experimental comparisons of print-script and cursive writing.” The Journal of Educational Research 20 (1): 1–14. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27523880.