Monday, June 2, 2003 | 8:45 a.m.
In her May 28 article, "Girls win state penmanship titles," Emily Richmond accepted at face value several dubious conclusions about handwriting. Included among these faulty conjectures were the following ideas:
1. Handwriting should maintain its traditional place in the school curricula because it serves an esthetic function;
2. Learning to handwrite "improves children's-- hand-eye coordination, communication, and concentration" better than do other kinds of instruction;
3. Children should be taught two styles of handwriting: printing separated letters, and connecting letters in words;
4. Your handwriting "expresses who you are as an individual"; and
5. There should be no "formal training" in handwriting until grade two.
To the contrary, parents should know that relevant experimental evidence suggests children should be taught to spell a word as soon as they understand that its letters represent speech sounds.
Children's retention of this phonics information is reinforced through pupils' handwriting letters.
The keyboard letters on computers that beginning readers use to spell words should be in lower-case, for the very same reason.
PATRICK GROFF San Diego
Editor's note: The writer is Professor of Education Emeritus at San Diego State University.
archive
