[pandaman]

The point of note-taking is not in passing some oral tradition from the lecturer to the students. If the information exchange had been an issue then there had not been any lectures after the invention of printing process - all lectures had been printed and distributed to students. Such a process, in fact, exists but does not substitute lectures as you might already know.

The point of note-taking is that people learn better this way as this and numerous other researches show. One theory is that it's because of activation of motor cortex, which is largely dedicated to controlling hands and fingers [1]. It appears that people learn better when the larger parts of their brain are active. The same principle explains reciting as a learning technique. Speech also takes a large part of the brain and it similarly helps learning.

On the same note, I believe the failing American education can be explained by the decline of handwriting. It will be interesting to see how well Finland will fare after they stop teaching longhand in 2016 [2]

1. http://www.acbrown.com/neuro/Lectures/Motr/NrMotrPrmr.htm

2. http://www.savonsanomat.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/nappaintaitoja-op...

[SiVal]

I believe the failing American education can be explained by the decline of handwriting.

Handwriting isn't declining; cursive handwriting is. I strongly believe that writing things by hand (handwriting) is an aid to learning, but I don't think learning two different, parallel scripts increases that learning. (I don't object to cursive as an art form--in fact I love it and practice it--but that is something for older kids in art class, not something for writing papers and taking notes while you're still new to writing.)

Those who print all the time can write just as quickly, draw the same diagrams, arrows, underlining, marginalia, and so on, as those who write in cursive or in both scripts. Using a single script instead of two will not lessen the benefits of writing by hand, but using a keyboard instead of printing by hand is more problematic.

[pandaman]

>Those who print all the time can write just as quickly

If they have studied cursive as an art form in the 3d grade then I agree. Otherwise, not really. Cursive is not an art form, it's an efficient system of handwriting. If you are seeing it as an art form - you are not using handwriting enough in my humble opinion. When I went to school, rebelling kids were developing all kinds of different ways to longhand to stand out and show their individuality. I have never seen anybody typing voluntarily. It's just not as quick.

[SiVal]

This has been measured by researchers, and cursive provided no speed advantage over printing. That's why it's so easy and common for people who know how to write in cursive to revert to printing all the time even after years of cursive in school.

Cursive as a non-art, general writing system was developed because of the need to keep the pen nib in contact with the paper as much as possible to draw the ink drop forward. Each time the nib was lifted, you risked leaving an ink blob. Kids advancing from pencil to pen needed to also change from printing to cursive.

The shift away from liquid ink pens (quill, steel, fountain, cartridge) to polymerizing ("ball point") pens in the second half of the 20th Century obviated that need.

[pandaman]

Have researchers ever published they research? Also, appreciate downvotes from the illiterate :)

[SiVal]

Yes, it has definitely been published in academic journals in the education field. I apologize for being lazy about looking it up, but if you're interested, go to scholar.google.com and search for cursive writing and whatever else makes sense to you. The question of whether or not to teach cursive in school has been an ongoing controversy in the education field (in the US) for many years, so it has been formally researched in various ways.

Not surprisingly, of course, the research doesn't simply settle the policy issue. People's opinions about educational policy are strong and the general quality of research in the field is, IMO, pretty weak, so it's only quoted when it supports your opinion and doesn't change anybody else's opinions.

Also, I'll give you a couple of upvotes to hopefully neutralize any downvotes.

[pandaman]

I actually read many articles on the topic of handwriting so saying "go to google and find my arguments for me" is wasted on me. There is no research that is simultaneously believable and saying what you are saying. Most I could find that was supporting your opinion were people comparing some canonical cursive script to other forms of cursive writing and saying that fastest writers are not using the canonical script the schools in the USA are teaching but are writing connected letters as opposite to typing each letter separately. But just to be sure I did a search as you suggested and found that cursive is now the new enemy of the Left in the US (the Common Core thing, right?). This explains the hostility and points to the futility of any further discussion so I will bow out.