Cursive handwriting: what the research says, and what it doesn't
In short
Handwriting in general helps young children learn letters and write better, but there's little strong evidence that cursive is better than print for reading. Cursive has some practical benefits, like fewer pencil lifts and fewer reversals. Whether to teach it is a reasonable local choice.
Why is cursive debated?
Cursive was taught in nearly every American school for generations. When the Common Core State Standards came out in 2010, they didn't include cursive, and many schools stopped teaching it. Since then, a growing number of states have added cursive back into their standards, and the debate has continued.
Supporters say cursive helps with reading, spelling, memory and fine motor skills. Critics say the time would be better spent on keyboarding or other subjects. Both sides sometimes overstate the evidence, so it helps to look at what research actually shows.
What does research say about handwriting in general?
The evidence for handwriting, meaning forming letters by hand, is fairly strong. Children who practice writing letters by hand recognize them better than children who only type them. Brain imaging studies, like one by James and Engelhardt in 2012, found that printing letters activated reading-related brain areas in young children more than typing did.
Handwriting instruction also improves writing. A 2016 meta-analysis by Santangelo and Graham found that teaching handwriting explicitly improved both legibility and the quality of students' writing. But most of this research studied print or handwriting in general, not cursive specifically.
Is cursive better than print for learning?
The honest answer is that the evidence is thin. A few studies suggest benefits for cursive. Research by Virginia Berninger and colleagues found that printing, cursive and typing each linked to different patterns in children's writing, and some of their work found that children wrote more words when writing by hand than when typing.
But there are few well-controlled studies directly comparing cursive with print for reading or spelling. Claims that cursive "rewires the brain" or dramatically improves reading go beyond the evidence. Cursive is a reasonable skill to teach, but not a proven reading intervention.
| Claim | Evidence | Our read |
|---|---|---|
| Handwriting helps children learn letters | Fairly strong, mostly from print studies | Well supported |
| Handwriting instruction improves writing quality | Strong, across many studies | Well supported |
| Cursive is better than print for reading | Few direct comparisons | Not established |
| Cursive reduces letter reversals | Logical, some practitioner support | Plausible |
| Students need cursive to read historical documents | Practical, not a research question | True for some tasks |
What are the practical benefits of cursive?
Cursive has some clear practical advantages. Most lowercase cursive letters start on the bottom line, which gives a consistent starting point. Letters connect, so there are fewer pencil lifts. And because b and d are formed so differently in cursive, some teachers find it helps students who reverse those letters in print.
Cursive can also be faster for some students once it's fluent. And students who can read cursive can read historical documents, family letters and handwritten notes, which matters to many families.
What are the arguments against teaching cursive?
Time is the main concern. School days are full, and learning a second handwriting style takes weeks of practice. Some educators argue that the time is better spent on keyboarding, which students need for testing and later work, or on more reading and writing.
Another concern is students who struggle with fine motor skills. For some of them, learning a second set of letter forms adds frustration without clear benefit. These students may do better focusing on fluent print and typing.
When should cursive be taught, if at all?
Schools that teach cursive usually start in second or third grade, after students print fluently. Teaching print first makes sense, because print letters match the letters students see in books, which helps with reading.
Some schools start with cursive in kindergarten, and some specialized programs for students with dyslexia do too. There isn't strong evidence that this order is better or worse. If you do teach cursive, teach it explicitly, with the same care as print: letter families, clear cues and short daily practice.
What about note-taking by hand?
A 2014 study by Mueller and Oppenheimer found that college students who took notes by hand did better on some questions than students who typed. The researchers suggested that writing by hand forced students to summarize rather than copy word for word.
Later attempts to repeat the study found smaller or mixed effects. It's a reasonable idea that writing notes by hand can help, but it isn't settled. And the study was about handwriting in general, not cursive.
What should parents and schools do?
Make sure children learn to print fluently and legibly in kindergarten and first grade. That has the strongest support. After that, teaching cursive is a reasonable choice, especially if it's taught well and doesn't push out reading and writing time.
Teach keyboarding as well, usually from around third grade. Students need both handwriting and typing, and each suits different tasks.