We already suspected this, didn't we? But is that really what HWOT looks like?

[MomOfOneFunOne]

An article re handwriting (vs. typing) and congnition, creativity, et c. with samples of several now-popular methods.

 

I'm suprised by the HWOT sample. I've never used it or seen the books so I have no idea.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704631504575531932754922518.html?mod=djemLifeStyle_h

[grace'smom]

What surprises you about it? I think it looks pretty similar except it doesn't seem to have a slant. Maybe they think the slant will come later? I go back and forth all the time over whether I should switch to HWOT cursive. We're using cursive first but sometimes I really would love to just hand her a workbook and tell her to do x number of pages, LOL. I know it wouldn't be that easy but I can dream!

[Lawana]

Yes, that's what the book models look like. My dc used HWOT, and their end result did not have such long horizontal connections between letters. The vertical style did remain.

Edited October 6, 2010 by Lawana

[Halcyon]

We use hwot cursive, but my son's cursive is still slanted to the right. I thought it has to do with him being a lefty, but perhaps not.

[MomOfOneFunOne]

The thing that suprises me about it is the very straight verticle and horizintal lines and how it looks like the line connecting the letters is just so straight as if following the base line. It almost looks like a type font to me. It's so neat and crisp, though.

 

I think my favorite of those is Barchowsky, though.

[NanceXToo]

What surprises you about it? I think it looks pretty similar except it doesn't seem to have a slant. Maybe they think the slant will come later? I go back and forth all the time over whether I should switch to HWOT cursive. We're using cursive first but sometimes I really would love to just hand her a workbook and tell her to do x number of pages' date=' LOL. I know it wouldn't be that easy but I can dream![/quote']

 

LOL that's exactly what I do with my daughter. I hand her a cursive workbook and tell her to do 2-4 pages (her choice), and she does it.

 

But she was already introduced to cursive in public school in third grade (I don't know what they used).

 

We used the HWT Cursive Success workbook for fourth grade last year and finished it with me mostly overseeing it while she did it, at least for a while. Last year she also kept a daily journal and would write those entries in cursive.

 

This year I have the HWT Can-Do Cursive workbook and I just hand it to her and let her do a few pages of it a week for practice mainly.

 

After this, I figure it will be up to her if and when she wants to use cursive. At least she does know the basics of it, can sign her name (which is the only thing I ever use cursive for, myself), and if she ever decides she wants to develop more elaborate, beautiful cursive handwriting when she's older, she can choose a workbook for it or something like that if she's so inclined then. (But I'm off topic now, aren't I)!

[MomOfOneFunOne]

Yes, that's what the book models look like. My dc used HWOT, and their end result did not have such long horizontal connections between letters. The vertical style did remain.

 

Right, it was those long horizontal connectors that suprised me.

[MomOfOneFunOne]

What surprises you about it? I think it looks pretty similar except it doesn't seem to have a slant. Maybe they think the slant will come later? I go back and forth all the time over whether I should switch to HWOT cursive. We're using cursive first but sometimes I really would love to just hand her a workbook and tell her to do x number of pages' date=' LOL. I know it wouldn't be that easy but I can dream![/quote']

 

If I had it to do over, we'd do cursive first, too.

[MomOfOneFunOne]

At least she does know the basics of it, can sign her name (which is the only thing I ever use cursive for, myself), and if she ever decides she wants to develop more elaborate, beautiful cursive handwriting when she's older, she can choose a workbook for it or something like that if she's so inclined then. (But I'm off topic now, aren't I)!

 

I don't think it's off topic and I'm Official Thread Instigator! Actually, I'm interested in refining my own penmanship and have purchased the Mott Spencerian books for my self. Yesterday, for my anniv., I got the money to order the pen I've been wanting. This is why the article appealed to me.

[Tess in the Burbs]

we have always used HWOT and I can assure you my kids cursive has a slant and it isn't going away even though they are working through the cursive book. Their print was perfect and now it's become their 'own'. But they have the basics now....but no, it has never been exactly like the example given in the article. Their writing is closer together and a little slanted to the right...

[Pamela H in Texas]

I wish I had seen those spelled out that way before. We used HWoT because that is what my mom (and OT) said. However, I absolutely prefer the Getty-Dubay, probably because it's a nice combination like how I write IRL anyway.

[Tabrett]

I like Getty-Dubay Italic. It is a very clean transition to cursive.

 

I wouldn't mind doing a looped cursive, but I don't like how a "z" looks and all the extra's you have to add in for in looped cursive.

 

GDI is what my handwriting naturally evolved to look like. I never liked to write in cursive so I did a modified print that ended up like GDI.

 

I have never figured out why people say loopy cursive is faster to write than print. Maybe if you learned ball and stick print, cursive is faster, but if you learned to form your printed letters without lifting you pencil like GDI, adding a join is much faster than adding pretty loops and odd looking cursive letters like z and extra humps on m's and n's.

[Word Nerd]

That makes me want to get my Barchowsky book back out! I never went with HWOT because I couldn't get over how weird it looks.

[Laurie4b]

An article re handwriting (vs. typing) and congnition, creativity, et c. with samples of several now-popular methods.

 

I'm suprised by the HWOT sample. I've never used it or seen the books so I have no idea.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704631504575531932754922518.html?mod=djemLifeStyle_h

 

HWOT was not developed for its look; it was developed by an occupational therapist for what makes for ease in writing for kids with difficulties in writing. The lack of loops, vertical instead of slanted line, and the horizontal connectors are key elements for kids with fine motor skill and other handwriting issues.

[mhg]

...I never went with HWOT because I couldn't get over how weird it looks.

 

 

:iagree:

[Stacia]

Originally, we didn't start out w/ HWT. (I thought it was an unattractive style.) We started w/ Zaner-Bloser. With ZB, my dd could write beautifully, as long as we were doing handwriting. As soon as we were doing anything else, she would always revert to printing. For some reason ZB just didn't seem to 'translate' for her; she couldn't apply it to other situations. In frustration, I switched her to HWT. It worked like a charm & she very quickly began writing in cursive almost all the time. (What I've found is that as the child's skill develops, so will their style; the child's writing style will not necessarily always look like HWT style.)

[Niffercoo]

HWOT was not developed for its look; it was developed by an occupational therapist for what makes for ease in writing for kids with difficulties in writing. The lack of loops, vertical instead of slanted line, and the horizontal connectors are key elements for kids with fine motor skill and other handwriting issues.

 

 

And for those of us who have children with special needs and whose children can write legibly with HWT, we are eternally grateful to the developers.

 

For what it's worth, I also used HWT with my middle, typically developing child, and her cursive is very fancy and loopy because that's her style. She doesn't slant, but neither do I when I write cursive, which is rarely. I'm a faster printer.

[Vida Winter]

That makes me want to get my Barchowsky book back out! I never went with HWOT because I couldn't get over how weird it looks.

 

Me too. I need to get my Barchowsky book out as well. A long time ago I met the author at a conference - her writing is so elegant. Not the easiest to implement, though.

 

HWOT reminds me of a fixed width computer font (OCR).

[Heather in OK]

My goal when teaching handwriting isn't that my children will make their writing look EXACTLY like the examples in the book. We use it as a guide to teach the mechanics of handwriting.

 

ETA: And yes, we have used HWOT. And no, my children's cursive looks nothing like those examples. Yes, they have legible handwriting.

[EKS]

And for those of us who have children with special needs and whose children can write legibly with HWT, we are eternally grateful to the developers.

 

 

 

Yup. HWT produced nothing short of a miracle here.

[Guest ME-Mommy]

HWOT was not developed for its look; it was developed by an occupational therapist for what makes for ease in writing for kids with difficulties in writing. The lack of loops, vertical instead of slanted line, and the horizontal connectors are key elements for kids with fine motor skill and other handwriting issues.

 

:iagree:

 

Originally, we didn't start out w/ HWT. (I thought it was an unattractive style.) We started w/ Zaner-Bloser. With ZB, my dd could write beautifully, as long as we were doing handwriting. As soon as we were doing anything else, she would always revert to printing. For some reason ZB just didn't seem to 'translate' for her; she couldn't apply it to other situations. In frustration, I switched her to HWT. It worked like a charm & she very quickly began writing in cursive almost all the time. (What I've found is that as the child's skill develops, so will their style; the child's writing style will not necessarily always look like HWT style.)

 

:iagree: -- same experience here.

 

And for those of us who have children with special needs and whose children can write legibly with HWT, we are eternally grateful to the developers.

 

:iagree:

 

My goal when teaching handwriting isn't that my children will make their writing look EXACTLY like the examples in the book. We use it as a guide to teach the mechanics of handwriting.

 

:iagree:

[elegantlion]

HWT was the only cursive font my son could read. Traditional cursive frustrated him to no end.

[MyLittleWonders]

We use HWOT here too and have produced on child with very nice cursive (and manuscript) writing, and the program is on its way to producing a second child with the same very nice cursive (and manuscript) writing. I love how "clean" HWOT font looks - it is visually easier for my boys to look at and copy, and yet they each are taking the models in the book and making it their own. They like the books because it is to the point without all the extra loops and "fluffiness", and I like that it gets to the point of how to form cursive letters and connect them to one another in a clear-cut manner.

[LaissezFaire]

In defense of HWOT, it's excellent for kids with dysgraphia. I never used to for my kids who have no trouble writing but for my dyslexic/dysgraphic kid it's great.

[grace'smom]

OK, I'm thinking of switching to HWOT... It might make it easier for Grace and myself if we just had a workbook! Do you need the teachers guide or can you just get the student workbook?

[MyLittleWonders]

OK' date=' I'm thinking of switching to HWOT... It might make it easier for Grace and myself if we just had a workbook! Do you need the teachers guide or can you just get the student workbook?[/quote']

Personally, I've only ever used the workbooks, even for PreK and K. It's worked great so far for us.

[Nicole M]

Me too. I need to get my Barchowsky book out as well. A long time ago I met the author at a conference - her writing is so elegant. Not the easiest to implement, though.

 

Really? My handwriting looks quite a bit like Barchowsky, though I don't know which one I was taught. My grandmother used to say, "Your handwriting is so beautiful, dear! I just can't read a word of it."

 

What annoyed me about the article is that I see no reason to ask a four year old, especially a boy, to be working on his writing. Geesh. Give the kid a break. If the phone thing works, bully for them, but folks who can't afford the phone should not get the impression that they're doing their child a disservice if they, I don't know, wait until their child is (gasp) five-ish before they press the handwriting thing.

[myfunnybunch]

it was those long horizontal connectors that suprised me.

 

My ds just finished HWOT cursive and doesn't use the long connectors either.

 

He does have lovely neat writing. It looks very nice when it fills the page.

 

To the person asking about the teacher manuals: I have seen them and had a chance to try them because my dd's occupational therapist let me look at them. She taught handwriting (and piano) for children on the autism spectrum. The TM would be very handy for helping a child with fine motor or motor planning difficulties that impact handwriting; otherwise, you can skip it.

 

Cat

[Slartibartfast]

It is really interesting to see them next to each other like that.

 

We use Zaner Bloser