any reason dyslexic children shouldn't be taught cursive first?

[lacell]

I've noticed that most of the curricula targeted toward children with dyslexia teaches print first. Does that mean it is too confusing for a dyslexic child to learn to write cursive while reading print?

[MerryAtHope]

There is enough evidence out there that learning cursive aids reading ability (such as aiding the brain in things like blending sounds), that I think it's worth trying. 

 

That said, cursive requires a level of executive function and planning that some dyslexic students will find difficult (a portion of dyslexics have more than one learning disability). I don't think that means don't try if you're game--but I do think it's good to be aware if a student finds it overly difficult. 

[scoutingmom]

I originally taught my so cursive first. I didn't realize he was likely dyslexic (and dysgraphic) at the time.... He actually wrote quite nicely, although it took him quite some time to learn all the letters.... we were uo to doing a couple of words. He wrote well.... as long as he had the sample (in cursive) above it. If he had to write anything without a sample, it came out in a pre-school print that looked horrid with mostly all caps. His sister was starting the same program because of her desire to write.... and couldn't get a legible letter out. I switched to italics. His handwriting is still pretty bad without a sample... sigh.

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

[lacell]

I've been thinking of trying Dancing Bears. Since I want to teach my child cursive first, would I skip the tracing exercises? Or have them trace my LOE sandpaper cursive letters instead?

[lacell]

Now that I mention it, all OG programs have the touch component for multi-sensory, so except for programs that encourage cursive first like LOE, it seems my options will be limited?

[MerryAtHope]

Now that I mention it, all OG programs have the touch component for multi-sensory, so except for programs that encourage cursive first like LOE, it seems my options will be limited?

 

I'm not familiar with all OG programs, but I know with AAR and AAS, you can choose to use whatever handwriting program you want, and nothing in the program will inhibit doing cursive first. (AAR does not require handwriting, because many children learn to read faster than they learn to write and spell. AAS includes both letter tiles and writing, but the student can write in any style.)

Edited January 4, 2016 by MerryAtHope

[Lecka]

Some children do better with cursive.  There is no reason to have to do print first, as far as handwriting.

 

However ----- what is your situation? 

 

Does your child recognize the letters? 

 

If you are at a point where you are using handwriting to help with letter recognition, and letter recognition is just extremely difficult ------ well, most type in this world is in a print kind of typeface. 

 

Off the top of my head, a typed a and a typed g (sometimes?) look different from in print.

 

My little son is using a program that is not for dyslexia, but it is for children who might have a cognitive delay, and it does not even teach a print handwriting a.  It uses/teaches an "a" that looks like a typed a, because it is for kids where it is going to be hard on them to learn "here is a written a, but oh, it looks different than the typed a." 

 

But I don't think that is the case for a lot of kids. 

 

That is my only concern.

 

If you know your child would not have this issue (and I think it is a total non-issue for many, many kids), just from knowing there is no issue with recognizing letters when they are slightly changed.... or you do matching of a cursive g to a typeface g (which, this is something some programs have, that do cursive, where they have kids match cards with the cursive letter and the typeface letter) ----- and you just see ----- your child picks it up with a little practice and exposure ------ I think there are a lot of positives to cursive. 

 

If, on the other hand, you see that your child struggles to match or automatically connect the cursive letter with the typeface letter, I think it is more important to have the handwriting support the reading, and for reading, mostly we want kids to read typed letters. 

 

I tend to think, go for it!  I feel like -- if you were worried about him not being able to go between printed letters and cursive letters, you would probably not even be asking the question.  So it is probably a non-concern.  I am just mentioning it, though.

 

My older son had a lot of struggles with learning to read, but for him, to recognize that a typed a and a printed a were the same letter, drawn slightly differently ----- it was something he did not have a problem with at all.  For my younger son -- it is something that is not exactly a problem, but it is something where it is taking him a long enough time to pick it up, that it would be a lot of extra work to have him have to learn two sets of letters and match them ----- like, if we are having him match a typed a and a printed a, and it is something we are going over and over ------ it just is a sign, it would be a lot to ask of him to do that for every letter. 

 

Matching capital and lowercase letters has been a long process for him, too.  That was also something that was no particular issue at all for my older son who had struggles with reading.

 

If you know this was a non-issue with capitals and lowercases, then I think that is a huge data point, too. 

Edited January 4, 2016 by Lecka

[geodob]

Though that raises an interesting question, where a crucial element of cursive?

Is that it links letters together.

While we have 26 letters, we also have 42 phonemes.

 

Where phonemes represent units of sound in speech.

Which raises the idea, of instead of a child first learning to print letters?

That they first learn to cursively write, the 42 phonemes?
 

Where they learn ways to visually represent, the 42 phonemes that they hear in speech?

Then later learn to break these phonemes down, into 'printed letters'?

 

Though if children with Dyslexia, first started learning to write the 42 phonemes?

To represent the sounds that they hear?

The problem is, that they might not have a problem phonemic awareness?

[Heathermomster]

If I were paying the high $$$s for an O-G program specifically designed for dyslexics, I would do precisely what the program says.

 

My eldest is diagnosed dysgraphia and dyslexic. He learned cursive in 2nd and 3rd grades and practiced handwriting during spelling practice and review.

 

I used LOE with my DD and selected print. She read quickly, easily, and could not keep up with the writing component of the program plus she had motor issues that took OT and PT time to sort out. DD is 2nd grade and learning NAC because I like that font better.

 

If cursive is important to you, you could do as MerryAtHope suggests. Monitor your child closely and if cursive is too much, stop and revert to print. I love, love, love LOE's white board, and we never touched the sandpaper letters past the letter a. DD did fine with just knowing the stroke names and could verbalize them. ETA..DD is not dyslexic though.

 

 

Edited January 4, 2016 by Heathermomster

[PeterPan]

Do what you want, but I find the dyslexia (and SLD writing) affect my ds so much, doing cursive right now is pipe dreams.  But sure try it.  I did cursive first with my dd (not dyslexic).  I don't think it makes a hill of a beans of difference.  Sure there's the inconvenience of transitioning them to cursive in 3rd, right as their desire to write/output increases.  But really, in our case dd did cursive first and then wanted to print.  Nobody writes exclusively cursive anyway.  They write a mixture and kids will want both skills.

 

For my ds, the printing makes more sense because it allows him to think through each sound and receive help.  Doing cursive would be an unnecessary, impossible complication.  You're just going to have to look at your child.

Edited January 4, 2016 by OhElizabeth

[Lecka]

I agree, Heathermomster. 

 

Geodob ----- I do not agree with your post from my experience.  If we say, for phonemic awareness, let's take away the whole "phonogram" issue, and just worry about plain old "a, b, c" with one sound per letter.  Well ---- doing this, does not help with phonemic awareness.  That is a "one symbol, one unit" situation, and it does not do anything to help phonemic awareness, if phonemic awareness is a problem. 

 

I think it could *still be a good idea* to learn the phonograms as units.  My little son's Reading Mastery does that, kind-of, it has sh and th written smushed together, it has a line over e for "long e," and I think it is good!  I actually really like it (for him, and he doesn't have dyslexia, so I am NOT saying I recommend it for the poster, I am just mentioning it).

 

But -- it is just not that simple for phonemic awareness.  If only it were that simple. 

 

 

Edited January 4, 2016 by Lecka

[Lecka]

I think there are good struggles and bad struggles.

 

I agree about the benefits of cursive, when it is a good struggle. 

 

When it crosses a line into being a bad struggle, then whatever benefit there might be, it is probably not worth it, or just plain not realistic. 

 

If it is realistic and in the "good struggle" category, I think it is worth a try! 

 

But for some kids it will be in the "good struggle" category, but for others, it will be in the "bad struggle" category. 

 

You will see when you work with him :)

 

If it is a bad struggle, it will probably be obvious in its way. 

Edited January 4, 2016 by Lecka

[PeterPan]

You also need to consider that programs that are talking about cursive first are NOT appropriate for dyslexics.  SWR, for instance, is what I used with my dd (not dyslexic).  It makes WAY too many leaps and leaves out important steps necessary for my dyslexic ds.  So, when those programs suggest cursive first, they're saying it can be good for THAT population.  That DOESN'T mean it's good for EVERY situation, kwim?  Sanseri says that dyslexia is due to poor instruction and that if we would all just use SWR our kids wouldn't be dyslexic.  Someone with that poor an understanding of dyslexia is NOT qualified to tell us how to teach our dyslexics.

 

Does Barton recommend cursive?  Call her and ask.  Use Barton (or Wilson, or an OG tutor) and ask Barton if she recommends cursive first.  The *reason* it's not going to work for many kids is because it's too much to process at once.  The reason it's *good* for some kids *without* SLD reading is because it allows them to go forward more quickly into mature, fluent writing.  Quick is not the name of the game with dyslexia.

 

So the real answer is get away from these programs that aren't meant for dyslexics.  

[wapiti]

While I have no idea whether cursive matters for dyslexia, in my mind the question might be, is my dyslexic kiddo also potentially dysgraphic (not an uncommon combination)?  What age is the child in question?  It may be beneficial to learn cursive first in a situation of potential dysgraphia, or at least that is what OTs told me.  I suppose the clues for a 4-5-6 y.o. would include sensory/motor issues.

Edited August 12, 2016 by wapiti

[kbutton]

I have a kid with multiple weird language things going on, but he does not test dyslexic. He has some dyslexic tendencies and a hit in motor skills across the board. We did cursive first (mostly). We broke it into tiny steps, far smaller than what any handwriting program does, and we tuned it into phonics (made our own handwriting sheets), though his reading phonics were ahead of his writing phonics. He wants to write print now, but I think cursive did do good things for his brain, and it taught him to be consistent. With print, he often randomly capitalizes letters in the middle of words and all kinds of things like that. He does NOT do any of that in cursive. He has no reversals in cursive, but he does in print. His cursive has a lot fewer errors, but he has so much trouble copying (cursive or print) that he has trouble no matter what we use. If it weren't for copywork (and copying from the board in group activities, etc.), I think my son would still write cursive. We are hoping vision therapy helps with the copywork, but that is a whole other issue that isn't about print vs. cursive. It just makes cursive "one too many" pieces to multi-task.

 

I think "ball and stick" styles of print are education malpractice. Don't use one of those methods. Use something that teaches mostly continuous letter strokes to make letters, even in print. It's so much better. (Italic is a good example of mostly continuous stroke print.)

[MerryAtHope]

 

I think "ball and stick" styles of print are education malpractice. Don't use one of those methods. Use something that teaches mostly continuous letter strokes to make letters, even in print. It's so much better. (Italic is a good example of mostly continuous stroke print.)

 

I agree, if you end up working on print, use a program that teaches one-stroke methods. HWT is another that does this (and it has built-in helps for reversals too).

[OneStepAtATime]

DS and DD started to learn cursive and they are both dyslexic.  DD has messy cursive and messy print but it is very legible and fairly evenly spaced.  DS actually had better handwriting with cursive than with print.  He is dysgraphic and when printing his letters tend to be all sizes and spacing is erratic.  Unfortunately, he started really fighting me on cursive.  He has stopped learning cursive for the time being.  If he gets interested again we will pick it back up but it just took up too much of his mental processes to remember how to form the letters, even with an example in front of him.  When he could concentrate, though, his cursive letters were much better than print.  Evenly sized and spaced, formation really pretty.

[geodob]

Though an important thing with cursive, is that letters are linked together.

Where you might consider, that instead of starting by learning to print the letters: p,s,t,h ?

That children first learn to cursively write: ph, sh, th.

With printing, they are formed with different letters.

But if each of these is written cursively?

Then they become picto-graphic ways, to represent these different sounds.

Being linked together as they are formed, they become single visual units.

Symbols that represent sounds actually used in speech.

 

Where the phonemic symbols can be deconstructed, into letters.

Rather than adding letters to form a sound.

Except that, the sound of the letter 'H', isn't used in pronouncing: Ph, Sh, Th ?

[PeterPan]

It's also possible to teach multi-letter phonograms as distinct units without doing cursive.  I agree, it's a nice bonus/help, but it's not the end of the world.  My ds has no trouble comprehending multi-letter phonograms as distinct from single letters and recognizing them COLD when he sees them, but I taught them very carefully.

[cherylswope]

I've noticed that most of the curricula targeted toward children with dyslexia teaches print first. Does that mean it is too confusing for a dyslexic child to learn to write cursive while reading print?

 

 

Pardon me for posting, as I have not visited here in a while. However, your post caught my eye.

 

 

You might appreciate these articles. Some are specific to dyslexia. Others offer more general information:

 

http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/parent/help-with-handwriting

 

http://eida.org/why-bother-with-cursive/

 

https://eida.org/write-makes-right/

 

http://davidsortino.blogs.pressdemocrat.com/10221/brain-research-and-cursive-writing/

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/science/whats-lost-as-handwriting-fades.html?_r=1

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211949312000038

 

http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/25/ten-reasons-people-still-need-cursive/

 

 

This one includes tips:

 

http://www.ldonline.org/article/6206/

 

 

Thanks-

Cheryl

 

Simply Classical: A Beautiful Education for Any Child

 

 

[Pen]

I've noticed that most of the curricula targeted toward children with dyslexia teaches print first. Does that mean it is too confusing for a dyslexic child to learn to write cursive while reading print?

 

 

I am sure it depends on the child and that it is not possible to lump all dyslexic children together and determine what is best/ or too confusing, for all of them.

 

I have heard that some dyslexics are helped by cursive first. I have no idea how many.

 

For my ds cursive is not just joint letters, but practically a whole other alphabet, which he still cannot read well at age 13. Dealing with a hand printed manuscript version of a or g as compared to the typical ones in books was difficult enough, without making practically every letter different than what one usually sees in a book. Trying to have him learn cursive was basically a waste of time and energy, though he has learned how to write his name as a cursive signature and a few other helpful things like that.

[lacell]

Thank you so much to everyone who took time to respond. This is the first time I've posted anything on the Learning Challenges board, and the warm response was so nice! I was convinced to start cursive first with my oldest. He received some manuscript teaching in preschool and resisted me tooth and nail when I tried to teach him cursive. To him, it looks messy and all blended together. We used LOE, and I focused on the rhythm and individual, separate cursive letters. He is now able to combine the letters without so much frustration. To keep him from absolutely hating me, I have allowed him to print some things. He also works on his printing separately (self-taught). Sometimes I do wonder if printing only would have allowed him to retain the letter sounds better; I'm not sure. At the time, I had never heard of italic. I thought cursive first made the best sense, because I knew I wanted him to be able to write quickly, and I know that it's hard to switch to cursive later due to the muscle memory issue. But now I keep hearing about this italic option, and now that I have a second and third child to teach, I am considering it. But here are my questions about italic:

 

1.) Can you teach connected italic (italic cursive) first or must you teach the letters separately first?

2.) Do all the letters start on the baseline like D'Nealian style or modern cursive? I have liked the simplicity of it all starting on the baseline.

3.) Does italic or even connected italic have the same brain connection building effect as cursive?

4.) Which is faster and least tiring to write - modern, simplified cursive or italic cursive?

5.) Finally, will italic really be any less confusing for a dyslexic child than cursive? Italic letters are still different from manuscript and bookface letters? I can't think of a single true OG program that uses italic print. Really only four cursive letters are significantly different than manuscript.

 

I'm going to cross post the last few questions on the K-8 board as well.

[PeterPan]

Honestly, I think it's really easy to blame yourself as a teacher when really it's an undiagnosed learning disability or something going on.  Parents have taught their kids to write (and read!) for hundreds and thousands of years.  To me your story, when taken in the context of having a sibling with SLDs, would mean I might consider whether that dc has some reasons to eval as well.  There is a diagnosis SLD writing, but sometimes it's something else, like ADHD or some OT or mild motor planning issues.  I'm just saying I wouldn't assume it's *you* or the curriculum.  It's probably not.

 

Have you picked out your reading curriculum for your dyslexic dc, and have you started yet?  In Barton, it's going to tell you when to start writing.  I think as you start into this you're going to sort it out for yourself and for your specific dc.  For my ds, who has SLD writing on top of SLD reading, the particular font wouldn't matter.  It's all hard, very tedious, very hard.  Given how hard it was for your dc who *doesn't* have SLD reading, it's very possible it will be equally difficult for the dyslexic dc, maybe even needing an additional diagnosis.  

 

Most fonts now have manuscript and cursive forms that are almost identical.  You just add strokes and you're there.  As long as the font has that, I think it will give you the most options to be flexible.  And yes, what ended up working for my dd was a modified, blended approach, neither completely cursive nor completely manuscript.  And, again, the modern fonts where the two look identical just with added swings, make it easy to do that.

 

And yes, welcome to LC!  :)

Edited January 6, 2016 by OhElizabeth

[FO4UR]

I've been thinking of trying Dancing Bears. Since I want to teach my child cursive first, would I skip the tracing exercises? Or have them trace my LOE sandpaper cursive letters instead?

 

 

If you are considering Dancing Bears, which is an excellent program, just go with the DB font (D'Nealian). D'Nealian transitions easily to cursive. 

 

Cursive benefits some dyslexics, but not all. My particular dyslexic struggles with reversals, inverting phonograms, and all sorts of visual quirks.  Cursive helps b/c a cursive b, p, d, and q are all quite different.  Practicing the o connecting to the u helps cement that the o comes first in the 'ou' phonogram.  and so on...

 

I see you are looking at all sorts of reading/spelling programs. I remember how stressful it is to pick a program when you have a child who is struggling.  Breathe.  Jot down his biggest struggles.  Jot down his strengths.  Then look for a program (for reading!) that will help him best with his weakest points.  Then, build everything else around that program.

 

If you choose DB, that means D'Nealian handwriting for now.  Apples & Pears Spelling can come later. Happy Phonics games compliment any program, and they are fun and effective. Don't worry about grammar until he's reading, except for the fun School House Rock videos. Read aloud to him.  That is IT for a struggling little reader.  

 

If DB is not a fit, the same theory applies.  Pick the reading program, and build upon it, putting blinders on to everything else.  Consistency and confidence is more important than perfection.

[lacell]

Good advice. I do tend to obsess. But I don't want to make the same mistake I made with the first curriculum choice. I am running out of money to spend on homeschool :) so would dancing bears work with a child using D'nealian cursive like my son or with my daughter if I started her on italics? Couldn't I have them trace my own sandpaper letters instead of the ones in the book? Maybe I could just have them tap the letters? Or trace them with their finger but be learning to write them differently outside of the dancing bears lessons? Or should I just not get dancing bears if I'm not willing to use D'nealian manuscript? I'm i making any sense here?

[PeterPan]

This is a total aside, but if you're concerned about mistakes with your next curriculum, you might do the free Barton pre-test, just to make sure your dc is ready for your curriculum choice.  It looks at basic phonological processing and working memory necessary to do most programs.  https://bartonreading.com/students/#ss

 

Also, you might consider looking at EZ Write.  There's enough info online, with the videos and whatnot, that you can figure it out for yourself.  It's what I'm doing with my ds (just that hack way, no worksheets).  It was developed by a spec. ed teacher who herself has dyslexia and an OT.  It looks enough like D'nealian that you could use it with DB if you wanted.  Really, the way the strokes are taught is much more important than how the font looks.

[*****]

My left-handed daughter loved drawing at an early age (and still does). I started her on 'Cursive First' and this was a very good choice for her. It helped to minimize the 'b'/'d' confusion. Although we homeschooled in grades 1-8, she did go to kindergarten. One time the kids had to sign their names on a poster. Mine was the only one who had written in cursive!  I loved it!  She had no problem learning letter names or sounds. 

 

My other daughter was not a drawer, and disliked writing. I didn't have her do cursive first, but wish I had tried. Even to this day, her printing is very 'elementary'.

[jetzmama]

I taught my dx ds to print first because I didn't think he was ready for cursive (mild dysgraphia).  By 4th grade, he was begging to learn cursive.  That's always a good sign that the time is right, so we started into cursive and he worked diligently at it for a year, doing fairly well.  He still sometimes writes in cursive, but prefers print.  The interesting thing is how learning cursive helped common spelling errors. And he did not revert to those errors when returning to print.  Unfortunately, the print is still not great, partially because he flies through it. Maybe he needs to do cursive again for neatness since he was so careful to take his time with it!   :D