Talk:D'Nealian

The D’Nealian System of Teaching Cursive Writing is now the sole property of SAVVAS Learning Co.-Formerly Pearson K12 Learning. This includes all copyrights and instructional programs.

Untitled

The funny thing is that i always write my lower-case k's with the cursive loop thanks to this system, and nobody can understand why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.220.19 (talk • contribs)

Merge

Why would this article not be merged with the 'D'Nealian script' article? It seems like they are basically the same article, just didn't names. -Agerard 22:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Since both entries are stubs, I, too, don't see why they shouldn't be combined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.220.77.167 (talk • contribs)

Yes, merge, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.218.185 (talk • contribs)

The articles have been merged. --FIPAR (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

Not that it's particularly relevant, but I absolutely REFUSED to learn this crap when i was in second grade-- i thought it was pointless when i was already leanring to write normal cursive. Years later i just print anyway :) --Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.71.57 (talk • contribs)

What is "normal cursive" and how do you distinguish it from De'Nealian? Surely the purpose of ligature (misnomer cursive) is that you can write 3X faster than by printing. (PeacePeace (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC))

Criticisms

The concept of D'Nealian doesn't make sense at all since there are no strict standards in how letters are formed in block print in English, as opposed to some languages like Japanese Hiragana, Katakana, Chinese Kanji, and the Korean alphabet. This is evidenced by the many fonts available in word processing software. There is a wide variance in how people form their block letters, and often they are in some transition state between block, D'Nealian, and cursive. For example, my son, who was not taught D'Nealian, decided himself around 3rd grade to add the curly bottom to his lowercase Ls due to the ambiguity with I and 1. I could easily develop a better alphabet. For example, the 1 is ambiguous in general and 0 is ambiguous even within the D'Nealian alphabet. Mingramh (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It's just a standard (there are many listed at the bottom of the page) that was and probably still is the most widely used standard in the US, if not the only one where schools teach cursive. A teacher has to teach something, and it shouldn't just be their on invention--184.63.132.236 (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The picture

I don't think the picture labeled as "D'Nealian Script" is actually D'Nealian Script. It's the same image used for the cursive entry... D'nealian is a middle-stage and looks like the results of the script at [[1]] Xous 22:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The capital letter I is lacking the arrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.1.174 (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

This looks identical to the cursive alphabet I learned in the early 1950s. I clearly remember the upper case "Q" which looks like a numeral 2, so at some point I started making an "O" with a crossbar at 5:00 o'clock. I also clearly remember both forms of the letter "z" which look nothing like a z. $Wschart (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Misc Notes

"The system was designed as a method to alleviate the problems with teaching children the standard Zaner-Bloser Script method and the subsequent difficulty in transition to cursive writing. D'Nealian manuscript form has many similarities to the cursive version."

This is written sort of backwards and implicitly. What were the problems; why were there difficulties? Presumably because Zaner-Bloser script and cursive are too different, requiring the student to learn two completely distinct things with different motor skills. Presumably D'Nealian print and cursive are more similar and it only takes a subtle modification to transition from one to the other.

Incidentally, "Zaner-Bloser" needs at least a stub.

The Penmanship article says both this and Getty-Dubay were published in 1976; this article says D'Nealian was published in 1978. I suspect the other article is correct, at least regarding D'Nealian.

"Moreover, a common issue is that D'Nealian is taught extremely early, to first and second grade students, many of whom are still learning the rudiments of print-style writing. This has seriously hindered the penmanship of many students in districts that have changed styles amidships, and the students are arbitrarily failed due to their penmanship no longer being correct where it had been before."

This has nothing whatsoever to do with D'Nealian script - it relates only to school districts.

Also, it might bear pointing out that the reference to the other criticism (regarding the "tails" in D'Nealian print) seems to come from a competitor rather than an objective study. The competitor claims to have objective studies, but doesn't cite them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.162.158.148 (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately (last time I checked) wikipedia doesn't care whether it's unbiased or not. What matters is whether or not you can cite it. Even if it's a biased source it's OK to include. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.60.37 (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is out of date, there have been a couple changes to the cursive version in recent years. They changed the cursive capitol "Q" for example, it no longer looks like an uppercase "L"- it's drawn almost identical to the Manuscript Q they just let the 'tail' flow into the next letter instead of breaking it. I know this is still being presented as "D'Nealian", but I don't know if that's fully accurate or not. I think they changed the lower case 'g' or 'z' a little bit as well. The age at which this is taught varies by district. Most schools don't start teaching the cursive script until around 2nd or 3rd grade. As far as I'm aware, the only real controversy came when public districts began standardizing on D'Nealian and moving away from Italic cursive. The alleged benefit of the 'tails' is that the cursive flows without having to raise the pen, the idea being that it's faster and easier to write (which is of course debatable). I have also heard that the older style of Italic cursive was more useful when you had to dip the pen into an inkwell every few letters, and that D'Nealian was adopted once steady-flow ink pens became cheap and common (since you don't have to pick them up or worry about blotting). I don't have any good citations right now, I'll have to check with my nephew and see if their book has an ISBN on it or not. Otherwise I'll see if the teacher has some kind of official manual or guide which I can reference. If someone has kids in school, they can verify this and post an ISBN I'd appreciate it as it'll be a few weeks before I can verify myself. 69.145.252.26 (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Time-line

I seriously doubt the time-line "introduced in 1978". I was taught to write, in primary school, using this script in about 1945. Petergans (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a source for it, but I believe that 1978 was the year when the Public school system decided to start adopting it nation-wide as a "Standard", but had been introduced by some districts earlier as a sort of 'pilot' program. So you could say it was formally introduced in 1978, but that's a little vague in my mind. If someone can dig up a source (I'll hunt as well) I think it would be worth mentioning. 69.145.252.26 (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no "Public school system" in America: each state has its own number of administrative bodies who determine things like which system of writing to adopt as a standard. For example, in the 1980s/90s the Portland Public School system introduced a system that more closely resembles italic script, unlike the rest of Oregon public schools. I was taught this script in the 1960s -- or one like it; there is no example of the Zaner-Blosser system on Wikipedia, so I'm guessing here. Of course, the forms I currently use in my handwriting varies greatly from all of these, being a mash-up evolved over the decades of printing, cursive, & idiosyncratic forms (e.g., my "g" is a variant of the loop-tail "g" seen on typewriters). But if my life depended on it, I might be able to write with the hand I was taught in grade school. -- llywrch (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Where did you leave, Petergans? He was teaching or administrating in Gibraltar, MI from apparently about 1959 up to 1984 when he retired, and Luna Pier before that. I actually went to his elementary school right before he retired and we learned it from the start, but obviously that post-dates more general adoption. Of course, the likelihood you'll come back to read this ten years after... Krilia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Other languages

The introduction states includes the assumption that this is not a uniquely English form of handwriting with the phrase: "(and perhaps other languages written with the Latin alphabet)". I don't know if this is true, it seems like OR, at best. In addition, I would question whether this form of handwriting is even used for "English", to me, it always seemed like a particularly American form of handwriting. I've never seen an English person use any sort of similar handwriting. V85 (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Monkey tails

the addition of so-called "monkey tails" to manuscript

What does this mean? The external reference does not help very much. Elsewhere the term seems to be used simply to mean descenders, which presumably isn't the meaning here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.18.239 (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It means look at m in this text, and compare it to the m in the image and see what is mainly different about it that looks like a tail. --184.63.132.236 (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Please define better what we are talking about

Article says, "In theory, it is easier for children to learn and acquire basic handwriting skills using this method than traditional cursive writing." Now just what on earth is "traditional cursive writing"? When I look at the samples given of ligature letters, I see nothing but very trivial differences between the letters in the Palmer Method. I am not sure I see any difference at all between D'Nealian and Zaner-Bloser. Has not someone rated the different styles of ligature as to intelligibility and speed? What else is important? Do the slight differences in ligature style render them mutually unintelligible? Has any study been done on starting with ligature from the getgo instead of printing -- the way my wife learned to write in Guatemala as a child. As to intelligibility, I have no trouble reading ligature from 1776. PeacePeace (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC))

---

So, this is what my friend sent me when I asked, although I don't have citations to back it up and edit the article:

 D'Nealian is a pedagogical method from the 1970s of teaching print writing and then introducing a very simplified cursive soon after teaching print. It's a response to the print-first method developed in the early 20th century, which encouraged teaching children to write in block letters with a pencil or crayon at a much younger age (1st or second grade) than it had been traditionally taught (around 4th grade), and then introducing cursive at the traditional age. Before the print-first method people pretty much only wrote by hand in cursive, and since writing in the 19th century and earlier relied on a dip pen, children learned to read between the ages of 5-7 and then learned to write when their manual dexterity had caught up, generally around ages 8-11. This also fit with older pedagogical ideas that you should teach one skill at a time, whereas 20th c pedagogy believed that teaching reading and writing at the same time reinforced the concepts.

Meekohi (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

What were Steve Graham's findings?

This passage is ambiguous:

A research review by Steve Graham (1993/94) concludes that "there is no credible evidence" that D'Nealian makes a difference in children's handwriting, that D'Nealian creates practical problems for teachers (who must themselves learn the system and defend it to parents), and that it requires many young children to unlearn writing forms that they have already developed before formal instruction.

Is he saying that:

1. D'Nealian does not make a difference in children's handwriting (as "there is no credible evidence")
2. D'Nealian does not create practical problems for teachers
3. D'Nealian does not require many children to unlearn things

Or is it:

1. D'Nealian does not make a difference in children's handwriting
2. D'Nealian does create practical problems for teachers
3. D'Nealian does require many children to unlearn things

The sentence as written may be read either way. The cited source is not readily available to non-experts. --FIPAR (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It's the latter. Fixed and cited.—Dah31 (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Description Image

The graphic example under the Description heading, is titled "D'Nealian Manucript". Should it be "D'Nealian Manuscript" instead? I don't know how to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.197.210 (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Critisicm

The “‘93 study” by graham, which the author reports concluded no effect for D’naleian, lacks a specific citation. I was able to find a meta analysis by graham in 93 but it studied the effect on writing (composition) not handwriting (forming letters). Furthermore the study lacks any specific mention of “D’Naleian” perhaps it’s the subject of one of the studies referenced therein. However, a layperson like me was unable to substantiate the claim of “no effect” or find a study that might test the hypothesis directl. Thank you for your consideration. 2600:1008:B11D:E673:BD0B:F9FE:2AB7:ABEE (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)