Talk:D'Nealian

message: 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)
replies: text: The articles have been merged. --FIPAR (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Criticisms

message: 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 [] Xous 22:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The picture

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Misc Notes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Time-line 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Other languages 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Monkey tails 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Please define better what we are talking about 

message: 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: 
# D'Nealian does not make a difference in children's handwriting (as "there is no credible evidence")
# D'Nealian does not create practical problems for teachers
# D'Nealian does not require many children to unlearn things
Or is it: 
# D'Nealian does not make a difference in children's handwriting
# D'Nealian does create practical problems for teachers
# 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)
replies: text: It's the latter.  Fixed and cited.—Dah31 (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What were Steve Graham's findings? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Description Image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Critisicm