Personally, I have always believed that handwriting provides benefits in everyday life. The reason behind this is as follows. I learned how to write in cursive in 2nd grade and that skill was practiced almost regularly up until 8th grade. However, when I had to wait 20 minutes for a student who was taking the SAT with me to copy the statement and sign below in cursive, I was speechless. “How do you not know how to do that in three seconds?” I thought to myself. I have also found that handwriting my notes for a class enables me to better absorb the information so that it is embedded in my brain due to the fact that I had to take the time to think about what I was writing, as opposed to just mindlessly typing what I saw in front of me on a screen. I am definitely persuaded by Dr. James’ observations suggesting, “that it is only the actual effort that engages the brain’s pathways and delivers the learning benefits of handwriting.” I also buy into Dr. Berninger suggesting, “cursive writing may train self-control ability in a way that other modes of writing do not, and some researchers argue that it may even be a path to treating dyslexia.” By writing in cursive, the writer is forced to think about what is being written on paper. More thought must go into what is being produced as opposed to so conveniently being able to press the “delete” button on the keyboard.
I don’t know if I would necessarily use this source as a primary reference, but I could see myself forming opinions based off of what I read. I interpreted the purpose of Maria Konnikova’s article to be bias based on the first two paragraphs. Right from the get-go, it is apparent that Konnikova’s goal is to steer readers away from the idea that many educators are in favor of keyboards over handwriting and see the possible long-term benefits. The article was not relevant to my research topic, however I was thoroughly engaged in the reading due to the fact that I was persuaded by the scientific studies that Konnikova referenced throughout the piece. These references proved to go side by side with my preconceived notions about the New York Times and its credentials that it is a newspaper known for its integrity. The credentials of the writer also allow the piece to be credible, as Konnikova is a writer and journalist who primarily write about psychology and literature. The article is a little bit dated, however the information noted in the piece is definitely still relevant and should be taken seriously.