GED Essay Example: Cursive Writing Topic
The GED Reasoning Through Language Arts (RLA) test includes an extended response section, where test-takers must write a well-supported argumentative essay. One common topic is whether cursive writing still has a place in modern education. Here, you’ll find a full GED Essay Example: Cursive Writing (Extended Response) that demonstrates how to structure your ideas, support your claims, and meet the expectations of the RLA writing task.
Read the prompt and task instruction below. Your task is to write a well-organized extended response of at least 300 words in 45 minutes, as shown in the Model Response that follows.
GED Essay Samples by Topics
Task Instruction
Analyze the arguments presented in the two speeches. In your response, develop an argument in which you explain how one position is better supported than the other. Incorporate relevant and specific evidence from both sources to support your argument. Remember, the better-argued position is not necessarily the position with which you agree. This task should take approximately 45 minutes to complete.
Cursive Writing Remains a Valuable Skill for Student Development
By Dr. Angela Foster, Elementary Education Specialist
Schools must continue teaching cursive writing as a fundamental skill that provides cognitive, academic, and cultural benefits that keyboarding cannot replace. Despite the digital age, cursive instruction remains crucial for developing well-rounded, capable students.
Research demonstrates that cursive writing enhances brain development in ways that printing and typing cannot match. A 2023 study from Johns Hopkins University found that students who learned cursive showed improved neural activity in areas associated with reading comprehension and memory retention. The continuous flow of cursive letters requires complex hand-eye coordination and fine motor skills that strengthen cognitive pathways. Dr. Maria Gonzalez, a neuroscientist at UCLA, explains that “the connected movements in cursive writing activate multiple brain regions simultaneously, creating stronger learning connections.”
Cursive also improves academic performance across subjects. Students who write in cursive demonstrate better spelling accuracy because the connected letters help them visualize word patterns more effectively. Additionally, research from the University of Washington shows that students who take handwritten notes retain information 34% better than those who type notes on computers. The slower pace of handwriting forces students to process and synthesize information rather than simply transcribing it.
Furthermore, cursive writing connects students to cultural heritage and historical literacy. Many important historical documents, including the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, were written in cursive. Students who cannot read cursive script lose direct access to primary sources, family letters, and historical records. This creates a generation gap that disconnects young people from their cultural past.
Practical benefits also support continued cursive instruction. Handwritten signatures remain legally important for contracts, checks, and official documents. Students who never learn cursive often develop illegible print signatures that can cause verification problems in professional and legal contexts.
Finally, cursive writing provides cognitive benefits during the writing process itself. The fluid motion helps students organize thoughts more coherently and express ideas with greater clarity. Many successful authors and professionals still prefer handwriting for initial drafts because it enhances creativity and reflection.
Schools that abandon cursive instruction deprive students of these neurological, academic, and cultural advantages that cannot be replicated through digital alternatives.
Cursive Writing Is an Outdated Skill in the Digital Era
By Robert Chen, Educational Technology Consultant
Schools should eliminate mandatory cursive writing instruction to focus on more relevant 21st-century skills. In our increasingly digital world, cursive represents an inefficient use of limited classroom time that could be better spent on computer literacy, coding, and other essential modern competencies.
The practical argument against cursive is overwhelming. Most communication today occurs through digital platforms—emails, text messages, social media, and word processing. Students will spend their careers typing on keyboards and touchscreens, not writing with pens. A 2024 survey by the National Business Association found that 89% of workplace communication happens digitally, while only 3% requires handwritten text. Teaching cursive is like training students to use typewriters when everyone uses computers.
Time management represents another crucial factor. Elementary students have limited instructional hours, and schools face pressure to cover reading, mathematics, science, and standardized test preparation. The 45-60 minutes per week typically spent on cursive instruction could address more pressing educational needs. Jennifer Walsh, a fourth-grade teacher in Denver, notes that “students struggle with basic keyboarding skills that they actually need for state testing and homework assignments.”
The alleged cognitive benefits of cursive are overstated and can be achieved through other activities. While fine motor skills matter, students can develop them through art, music, sports, and other engaging activities rather than repetitive letter formation drills. Modern research shows that creative writing, regardless of the writing method, provides the same cognitive benefits that cursive advocates claim.
Moreover, the cultural heritage argument is antiquated. Historical documents are readily available in printed transcriptions and digital formats. Students can access the content and meaning of historical texts without needing to decode cursive handwriting. This argument is equivalent to saying students must learn Latin to understand ancient texts when quality translations exist.
The signature argument also lacks merit in today’s world. Digital signatures, biometric authentication, and secure electronic verification systems are rapidly replacing handwritten signatures. Banks, businesses, and government agencies increasingly accept digital alternatives that provide better security than easily forged handwritten signatures.
Schools should prepare students for the future, not cling to obsolete practices. Eliminating cursive instruction allows educators to focus on digital literacy, critical thinking, and technological skills that students actually need for academic and professional success.
Model Response
The debate over cursive writing instruction reflects broader questions about educational priorities in the digital age. After examining both perspectives, the argument for maintaining cursive writing instruction presents a more convincing case. This position is stronger because it addresses fundamental aspects of brain development, academic performance, and cultural literacy that cannot be adequately replaced by digital alternatives.
The neurological benefits of cursive writing provide the most compelling evidence for continued instruction. Dr. Foster cites research from Johns Hopkins University showing that cursive writing improves neural activity in areas connected to reading comprehension and memory retention. The continuous, flowing movements required in cursive activate multiple brain regions simultaneously, creating stronger learning pathways than typing or printing. While Chen dismisses these cognitive benefits as achievable through other activities, he provides no specific evidence that art or sports create the same neurological connections as the complex hand-eye coordination required for cursive writing.
Academic performance data also supports cursive instruction. The University of Washington research showing 34% better information retention among students taking handwritten notes represents a significant advantage that directly impacts learning outcomes. Foster explains that the slower pace of handwriting forces students to process and synthesize information rather than simply transcribing it, leading to deeper understanding. Chen’s argument that students need keyboarding skills for testing overlooks this crucial difference between transcription and comprehension. Students can learn both skills, and the cognitive benefits of handwriting enhance their overall academic abilities.
Chen raises practical concerns about time management and relevance in the digital workplace. His point that 89% of workplace communication occurs digitally cannot be ignored, and schools do face pressure to cover multiple subjects within limited time. However, this argument assumes that cursive instruction provides no transferable benefits to digital communication. The organizational thinking and fine motor coordination developed through cursive writing actually enhance typing skills and digital literacy rather than competing with them.
The cultural heritage argument also carries more weight than Chen acknowledges. While historical documents exist in digital formats, the ability to read original cursive texts connects students directly to primary sources and family histories. This skill becomes particularly valuable for students pursuing careers in history, genealogy, law, or archival work. Chen’s comparison to learning Latin misses the point—cursive writing is still actively used by millions of people, unlike ancient languages.
Foster’s practical points about signatures and legal documents remain relevant despite increasing digital alternatives. Even as electronic signatures become more common, handwritten signatures still play important roles in legal and financial contexts. Students who cannot write in cursive often develop illegible print signatures that can cause verification problems.
The evidence supporting cursive instruction outweighs the opposition because it addresses fundamental cognitive development that enhances all learning, not just handwriting skills. While digital literacy certainly matters, eliminating cursive instruction removes neurological benefits that cannot be replicated through typing. Schools can teach both cursive and keyboarding skills, preparing students for a world where cognitive flexibility and multiple communication methods provide the greatest advantages.
(493 words)
