The chances of a child fathoming out an alphabetic code like that of written English without explicit instruction are slender. Let us not mince words; they are virtually zero. The left to right progression of the symbols, silent letters and all the rest of it, can only be mastered by being taught. Nevertheless, quite a few parents claim that their children learn by themselves, with little or no teaching. What motivates people to assert something so unlikely to be true?
We all want to believe, and also to persuade others, that our children are special. Most people's kids learn to read at school when once they have been taught the trick of the thing; just imagine how clever our child might be if he could crack the code without being taught! In every case where it has proved possible to investigate the matter, children who can read have been found to have received instruction in the matter. The idea of a child teaching himself to read is a piece of folk mythology which has had an unfortunate effect upon home educators in this country. In the first instance, it makes many parents feel like flops. Other children are apparently learning the thing without belong drilled with flashcards or trained in phonics; what is wrong with my kid? The obvious solution is to start teaching, while denying that you are doing anything of the sort. That way, you will be able to maintain your status as autonomously educating parent and also demonstrate to everybody else how bright your kid is. The only problem is that this promotes an atmosphere of humbug and cant, with people frantically teaching little Johnny to recognise A for Apple, while keeping the whole enterprise under wraps.
I have never felt inclined to play this game. I should have done really. Just think how impressed my friends and family would be if my daughter had been able to read at the age of two without any effort on my part! Why, she would look like an infant prodigy. I have observed this happening among acquaintances, who spend a fortune on private tutors, resources and so on and then when their child gains a scholarship or passes his 11 Plus, deny that they had anything to do with it and attribute the whole business with becoming modesty to their child being naturally brilliant!
I think a distinction should be made between a child who learns to read without being actively taught, and a child who learns to read without any relevant information. Clearly, no one could learn to read if they had no information whatsoever about what speech sounds were represented by what letters. But most children are growing up in an environment where they are surrounded by such information, so what's more puzzling is why some children don't learn to read.
ReplyDeleteThe first word I remember learning was 'Cadbury'. It was on the top of our biscuit tin and I asked my mum what it said. Leaving aside the distinctive nature of the logo, it wasn't exactly a giant intellectual leap for me to figure out that the first letter symbolised the sound 'c'.
I see no reason why most children should not be able to learn to read if they have frequent access to books and their parents give them information only in terms of reading the books to them and in response to questions like 'what does this word say?'. Making connections is what the human brain does best, as demonstrated by most children's ability to master language without formal tuition.
The impression I get from parents who claim their children learn to read without being taught, is not that their children have spontaneously developed this skill without any input on the parent's part, but that they haven't followed a Jolly Phonics course, or waved flashcards at their kids or done regular reading practice.
I also don't think most people are actually deliberately "lying" - there is often a lot of variation in what people mean by "not teaching"- as Suzy said above they may merely mean they haven't deliberately set out to "teach".
ReplyDeleteMany years ago, when I worked with new mothers I realised what a variation there was when a mother said " my baby sleeps through the night." Some meant from 11pm to 6pm - some from 7pm to 7 am. Some meant " always" and some meant 4 nights out of 7. Some meant "except for they wake up for a feed." Now a few of these mothers may have been over exaggerating because they either felt inferior or something, and a few may have been so sleep deprived they couldn't actually remember, but I am pretty sure no one was deliberately trying to deceive others and most of the differences came down to the vocabularly being used.
When it comes to reading there is even more potential for misunderstanding what others mean, but I don't think there is a huge intention to mislead others, although it might be better for new home educators to recognise that in fact the ability to read doesn't just come automatically. Personally I am in favour of structured teaching in some way or another....shall I use the "Simon" method on my grandson,(as yet unborn) I wonder?
'I also don't think most people are actually deliberately "lying" '
ReplyDeleteYes, I probably worded this a little clumsily. When we lived in Tottenham, I knew quite a few people who got their kids into Latymer in nearby Edmonton. It was quite common for such parents to deny that they had done anything in particular to get the children ready for the entrance examination. In some cases, I have no doubt at all that they were deceiving themselves and had actually forgotten the huge amount of preparation involved. I think that much the same thing happens with some children who have'learned to read by themselves'. The parents forget the work that they have put in, because they realise, perhaps subconsciously, that this makes them look like the sort of pushy parents like me whom they despise! There is also, as I say, the fact that this makes their own child's achievement look all the more impressive. So, deliberate lying; probably not. Self deception and bending the truth; almost certainly.
Both my children developed phonic awareness without any systematic teaching beyond sharing books/ jigsaws together and the sort of writing that small children choose to do - helping with shopping lists, labelling pictures and so on. From there they started to read. Once they had started reading - using a mixture of phonics and word recognition (younger child could pick out coelophysis off a page about dinosaurs when he was a dino obsessed four year old) the whole thing just unfolded very swiftly and they were both able to read chapter books by six.
ReplyDeleteI don't say I never taught them anything because clearly I did. Elder child also enjoyed schools programmes like Words and Pictures when she was about three and picked up a lot from that. Both children were read to every day by us and also grandparents/aunts/uncles/friends. But we didn't use any sort of formal scheme or ever set aside time for reading/writing.
I think it's interesting to observe how children acquire literacy without the systematic following of a programme of any sort. I was very glad my children did do it that way when I later observed how tedious a scheme like Jolly Phonics could make the process. I did, certainly, teach my children things but it wasn't systematic or structured - it was just what we thought of as normal life with little children.
Simon said:
ReplyDelete'So, deliberate lying; probably not. Self deception and bending the truth; almost certainly.'
I'm not denying that some parents might bend the truth and deceive themselves. But I think Julie's description of the ways people use language is more accurate - they simply mean different things.
I still maintain that most children, given enough exposure to the printed word, plus relevant bits of information in a haphazard rather than systematic manner, could learn to read - because the mechanisms are similar to those used to learn to speak.
The difference is that in everyday life most children are exposed to many more examples of speech than examples of text. Also, it's very difficult to avoid hearing speech, whereas reading text tends to be an active process involving finding and opening a book.
My daughter taught herself to read just after her fourth birthday with no teaching whatsoever. Sorry about that. I have always read to her a lot, and she did have an alphabet poster on her wall, so you can call that 'teaching' if it makes you feel better, but she taught herself because she was given a comic book which I refused to read to her because it bored me rigid. She was so desperate to read it that she sat staring at it for days on end and somehow figured it out.
ReplyDelete'My daughter taught herself to read just after her fourth birthday with no teaching whatsoever. Sorry about that. I have always read to her a lot, and she did have an alphabet poster on her wall, so you can call that 'teaching' if it makes you feel better, but she taught herself because she was given a comic book which I refused to read to her because it bored me rigid. She was so desperate to read it that she sat staring at it for days on end and somehow figured it out. '
ReplyDelete*raised eyebrow* if you figure out how she did it..coud you let me know. It might take the pressure off me having to continually answer the 'whats dat say?' question.
Do I actively teach? Yep. Does it work? It appears to be, sine at 3.5 he can now read (albeit mostly through memory) simple book to both himself and me. He now also appreciates words since he understands those squiggles actually mean something.
"The difference is that in everyday life most children are exposed to many more examples of speech than examples of text."
ReplyDeleteYes, that's surely true. We also know that when children are deprived of conversation it has a negative impact on their ability to talk. Perhaps being exposed to a wide range of texts opens up reading in the same way that lots of conversation opens up speech.
I think the speech/reading/writing relationship is really interesting. When my daughter was at infant school I did some volunteering with the year 2 children who weren't reading well (6/7 year olds) and I noticed how they often seemed to encounter words not in their everyday spoken vocabulary. I think a large spoken vocabulary might well speed up the acquisition of reading because it makes more rich and interesting texts accessible much sooner. If you regularly say enormous or miserable you'll recognise those words much quicker and can handle texts that don't just stick to big and sad.
Whether it is talking or reading or any new skill, I think that having adults who are really engaged and paying attention counts for a lot. I don't mean breathing down a child's neck all day long but being ready to prioritise the child's questions and so on. I'm always wanting to lean over on the bus and pick up conversation with toddlers whose words are being steadfastly ignored by the adult beside them - similarly the observations of early readers picking out words on the shops and posters. It seems that some adults think it foolish to be engaging with little children in this way in public. I don't really understand it at all because, for me, the chance to chat with my kids has always been the best bit about having them around so much.
'but she taught herself because she was given a comic book which I refused to read to her because it bored me rigid'
ReplyDeleteAnd...you're home educating?
'And...you're home educating?'
ReplyDeleteYes....'autonomously' home educating! Perhaps not the best advertisement which I have seen for the method.
I'm going to heavily agree with Allie. The best teachers are those who are simply there to entertain a question, to offer an answer and to listen to a child interpretation of something - and not always fel the need to correct them either.
ReplyDeleteI have said it before, and will say it again (because I'm annoying like that) It never ceases to amaze me just how much a child can learn, simply by talking about something. So naturally, reading with them, pointing letters and words out, asking them if they know what something says or answering them when they ask is going to lead to literacy, without the associated pressures of 'having' to read.
'My daughter taught herself to read just after her fourth birthday with no teaching whatsoever. Sorry about that'
ReplyDeleteWhy are you sorry?? Did you tell a porky, or do you think we'll be offended by your daughters intelligence?
"Yes....'autonomously' home educating! Perhaps not the best advertisement which I have seen for the method."
ReplyDeleteWell, I never refused to read anything. I had a tough time ploughing through the 1950s Batman comic strips that younger child wanted at four and five, but I did it! I looked upon it as penance for the months on end when I demanded my mother read me 'Peter and Jane in the Garden' in 1974...
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Nevertheless, quite a few parents claim that their children learn by themselves, with little or no teaching. What motivates people to assert something so unlikely to be true?"
I think this stems from people using the word, 'teaching', differently. To many people it means sitting down at a set time with a plan to teach a particular series of facts or skills. Now, if this is what we take teaching to mean, then some children do learn to read without teaching. But teaching is wider than this in my view and includes those times when parent and child snuggle up with a book together, play the 'find the first letter of my name on street signs' game, look at the alphabet freeze around the bedroom together just before bed, play rhyming games, sing songs, play eye-spy, watch schools programmes or Sesame Street together, etc. It may not feel like teaching because it's just normal life for the families involved along with playing with their children and helping them learn to ride a bike, swim, etc. One of mine learnt to read this way, the other learnt later using a phonics programme. Each to their own.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Yes....'autonomously' home educating! Perhaps not the best advertisement which I have seen for the method."
How can you call it autonomous education when it involves coercion? Have you learnt nothing, Simon?
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"I have never felt inclined to play this game. I should have done really. Just think how impressed my friends and family would be if my daughter had been able to read at the age of two without any effort on my part! Why, she would look like an infant prodigy."
But then you couldn't claim the credit for teaching her. I suppose it might feel as though others are minimising your achievement if they achieved the same in a much more relaxed and informal way, so I can see why it might grate on your nerves. Well, if it helps, it probably takes at least as much time and effort to help a child learn to read autonomously as it does to teach your child to read with a parent-led approach. They are just just different ways of doing the same thing, and both methods probably suit some children better than the alternative.
I'm the first 'anonymous' - the one who dared to suggest my daughter taught herself to read. FWIW I am certainly not an autonymous home educator and not really sure why I'm being 'accused' of being one, and apparently a bad one at that! In fact, I generally agree more with you, Simon, than with the autonymous crowd, although this kind of tribalism and name-calling drives me nuts. It really is insane - simply because I disagreed with the idea that no child anywhere could ever learn to read without being formally taught, I've now been accused of being both a liar and, because I mentioned I don't enjoy reading trashy, semi-literate comic books, some kind of bad parent!
ReplyDeleteIn fact, it appears I can't even spell 'autonomous'!
ReplyDeleteSome kids really don't need to be taught. My friend discovered that her daughter could read at 2 years old when her baby daughter started correcting her older siblings' spelling and reading mistakes at home. It took everyone by surprise because people don't normally expect a 2 year old to read, most people don't even bother trying to start teaching at that age anyway. My friend wasn't lying. She didn't have the time nor inclination to teach such a young child to read as she was juggling 2 jobs as well as her husband who worked full time, and they were not well-off and had 3 children to support. When the girl started reception she was put in G&T. There are really some very gifted people out there.
ReplyDelete"simply because I disagreed with the idea that no child anywhere could ever learn to read without being formally taught, I've now been accused of being both a liar and, because I mentioned I don't enjoy reading trashy, semi-literate comic books, some kind of bad parent!"
ReplyDeleteIf you took my comment that Simon had mistaken your approach for autonomous (because it involved coercion as opposed to common preference finding) as a criticism, I apologise, that wasn't my intention. My intention was to suggest that Simon was probably mistaken in assuming you are an anonymous educator, correctly as it turns out.
Within AE I would say that it's fine to dislike reading something your child likes, but then you would look for common preferences. Maybe someone else in the family (dad, sibling, etc) would like to read that particular text with the child, for instance. After all the discussions people have had with Simon about AE, it's really amazing that he can still make such basic errors.
No apology necessary! But of course other people did read her the book, and I read bits of it to her in small doses - I'm not a complete monster! I was being slightly flippant (admittedly not a great idea in an anonymous post to strangers...) but trying to make the point that she wanted to read this book and, since I wasn't always willing or able to read it to her, she was incredibly motivated to learn to read. I really didn't think that was such a controversial or unusual thing to say, or one that would warrant personal insults. (And, again, I know that's what the internet is all about but it's still a bit depressing on a sunny Sunday afternoon!) Don't loads of kids do this? I know plenty of kids who could read, at least a bit, before they started school, and I don't think very many of them were 'taught', mainly because their parents wouldn't have known how to go about it, even if they weren't struggling with other kids/work etc etc. I certainly can't believe it's so unusual that you should assume anyone who says their child taught themselves is lying.
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing wrong with comics or comic books for stimulating a childs interest in reading, writing and sequential art. Many comic books are illustrations of classic works of literature. Still...it's pretty obvious that the AE lobbyists have got something against fun and enjoyment.
ReplyDeletePerhaps they fear that their child will learn irreverence from comics, and little Johnny turn out to question his parents unswerving adherence to barely understood politically correct indoctrination by home ed gurus.
"I certainly can't believe it's so unusual that you should assume anyone who says their child taught themselves is lying."
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree. I've had both experiences, a child who learnt to read without structured teaching (as yours did), and another who needed and asked for structured teaching. If I'd only had the structure-needing child maybe I would doubt others when they describe similar experiences to ours with the non-structure-needing child (if that makes sense!).
I think even in the most AE household the type of situation you describe (a child not being read to as much as they want) is likely to happen despite the best efforts of their family and can often be the reason a child chooses/needs to learn to read. Glad you didn't find my comment offensive.
'Because I said I don't enjoy reading trashy,semi-literate comic books'
ReplyDeleteA somewhat old fashioned and uninformed view of the 'comic' genre..
I wouldn't label the illustrated versions of Oscar Wilde's literary works 'trashy' or the illustrated and adapted versions of The Illiad 'semi-literate'.
And...I've read similar adaptions of Franz Kafka, Poe, Austen etc etc..a wonderful introduction to the world of art and literature for young readers.
In a more modern vein you'll find Gaiman and Pratchett in the bookshops, Waterstones seem to do a roaring trade with English grads eager to buy up Graphic novels.
You'll also find that the library service is very very keen to stock their shelves with such books.
But hey...perhaps you're just a book burner at heart, you seem to have the attitudes of one.
"Still...it's pretty obvious that the AE lobbyists have got something against fun and enjoyment."
ReplyDeleteHow on earth did you reach that conclusion? Still, gave my daughter a laugh when I told her! All those trips to fun fairs, adventure parks and the sea-side must have been a dream.
If you are suggesting this because of the person who didn't like reading a particular comic to her child, a) they weren't autonomous educators, and b) not liking to read a particular comic to a child is not the same as not liking any comics or stopping others who do like the comic from reading it to the child.
Part of AE (at least the TCS version anyway) is finding common preferences. It's perfectly OK for a parent not to like a book and it would be self-sacrificing to force themselves to read it, a TCS no-no. The answer is to problem solve, just as the original writer did.
"'Because I said I don't enjoy reading trashy,semi-literate comic books'
ReplyDeleteA somewhat old fashioned and uninformed view of the 'comic' genre.."
She didn't like reading one particular comic book her child had been given. How does this translate to the whole 'comic' genre? Have you liked every single book or reading material you have ever read in your life?
This AE lobby....they remind me so much of a very popular comic strip, 'The Modern Parents'. As parents go they're a Politically Correct nightmare.
ReplyDeleteYou can find them featured in the pages of VIZ.
Yes, I've got both types too, and I did 'teach' my son.
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine many parents manage to read to their child whenever their child requests it, and surely in the real world it's perfectly acceptable to admit that your child's favourite book bores you. It's only in the strange world of home ed websites that admitting these things makes you a bad advert for home ed!
And, because I now seem to have started a completely new argument, I'm not anti-comics - I once co-wrote a graphic novel! I just find reading crap ones aloud rather dull! And now I'm going to the park before I'm compelled to write an essay justifying why I'm actually not a bad parent, despite once, three years ago, refusing to read my daughter any more Ben 10.
TCS ...oh gawd it doesn't get any funnier than that.
ReplyDeleteRAFLMAO
Cross-posted with loads of people. Now apparently I'm a book-burner! £10 for the first person to call me a Nazi.
ReplyDeleteYou co-wrote a graphic novel...
ReplyDeleteAlan Moore must be quaking in his boots.
Nazi
ReplyDeleteYou can donate the £10 to the Japanese appeal.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure Simon can see that it gets done.
Alan Moore has nothing to fear. It was rubbish. I'm now not sure who I'm arguing with or what about.
ReplyDelete"You can find them featured in the pages of VIZ."
ReplyDeleteBut would AE parent's have a copy of VIZ? Wouldn't that be politically incorrect?
Was that irony flying overhead?
ReplyDeleteYou owe the Japanese disaster fund a tenner...
ReplyDelete"Was that irony flying overhead?"
ReplyDeleteYou really need to make it clear who you are replying to if you want people to make sense of your comments. If they make sense, that is.
Replying to anonymous..
ReplyDeleteAlmost funny...
ReplyDeleteYep sorry but my 3 year old non verbal ds read at that age. His deaf brother followed suit by the age of 9.
ReplyDelete"The obvious solution is to start teaching, while denying that you are doing anything of the sort. That way, you will be able to maintain your status as autonomously educating parent and also demonstrate to everybody else how bright your kid is."
ReplyDeleteWhy would autonomously educating parents have to deny they are teaching? We educate autonomously and used a phonics scheme to teach one of ours to read. Why would I claim we didn't? As long as it's the child's choice (for AE families), teaching is a great way to learn new information and skills - one of the best. None of mine ever got on with flash cards though. You have some strange ideas about AE, Simon.
I think this also ties in with the other end of the reading spectrum - late reading and the idea that "children will learn to read once they want to" - which also seems freighted with a similar level of denial in some cases.
ReplyDeleteUS "unshoolers" (and to a lesser extent, UK AE-ers) tend to tout stories of children who learned to read, on their own, with no instruction or parental 'coercion', once they hit age 8, or 9, or 10, or 12. This is taken to validate the choice to endorse 'late reading'. There's a high level of denial about what often drives this level of sudden interest - namely, peer pressure and teasing from age-mates who can read. (I guess the myth that home educated children don't socialise is actually beneficial in some cases!)
I think that a similar dynamic is in place - parents want to believe that their children have validated their educational philosophy, and proven themselves to be geniuses after all those years of doubt from granny! They aren't lying, but often see what they want to see - in this case non-coerced learning in the place of peer pressure.
"tout stories of children who learned to read, on their own, with no instruction or parental 'coercion', once they hit age 8, or 9, or 10, or 12. This is taken to validate the choice to endorse 'late reading'."
ReplyDeleteI have a child who chose to learn to read at a later age than the school norm. They chose to learn and had instruction. AE does not preclude teaching or structured learning, just coercion. I didn't take it as a validation of our choice to endorse 'late reading' because I don't endorse late reading. I am more than happy that some of my children learnt to read earlier than the school norm (one learnt at just under 3, for instance). I just see reading as one of many skills a child will learn before they are adults and the order they choose to learn them in doesn't seem as important to me as it appears to be to you. You appear to dislike people being different to you, but that's your problem, not mine.
"There's a high level of denial about what often drives this level of sudden interest - namely, peer pressure and teasing from age-mates who can read."
Can't really win can I? If I tell you that my child wasn't teased (I did ask them), you will just claim I'm in denial.
Yes, knowing that others their age were reading did influence their choice to begin learning to read, along with a wish to keep in contact with friends across the country via email, facebook, etc There were many reasons that put 'pressure' on them to learn to read, just as there were pressures on them to learn to ride a bike. What's wrong with that? They chose to learn to read for their own reasons but were very definite about not learning before then (and not because I told then not to!).
"I think that a similar dynamic is in place - parents want to believe that their children have validated their educational philosophy, and proven themselves to be geniuses after all those years of doubt from granny!"
A genius for learning to read? Who would think that? Or is it the parents that are supposed to think they are geniuses for preferring to avoid coercing their children (as far as possible)? We don't avoid coercion because we think it's clever, we avoid it because we think it is harmful and wrong. Can't see why anyone would feel a genius for any of these reasons.
You appear to be in denial that it's possible for a family to operate successfully following this approach to family life. Luckily, that's your problem, not ours. We have a very happy family and children who know their mind and have excellent problem solving skills when finding common preferences with others (ie, great social skills!). All have gone on to further or higher education and/or work in the direction of their choice, so whether you choose to belief that this is true or not is irrelevant.
I learned to read without direct instruction before I was five years old. And that was over 40 years ago. My husband did likewise, so it came as no surprise to either of us that our son read without direct instruction when he was four.
ReplyDeleteOf course, we were all immersed in print-rich environments and had adults around who read to us, but we weren't deliberately or systematically taught.
This happens all the time. Very few children are actually "taught" to read. In fact, research suggests that kids learn to read in spite of instruction. And research also shows that some kids simply aren't neurologically ready to read according to the time table set out by schools. I've met several children who didn't read until they were 11, 12, or 13 who were reading beyond their age level within a few months of starting to read. (This doesn't happen for all late readers as some do have a legitimate learning disorder and parents must be careful to pay attention to the signs that this might be the case for older children.)
But what I have learned is that there really is little point in trying to argue about reading with people who believe that kids must be taught. They won't change their minds, even if they are wrong. ;)
'This happens all the time. Very few children are actually "taught" to read. In fact, research suggests that kids learn to read in spite of instruction. And research also shows that some kids simply aren't neurologically ready to read according to the time table set out by schools. I've met several children who didn't read until they were 11, 12, or 13 who were reading beyond their age level within a few months of starting to read.'
ReplyDeleteAnd the legend continues...
"And the legend continues..."
ReplyDeleteDenial again... If you don't like something, you just keep on denying it happens. Just stick your hands over your eyes and shout la, la, la, la at the top of your voice if it helps.
I taught myself to read when I was about 5. I had this giant book that was actually a combination of many books my mom had put together for me. I loved that book. And I clearly remember sitting on a chair and trying to read the stories. The way I taught myself was by running to my mom back and forth and asking "whats this letter?", "whats that letter?". The next thing she noticed me sitting with the book and reading on my own! So she never actively tried teaching me to read.
ReplyDeleteIt def stuck with me because reading is my passion these days...
'In fact, research suggests that kids learn to read in spite of instruction. And research also shows that some kids simply aren't neurologically ready to read according to the time table set out by schools.'
ReplyDeleteCould you please point me to those research papers?
Not the same anonymous (I would also be interested in seeing their links), but these pages look like they may lead to relevant research papers:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.iverna.com/academic
http://www.edutopia.org/brain-research-reading-instruction-literacy