Fascinating article: Children Teach Themselves to Read

[Lillian J]

I'm crossposting this here because, even when parents choose to use a program for reading, it can be helpful and comforting to know about the wide variety of experiences other families go through.

An article in the Freedom to Learn column of Psychology Today: Children Teach Themselves to Read, by Peter Grey: Unschoolers' accounts of how their children taught themselves to read.

Peter Gray, a research professor of psychology at Boston College, is a specialist in developmental and evolutionary psychology and author of an introductory textbook, Psychology.

Lillian

[Starflower]

My DD taught herself to read but when adults find out, they always tell me I must be a great teacher. DD is 6-1/2 and reads books for 9-12 year olds.

Why? Because she was ready to learn. And yes, we did read to her all the time (still do when she asks). We also answered questions when she had them. But we did not push the reading. Any time we tried to get her to show us if she could read, well....she'd just lost interest and stop reading completely.

I think we gave her a good environment to learn to read. She sees us reading every day. And we were available to her. But that's about it. The closest she's gotten to lessons was PBS programming she chose to watch. (I think she did learn some grammar rules on "Between the Lions" but we don't make her watch it. She just got a kick out of it for awhile.)

This is also why the bumper sticker that reads: "If you can read this, thank a teacher" grates my nerves so much now.

Now off the read the article. Hope I didn't write too much before reading, but I have read many articles by Peter Gray. Very interesting stuff.

ETA: Yup. It happened for DD pretty much like he describes in paragraph 4 of the article.

[One_Girl]

That was an interesting article, but I don't think a kid is truly teaching themselves to read if they have been taught some information about sounds letters make. Most of the people in the article seemed to have some instruction and then read when they were ready to. I think it is a great article for pointing out that reading instruction can be really easy, fun, and informal because kids will read when they are developmentally ready to. I am interested to know if there are children who actually just start reading without any knowledge of letter sounds or sight word instruction.

[MamaMonica]

Great article!

[Lillian J]

Originally Posted by One_Girl

I am interested to know if there are children who actually just start reading without any knowledge of letter sounds or sight word instruction.

I've read stories of children figuring out the code more or less on their own by observing and asking questions. I think it would be pretty unusual in cases where there had never been any input, though. You might ask that question in the unschooling forum - there might be some interesting stories there.

Here's an interesting article, How My Children Learned to Read. Lillian

[Needle in the Hay]

Originally Posted by One_Girl

That was an interesting article, but I don't think a kid is truly teaching themselves to read if they have been taught some information about sounds letters make. Most of the people in the article seemed to have some instruction and then read when they were ready to. I think it is a great article for pointing out that reading instruction can be really easy, fun, and informal because kids will read when they are developmentally ready to. I am interested to know if there are children who actually just start reading without any knowledge of letter sounds or sight word instruction.

I think it would be odd if a child didn't have any information about the sounds of the letters. I learned to read largely by spending hours and hours with my little books on tape.

I am sure I had some information about letter sounds both from my mom (probably me asking her) and from Sesame Street. I had magnetic letters I played with on the fridge and they all had their own personalities and it was very clear to me which were male and female. I probably asked my mom about any whose sound I didn't know so I could use it in my play.

I remember when we had letter people visit us in kindergarten I already knew the sounds, but I had never had any reading instruction.

I do know what you mean about the article though since he mentions several families who started instruction with their kids and then backed off when it was clear they weren't ready. However, it sounds like for most of the parents it didn't take long for them to realize they needed to drop it. I doubt a few weeks of instruction that was resisted by the child was the key to learning to read later on.

[SagMom]

Originally Posted by One_Girl

I am interested to know if there are children who actually just start reading without any knowledge of letter sounds or sight word instruction.

I don't know about "without any knowledge" but without instruction? Sure! If words are all around them, if they see and hear people reading, they CAN make the connections between letters and sounds without instruction. I've never met anyone who claimed their child learned to read in a vacuum. But being exposed to the written word, and having their questions answered is different from being formally taught to read. I think that's the distinction being made.

Think of it like the way kids learn to walk--they see other people walking, they mimic others, they hold an adult's hands or pull up on a parent's leg. They "teach themselves" to walk while being surrounded by examples--most likely no one has set aside time each day to work on walking, or to practice the movements involved ("first put your heel down, then shift your weight..." ) and, as far as I know, there is no "learn to walk" curriculum available. I know some people don't like the walking analogy, but replace it with any other skill people learn through example and mimicry--speaking, eating...

I think what the article is trying to point out is that we have the idea that formal instruction is required, and that learning to read is difficult and takes much hard work. Many people have found that not to be true, but to suggest such a thing is a little like being that child in "The Emperor's New Clothes." If learning to read needn't involve elaborate phonics instruction, daily focused practice, and years of instruction, then what does that mean for the curriculum companies, the reading instructors, the schools?

[cappuccinosmom]

My youngest began his reading career without formal instruction. He suddenly figured out that a certain combination of letters made up his name.

But he'd had hours and hours and hours of listening to his brother's reading lessons, watching ABC videos with them, etc.

However, he's *asking* for teaching now. I do think kids may "decode" the language on their own if given enough information. But I don't know how "on their own" it really is.

[jessicaSAR]

Hmmm, I find the article more disappointing than fascinating. There are so many things wrong with it, and it does nothing to advance the discussion on reading education.

He begins by disparaging the "reading wars" that consume curricular debates and university research. The movement in the 60s and 70s toward a more progressive educational approach, that rejected rote memorization and structured learning, and replaced it with language immersion, sight reading and eventually whole language, has resulted in the atrocious literacy levels of recent and current students. Yet, the very things he is advocating (I guess he is advocating??) in his seven principles are a repeat of those progressive arguments from 30 years ago. So, he pooh poohs the "reading wars," but essentially ends up just reiterating the same arguments.

On the other hand, the scientific research made possible with the use of brain imaging has actually moved the debate beyond the reading wars. What we do know empirically now is that there is no one correct way to teach reading. We can actually see people using different parts of their brain to read. The idea that we might develop technologies for individualized reading instruction is interesting and exciting to me, and much more so than a tired rehashing of the old debates.

I am also not sure how you develop seven broad principles from 18 self-selected unschoolers who wrote in about their "successes" in not teaching reading. This is about as unscientific a survey as you can get. He claims that he is not making any claims about how to teach children to read, but then what's the point of the seven broad principles?? And, there is no mention of unschooled students who continued to struggle, who never developed adequate or advanced literacy, who were moved from unschooling to a more structured approach when they could not read, or who left Sudbury schools in order to find adequate reading instruction. There is no doubt that a percentage of children (scientists think it is about 30%) learn to read quickly and easily without formal instruction. But, this is not new information, and it does not tell us much about how to teach reading to the kids who do need formal instruction.

I also take issue with the idea that there is no critical period for learning to read. This is just my opinion, but I do not think it is beneficial to have children not learning to read until age 11, especially when these children might have benefitted from reading instruction and deciphered the code much earlier with a bit of persistent, good quality instruction. I don't care if you are schooled or not, there is a tremendous disadvantage to not being able to read. We are a very text dependent society. The disadvantages may be lesser for homeschoolers, but they are still there.

And, from the perspective of brain function, reading is not at all like walking and talking. Walking and talking are hard-wired in the human brain. We all do it (barring some physical handicap) and we all do it the same way (meaning we are using the same part of the brain). Reading, on the other hand, is not (yet) hard wired. We just have not been doing it long enough for the brain to have evolved a consistent way of managing the very complex series of tasks required for reading. So, just waiting for it to happen "naturally" may work fine for some children, but it is a disaster for others. And, given that gentle, good quality instruction can hardly be called a harm (I honestly don't think that examples of how trying to teach a 3yo to read can backfire are sufficient to discredit age appropriate reading instruction for 5, 6 and 7yos), and those who will learn to read easily will do so anyway, and those who need systematic instruction can be greatly hindered by a lack of instruction, I would argue that we should err on the side of good quality instruction rather than no instruction.

Just my 2 cents....

[Lillian J]

Originally Posted by SagMom

...and, as far as I know, there is no "learn to walk" curriculum available.

Although your comment got me to chuckling and wondering whether someone hadn't actually come up with one, so I googled "learn to walk lessons," and actually did find an article about "How to "Teach" a Baby to Walk." It just involved playful activities, but yes, there really are notions of that sort of thing. I didn't look any further, so I don't know what else is out there... Lillian

[Lillian J]

Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom

I do think kids may "decode" the language on their own if given enough information. But I don't know how "on their own" it really is.

My son was always bright and observant, but I really don't think he would have been one of those who would have decoded on his own nearly as much as others. I've heard stories from lots of people over the years about how theirs did, but I think they were probably children who had a natural leaning toward that particular kind of curiosity and decoding ability. And again, I think most stories of little ones decoding involve settings where there was a lot of reading immersion just from all the things going on in the home. And a lot of it, of course, has to do with interest - some are eager to do it themselves, whereas some, like mine, are perfectly delighted to be read to for pleasure until that slows them down from getting on with what they want to read. - Lillian

[SagMom]

Originally Posted by Lillian J

Although your comment got me to chuckling and wondering whether someone hadn't actually come up with one, so I googled "learn to walk lessons," and actually did find an article about "How to "Teach" a Baby to Walk." It just involved playful activities, but yes, there really are notions of that sort of thing. I didn't look any further, so I don't know what else is out there... Lillian

Oh, gosh, Lillian! You know, as I wrote that, I thought to myself, "I wonder if something like that IS out there?" but I didn't google it. I should have known!

[Lillian J]

If you scroll to the bottom of the article, by the way, he invites more stories,and I noticed there's a comments column there where people have posted some interesting stories and comments. Lillian

[Lillian J]

Originally Posted by SagMom

Oh, gosh, Lillian! You know, as I wrote that, I thought to myself, "I wonder if something like that IS out there?" but I didn't google it. I should have known!

Hey Joan, let's you and I write a book on the subject! Until people finally notice that we "wear no clothes," we'd be developing rock hard abs from laughing so much, so that would be okay, and we'd be rich enough to buy whatever couturier fashion we want. Lillian

[lach]

As usual, JessicaSAR said what I was thinking perfectly. Thank you, Jessica.

[MyLittleWonders]

: Thank you Jessica for putting it so eloquently. As a mother of at least two non-"natural" readers, I realized how much better it would have been for my now 8 1/2 year old to have had gentle, systematic phonics instruction starting at age 5 or 6 instead of waiting for him to pick it up naturally. I completely agree that reading is not a natural, hard-wired skill, as opposed to walking and talking (and this coming from one who read naturally on my own at age 4). The majority of kids in schools (this coming from a retired elementary school teacher) are not natural readers. Unfortunately articles like this will only help to cause students to be tracked at school and potentially labeled as learning disabled because they are not "catching on" to reading while being immersed in whole language classrooms.

[SagMom]

Originally Posted by jessicaSAR

The movement in the 60s and 70s toward a more progressive educational approach, that rejected rote memorization and structured learning, and replaced it with language immersion, sight reading and eventually whole language, has resulted in the atrocious literacy levels of recent and current students.

I don't think we can compare schooled kids with unschoolers/homeschoolers when it comes to these reading methods. What is a failure in the classroom might be a raging success on an individual basis. (and vice versa)

I am also not sure how you develop seven broad principles from 18 self-selected unschoolers who wrote in about their "successes" in not teaching reading...He claims that he is not making any claims about how to teach children to read, but then what's the point of the seven broad principles??

I took these principles to be common threads he identified between the readers who learned without formal instruction. He didn't claim it to be a scientific study.

I don't care if you are schooled or not, there is a tremendous disadvantage to not being able to read. We are a very text dependent society. The disadvantages may be lesser for homeschoolers, but they are still there.

I disagree. I have two who read "late" by general standards. They were not bothered by it. In fact, I suspect that one didn't even realize he was late. We read TO them often, and they did not miss out on information. Had they been in a classroom, yes they would have been at a disadvantage, but being homeschooled, not at all.

And, from the perspective of brain function, reading is not at all like walking and talking.

Of course, every analogy falls apart sooner or later. The point was that kids can learn through observation and mimicry and they can make associations between letters and sounds through immersion in the language.

(I honestly don't think that examples of how trying to teach a 3yo to read can backfire are sufficient to discredit age appropriate reading instruction for 5, 6 and 7yos),

It is considered "age appropriate" at 5, 6, 7 because that is the way the schools have set it up, not because it's a natural developmental stage. If reading is such a new skill that we can't learn it naturally, then how can there be a natural developmental window in which to learn it?

I would argue that we should err on the side of good quality instruction rather than no instruction.

I've seen kids who have had their love of reading destroyed by "good quality instruction" that was given before they were ready and willing. I think the enjoyment of books and the desire to read on one's own are far more important that the age one learns to read.

It's not "reading instruction" v "nothing at all."

[Luckiestgirl]

My oldest started reading fluently six months ago, about two months before his sixth birthday. We've always read to him, but we never did any reading instruction, other than answering his questions. He was highly motivated to read because he wanted to be able to read Transformers graphic novels to himself.

I was the same way--went to kindy knowing how to read, just from my parents reading to me. I think both my son and I learned sight words first, then intuited the phonics "rules" from the sight words, if that makes sense.

I suspect my daughter, almost five, will need some direct instruction with reading.

[Smokering]

Interesting. I taught myself to read, apparently. I don't remember doing it, which annoys the heck out of me now because I can't figure out how such a thing is possible. I know plenty of other kids who taught themselves to read too though, so it obviously works... somehow! I don't remember specifically not being able to read when I was young, even though I wasn't born literate. Do people generally remember early childhood illiteracy? I mean, I can remember not being able to understand certain concepts and reach high objects and unscrew the lid of the peanut butter jar, but I don't remember looking at a menu or a sign and not being able to decipher the words. I wonder if memory just "fills in the blanks", so if I remember seeing, say, a fast food sign I remember it as "reading", not just recognising? But then, recognising kind of is reading... and given thar I taught myself I can't have used phonics (surely?), so I must have just recognised the words.... maybe? All growed up I'm a very fast reader and tend to absorb chunks of text rather than sounding out words in my head like DH: I wonder if that's related to the way I learned to read. Do people who learn by the phonics method keep sounding out as they get older? I assumed visual recognition took over at some point, but maybe not!

[yllek]

Articles like this really interest me. I agreed in general with the idea that many children immersed in an environment rich in language and text can learn to read without the laborious process that occurs in many schools. Not all, but many.

Just to reveal my own biases, I want to say a little about where I am coming from. I’m a child of phonics-based instruction. I did not have a language/literacy-rich environment while I was growing up, and English is my second language. My parents are still not fluent English speakers. Anyway, at the risk of sound immodest, I became a very good speller and a very fast reader with excellent reading comprehension. I have always loved phonics, spelling rules, grammar, composition, literary analysis, etc.

My child, however, has learned to read mostly on his own. He started figuring out letter shapes, names and sounds when he was 18 months old. He started to recognize sight words at 2 and learning to decode and blend individual words when he was 3. I began phonics instruction with him when he was 5, after he already figured out how to read multi-syllabic words.

I guess my main criticism of the article is the implication that there is either an organic, seemingly effortless approach to learning to read when the child is developmentally ready or there is a ponderous process that involves dreary phonics drills and boring lessons that will make the child hate reading.

My kids have a very text-rich environment (this is an understatement). They don't get to do much tv/video/computer time, but they do get to play on Starfall, watch Leapfrog videos, and play games on pbskids. We go to library a LOT, visit bookstores at least a couple times a month, and subscribe to half a dozen kids magazines alone. I did not push reading on my son, but I did playfully talk about letters, letter sounds and words quite a bit. While we were driving in the car, I'd do simple phonemic awareness activities with him in very silly ways. All very low-key, gentle, playful stuff.

I also decided early on that I would teach my kid phonics. My approach might be a bit different in that I am teaching him the phonics behind the words that he already knows how to read. He loves doing it this way. He gets to try to figure out the "rule" (as in a pattern rule, not a "regulation" rule) that organizes similar words. Sometimes we talk a little about etymology or language history; sometimes we find other words that follow this rule or words that don't. We use letter tiles, phonics manipulatives, play games, do word sorts, etc. I also have several books about phonics instruction. Although I do not follow them religiously, I am systematic about covering the different phonetic patterns. Pedagogically, I think it is important that there are many constructivist elements to our phonics work. My son seems to think that phonics is a bunch of word games and puzzles. He loves it. I am also happy that he isn't "just" learning to read. He is also getting a lot of explicit information about the way words are constructed.

I guess my very wordy two cents is simply that reading instruction can be playful, game-like and delight-driven. It need not detract at all from a child-led process of learning how to read. For those students who really do need more direct instruction in learning how to read (and I was one), it is even more important that phonics instruction is systematic and fun.

Quote:
And, from the perspective of brain function, reading is not at all like walking and talking.

Of course, every analogy falls apart sooner or later. The point was that kids can learn through observation and mimicry and they can make associations between letters and sounds through immersion in the language.

Of course, not all kids can do this, and the repeated implication that most, if not all, kids can is a real source of frustration to those whose experience is very different. Where I am quite a skilled reader who learned to read through phonics and my child is a natural reader, my husband is dyslexic. Observation and mimicry was just not ever going to work for him. Phonics instruction alone didn't help him. He needed more time to figure things out, and he also needed explicit, direct instruction when he was ready for it.

Quote:
(I honestly don't think that examples of how trying to teach a 3yo to read can backfire are sufficient to discredit age appropriate reading instruction for 5, 6 and 7yos),

It is considered "age appropriate" at 5, 6, 7 because that is the way the schools have set it up, not because it's a natural developmental stage. If reading is such a new skill that we can't learn it naturally, then how can there be a natural developmental window in which to learn it?

Umm... reading is a new skill. Only a small percentage of the human population ever learned to read up until the last hundred years (two hundred tops, but I think that's stretching). And some people can learn it "naturally" (in quotes, because I mean that to mean that some people seem to learn it effortlessly, but not because reading is somehow a hard-wired skill), but many others can't. I understood "age appropriate" in this context to mean that a 5-7 yo would be more developmentally ready than a 3 yo, but not that this is the upper limit nor ideal age to learn reading. In other words, it's not as if the window shuts at 8. However, many children who may not be able to intuit the codes of written language on their own at 5-7 may be able to read with assistance.

Quote:
I would argue that we should err on the side of good quality instruction rather than no instruction.
I've seen kids who have had their love of reading destroyed by "good quality instruction" that was given before they were ready and willing. I think the enjoyment of books and the desire to read on one's own are far more important that the age one learns to read.

Well, this really begs the question whether that type of instruction was really suitable for that particular child. Or perhaps the personality of instructor? Anyway, there is also the other side of the affective coin. What about those children whose self-image is damaged because they cannot read at age 8, 9, or 10? Even if these are homeschooled children for whom learning is not otherwise delayed because the parent is willing to read everything to them, they may still receive the message that they are "slow," "behind," or "dumb" from others around them.

By all means, I am sure it is fine if there is a child who doesn't read until they are 11 and then becomes a stellar reader. There's nothing intrinsically important about reading earlier, but I do think that it is a bit disingenuous to give concerned parents the message that the best approach to reading is simply to wait for the child to work it out on his or her own. It's not as if every other strategy is only going to make the kid hate reading. That is simply not the case at all.