Knowing the names of the letter hampers the teaching of the sounds of the letters. The names of the letters are not taught first, you start with the sounds. The first letters taught are s a t p i n, but their names aren’t taught until much later.
Part of the teaching process is getting children to associate the sounds of these letter with the grapheme (some schemes use actions too), and you do that in part through games and songs, if the children are used to calling out the names of the letters, you have to break them of that habit first.
It doesn’t have much to do with it at all, which was one of my major points in my first post in this thread. The OP wasn’t asking about children learning to read before kindergarten, s/he was asking about adults learning to read without attending school. I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that the OP wanted to know whether such an adult could learn to read well enough to at least handle newspaper articles and job applications, not whether they could learn to read The Cat in the Hat. An adult who learned to read independently but was only able to manage children’s books would be better off than an adult who was totally illiterate, but would likely still be considered functionally illiterate.
I didn’t say she made this claim, I said she could. Being able to read simple words is reading, albeit at a very low level. Being able to read children’s books is reading at a higher level than that, but that’s still not enough to allow one to fully function as an independent adult in modern society. That some children can read children’s books before beginning school doesn’t really tell us anything about how likely it would be for an adult to reach a functional, adult level of literacy without any schooling.
This is certainly true in 16th and 17th-century England (for a cite, see Keith Wrightson’s English Society 1580-1680, which has a pretty extensive discussion about literacy rates and how we figure them out). One of the complicating factors is that reading and writing were taught as separate skills, in that order, so if someone could write even a little, it’s a pretty good bet that they were fluent readers, but if they couldn’t write at all, it doesn’t necessarily mean they couldn’t read. But of course, there’s usually no documentary evidence at all that an individual could or couldn’t read, so “how many people in this community are signing legal documents, and how many are making their mark?” becomes the default proxy for historical literacy rates, and probably causes us to underestimate them slightly.
Now I’m confused about the running definition of “teaching yourself to read”. If all these Dopers taught themselves to read before ever attending school I wonder what you might mean. Even the act of taking a book to study indicates a comprehension that the book will contain information that can be obtained by deciphering the pretty swirls within. Somehow this idea was conveyed, at some point. Probably by an adult. Who probably explained a whole lot more, too.
But nothing? No guidance? Then why was an appropriate book even around?
ETA: I could read before attending school, but I doubt I taught myself.
Actually, I think I did read with the degree of fluency of many literate adults. I learned kind of through osmosis as best as I can recall, from following along as my mother read to me. She read classics to us, not just kids’ books. I honestly don’t remember being unable to read, although I defintely recall not being able to do simple arithmetic. I remember reading the dictionary and my father’s astronomy books.
Both my daughters read fluently prior to kindergarten age, as well.
I learned my ABCs by sitting on someones lap and co-reading, or sitting across from someone and co-reading. I had the classic a is for apple illustrated ABC book, and when I knew my alphabet, my Mom worked on me with the McGuffey readers until I could read by myself by the age of 3. I was reading adult level books [IE reading fiction by people like Thomas Costain - whatever was around the house, and I could convince the library to let me take out. My mom signed off on them letting me browse the non-kid section for my 8th birthday.] by the age of 8. I got the Ballantine edition [probably 4th or 5th printing] of The Lord of the Rings and the second printing of Dune at the age of 9 and read them avidly and then turning into a fantasy and science fiction buff.
I never learned to read in school, and was bored to tears with the whole damned Dick and Jane garbage in 1st grade. I was already reading the Uncle Wiggly, Little Black Sambo, Raggedy Anne and Andy and all my father and uncles leftover kids books plus whatever I ended up getting for birthdays and Christmas. [I really did not like dolls, and wanted books, so I got clothes and books.]
I wanted to add to this that a child’s ability to learn to read children’s books doesn’t even necessarily tell us much about an adult’s ability to learn to read children’s books. I’m not familiar with research in this area, but reading may be a skill that is most easily mastered at a particular developmental stage and that if you miss this window it becomes much more difficult.
I understand the difference between illiteracy and functional illiteracy. And certainly an adult who learned to read the The Cat in the Hat and stopped there would be functionally illiterate. I believe the “children learning to read before starting school” came up because of this line in the OP.
Children learning to read before starting school is relevant to this , as most children who can read before school probably did not learn by systematically learning under the guidance of a teacher.
It certainly wouldn’t be likely in this society, but I suspect that it has less to do with impossibility than a lack of desire. How do kids go from children’s books to functional, adult literacy? Through practice, like any other skill and increasing their general knowledge. ( if an adult doesn’t understand a newspaper article because he doesn’t know what a mortgage is, it’s not his reading skills that are the problem) It may well be more difficult for an adult to learn to read without formal instruction than it is for a child. It’s also more difficult for an adult to learn a second language than it is for a child, yet some adults do.
You sound like me. I do not recall not being able to read (my mother says I was reading by 3, mostly because of the adults in the household all being readers and very patient with me sitting in their laps asking “what’s that word?”). I was reading anything in the house by age 7 at the latest. Second being bored stiff in grade-school reading classes (and getting punished for alleged attitude problems because I was bored with material I’d known for years).
If the school’s standardized tests were anything to go on, I was reading at college level (as defined in the late 1970s) by age 9. My parents would have been appalled by “teachers” such as szlater.
Based on your statements that bear no resemblance to my own direct experience of how learning to read works, yes. BTW, I’ve never heard of teachers in the US insisting that parents should not be permitted to teach their own children, or that whole “sounds of the letters” garbage, so your “evidenced(sic) based practice” can be stuffed right along with my “scare quotes”.
That claim needs citation. And even if it’s true, it doesn’t support the idea that one should be “appalled” by kindergarteners who know “the abc’s”, nor the idea that it’s significantly difficult to teach those kids how to read.