When and how did you learn to read?

Imelda

I can't remember learning to read but I have been told I learnt aged 2. My sister had meningitis and so could not start school at the time she should have and so my mum was given some books (Peter and Jane) to read with her so she wouldn't start school so far behind. I was nosey and didn't like to be left out and so I would elbow my way in to the reading sessions.

One night my dad was reading with us and I started reading the book, he thought it was from memory until he told my mum and she said I had never seen the book before, she only collected it that afternoon!

I have been a reader ever since, not as many as some on here as life gets in the way but at least 1 book a week.

kelloggs36

milliebear00001 wrote: »

A teacher's perspective...

Don't be fooled by the word 'phonics' - this is simply how children have always learned (and been taught) to read.

It rests on the principle (as I'm sure you know) that to 'decode' a word, you need to break it into the sounds the letters make - that's largely it! So, cuh, ah, tuh means cat. C, A, T but this is where lots of children get confused as the uh and ah bits do not exist in the letter sound. Easy for a word like cat, but for more complicated words the extra uh bits get in the way and hinder children's reading when they are trying to break down the words into their sounds - that is why they pure sounds are more important. (said as the letter name) means !!!!!! all to a child learning to read, which is why the sounds are more important than the names.

I was taught to read phonetically, as were/are most of the country's children throughout history. There was a brief 'blip' in the 70s/80s when it was thought that learning to 'sight' read (similar to the 'flashcards' beloved of some parents) was a better option. My younger brother was taught using this single method, and failed to learn to read reliably until he was about 10 after much (phonetic) intervention.

Signt reading is a red-herring and a spectacular, historically documented failure. Early reading (decoding) children have just picked up the 'code' of letters much earlier than most. No mystery, just a great memory and possibly a 'different' brain function. Nobody learns to read new words properly without knowing how to decode sounds by learning the rules of the letter code.

...................................................................

kelloggs36

moonbeam2007 wrote: »

Yes but honestly reading on your own at age 2???? I'm shocked you wasn't put on TV. I've seen a lot of children in my time my Mum was also a head teacher and I've never heard of any child reading alone a book at age 2.

When people say they were reading at 2, they mean they could decode a few CVC words like cat, dog, him, etc. To be able to read means to be able to decode and understand the meaning of a much wider range of words.

SingleSue

meritaten wrote: »

judging by some of the later posts - people think that we are either bragging or mistaken about being able to read at or before age 3! and that we somehow think this makes us superior to those whose reading skills didnt kick in until aged 7 or later!

Feel superior????????? Far from it - I couldnt ride a bicycle, hit a ball with a rounders bat and couldnt catch a netball to save my life - and those things were the important things to my classmates - so being a nerdy girl who loved reading, and was lousy at ALL sports didnt make me popular, not even with the staff!
add to that my number dyslexia - to be called 'extremely thick', 'stupid girl' or told 'a monkey could do that easy sum' by the teacher and the whole class howling with laughter, at least once a lesson certainly doesnt make one feel superior!

I firmly believe that everyone has a gift - could be art, music, carpentry, empathy with others or making a beautiful loving home............none of them is somehow 'better' or 'more valuable' than any other!

I could ride a bicycle it was just that I had this natural talent for falling off it! :rotfl:
I hated netball, hockey and tennis.....could never catch the ball or would run away from it but for some reason, I was good at badminton.

And I agree that everyone has a strength in an area, with my middle son it is music and maths, with youngest it is maths and innovative ideas for the future (buildings mainly), with eldest, his creative writing and public speaking.

Mine happened to be reading, maths and dance....but was hopeless at sports, creative thinking and public speaking.

faithcecilia

kelloggs36 wrote: »

When people say they were reading at 2, they mean they could decode a few CVC words like cat, dog, him, etc. To be able to read means to be able to decode and understand the meaning of a much wider range of words.

How do you know what other people were reading??? When I was turning 3 I asked my parents what detoxification and alcoholism were! They asked me how I knew those words and I showed them the paperwork my dad had recieved regarding his new job running a detox unit. I had not only read a few one syllable words, but words I had never heard before.

kelloggs36

It is very rare - having had all the phonics training available, it makes perfect sense. My children all read early, but I actually mean that they STARTED reading early, with CVC words, they couldn't read Harry Potter then!

kelloggs36

Oh, and decoding and reading with understanding are separate issues - once you know the composite sounds of each word, it doesn't mean you can read it unless you really understand it in the context. Some words you can probably guess from the context, but there are many complex words which need to be understood before you can say that you know what you are reading about. I have heard many children read in my classroom who appear to be reading, but have no idea what the story is about; that is because they are breaking down the words and reblending them, but they don't have the vocabulary in their repetoire to be able to understand what is going on. Also, their fluency is not always developed and that holds them back as they spend so long trying to decode the word that they have forgotten what they are reading about. Real reading is being able to understand what is being read.

RAS

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Oh, and decoding and reading with understanding are separate issues - once you know the composite sounds of each word, it doesn't mean you can read it unless you really understand it in the context. Some words you can probably guess from the context, but there are many complex words which need to be understood before you can say that you know what you are reading about. I have heard many children read in my classroom who appear to be reading, but have no idea what the story is about; that is because they are breaking down the words and reblending them, but they don't have the vocabulary in their repetoire to be able to understand what is going on. Also, their fluency is not always developed and that holds them back as they spend so long trying to decode the word that they have forgotten what they are reading about. Real reading is being able to understand what is being read.

You reminded me of what I wanted to add to my post of yesterday.

I read early and I read voraciously, often 4 or more books in a weekend despite being outside a lot. My 7th Christmas present was a proper dictionary.

However, by the age of about 9, the available material was getting less appropriate to my reading age.

Someone suggested I try Dickens. Well I could read the words, individually and even look up the ones I did not know and read the sentences, but I could not understand the book to the extent that it gave me any great pleasure. It was probably the only book I never finished.

Fortunately someone got my mum to agree I could access the teens section in the library and I was away.

faithcecilia

kelloggs36 wrote: »

It is very rare - having had all the phonics training available, it makes perfect sense. My children all read early, but I actually mean that they STARTED reading early, with CVC words, they couldn't read Harry Potter then!

Fair comment, but I didn't learn with phonics, and to this day struggle to get my head around that idea. Harry Potter didn't exist when I was that age, but I definately read Beatrix Potter, who didn't write in simple, one syllable language. By 6 I was reading adult books, including both novels and factual books, and with the exception of prostitution I had no problems with the understanding. I was reading Dickens and Shakespeare at primary school and read Les Miserables and Meine Kampf by age 12.

skipsmum

Interesting stuff!

DB never read until he was sent to college for work, diagnosed dyslexic, and retaught. He passed his degree last year

Both my boys were late readers. DS1 started to read at 7/8 and read fluently by about 12/13. He has never read for "pleasure".
DS2 loved books but just could not get that the words were codes, and if he could decode them he would be able to read. When he was 81/2 it just clicked and he was reading fluently by 9.
I don't remember learning to read but did, but when I started college in September (as a mature student) I was diagnosed with dyslexia and concentration issues.