Are We Teaching Children to Read or Teaching Them to Teach Themselves?

Why Every Teacher Should Understand the Self-Teaching Hypothesis

What if the goal of early reading instruction isn’t to teach children to read, but to teach them how to teach themselves to read?
Confused? Hopefully, this post will help unpack this notion.

In his Blueprint for a Universal Theory of Learning to Read: The Combinatorial Model (2025), David Share revisits and refines his influential Self-Teaching Hypothesis (1995). Among the many insights in this challenging and thought-provoking paper, one principle stood out for me: his idea of ‘infinite ends from finite means’. The concept is simple but powerful. If we give children a modest toolkit of foundational skills (the ‘finite means’), they can go on to teach themselves thousands of new words (the ‘infinite ends’).

This deceptively simple concept reshapes how we think about reading instruction. It urges us to focus on identifying and providing the essential tools that empower children to become their own teachers of reading.

The Self-Teaching Hypothesis: How Children Learn to Read Independently

A quote from Share’s (1995) earlier work continues to resonate with me and was the inspiration for this post:

‘To say that reading is a learned skill requiring explicit instruction (Castles et al., 2018; Ehri et al., 2001) does not mean that teachers teach children to read—they only supply children with the tools needed to teach themselves.’ (p. 7)

This is the foundation of the Share’s (1995) Self-Teaching Hypothesis. It offers a compelling explanation for how children move from initial decoding to fluent, independent reading. Once children develop an understanding of grapheme (letter)–phoneme (sound) correspondences and can segment and blend sounds, they begin to apply this knowledge to unfamiliar words when reading.

Each time a child encounters a new word in print when learning to read, they use their decoding skills to work out how the word sounds. When they can match this pronunciation to a word they know in their oral vocabulary, they are able to access its meaning and store the word’s spelling, sound, and meaning in memory. This process supports orthographic mapping, allowing the child to recognise that word more easily the next time. Over time, with repeated encounters, the child builds a large mental lexicon of words they can read instantly without needing to decode each time. This theory helps to explain how children move from the early stages of reading, where each word requires effort and conscious attention, to fluent reading, where words are recognised automatically and with ease. To someone new to this idea, it may help to think of it like this: when a child learns to decode, they are being given a key, not to a single door, but to an entire library. Each decoding event while reading is an opportunity to unlock a new word, and once unlocked, that word becomes easier to access next time.

It’s important to note that decoding here isn’t about guessing from context or memorising whole words. It involves applying knowledge of letter-sound correspondences to work out unfamiliar words. This includes recognising common spelling patterns, blending phonemes, and applying what they know about spoken language. For example, consider a child encountering the word scramble for the first time in the sentence: The fox had to scramble up the steep hill. The child may begin by sounding out the word slowly: s-c-r-a-m-b-l-e. Because they’ve learned the /scr/ blend and the common ending -ble, they’re able to decode it independently. Once decoded, the context helps confirm the word’s meaning. That decoding attempt is then stored so the next time the child sees scramble, they’ll likely read it effortlessly, without needing to sound it out again.

‘Infinite Ends from Finite Means’

The phrase ‘infinite ends from finite means’ lies at the heart of Share’s theory. It captures the powerful idea that a relatively small set of foundational reading skills can unlock vast learning potential. Once a child acquires the ability to decode, unfamiliar words become a self-teaching opportunity.

Children begin with a limited set of building blocks, such as letters, graphemes, and phonemes, that are meaningless on their own. But through instruction and repeated practice in decoding, they learn to blend sounds, recognise patterns, and mentally chunk word parts. Over time, effortful decoding gives way to fluent, automatic word recognition. Small beginnings give rise to exponential growth. Multiply this by hundreds, and even thousands, of successful decoding encounters when reading, and you see the cumulative effect of self-teaching in action. And it’s not just individual words being learned. Children absorb spelling conventions, affixes, morphemes, and even grammatical patterns.

In essence, the act of reading continues to teach reading. This emphasises the critical importance of giving children time to practise reading in the early years because, without sufficient practice, those self-teaching moments remain out of reach.

How Is the Self-Teaching Hypothesis Different from Orthographic Mapping?

While the Self-Teaching Hypothesis and orthographic mapping are closely linked, they describe different aspects of the word learning process. The Self-Teaching Hypothesis (Share, 1995) explains how children learn new words on their own—through decoding during independent reading. It focuses on the idea that decoding unfamiliar words gives children repeated opportunities to teach themselves to read, without requiring direct instruction on every word. Orthographic mapping (Ehri, 2014), on the other hand, refers to what happens in the brain when a word is successfully stored for instant recognition. It is the mental process that enables a decoded word to become part of a child’s sight vocabulary.

In short, the Self-Teaching Hypothesis is the mechanism that drives word learning through decoding, while orthographic mapping is the outcome or the process of permanently anchoring that word in memory. You can read more on Orthographic Mapping in an earlier post of mine here.

The Tools That Make It Possible

So what are the ‘finite means’ that enable such expansive outcomes? Share outlines five essential tools:

1. Knowledge of grapheme–phoneme correspondences
   Children must understand how letters and combinations of letters map onto speech sounds. This forms the foundation for decoding.

2. Phonemic awareness
   The ability to isolate, blend, segment, and manipulate phonemes is crucial for decoding and orthographic mapping.

3. Print exposure
   Children need regular access to print especially texts that offer a mix of decodable and challenging words slightly beyond their comfort zone.

4. Oral vocabulary
   Words must be recognised in spoken language to be successfully identified during decoding. The richer a child’s oral vocabulary, the more likely they are to match decoded words to known meanings.

5. Set for Variability
   When decoding doesn’t produce a recognisable word, children need the ability to adjust their pronunciation or reconsider alternatives. This is especially vital in English, where many words deviate from predictable phoneme-grapheme rules.

These five tools are key to supporting self-teaching.

Why This Perspective Matters

This view of reading shifts our understanding of the teacher’s role. We are not the keepers of every word a child might need to know. Instead we are guides, providing access to the decoding tools and literacy-rich environments that allow children to take control of their own reading journey.

Share’s model helps us see that our job as teachers is both modest and monumental:

• Modest, because we do not need to teach every word.

• Monumental, because what we do need to teach must be carefully chosen, intentionally delivered, and grounded in what we know supports self-teaching.

Practical Strategies to Support Self-Teaching

Here are five ways teachers can bring Share’s theory to life in the classroom:

1. Focus on Decoding from the Start

• Teach letter-sound correspondences explicitly and systematically.

• Avoid teaching guessing strategies based on pictures or first letters.

• Use decodable texts aligned with phonics instruction.

2. Provide Ample Reading Practice Using a Range of Texts

• Give children daily time to read books so they can practice their decoding skills.

• Ensure texts offer challenge, without frustration, so children can use the self-teaching process to consolidate known patterns and encounter new ones independently.

3. Reinforce Phonemic Awareness

• Continue phonemic awareness instruction beyond infants.

4. Strengthen Vocabulary and Contextual Reasoning

• Introduce and discuss new words before and during reading.

• Highlight how context can help confirm decoding attempts.

5. Model Flexible Thinking (Set for Variability)

• During read-alouds, pause to model revising mispronunciations, especially where vowels are concerned. For instance, if a child reads a word using a long vowel sound and it doesn’t make sense, encourage them to try the short vowel instead:

  "You read ‘can’ like ‘cane’. What if we try the short vowel sound instead? Ah! ‘Can’.

Final Reflection

If we accept that reading development depends on children learning to decode (and all that entails), and recognising new words independently, then the Self-Teaching Hypothesis offers more than a theory—it provides a compelling framework for practice. It explains how children move from slow, deliberate decoding to fluent, confident reading.

Our role as teachers is to equip children with the tools to begin to figure out words for themselves. When we focus on building strong foundational skills such as phonemic awareness, decoding skills, vocabulary, print exposure, and flexible thinking, we support children not just in learning to read, but in becoming readers who can continue learning through reading. And perhaps that’s the true mark of effective reading instruction in the early years: not just to teach children to read, but also to teach them how to take the reins and teach themselves.

And that’s the promise of infinite ends from finite means!

If you found this post interesting, feel free to share it, subscribe for future updates, or join the conversation in the comments below. I’d love to hear your thoughts.