•
previously preliterate people sustaining literacy, and
•
reading and writing in family and community activities resulting in greater diffusion of literacy.
In both programs, some of the reasons students gave for poor attendance and performance were heavy garden work, the program was too short and, for the Gudschinsky program in
Urat, expectations of learning the English names for letters.
3. The following teachers’ comments on the effectiveness of the Multi-Strategy method show
most points common to both programs:
•
All of the Story Track lessons are important, but lessons 1 and 3 are the most valuable with one person including lesson 4. Lesson 1, the Experience Story, is most valuable
for teaching students to look, talk, and stimulate their thinking on topics important to them. Lesson 3, reading the “Big Book,” is valuable because of the way it is presented
with large and small copies of the story for the week.
•
All of the Word-Building Track lessons are equally important, but readiness activities, especially in writing, and primer lesson 2 word-building are particularly valuable.
•
Primer lesson 3, with syllable recognition and word building reemphasised in competitive activities, was not acceptable to some teachers and students, so some
substitutions were made.
•
In teaching both of the tracks, there was positive socio-cultural relevance in lesson content and presentation according to cultural learning styles show and do; look and
follow.
4. The previous training and experience, and therefore, the attitudes toward literacy and
instruction that the teachers had prior to the interventions, were crucial components in the way the materials were presented in both of the programs. If the experiences of the teacher,
for example, were in the area of a mechanistic view of literacy acquisition, then there could be an overriding tendency to work toward that as the level of authority, regardless of the
particular emphasis in the method in which the person was working. If the teacher’s definition of literacy and how to apply the principles concepts were contrary to the goals
and instructional procedures of the literacy program, then the goals of the program itself could be seriously undermined. Allowing the people to control procedural decisions and
matching people to the specific teaching tasks were crucial factors in the two programs.
5. The teachers from the Tok Pisin study reacted positively to writing and preparing books in
Kwanga. They were highly motivated and confident in their ability to assist the people to prepare materials and establish literacy in a related dialect. An important point that emerged
from their comments, which was substantiated by their attitude and confidence in using written language, was a positive attitude of satisfaction regarding the input and control they
exercised in the orthography decisions made.
6. The format change in the workbooks, with the same pattern of presentation for primer pages,
was a benefit for both teachers and students, but particularly for teachers in the ease of preparation and teaching. The addition of specific focus on each phoneme, read in context of
the syllable and the word, was helpful for reading and writing. The new materials, tried with adults in a cooperative “model-do” pattern of presentation were acceptable, easy to grasp,
effective, and meaningful in the culture.
6.1.2. Overall summary of the conclusions
In consolidating the results of the two studies and drawing conclusions, it is necessary to consider the questions posed for the research and stated in the two preceding chapters. The four
questions applicable to both studies are as follows: 1.
Is the Multi-Strategy method suitable for teaching preliterate adults to read and write? 2.
Is the Multi-Strategy method sufficient for teaching preliterate adults to read and write in languages of complex phonological structures that is, syllable-level linguistic complexity?
3. Does the Multi-Strategy method have any effect on adult learners’ motivation to persist in
gaining literacy fluency? 4.
Do adult learners taught the Multi-Strategy method show significant improvement within six months over learners taught with decoding strategies in the Gudschinsky method?
For the Urat study, the specific concern about engaging two teachers per class for the Multi- Strategy method was addressed in question 5.
5. Is the use of one teacher to teach literacy to adults using both tracks in the Multi-Strategy
method more, or less, efficient than using two teachers, one for each track? We now address each question in turn and consider to what degree the results, as presented
for the two studies, point to a positive or negative answer.
Question 1.
Is the Multi-Strategy method suitable for teaching preliterate adults to read and write?
There is no doubt that the results from each of the programs studied show the efficacy of the Multi-Strategy method for teaching preliterate and semi-literate adults to read and write. The
qualitative evidence of readers from the Multi-Strategy classes in both programs maintaining literacy—as long as two years after the programs were completed—is a positive finding
supporting the quantitative results in the studies. This evidence shows that from the beginning of a literacy program, presenting activities which include holistic reading and writing strategies is
sufficient for fluency and competence in reading and writing. Initially, the program included strategies separate from, but concurrent with, activities to teach means of learning components of
words syllables and grapho-phonemes in relevant contexts.
Question 2.
Is the Multi-Strategy method sufficient for teaching preliterate adults to read and write in languages of complex phonological structures that is,
syllable-level linguistic complexity?
The clear contrast, firstly, in the difference between the language complexities of Urat and Tok Pisin and, secondly, between the results of the two programs, leaves no doubt that the
answer to this question is in the affirmative. In the complex Urat language, compared with the relatively simple construction of Tok Pisin, the results are significant and in favour of the Multi-
Strategy method across almost all of the variables. In Tok Pisin, where there is much less language complexity, the findings are not so conclusive in the quantitative data. Speculations
about the lack of differences, such as time on task and second language instruction, have been presented. There is no doubt that acquiring literacy through interaction with whole texts takes
longer. Holistic strategies taught concurrently with strategies focused on the identification of components of words, however, provide the basis for greater individual control over the literacy
process, although the gains are cumulative and not always evident. The long-term gains in this project are strongly in favour of the Multi-Strategy method, in generalisation of the abilities
learned, and in maintenance and diffusion of literacy evident in the communities.
Question 3.
Does the Multi-Strategy method have any effect on adult learners’ motivation to persist in gaining literacy fluency?
It was shown in the Urat study that there was greater consistency in class attendances in two of the Multi-Strategy classes than was shown in the Gudschinsky classes. In the Tok Pisin study,
the difference was not so clear. In both language groups, however, results of the follow-up ethnographic data show a greater persistence among the Multi-Strategy ex-students in gaining
fluency in reading and writing than among those who were taught through the Gudschinsky method. There was more evidence in community activities of generalisation of literacy abilities
with maintenance and diffusion of literacy from the Multi-Strategy groups than from the Gudschinsky groups.
Question 4.
Do adult learners taught the Multi-Strategy method show significant improvement within six months over learners taught with decoding
strategies in the Gudschinsky method?
The answer to this question is certainly in the affirmative for the Urat program but, from the quantitative analyses, the results were generally inconclusive in the Tok Pisin program. As
mentioned above, reasons for this seem to be related to a number of variables. For the Gudschinsky group, these variables include gains from the longer time on task and for the Multi-
Strategy group, they include lack of semantic and discourse control of the second language when learning from whole texts.
One result of the time difference was teacher variability, allowing for greater accountability and learning on the part of the students in the Gudschinsky group. This situation, coupled with
the smaller corpus of material to learn, allowed greater familiarity with the content and language patterns of the test instruments by the Gudschinsky learners.
The hypothesis, mentioned above, that second language literacy is difficult when learning through whole texts—where the concepts and the meaning of the words in context are not
completely understood—seems to be confirmed through the interviews in Chapter 5 and in the previous section. If this hypothesis holds, the Multi-Strategy learners were handicapped in the
Story Track, where interaction was dependent on knowledge of concepts and discourse patterns of texts and on self-generated materials. In the follow-up research, however, the generalisation of
the learned skills to other reading contexts was stronger for the Multi-Strategy group in both programs, showing more lasting gains in maintenance and enhancement of literacy within the
communities.
Question 5.
Is the use of one teacher to teach Multi-Strategy literacy to adults more or less efficient than using two teachers, one for each track?
In the Urat program, there were two classes one of which was the one-teacher class where numbers remained strong throughout the program. In comparing these two classes, there are a
number of observations which show that the class with one teacher was less efficient than the class with two teachers.
