experienced formal schooling to be tested as an individual. Despite attempts to alleviate stress, the early attempts at recording reading and collecting individual writing samples were difficult.
Lack of suitable venues and enough experienced personnel to assist were some contributing factors. The need for quantitative data was part of the research methodology chosen and the
techniques used to obtain satisfactory results have been discussed previously in Chapter 3.
In considering the research in terms of Bhola’s analysis, a “rationalistic” design is used and evaluated within a community-based setting, but including some “naturalistic” research
techniques such as observation and interviews. Bhola has given an extended discussion of different models of evaluation. Further consideration of research methods is presented below in
guidelines for future research.
6.3.3. Implications for teaching practice
It is outlined above that the Multi-Strategy method incorporates a set of guiding principles built into a format of teaching, with emphasis on two separate modes of learning. The results of
this empirical research have implications for practitioners in industrialised societies as well as in traditional, non-industrialised societies. It will be recalled that the method was developed after
research into literacy theory and practice as found in industrialised countries where English is the medium of instruction. Culturally appropriate applications of many of the principles were
incorporated to develop the Multi-Strategy method for cross-cultural situations where there is linguistic and cultural diversity.
It is clear from the literature that there is general agreement that the two ways of approaching initial instruction in reading and writing holistic and analytic are necessary at
some time in the process. It is also clear that habits learned in initial encounters with literacy affect the outcome as learners endeavour to move on to mature reading and writing.
Some unique features of the Multi-Strategy method are that
•
both approaches holistic and analytic begin at the same time
•
both field independent and field dependent learning styles are incorporated, and
•
the emphases on the two modes of learning—learning to read and write with meaning within texts and learning to read and write from an understanding of the elements within words—are
kept separate.
Even though the two modes of learning are kept separate, the interplay between the various features within the modes is crucial and evident empirically. In application, however, one
important point to note is that the interaction between the two approaches does not need to be taught in contrived activities: the learners put the resources together when they are cognitively
ready. When that happens there is understanding, and the learner is in control of his or her own learning. All aspects of the reading and writing processes are included in the activities of the two
approaches, but in each approach one mode of learning is emphasised so that the expectation of the learner is always to read or write in that mode.
Some implications for practitioners are that
•
training of teachers is simplified because specialised, in-depth training only needs to be carried out in one of the approaches for each individual trainee
•
teachers benefit because they have control of their area of expertise, which allows for more flexibility and innovative teaching practice and results in more motivation, and
•
students receive more specialised instruction from two sources, which are, fundamentally, the same processes of reading and writing.
For literacy programs in cross-cultural traditional societies, these implications mean that
•
teacher-training courses can be short because all aspects of the two instructional processes do not need to be taught initially to each trainee
•
less financial outlay is needed than would be necessary for longer training courses when teaching all aspects to all participants
•
teachers can concentrate on the preparation and instruction of only one area, which allows for more control, greater motivation, and less competition between teachers, and
•
students have two teachers to whom they relate, which allows for a better understanding of the two areas of emphasis and more control over their own learning.
One further implication for teaching practice is evident from a combination of the literature review in Chapter 2—on the importance of the syllable in beginning literacy instruction Adams
1990; and others—and the research results of the two empirical studies in this project. In aspects of the teaching program that address bottom-up strategies, it is recommended that, for
phonemically written orthographies, the syllable is the unit from which to begin breaking the code. The syllable seems to be the optimal point from which both learning to read and write
words and by extension, sentences, and texts, and learning to manipulate and control phonemes for spelling and reading accuracy can be initiated.
In Chapter 2 also, a particular point of discussion centred on the inconclusive evidence regarding a connection between the orthographic regularity of the soundsymbol correspondence
and teaching method. This discussion suggests that a pedagogical framework is needed that capitalises on and makes room for the different kinds of orthographic soundsymbol relationships
and the relationship between such orthographies and the construction of meaning in text. Evidence from this project suggests that the Multi-Strategy method provides such a framework.
It allows for a multiplicity of soundscript relationships to be accommodated productively, regardless of differences in regularity and whatever unit of representation phoneme, morpheme,
syllable, or word is required for a specific language. Such a framework seeks to capitalise on the long history of literacy instructional methods practised in industrial societies, in order to allow a
range of techniques for literacy acquisition to be accommodated.
One area of difficulty for implementation of the method in rural areas, where means of economic gain are minimal, is that finance is needed for two teachers’ salaries instead of one.
The attrition rate can be high so a surplus of teachers needs to be trained. There are fewer problems with salaries when a group of teachers work together. When there are two teachers per
class, mutual help can be given so that the classes can continue when teachers need to be absent.
Training teachers by holistic, “model-do” techniques—which cover the basic structure and application of the lessons similar to the pattern described in Chapter 2 Davis 1991:53—fits the
cultural learning pattern the teachers in the Tok Pisin program described as “show and do; look and follow.” In the two studies, training in short courses followed by practical application in the
classroom with regular in-service, discussion, and practice as described in Chapter 3 was found to be an acceptable and practical way of training.
The type of in-service that developed through the expertise of the supervisor in the Urat program was the “model-do” method of interaction which lessened embarrassment through non-
threatening participation. There was focus on each specific lesson in a routine that allowed
