had been through the English school system as well as prep-school classes for children functioning in the area.
11
As noted above, the categories used in the reading analysis were
•
no attempt to read
•
an attempt but slow with few words attempted
•
reading very slowly with repetition or omissions
•
good reading but haltingly read with some omissions, and
•
very good reading in chunks of text. In both treatment groups there are examples of learners who did not make an attempt to
read. For the Gudschinsky group, the two people in this category could represent 78 percent of the total; that is, those who lost interest and did not engage the text in the final test in the original
research. For the Multi-Strategy groups, the two people who did not read are representative of some older people who persevered but did not engage the text, or people who could read some of
the extracts in the final test in the original research; 21 percent for Multi-Strategy group 1 M- SM 1 and 33 percent for Multi-Strategy group 2 M-SM 2.
The person who attempted to read in the Gudschinsky group lives in an active reading environment and is motivated to achieve in literacy, but he represents those who were tied to
learning the alphabet names. He could accurately name each letter in a word but could not put them together to read the full word. As stated earlier, learning the names of letters in the alphabet
is not a focus of the Gudschinsky method. The socio-cultural, status-building dependency on knowing the alphabet as part of school literacy was very strong in the area and this put the
teacher under pressure to include it in the classes. Despite strong encouragement to adhere to the standard lesson patterns, on one visit to the class the researcher observed the teacher drilling the
English alphabet throughout the session.
The two people who attempted to read in the Multi-Strategy group represent a different group of learners. These people could figure out and read words but they did not have enough
experience to read a new text. Lack of material to read and, resulting from that, lack of motivation seem to be contributing factors to poorer progress.
In the Multi-Strategy group there were representatives of the middle category, where the readers showed that they knew how to read but they did not read any part of the text fluently,
being hampered by the longer, more difficult words. As suggested above, the main reason for this seemed to be lack of experience in reading Urat because there was little material available to
read. There was interest among this group to have ongoing classes where they could practise their skills and master the more complicated syllable patterns.
2. Comments on writing results
In all groups, people were generally reluctant to say that they were writing. There is little need for writing in the culture. Writing to friends living away from the village gives opportunity
11
After the adult literacy classes were completed in Tumam village, the teachers trained thirty new teachers who produced more story books, and prep-school classes were started in five villages using the Multi-Strategy
method. In 1992, a regional training course was conducted at the Dreikikir Multi-language Resource Centre using the same method, and prep-school teachers were trained for the four major dialects of Urat and for one
dialect of Kwanga Barnes 1992.
for some to practise this skill. In the Gudschinsky group, among those who were positive, one woman said that she wrote her name and a young man said that he wrote letters to his brother in
both Urat and Tok Pisin. A man who said that he was not writing said that he could write some things but not letters to friends.
Among the Multi-Strategy participants of the M-SM 1 group who indicated that they were writing, all said that they wrote letters to friends except one. This man showed that he was
competent to do so, but he said that he was not fluent enough to write a letter. It was evident that the rest, who said they were not writing, were also able to do so; they said that they wrote but
some words did not look right. As mentioned earlier, the language has difficult phonology with many consonant and vowel clusters so it is understandable that there was some lack of
confidence in writing accurately after such a short time of exposure to literacy. One man, who was preliterate at the beginning of the program, wrote to his brother living in another province,
and his brother was “amazed” that he could communicate in writing. In the M-SM 2 group, only two people indicated that they were writing. One person was clearly not capable of doing so and
the other was writing in Tok Pisin. The rest of the group all said that it was hard to write.
The following comments give some indication of the types of felt problems of those who indicated that they were not writing:
I don’t write. My hand is not very good. I can write but I also can’t write good. It is clumsy yet. I don’t write letters to others.
When they the teachers take us, we can write but when we come outside the classroom we don’t write.
3. Comments on reading “to” or “with” others
When looking at the comments given in answer to the questions about reading “with” or “to” a person, it is important to note that in a newly literate society it is not usual for a person to
read silently for pleasure or to read to another to give pleasure. Generally, the only time a person would read with another person would be to give mutual help in the reading process. When
people read, they usually read aloud so there is generally an audience.
In the Gudschinsky group, a husband and wife couple said that they read together to give mutual help and the children were an audience when reading. Another person said that there was
a woman in the house to hear her read not that she actually read to her while the other reader in this group said that he lived alone and did not read with or to anyone. Only one person in the M-
SM 1 group said that she read with someone else, but a high proportion 82 percent said that they read to others. In this group, reading to others seems to indicate that the people were reading
more fluently than very new readers. In the M-SM 2 group, two people indicated that they read with and to others.
4. Comments on prior attendance at a literacy course
Prior to the literacy program, some people from each treatment group had been taught some literacy. Two people from the Gudschinsky group had attended formal primary education in
English: one for six years and the other for one year. Eight people from the Multi-Strategy group had attended Tok Pisin schools or courses for varying lengths of time, ranging from four days to
three years: five participants from M-SM 1 and three from M-SM 2.
