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.
5. Comments on method
The main comment concerning method from the Gudschinsky participants was that they would like to attend more classes in Urat. Since the completion of the original research, one man
had consistently been attending the classes for prep-school children in the Multi-Strategy method to gain a higher degree of proficiency in reading and writing. The person who did not
attempt to read or write said that she did not understand the way that the class had been taught. Some of the comments of this Gudschinsky group were:
I feel this way, the school in Urat helps me a little to read and things like that. But, it being that way, now it makes me think that I must continue to go to school. I think this way, I would really like to
continue in this school in Urat to get more knowledge. The school had good things to help me but I, myself, I did not understand those ways that you
did it. Plenty of things were hard for me to learn. The teacher did a good job but I, myself, I did not learn.
I think it the school was all right, it helped us a little. I would really like it if you had some good thoughts to help us so that whoever does not go to school or something, he can help us some more
so that we can read and write that way. I feel that some kind of change would help a little to help thoughts to learn something in reading and
writing.
The comments relating to method among the Multi-Strategy respondents were generally very positive, with some helpful comments about the two tracks and ways to improve the
methodology to help in some areas, especially writing. Only one person, from the M-SM 2 group, gave a negative comment. She said the way of teaching was not clear for her. When
asked why, she replied that she just went to school and she just thought and then she found it a little hard. She said that the way was hard to follow. It is important to add here that the teaching
for this group was done by one teacher for both the tracks of the Multi-Strategy method with no break between the different instructional approaches.
From the two Multi-Strategy groups, all of the respondents in the M-SM 1 group commented that both tracks were good, with some people making specific comments about each
track. In the M-SM 2 group, 64 percent gave positive comments for both tracks, while others centred their remarks more particularly on the specific tracks. One man, who became very fluent
in reading and writing, summarised it this way:
Tasemeini the teacher of the Word-Building Track helped me, for me to learn, and Bansis the teacher of the Story Track helped me, for me to read. If we only go to Tasemeini’s class, then we
learn to read but we are not able to read quickly, definitely not. If we go to Bansis’ class now, along with Tasemeini’s class, when we read, we will learn to read quickly.
Other comments from the M-SM 1 group were as follows:
This school is for helping me to think and understand. It is this way, with Tasemeini he does it incompletely in pieces and Bansis does it too, and it is good.
About the Story Track, I don’t think it is easy, it is a little bit hard. But the Word-Building Track, yes, it is easy. It is easy for us to learn and know like this; an incomplete word a syllable or
something like that, get a syllable and put it with it and make a full name of something that way, and we will feel it. The Story Track is hard because, it is like this, all the names of something they are
full and we will not be able to understand quickly.
Those two the two tracks together are good. It is not that one is no good and the one good, the two together are nice. That way good help has come to us.
