Gudschinsky Program Given
Baseline Measure
Occasion 11 weeks
Occasion 15 weeks
Occasion 20 weeks
Occasion 24 weeks
Treatment One
Differences due to treatment--------------------------------------------------------------
{Comparison to {assure equivalence
Sample Sample
Randomisation of allocation
within villages
Target Population
Differences due to treatment-------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment Two Baseline
Measure Occasion
11 weeks Occasion
15 weeks Occasion
20 weeks Occasion
24 weeks Multi-Strategy
Program Given
Figure 3.4. The experimental design One of the socio-cultural features that became obvious during the gathering of the baseline
information was participants’ personal discomfort when the questions were not able to be answered or performed correctly. Some of the questions about literacy were not expected to be
known by preliterate people but, despite explanations to this effect, some people were distressed when they could not perform well. In this section, we look in some detail at the tests and testing
procedures for the four occasions in the two programs. Making adjustments to put participants at ease was an underlying consideration, not only in the testing but also in the instructional
procedures in the programs.
3.4.2. The testing instruments
During the teaching sessions, opportunity was given for the teachers to do informal evaluation as they read with the learners, heard them read, and checked their writing. It was
expected that the teachers would also make a more formal, weekly check on reading to ensure that each individual was being monitored for example, see Stringer and Faraclas 1987:19, 39–
40. Teachers in the Gudschinsky classes were trained to include a similar weekly check.
Quantitative assessments for comparative purposes were given on four occasions. In the literature it was difficult to find any information on the procedure and format of such quantitative
tests where a contribution was expected to be given by individuals without prompting from peers. One way that such testing can be accomplished is given in detail by Stringer and Faraclas
1987:87–90, where three venues are used
•
with participants being instructed in one
•
with individuals moving from there to the second venue for testing, and then
•
proceeding to the third venue to take part in supervised activities until all have been tested. When this procedure was tried in the adult program in Urat, it was unacceptable; there were not
enough venues or testing personnel and treating people in such an individual way seemed to cause stress.
On the first occasion, the testing was carried out in the one available venue the communal church building with three testers. Participants were instructed to wait their turn and then leave
after being tested. In the course of the testing, one young woman became so stressed she began crying and others showed signs of anxiety, while those who had been tested were reluctant to
leave. The importance of eliminating anxiety from literacy learning is discussed by Downing 1982. As the program progressed, there was less tension shown when giving individual
responses. At this stage in the program, it was obvious that another more comfortable way had to be found to collect assessment data for comparison.
In the test on the first occasion, a number of procedures were included to make the students feel at ease. The test was explained by the test supervisor so that the participants would know
what to expect. All students were given a piece of paper with a sentence printed on it on which they were asked to write their names. This was a familiar activity which all could accomplish.
Students were then asked to read to one of the testers: first, a new sentence and then one they had been given. All contributions were recorded on audio-tape. Next, the tester asked the student to
point out specific items, that is, two words and three syllables from the sentences read. Finally, the tester chose a word from a list of known key words and asked the student to write it from
memory and then create and write a sentence including the word.
In giving a different sentence to the students individually, it was expected that they would try to read it to add to their confidence before being asked to read it to the tester. This worked
well for the first few, but those who could not read asked their peers to help them read their sentences correctly. The sentences were changed for these participants and the test went on, but
much closer supervision was needed if we were to use the same procedure in future tests.
One way to avoid some of these problems was to consider collecting more descriptive and interpretive data for analysis. Such data would need to be collected by each teacher in the course
of the teaching program. Considering the short training, however, the lack of materials and places to keep contributions from each student, such data would be difficult to collect and
analyse. At the end of the program, the teachers were certainly aware of the progress of each of their students, but to require informal, interpretive assessments to be recorded each week for
each student seemed too much to expect from volunteer teachers in the circumstances in which they worked. It would detract, also, from the systematic nature of the comparison.
The original testing format was continued with a number of changes to help relieve stress. In the test format there were four components: recognition of words and elements within words,
reading, comprehension, and writing see Appendix E for the final test format. As the classes progressed, the learners were less anxious about being asked to give individual contributions. At
