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.
At the time of training, the teachers involved were equally competent. From observations of the teaching and from analysis of audio-taped samples of class interaction, however, there was
not the same clarity of teaching procedure and student-teacher interaction in the one-teacher classroom that there was in the other classes. As a result of observation and of reports from the
teacher of the one-teacher class, some of the problems were as follows:
•
There was some confusion through mixing the two procedures for the different tracks.
•
The preparation load for the two tracks was seen as a burden.
•
It was necessary to choose an assistant teacher.
•
Motivation to teach was not consistent and the teacher appointed to assist was often left in charge.
Culturally it is more acceptable to work in pairs, but there was more evidence of cooperation when each had his or her area of responsibility.
In the follow-up research, the group with the two teachers showed more maintenance and expertise in reading and writing than the group taught by one teacher. In this particular study, the
socio-cultural and pedagogical ramifications of the implementation showed that it was more efficient—and produced greater long-term gains—to have two teachers to present the Multi-
Strategy materials.
6.2. Limitations of the Research
In this research there were the following limitations: 1.
The usual limitations of experimental interventions in educational research where crucial variables cannot be controlled due to factors to do with
•
teachers’ abilities, attitudes, and training
•
teachers’ faithful adherence to the method of instruction
•
time on task
•
attendance of students, and
•
idiosyncrasies of social activities within community life. 2.
Limitations due to the unavoidable absence of the expected resource personnel. 3.
Limitations of testing:
•
There were no models for preparation of instruments for testing in similar socio- cultural settings and, therefore, there was no full trial of the test instruments.
•
There was insecurity among the adult learners in a new domain of learning which made testing difficult in the initial stages. The cultural code of conduct was practised where
peers were appealed to for help in areas of insecurity. As the program progressed there was more confidence to give individual contributions in the tests.
•
There were not enough experienced personnel available for testing; testers were the researcher, local village personnel, and newly arrived volunteer workers from other
countries. As experience was gained by students and testers alike, the pattern of individual testing became more acceptable and manageable.
4. A further limitation in the Tok Pisin study concerned the certainty that the data collected
resulted from the method of instruction for each intervention, rather than from a
contamination effect between the two treatment groups generally, and specifically at the time of testing on the first two occasions.
The conclusions presented in this research have implications for theorists and practitioners involved with literacy acquisition, especially in cross-cultural contexts. The implications are
discussed from four perspectives:
•
Theories of literacy acquisition
•
Research methods in cross-cultural contexts
•
Teaching practice
•
Administration and policy making
6.3. Implications from the Studies 6.3.1 Implications for theories of literacy acquisition
In Chapter 2, it was shown that there is currently general agreement that literacy acquisition includes the global holistic, meaning-centred modes of learning, and linear analytic, script-
centred modes of learning. There is not, however, agreement on the method of introduction of the two areas and the sequencing of necessary components. One implication of this research for
literacy acquisition theory is the insight that is given into the psychological effect of the initial method of instruction. There is clear evidence, in the reactions of the learners in the two
programs, that the way literacy is acquired in the first encounters with reading and writing is the way that it persists cf. Stanovich 1986.
In this research, the reactions of some of the semi-literate non-achievers showed that they could have profited by a period of concentrated “re-learning”—beginning from what they
knew—to break strongly practised, nonproductive habits of learning. As mentioned previously, the most prevalent pattern was reading out each consonant—usually with an accompanying
vowel—according to the sound or the English name of the consonant. Two contributing factors to the persistent use of this habit were the pervading culture of practice for literacy acquisition,
and the age of the students. This culture of practice was built on the concept of linear acquisition of skills, building from phonemes to words, then sentences. There was a strong belief that
“reading” was being able to say each letter—each consonant said with an accompanying vowel—so that such readers showed extreme difficulty in generating the word in focus. In these
studies, learners, with some previous literacy exposure who were instructed with Multi-Strategy acquisition techniques, were able to make the shift from skills-based learning to meaningful,
context-based learning more quickly, with more durable gains, and with more motivation to sustain literacy than the semi-literate learners exposed to the Gudschinsky method of instruction.
As has already been discussed in Chapter 2, Freebody has argued for
necessary status of four roles in any characterisation of successful reading …: the roles of code- breaker How do I crack this?, text-participant What does this mean?, text-user What do I do
with this here and now?, and text-analyst What does this do for me? Freebody 1992:58.
When we apply the findings of the present research to these roles, we can construct an explanation for the greater degree of literacy acquisition among Multi-Strategy semiliterate and
nonliterate learners alike. Freebody 1992:58 has noted two crucial points of difference related to the instructional process of literacy between practitioners when incorporating these four roles,
that is, sequencing of the roles, and “the necessary degree of explication in instruction.” As
