Comments on reading “with” or “to” others

I think this way. All the lessons we learn and all the books each teacher uses to teach us I think are good for helping us to learn things that are hard. I think this school is good. We did not understand and we learned and we understand. They the two tracks are good. They know how to help us well, to show how to read, and if he the teacher looks at the two tracks and teaches some things like letters, it is good. I learned the two ways well. This way of Francis, it teaches me because it is broken up. We learn with Francis Word-Building Track and we put them together this way, we put letters or some things this way and we know. We learn with Vincent Story Track this way, he writes a story, some we see and understand, some we do not see and understand. Some we know, some we do not know. We understand Francis’ book, and Vincent’s book that is long, we understand a little. Some things we understand and some that are long we understand a little. The way of Vincent is a little bit hard. We learn with Francis and I think it is easy for us. The negative comments in the Gudschinsky group came from two men who had difficulty learning to read and write. The first, who did not become fluent, felt that the students should have been taught the alphabet the same way that students are taught in English. He also made general negative comments, remarking that plenty of the students from the class did not know how to read and write. The other man said that the classes helped him, but he did not go to school all of the time. He said that if he had gone to school from one to three years he would have learned it. He remarked that some learned to read from the book and that was a help. The thing that he felt was hard was to write on the blackboard because their hands were very clumsy. The negative comments in the Multi-Strategy group came from two young women who did not learn to read and write. They both commented that the time was too short and that they did not understand well, for example, one commented, “I only hear the speaking, not reading and writing in reference to Tok Pisin. It would be enough if we had school one or two years.” This comment reiterates the point made earlier that the lingua franca was not well understood by some sections of the community. Both of the husbands of these young women suggested that the reason for failure was the fact that the English alphabet had not been taught. A summary of the interviews is presented in the next section. Summary of interviews with Tok Pisin adult learners In answer to the general questions asked at the outset, the results show that people from the Multi-Strategy group responded more favourably than the Gudschinsky group in all areas. The Multi-Strategy group members were not only reading and writing more skillfully, but they also showed more commitment to and were actively interested in finding more material to read than the Gudschinsky group. Such positive interest in literacy shows that there was a greater degree of diffusion of literacy among those who learned from the Multi-Strategy method. A summary of the interviews shows the following: 1. Half of the people interviewed in the Multi-Strategy group showed that they could read well, whereas only a quarter performed well in the Gudschinsky group. Those who were reading well were using their skills in community activities, such as church services, with a high proportion coming from the Multi-Strategy group. 2. For the Multi-Strategy group, more than 60 percent indicated that they were writing, with some using their skills in community activities. The one person in the Gudschinsky group who indicated an aptitude for writing said that she did not write for others to read.