Lesson format The Gudschinsky Method

• Four stages of a complete literacy program are • “prereading • basic instruction in reading and writing • a bridge to a second language, and • independent reading” page 4. • A strategy for planning and implementing a program consists of • literature for independent reading • a tested practical orthography • an overall program plan • instructional materials and teachers’ guide • a trial of the materials • published materials • teacher training, and • classes pages 4–5. • A person learns “how to read only once,” that is, “the principle of what reading is is learned only once” page 4. • “A person can only learn to read in a language he [sic] understands” page 6: That person is literate who, in a language that he [sic] speaks, can read and understand anything he would have understood if it had been spoken to him; and who can write, so that it can be read, anything that he can say Gudschinsky 1973:5. • A person should be able to recognise parts of words “to figure out what that word is”; “words should be figured out in context” pages 7–8. • Every lesson must teach a person how to read. Basically, the lesson plan follows the same format for teaching grapheme-phoneme correspondence and grammatical forms, the functors. Beginning with a key picture and word a cultural, emotive, picturable item, the seven steps are as follows: Step 1. Analysis breakdown of the word into component parts, usually syllables, to isolate and teach a particular letter Step 2. Synthesis build-up of syllables by analogy using the new letter: “synthesis is used to mean focusing on smaller bits within a unit … not … in the sense of stringing smaller bits together…” Lee 1982:29 Step 3. Identification comparison of new syllables showing similar parts Step 4. Contrast contrast of new and familiar letters in a syllable matrix Step 5. Word building building of words using known syllables Step 6. Connected material reading of connected material Step 7. Writing dictation of syllables, words, sentences Gudschinsky considered the method to be analytic and the first six steps as the reading lesson. In summary, these are • “presentation of the key words from which to derive syllable patterns • analysis of the key words into syllables • practice and drill, and • testing in connected reading” Gudschinsky 1973:29. As an aid to teaching analogy in the “practice and drill” step, Gudschinsky suggested a syllable chart gradually built as each letter is taught Gudschinsky 1973:30–32. An important general statement, capturing the essence of the method, was made by Gudschinsky after hearing some Hindi learners read. These learners were completing a course and were at the late-primer or post-primer stage of reading. From this encounter Gudschinsky noted that good readers in general use the syllable as the unit of analysis when they find a word that they do not immediately recognize, and good readers use the phrase as a unit in normal smooth reading. By contrast, the poor readers use individual letters as a unit for deciphering new words, and are frequently unable to blend the individual letter sounds to make a meaningful word. They read word by word and often fail to recognize the phrase breaks, so that their best reading is meaningless. … These findings reinforce my conviction that efficient reading lessons for adults should teach these two skills: the reading of new words by syllables, and the recognition of phrases at a glance Gudschinsky 1973:144. The striking differences between good and poor readers in this situation prompted this statement on the basic lesson patterns of the method. Gudschinsky prepared a series of eleven detailed worksheets as a guide for producing primers that would lead to efficient reading lessons where the two skills of “reading new words by syllables” and “recognition of phrases” would be paramount Gudschinsky 1973:145–161. These worksheets were meticulously detailed with up to seventeen steps stating directions and constraints in each area. The three main groups were: orthography and spelling, the primer, and the teacher’s guide. The titles for the six worksheets for construction of the primer are listed to show the thoroughness of assistance in preparation and to indicate the amount of detail and expertise needed to develop a satisfactory primer. Worksheet 3: Steps in the construction of literacy primers Worksheet 4: The first lesson Worksheet 5: Primer lessons after the first one Worksheet 6: Stories for the primer Worksheet 7: Checklist for primer lessons Worksheet 8: Charting primer progression The thesis for a primer is The basic units to be considered in primer making are the symbols and the grammatical words or word-parts. These are to be introduced in controlled order, taught in useful arrangements, and practised in meaningful connected material “stories” Gudschinsky 1973:148. is an example of a typical primer lesson format for a letter. An example of the detail used in the “patter” for teaching a lesson is given in Appendix A. kaukau kau kau kaukau kam kamaut tu tumas sanap kamap au au kau au rau au nau au mau Long san papa i laik go long gaden. Em i go i go na kamap long gaden bilong em. Em i lukim gaden na, olaman, kau rau nau mau pik bilong em i kamautim sampela kaikai. Pik i kamautim kaukau, mami na pinat. Em i kaikai kon na kumu tu. Papa i lukim na ai bilong em i ret Em i laik raunim pik na paitim em long stik. Tasol pik i lukim papa na kau rau nau mau i ronowe i go pinis. Sori tumas Papa kai rai nai mai i sot long kaikai nau. ku ru nu mu - 64 - - 65 - Figure 3.1. Primer lesson for teaching the vowel sequence au in the Gudschinsky method These two primer pages show the layout for the six steps for teaching reading with focus on learning letters: • Analysis • Synthesis • Identification • Contrast • Word building • Connected material Following the teaching of the six steps, dictation of syllables, words, and sentences are included for the writing step. Some relevant comments on the application of the method are considered in the next section.

3.1.2. Application

The method has been adapted to many different languages and used successfully in adult literacy in a number of countries in South America and Africa, in Papua New Guinea, and other countries, for example: • Peru Larson and Davis 1981 • Africa Barnwell 1979 • Guatemala Vreeland 1986 Despite the explicit principles on which this method was developed, however, there have been problems in practice, specifically in preparing the materials and in teacher-training. In the preparation of materials there have been two main areas of difficulty: the complexity of the languages, and the need to choose acceptable key words, which allow the generation of interesting texts written in familiar, everyday idiomatic language, with a restricted group of available letters. Languages with complex consonant-vowel syllable structures pose a problem because of the need to develop a variety of lessons to teach the positions of letters in different word contexts. Such complexities make the Gudschinsky method a method that newly literate indigenous teachers do not find easy to develop. Although the method was developed to accommodate all syllable types in phonologically complex languages, these two difficulties, concerned with language complexity and the selection of suitable key words, make the production of primers in such languages, especially in the early stages, a formidable task. The second difficulty of finding acceptable key words to introduce letters and grammatical items in controlled order is a time-consuming one. Difficulties are compounded in some languages because of the need to show contrasting features and to include the items in idiomatic, interesting connected material with a restricted number of letters. A further difficulty, as explained above, is the need to have an in-depth understanding of the grammatical constructions of the language to facilitate preparation of lessons for the primers. Training speakers of the language to control this aspect of the method takes a long time. Training teachers to learn the “patter” see Appendix A and present the material in a methodical, step-by-step way does not seem to have been a particular problem because the structure is straightforward and generally acceptable. One of the problems in presenting the patter, however, is that the connection between the logical, step-by-step activities is not always understood, and the pages are often learned by rote, including the sight functor exercises. There have been problems, also, in teaching the method in languages with multiple syllable types and in training teachers to teach by developing “problem-solving” techniques instead of reading or telling the content of material as a model. It has been noted that languages with many different syllable types, including consonant clusters and vowel sequences, have been difficult to teach. For example, the Angaat ha language in Papua New Guinea is the most divergent in the Angan family of twelve languages and the phonological systems of these languages are especially complex Foley 1986:236. Literacy materials were prepared for Angaat ha in the Gudschinsky method but there was little success, mainly because of the heavy teaching and learning load with difficult and varied syllable patterns personal communication with R. Huisman—for some phonological complexities see Huisman and Lloyd 1981. The training of teachers to develop “problem-solving” techniques, instead of the traditional pattern of showing and telling, has been documented by van Dyken 1984. After extensive experience in developing and testing primers for the Gudschinsky method in Nigeria, van Dyken researched the training needs of teachers using the method in Southern Sudan. She noted that in Nigeria, linguists, with or without prior teacher training, could use the method successfully to teach literacy to preliterate adults but found it difficult to train newly literate Nigerians to “follow the guidelines for teaching with the method” page 15: To illustrate, Gudschinsky designed one section of a typical primer lesson to teach learners to decipher new words independently. The design requires the learner to use analytical skills and analogy clues built into drills, to sound out syllables independently. However, colleagues working in