In the comments from the M-SM 2 group, the two tracks were not as clearly defined as those from the MS-M 1 group where there were two teachers:
It was good for us to get understanding but it was a little hard for us and we didn’t do it. When we did it every time, it was all right. But we didn’t. Sometimes we didn’t understand.
When the teacher taught us we thought this way, it is good for helping us to get understanding in the language. Only in our language will we get understanding and we were pleased with him for doing it
that way for us to follow. Concerning the way of breaking up the words, it is good. It is an easy way and the long way is hard.
Other comments distinguished the two tracks, noting particular points, such as the following: student interaction, with writing on the blackboard, was good but some materials were
not printed clearly; the words were broken up and the stories put together; and short stories were clearer than longer ones. Note this comment from the M-SM 1 group:
Tasemeini Word-Building Track he teaches us and does it well. When he writes on the blackboard and we tell him and we get up and go and mark it, we see it; it is good. But when we read it in the
book from Bansis Story Track it is good, but some of the words the machine did not mark it clearly. It being that way, we read along and we make mistakes on that.
Some comments from the M-SM 2 group were as follows:
Some things helped me well. Some things that were short we saw, we wrote, and we broke them. And the long ones we put together. We wrote and put them together. Vincent the teacher he did it
for us that way.
It was good. About the fairly short stories, they were good, I understood them. The longer ones I didn’t understand well.
A summary of the main points in the interviews is presented in the next section.
Summary of interviews with Urat adult learners
The results of the interviews give some indication of the maintenance and diffusion of literacy in the Urat area. Each of the following comments is made, with the consideration of how
much the program influenced the everyday lives of the people concerned, in relation to sustaining and enhancing literacy. A summary of the interviews shows the following:
1. There was more evidence of reading from the Multi-Strategy group than from the
Gudschinsky group, showing more sustained reading through material in the lingua franca, where books were not available in Urat.
2. The Multi-Strategy learners in group 1 showed that they used the skill of writing, sustained
literacy and enhanced the skill, especially in writing letters to friends, more than the members of the Gudschinsky group. The Multi-Strategy group 2 did not show the same aptitude in
writing, mainly because they learned to write primarily by copying texts instead of generating them for themselves.
3. The practice of reading to others was exercised more among the Multi-Strategy group 1
readers, showing more diffusion of literacy than in the Gudschinsky group. Motivation was strong among both of the Multi-Strategy groups to attend Open Classes to improve their
skills in reading and writing.
4. More people who were preliterate prior to the beginning of the program showed more of an
aptitude to be able to read from the Multi-Strategy groups than from the Gudschinsky group, where only those who had had some literacy experience before the program showed reading
competence.
5. Comments regarding method were more positive from the Multi-Strategy learners than from
the Gudschinsky learners. The comments from the Gudschinsky group were more general with emphasis on a desire for more help to gain the skills of literacy, whereas the Multi-
Strategy learners gave more specific comments on the method used, showing that they understood some of the basic principles.
In both the Multi-Strategy villages there was active community involvement with Open Classes arranged for people to attend to help improve their literacy skills. This type of social
support, with the community involved in literacy in the village, is further evidence that the Multi-Strategy method gives scope for communities to take control, to direct their own programs
so that people succeed in learning to read and write, and to help sustain literacy through diffusion in family and community activities. These interviews in Urat confirm the trends found in the
quantitative analyses of the data collected over two-and-a-half years earlier. It is evident from the comments, abilities, and attitudes of the students that gains from Multi-Strategy method
instruction outweigh comparable gains from instruction in the Gudschinsky method in this program.
4.7.2. Interviews with Urat teachers
Six teachers from the adult program in the Urat speaking area were interviewed in relation to the suitability of the Multi-Strategy literacy method for adult learners. There were three men for
each of the two tracks. Questions were centred around how each teacher
•
assessed each lesson
•
changed lessons to make them more successful
•
thought the students handled the program, and
•
explained the method in terms of socio-cultural relevance. Pertinent comments related to each of these areas will be exemplified here and further
compared with the Tok Pisin program in Chapter 5. The question of using English names for letters the ABC question did not become an issue in the Multi-Strategy program in Urat so this
topic was not included in the interviews. One of the teachers in the Gudschinsky program, and one of the teachers along with one of the students in the Multi-Strategy program had some strong
views on the subject. These comments are included here along with some of the comments of the two Gudschinsky teachers related to their classes. We first consider the teachers’ comments on
each lesson.
4.7.2.1. Assessment of lessons
The teachers were generally positive about the lessons in each of the two tracks and made specific comments where they felt a lesson or activity was particularly good or inappropriate.
Two lessons in the Story Track were singled out, namely, lesson one, the “Experience Story,” and lesson three, the “Big Book” lesson.
In reference to lesson one, one teacher commented that the experience was the core and was “good because they the students can look and they will talk and stimulate their thinking.”
Another teacher made the point that the content of the experience should be something that adults would want to see and discuss. The theme should relate to “ways important things happen
in the village, for example, sickness” or “the scriptures” or “the way to conduct a business project” to “turn the theme to relate to something new for them.” Following on from this he said
that the story used for comprehension in lesson two should fit the thinking of adults, for example, pig husbandry, building, or new ways of gardening that were important to them.
Lesson three featured as being very helpful because of the way it was presented: with different ways of reading the Big Book; and with two presentations of the story large and small
to give practice in reading the same content in different environments. In the Word-Building Track, two teachers commented about the readiness activities. There
was a very positive attitude toward the need for specific activities to help adults become oriented to literacy, especially writing. One teacher suggested that the help given to students for learning
to write their names should continue into the second month.
Lesson two was selected as the most important lesson by two of the teachers because of the varied activities to help with learning syllables and word-building. One teacher pointed out that
lessons one and two went together and that the adults needed more help in building words than the children.
There was a difference of opinion regarding lesson three, where it was suggested activities for learning syllables and building words be put in the format of competition between teams. In
the programs with children this lesson was popular, but one teacher reacted to the fact that the lesson was a repetition of lesson two in the form of games. His objection went further:
play also doesn’t help because it aims at helping one person who gets it quickly. When this person does it again you will see that he will try to do it every day and try to score points for a group. So
from what I have seen I think that lesson three is not very good.
From this teacher’s experience, these points seem valid but the two other teachers both said that the games were good; one said that the adults liked it and the other said he liked it but felt that
something else could be included in the time. The issue in the next section is the innovative ideas the teachers used in substituting lessons they considered inappropriate.
4.7.2.2. Changes to lessons
There were no changes in the way that the lessons in the Story Track were presented. As explained above, one teacher made the cultural theme more applicable to the adults. Another
man suggested that a longer course would be beneficial for adults who were taking a long time to grasp the materials.
In the Word-Building Track, changes centred around lesson three where each teacher made adjustments according to the response of the group of students in each class. The teacher who
felt that the games were a waste of time combined lessons two and three and gave more practice in word building. Another teacher suggested more practice could be given in writing, especially
the names of students. As the students became more proficient, some activities with numbers were given in this lesson. In the new format, taught as a trial in Kwanga, only one period is given
for activities with syllables and word building. The teachers’ comments on the responsibility of the students in the learning process is covered next.
4.7.2.3. Students’ application of lessons
In the Urat program it seemed that some of the teachers felt that the onus was on the students to attend classes so that they could learn adequately. One teacher said that those who
were consistent learned the tasks. The reason why some could only read and write the easy words was because many times they did not come to class at the time when the syllables were
being taught so that they could read and write them. He said it was hard for the teachers to help them to “catch up” because they did not come all of the time and missed lessons.
Another teacher said that some learn, are pleased, and go ahead but some get behind because they do not understand. He explained that it all depended on their motivation; those who were
self-motivated learned quickly. Others learned some things but not others and “the man who has a strong feeling or interest and he goes to school he learns enough, he is pleased because he did
something and he learns more.” The idea that literacy could be gained quickly was a strong expectation for some students and, as this teacher pointed out, it is a slow, persistent process. The
teachers’ views of the relevance of the method to the socio-cultural situation is summarised in the next section.
4.7.2.4. Socio-cultural relevance of the method
In response to this topic, one teacher gave a general comment. He said that he thought the students liked the two tracks and that “these two ways are good, they are sufficient to help
them.” He commented that these two ways to learn to read and write helped them and fitted the way they lived in Urat. Another man gave some insight into how he viewed the relevance of the
method to the learning style of the group: “we feel pleased that another person is helping us. So we can understand what things you make or do, we are able to see just what it is and we can
understand in that way.” He said that the way to help someone learn something was to show them and in that way the method fitted the culture: “you came and showed us that good way and
we saw it, and we started it, and I think it is very good and it really fits.” As we will see reiterated in the Tok Pisin teachers’ comments in the next chapter, the key words for cultural
learning clearly seem to be: show; look, and do.
Although the question of the alphabet recital of the names for letters in the English alphabet was not an issue for the Multi-Strategy classes in Urat, the topic was discussed after
the program was completed and it became clear that attitudes on the subject were strong among the Gudschinsky classes.
4.7.2.5. The “ABC” question
When the research was started, the question of teaching the English names for phonemes was a valid one. As explained above, there was some pressure put on the teachers by the students
learning by the Gudschinsky method of instruction to be taught the alphabet. The linguist in the area strongly recommended that the English names not be taught. His main reason was the
confusion of the vowel names and their sounds as experienced among the semi-literate Urat speakers. The teachers were encouraged to teach the Gudschinsky method as they were trained to
do and this did not include the English alphabet names. The main teacher in the program had this to say when asked if those who dropped out of the class gave any reasons:
Plenty of them truly think this way, that if we take them and go with the way of the ABC, or Tok Pisin, I can say that’s right, they learn well. And we teach them in their language and these words
and syllables in this way, and they say they misunderstand or ‘I am not sure’, and so they talk this way about not being able or learn these things well.
This teacher explained that the students had expectations about learning in Tok Pisin with the alphabet because there was a history of all previous literacy being taught in Tok Pisin, using the
English names of the letters of the alphabet. So when they were taught syllables they were confused and reacted despite the fact that the teacher did take time to explain the alphabet in the
context of the syllable.
One student in the Multi-Strategy classes solved the problem for himself and became a very fluent reader and writer. About halfway through the course he asked one of the teachers to tell
him about the ABC names. Then he worked with his daughters, who were learning English in the primary school system, and they taught him the English alphabet names. He was already reading,
but he reported that the names helped him with fluency and writing.
The supervisor of the Urat literacy project commented that it should follow the way that each person thinks. He pointed out that the man who learned the alphabet names after learning to
read was helped because his mind was ready to receive it because he wanted to learn. He said that “If you teach the ABC then later teach syllables, it will make them say ai only and in writing
you put something with it and then this says ki, that is, ke with ai is ki.” He advocated following the way that the classes were taught because the sounds followed the way that it was natural to
speak and think. Then at a later stage, if individuals wished to learn the alphabet names and it helped them, they could do it that way. In the programs for children, the English alphabet is
being taught in the prep-schools in the term before the children go into the primary education system.
The “ABC” question featured strongly in the attitude of the learners in the Gudschinsky classes as explained above. There were other observations made by the teachers of the
Gudschinsky classes which are summarised in the next section.
4.7.2.6. Responses from the Gudschinsky teachers
When asked about the lessons, one teacher explained that the lessons were good to help the people learn to read and write but the young people were able to understand and the older people
were not able to understand well. He thought the “key word” lesson was the way to learn other things. The other teacher said that they did the training and taught the classes, but he did not
know what reason was behind the fact that the students could not read. He said that if the classes were to function for two or three years, many would learn well. Yet the attendance dropped
drastically in the latter part of the program. At that time it was reported that the students did not attend because they were not making progress.
Both teachers said that the reason for the poor attendance was the heavy garden work. As mentioned above, there was also the strong expectation that the students had about making
progress if they learned the English alphabet. When asked why the teacher thought they had this attitude, he commented:
I think this way, at the time when the sisters took them in that Tok Pisin class at Dreikikir and I think they learned a little about that way. Now we get them for this Urat class; now they are
completely confused. They are not able to pronounce these different syllables. They are really not able to say these sounds and really understand this dialect and use it. It is very hard and confuses
them.
Both teachers commented on one younger man who could read. Prior to joining the class he had not been to school but had taught himself to read some Tok Pisin. He had persisted, learned
to read Urat and gained in fluency in Tok Pisin. A summary of the comments from the teachers’ interviews are now presented.
4.7.2.7. Summary of interviews with Urat teachers
The interviews with the teachers centred around the effect of the Multi-Strategy method of instruction, which was a unique intervention, not having been tried with adult learners prior to
the Urat program. All of the summary points relate to the Multi-Strategy intervention except the last two, where the comments of the Gudschinsky teachers are included. A summary of the
interviews shows the following:
1. The comments regarding the specific lessons were positive, with the Story Track lessons one
and three singled out as particularly helpful. Comments on lesson one showed that the experience was important because it allowed students to look, talk, and stimulate their
thinking; the content should include something adults would want to see and discuss, the things important to them. The Big Book lesson was helpful because of the way it was
presented, with different ways to read the story, including the two presentations of the story large and small giving the same story in different environments.
2. For the Word-Building Track lessons, the comments were generally positive but two areas
were emphasised: readiness activities prior to the primer and primer lessons two and three. Readiness activities were considered to be important, particularly writing. Word-building
exercises in primer lesson two were valuable as an extension of lesson one: the students had an opportunity to do what they had been taught. The teachers expressed different opinions on
the appropriateness of games for adults in lesson three:
•
Negative: it is a repetition of lesson two, and the same people dominate.
•
Positive: adults liked to participate. 3.
There were no basic changes made to the Story Track lessons. The aim of the teachers was to make activities and stories on the theme applicable to adults, especially the experience. In the
Word-Building Track, teachers made changes for lesson three of the primer lessons:
•
They combined lessons two and three giving more practice in word-building.
•
They suggested giving more writing exercises.
•
They taught simple arithmetic. 4.
Comments related to how students handled the lessons were centred around two general factors: consistent attendance and motivation. Spasmodic attendance helped to disadvantage
some; it was difficult for teachers to help the students “catch up.” The self-motivated students learned quickly: they learned something, were pleased, and learned more. When
they did not understand, they lagged behind.
5. Generally, comments were positive regarding the cultural relevance of the method, with the
two tracks fitting the way the people learn in the society. In relation to learning styles, it was pointed out that they understand through things that are done: they see and understand.
6. One reason given for the poor attendance and poor performance of students in the
Gudschinsky program was the strong expectation by students that learning the English alphabet was the way to learn to read and write well. One man in the Multi-Strategy group
found that learning the names of the letters, after learning to read, especially helped in writing. The supervisor stressed that teaching should follow the sounds the way that is
natural to speak and think, then teach the names later as there is need.
7. There were no specific comments on the lessons by the Gudschinsky teachers. One teacher
said that they taught the lessons in the way that they were trained and it was hard to know why the students did not learn. Reasons given for poor attendance and performance were that
•
the students had heavy garden work
•
they expected to learn the English alphabet, and
•
they would learn if the course were to continue for two to three years. These topics covered in the interviews are relevant to the overall findings in the research, in
Urat and Tok Pisin. In the Urat study, the summary statements of the interviews from ex-students and teachers confirm the results from the quantitative analyses. The detailed comments about the
lessons of the Multi-Strategy method show an understanding of literacy and the instructional process which was not evident in the Gudschinsky interviews. Such an understanding is reflected
in the attitudes and abilities of the teachers, and the greater expertise shown by the Multi- Strategy learners, compared with the Gudschinsky learners in the quantitative results analysed
two-and-a-half years earlier. In Chapter 6, further comparisons are made and the topics are discussed and integrated.
151
5. The Tok Pisin Study
5.0. Introduction
The second language to which the research design was applied was Tok Pisin. A description of the pertinent factors of the language for this research is found in Chapter 2. At the time of the
research, the particular dialect of Kwanga, where the Tok Pisin study was carried out, had not been analysed. Since the general research design has been described in Chapter 3, emphasis is
given here to the procedures and the results, with discussion related to the complexity of the language situation and the socio-cultural setting.
In this chapter, the details of the Tok Pisin study include the physical and socio-cultural setting, the participants, materials, design, procedures, and analysis of the research, and it
concludes with the results and a discussion of the findings. We first consider the physical and socio-cultural situation of the study.
5.1. Physical and Socio-Cultural Setting
As will be recalled, the speakers of Urat and Kwanga live along the southern watershed of the Torricelli Mountains in Papua New Guinea. The Kwanga speakers occupy the area along the
border between the East Sepik and Sandaun Provinces, whereas the Urat villages are mainly situated along the Sepik Highway in the vicinity of Dreikikir. The two villages
12
studied in the Tok Pisin study, Tau One and Tau Two, are in close proximity to the Urat group, approximately
22 kilometres south of Dreikikir see Figure 2.1 for the location map. A typical village is described by Allen:
The villages of the study area are like islands in a sea of drab green forested hills, marked by the shining fronds of coconuts which stand above the forest, crowning the prominences and ridgetops
upon which the villages are built. Ridgetop locations and deep forested valleys accentuate an impression of villages isolated from one another. Houses in the village hamlets cluster in semi-
circles around central plazas of hard, bare clay or line the narrow ridge top … Allen 1976:29.
Such hamlets made up the two Tau villages which are situated on a ridge stretching south from the Sepik Highway and parallel to the Karp River. Access is by road, used mainly by government
and business vehicles during drier periods, but the people generally move between villages on foot.
The present study is concerned with literacy and its maintenance within a community. To set the stage for the literacy program, it is appropriate to give some description of the life of an
individual within that community. Schindlbeck 1984:5–6 mentions that “Kwanga villages are situated on mountain ridges …” and are “composed of a great number of rather dispersed
hamlets.” These hamlets are made up of close-knit family groups that “in everyday life … are of more importance as social groups than the clan groups” Schindlbeck 1984:6. Within these
hamlets the focus of an individual’s life centres around the family unit. Members of each family
12
The two villages are also called Tauhundor and Tauhimbiet, but Tau One and Tau Two are generally used. Obrist van Eeuwijk 1992:26 explains the names as follows: “The names ‘Tauhundor’ and ‘Tauhimbiet’
supposedly mean ‘Tau 1’ and ‘Tau 2’ in the Urat language. The inhabitants themselves call their villages according to their relative location on the Karp River.”
usually live within close proximity and strong interpersonal relationships occur within the confines of the village. Such “kinship relations are warm, close, and spontaneous” Allen
1976:32. The researcher lived in a house within the area occupied by a close family unit. The open space of hard ground outside the house and a cooking annex off the nearest house were
meeting places for close kin at all times of the day. Such family groups made up the Tau One village which was strung along the narrow ridge on either side of the road.
Another relationship that is important in a person’s life is the clan relationship. Clans are comprised of localised village groups which are most clearly recognised by the occupation of
village and agricultural land Allen 1976:35. The significance of various relationships between clan members is not pertinent to the present study, but it is important to note that “clan members
… support one another in economic, political and social endeavours” Allen 1976:35. The fabric of relationships between individuals was evident in the decisions made by the people in relation
to the choice of teachers and the set-up of the schools.
There is another set of relationships in the village surrounding the “dual division of all adult males in a village into two ‘identical’ groups” Allen 1976:39. Obrist van Eeuwijk 1992
commented that “the men’s cult organization of the northern Kwanga actually belongs to a network spreading over the whole Dreikikir area.” One pertinent part of the men’s cult in relation
to the Tau study is the equalisation between groups and individuals. As Obrist van Eeuwijk described it:
Each cell of the men’s cult organization is divided into two halves or moieties. This social structure is usually called “dual organization”. Whenever the members of one moiety in a cult community
plan to stage a ceremony, they summon the men belonging to the corresponding moiety in partner villages. These men come and provide food, labour and other services: at a later date, the inviting
cult community reciprocates whatever help it received. The same principle of delayed exchange operates on all levels of the dual organization Obrist van Eeuwijk 1992:58–59.
Obrist van Eeuwijk further explained that “the smallest unit represents an individual exchange partner” within the moiety which implies that “the key unit of the dual organization is the
individual man.” There are a multitude of partnerships and “symmetry is an important criterion” to assure equality. Although ceremonial activities “ended in Tauhundor in the 1950s and in
Tauhimbiet in 1965 with the last full initiation,” there were initiation activities in the area in the early 1980s and, in more recent years, some food exchange “ceremonies without a preceding
initiation” Obrist van Eeuwijk 1992:59.
An additional relationship of individual members of the community that had bearing on the results of the study was the church affiliation of the people involved. Within the two Tau villages
there were three strongly active denominations: South Seas Evangelical Church, Roman Catholic, and Seventh Day Adventist churches. Although there were individuals who did not
claim affiliation with any group, those people who were active in each particular denomination shared a bond which gave an extra dimension to village life. The significance of these affiliations
showed up in the way individuals participated and progressed in the literacy classes.
5.2. Participants
The two methods of instruction used in the research have been described in a generic way in Chapter 3. It is inevitable that the kind of pedagogy that is put into practice from any
instructional method is different for each situation. In this section, it will be shown how these
