Summary of writing results

A summary of the writing results indicates the following: 1. The Multi-Strategy group showed a greater understanding of the concept of the word than the Gudschinsky group, noting breaks between words early in the program and sustaining the significance. 2. The significant differences on writing the correct form of both letters and words, clearly indicated that the Multi-Strategy group showed greater mastery than the Gudschinsky group in the later stages of the program. 3. Samples of self-generated writing collected on occasion 4, when the stimulus was a series of line drawings depicting a story, showed that the Multi-Strategy group wrote more meaningfully, more cohesively, and with more action and clearer description than the Gudschinsky group. In the next section, the follow-up research is presented. There are two divisions: interviews with ex-students, and interviews with teachers from the initial program. We first consider the situation and the interview questions to be presented to the students who had participated in the research. Table 4.49. Summary of indications on writing variables by group for the Urat program VARIABLE SETS MANOVA VARIABLES ANOVA follow-up WRITING Mechanics of Writing Occas. 1 Occas. 2 Occas. 3 Occas. 4 Concepts about Print Sig. Sig T Sig. Word Breaks MSM 0 MSM MSM Capitals 0 0 0 0 Complete Sentences 0 0 0 0 Letters Sig. 0 Sig. Sig. Attempted MSM MSM Correct MSM MSM Different Attempted MSM MSM Different Correct MSM MSM Words Sig. Sig. T Sig. Attempted 0 0 0 MSM Correct 0 0 0 MSM Different Attempted 0 0 0 MSM Different Correct 0 0 0 MSM Incorrect but Recognised 0 0 0 MSM Meaning in Writing Occas. 1 Occas. 2 Occas. 3 Occas.4 Makes Sense - - 0 MSM Elaboration - - 0 0 Cohesive Ties Sig T Referentials - - MSM Conjunctions - - MSM Story Line Sig. Action - - 0 MSM Reliance on Picture Sig. Description - - MSM Description plus Interpolations - - MSM T = Trend Sig. = Significant 0 = No significant difference between groups GM = Gudschinsky Method MSM = Multi-Strategy Method

4.7. Follow -up Research in the Urat Program

After an absence of more than two years, the researcher returned to the area to study the literacy activities of those who had participated in the program. There were no formal school classes available for adults in the area. There was evidence, however, that the communities of Tumam and Musingwi had set up “Open Classes” and were highly motivated to continue classes to help maintain literacy skills among the adults. These communities had received Multi-Strategy instruction during the interventions. During the follow-up research, adult classes were held daily in Tumam. In Musingwi the classes were more spasmodic because the teachers were not consistent. There was no evidence in any of the other villages of the research area that adults were attending any classes to maintain their literacy skills. It is not usual to see follow-up research after such a long period of time. On the completion of any literacy program, one of the obvious variables to look for is indications of any maintenance within the particular situation and any direct movement of the advantage into a wider linguistic and cultural context. After two years it is difficult to show the maintenance of some advantage. Wagner 1990 claims that it is “diffusion” that sustains and enhances literacy. Diffusion of literacy practices takes place within a congenial social climate: the socio-cultural situation of the participants involved determining if literacy is ongoing. Accepting that to be so, the effect of literacy within any cultural setting can be portrayed as shown in Figure 4.5. Figure 4.5 shows that the efficacy and breadth of the initial literacy instruction are partly verified in the way literacy is sustained and enhanced through maintenance and diffusion. As maintenance takes place, it is highly probable that the advantage leads into the wider linguistic and cultural contexts of reading and writing in the lingua franca and national languages. In any cultural setting, however, for diffusion to take place, there also needs to be a suitable environment: a social context where people are reading and writing within the family unit and in the community. A further necessity is adequate, available material to read. Where creative writing is included in the initial literacy program, there is potential for plenty of literature to be written, in good quality and in different genres, to keep the build-up of local literature in progress and to effect a change in the literacy practices of more people. To probe some of the propositions implied by this model, a set of questions was devised to see what effect the initial literacy program had had on the communities involved. The interviews were conducted in a semi-structured style. The following general questions were posed: 1. Are ex-students from the two treatment groups reading and writing and to what extent? 2. Is there any evidence of diffusion of literacy from the two methods used and to what degree? 3. What positive or negative reactions do the ex-students have toward the two methods of instruction? In the interviews, it was made clear that the questions were related to the earlier program and an explanation of the main purpose of the interview was given to each person. The intent of the interviews was to find out which strategies had helped or not helped in learning to read and write. The purpose was to see if any changes could be made to refine literacy to suit the socio- cultural factors better and the learning styles of the communities involved. Initial Instruction Efficacy and Breadth of Literacy Maintenance Sustain Literacy Diffusion Enhance Literacy Materials Available Quantity plus Quality plus Diversity Social Context Individual plus Family plus Community Access to Wider Linguistic Cultural Contexts Lingua Franca plus National Languages Legend: = Path: goal of any literacy program = Path: literacy as a community value—diffusion and enhancement by members of the community = Interaction: necessary ingredients for literacy to be ongoing Figure 4.5. Schematic representation of the effects of instruction on the maintenance and diffusion of literacy practices Specifically, the questions were as follows: 1. Do you read now? Why don’t you read? Asked if the person responded negatively. 2. What books do you have to read? 3. Do you write now? Why don’t you write? Asked if the person responded negatively. 4. Do you read with anyone? With whom do you read? 5. Do you read to anyone? To whom do you read? Is there anyone else living in your house who can read?