5. Comments on method
The main comment concerning method from the Gudschinsky participants was that they would like to attend more classes in Urat. Since the completion of the original research, one man
had consistently been attending the classes for prep-school children in the Multi-Strategy method to gain a higher degree of proficiency in reading and writing. The person who did not
attempt to read or write said that she did not understand the way that the class had been taught. Some of the comments of this Gudschinsky group were:
I feel this way, the school in Urat helps me a little to read and things like that. But, it being that way, now it makes me think that I must continue to go to school. I think this way, I would really like to
continue in this school in Urat to get more knowledge. The school had good things to help me but I, myself, I did not understand those ways that you
did it. Plenty of things were hard for me to learn. The teacher did a good job but I, myself, I did not learn.
I think it the school was all right, it helped us a little. I would really like it if you had some good thoughts to help us so that whoever does not go to school or something, he can help us some more
so that we can read and write that way. I feel that some kind of change would help a little to help thoughts to learn something in reading and
writing.
The comments relating to method among the Multi-Strategy respondents were generally very positive, with some helpful comments about the two tracks and ways to improve the
methodology to help in some areas, especially writing. Only one person, from the M-SM 2 group, gave a negative comment. She said the way of teaching was not clear for her. When
asked why, she replied that she just went to school and she just thought and then she found it a little hard. She said that the way was hard to follow. It is important to add here that the teaching
for this group was done by one teacher for both the tracks of the Multi-Strategy method with no break between the different instructional approaches.
From the two Multi-Strategy groups, all of the respondents in the M-SM 1 group commented that both tracks were good, with some people making specific comments about each
track. In the M-SM 2 group, 64 percent gave positive comments for both tracks, while others centred their remarks more particularly on the specific tracks. One man, who became very fluent
in reading and writing, summarised it this way:
Tasemeini the teacher of the Word-Building Track helped me, for me to learn, and Bansis the teacher of the Story Track helped me, for me to read. If we only go to Tasemeini’s class, then we
learn to read but we are not able to read quickly, definitely not. If we go to Bansis’ class now, along with Tasemeini’s class, when we read, we will learn to read quickly.
Other comments from the M-SM 1 group were as follows:
This school is for helping me to think and understand. It is this way, with Tasemeini he does it incompletely in pieces and Bansis does it too, and it is good.
About the Story Track, I don’t think it is easy, it is a little bit hard. But the Word-Building Track, yes, it is easy. It is easy for us to learn and know like this; an incomplete word a syllable or
something like that, get a syllable and put it with it and make a full name of something that way, and we will feel it. The Story Track is hard because, it is like this, all the names of something they are
full and we will not be able to understand quickly.
Those two the two tracks together are good. It is not that one is no good and the one good, the two together are nice. That way good help has come to us.
Kategori