Table 4.50. Number of positive responses to specific literacy questions in the Urat program
Chi-square analyses of the above results indicate that none of the contrasts between the Gudschinsky and Multi-Strategy groups is significant. Considering the contrast between the
Gudschinsky group and the Multi-Strategy village one group M-SM 1 and, to a lesser extent, the Multi-Strategy village two group M-SM 2, however, there is a pattern that shows a
consistent trend toward the proportionately better performance of the Multi-Strategy learners. The positive attitude toward literacy among the people generally and the interview data show the
trend even though it is not substantiated statistically by a series of chi-square analyses.
Volunteers were sought from the three villages, and the following numbers were interviewed: Gudschinsky group—6; Multi-Strategy group—22 11 from each of the two
villages. The people interviewed from the Gudschinsky group and the M-SM 2 group were representative of the people who completed the original programs. The circumstances and time
made it difficult to increase the numbers for this study. The main intent was to obtain feedback on the methods used, so effort was given to conducting interviews with those who were readers
from each group. As explained above, a short test was given to verify the self-reported data on reading. In the M-SM 1 group, two areas were not represented: those who had not engaged the
text in the final test of the original research and some good readers.
The Urat teachers were not always available, so they were not present at as many interviews as were attended by the teachers in the Tau villages as presented in Chapter 5. To control for
consistency in the two programs, the researcher conducted the interviews in Tok Pisin and conferred with the teachers and others to verify points not understood. The Urat people live close
to the main highway and the District Centre of Dreikikir, so the knowledge of Tok Pisin is higher
QUESTION METHOD Gudschinsky
Multi-Strategy M-SM 1
M-SM 2 n=6
n=11 n=11
How many read now? 3
10 7
How many have books? 6
10 8
How many write now? 3
9 2
How many read with others? 2
1 2
How many read to others? 2
9 2
How many attended public school? 2
5 3
Method—how many positive? 6
11 9
Method—how many negative? 1
for the Urat speakers than in the Tau villages, where the presence of a teacher at each interview was more important. Comments on the results of the interviews are given in order of the
questions asked so the reading data are presented first.
1. Comments on reading results
For the Gudschinsky group, the three readers showed that they were competent. Another person said that he only read a little, finding the longer words difficult. His final attempt at
reading showed that he was competent at naming the letters but not at reading words; there was no evidence of blending the letters together to say the words. Among the people interviewed
from the Multi-Strategy group, all in the M-SM 1 group, who indicated that they were reading, showed that they were competent to do so: all had transferred their skills from reading Urat to
Tok Pisin. The one person who said that she was not reading, made an attempt to read, then said that she could read but had no books. In the M-SM 2 group, however, six women said that they
were not reading when their efforts to read showed that they were competent but lacked practice.
An important aspect of the Urat program is that, at the time of writing, little reading material exists in the language. It became clear that some people, who did not purchase material in Tok
Pisin and use their skills with this new material, showed that they could read but not fluently. The trend, showing competent readers using the lingua franca, was evident in the question
related to the types of books the respondents had to read. For the Gudschinsky group, all reported having books in the language, but those who attempted to read also had access to the Tok Pisin
New Testament. All participants, except one person in the M-SM 1 group who could read, also reported that they read the Tok Pisin New Testament. In the M-SM 2 group, where there was less
evidence of fluent readers, only two women said that they had material to read in Tok Pisin, as well as the material available in Urat.
The only printed books available in Urat from which to make the simple test for reading competence were short portions of translated scripture. Some of the smaller booklets were
learned by rote so a portion of a longer story was chosen. Where there were a number of people being tested at the same time, different sentences were selected for reading. The respondents
were asked to read for the following reasons:
•
To give help in verifying the self-evaluations on reading
•
To see how each person approached reading an unseen text
•
To note any differences between the two treatment groups in the way the texts were read Among those who were reading, in both treatment groups, motivation was the key factor,
along with a personal, active determination to sustain literacy. One of the readers in the Gudschinsky group showed that he had mastered reading through self-generated learning, but he
did not read fluently with confidence; words and phrases were repeated throughout. Among all of the Multi-Strategy group participants there was only one occurrence of repetition of a full
phrase contour; some words were repeated but generally this was done to form a phrase. The high percentage 73 percent of very good readers in the M-SM 1 group show the value of
literacy activities in the community. There were Open Classes for adults and young people who
had been through the English school system as well as prep-school classes for children functioning in the area.
11
As noted above, the categories used in the reading analysis were
•
no attempt to read
•
an attempt but slow with few words attempted
•
reading very slowly with repetition or omissions
•
good reading but haltingly read with some omissions, and
•
very good reading in chunks of text. In both treatment groups there are examples of learners who did not make an attempt to
read. For the Gudschinsky group, the two people in this category could represent 78 percent of the total; that is, those who lost interest and did not engage the text in the final test in the original
research. For the Multi-Strategy groups, the two people who did not read are representative of some older people who persevered but did not engage the text, or people who could read some of
the extracts in the final test in the original research; 21 percent for Multi-Strategy group 1 M- SM 1 and 33 percent for Multi-Strategy group 2 M-SM 2.
The person who attempted to read in the Gudschinsky group lives in an active reading environment and is motivated to achieve in literacy, but he represents those who were tied to
learning the alphabet names. He could accurately name each letter in a word but could not put them together to read the full word. As stated earlier, learning the names of letters in the alphabet
is not a focus of the Gudschinsky method. The socio-cultural, status-building dependency on knowing the alphabet as part of school literacy was very strong in the area and this put the
teacher under pressure to include it in the classes. Despite strong encouragement to adhere to the standard lesson patterns, on one visit to the class the researcher observed the teacher drilling the
English alphabet throughout the session.
The two people who attempted to read in the Multi-Strategy group represent a different group of learners. These people could figure out and read words but they did not have enough
experience to read a new text. Lack of material to read and, resulting from that, lack of motivation seem to be contributing factors to poorer progress.
In the Multi-Strategy group there were representatives of the middle category, where the readers showed that they knew how to read but they did not read any part of the text fluently,
being hampered by the longer, more difficult words. As suggested above, the main reason for this seemed to be lack of experience in reading Urat because there was little material available to
read. There was interest among this group to have ongoing classes where they could practise their skills and master the more complicated syllable patterns.
2. Comments on writing results
In all groups, people were generally reluctant to say that they were writing. There is little need for writing in the culture. Writing to friends living away from the village gives opportunity
11
After the adult literacy classes were completed in Tumam village, the teachers trained thirty new teachers who produced more story books, and prep-school classes were started in five villages using the Multi-Strategy
method. In 1992, a regional training course was conducted at the Dreikikir Multi-language Resource Centre using the same method, and prep-school teachers were trained for the four major dialects of Urat and for one
dialect of Kwanga Barnes 1992.
