Comparison of the Gudschinsky and Multi-Strategy Methods
presented in different activities for each method. In the lesson presentations, both methods include
•
culturally meaningful key pictures and key words as the focus in teaching particular letters
•
teaching from the unit of the syllable in contrast
•
word building activities
•
connected reading material, and
•
the mechanics and form of writing. There are differences in the lesson presentations, however, which extend to differences in the
learning processes in each method. Firstly, in the analysis of the key word in the Gudschinsky method, only the syllable in focus
is separated from the word and the word is learned by sight. For example, to teach the letter t using the word tamiok ‘a small axe’, the syllable ta is isolated, then the vowel a is further
isolated. The syllables mi and ok are not taught and tamiok is learned by sight. The presentation would be as follows:
tamiok ta
a In contrast, in the Word-Building Track lessons the whole word is analysed and all syllables
learned. In each key word lesson there is one new syllable in focus in which there is only one new letter. All letters in other syllables are known and generally all of the other syllables have
been introduced previously. For example, the word tamiok is analysed as ta - mi - ok then the syllable to be learned, ta is isolated. The syllables mi and ok would have been taught previously.
The presentation would be as follows:
tamiok ta - mi - ok
ta
As an extension, there is synthesis, building back to the meaningful word. ta
ta - mi - ok tamiok
Conversely, if the syllable ok is to be taught, ta and mi would have been taught previously and the pattern would be as follows:
•
The analysis: tamiok
ta - mi - ok ok
•
The synthesis: ok
ta - mi - ok tamiok
Secondly, in the Gudschinsky method the syllables are taught by analogy in the synthesis step, and by further drills to show identification and contrast of the letter phoneme in focus. In
the Multi-Strategy method there are no drills, but syllables are learned in context with focus on letters phonemes by contrast of syllables from a matrix of known syllables in boxes, from
which word building strategies also are taught.
Finally, the Multi-Strategy method is designed so that learning to read by holistic strategies that is, with sight words, sight syllables, or sight phrases is not necessary in the Word-Building
Track. In this track, lesson material is developed so that learners read words and texts comprising known syllables and phonemes, except for the new key words where one new phoneme may
occur. The difficulty of generating idiomatic reading material with limited phonemes in the Gudschinsky method has led to the inclusion of sight words and sight functors in primer lessons
for some languages. Although including sight words allows more efficiency in preparing the materials, it is less efficient for beginning readers when strategies for mixed modes of access to
reading are required during the reading process.
Morgan 1993 advocated some main points of the Multi-Strategy approach which focus on some basic principles that are different from the Gudschinsky approach:
1. The development of the literacy teachers in their own command of reading and writing skills
by showing them how to create their own materials 2.
The ongoing process of developing the pedagogical skills of these literacy teachers through in-service training and continued production of materials
3. The provision for global and linear learners through the story and word-building tracks
4. The recognition that many cognitive skills are needed for anyone [sic] to become fluent
readers and writers, i.e., the need for both meaning based and decoding based methodologies regardless of individual learning styles
5. The provision for a lot of easy reading material during the beginning literacy classes
6. The provision for creative writing from the onset of literacy classes
7. The involvement of mother tongue speakers in creating interesting and cultrally [sic]
appropriate basic literacy material 8.
The ownership of the literacy program granted to the local communities through the creation of local literacylanguage committees Morgan 1993:3
These points emphasise the predominant features of the Multi-Strategy method and its socio- cultural significance, particularly the development of the teachers in literacy techniques, and the
ownership of the program by the local communities. These factors are the fundamental foundation on which the approach is based.
In summary, one of the purposes for the present research was to apply the Multi-Strategy method in programs with adult learners
•
to ascertain its acceptability for literacy in phonologically complex languages, and
•
to overcome some of the frustrations experienced by literacy workers helping to develop programs in such languages as Angaat
ha mentioned above. The Multi-Strategy method has two emphases in producing meaning: a holistic emphasis at
the text-based level in the Story Track, and a specific emphasis at the syllable-graphophonic- based level in the Word-Building Track. Within each track, however, interaction takes place
between all levels. In both tracks the content is presented in a structure of four short lesson periods. The lesson format has a consistent procedure, but there is an allowance for flexibility of
presentation according to the culture and the teachinglearning style of the teacher. Each track is taught separately, and ideally, by different teachers who are trained specifically to teach in the
style that fits the materials and the purposes confined to each track.
As the learners gain expertise in each area, integration of the separate emphases develops individually when each person is cognitively ready. The holistic emphasis on meaning, with
themes that suit the socio-cultural interests of the community, gives opportunity for daily reading and writing of idiomatic texts and helps to develop the notion of a word, word patterns, and
syntax skills. This emphasis on reading and writing prose in the Story Track alleviates the pressure of including long sections of idiomatic texts when focusing on learning word
components, building words, and reading and writing with correctness in the Word-Building Track. Such a dual emphasis allows learners more interaction with written language. This
approach allows an opportunity also, for learners to master the phonological complexities of the language more easily and competently in beginning literacy, than a single emphasis on either
top-down or bottom-up instruction would allow.
It will be recalled that, in this project, the Gudschinsky and Multi-Strategy methods were applied in two interventions in Urat and Tok Pisin, among culturally similar groups in the East
Sepik Province, Papua New Guinea. There are three areas of the studies which apply to the two interventions: the design, the instruments for testing, and the dependent variables. These three
areas are presented at this stage before describing the main study in Urat and the replication in Tok Pisin.