Comments on prior attendance at a literacy course

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. 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.