When comparing the Tok Pisin system with that of Urat above, the array of symbols to distinguish the phonemes is far more complex for Urat. Adding other complexities as described
for Urat makes a strong contrast between the two languages. One restriction for the phonology of Tok Pisin is that “the voiced stops may not occur word finally” Foley 1986:38.
In Tok Pisin, a vowel is the only obligatory component of a syllable with up to three consonants syllable-initial and one optional consonant syllable-final. The two-sequence vowel
combinations are restricted to
ai, au,
and
oi.
Combinations of these CV patterns makes a total of ten possible syllable patterns which occur in words of up to four syllables, for example:
•
CV.CVC.
antap
‘on top’
•
CVVC.CV.CV
raunwara
‘a lake’
•
CV.CV.CV.CV
marimari
‘pity’ Four-syllable words are not common and are usually compound words or reduplications.
Grammatical functions are mainly signalled by compounding, juxtaposition, or order of words. Words are generally short, there is a minimum of inflection, and the forms are regular.
Mühlhäusler 1977 identified four varieties of sociolects for Tok Pisin from which Foley 1986:37 distinguished three current varieties: the bush varieties, rural varieties, and urban
varieties. For literacy purposes, one of the greatest difficulties is found in interference: from English in the urban varieties; and from first-language interference in the bush varieties. The
variety of Tok Pisin used in this project was the rural variety which Foley noted was the most widespread and stable variety spoken predominantly by lowland-dwelling people:
Rural Tok Pisin is the most stable of varieties, due to the fact that it is the major means of communication for speakers of widely divergent language backgrounds. The factor favours
conservation, so as not to impede understanding, as does the isolation of these speakers from the anglicizing influences emanating from the urban centres Foley 1986:37.
The stability of this variety of Tok Pisin, spoken by the people in the villages of the replication study, was advantageous for preparation of materials. Consistent spelling references were taken
from The Jacaranda dictionary and grammar of Melanesian Pidgin Mihalic 1971. Two areas of difficulty occurred in this study: the first was the degree to which the people understood the
lingua franca, and the second was due to interference from Kwanga, the first-language.
Kwanga belongs in the Middle Sepik stock of the Sepik-Ramu phylum Laycock 1973:74– 75. There are three main dialects and the study was conducted in the Tau villages of the
northern dialect. A full description of the phonology is not pertinent to the discussion, but the differences between Tok Pisin and Kwanga in the area of the stops and fricatives had some effect
on the reading and writing of Tok Pisin. Similar to Urat, the stops and fricatives of Kwanga
5
have obligatory prenasalisation with voicing. A feature of Tok Pisin, however, is the clear distinction of the voiced and voiceless stops without obligatory prenasalisation with the
voicing. Since this distinction does not occur in Kwanga, difficulties were encountered, especially in spelling. In Kwanga, for example, there was no distinction made between such
words as tok ‘talk’ and dok ‘dog’. A further complication occurred between Tok Pisin and
5
Note that reference to Kwanga in this context specifically refers to a tentative orthography, which was constructed for the particular dialect spoken in the Tau villages for trial literacy purposes after the study was
completed.
Kwanga because the voicelessness was not constant in Kwanga; voiced stops occurred in free fluctuation in the initial position.
Regarding instruction for reading English, Downing 1978:114 noted that “the eclectic view of English orthography encourages instructional approaches based on an intelligent
understanding of why English words are written the way that they are.” The above brief description of the languages used in the study gives some insight into some of the issues that
make it important to consider carefully the method of instruction to be used in beginning literacy.
In summary, the discussion in this chapter has centred around debates which attempt to answer the three large-scale questions posed at the outset on the main characteristics, the
components, and the teaching practice related to successful reading and writing. This discussion has covered trends in literacy instruction developed from the theoretical debates on the nature of
reading and writing in industrialised nations, historically and through to the present. The influence of this rich debate on literacy development for adults in non-industrialised nations has
been presented in relation to the present project. Finally, there has been a brief discussion on the importance of the language of pedagogy, and the relevant phonology of the languages of
instruction in the two studies has been outlined.
In the following chapter, the Gudschinsky method is described and the Multi-Strategy method curriculum is developed. In the second half of the chapter, the design, instruments of
testing, and the independent variables for the two studies are described.
47
3. Methods
3.0. Introduction
Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, and Wilkerson 1985:v–vi refer to “reading and the use and comprehension of language” as “cultural phenomena” in educated, industrial societies. To give
some understanding of the cultural background of the participants in the project for this study, it is necessary to look briefly at their situational context. At this stage, a general overview of the
context is given with some emphasis on cultural learning styles. Further details of the cultural background of participants in each of the studies are developed in Chapters 4 and 5.
The only source of any comprehensive and reliable data on the history and culture of the Urat people is Allen 1976, 1984. As the 1976 study includes Kwanga, exploration of the social
and cultural contexts of these two groups largely depends on this source. The first impact of outside influence into the Dreikikir area of Papua New Guinea was in the early 1900s. The Urat
and Kwanga villages were “controlled” at this time and subsequently became part of the colony by 1926 and 1929 respectively Allen 1984:1–2, 8. During the earlier years of contact, as the
administrative “control” penetrated into the area, there were struggles between the people and the dominating outside forces. These struggles were largely due to differences in world view
between the two conflicting parties. Allen noted that
the foothills societies of the Sepik were deeply concerned with equality and balance between men and groups of men with inequality and imbalance between men and women. … village societies
exhibited features of duality in which hypothetically identical groups were ritually opposed in exchanges Allen 1984:4.
The struggle for leadership in these societies, in which every man had a right to work toward positions of power and influence, conflicted with foreign administrative leaders “who refused to
enter into balanced and equal relationships” page 4. The crises which developed by this situation, where individuals or groups of men sought to “redress the imbalance and inequalities
which were created,” dominated the communities during this time of change and continued into the eighties Allen 1984:4–5.
As the area became open to outside influences, literacy was introduced first through missionary contact during the post-war period post-1945. In seeking to determine some
pertinent cultural factors for literacy in traditional learning contexts such as Urat and Kwanga, it is necessary to note that education is not confined to the schoolroom but is a process of learning
that takes place throughout life
.
6
Mead 1943, in her study among Sepik communities of the Arapesh language Torricelli family and Iatmul language Ndu family—both languages in families related to Urat and
Kwanga—made a distinction between “learning” and “teaching” societies as
the shift from the need for an individual to learn something which everyone agrees he would wish to know, to the will of some individual to teach something which it is not agreed that anyone has any
desire to know Mead 1943:634.
6
Some of the material in the final part of this section has been based on Stringer 1983.
The shift of emphasis was from “learning to teaching,” “the doing to the one who causes it to be done,” “spontaneity to coercion,” and “freedom to power” Mead 1943:639.
A synthesis of studies which gives insight into the traditional learning styles in Papua New Guinea and which drew on the early work of Harris 1980 among the Milingimbi people of
Australia, covered the differences between traditional cultural learning and more formal learning in a national education system Stringer 1983. Some of these characteristics of learning by
observation and imitation, by trial-by-doing in real-life activities which are context-specific and person-oriented, are traits of traditional cultural learning found in the UratKwanga societies.
These traits are a contrast to the “teaching” characteristics of more formal schooling also experienced in the area through the national education system. Bruner 1966 gave the basis for
such a contrast:
When a society grows more complex in its technology and group of labor, there are two deep changes that must necessarily occur. First, the knowledge and skill within the culture comes
increasingly to exceed the amount that any one individual can know. Almost inevitably, then, there develops a sharp disjunction between the worlds of the child and of the adult. Increasingly, then,
there develops a new and moderately effective technique of instructing the young based on telling out of context rather than showing in context Bruner 1966:62.
The difference between the two situations—“telling out of context” and “showing in context”— not only parallels the shift of emphasis described by Mead but also equates with the two
distinctions of cognitive learning styles—field independent linear and field dependent global as discussed in Chapter 2. As it was pointed out by Davis 1991:38, certain types of societies are
predominantly characterised by one or the other style.
In societies where there is a predominance of one or the other learning style, individuals who have a preferred learning style that does not fit the dominant style, especially in education,
are faced with the need to make changes to progress in learning. In formal education, it is the teacher who assists students to perform more satisfactorily in the style that is predominant and to
accommodate more readily to the other Davis 1991. In the context in which this research is set, three patterns of influence emerge as factors related to literacy instruction:
•
Patterns of traditional learning
•
Patterns of formal “school” learning
•
Patterns of preferred individual learning styles With this background, we turn to the two curricular methods that form the centrepiece of the
two studies of this research. In this chapter the two methods of instruction in literacy, the Gudschinsky method and the Multi-Strategy method, are presented in detail. Reference is made
to some of the cultural constraints related to effective learning, and to adaptations to accommodate such constraints. The Gudschinsky method is first presented, then a description of
the development of the Multi-Strategy method and curriculum follows. Finally, the design for the two studies in Urat and Tok Pisin is presented and the testing instruments and dependent
variables are described in detail.
3.1. The Gudschinsky Method
The Gudschinsky method is an eclectic method designed for teaching literacy to adult learners from diverse cultures and languages who have not had opportunities to become literate.
In the early stages of its development, Gudschinsky stated
