Summary of reading results

Table 4.29. Summary of indications on reading variables by group for the Urat program VARIABLE SETS MANOVA VARIABLES ANOVA follow-up READING General Reading Skills Occas. 1 Occas. 2 Occas. 3 Occas. 4 Recognition of Elements Sig. Sig. 0 Sig. Letters - - MSM Syllables MSM MSM MSM Words 0 MSM 0 MSM Engaging the Text MSM 0 MSM MSM Reading Time 0 MSM 0 Correct Syllables MSM MSM MSM MSM Comprehension 0 0 MSM MSM T Specific Reading Skills Occas. 1 Occas. 2 Occas. 3 Occas. 4 Intonation Contours Sig. Sig. Letter-by-Letter GM Syllable-by-Syllable MSM T MSM 0 MSM Word-by-Word MSM MSM Phrase-by-Phrase MSM MSM T MSM MSM Substitution of Words 0 Sig. 0 Sig T Nonsense GM Compatible 0 MSM 0 MSM Incompatible 0 0 0 MSM Fluency within Words 0 Sig. 0 Sig. Omission syllables 0 0 0 MSM Insertion syllables GM MSM Self-Correction 0 0 0 MSM Specific Reading Skills Occas. 1 Occas. 2 Occas. 3 Occas. 4 Fluency within Sentences Sig. 0 0 Sig. Repetition of Syllables MSM MSM Repetition of Words MSM T 0 0 MSM Repetition of Phrases MSM T 0 0 MSM T = Trend Sig. = Significant 0 = No significant difference between groups GM = Gudschinsky Method MSM = Multi-Strategy Method A summary of the reading results indicates the following: 1. Phonemic awareness was significant in the results of the final test, with the Multi-Strategy learners showing more recognition of letters along with syllables and words than the Gudschinsky learners. 2. More of the Multi-Strategy group engaged the text on three of the four occasions than did the Gudschinsky group, whose numbers declined drastically near the end of the program. 3. The Multi-Strategy learners read with more correctness and with more use of reading by phrases or longer sections of text than the Gudschinsky learners on all four occasions of testing. 4. On the second occasion, when the test included reading the primer pages, it was expected that the Gudschinsky group would do well, but the variables on which they gained higher mean scores indicate negative reading values: • Taking a longer time to read • Reading letter-by-letter • Reading nonsense words • Reading with insertions which indicates making up the text 5. On all but the third occasion, the Multi-Strategy group showed more aptitude in recognizing and using syllables in the reading process to decipher unknown words than the Gudschinsky group. 6. The Multi-Strategy group read more by words later in the program in unfamiliar text than the Gudschinsky group. This feature occurred especially in the last test. There was more self- correction, and word-reading was more in conjunction with reading by phrases or larger units, where a word was repeated to join with other words in an intonation contour in more meaningful reading, than in reading word-by-word. 7. All of the variables with higher mean scores for the Multi-Strategy group are consistent with reading, where the focus is on understanding the meaning of the text. The variables Omission and Insertion occur on the final test with unfamiliar texts where more prediction was expected. There is a clear indication that the method of instruction influenced reading acquisition and fluency among the Urat learners. It must be considered, however, that method of instruction alone may not have been the overriding factor influencing such vast differences between the reading performance of the two groups. Other factors, which were part of the cultural patterns of social interaction between individuals and groups of people in the communities, also influenced the classes and literacy acquisition. It must be recalled that one criterion on which the research was formulated was that it should be locally administered with minimum help and supervision from outside experienced personnel. Given the circumstances and the brevity of training, the results obtained are impressive, as will be further shown in results presented below. Before reporting on the results of the writing variables, a brief comment regarding the variables which did not show a significant effect is necessary. The variable substitution of elements within words did not show a significant effect on any of the testing occasions. That is, the specific dependent variables in the set of variables entered into the MANOVA were not sufficiently different to show significance. It will be recalled from Chapter 3 that these dependent variables were Consonant-Vowel, Consonant, Consonant Cluster, Digraph, and Vowel. The reported variable sets which did not show significance mostly occurred on the first three occasions and were confined to some of the Specific Reading Variables: Substitution of Words, Fluency within Words, and Fluency within Sentences. These variables were concerned with reading fluently with understanding, and it is possible that the emphasis on meaning in the Story Track affected the tests for differences. In the early tests, the strong weighting of the test instruments toward the mechanistic side of reading and writing was evident because the Gudschinsky method needed to be accommodated. The time on task was coupled with this emphasis to show a discrepancy between the two groups, since only half of the time was available for learning the strategies of the Word-Building Track in the Multi-Strategy method. It is speculated then that, since the early test instruments did not specifically include holistic strategies, significant effects were not evident in the variables related to those strategies. There was evidence, however, that the Multi-Strategy learners were reading longer pieces of text. The variables that particularly related to the holistic strategies of the Story Track were more apparent in the final test after those strategies had been absorbed and when the test instruments included full texts. Other variables such as teacher expertise, attendance of students, and motivation to learn also could have influenced the results as presented. In this section, it has been shown that the results of the quantitative measures, applied to the reading data for the Urat program, show strong differences between the two treatment groups. In the next section, we show the analysis of the samples of writing data collected over the four occasions and the evaluation of the results.

4.6.2. Writing results

The writing data collected from learners after approximately eleven, fifteen, twenty, and twenty-four weeks of instruction are examined in this section. Two general scoring categories are used for this data: mechanics of writing, and meaning in writing. The same scoring format and categories are used for the writing attempts from participants on all four occasions. The difference between the data collected on each occasion is the amount expected and written in each of the tests. On the first two occasions the participants were expected to write single words or short sentences so the results were not scored for aspects of meaningful writing. For all of the writing variables, ANOVAs and MANOVAs were used to ascertain differences between the two treatment groups, the Gudschinsky and Multi-Strategy methods of instruction. Over the four occasions, data from learners in each of the groups are examined in subsequent analyses. In these analyses all of the means and standard deviations are shown, but only F values with a probability of 0.10 are reported. The variables are first divided into two categories: mechanics of writing and meaning in writing. The three variables for mechanics of writing are as follows: 1. Concepts about Print word breaks, capitals, full stops, complete sentences 2. Form of Print, Letters letters attempted and correct, different letters attempted and correct 3. Form of Print, Words words attempted and correct, different words attempted and correct, and different words incorrect but recognisable The five variables for meaning in writing are as follows: 1. Writing with Sense 2. Elaborations 3. Cohesive Ties referential, conjunctions, lexical features 4. Story Line introduction, action, complication, resolution 5. Reliance on the Picture description, description plus previous information, description plus interpolations, description plus post-picture information, description plus inferences

4.6.2.1. Mechanics of writing

The first variable division is concerned with Concepts about Print: Breaks between Words, use of Capital Letters, Full Stops, and Writing Complete Sentences. For the MANOVA used in this analysis, the following set of variables is entered into the MANOVA: Dependent variables: Concepts about Print • Word Breaks • Letters • Full Stops • Complete Sentences Independent variables: Gudschinsky Method Multi-Strategy Method The means and standard deviations relating to the analysis of these variables are presented in Table 4.30.