Specific reading variables The dependent variables and scoring procedures

including fluent readers. These units were then considered to be the scoring templates for the particular text being analysed. For example, on occasion 4, in the Urat test the four texts were divided into a different number of contour units 4,6,6,5 comprising phrases or clauses. For the Tok Pisin test, each selection divided readily into eight contour units. Within each contour, words were considered for letter-by-letter and syllable-by-syllable reading. In the example below URAT Text 3, the contours are separated by brackets {}—the words within each bracket were spoken as a contour unit: {Mye uku pe,} {kin ngihip syep pakai.} {Kin tutuh tutuhe supule.} {That man} {has no hands and legs.} {His legs and hands are very short.} {Na etekee} {tue ngaiye hwang Sumbue} {titi dul wanar tae.} {You’ll see him} {like the snake Sumbue} {just lying there.} Variable: Intonation contour—1. Word: Letter-by-letter The number of words read letter-by-letter was recorded. This variable was included because some of the learners persisted in attempting to sound out letters consonants were pronounced as syllables—the C plus the vowel e without being able to read the words. Reading letter-by-letter was not part of either of the instructional methods, but there was some pressure from the Gudschinsky learners to have letter instruction included in the Urat program. There were also letter readers in the Tok Pisin study resulting from earlier literacy programs. Intonation contour—2. Word: Syllable-by-syllable In this variable, each word read syllable-by-syllable was scored. A problem occurred in the scoring when students attempted to read words they did not know by guessing or sounding out letter-by-letter, or syllable-by-syllable. To keep the scoring consistent, each word that was attempted by sounding out whether by syllables or letters and said correctly was counted as word-reading, but such words not said correctly were considered as syllable or letter-reading, depending on the method used. For example, regarding syllables, readers who said the first syllable or each syllable of a word correctly, then read the whole word and continued reading the text were considered as reading by words. Conversely, those who repeated syllables and could not complete the word and say it correctly, and those who read the syllables correctly but slowly, and did not say the word as a whole were considered to be reading by syllables for that word. Intonation contour—3. Unit: Word- by-word A unit was considered to be a syntactic group of words in an intonation contour as explained above. The number of units read word-by-word were scored. If more than one word in the unit was omitted, a point was not accorded for that unit. Intonation contour—4. Unit: Phrase-by-phrase The number of units read by phrases, or a sequence of words instead of individual word reading, was scored for this variable. Some readers paused in unit breaks different from the proposed norm, so adjustments were made according to the number of units calculated for the particular text being scored. The next two variable groups are concerned with substitution, that is, Substitution of Words, and Substitution of Elements within Words. Variable: Substitution of words—1. Nonsense words Words read, that were not real words in the language were scored as nonsense words in this variable. For example, in Figure 3.5 the word tupela ‘two’ in Tok Pisin was read as ta bu ran, which does not spell a correct word, so a point was not accorded. Figure 3.5. Example of substitutions Substitution of words—2. Compatible words Words read that were legitimate words and plausible in the text were scored as compatible words. Consideration was given not only for substitutions of correct parts of speech, for example, a noun for a noun, but also if the word fitted the semantics of the text as being read. That is, there may have been a series of substitutions where the verb substituted was followed by a noun which was compatible with that verb but not necessarily with the verb in the text. This type of substitution was accepted as compatible because it made sense to the reader. If there was compatibility of form and a plausible meaning compatibility, the word was considered compatible. For example, in Figure 3.5 the word hait ‘hidden’ was read as insait ‘inside’. For these two words, the last three letters were the same in form and the words were compatible lexically, so a point was accorded. Substitution of words—3. Incompatible words Words that did not fit into the above two categories were scored as incompatible. For example, in Figure 3.5 above, the word tasol ‘just’ was read as singsing ‘singing’. Although this word could have been compatible with the text as read the reader did not identify the subject as “moon” so read the text as if it were a person, there was no compatibility of form so it was considered incompatible. Variable: Substitution of elements within words A range of substitutions consisting of the consonant-vowel syllable pattern and components of syllables was scored for this variable. Students had difficulty reading 1. consonant-vowel CV 2. consonant C 3. consonant cluster CC 4. digraph D, and 5. vowel V. Scoring was recorded on the basis of the difficulty occurring within the text, not within the attempt the student made. For example, if the student was trying to read ‘graun’ and read ‘raun’, the problem was taken to be with the CC in the text. The scores in this variable were accorded for each error. In the above example, the consonant cluster was not read correctly so a point was accorded for that variable. The next two variable groups are fluency within words and fluency within sentences. Fluency within words consists of a set of three miscues: omission, self-correction, and insertion. Variable: Fluency within words—1. Omission The number of omitted syllables were noted and scored. An omitted C of a CVC was not considered an omission on the grounds that there were no syllabic consonants in the two languages. An omitted vowel was considered an omission, whether it was accompanied by a consonant or not, because the vowel is the nucleus of the syllable. For example, in Tok Pisin stap was read for sapim, so it was considered that the problems were with the initial C and the final im which was omitted. Another example shows a single V as an omission, that is, tasol was read for dispela so it was considered that the problems were with the initial CV of the syllable dis and with the CV syllable pe. The l of the syllable la was read but the vowel was omitted. Fluency within words—2. Self-correction A point was scored as self-correction for each word attempted to be read with any part incorrect and then re-read correctly. The majority of self-correction was at the level of lexical decoding, and not at the level of clausal prediction, so all scoring was done on the word-for-word self-correct basis. Fluency within words—3. Insertion For the Insertion variable, scoring was recorded on the basis of the difficulty within the text, not within the attempt the student made. It was not considered an insertion if the C of a CVC syllable was inserted. For example, in Tok Pisin, dispela was read for bilong, so it was considered that the problems were with the initial C of the syllable bi, the CVC of the syllable long, and the final V an inserted syllable. An inserted V was scored as an inserted syllable because the V is a syllable nucleus. The final variable group to consider is fluency within sentences, which consists of the variable set: repetition of syllables, words, and phrases. In each of these areas there were two types of repetition: constructive repetition and repetition which detracts from or lessens fluency. Constructive repetition was useful in that the component was repeated once in conjunction with the complete unit. For example, in reading the word bilong in Tok Pisin, to read the syllable bi and repeat it again in the word bilong was considered constructive. Repeating a component many times without being helpful in pronouncing the larger unit was considered to detract from fluency. Variable: Fluency within words—1. Repetition of syllables In this variable, both types of repetition discussed above were encountered but no distinction was made between constructive repetition and repetition which inhibits fluency. A composite score for all syllable repetition was given. Fluency within words—2. Repetition of words Similar to the above variable, although repetition of words occurred in both types mentioned, a composite score was given for all instances. Fluency within words—3. Repetition of phrase units In this variable, the repeat of any group of words read without pausing was scored. A typical repetition of a phrase unit, when reading for meaning, was the repetition of a phrase in conjunction with a group of following words to complete the intonation contour. The scoring format for the writing variables is now presented. There are two categories: mechanics of writing and meaning in writing.

3.4.3.3. Mechanics of writing variables

Mechanics of writing has three variable groups: 1. Concepts about Print breaks between words, use of capitals and full stops in appropriate places, writing 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. Variable: Concepts about print—1. Breaks between words In the early stages of testing it was not always clear where word breaks were intended in the written contributions. In a long string of letters without evident meaning, any longer space was considered as a break to divide the text into words but was not scored as an understanding of word breaks. One point was scored for an understanding of the principle of breaks between words in continuous text; groups of letters written under each other were not accorded a point. Once the principle of a word was understood, there were few instances of omitted breaks between the words. If one or two words in a sentence did not show obvious word breaks because of spelling difficulties, but from the rest of the text there was evidence that the principle was understood, a point was accorded. Concepts about print—2. Use of capitals in appropriate places Concepts about print—3. Use of full stops in appropriate places Concepts about print—4. Writing in complete sentences In the later tests, students showed clearly if they understood the principles of writing capitals and full stops in the appropriate positions in a sentence, so one point was scored for an understanding of the principle. When capital letters were written appropriately, at the beginning of a sentence and for names of people and places, a point was accorded. When capitals were written appropriately but also written in the middle of a word or in a sentence inappropriately, it was considered that the principle was not understood and a point was not accorded. Similarly, evidence of the appropriate use of a full stop was accorded a point. Variable: Form of print: Letters—1. Number of letters attempted Form of print: Letters—2. Number of letters correct Form of print: Letters—3. Number of different letters attempted Form of print: Letters—4. Number of different letters correct A total of all letters written was counted in each text with a second total of letters which were correct according to form. A further total was made of all different letters attempted with the number correct also recorded. Since some of the contributions were long strings of letters with no meaning in this variable, only the letter formation was judged for scoring. The correctness of letters according to the morpheme was taken into account in the next variable where the correctness of the word was judged for scoring. Figure 3.6 is a contribution of writing from the test on occasion 4 from which samples of scoring procedures will be discussed. Figure 3.6. Example of writing In this contribution there are 42 letters attempted for the first variable and there were 36 considered to be correct for the second variable. Letters were considered “adequate” if they were close-to-correct. For example, when an m, n, or u was written with curves and the small line which appears in lowercase letters was omitted, these letters were considered correct see Figure 3.6 for examples of u, n, and m. Some examples of incorrect letters were back-to-front letters, letters with extra lines and curves which did not resemble a letter, and capitals in inappropriate places see examples in Figure 3.6. When counting different, correct forms in the fourth variable, if a letter occurred in the text a number of times with some correct and some incorrect forms, the correct form was accepted because it was assumed that the student knew how to write the letter correctly. For example, the first letter in the text could be considered to be an incorrect form of p which was accorded one point as a different, correct form. The s is also considered to be correct, although some forms are at an incorrect angle. Variable: Form of print: Words—1. Number of words attempted Form of print: Words—2. Number of words correct Form of print: Words—3. Number of different words attempted Form of print: Words—4. Number of different words correct Form of print: Words—5. Number of words incorrect but recognisable The same criteria were used for counting words as were used for counting letters. The words attempted were counted and a separate total given for those correct. Where word breaks were not clear, the spelling of the words was accepted as discernible words. For example, in Tok Pisin the