•
“How many write now?”
2
1 = 12.52; p 0.01
•
“How many positive evaluations?”
2
1 = 10.16; p 0.01. In both of these cases, the proportions favoured participants in the Multi-Strategy program.
There were sixteen respondents from each of the two villages. All were volunteers but an effort was made to make sure people who had performed well in the classes were included. The
people interviewed were representative of those who had completed the course: 64 percent of the Gudschinsky group and 80 percent of the Multi-Strategy group participated. Comments on the
results of the interviews are now given in order of the questions asked:
1. Comments on reading results
For the reading test, five stories were taken from a booklet which showed a picture and the text for each story see Appendix J. A different story was chosen for each person who was to
attempt to read up to three lines of text. The categories used in the analysis were the same as those used in the Urat program:
•
No attempt to read
•
An attempt was made with slow reading and few words attempted
•
Reading very slowly with repetition or omissions
•
Good reading but haltingly read with some omissions
•
Very good reading in sections of text In the Gudschinsky group, 44 percent did not attempt to read. Six of these were young
women who did not show any interest in trying to read the text. The other person was an older man who made excuses to cover up the fact that he could not read. He did look at the picture and
read the name of the animal in the picture but did not continue to read the text. In the Multi- Strategy group, there were three younger women who did not try to read 18 percent. Generally,
in both groups, those who did make an attempt only read a few words correctly and gave up. They could read the shorter words but omitted or guessed longer words.
There were three people from the Gudschinsky group who made a strong attempt to read, but they were not confident and did not read well enough to make sense of the text. One person
read the shorter words and some short phrases, but omitted to read one-third of the text. One man read very slowly, word-by-word, with many repetitions of each word. Another older man, who
had a history of literacy, omitted some words but read with many repeats of recognisable words and phrases.
Among the more competent readers, the Gudschinsky group read separate words with repetition and some self-correction but with few phrases, except for one person who read without
a falter. In contrast, in the Multi-Strategy group the reading was attacked with more confidence, with some omissions of single words, but with almost no repetition of single words. When
repetition did occur, the repeated word was included in a meaningful phrase or with a longer piece of text, indicating comprehension of the text and reading for meaning.
In the Gudschinsky group, four of the seven people who said that they were reading showed that they could read well. One man read words correctly but constantly repeated them, showing
that he had not mastered the ability to read in meaningful sections of text. Another of the group could only read a few of the short words. Another man said that he was not reading, but he did
show the ability to read the words slowly with some mistakes and omissions. One particular
feature of this group was that, except for one person, the readers mostly read very slowly with repetition of words.
In the Multi-Strategy group, the outstanding feature that showed in the reading of those who responded positively was their ability to read in meaningful sections of text. Where repetition of
words occurred, they were generally repeated in the following phrase or longer piece of text. This feature seems to be a positive indication that there was more reading for meaning in this
group than in the Gudschinsky group. Five respondents read fluently with phrase contours, while the others had more single-word reading and some omissions.
Among the respondents who did not perform adequately, the main difference between the two treatment groups was the way in which they tackled the reading process. There was a strong
reluctance to try to read in the Gudschinsky group. Two of the nine people, who said that they could not read, did make an attempt but they did it without confidence. In the Multi-Strategy
group only three were reluctant to try. The others tackled the reading with confidence but they read only a few words accurately.
The lack of enthusiasm in the Gudschinsky group showed up again in the reasons given for not reading. Five people, who generally showed lack of interest, said that they had too much
work to do and one person remarked that she was tired of it. Some remarks from the Gudschinsky group were:
I am not working on reading. I don’t stay at home so that I will read this book. I move around and do work as a court
magistrate. If we stayed plenty of years in school it would be good for us. We only stayed one or two months.
It is not enough for us and I am not clear on some things. [Note that older people commented in this way but they were not committed to long periods in class.]
The same trend toward lack of commitment to read by the Gudschinsky group respondents also showed up in the second question, “What books do you have to read?” The only book
mentioned by anyone as an available text, other than books given during the program, was the Tok Pisin New Testament. In the Gudschinsky group, only one person said that she had a copy,
while in the Multi-Strategy group, five people said that they had copies.
2. Comments on writing results
In the Gudschinsky group when respondents were questioned about writing, only one woman indicated that she wrote, but she admitted that she did not write for others to read. Three
people said that they did not write but could write their names, and one man said that he did not write because he made small mistakes and was not clear how to write properly. The best reader
of the group said that she did not write because she could not think and write.
In the responses from the Multi-Strategy group, there was some confusion between being able to write and being in the habit of writing for others to read. Six of the group indicated that
they were not writing because they did not have the ability. There was evidence that the others were competent to some degree: six responded positively with one older woman indicating that
she was not able to write a letter to someone; four responded negatively but said that they could write and two of these indicated that it was hard work.
