Literacy Acquisition and Diffusion Among Preliterate Adults:

Effects of Two Methods of Instruction in Non-industrialised

Communities in Papua New Guinea







Mary D. Stringer












SIL International


SIL e-Books
2

2006 SIL International
Library of Congress Catalog Number: 2006936602
ISBN-13: 978-1-55671-176-3
ISBN-10: 1-55671-176-X
ISSN: 1934-2470


Fair Use Policy
Books published in the SIL e-Books series are intended for scholarly research and educational
use. You may make copies of these publications for research or instructional purposes free of
charge (within fair use guidelines) and without further permission. Republication or commercial
use of SILEB or the documents contained therein is expressly prohibited without the written
consent of the copyright holder(s).



Series Editor
Mary Ruth Wise
Volume Editor
Mae Zook
Compositor
Mae Zook


iii
Contents
Tables................................................................................................................................. vi
Figures................................................................................................................................ ix
Acknowledgments................................................................................................................x
1. Purpose and Setting..........................................................................................................1
1.0. Introduction..............................................................................................................1
1.1. Purposes of the Research .........................................................................................2
1.2. Preview of the Studies..............................................................................................4
2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction...................................................8
2.0. Introduction..............................................................................................................8
2.1. Theories of Literacy Acquisition ...........................................................................11
2.1.1. Debates about the nature of reading and writing .........................................11
2.1.2. Historical background to the theoretical debates on the nature of reading..12
2.1.3. Interactivity in theoretical models and the nature of reading ......................14
2.2. Debates about the Application of Theory in Pedagogy .........................................18
2.2.1. Effects of theories of reading on pedagogy in industrial nations.................18
2.2.2. Influence of trends in literacy acquisition on programs for adults in
non-industrial nations .....................................................................................30
2.3. Languages of Instruction........................................................................................37
2.3.1. The influence of English..............................................................................37
2.3.2. Pertinent aspects of Urat ..............................................................................42
2.3.3. Pertinent aspects of Tok Pisin......................................................................44
3. Methods..........................................................................................................................47
3.0. Introduction............................................................................................................47
3.1. The Gudschinsky Method ......................................................................................48
3.1.1. Lesson format...............................................................................................49
3.1.2. Application...................................................................................................52
3.2. The Multi-Strategy Method ...................................................................................56
3.2.1. Developing the method in a socio-cultural context .....................................56
3.2.2. Model and materials.....................................................................................58
3.2.3. Application...................................................................................................63
3.3. Comparison of the Gudschinsky and Multi-Strategy Methods..............................64
3.4. Design, Testing Instruments, and Dependent Variables ........................................67
3.4.1. The design....................................................................................................68
3.4.2. The testing instruments ................................................................................69
3.4.3. The dependent variables and scoring procedures ........................................72
4. The Urat Study...............................................................................................................84
iv Contents

4.0. Introduction............................................................................................................84
4.1. Physical and Socio-Cultural Setting ......................................................................84
4.2. Participants.............................................................................................................85
4.2.1. The teachers .................................................................................................86
4.2.2. The learners..................................................................................................86
4.3. Materials.................................................................................................................89
4.4. The Design .............................................................................................................89
4.5. Procedures..............................................................................................................91
4.6. Results and Discussion...........................................................................................93
4.6.1. Reading results.............................................................................................93
4.6.2. Writing results............................................................................................116
4.7. Follow-up Research in the Urat Program.............................................................136
4.7.1. Interviews with Urat adult learners............................................................138
4.7.2. Interviews with Urat teachers ....................................................................145
5. The Tok Pisin Study.....................................................................................................151
5.0. Introduction..........................................................................................................151
5.1. Physical and Socio-Cultural Setting ....................................................................151
5.2. Participants...........................................................................................................152
5.2.1. The teachers ...............................................................................................153
5.2.2. The learners................................................................................................153
5.3. Materials...............................................................................................................155
5.4. The Design ...........................................................................................................155
5.5. Procedures............................................................................................................156
5.6. Results and Discussion.........................................................................................157
5.6.1. Reading results...........................................................................................158
5.6.2. Writing results............................................................................................168
5.7. Follow-up Research in the Tok Pisin Program....................................................182
5.7.1. Interviews with Tok Pisin adult learners ...................................................183
5.7.2. Interviews with Tok Pisin teachers............................................................188
5.7.3. Changes to the format of the workbooks ...................................................195
5.7.4. Summary of the application of the new materials .....................................196
6. Conclusions and Implications......................................................................................198
6.0. Introduction..........................................................................................................198
6.1. Summaries of the Major Conclusions..................................................................198
6.1.1. General conclusions...................................................................................206
6.1.2. Overall summary of the conclusions..........................................................208
6.2. Limitations of the Research .................................................................................210
6.3. Implications from the Studies ..............................................................................211
Contents v

6.3.1 Implications for theories of literacy acquisition .........................................211
6.3.2. Implications for research methods in cross-cultural traditional contexts ..214
6.3.3. Implications for teaching practice..............................................................215
6.3.4. Implications for administrators and policy makers....................................218
6.4. Suggestions for Future Research..........................................................................221
Appendix A. Symbolisation of the Voiced Velar Nasal ..................................................224
Appendix B. Gudschinsky Primer Lesson Patter.............................................................226
Appendix C. Multi-Strategy Word-Building Track Preparation and Format ..................227
Appendix D. Baseline Survey..........................................................................................236
Appendix E. Multi-Strategy Lesson Pattern Summary....................................................242
Appendix F. Concepts About Print Test Book Sample ...................................................244
Appendix G. Final Test Format .......................................................................................245
Appendix H. Picture Sequence for Writing in Test Four.................................................248
Appendix I. Follow-up Semi-Structured Interview.........................................................249
Appendix J. Follow-up Reading Test Examples for Tok Pisin .......................................253
Appendix K. Multi-Strategy Word-Building Track Format Change Interview ..............254
Appendix L. Tok Pisin Teachers Reactions to Teaching the Alphabet and
Writing and Preparing Materials ..............................................................................256
Appendix M. Workbook Format Changes, Application, and Comparison......................258
References........................................................................................................................264


vi
Tables
Table 4.1. Factor analysis solution ....................................................................................88
Table 4.2. Recognition of Elements: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional
groups .............................................................................................................95
Table 4.3. Recognition of ElementsOccasion 1.............................................................95
Table 4.4. Recognition of ElementsOccasion 2.............................................................96
Table 4.5. Recognition of ElementsOccasion 4.............................................................96
Table 4.6. Engaging the TextOccasion 1.......................................................................97
Table 4.7. Engaging the TextOccasion 2.......................................................................98
Table 4.8. Engaging the TextOccasion 3.......................................................................98
Table 4.9. Engaging the TextOccasion 4.......................................................................98
Table 4.10. Engaging the Text ...........................................................................................99
Table 4.11. Time, Correct Syllables, and Comprehension: Means (and SDs) for the
two instructional groups ...............................................................................100
Table 4.12. Reading TimeOccasion 2..........................................................................100
Table 4.13. Correct SyllablesOccasions 14...............................................................101
Table 4.14. ComprehensionOccasions 3 and 4 ...........................................................101
Table 4.15. Intonation Contours: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups.....103
Table 4.16. Intonation ContoursOccasion 1 ................................................................104
Table 4.17. Intonation ContoursOccasion 2 ................................................................104
Table 4.18. Intonation ContoursOccasion 3 ................................................................106
Table 4.19. Intonation ContoursOccasion 4 ................................................................106
Table 4.20. Substitution of Words: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups..107
Table 4.21. Substitution of WordsOccasion 2.............................................................107
Table 4.22. Substitution of WordsOccasion 4.............................................................108
Table 4.23. Fluency within Words: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups .109
Table 4.24. Fluency within WordsOccasion 2.............................................................110
Table 4.25. Fluency within WordsOccasion 4.............................................................110
Table 4.26. Fluency within Sentences: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional
groups ...........................................................................................................111
Table 4.27. Fluency within SentencesOccasion 1 .......................................................112
Table 4.28.Fluency within SentencesOccasion 4 ........................................................113
Table 4.29. Summary of indications on reading variables by group for the Urat
program.........................................................................................................114
Table 4.30. Concepts about Print: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups....118
Table 4.31. Concepts about PrintOccasion 1...............................................................118
Table 4.32. Concepts about PrintOccasion 3...............................................................119
Table 4.33. Concepts about printOccasion 4...............................................................119
Tables vii

Table 4.34. Form of Print, Letters: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional
groups ...........................................................................................................120
Table 4.35. Form of Print, LettersOccasion 1 .............................................................121
Table 4.36. Form of Print, LettersOccasion 3 .............................................................122
Table 4.37. Form of Print, LettersOccasion 4 .............................................................123
Table 4.38. Form of Print, Words: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups...124
Table 4.39. Form of Print, WordsOccasion 2..............................................................125
Table 4.40. Form of Print, WordsOccasion 4..............................................................126
Table 4.41. Writing with Sense and Elaboration: Means (and SDs) for the two
instructional groups ......................................................................................127
Table 4.42. Writing with SenseOccasion 4 .................................................................127
Table 4.43. Cohesive Ties: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups ..............128
Table 4.44. Cohesive TiesOccasion 4..........................................................................129
Table 4.45. Story Line: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups ....................130
Table 4.46. Story LineOccasion 4 ...............................................................................130
Table 4.47. Picture Interaction: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups .......132
Table 4.48. Picture InteractionOccasion 4...................................................................133
Table 4.49. Summary of indications on writing variables by group for the Urat
program.........................................................................................................135
Table 4.50. Number of positive responses to specific literacy questions in the
Urat program.................................................................................................139
Table 5.1. Numbers attending the Tok Pisin literacy program........................................154
Table 5.2. Recognition of Elements: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional
groups ...........................................................................................................160
Table 5.3. Recognition of ElementsOccasion 4...........................................................160
Table 5.4. Intonation Contours: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups.......162
Table 5.5. Intonation ContoursOccasion 4 ..................................................................162
Table 5.6. Substitution of Words: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups....163
Table 5.7. Substitution of WordsOccasion 1...............................................................164
Table 5.8. Substitution of WordsOccasion 4...............................................................164
Table 5.9. Fluency within Sentences: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional
groups ...........................................................................................................165
Table 5.10. Fluency within SentencesOccasion 2 .......................................................166
Table 5.11. Summary of indications on reading variables by group for the Tok Pisin
program.........................................................................................................167
Table 5.12. Concepts about Print: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups....170
Table 5.13. Concepts about PrintOccasion 1...............................................................170
Table 5.14. Concepts about PrintOccasion 2...............................................................171
Table 5.15. Form of Print, Letters: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups ..172
Table 5.16. Form of Print, LettersOccasion 1 .............................................................172
viii Tables

Table 5.17. Form of Print, LettersOccasion 2 .............................................................173
Table 5.18. Form of Print, Words: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups...174
Table 5.19. Form of Print, WordsOccasion 1..............................................................175
Table 5.20. Writing with Sense and Elaborations: Means (and SDs) for the two
instructional groups ......................................................................................176
Table 5.21. Writing with Sense and ElaborationsOccasion 3 .....................................176
Table 5.22. Story Line: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional programs................178
Table 5.23. Story LineOccasion 3 ...............................................................................178
Table 5.24. Picture Interaction: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups .......179
Table 5.25. Picture InteractionOccasion 3...................................................................180
Table 5.26. Summary of indications on writing variables by group for the Tok Pisin
program.........................................................................................................181
Table 5.27. Number of positive responses to specific literacy questions in the Tok
Pisin program................................................................................................183
Table 6.1. Comparison of reading results: Urat and Tok Pisin........................................199
Table 6.2. Comparison of writing results: Urat and Tok Pisin........................................200
Table M1. Number of participants successfully reading test items after 18 days of
instruction .....................................................................................................260
Figures ix

Figures
Figure 2.1. Map showing the two study areas ...................................................................41
Figure 2.2. Consonant system of the Urat orthography.....................................................42
Figure 2.3. Vowel system of the Urat orthography ...........................................................43
Figure 2.4. Typical vowel system of Sepik languages.......................................................43
Figure 2.5. Consonant and vowel systems of the Tok Pisin orthography..........................44
Figure 3.1. Primer lesson for teaching the vowel sequence au in the Gudschinsky
method ............................................................................................................52
Figure 3.2. The two-track model of the Multi-Strategy method........................................59
Figure 3.3. Sample of a two-page primer section for the Work-Building Track...............62
Figure 3.4. The experimental design..................................................................................69
Figure 3.5. Example of substitutions .................................................................................76
Figure 3.6. Example of writing..........................................................................................79
Figure 4.1. Letters attempted .......................................................................................121
Figure 4.2. Letters correct .......................................................................................121
Figure 4.3. Different letters attempted .........................................................................121
Figure 4.4. Different letters correct .........................................................................121
Figure 4.5. Schematic representation of the effects of instruction on the maintenance
and diffusion of literacy practices.................................................................137
Figure 5.1. The new Word-Building Track primer page format......................................196
Figure 6.1. Model of literacy acquisition based on guiding principles for instruction....212
Figure 6.2. Model of the Multi-Strategy method based on guiding principles of
instruction .....................................................................................................213
Figure 6.3. Necessary components for an initial literacy curriculum..............................219
Figure A1. Orthographic Representations in Urat and English.......................................224


x
Acknowledgments
It is with gratitude and pleasure that I acknowledge and especially thank Professor Peter
Freebody who gave guidance and encouragement from the inception of the research until the
completion of the study. Without his advice and encouragement and the encouragement of
friends, especially members of the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL International), the
project would not have been started.
I acknowledge with gratitude the specific help and advice given by the following people
during the empirical research in Papua New Guinea:
Dr Nicholas Faraclas, lecturer at the University of Papua New Guinea, who gave valuable
advice in the initial stages.
Members of the Summer Institute of Linguistics:
Barney and Dawn Barnes and Dr. Mary Morgan, who assisted in the baseline survey and
the preparation of materials for the Urat study
Michiyo Nozawa, Tarja Ikaheimonen, Hanna-Marie Hole, and Doris Gallemore, who
assisted in some of the testing
Al Herd and Alex Vincent, who assisted in computer formatting
Denise Potts, who read a draft of some of the manuscript
Members of the village communities of Tumam, Musingwi', Musemblem, Musengwah,
Nanaha, Tau 1, and Tau 2: many of whom became the learners in the classes; some of whom
faithfully assisted in the testing; and the special group who became the teachers and worked
hard to keep the classes operating. These teachers were
Tasemeini Wenyaih
Vincent Worngete
Bansis Morris
Jude Som
Vincent Bilyeme
Nathan Morkorhoi
Steven Kaihipi
Justin Ninny
Bruce Seth
Jack Apkomboi
Vincent Bunganyo
Tony Samburoho
Matthew Tai'hu
Francis Wa'ali, and
Michael Wanhei'a.
Acknowledgments xi

I acknowledge with gratitude the following people who gave specific help during the
preparation of the study:
Sandy Muspratt (James Cook University, North Queensland) who gave valuable help and
support in the statistical analysis of the data.
Justine Clark (Griffith University) and David Bosma (Summer Institute of Linguistics) who
gave valuable assistance in the use of the computer.
Jill Beasley (lecturer at Lorraine Martin College) who read and edited the manuscript.
Others who read portions and listened patiently as I discussed my ideas.

1
1. Purpose and Setting
1.0. Introduction
The studies reported in this study explore contrasts between the development of a literacy
program adapted to preliterate, indigenous communities and a program traditionally used in these
contexts. The research was set in two particular communities in Papua New Guinea in which
opportunities for adults to become literate were low or non-existent. In this comparative
research, the main purpose was to explore the efficacy of a specific literacy method, the Multi-
Strategy method, in programs for adult preliterate learners where
instruction was in mother-tongue languages of differing degrees of phonological complexity,
and
there was maximum community input and control so that socio-cultural factors were
addressed and featured in the materials and pedagogy.
The demand for literacy in non-industrialised nations has steadily increased over the last
three decades with sharp acceleration in recent years. At the same time, there appears to have
been a decline of literacy standards in parts of industrialised nations with campaigns for literacy
necessary in such places as de-developed cities to maintain a literacy sufficient for self-
support, a labor force sufficient for economic growth (Hymes 1987:xi). Such a demand for
literacy has caused research into literacy theory and practice to be stepped up, resulting in
publications of anthologies specifically aimed at improving literacy on a world basis (for
example, Wagner 1987; Verhoeven 1994a).
The papers in these volumes focused on the significance of socio-cultural variables in
literacy education and this focus is a central theme in the project reported here. In the
introductions to these volumes, Wagner and Verhoeven each drew attention to literacy in the
context of community values. Wagner pointed out that
in order to have a realistic policy goal of increasing literacy, we need to have a clearer understanding
of it as a socio-cultural phenomenon. Simply muddling through without paying attention to local
circumstances is a strategy destined to fail (Wagner 1987:13).
The socio-cultural context as an integral part of literacy was reiterated by Verhoeven in his
discussion on promoting functional literacy. He noted that
literacy is acquired by involvement in intensive interaction with written materials
this kind of interaction takes place in literacy education, and
not only can literacy be seen as a life-long continuum, it must also be seen as deeply
involved in social practice and cultural tradition (Verhoeven 1994b:15).
The importance of the present work is to focus attention on developing programs with
indigenous input and control so that the written materials and pedagogy are socially and
culturally relevant.
In the sections that follow, the purposes of the research are stated and the underlying reasons
for the studies defined in terms of
theory
the research method
2 1. Purpose and Setting

the cross-cultural setting, and
the wider ramifications for education practice and policy.
1.1. Purposes of the Research
One purpose of the research was to develop, through trial and implementation, culturally
appropriate and relevant reading and writing curricula for preliterate adults in non-industrialised
settings. The Multi-Strategy method of literacy, successfully applied in a program for children in
Papua New Guinea, was implemented in adult programs and compared with the Gudschinsky
method, an established adult literacy method. At the time of the research, the Papua New Guinea
government was instigating a move toward initial education in the vernacular languages from an
established national education policy of instruction only in English. (For reviews of the language
and education policies, see Stringer 1983 and Ahai 1991.) There are over 860 languages in Papua
New Guinea with some non-formal literacy programs for adults and children currently in
progress in some languages. Closely related to the above purpose of refining curricula for
beginning literacy is the interest in reading and writing that was created through the national
emphasis on vernacular languages in education.
It is relevant to the research to note that the researcher has lived in Papua New Guinea for
long periods of time since the early 1960s. Cross-cultural experience, through living in rural
areas, through linguistic and anthropological studies, and through cooperative activities in
translation and literacy, forms much of the basis on which the present project developed.
The two different methods of approaching literacy compared in the empirical
implementations in this project are the
Gudschinsky method (a linguistic-based, combination approach which uses analysis and
synthesis strategies), and
Multi-Strategy method (a pragmatic, dual approach which emphasises holistic as well as
analysis and synthesis strategies).
Dr. Gudschinsky developed the first of these methods in the early 1960s after literacy trials in
several countries in South America. The Multi-Strategy method was developed by the researcher
in the late 1980s after initial trials in Papua New Guinea. Each method is enacted in the studies
as comparable treatments in two distinct interventions.
Prior to and during the development of the two methods all trials were carried out in
vernacular languages. Research which establishes the greater efficiency of initial mother-tongue
literacy instruction over instruction in a more universal national language shows inconclusive
results because variables are difficult to hold consistent across the programs being compared.
Nevertheless, there are studies which show various positive effects of initial mother-tongue
literacy instruction over initial second-language instruction (Modiano 1973 [Cited by Downing
1987]; Larson and Davis 1981; Downing 1987). The present project is based on the premise that
mother-tongue literacy instruction is more beneficial than second-language literacy, especially
for adults who have not had opportunity to become literate in any language.
In an earlier field experiment in Papua New Guinea the researcher applied the Gudschinsky
method, which was specifically designed for adult literacy, to an initial literacy program for
children (Stringer 1983). The aim was to explore the appropriateness of the Gudschinsky method
for meeting a demand for literacy for children in vernacular languages prior to formal schooling
in English. Results from this research prompted the formulation of the Multi-Strategy method
1. Purpose and Setting 3

and its use in an extended research program in beginning literacy for children in 19851986
(Stringer 1987a, 1987b). The research conducted for this study includes an application of the
Multi-Strategy method in adult literacy programs and its comparison with the Gudschinsky
method.
In researching the application of an instructional method for literacy with adults and
children, the assumption is that any method is appropriate at both levels, because the social and
cultural spheres of interaction of both adults and children are the same in any given society.
Bruner (1966:60) noted for the Tallensi in Africa that all participated in the same culture but in
varying degrees: the interests, motives, and purposes of a child are identical with those of
adults, but at a simpler level of organization. From a literature review concerning rural, non-
technological societies (Stringer 1983), it was concluded that the social context of children and
adults is distinctive only in terms of the degree to which knowledge has been appropriated at
moments relevant to differing stages of development. That is, All participate in the same
culture, the same round of life, but in varying degrees, corresponding to the state of physical and
mental development (Bruner 1966:60).
Similarly, in presenting a case for developing literacy in the cultural setting of an industrial
nation, the United States, Chall (1987) argued that
the course for the development of reading is, I think, essentially the same for adults and children.
Their instructional needs are also broadly similar as they progress, except for the content of the
instructional materials, particularly at the early stages (Chall 1987:6970).
She argued for six stages of learning and showed the differences in materials needed and the
advantages and disadvantages at the various levels because of maturation of the learners. In the
present project, this emphasis on content of the instructional materials is the main difference
observed in presenting literacy instruction for adults compared with literacy instruction for
children.
Another purpose of the research was to develop programs with community members
interacting, controlling decisions, and participating in as many aspects of the implementations as
possible in
preparation of materials
teaching
supervising, and
testing.
It must be noted that applying literacy in a traditional cultural setting with such a purpose does
not allow for a perfectly executed program. Applying variables equally across all groups with the
interplay of different languages and cultural norms to be considered, and different physical
conditions to overcome, does not allow for equal supervision and assessment across all groups. It
was expected that, through careful training and liaison, and from the responsibility taken by
community members, a core of trained personnel would be available to continue with literacy
instruction and training in the communities. The ultimate purpose of the research was to assist
adult learners to become fluent readers and writers.
This project is not presented only as studies of comparison between two methods of
pedagogy. It is presented primarily to assess the application of a specific curriculum, devised for
literacy instruction for mother-tongue speakers of vernacular languages in literacy programs for
4 1. Purpose and Setting

adult learners. This presentation includes curricular-appropriate and culturally relevant
assessment procedures devised in and for the two implementations in the project. It also involves
adjustments of research techniques in difficult conditions and different linguistic and cultural
settings so that a relevant field experiment could be accomplished. There is also included the
opportunity to observe in practice applications of theories of reading and writing pedagogy
relevant to the particular setting. As an outcome of these applications, the study includes results
that can be assessed for relevant benefits for policy and practice.
We turn now to a preview of the studies. Firstly, theory is considered as one of the factors
determining the importance of the research in relating to the purposes as defined. Secondly, the
research method and its significance are considered. Finally, the context of the research,
including the appropriateness of the studies in the light of education practice and policy is
discussed.
1.2. Preview of the Studies
In considering reading processes, there have been traditionally two main underlying
theoretical orientations: one based on analytic/behaviourist tradition (focus on skills, analysis)
and the other on holistic/Gestalt psychology (psycholinguistic processing). Proponents of each of
the two orientations have developed their theories and practical applications in a continuing
debate about the merits of each in reading acquisition and development. It is into this debate that
the literacy needs of the non-industrialised nations of the world have relatively recently been
drawn. One of the outcomes of these debates is that it is not sufficient to teach the conventions of
reading and writing in campaigns which do not significantly relate the literacy programs to the
everyday lives of the learners. It is endeavoured in Chapter 2 to trace
some of the debates on theories of literacy acquisition in industrialised nations
the application of these theories in practice, and
the significance of some of the trends for adult literacy in non-industrialised nations.
One particular aspect of literacy programs is the significance of language structure and
orthography in the instructional processes of reading and writing. In Chapter 2, therefore, there is
also a brief discussion on orthography, and descriptions of the phonology of the two languages in
which the interventions were implemented.
A further important consideration for the studies is the research method and its significance
for the purposes stated. The research designincluding both quantitative and qualitative
evaluationwas chosen to test available theories of literacy acquisition. The program mentioned
above, in which the Multi-Strategy method was developed with children, showed positive results
and appropriate methodology (Stringer 1987b, 1990), so an experimental design was prepared
for the adult studies. These studies included two treatment groups and quantitative measures over
four occasions for analysis. This post-test only experimental design, outlined in Chapter 3, was
combined with some ethnographic evaluations conducted through interviews with the teachers.
An underlying assumption on which the research was based was that there would be full
participation of community members in as many aspects of the research as possible. The physical
and socio-cultural setting in which the research was developed, combined with the large numbers
of motivated participants, made a structured approach with reasonable controls more acceptable
and manageable at the outset than a completely emergent design with more interpretive and
descriptive analyses as described by Bhola (1990b:32). In choosing this approach, it was realised
1. Purpose and Setting 5

that the design could not be perfectly balanced nor the variables controlled as is expected in
laboratory conditions or classrooms in a formal education system. The semi-structured
interviews with teachers throughout the programs and the subsequent follow-up research added
valuable insights of a more ethnographic nature. In Chapter 3, after a description of the two
methods of instruction, the design, instruments for testing, and dependent variables are
described.
The context for the research is now considered in terms of the physical setting and the
languages of instruction. The research was set in the Dreikikir district of the East Sepik Province,
Papua New Guinea. The physical and socio-cultural contexts were rural, but there had been
opportunities for some of the communities to have access to some form of education in English
for approximately forty years. Where such education, especially for males, opened the way for
employment, this employment was generally conducted outside the area. In the communities,
village activities centred around subsistence farming. The staple crop was yam but, because the
villages were situated in the foothills, other fruit and vegetable crops were abundant, with sago
available in the off-season. Cash crops in the area were coffee and cocoa. Descriptions of the
socio-cultural settings of the two groups chosen for the interventions are found in Chapters 4 and
5, with the results and discussion of the studies.
The two languages for instruction for this research were Urat and Tok Pisin (a lingua
franca). Tok Pisin was used extensively in interaction between language groups, especially in the
vicinity of the government offices and the highway. At one stage, Urat had declined as the means
of communication for the people living near the district centre, and the use of Tok Pisin had
flourished. During the 1970s, with the arrival of a resident linguist, the situation changed and
there was a deliberate attempt to revive communication in Urat with the result that it has
undergone a strong revival (Dixon 1991). When the research was developed, there was high
motivation for vernacular education, especially for the children. The adult program was a
forerunner to the transition, bilingual education program for children which was becoming
popular nationwide.
The argument was presented above that adults and children have the same physical and
social material upon which to draw in literacy but at a different level of operation. The content of
the literacy material and the manner of presentation to accommodate the differences in physical
and mental maturity were addressed in the studies. Adults who had not had an opportunity to
become literate were the target group for the research. Such a program would allow a larger
group of literate parents to develop in the community to accommodate to the forthcoming
vernacular program for children. A major part of the research was to focus on cultural
adaptations and suitable materials appropriate and relevant for the adult group. The
appropriateness of the study in the light of changes in education policy of the country was
another factor which influenced decisions.
At the time of the research, changes were developing in national education policy. In 1989, a
new Language and Literacy Policy was formed by the National Department of Education and
approved by the government in 1990. This policy endorsed the use of vernacular languages as
the medium of instruction in literacy programs:
In order to improve the quality of education, to strengthen traditional cultures and values, to
facilitate participation by all citizens in national life, to promote national unity and to raise the level
of literacy in Tok Ples, Tok Pisin, Hiri Motu and English, we recommend the development of
education programmes to ensure that children, out of school youth and adults become literate in Tok
6 1. Purpose and Setting

Ples, transfer their skills to Tok Pisin, Hiri Motu or English and maintain and expand their literacy
skills in these languages (Department of Education 1989).
The term Tok Ples refers to local vernacular languages while Tok Pisin and Hiri Motu are
linguae francae. This official inclusion of the vernacular languagesand adult education as part
of the national policyopened the way for concentrated research to determine appropriate and
relevant methods of instruction and ways to implement programs that are more socially and
culturally embedded.
In 1990, specific proposals to improve and expand the present education system were
initiated by the Education Sector Review (Maha 1992:89). Two major changes proposed which
relate to this project are as follows:
1. At the elementary level where schools would run a three-year program: preparatory training
to grade 2. These schools would allow the acquisition of initial literacy in a language
which the children speak in an integrated curriculum bridging to English (page 9).
2. At the higher levels to provide linkages between vocational, secondary education and high
levels as well as distance education and adult literacy and learning programs (pages
89).
These changes would
improve the chance of traditional education being integrated with formal schooling
raise the standard of education, and
improve the opportunities for education into adulthood for more people than the present
system allows.
Another significant anticipated change is that a greater possibility of cultural bonding could
result by students obtaining more than 9 years of education in their home area (Maha 1992:12).
Such changes to the formal education system could create a greater demand for mother-tongue
adult literacy as the impetus for educating through the transitional vernacular-English programs
becomes more prevalent throughout the country. In light of these changes, the present project,
which is concerned with exploring appropriate literacy methods within the socio-cultural
contexts of the communities is presented.
Downing (1987:43), when discussing future trends in world literacy, noted that
governments of various developing countries are making efforts to spread literacy and raise
literacy standards. He applauded these efforts, but warned against wastage because simple
practical principles from scientific research may not be heeded. He argued that
government educational institutions often tend to oversimplify the problem by passing over the
research and theory and going directly to what they consider to be practical. Rather than important
theoretical and research findings, they import practical methods of instruction from the
industrialized countries. Educators in developing countries should be much less modest than they
are about their own expertise. No foreign expert knows more about their people and children than
the local educators in their own culture and nation. They should be especially skeptical about
practical methods which are proffered by foreign experts. They may be quite impracticable for the
needs of the people in the developing countries (Downing 1987:4344).
The assumption on which this research was undertaken is that members of the local communities
would
1. Purpose and Setting 7

participate
make decisions, and
develop the programs to suit the social and cultural conditions.
When developing the programs, educated community members would be the vital liaison
between the researcher and members of the community, particularly with those who were the
decision-makers and with those who wished to be literate. The proposition is that any
instructional program, to be effective, needs to rely on input from people of different levels of
literacy within the community. Such a program needs to allow decisions to be made and
constructive reorganisations to occur without the program losing its character. The robustness of
the programs, to benefit from such community input and changes, and continue to function is one
of the things this project aims to examine.
In subsequent chapters it will be seen that, as the two studies unfolded, certain factors
related to the culture of practice within the societies made changes necessary. There were
consultation sessions with teachers and Literacy Committee members throughout the programs
to allow the control that would ensure continuation of literacy at the completion of the studies.
The educational implications and conclusions of the research are discussed in Chapter 6.
In the next chapter, the theoretical background for the research is developed. The practical
implications of theory for literacy in industrialised nations is considered, the influence of trends
in beginning literacy in programs for adult learners in non-industrialised nations is examined,
and the languages of instruction are outlined.


8
2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction
2.0. Introduction
At the centre of this study is an exploration into culturally relevant literacy acquisition
techniques for adult learners. The cultural setting for the research was among lowland
communities of people living in the East Sepik Province of Papua New Guinea. Two programs
of literacy were conducted in which the two methods of instruction were specifically analysed
and compared: the Gudschinsky method, which has a long history of application, and the
relatively new Multi-Strategy method. These methods are described briefly below and more fully
in Chapter 3.
The Gudschinsky method is known as an eclectic method, combining various techniques for
literacy instruction which were current at the time of its development, to fulfil practical needs
rather than theoretical coherence. The method was developed through empirical application of
these techniques in languages with varying degrees of complexity of phonological structures and
syllable patterns. The structured, analytical approach allows for flexible inclusion of syllable
patterns within a basic framework. One type of primer lesson begins with a picture which
represents a word, from which a letter is taught in the context of its position in a syllable. There
is a series of seven components to each lesson, including connected reading material and writing.
A further lesson type, focusing on grammatical function words or morphemes presented in the
same basic lesson pattern is included to help the learner gain fluency skills.
The Multi-Strategy method is a dual approach where specific instructional emphases focus
on
holistic, creative reading and writing based on meaning and comprehension, and
learning discrete skills for reading and writing through analysis and synthesis activities based
on accuracy of form, including word attack skills, spelling, and syntax.
Each area of emphasis is taught separately from the other in a framework of four short lesson
periods. Each lesson has an explicit procedural structure, which allows for flexibility of content
and teaching practice demanded by the language and culture.
The two areas of emphasis are called the Story Track and the Word-Building Track. The
Story Track includes similar activities to those found in whole language pedagogy as practised in
many English-speaking schools:
Language experience stories
Listening to a story being read
Silent reading
Shared book reading
Creative writing with all activities based on a weekly theme
The Word-Building Track includes
primer lessons with analysis and synthesis of a word in the context of a picture, or a sentence
(or text)
learning syllables and word building
2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction 9

practice in reading with focus on syntax, and
writing of form, that is, the mechanics of writing and spelling.
As mentioned earlier, these two methods of instruction will be elaborated in detail in Chapter 3.
The literature review provided in this chapter is necessarily confined to areas which relate to
the differences between the two methods. These differences centre on the concept of an adequate
instructional model of reading and writing for adults who have not experienced a long tradition
of literacy. The research is limited to adult literacy in settings where formal schooling is not the
norm in the society. In considering literacy in such settings, it is necessary to reflect on the
suitability and relevance of the instruction to the learners.
Grays (1956) definition of functional literacy was influential in bringing into focus the
importance of the socio-cultural context in literacy competence. This socio-cultural relevance
continues to take precedence in current definitions. In a review of the literature for an
investigation of delivery of literacy and numeracy to unemployed people in Australia, for
instance, Gunn (1991) stated a definition of functional literacy issued by the International
Committee of Experts on Literacy:
A person is literate when he [sic] has acquired the essential knowledge and skills which enable him
to engage in all those activities in which literacy is required for effective functioning in his group
and community, and whose attainments in reading and writing and arithmetic make it possible to use
the skills towards his own and the communitys development (Gunn 1991:52).
The emphasis here is on functional competence within the socio-cultural context. Verhoeven
(1994b), while including the socio-cultural context, constructed a more comprehensive
description of functional literacy. He related the theoretical framework of communicative
competence to written language and developed a construct of functional literacy using the four
competencies stated in this framework as a starting point:
Grammatical (phonological, lexical, morpho-syntactic abilities)
Discourse (cohesion, coherence)
Strategic (planning, execution, evaluation)
Sociolinguistic (literacy conventions, cultural background knowledge)
He added one further competency, that is, to code and decode (code conventions,
automatisation), the technical abilities which are related to reading and writing (Verhoeven
1994b:89).
Other definitions in the literature focus more on personal significance within the socio-
cultural context. Grant (1986) has stated that
literacy learning is more than functional competency: it is an organic process inseparable from the
way we live our lives, has to do with the part language plays in a persons growth and development,
and involves a political process of taking responsibility for ones life (Grant 1986:9).
This emphasis on literacy and its specific relationship to the individual within the social context
is taken further by Szwed (1982) who showed that one literacy standard is not necessarily
applicable for all people: there is a plurality of literacies based on the particular social context
and the individuals needs, purposes and motivations for reading and writing within that context
(Szwed 1982:12).
10 2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction

This same argument is reiterated by others (Street and Street 1991; Street 1984; Baynham
1990; Barton 1994) who refute the idea that there is one universal type of literacy; different
societies determine the types of literacy relevant to their culture and context of use. Scribner and
Cole (1981) in their study of the Vai in Liberia noted that literacy is not simply knowing how to
read and write a particular script but applying this knowledge for specific purposes in specific
contexts of use (Scribner and Cole 1981:236). As Street and Street (1991) pointed out after
discussing contexts of use in two Pacific societies:
The Nukulaelae material, along with that from many other parts of the world, bring home how far
the associations commonly made with literacy are in fact cultural conventions rather than products
of the medium itself (Street and Street 1991:146).
It seems, then, that literacy knowledge is not only a vehicle to be applied to the contexts of use
but that the vehicle of literacy itself should reflect the specific culture of context in which it has
been acquired. In the interventions examined in this study, one overriding purpose was to involve
community members so that suitable cultural aspects would be incorporated and the relevance of
the programs considered.
Much of the literature covering adult literacy in industrialised societies relates to work-
related reading programs for people who have some experience in formal literacy. Sticht and
McDonald (1992) comment:
Adults who are learning to read enter into the instructional setting with some history of learning.
They have the capacity to learn and solve problems in real world settings. They also have a
knowledge base that includes the lexicon and syntax of the language, as well as the pragmatics of
language use. Their lexical/semantic knowledge may be limited compared with that of their more
literate peers, but most such learners will have been through at least several years of formal
education (Sticht and McDonald 1992:315316).
While such listed traits may be common to most adults and must be kept in mind in any literacy
instruction, it is not true that most such learners in non-industrial societies have been through
at least several years of formal education. As mentioned above, the communities in which the
studies were developed were rural communities which included many adults who had not
experienced any formal education. There is no attempt in this review, therefore, to cover the
literature dealing with adult literacy related to work-orientated programs in the industrialised
nations.
To give an understanding of the background of the formation of the two methods used in
this research, however, it is necessary to consider the historical relevance of the debates on
literacy acquisition, and of the empirical research developed in relation to formal schooling in
industrial societies. In considering the fundamental study about the appropriateness of a dual
approach for adult literacy that is being argued in this project, there are a number of key issues
about the nature of reading and writing and the nature of teaching reading and writing that relate
to the central concerns of this study. These issues can be proposed in broad terms which consider
the following:
What are the main characteristics of successful reading and writing?
What are the components that are necessary for successful reading and writing?
What are the best ways used for teaching reading and writing?
These broad questions form the basis of much of the discussion in this chapter. Included in
this discussion is a brief summary of the relevant features of the long-standing debate on these
2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction 11

questions. The summary is necessarily brief but touches on the main theories of the reading
process, including the question of the significance of interactivity, which is a question of central
importance to this study. The second part of the chapter focuses on the significance of this debate
in research in cross-cultural traditional societies. Finally, there is a focus on the relevance of the
debate to the languages of instruction. We first consider the importance of the theories of reading
and writing acquisition.
2.1. Theories of Literacy Acquisition
Relevant literature from the massive amount that has been written related to this debate on
literacy acquisition, both in theory and practice, is considered in this review in the light of its
appropriateness to the two methods under consideration and to the linguistic and cultural settings
of the research. The first area to bring into perspective is the debates about the nature of the
reading and writing processes.
2.1.1. Debates about the nature of reading and writing
In much of the literature, the two theoretical points of view about the nature of the processes
of reading and writing have been described in several different ways. The most widely used
terms are top-down/bottom-up: the top referring to the reader in respect to understanding
the text; and the bottom referring to the print of the text. Adams used these terms in refuting
the bottom-up status of phonics instruction: knowledge that is critical to reading, that can be
developed through phonics instruction represents neither the top nor the bottom, but only a realm
in between (Adams 1990:421422). Smith (1982:193, 1979:31) and Cambourne (1979:82) have
put more focus on the role of the reader and used the terms inside-out versus outside-in.
Rumelhart (1980:41) discussed the two views as two basic sources as activation for schemata
and described the two modes of activation as concept-driven and data-driven. Other
expressions used in the literature are
process/product
meaning emphasis/code emphasis, and
reasoning/recognition.
One problem with the use of such terminology is that the two terms of difference are not
mutually exclusive; there are areas of overlap which can lead to misunderstanding.
McCormick (1988:116) highlighted some of the controversies related to the debate about
reading instruction with a comprehensive discussion on top-down and bottom-up theory. He
related theory to practice in a short section on methods of teaching reading that is pertinent to
this study: the two eclectic adult literacy methods of Gudschinsky and Freire are compared and
contrasted and related to the top-down and bottom-up theories of reading (McCormick
1988:310320). In contrast to McCormick, Sticht and McDonald (1992) by-passed the whole
debate when presenting a workforce literacy approach for adults from literate societies:
Although the many issues involved in these debates are important, our literature review has found no
evidence to argue convincingly that students learn better, go farther in their education, or become
more successful citizens when they attend programs that favor one or another point of view (Sticht
and McDonald 1992:314).
In this review, a similar line of reasoning to that of Sticht and McDonald is followed since
neither of the methods examined in the project exclusively follow one or the other point of view
12 2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction

in their pedagogies. Throughout the review, more attention is given to the reading process than
the writing process, mainly because there has been more emphasis on reading in the literature.
For instructional purposes, however, the two are closely related and reference to the writing
process is included when it is relevant to the argument.
For convenience of expression, the more widely used terms top-down and bottom-up
will be used in this argument. It must be noted, however, that in the literature these terms are
used with different understandings. From a theoretical point of view, the top refers to the
reader and, more specifically, the conceptual hypotheses which the reader generates based on
knowledge of both the world and language; the bottom refers to the print of the written text
(McCormick 1988:9). From a more pragmatic point of view, when considering the linguistic
hierarchy of a text, the top is considered by some to be the whole piece of prose with which the
reader interacts to interpret the meaning, while bottom is considered to be the smaller elements
that make up a word (letter, morpheme, syllable) (for example, Rempel 1993:19). Samuels and
Kamil (1984) summed up the difference:
One way to look at the difference between top-down and bottom-up models is that the bottom-up
models start with the printed stimuli and work their way up to the higher-level stages, whereas the
top-down models start with hypotheses and predictions and attempt to verify them by working down
to the printed stimuli (Samuels and Kamil 1984:212).
The nature of the reading process is such that whatever theoretical orientation one adheres to
(top-down or bottom-up), the other is included by most theorists at some stage. For fluent
reading, both the reader and the text, with all of its linguistic features, are necessary; the
difference is in the relative influences and the direction of the information processing.
Rising out of research into the reading processes of mature readers, a further theoretical
stance has developed and become known as the interactive theory of reading. Before looking
more closely into interactive models of the reading process, it is important to sketch briefly some
of the theoretical trends of the literacy process through history and give a background for the two
methods relevant to this research.
2.1.2. Historical background to the theoretical debates on the nature of reading
In the early part of this century, emphasis on reading shifted from perception to cognition
with the well-known work of Huey ([1908] 1968), who showed that as readers mature they shift
to longer units of perception:
we read by phrases, words, or letters as may serve our purpose best. But the readers acquirement
of ease and power of reading comes through increasing ability to read in larger units (Huey
1908:116).
A further shift away from emphasis on specific units was developed when Thorndike (1917)
defined reading as reasoning. Subsequent research (Monroe 1932; Holmes 1953) showed that
reading ability was involved with a multiplicity of skills and processes (as discussed by Singer
1985a:11). In the following section on the practical application of theory of the nature of reading,
it is shown that the debates at this time were confined to the significance of the word (and
meaning), in contrast to the elements below the word level. It was at this time that Gudschinsky
developed the method which came to dominate adult literacy practice in non-industrialised
countries for over two decades. Lee (1982:23) puts the method into perspective in this debate by
noting that as early as 1951 she compiled the Handbook of Literacy which was revised in 1953
and 1957. The method in the historical setting is further developed below, but it is important to
2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction 13

note here that it was formed before the impact of the top-down psycholinguistic theoretical
model of reading, which influenced so dramatically the practice of literacy instruction in
industrial nations.
It was not until the mid-1960s, when Goodman began publishing on the topics miscue
analysis (Goodman 1965) and the importance of decoding to meaning, that the emphasis shifted
to psycholinguistic theory. In 1967, his publication of "Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing
game" (Goodman 1976) had a lasting influence on the debates about the nature of the reading
process (e.g., Nicholson 1985; Stanovich 1986). From 1965 to 1976 Goodman worked out his
model, publishing a flow chart in 1970. Frank Smiths publications (e.g., 1971, 1978) on
psycholinguistic theory, which strongly supported contemporary linguistics and cognitive
psychology, added to the thrust of this new emphasis into the debate. Both Smith and Goodman
were influenced by the general linguistic theory of Chomsky (1965) and Chomsky and Halle
(1968). They supported the notion that a basic requirement for a person learning to read is to be
able to handle efficiently both the deep structure (which gives meaning) and the surface structure
(sounds and written representations) of language. Of Smiths 1971 publication, Samuels and
Kamil noted the following:
It is not so much a model of reading as it is a description of the linguistic and cognitive processes
that any decent model of reading will need to take into account. Perhaps the greatest contribution
of Smiths work is to explain how the redundancy inherent at all levels of language (letter features,
within letters, within words, within sentences, within discourses) provide the reader with enormous
flexibility in marshaling resources to create a meaning for the text at hand (Samuels and Kamil
1984:184).
This comment shows that, as the theory developed (as it was related to the mature reading
process and meaning), the emphasis on linguistic and cognitive processes of reading took
precedence.
During the 1970s, however, the debate heightened with proliferation of research into the
nature of the reading process. Carroll put forward a list to specify the components of reading
skills, where some of the components came out of an analysis of the mature reading process,
others came out of a further analysis of those components (Carroll 1976:15). During the next
decade, much of the research centred around similar types of important research questions as
those put forward by Carroll (1976:1618), which were concerned with the
mature reading process, that is, the way certain components of reading skill affect learning,
and
ordering of components in the teaching process.
At this time, Gough (1972) suggested a linear model which assumed serial, letter-by-letter
reading, but argued that although letters must be associated with meaning, how this is
accomplished is the fundamental problem of reading (Gough 1972:513). He concluded that the
child really plods through the sentence, letter by letter, word by word (Gough 1972:532).
Later, he published a postscript and admitted that the serial assumption was wrong, but he still
showed a commitment to the view that the letter mediates word reading (Gough 1985:687).
This bottom-up view was in direct contrast to the views of Goodman and Smith that were
strongly top-down. Apart from Goughs (1972) controversial model about basic processes, the
models most cited in the literature in this time frame deal with the reading process in an
interactive way. The idea of interactivity within the reading process is at the heart of the
questions stated above, regarding the
14 2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction

main characteristics
necessary components, and
best ways of teaching reading and writing.
The interactive models will be covered as a group in the next section.
2.1.3. Interactivity in theoretical models and the nature of reading
As early as 1969, Ruddell in his first model of reading, drew upon current linguistic theory
and psycholinguistic research and made use of feedback loops and the readers affective
mobilizers and cognitive strategies to indicate the readers interaction in the reading process
at each phase shown in the model (Ruddell 1969:464465). In referring to the significance of
theoretical models of the reading process for second or foreign language readers, Barnett noted
the importance of remembering that models are usually partial rather than complete, that they
are often subject to later revisions, depending on research conducted, and that they are not
programs for reading pedagogies (Barnett 1989:34).
There was an explosion in empirical research and theoretical explanations at this time and
Barnetts statement appeared to hold true for a number of models. Ruddell revised his model in
1972 (Ruddell and Bacon 1972) and again in 1985 when it was called the interactive model,
which set out to demonstrate clearly the many different processes shown to act simultaneously in
the reading process. This revised model (Ruddell and Speaker 1985)
includes all aspects of the reading process
demonstrates the simultaneity of the different components, but
gives little indication of sequencing to guide the practitioner.
The matter of simultaneity is one of the major difficulties for the practitioner, because the
application from theory to practice is not clearly defined in these models.
In 1974, LaBerge and Samuels developed the Automatic Information Processing Model, a
bottom-up view of reading which has gone through several revisions. In this model, the criteria
for fluent readers is accuracy and automaticity at the decoding stage, with heavy emphasis on the
role of attention. After Rumelharts (1977) Interactive Model appeared as a reaction to the
strictly bottom-up emphasis of the first model and to Goughs bottom-up model, the second
revision included feedback loops as interconnecting components. These feedback loops in the
second model permitted the end products of comprehension to influence what occurs earlier in
the processing sequence (Samuels and Kamil 1984:196). This addition put the model in the
interactive category and subsequent research led to a number of further modifications to the
model.
In Rumelharts (1977) model, both bottom-up and top-down processes occur simultaneously
or alternately. Rumelhart made a significant contribution to the debate by contending that
reading can be described only in terms of a system of highly interactive, parallel processing
units, completely bidirectional in their interaction (Lovett 1981:6). The importance of this
model is put into perspective by Lovett:
Rumelharts (1977) model maintains the conceptual gains of the analysis-by-synthesis approach
that is, the characterization of reading as an essentially cognitive activity achieved through a very
active mode of perceptual processing; it is superior to this class of models generally, however, for its
heuristic promise and particularly for its potential to generate testable hypotheses. In the analysis-
by-synthesis tradition, the mechanisms to accommodate interactional feedback are unidirectional,
2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction 15

operating exclusively from the top (i.e., most cognitive level) down. In contrast, Rumelharts model
is noteworthy for its complete bidirectionality and for the extent to which an interaction of processes
truly defines the act of reading (Lovett 1981:6).
The complete bidirectionality of the model incorporating perceptual processing, as well as
processes from the top (the most cognitive level), sets it apart in terms of practical application
with an interaction of processes which Lovett claims truly defines the act of reading.
The empirical research that followed the publication of Rumelharts model verifies its
importance and, as mentioned above, models were revised to accommodate the bidirectional
feedback looping. In 1981, Goodman also stated that his model was interactive, however, in
1984 when discussing the unity in reading, he favoured the transactional view. In this view, both
the writer and the reader construct a text through transactions, the first with the developing
text and the second with the published text (Goodman 1984:80). Regardless of these
differences in theory development, the top-down bias is still prominent in the practical
outworking of Goodmans model: whole language teachers operate from an examined theory of
how language, thought, and knowledge develop holistically and in support of each other
(Goodman 1992:49).
Likewise, in the Interactive Activation Model of McClelland and Rumelhart (1981) the
decided bias toward bottom-up processes is evident where perceptual processing takes place in a
system in which there are several levels of processing with a representation of the input at
different levelsfeature, letter, wordand with input from higher levels.
Stanovich (1980, 1984) followed on from Rumelharts basic interactive idea that
recognition takes place via the simultaneous amalgamation of information from many different
knowledge sources (Stanovich 1984:15), but added a compensatory factor. The assumption was
that a deficit in any knowledge source results in a heavier reliance on other knowledge sources,
regardless of their level in the processing hierarchy (Stanovich 1980:63).
The research movement of model-building from the unidirectional linear models to
bidirectional, interactive parallel-processing models, such as those developed by Rumelhart and
Stanovich, has a bearing on the development of the two methods used in the project: the
Gudschinsky method more representative of the former (unidirectional) and the Multi-Strategy
method more representative of the latter (bidirectional). The detail given to the models in this
section has relevance to the practical outworking of the models in the classroom, as will be
shown in a later section.
Stanovich (1991b) added to the ongoing debate when he emphasised the central place of
word recognition in the reading process. He drew on documentation of research related to the
contemporary models which diverged from the earlier classic bottom-up and top-down
models discussed above. His discussion covered
the concept of word recognition in relation to reading comprehension
automaticity (LaBerge and Samuels 1974)
the role of context, and
phonological coding within the word recognition process.
In conclusion, he stated:
Word recognition remains the central subprocess of the complex act of reading. This statement in no
way denies that the goal of reading is to extract and construct meaning from textual material. It only
serves to emphasize that developing skill at recognizing words is the major determinant of reading
16 2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction

ability in the early grades and is a substantial contributor to variance in reading ability among
adults (Stanovich 1991b:442).
This conclusion is basic to some of the premises on which the Multi-Strategy method developed.
The central place of the word and word recognition in the application of the method is
discussed in Chapters 3 and 6.
There is one more model that needs to be mentioned because of its relevance to the writing
process. Tierney and Pearson (1983) bring into focus the role of the reader as a composer of the
meaning of the text as formulated by the author. Connected with the importance of reader
interaction with the text is the role of schema theory in the reading act as developed by
Rumelhart (1980) and Kintsch and van Dijk (1978). Rumelhart (1980:34) defined schema theory
as basically a theory about knowledge and outlined certain characteristics. Kintsch and van
Dijk (1978) emphasised comprehension, which is composed of several complex processes that
can operate in serial or parallel, as a grammar of discourse connected to the readers goal and
relevant schema to interpret these processes (Samuels and Kamil 1984:216217).
McCormick, summarising Tierney and Pearsons (1981:11) ideas, argued that reading in
the schema-theoretical account is interactive. He argued that reading is
activation, focusing, maintaining, and refining of ideas [i.e. our knowledge as schemas] toward
developing interpretations (models) that are plausible, interconnected, and complete (McCormick
1988:28).
It is the connection which Tierney and Pearson (1981) make between writing and reading that is
of major significance here, especially in the development of the models in practice. If the
activation, focusing, maintaining, and refining of the readers ideas are not parallel enough
with the writers schemas (cf. Kintsch and van Dijk 1978), then interpretation is difficult and, of
necessity, incomplete. The elaboration of ideas McCormick expressed in a footnote is most
relevant to one of the fundamental premises of this project:
The ideas referred to here do indeed include concepts in the more or less common sense of the
term (cf. Rumelhart 1980:34; Armbruster 1976:13; Adams and Bruce 1980) but the focus of the
contribution of schema theory has been on higher level cognitive structures. These higher levels
involve types of background knowledge which go beyond conceptual knowledge per se. This
background knowledge is primarily cultural (McCormick 1988:28).
The cultural aspect is elaborated to include certain functions of language, and knowledge of
social structuressuch as beliefs, which are likely to be operative in social interactions as
well as story knowledge appropriate to the culture and discourse genre (McCormick 1988:28).
A mapping of these and similar aspects of cultural knowledge schemas between the writers
inner reader and the readers inner reader with the text on the page (see Tierney and Pearsons
model 1983) in materials used in the instruction of beginning readers is an important factor in
this project.
A further developmental theory related to this project and the importance of schema theory
in beginning literacy instruction is derived by cognitive psychologists such as Sweller (1990). In
examining cognitive load theory and instruction by worked examples Sweller concluded
that worked examples, by reducing extraneous cognitive load and focusing attention appropriately,
facilitated learning through schema acquisition. The factors associated with cognitive load theory
are important. Instruction must be formatted to ensure that cognitive resources are appropriately
focused on facilitating schema acquisition rather than directed to other, extraneous activities
(Sweller 1990:128).
2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction 17

This single-directed focus of cognitive resources is especially important in initial literacy
instruction, so that activities that involve holistic reading and writing through schema acquisition
are focused in that direction rather than directed to other, extraneous activities such as focus on
specific attention to phonemes.
Further insight into instructional patterns for beginning reading and writing is given by
Stotsky (1987), who researched the relationship of written and oral language and the relationship
between reading and writing (Stotsky 1987:371). After a comprehensive examination of writings
on the relationship of written to oral language, Stotsky developed a series of models to show the
differences between the two theories which were established. These differences hinged on how
written and oral language are related and how the reader derives meaning from written texts
and the writer derives meaning in order to produce written texts (Stotsky 1987:372). The
differences shown were as follows:
In the first theory, oral language experience structures meaning in reading and writing at all
levels of literacy development; reading and writing cannot independently influence each other.
Further, written language is not considered qualitatively different from oral language. In this [the
second] theory, not only may written language influence meaning in oral language, but reading and
writing may also influence each other directly. The basic assumption of this theory is that oral and
written language differ in both their origins and in their purposes and, accordingly, are qualitatively
different in nature (Stotsky 1987:372, 378).
The outcome of the research was that there appears to be stronger and more consistent evidence
in support of the second theory (Stotsky 1987:385). For this theory, Stotsky developed two
models to show the sources of influence on the development of meaning in written language
firstly, at the onset of literacy learning and secondly, at higher levels of literacy learning
(Stotsky 1987:379, 381). Although both theories agree that oral language experience structures
meaning in beginning reading and writing at the higher levels, the second theory differs from
the claim that oral language retains its primacy to suggest that
the relationship may be more than reversed at the higher levels of literacy development; not only
may written language influence meaning in oral language, but reading and writing may also
influence each other directly. growth in reading and writing becomes less a function of growth in
oral language and more a function of exposure to written language itself (Stotsky 1987:384).
This analysis on the relationship between reading and writing is confirmed by the research by
Wendell (1982) concerning training authors in vernacular languages in South American
countries in the 1970s:
Ease or difficulty of reading was determined by the themes proximity to or distance from the local
culture, and according to the way the content is experienced by the author, either personally, or
vicariously, i.e. through research or other secondhand experience (Wendell 1982:24).
Some research has indicated that for ease of reading, not only was local cultural content
important, but it was also important that the author be a speaker of the language, so that the
style of written material conform to a style that is basic to the particular language (Wendell
1982:2324).
In this section, we have considered some of the issues related to the main characteristics of
successful reading and writing from an historical perspective. The formation of the Gudschinsky
method occurred when interest in theory and pedagogy centred around the word and the elements
below the word level. With the introduction of the psycholinguistic and interactive theories of
reading, emphasis shifted to beginning instruction with larger units of text and there was a trend
18 2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction

toward a change in pedagogy. Ordering of components in instruction became a major issue and
the top-down versus bottom-up debate dominated research with the result that interactive
theoretical models were formed. It was in 19851986 that the Multi-Strategy method was
formulated and tested, incorporating both the top-down and bottom-up theories and including
interactive-compensatory factors of the theoretical models. We now turn to a brief discussion on
the debate about the practical application of theory in pedagogy, first in industrial nations and
then as it applies to cross-cultural traditional societies.
2.2. Debates about the Application of Theory in Pedagogy
Psychology of reading primarily dominated the research in the models mentioned above,
rather than the pedagogy of reading (Singer 1985b). From the turn of the century until the
present there have been strategic changes in instructional processes which have been prompted
by theoretical research on the nature of reading. Lovett (1981:1) noted that despite this history,
advances in our understanding of the reading process have been a long time coming, and many
of the questions Huey posed in 1908 remain essentially unanswered. Many of the debates on
reading throughout history are still dominating research but within different parameters.
In this brief overview, some of the highlights of the debates are shown. These highlights
relate to how theory has affected practice and how the pedagogical movements in industrial
nations have affected the work in beginning literacy for adults in non-industrial nations.
2.2.1. Effects of theories of reading on pedagogy in industrial nations
It is to be noted throughout the next two sections, that each movement in reading instruction
created by theoretical research had its reciprocal movement to counteract the emphasis given. At
the time of Javal (1879), who initiated the scientific study of reading, alphabet instruction was
the predominant method with synthetic phonics emphasised for beginning readers. Cattells
(1886) research on letter and word recognition, showing that adult readers could perceive a
whole word faster than its individual letters, initiated whole-word instruction by those who
opposed synthetic phonics (as discussed by Singer 1985a:9).
From the time when emphasis on cognition dominated theory (for example, Thorndike in
1917 who defined reading as reasoning), whole-word instruction was practiced. As Singer
(1985b:922) pointed out, the prevailing conception was that reading consisted of word
perception; all else was thinking. During this time, sight words for meaning predominated and
phonics was an instructional tool. Flesch (1955), with the publication of Why Johnny cant read,
began a movement back to phonics as the only effective system. Then followed the much
debated publication Learning to read: The great debate (Chall 1967), where Chall concluded on
the basis of evidence available at the time that programs that included phonics as one component
were superior to those that did not (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, and Wilkerson 1985:36). Adams
(1990:3154) summary of the publication by Chall, and some of the subsequent research on the
value of phonics instruction, highlights some invaluable hints about the instruction needed
most for the beginning reader (page 40) that were current at that time.
The introduction of psycholinguistic theory began a new era for beginning literacy
instruction. There was a flood of literature on theory development and subsequent practical
application (Goodman 1967, 1970, 1973a, 1973b, 1984, 1986; Smith 1971, 1975, 1978, 1982; Y.
Goodman and Burke 1980), including comparisons with the application of bottom-up theory and
phonics instruction (for example, Altwerger, Edelsky, and Flores 1987; Edelsky 1991). Carroll
2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction 19

(1976) made the point that the great debate about how reading should be taught is really a
debate about the order in which the child should be started on the road toward learning each of
the skills. A list was presented which showed the order most acceptable to those who believed
in the early emphasis on the decoding of print into sound via letter-sound relations; with a re-
ordering to accommodate those who argued for an early emphasis on getting the meaning from
print and a rapid move toward the word-recognition and meaning-apprehension capacities of
the mature reader (Carroll 1976:15). In the literature, a strong difference developed between the
advocates of the bottom-up approach and phonics instruction, and the advocates of the top-down
approach and whole language instruction.
Other influences in reading practice came from descriptive and developmental research in
New Zealand:
Ashton-Warner (1964) was the forerunner of a Language Experience approach.
Clay (1979a) showed the importance of the learners knowledge of concepts about print, and
the importance of the teachers role in literacy instruction, with examples and implications
for beginning literacy.
Holdaway (1979) became known for the development of Shared Book reading techniques
used in conjunction with Language Experience procedures.
Language Experience instruction became prominent in New Zealand and a Language Experience
approach was widely used as a formal part of the curriculum for primary education in the early
1970s in Australia (Department of Education NSW 1979). This approach not only incorporated
strong, child-centred psycholinguistic principleswhere word identification skills are treated as
a means to an end not drilled as skills divorced from the childs present needsbut also made
use of basal reading series and other commercial publications along with childrens own writing
(Holdaway 1979:32, 45).
Another Language Experience program introduced at this time was Breakthrough to
Literacy (Halliday 1978) in which children selected words from a word bank to develop
individual stories which the teacher wrote for them. Language Experience and Shared Book
activities form part of Whole Language teaching practice in many classrooms. Although these
programs advocated reading and writing instruction centred around the childs own experiences
with no formal teaching of word identification skills, in practice some teachers did include a
separate, formal session where phonics were taught as a regular part of classroom practice
(personal observation of the researcher and communication with classroom teachers).
Some aspects of the application of psycholinguistic theory in whole language classrooms
have some relevance to the development of this project. These aspects are now discussed in the
light of developing an appropriate literacy pedagogy for preliterate adult learners in non-
industrial countries. One premise on which whole language instruction is based is that whole
language teachers operate from an examined theory of how language, thought, and knowledge
develop holistically and in support of each other (Goodman 1992:49). Since these teachers
regularly use this theory to make decisions in their teaching practice, there are substantial
difficulties experienced by teachers who have not received long periods of training. These
difficulties are evident
because Whole Language is not, as many believe, an instructional approach to the teaching of
literacy but rather a set of beliefs about language, a philosophical approach which draws on a variety
of disciplines (Bouffler 1990:2).
20 2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction

Y. Goodman (1989) stated these beliefs about language more specifically as integrating
scientific concepts and theories of language processes, learning and cognitive development,
teaching, and curriculum into a practical philosophy to guide classroom decision making (Y.
Goodman 1989:9). It follows, then, that adequate training and experience are needed to develop
such a philosophy and to apply it appropriately in the classroom.
Three underlying requirements for whole language pedagogy that need to be addressed are
that learners grasp a knowledge of grapho-phonics, syntax, and semantics. In developing a
curriculum for beginning literacy, the main issue of contention is where to begin. Goodman,
citing Halliday, argued that whole language instruction is a dual curriculum:
Halliday (1984) concludes that we learn through language while we learn language. The whole
language curriculum builds on this conclusion. It is a dual curriculum; every activity, experience, or
unit is an opportunity for both linguistic and cognitive development. Language teachers plan
thematic units to provide opportunities for both curricula (Goodman 1992:51).
Although Goodman admits in theory to the dual curriculum, in practice the emphasis is on
breaking the code into literacy through holistic activities from prose, and little attention is given
to systematic teaching of grapho-phonics. Goodman (1992) made his position clear when he
stated that
whole language does support the learning of phonics, to the extent that phonics is the set of
relationships between the sound system and the orthographic system of written language. That is
shown in the invented-spelling research and in the studies of developing readers. However, there is
abundant research to show that direct instruction in phonics is neither necessary nor desirable to
produce readers (Goodman 1992:60).
The extent to which grapheme-phoneme relationships are taught depends on the classroom
teacher, since each teacher develops a curriculum and decides how much support is given to the
learning of phonics.
The debate that centred around phonics instruction depended on the operative definition of
phonics. Focusing on pragmatics and the socio-cultural contexts, Shuy (1975) sought to bring
balance into the debate:
It is my position, in fact, that learning to read involves both the mundane behavior skills stressed by
traditional reading programs and the cognitive processes argued for by Goodman and Smith. My
position on what happens in the learning-to-read process is that at the onset of reading, the more
behavioral processes tend to dominate, but as the reader learns more and more about reading, he
[sic] calls more and more on cognitive strategies, especially those which involve processing larger
and larger language accesses (Shuy 1975:39).
Although Shuy agreed on a dual curriculum, he had an opposite emphasis from Goodman for
beginning literacy instruction. Shuys model was bottom-up and linear with progress through the
stages of reading, from letter-sound correspondence, syllables, morphemes and words to
sentences, and the linguistic and pragmatic contexts.
Cambourne (1979:83) stated that the point is that there are distinctly different theoretical
approaches to the reading process which lead to quite different teaching strategies and
instructional materials. Considering this statement to be valid, the main difference between the
application of the two theoretical approaches is the emphasis given to meaning. Teaching
strategies and materials for breaking into literacy through a top-down, holistic approach are
focused on meaning and comprehension; whereas strategies and materials used in bottom-up
2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction 21

approaches are focused on the elements below the word level which have no meaning in
isolation. Perfetti (1984) made this point clear in his definition of the alphabet principle:
This principle is that the elementary units of print map onto units of speech rather than units of
meaning. A written symbol, a letter, is associated with a meaningless unit of speech, a phoneme.
reading in an alphabetic system requires this mapping of meaningless symbols to meaningless
segments (Perfetti 1984:49).
Since meaning units are distinct from elementary units of speech in this way, for
instructional purposes the logical separation is at the word level, that is, separating learning of
elements below the word level from acquiring the cognitive processes in higher levels of
linguistic and socio-cultural, pragmatic contexts.
Shuy (1975) pointed out that
linguists consider context to be more than just the surrounding syntax and phonology. It includes the
social context, a reflection of the expectations of both the writer and the reader, the attitudes, beliefs
and values inherent in both the purpose of the sender and the subjective reactions of the receiver
(Shuy 1975:46).
This emphasis on the social context could be reflected in programs where both holistic and
grapho-phonic instruction are included, but taught separately to allow for different emphases. In
such programs, the social and cultural contexts could be fully reflected in the materials, and in
the reception by the learners with maximum scope for communication and learning.
Among the many summaries of reading research, reading programs, and instructional
techniques that have appeared in the literature, there are three publications that are included here
because of their scope and their relevance to the two methods of instruction used in this project:
Stanovichs (1986) synthesis of research on the development of individual differences in
reading
Stahl and Millers (1989) review of over fifty studies comparing the teaching approaches of
whole language and the teaching approaches of basal reader series
Adams (1990) wide-ranging review and evaluation of beginning reading
Firstly, Stanovich (1986), in his synthesis of research on development of individual
differences in reading acquisition, concluded that evidence from the literature pointed to
phonological awareness
1
ability as highly relevant to early reading success. He defined

1
In the literature, the terms phonological awareness and phonemic awareness seem to be used synonymously.
Various definitions of phonemic awareness are: awareness that the oral speech stream is composed of
arrangements of phonemes (Baker and Freebody 1989); the ability to manipulate and make judgments about
sound segments at levels below the word (Stanovich 1991a:78); the ability to explicitly separate and manipulate
the separate sounds in words (Andrews 1992:89); Phonemic awareness is the realization that oral words are
sequences of meaningless sounds (i.e., phonemes) that can be independently manipulated (Juel 1993:97). Clay
(1991:15) stated that the readers awareness of how sounds are represented in print has emerged as a prominent
area of study. The topic has many names, variously termed phonological awareness or phonological segmenta-
tion, phonemics and phonetics. She further expanded the concept: Research has shown that the good reader
uses not just the sounds of letters but phonological information from several levels of language. These levels
22 2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction

phonological awareness as conscious access to the phonemic level of the speech stream and
some ability to cognitively manipulate representations at this level (Stanovich 1986:326). In his
analysis of the literature, he outlined the problems of research in the area as
determining the cognitive locus of the observed differences
inferring causation and the possibility of reciprocal causation, and
making allowances for developmental changes.
Apart from the research of Stanovich and associates, the authors most cited in analysing
some of the assumptions of the top-down theories of individual reading development are
Bradley and Bryant (1983, 1985)
Perfetti (1984, 1985, 1986), and
associates Ehri (1984, 1985) and Ehri and Wilce (1985).
Including other studies, Stanovich noted some of the results of this research:
that measures of phonological awareness predict reading ability that phonemic segmentation skill
was a necessary, but not sufficient condition for reading acquisition that early skill at
phonological awareness leads to superior reading achievement [and] advantages in reading, word
recognition, and spelling that reading acquisition itself facilitates phonological awareness. A
beginning reader must at some point discover the alphabet principle: that units of print map onto
units of sound (Stanovich 1986:363).
Different ways of acquiring the latter principle were included
by inductive means
through direct instruction, or
with or after building up a visually-based sight vocabulary.
Through acquisition of some knowledge of spelling-to-sound mappings there would follow
reading independence, and eventually fluent reading. He noted that the research cited above
appears to indicate that some minimal level of explicit phonemic awareness is required for the
acquisition of the spelling-to-sound knowledge that supports independent decoding (Stanovich
1986:363).
Another controversial issue discussed in relation to the research cited by Stanovich is the
extent to which readers rely on contextual information for efficiency in reading:
It appears that reading skill is not determined by skill at contextual prediction, but rather that the
level of word-recognition skill determines the extent to which contextual information will be relied
on to complete the process of lexical access (Stanovich 1986:370).

include phonological identities for letters, diagraphs [sic], clusters, syllables, prefixes and suffixes, root words,
phrases, and nonlanguage strings (Clay 1991:290). In this definition Clay refers to the more abstract term
phonological awareness compared to the term phonemic: the significant representations of phonetic speech
sounds. The term phonemic has this specific technical meaning in descriptive linguistics and is used in this
sense in the thesis. Where phonemic awareness and phonological awareness are used synonymously the
term used by the author being cited is retained as much as possible.
Foley (1986:48) defined phonology as the study of the distinctive sound segments in a language. All speakers
of a language can produce a wide range of different sounds phonetically, but many of these differences are not
significant within the system of the language, i.e. are not phonemically contrastive.
2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction 23

Research showed that it was the degree to which the reader had mastered word-recognition skills
that determined the reliance on context: less skilled readers actually displayed somewhat more
contextual facilitation than those of skilled readers (Stanovich 1986:372). (See also Stanovich
(1986:370372 for research evidence from Perfetti and associates related to this topic: the
context-free decoding efficiency of the better readers is so high that they are less in need of
contextual support.)
Probably the most cited result of this detailed analysis of the literature by Stanovich is the
consequence of the concept, for some individuals, of the downward spiralling effect of early
negative reading experiences to end in poor reading abilities, whereas those who have
advantageous early educational experiences are able to benefit from those experiences and
become good readers (Stanovich 1986:381). The experiences were considered to be Matthew
effects, interpreted from the Gospel according to Matthew (25:29): the rich-get-richer and the
poor-get-poorer. In the section on breaking the cycle of interacting skill deficits, Stanovich
stated:
The conclusions drawn in this review will suggest what optimal specific remediation might be. I
have hypothesized that if there is specific cause of reading disability at all, it resides in the area of
phonological awareness. Slow development in this area delays early code-breaking progress and
initiates the cascade of interacting achievement failures and motivational problems (Stanovich
1986:326).
This statement on the value of phonological awareness in bringing about a positive effect in early
literacy achievement is pertinent for method development for adult literacy and to the studies as
presented in this project.
The second publication to consider is Stahl and Millers (1989) comparison of basal reading
approaches to Whole Language/Language Experience approaches. Much interest was stimulated
in the initial paper, with critiques by Schickedanz (1990) and McGee and Lomax (1990), and the
rejoinder by Stahl (1990). These publications relate particularly to the study in hand on adult
literacy in non-industrialised nations, but only one point is highlighted at this stage.
In the initial paper there were, overall, no marked differences between the effects of the
Whole Language/Language Experience approaches and the basal reading approaches (Stahl and
Miller 1989:105). There was one point of difference, however, where Whole
Language/Language Experience approaches appeared more effective when used in reading
readiness prior to a formal reading program. It is suggested that Whole Language approaches
may approximate the kind of incidental learning about books that takes place in middle-class
households (page 105) but the reality is that not all households have access to books and the
same kind of learning opportunities. Stahl and Miller suggest that
although these print concepts are important, once they are mastered children may be ready for more
systematic learning about the code of written language In the mastering phase, a more systematic
approach to decoding than whole language approaches provide may be needed, at least for some
children (Stahl and Miller 1989:105).
This finding on lack of incidental learning from print in some societies, and its relationship to the
systematic teaching of decoding principles, is particularly relevant for programs in cross-cultural
traditional societies where many households do not have access to print of any kind (cf. Heath
1982). Another point of interest to the present study is the neglect of writing in Stahl and Millers
comparison, as was pointed out by Schickedanz (1990):
24 2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction

Whole language approaches have been of benefit it seems in recognizing the considerable written
language competence of the very young child and in providing strategies that allow young children
to write (Schickedanz 1990:129).
The effects on writing ability of the learners after being exposed to different instructional
programs is one of the issues of particular interest in the present study and is considered further
below.
The third publication of singular importance in showing theory worked out in practice is
Adams (1990) Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. This book on
developmental reading entails an extensive synthesis of work from different disciplines, with a
singularly practical application to literacy instruction for the teacher, regardless of the particular
persuasion favoured. Although the book is predominantly about the place of phonics instruction
in reading acquisition, Adams reviewed studies which viewed the literacy process from many
different perspectives. She addressed the divisiveness over code versus meaning emphasis
instruction and concluded that
written text has both method and purpose. To read, children must master both, and we must help
them. In the interest of developing not just their reading skills but their own personal intellectual and
productive potential, we must further encourage them to read frequently, broadly, and thoughtfully
(Adams 1990:424).
Stanovich (1991a) commented on the practical, balanced approach of the research and noted that
Adams [sic] book provides some grounds for rapprochement between the two major warring camps
in reading education: Those advocating a code-oriented approach (phonics) and those advocating
a meaning-oriented approach (whole language). Adams cogent discussion of the importance
of inducing orthographic structure during the early acquisition phases of reading is particularly
important because it also demonstrates the complexity of the link between research and instructional
implications For example, the conclusion that all readers must acquire functional spelling-to-
sound knowledge is not the same as saying that all children must learn phonics rules. The child
needs to associate orthographic with phonological patterns in memory, but this need not be done by
the learning of rules (Stanovich 1991a:79).
The complexity of the link between research and instructional implications has been
demonstrated in the way practitioners have generally followed the current trend as shown above.
In applying the interactive theoretical orientation in instructional procedures, the major problem
is developing a delivery system where activities are conducted simultaneously.
As meaning-emphasis became more in focus, integrationcombining into a whole
gained popularity. Beck (1977:113), for example, noted the need for both phonics and meaning
to be viewed as instructionally mutually supportive and interdependent, each carefully
designed and sequenced with particular attention given to their effective integration. The
difference in interactive processes is that the components have an effect upon each other, and,
theoretically, the effect is simultaneous. The challenge facing the practitioner is to present
activitieswhere components mutually affect each otherin a purposeful, integrated way so
that the simultaneity is cognitively realised by the learner in such a way that it advances the
reading acquisition process. Adams summarised the purposefulness of activities in pedagogy:
To lead an activity effectively; most people need a comfortable understanding of what they are
doing, why they are doing it, where the activity is going, how far it is going, and how far they have
gotten (Adams 1990:287).
2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction 25

It is the learner who acquires the reading process, but it is the teacher who purposefully organises
activities to bring together components in effective combinations of mutually informing
interactions, so that the learners know what they are doing and the purpose of each activity.
McCracken and McCracken (1972, 1979, and 1986) have implemented and discussed an
instructional program that has a multi-faceted approach to beginning literacy. In their statement
of beliefs, meaning is central with teaching from whole, idiomatic texts, but they also place
emphasis on the need to teach skills and state that almost all children require direct, sensitive
teaching to learn how print works (McCracken and McCracken 1986). Phonics is taught as a
skill in a definite sequence where letters, sounds of letters, and syllablesas parts of wordsare
taught in separate sessions apart from reading activities. The question is, does this separate
emphasis lead to the conclusion that in practical development of interactive theory some
systematic teaching of skills components is inevitable?
The specific teaching of syllables is included as an important part of training in awareness of
phonological prerequisites for learning to read by Adams (1990):
To the extent that syllables are physically distinguishable from one another, we might expect the
acquisition of syllabic awareness to come relatively easily. In keeping with this, research has shown
that even people with little or no reading ability can generally learn to direct their attention to
syllabic units with reasonable ease and success. This has been found to be true, for example, with
preschool children, illiterate and barely literate adults and slow beginners from inner-city first
grades. to use letters, children must gain conscious access to phonemes. Yet, the sounds of
individual phonemes are not physically dissectable from the speech stream, but are thoroughly
blended together within the syllable. Whether to extract spelling from speech or to translate spelling
to speech, therefore, it is the syllable with which one must start (Adams 1990:300, 302).
This strong directive to start with the syllable in beginning literacy is a teaching strategy that
generally is not found in the literature as one that is developed and applied in classroom practice.
Ferreiro (1994), when discussing the difficulty of literacy in Spanish (a highly regular language),
noted that
one difficulty has to do with the kind of analysis of the oral language imposed by any
alphabetical writing system. Segmentation into syllables could be called natural because five year
old children can do it easily, but segmentation into phones is more sophisticated, is not achieved
spontaneously, and appears in conjunction with the learning of an alphabetic writing system
(Ferreiro 1994:226).
Although Ferreiro noted this problem for Spanish, comparison with English shows that the need
for instruction at the phoneme level is greater in English than in languages with more regular
phonemic orthographies. For example, Pontecorvo (1994) showed that instruction through the
syllable allows ease of letter identification in Italian
in function of the interaction existing between the child and his/her social context on writing and
reading, children begin to work mainly on a syllabic hypothesis linking each mark (even when they
are still unconventional) to a syllable and progressively mastering the relationship between letters
and syllabic sounds (Pontecorvo 1994:336).
Similar to the research of Ferreiro for Spanish, which showed the natural ease of syllable
segmentation over phoneme segmentation, Pontecorvo (1994:335336) reported on a study in
which four-, five-, and six-year-old children were asked to identify phonemes, syllables and
morphemes. She noted that it was clear that the correct recognition of syllables was only a
function of age but that schooling was a factor in recognising phonemes and morphemes.
26 2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction

Related to this discussion on phonological awareness is the summing up of research over the
last twenty years by Bertelson and Gelder (1994). Among the six specific studies discussed,
thesis 5 covers an important issue for beginning literacy:
Evidence from adult illiterates and from readers of non-alphabetic orthographies show that some
forms of phonological awareness, those related to the level of segments, rarely arise spontaneously,
as a result of maturation or of the experience of speech communication (Bertelson and Gelder
1994:155).
In the discussion, the authors cited relevant research and noted that
the conditions of emergence of speech analysis capacities vary with the level of the units under
consideration: analysis into segments depends on instruction much more strictly than analysis into
syllables or rhymes. That representations of some supra-segmental unitssyllables certainly and
possibly syllabic constituents like onsets and rhymesdevelop more spontaneously than
representations of segments, a notion now supported by much evidence (Bertelson and Gelder
1994:155).
The importance of this summary of the research has bearing on the controversy concerning the
level of the unit from which instruction is initiated, from the syllable or the segment.
There is reference to the importance of the syllable for English instruction in the more recent
application of research on phonological awareness. Research on the verification of the
importance of phonological awareness for beginning reading for children in English accelerated
during the 1980s (e.g., Bradley and Bryant 1983; Stanovich, Cunningham, and Cramer 1984;
Stanovich 1986; Byrne and Fielding-Barnsley 1990) and the results of this research is now being
worked out in practice (see Watson and Badenhop 1992).
Adams (1990:80) described five levels of phonemic awareness of English as
nursery rhymes
comparing and contrasting sounds
blending and syllable splitting
phonemic segmentation, and
phoneme manipulation.
Two programs are now briefly reviewed as examples of applications of phonemic awareness. In
the first, Dallas (1992) has brought together elements crucial to reading acquisition in a
program which must present a balanced approach by demonstrating an understanding of the
interactive and dynamic relationships which exist among and between components (Dallas
1992:125). In this program it is stated that components from both top-down and bottom-up
models have been incorporated, but the emphasis is placed on the lower level processes
because participants were students considered to be at risk of failing (pages 125126). Of
importance to the debate is the inclusion of phonemic awareness as a component skill crucial to
successful beginning reading. The linear presentation of stages of reading acquisition stated are
as follows:
Logographic: The visual appearance of words. Student treats words as a whole pattern.
Phonemic awareness: The ability to consciously separate and manipulate sounds in words.
Alphabetic: The relationship between visual representations and sounds. Student makes explicit
application of phonicsdevelop independent reading skillsincreased practice opportunity.
2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction 27

Orthographic: The amalgamation of word code. Student is able to link spoken and written
representations in letter groupings and syllables (Dallas 1992:127).
Here letter groupings and syllables are emphasised above the single phoneme as part of
orthographic understanding. A detailed set of activities to teach phonemic awareness was also
presented to help the practitioner develop this program (see also Whipp 1994).
In contrast, Wille and Fiala (1992:144) stated that they presented a balanced literature
based reading program as a source for the prevention of reading failure. This program,
however, was based on a top-down orientation with a different theoretical base from the program
discussed above. To encourage phonemic awareness, the authors stated that
children need to know that letters symbolise sounds of oral language and that knowing about letter-
sound relationships will help them to identify words which they are unable to identify in any other
way. Teachers need to be aware of childrens first language, cultural background and literacy
experiences so that, should difficulties arise because of variations in pronunciation of letter sounds,
they can assist the child. Teachers prepare children in developing phonemic awareness through a
wide variety of listening games (Wille and Fiala 1992:149).
In this application of phonemic awareness, emphasis was placed on listening and speaking.
Words were more in focus in the activities suggested and phonic analysis was included in a
general set of word attack skills activities as part of developing awareness of the patterns of
written language (Wille and Fiala 1992:149150). Systematic teaching of phonemes, syllables,
and letter groupings was not included. It was up to the teacher to plan the various aspects of the
reading process on a daily basis to cover in a term all aspects of the reading process in the
light of childrens needs (page 150). In fact, the difference between the two emphases as
presented was in the role teachers played in guiding children to a phonemic awareness,
systematically or incidentally (see also Andrews 1992).
Badenhop (1992) delineated from the three perspectives of the major reading theories the
value of decoding skills in each:
The bottom/up theory: Learning to decode, (i.e., using knowledge of phoneme-grapheme
correspondences to recognise words) in early reading.
The interactive theory: Learning to decode (through phonics instruction or some similar approach)
is important because it helps develop sensitivity to orthographic regularity (i.e., recurrent spelling
patterns) which is important in the transition from early to skilled reading.
The top/down theory: Learning to decode is at best incidental to becoming literate and at worst,
may interfere with acquired reading skill (Badenhop 1992:111).
This clear summary of the value of decoding skills in theory-in-practice, and the brief sketches of
the two programs described above, are presented as examples of some of the practical
applications of the large amount of research on phonemic awareness published in the 1980s.
In summary, we note that in each period of history there has been tension between the
pervading literacy practice and a counter development:
Synthetic phonics versus whole-word instruction
Whole-word versus phonics instruction
Top-down versus bottom-up instruction with emphasis on phonemic awareness
The focus on interactive methods, with biasin practical realityon bottom-up versus
top-down instruction
28 2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction

There are two other areas of influence on pedagogy which have not yet been mentioned: the
influence of cognitive learning styles and the social context of literacy. Davis (1991) cites a
definition of cognitive styles by Messick (1978:5): cognitive styles are consistent individual
differences in ways of organizing and processing information (Davis 1991:35). A group of
teachers (Bussis, Chittenden, Amarel, and Klausner 1985:146), researching stylistic influences in
learning to read, made a contrast in their definition noting that styles signify how people
typically act and think and express themselves rather than what they accomplish or know. Many
learning styles were identified in the 1970s and 1980s, from the two major learning stylesfield
dependent and field independentidentified by Witkin (1978:2), to the twenty-three different
elements that affect learning style preferences identified by Dunn, Dunn, and Price (Dunn
1988:306307). From a comprehensive synthesis and appraisal of the research, Davis (1991)
compiled information to clarify the place of learning styles in pedagogy, especially in non-
industrialised nations. She concluded the following:
As with any movement, cautions and objections have been sounded over the years. One school of
thought rejects the concept of individualization of treatment altogether. These objections have
certain validity. Nevertheless, the analytic versus global distinction has been supported by much
research evidence and appears to be a key factor in many cultures (Davis 1991:60).
The terms analytic and global equate with the terms field independent/field dependent in
the literature. The importance of an understanding of these two learning styles for teaching in
non-industrialised nations is considered in the following section.
A further development in research in the early 1980s brought to the forefront the importance
of the social context of the reading process (Harste and Carey 1984; Harste, Woodward, and
Burke 1984). The concept of the nature of reading is seen as a socio-psycholinguistic act, that is,
where language is viewed as sociologically rooted and language learning as understandable
only when viewed within its social context (Harste, Woodward, and Burke 1984:84). This
concept has developed over the last decade to become a major part of the life of a successful
literacy participant in society. Heaths (1982) research in What no bedtime story means:
Narrative skills at home and school has brought attention to the different socio-cultural settings
for early literacy events and how these different environmental settings influence the way
literacy is attained in the school setting (see also Heath 1983:343369). An understanding of the
principles Heath presented from this research is vital for literacy practices developed for people
from various cultures in non-industrialised countries and specifically relates to the present
project. Heath concluded that
if we want to understand the place of literacy in human societies and ways children acquire the
literacy orientations of their communities, we must recognize two postulates of literacy and
language development. (1) Strict dichotomization between oral and literate traditions is a construct
of researchers, not an accurate portrayal of reality across cultures. (2) A unilinear model of
development in the acquisition of language structures and uses cannot adequately account for
culturally diverse ways of acquiring knowledge or developing cognitive styles.
Roadville and Trackton tell us that the mainstream type of literacy orientation is not the only type
even among Western societies. They also tell us that the mainstream ways of acquiring
communicative competence do not offer a universally applicable model of development (Heath
1982:73).
Although this research is about literacy for children, it arguably may apply to preliterate adults
who are products of the environments and cultures in which they live. The culturally diverse
ways of acquiring knowledge or the cognitive styles practised are not universal and Heath
2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction 29

noted that it is imperative to interpret literacy events in relation to the larger sociocultural
patterns which they may exemplify or reflect (Heath 1982:74).
In Streets (1984) study on Literacy in theory and practice, he placed emphasis on the
importance of the recipients of literacy endeavours in non-industrialised nations. He drew
attention to the
social context of the people involved
value of existing social practices and conceptions of reading and writing in the society
mismatch between the value and purpose of literacy as perceived by the recipients, and
value and purpose of literacy as perceived by those who deliver the literacy programs.
The emphasis on taking into consideration the social context and the value of existing social
literacy practices relates to the present project and is considered further in the next chapter.
In relation to literacy instruction, the importance of the individual within the social context
is included by Freebody and Luke (1990) and Freebody (1992) when they posit four roles to be
learned for successful reading in society. These four roles are
code-breaker (How do I crack this?)
text-participant (What does this mean?)
text-user (What do I do with this, here and now?), and
text-analyst (What does this do to me?) (Freebody 1992:58).
The position taken is that not only does a person need to know how to read and get meaning
from the text, but there are further implications for the reader: in how to interpret the text
related to cultural understanding and inferences, both internal and external to the textand how
to use and analyse the text in relation to what it means in the social context of text reading
and in the wider social context of personal life. Although Freebody and Luke noted that all of
these aspects are requisite they have also stated:
We deliberately have avoided suggesting a developmental or taxonomic priority of these aspects of
literacy, particularly because adults seeking literacy instruction will arrive with a range of
competencies, perhaps including para-literate skills in the social uses of text, or some rudimentary
knowledge of the code, or background knowledge and expertise about a particular text, or a critical
stance towards the world and the social, or variations and combinations of these (Freebody and Luke
1990:15).
Taking into consideration such social aspects of literacy for adults is relevant in this study;
choosing the method of instruction that will be appropriate for the language as well as the socio-
cultural setting of the participants is crucial.
In the brief outline of the theories of reading given above, the interactive models most
clearly demonstrate what takes place when a person interacts with text as a mature reader. The
challenge to the practitioner is how to develop an initial literacy program that will address the
four roles mentioned above in a systematic and relevant way from the inception of the program.
Most of the discussion in this section has, of necessity, centred on instruction for beginning
reading for children. As mentioned earlier, literacy programs for adults in industrial societies are
generally presented for partially literate people who desire further training to participate in the
workforce so these programs are not highly relevant. In the next section, the focus is on adult
learners in non-industrial societies. Much of the material presented so far has relevance to the
subsequent discussion and the central questions addressed in the project.
30 2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction

2.2.2. Influence of trends in literacy acquisition on programs for adults in non-
industrial nations
Much of the discussion in this section, especially of that work produced during the period
from the late 1940s to the 1970s, relates to adult literacy programs that were initiated by literacy
workers from the Summer Institute of Linguistics,
2
who helped prepare materials and develop
programs in vernacular languages for adults in a number of different countries. The efforts of
such workers in South America in the late 1940s and early 1950s reflected the trend in beginning
literacy in the United States of America at that time. The trend was to combine a number of
approaches in an eclectic approach where practices were borrowed freely from a number of
different sources in the effort to create more balanced programmes to meet differing individual
needs (Holdaway 1979:30).
Gudschinsky began to develop the method in the 1950s but the lesson structure now being
used, and known as the Gudschinsky method, was formulated in the 1960s (Lee 1982:23). The
development took place when
the debatephonics versus whole word reading approacheswas strong
programs based on eclectic approaches were being tried, and
the Basal Reader programs were developed in an attempt to solve the literacy problem in the
schools (Holdaway 1979:30).
Concerning the eclectic approaches, Holdaway stated that the organizational complexities of
such programmes often led to little better than a hopeful chaos in which both children and
teachers were deeply confused (Holdaway 1979:30).
The lack of structure in instructional procedures was one of the general principles that
emerged after Pigeon (1984) conducted a survey of approximately 120 reception classes in Great
Britain, to determine the relationship between known theory and teaching practices. One result of
the survey was the emergence of four general principles of which one stated:
The early learning activities should possess a meaningful structure designed to provide short periods
of inherently motivated learning and the avoidance of fragmented imposed instruction which often
failed to contribute any significant incentive (Pigeon 1984:184).
Although the above statements by Holdaway and Pigeon were addressing, at different times,
different problems of practical application of theory in the classroom, the need for structure and
an awareness by the student of the purpose of each activity within the program were seen to be
important.
Bowen and Bowen (1988) when researching cognitive styles among 205 students from
colleges and high schools in Kenya and Nigeria noted that
the results of the second instrument showed the students to have a visual orientation rather than an
auditory one. The students prefer structure and guidance from the teacher. They learn from group
discussion and from small-group interaction. They dislike a predominance of the lecture method and
learn through the use of visual materials, hands on experience and printed outlines (Bowen and
Bowen 1988:78).

2
The Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) is an international organization engaged in linguistic investigation of
unwritten indigenous languages, and in literacy and Scripture translation in those languages.
2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction 31

In this research there was found a predominance of field dependent learners. The outcome was
an outline of eighteen proposals for teaching strategies for such learners, many of which centred
on the preference for structure and guidance. Included with this preference was the social context
of learning in group discussions and practical application in experience. The importance of these
features of structure in instruction, social interaction, and group learning have been part of the
experience of the researcher when working with different groups in Papua New Guinea.
In the late 1960s, when Gudschinsky formulated the specific method used for adult literacy
at that time, a highly structured format developed. She became aware that although most of the
methods of adult literacy being applied by field workers in the various languages were eclectic in
nature the uniformity was more striking than the diversity (Lee 1982:23). Out of this
uniformity the core of the present method was developed with a set structure of seven steps to a
lesson with activities centred around a culturally appropriate key word.
Once the Gudschinsky method became known, it was used in many countries with
adaptations to suit the structures of the particular languages involved. In some countries, other
methods were developed to suit the languages and socio-cultural values of the people; for
example, in the Philippines a phonics approach was used widely. In this approach, a key word
was chosen with the letter to be taught in the initial position. Features of the languages which
made them suitable for phonics instruction were
simple syllable patterns
syllable divisions clearly discernible, and
limited suprasegmental features (Porter 1986).
Although the Gudschinsky method was tried with the phonologically complex Aboriginal
languages in Australia, there was little success and more culturally appropriate methods were
developed (e.g., Borneman 1992) following the cultural insights into the ways the people learned
(see Harris 1980). Many of the cultural learning contexts discussed by Harris have parallel
application in Papua New Guinea cultural groups (see Stringer 1983:4857 for comparisons).
In the 1970s, the popularity of Language Experience approaches in New Zealand, Australia,
and the United States did have some influence on the way the Gudschinsky method was
presented. Pre-prepared Experience Charts were incorporated into the reading readiness activities
with success in some countries (for example, Papua New Guinea). The impetus brought about by
teaching experience stories, to give a greater understanding of the function and uses of print prior
to more systematic instruction in word identification, is in accord with the findings of Stahl and
Miller (1989:105) discussed above. Stahl stated that
as educators, our concern should be with the children who do not have the rich exposure available in
literate households. Our argument was that such exposure to how written language works is
especially important for kindergarteners who have not had such exposure prior to school but that
direct and systematic attention is necessary once these initial concepts are attained (Stahl 1990:145).
Although this statement applies to children, in the societies in which this research is set, the
statement is applicable to both adults and children because there is not a rich exposure to print
available in literate households in the communities.
Bhola (1990a:139) highlighted a turning point for adult literacy in the 1980s which showed
a deepening of concerns and an intensification of discussion. At this time the political nature of
literacy for empowerment was triggered by Freire (1970) and discussion on the implications of
32 2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction

his theories has continued into the present. At the heart of Freires theory and practice was the
concept of conscientization of people:
Simply put conscientization means to make aware or awakening of consciousness or critical
consciousness. Conscientization is a social process, taking place among men [sic] as they unite
in common reflection and action upon their world (Lloyd 1972:45).
Apart from the physical structure of the cultural circles, with coordinators facilitating highly
cultural and socially significant dialogue centred around the trisyllabic, typical generative
words selected (Lloyd 1972:10), the pedagogy reflected the trend in literacy at the time of
implementation. The method was eclectic, with key words taught by syllables (each consonant
with the five vowels) from discovery cards. Each lesson included writing (Mashayekh 1974).
For the 1980s, Bhola (1990a) stated that
cognitive claims made in behalf of literacy are today seen as related to the context and practice of
literacy. Literacy is being seen as a sociocultural process encompassing psychological, group,
institutional, and cultural phenomena in a seamless web (Bhola 1990a:140).
The trend at this time to make literacy more related to the socio-cultural context was reflected in
the method that was tested by the researcher in the Enga Province of Papua New Guinea in
19851986 (Stringer 1985, 1987a, 1990). This method incorporated multiple strategies within
two separate patterns of instructional procedures as explained above. For comparative purposes,
students were selected in five schools:
Two schools were exposed to a bottom-up, analytic approach exclusively.
One school was exposed to a top-down, holistic approach.
Two schools were exposed to both approaches but were taught separately.
The highlight of this initial trial was the individual, spontaneous creative writing produced by
children exposed to the two approaches. In contradiction to the general belief stated by Clay
(1972:22), that the reading skill will always be ahead of the written language skills, the writing
skills of a large proportion of the children in one school in particular far surpassed their reading
skills. The children were uninhibited and put their thoughts into print with confidence, at first
with inaccurate form, but with growing accuracy as they integrated the skills learned in the
period of instruction on syllable and letter recognition and syntax. Each student
proceeded at his or her own pace
was in control of the learning process, and
grasped the procedures as he or she was cognitively ready.
Deutrom (1988), Superintendent of the National Curriculum Unit, made the following report in
the third year of the program:
The atmosphere in all classrooms visited was one of dynamic communication and enjoyment.
Children are learning how to read and write with a fluency and confidence never seen in classes in
which the language of instruction is English. In schools that had grade one children who had
attended the TPPS class, the reading and writing fluency is nothing short of dramatic. The lack of
reading materials requires children to use adult literacy material from the seventies. They seem to
cope exceptionally well. What was most moving was the creative writing ability of the children.
Many had written imaginative stories, some several pages long (Deutrom 1988:56).
In this program, the Tok Ples Pre-School (TPPS) is a preparatory school for instruction in the
vernacular before entering Grade 1 (first year) in the formal education system in English. The
2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction 33

enthusiasm and ability of the young children to control their own literacy skills within the social
environment reflects the concentrated effort to include socially and culturally relevant materials
and pedagogy within the program.
As noted earlier, the method incorporated some of the basic ideas from methods used in
whole language instruction in industrial countries as one component. There is a recent surge of
interest in whole language approaches now beginning to be incorporated into literacy programs
and researched in some non-industrial nations. For example, attempts are currently being made
to reflect some of the components of interactive theory in practice in Papua New Guinea. The
Multi-Strategy method, as first tried in the above field experiment in the Enga Province, has
subsequently been adapted and used in other language groups in Papua New Guinea, the
Solomon Islands, and some African countries. In 1993, the national Education Department in
Papua New Guinea began incorporating a program called Interactive Whole Language with
shared book activities and phonics instruction using worksheets (Department of Education 1993).
There also have been holistic strategies included in other programs for adults and children in
different language groups in the country.
With this inclusion of holistic-focused instruction in vernacular literacy, locally-authored
materials on topics of national, community, and personal interest are included from the inception
of a literacy program. The emphasis on locally-authored materials was given priority by field
linguists working with the Summer Institute of Linguistics during the 1970s and 1980s.
3
One of
the main emphases was to include culturally relevant materials to help facilitate the reading
process. As Wendell (1982) commented:
It is highly important that style of written material conform to a style that is basic to the particular
language. Forcing the use of another mode will complicate the reading process rather than facilitate
it (Wendell 1982:2324).
The use of more bottom-up methods in the programs at that time, however, restricted the type of
written material that was included. Programs with an holistic emphasis allow the inclusion of
creative, topical materials to be used from the first day of classes. This inclusion improves
motivation and gives all participantscommunity members, teachers, and learnersan
opportunity to write and prepare their own instructional materials in a style that encompasses the
particular language structure and modes of expression. The National Adult Literacy and
Awareness Curriculum for Papua New Guinea developed a program in the early 1990s, which
used the dual approach of the Multi-Strategy method, with the aim that the participants would
guide and control in various aspects of the program. Four general themes suggested by the
UNESCO APPEAL curriculum design (UNESCO 1989) were incorporated:
Family life
Health
Functional skills
Community and country
These four themes were included in all levels of literacy from basic to independent reading and
writing.

3
See Wendells (1982) Bootstrap literature: Preliterate societies do it themselves for a comprehensive, practical
guide for including locally-authored materials in a literacy program.
34 2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction

In related literature in the 1990s there is interest in a dual emphasis on learning strategies.
Hannaway (1992) proposed structural changes to teaching jobs in the United States based on
the growing consensus that the curriculum as taught in schools is out of balance. Most analysts
feel the emphasis on basic skills outweighs to a far greater extent than appropriate the emphasis on
problem solving and reasoning (Hannaway 1992:6).
Hannaway suggests that this state of the curriculum occurred because basic skills are easier to
teach and are more easily measured than higher order skills of reasoning and problem-solving.
Hannaway noted that
Holstrom and Milgrom suggest dividing tasks into jobs based on the difficulty (or ease) of
measuring performance. In the case of teaching, this would mean dividing the job of a teacher into
two jobs, one geared to basic skills development and one geared to the development of higher order
thinking skills (Hannaway 1992:6).
In adult literacy in non-industrial countries, where community members are recruited as teachers
and trained in short courses, the division into two teaching jobs as suggested by Hannaway is a
practical and viable way of allowing the community to participate in all facets of the programs.
Using full pieces of prose and stories written by members of the community, as the basis of
initial instruction in one teaching job, gives scope for the development of higher order skills of
reasoning and problem-solving from the inception of the program. Separate emphasis on the
basic literacy skills of identifying and using the necessary code for reading and writing in the
other teaching job allows for full concentration in this area of expertise as a complement to the
literacy process. Bendor-Samuel (1987) noted that
there are two essentials for the retention of vernacular even when it has been established as a
community value. 1. An established literature and the ongoing production of literature that meets the
needs of the people 2. A continuing, ongoing, culturally relevant framework which facilitates the
repeated use of literature and encourages discussion and interaction (Bendor-Samuel 1987:89).
The importance of this statement is that literature should meet the needs of the people; only
when the literature is culturally and personally relevant to the lives of the people will there be
discussion and interaction engendered. The need for literature to include topics of interest is
brought out by Heath (1986):
The transformation of literacy skills into literate behaviors and ways of thinking depends on a
community of talkers who make the text mean something. Once some members of a society
acquire literacy skills, at least two conditions must be present for literate behavior to be retained and
to achieve transforming power: 1) opportunities for talk about information from written materials
and 2) institutionsother than the family and the schoolthat ensure the continuity of such
occasions for talk. In the past two decades, researchers have shown repeatedly the complex
interactions of reading and writing with other social habits. Historical evidence and contemporary
forces point out the creative potential of giving readers and writers expanded opportunities to
interpret texts orally and to negotiate their meanings in egalitarian settings (Heath 1986:16, 20).
The aim of any literacy program is that literate behaviour be retained so that the lives of the
newly literates are changed and the quality of social interaction is enriched. Both Bendor-Samuel
and Heath have shown that topical information that is relevant to the community members needs
to be included in the materials for literacy to be relevant in a society.
The importance of a community of talkers who make the text mean something was
reiterated by Wagner (1990:14) when he posed the question, Are there informal systems for
literacy diffusion in society? He made the point that literacy diffusion is sometimes used to
2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction 35

describe how literacy ability is spread from one person to another, within and across
generations. Wagner suggested that literacy surveys give us an understanding of how this
diffusion takes place in a given society and that the sociological or anthropological descriptive
account of literacy use in the home and community is especially useful in interpreting
quantitative findings. In this decade there is higher status given to such ethnographic research in
evaluation of more informal literacy programs.
These points lead to a further recommendation: not only should the literature be culturally
appropriate and meet the needs of the people so that there is diffusion of literacy practice, there is
also a need to take into account the cognitive styles of the learners in the instructional process.
Davis (1991), in her review of the literature on learning styles, included a comprehensive section
on ethnolinguistic minority groups. This review contrasted the preferred learning traits of field
dependent and field independent groups of people showing that certain types of societies tend to
be characterised by one or the other of the two cognitive styles. Studies were conducted to
determine why cultures are predominantly one or the other of the two learning styles, with the
conclusion that social conditioning did contribute but that socioeconomic status did not (Davis
1991:38). It is important to note that studies have been conducted to show that learning styles are
separate from intelligence and the two should not be equated (pages 4142). Davis also
concluded that students must be taught to draw upon both styles with the method of instruction
suited to the learning task (page 60).
The contrasts made by Davis between field dependent and field independent learning styles
reveal many domains of learning affected by field dependent learning styles which parallel
learning patterns observed by the researcher among groups of people in Papua New Guinea.
Some of these domains of learning characteristics for field dependent learners are as follows:
Learning through a concrete approach and moving to the abstract: from practice to theory
(example from native Americans)
Informal learning , observation and imitation , personal trial-and-error ,
orientation to persons , and learning through wholes (example from Australian
Aborigines)
Picking up and utilizing social cues, remembering faces, and learning social material:
learning goes ahead when there is an appropriate social context (example from the Kalinga of
the Philippines)
Group sharing of learning experiences (example from Australian Aborigines)
Learning organised, structured material tends to be easier than unstructured material;
tendency to use the spectator approach (learning by observation) for concept attainment
rather than hypothesis testing (learning by trying) (example from Peru) (Davis 1991:41
46)
Within any society, both the field dependent and field independent cognitive styles are
evident and individuals need to draw on techniques from each to function effectively. The
challenge to a teacher is to develop a method of teaching that will accommodate both styles. A
study of the socio-cultural situation will give evidence of a predominance of either style and this
is particularly important for teaching beginning literacy. Bussis, Chittenden, Aramel, and
Klausner (1985:196) develop the argument that
for the beginner the act of constructing meaning from text may be thought of as the act of
constructing a message that makes sense. And judgments about how best to make sense of the world
are rooted in stylistic preference. Adults who struggle with difficult material are engaged in a
36 2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction

task analogous to that of the beginner. That is, they are trying to reconstruct the sense of the authors
message. Once the sense has been reconstructed, then other judgments will be brought to bear. But
for the adult, as for the child, making sense of the message in the first place is an act that appears
guided by stylistic judgment (Bussis, Chittenden, Amarel, and Klausner 1985:196).
Assisting adult learners to make sense of texts they read and, by extension, to make sense of the
world in which they live, by allowing them to learn through their preferred style of learning has
relevance for the types of methods developed.
This discussion has directed specific attention to cognitive learning styles in adult education.
It is to be noted, however, that Brookfield (1986:x) claimed that the concept of andragogy was
currently the most influential concept in the education and training of adults for most
practitioners. From the literature, Brookfield examined some of the assumptions, criticisms,
warnings, and roles of facilitators relevant to the concept of andragogy which has several
interpretations. In his conclusion, while conceding the effectiveness of the concept, he
questioned its reality as an approach to teaching adults grounded in unique features of adult
learning, and, hence, an approach to be sharply distinguished from pedagogy (Brookfield
1986:121). In this project, although some of the principles of the concept of andragogy have
parallels with principles of adult learning used in the two studies, a distinction is not made
between andragogy and pedagogy. Both are appropriate at different times and for different
purposes, with children, adolescents, young adults, the middle aged and the elderly (Brookfield
1986:121).
In this section we have noted that, historically, the practical application of theory in
industrial nations has influenced the choice of method for literacy practice in non-industrialised
countries:
Eclectic instructional procedures were reflected in both the pedagogy of Freire and in literacy
programs that adhered to the Gudschinsky method.
Phonics instruction was developed in the Philippines.
The Language Experience approach was incorporated in reading readiness programs in some
countries.
More recently, interactive theory has influenced instruction.
Another recent inclusion is stronger emphasis on the social context of the learners.
We have considered different aspects of a literacy program that need to be addressed when
developing a method for teaching literacy in non-industrialised communities. Some necessary
components appear to be
a structured approach in materials and teaching
culturally appropriate literature
full consideration of literacy within the social context, and
development of a method that addresses the cognitive learning styles of the teachers and
learners.
One further constraint in developing a literacy program is the particular structure of the
language spoken by the group for whom literacy is being introduced. This project is concerned
with the suitability of the Gudschinsky and Multi-Strategy methods for teaching literacy to
people who speak languages with complex linguistic structures. Much of the discussion in this
chapter has been concerned with theory and practice related to pedagogy in English. In the next
section, issues related to instruction in English compared with phonemically written languages
2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction 37

are briefly considered and pertinent aspects of the two Papua New Guinea languages used in the
project, Urat and Tok Pisin, are described. Some reference is also made to Kwanga in relation to
Tok Pisin.
2.3. Languages of Instruction
2.3.1. The influence of English
A fundamental problem that has dominated research in pedagogy of English is the
irregularity of the orthography. Henderson (1982:64) considered the relationship between
spelling and speech sounds in English from the regularities of the English orthography in three
ways: those within the script, those between script and sound, and those between script and
lexical meaning. Concerning the first, Henderson noted that
historical analysis often allows us to distinguish between those irregularities of the spelling-sound
correspondence that are arbitrary, usually owing to faulty analogy or mistaken etymology, and those
that are motivated by some linguistic principle (Henderson 1982:66).
After discussing the spelling-sound correspondences and the spelling-morphology
correspondences, Henderson continued to discuss the English orthography and its irregular
system of phonographic translation, as well as the morphophonemic basis, with no clear
conclusion regarding its status.
Downing (1978:104) noted that, in the method of phonics, there is an assumption that
where rules of the relations between letters and sounds are taught, the English orthography is
basically a code for those units of sound termed phonemes. These rules for English
orthography have several different and alternative descriptions of which Downing noted three
views: classical, revolutionary, and eclectic.
The classical view, from the linguistic perspective, is that the graphemes of the English
writing system are symbols for phonemes (Downing 1978:104). Two early linguists, Bloomfield
and Fries, working from the notion that the English writing system was basically phonemic,
noted implications for pedagogy. Downing cited Bloomfield (1942:129), who stated that
alphabet writing directs the reader to produce certain speech sounds. Bloomfield devised a
teaching method to help the beginning reader make the grapheme-phoneme connection using
short words in which the letters have uniform values, with the understanding that the child
will get the meanings only when he [sic] has solved the mechanical problem of reading
(Bloomfield and Barnhart 1961:41).
Fries concluded that the English orthography remained basically phonemic in its
representation (Fries 1963:169), but that it included a number of irregularities. These spelling
irregularities were basically the same as those mentioned by Henderson as revealed through
history, that is, etymology, word analogy, and printing. Regarding pedagogy, Fries stated that
an alphabet is a set of graphic shapes that can represent the separate vowel and consonant phonemes
of the language. All alphabets are phonemically based, and the procedures of reaching the process of
reading alphabetic writing must take into account this essential fact of the structural base of
alphabetic writing (Fries 1963:155156).
Despite the irregularities of the English orthography, in the classical view it is considered to be
basically phonemic. Implications for pedagogy are concerned with knowing the various sounds
triggered by the alphabet writing system before meaning is understood.
38 2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction

Proponents of the revolutionary view included Chomsky and Venesky, who denied that the
English orthography system is phonemic. Chomsky rejected the phoneme as having linguistic
status and proposed that the English orthography is an internalized code for a system of lexical
representation, and thus the rules of sound-letter correspondence need hardly be taught
(Chomsky 1970:415). Venesky emphasised the morphophonemic status of the language units
coded by written symbols, from which phonemes are derived. Through a computer analysis he
devised numerous rules to explain the morphophonemic description of the English orthography
of which Downing commented that it seems doubtful if it could ever be applied in teaching
young children to read with its seventy or more pages of rules (Downing 1978:109, 111).
The third view for rules of English orthography Downing (1978:111114) covered, is an
eclectic view proposed by such linguists as Albrow, Lefevre, and Vachek, which is only slightly
more complex than the classical one of Bloomfield and Fries. This view includes a basic
phonemic view of English spelling with some irregularities, but also includes the recognition
that other non-phonemic rules coexist with the phonemic ones (page 113).
Henderson presented a morphophonemic basis for the English orthography with
reservations:
I believe there is some danger of overstating the case for a morphophonemic (or abstract lexical)
basis to English orthography. Clearly the phonetic transcription model of orthography is a naive one.
Nevertheless, the alternative, morphophonemic thesis requires more examination in detail than it
has hitherto received (Henderson 1982:95).
On the other hand, DeFrancis (1989:200) placed English as the outstanding example of the
meaning-plus-sound alphabet category of writing systems and developed a detailed
examination of the influences which determined the present orthography. He concluded that
English orthography is a morphophonemic system and included an explanation of the occurrence
of irregularities noted in the classical view above:
Among existing writing systems, English is probably the outstanding example of a morphophonemic
system which functions by the extensive use of devices that strictly speaking do not directly
represent either meaning or sound. I have called this technique mnemonic, since it has the
function of jogging the reader into remembering that there is some sort of difference between the
two, though without clearly picturing or sounding out what that difference is (DeFrancis 1989:207
208).
Whether the irregularities of the English orthography can be explained or not, the difficulty of
teaching the code to beginning readers and writers is still valid. It is the degree to which the
devices which trigger the differences between sound-symbol correlations are mastered by
beginning readers and writers that governs methods of pedagogy.
This brief description of the English orthography is included here as a means of comparison
with the languages used in this project. Each orthography for the three languages pertinent to this
project, Urat, Tok Pisin, and Kwanga was formed from a phonemic analysis of the sound system
(see Pike 1947) and shows a regular grapheme-phoneme correspondence. In this analytic system,
morphophonemics is taken into consideration and exceptions to a completely phonemic
orthography may occur in the spelling system due to native reaction (see examples in Urat
below). The point of comparison is the predictable regularity of the spelling-sound
correspondences of the three orthographies in contrast to the unpredictable irregularity of the
spelling-sound correspondences of the English orthography.
2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction 39

Henderson (1982:211) noted that in carefully controlled cross-language comparisons of
reading acquisition interest in the nature of the writing system has been concentrated on the
regularity of grapheme-phoneme correspondences and that the results of the comparisons
were highly inconclusive. Allen and Rubin (1993) noted that
although evidence does not support any inherent superiority of one kind of orthographic
representation over another, some educators believe that literacy acquisition is facilitated when
methods of instruction correspond with the manner on which the writing system represents the
language (Allen and Rubin 1993:20).
From a discussion of the positive research available, Allen and Rubin (1993:21) presented the
argument that Downing stresses that hard data to support this contention is almost non-
existent (Downing 1973a:219). Some reasons presented for this lack of connection between the
linguistic characteristics and instructional methods were dialectic differences within languages
and the differences in codes of writing systems.
Downing, however, stressed the practical aspects of correspondence between the regularity
of the written form of a language and the method of instruction. Although hard research data
was not available at the time of writing, Downing (1973a:219220) presented tangential data
which all pointed clearly in the same direction, namely
the general consensus of people concerned with the practical problem of teaching literacy to young
beginners is that the more consistent the relations between the written and spoken forms of a
language the easier it is to learn to read and write.
It is of crucial importance to take into account the literacy learners linguistic environment. This is
true of all cultural, linguistic, and national groups. The most important universal principle for
teaching literacy is that the material to be read and the reading and writing responses the learner is
required to make match as closely as possible his [sic] past experience of language in the spoken
form (Downing 1973a:220, 239).
Although this is the conclusion Downing made regarding the linguistic environment, Allen and
Rubin (1993:21) presented one further comment which is pertinent to the debate and to this
project: Downing (1973a, 1973b) also noted that although language may have influenced choice
of methods, so have educational, social, and psychological issues.
Regarding the importance of method, Gough (1972), when commenting on the lack of
superiority of the more linguistic methods of Bloomfield and Fries, noted that there was no
compelling evidence to show that there is any difference between the results of any
reasonable method of reading instruction. As long as they are provided with appropriate
data, Gough noted that children can learn to read under any method, a Method describes
little more than an orientation on the part of a teacher (Gough 1972:528529). DeFrancis
(1989), however, pointed out that in relation to orthographies
scholars in the Prague School tradition emphasize the difference between the needs of readers and
writers. In writing, especially in learning to write a language, it is easiest if there is close
correspondence between sound and symbol (DeFrancis 1989:206).
This emphasis on the ease of writing ability in orthographies which are phonemically based was
borne out by Downing (1986) when he tested his cognitive clarity theory with Papua New
Guinean children. From his research he formed three conclusions:
Children from a village where there was no school revealed they had some concept of the functions
of writing and about those aspects of language that are used in the written code. Children attending
schools where reading was taught in the local language had achieved even more cognitive clarity
40 2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction

about writing and language. However, children learning to read in English had suffered a setback.
While they had maintained their grasp of writings functions, they showed a lowered ability to
perceive how language is related to the written code (Downing 1986:12).
These conclusions have some bearing on the debate regarding the significance of regular
orthographies in instruction for beginning reading. In these conclusions it must be noted that the
local language was written in a phonemic orthography in contrast to English.
4
Downing related
the difference between the two schooled groups as being influenced by past experiences and the
teachers presentations of reading in terms of the mother tongue, on the one hand, and an
unfamiliar language, on the other. It was because of the first conclusion that children in the
experiment who had never attended school were less cognitively confused than children being
taught in English (Downing 1986:16), that certain postulates in the theory were reformulated.
These results do not specifically address the topic of orthography, but there is some evidence that
the difference in the language of instruction had some bearing on the outcome of the study.
As discussed above, the two methods of literacy instruction used in the studies were
developed after careful consideration of the theory and practice related to English which were
current at the time of formulation. There was also careful study of the socio-cultural factors and
the resources available to accommodate appropriate instructional methods being practised for
English. The thrust of this project was to research the connection between language complexity
and method of instruction when difficulty of acquisition of literacy does occur. If regular sound-
symbol correspondence in an orthography is not a significant factor in this debate, then other
areas of language complexity and socio-cultural factors need to be taken into consideration.
The languages used in the main study and the replication have orthographies based on
phonemic analyses. A description of the relevant features of the two languages is now presented,
firstly Urat and then Tok Pisin. Figure 2.1 shows a map of the two areas of study.

4
In phonemically based orthographies the graphic representation of a phoneme remains constant allowing the
same sound/symbol correspondence with few exceptions. This regularity makes a striking difference compared
with the English orthography where 44 sounds are represented by 26 symbols with many irregularities.
2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction 41



Adapted from Obrist van Eeuwijk (1992)
Figure 2.1. Map showing the two study areas
42 2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction

2.3.2. Pertinent aspects of Urat
The Urat language group of over 6,000 speakers live in the foothills of the Torricelli Ranges
in the East Sepik Province of Papua New Guinea. Urat belongs to the Wapei-Palei stock,
Torricelli phylum (Laycock 1973:72). There are three main dialects and the study was carried
out in five villages of the central dialect. Foley (1986) described the Torricelli phylum as a large
language group of 47 languages which
share a number of unusual typological features: SVO word-order, complex noun-class systems with
phonological shape being a determining factor, unusual pronoun prefixes to the verb, simple
morphological structure for verbs and irregular plurals for nouns (Foley 1986:241).
Urat is an isolate language within the Torricelli phylum which portrays similar unusual
typological features which have relevance for the study.
The initial phonology analysis of Urat was carried out by Baker and Baker (1981). Some
minor changes were made by Barnes (1989) and the practical orthography for consonants (as
used prior to the literacy program), is presented in Figure 2.2.
Bilabial Alveolar Alveopalatal Velar Glottal
Stops vl. p t k '
vd. b d g
Fricatives vl.
s sy
h
Affricates vl.
ch
vd. j
Nasals vd.
m n ny ng
Laterals vl.
hl
vd. l
Vibrants vl.
hr
vd. r
Semi-vowels vl.
hw hy
vd. w y
Figure 2.2. Consonant system of the Urat orthography
In the orthographic representation of the phonemes, digraphs are used to show prenasalisation of
the voiced stops, some phonemes in the alveopalatal position, and the differences between
voicing and voicelessness. These orthographic representations have potential for complications
in beginning literacy.
2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction 43

The orthographic inventory is realised as follows:
a b,mb ch d,nd e g,ng hl,lh hr,rh hy,ih i j,nj k l m n ny
* o p r s sy t u w hw,uh y '
Subsequent to the research, the symbol for the velar nasal was changed to as explained in
Appendix A.
The orthographic conventions are as follows:
The voiced stops b d g and the affricate j are written with prenasalisation
word medially as mb nd ng and nj.
The voiceless consonants hl hr hw hy are written as lh rh uh ih in
syllable-final positions (Barnes 1994).
The analysis of the Urat vowel system is presented in Figure 2.3.
Front Central Back
i u
e o
a
Figure 2.3. Vowel system of the Urat orthography
A typical vowel system of the Sepik languages, including languages of the Torricelli phylum, is
the seven-vowel system (Foley 1986:4854; Laycock 1984) presented in Figure 2.4.
Front Central Back
i u
e o
a
Figure 2.4. Typical vowel system of Sepik languages
In the Urat phonology, a potential orthography problem of contrast between vowels in the central
position is avoided by a pattern of vowel harmony. The vowel a is pronounced central in
unstressed syllables. Likewise, other vowels tend toward central in unstressed syllables and
vowel harmony helps to determine which vowel to write, for example, ykoh (stressed in the
final syllable) is written as yokoh. Although this system is acceptable and does not pose a
problem for mature readers, there are some potential complications for beginning literacy.
Another area which adds to the complexity of the phonology of this language is the
distribution of phonemes within syllables and syllables within words. The obligatory components
of a syllable are a consonant and a vowel (CV). There are six combinations with an optional
44 2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction

consonant syllable initial and up to two optional consonants syllable final: maximum expansion
from CV is CCVCC. Combinations of two-vowel sequences, with optional i or u as the second
member of the sequence are ei ai oi ui eu au ou. Words are formed with combinations of the
syllable patterns up to four syllables, for example:
CVC kum hawk
CV.CVC yowor meat
CCV.CV.CVC kru'esep pumpkin
CVV.CV.CCVC.CV loutungwarmbe wooden cross
When consonant sequences occur across syllable boundaries, especially in longer words, the
difficulties are compounded for the beginning reader and writer.
There are also difficulties in the spelling system for Urat resulting from complications with
morphophonemic rules. There are seven general rules (Barnes 1989) to explain omission and
elision of phonemes in the formation of words, but there are exceptions to four of these rules
with over-differentiation in spelling to satisfy community reactions to the orthography. When
considering the potential difficulties for literacy in Urat, the method of instruction chosen
particularly the initial code-breaking patterns introduced (compare Stanovich (1986) and the
Matthew effects)needed to be carefully planned.
2.3.3. Pertinent aspects of Tok Pisin
The other language of instruction used in the project was Tok Pisin, a lingua franca and one
of the three official languages of Papua New Guinea. For Tok Pisin, which Foley (1986:38)
noted has a simple phonemic system, the consonants and vowels are presented in Figure 2.5.
Bilabial Alveolar Velar
Stops vl. p t k
vd. b d g
Fricatives vl.
s
h
Nasals vd.
m n
Laterals vd.
l
Vibrants vd.
r
Semi-vowels vd. w y

Front Central Back
i u
e o
a
Figure 2.5. Consonant and vowel systems of the Tok Pisin orthography
2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction 45

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.
Mhlhusler (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.
46 2. Review of the Literature and Languages of Instruction

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:vvi) 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 1984:12, 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 1984:45).
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
Kwangamade 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).
48 3. Methods

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 Urat/Kwanga 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 situationstelling 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 stylesfield 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
3. Methods 49

The essential principles of a successful primer, as demonstrated by field testing, are the gradual
introduction of new elements (the central principle of the Psychophonemic method), provision for
independent reading by the use of syllable or letter drill (the central principle of syllable methods),
provision for understanding through the use of meaningful material (the central principle of sentence
and story methods) and provision for fluency by the use of adequate repetition (1959a.9) [sic] (Lee
1982:24).
These principles reflect methods accepted at the time of development. Almost a decade later,
after working with languages in Vietnam, Gudschinsky developed a pattern of focusing drills
which concentrated on teaching a new letter in combination with known letters. The inclusion of
these drills set the format of the primer lessons which is still being used today.
Gudschinsky believed that there was the most extensive application of linguistics to
problems of literacy in the materials prepared for this method (Gudschinsky 1976:45). This
extensive applicability of linguistics was shown to be so after her death, when Lee (1982) fully
developed detailed instructions to accommodate many possible differentiations of phonemically
based orthographies under fifteen headings: for example, teaching specific components in
different positions in syllables of different types, teaching clusters of letters, digraphs,
inseparable components, and other linguistic differences.
Gudschinsky also stated that the method presupposes the use of prepared textbooks and
materials because in many communities the teaching must be done by teachers who
themselves are barely literate (Gudschinsky 1976:46). To assist such teachers, the method is
linear in structure with specific formats for teaching different lesson patterns for
teaching letters
teaching functors (grammatical function words or affixes), and
revision lessons.
Concerning teaching functors, Gudschinsky pointed out that with our linguistic method for
teaching reading, functors have a very special rolethey are taught by sight-recognition in
contrast to the sounding out of contentives (Gudschinsky 1992:4). Such an emphasis on
functors demanded that, for the person preparing the materials, it was important to know
(a) a great deal about the occurrence and function of functors in various discourse genres, (b) the
meaningful matrix within which a functor can be taught, (c) the degree to which functors are
automatic or contrastive, and (d) the relationship between the functors and the chunking of the text
by a good reader (Gudschinsky 1992:4).
It is clear that such a detailed knowledge of grammar makes it necessary for training and
assistance be given to a person who is to prepare the materials. Where literacy programs are set
up in rural, non-industrialised communities, people experienced in linguistics need to be
available to assist in the preparation of materials.
In these materials a similar pattern of seven steps is the basis for each lesson format, so that
teachers with little training and expertise can repeat the lesson pattern with different content to
make teaching viable in their variable situations. The patterns and the preparation of materials
for these various lessons are now presented.
3.1.1. Lesson format
Before describing the lesson format in detail, some basic principles of literacy that
Gudschinsky (1973:48) considered as fundamental to the method are presented:
50 3. Methods

Four stages of a complete literacy program are
prereading
basic instruction in reading and writing
a bridge to a second language, and
independent reading (page 4).
A strategy for planning and implementing a program consists of
literature for independent reading
a tested practical orthography
an overall program plan
instructional materials and teachers guide
a trial of the materials
published materials
teacher training, and
classes (pages 45).
A person learns how to read only once, that is, the principle of what reading is is learned
only once (page 4).
A person can only learn to read in a language he [sic] understands (page 6):
That person is literate who, in a language that he [sic] speaks, can read and understand anything he
would have understood if it had been spoken to him; and who can write, so that it can be read,
anything that he can say (Gudschinsky 1973:5).
A person should be able to recognise parts of words to figure out what that word is; words
should be figured out in context (pages 78).
Every lesson must teach a person how to read.
Basically, the lesson plan follows the same format for teaching grapheme-phoneme
correspondence and grammatical forms, the functors. Beginning with a key picture and word (a
cultural, emotive, picturable item), the seven steps are as follows:
Step 1. Analysis (breakdown of the word into component parts, usually syllables, to isolate and
teach a particular letter)
Step 2. Synthesis (build-up of syllables by analogy using the new letter): synthesis is used to
mean focusing on smaller bits within a unit not in the sense of stringing smaller
bits together (Lee 1982:29)
Step 3. Identification (comparison of new syllables showing similar parts)
Step 4. Contrast (contrast of new and familiar letters in a syllable matrix)
Step 5. Word building (building of words using known syllables)
Step 6. Connected material (reading of connected material)
Step 7. Writing (dictation of syllables, words, sentences)
Gudschinsky considered the method to be analytic and the first six steps as the reading lesson. In
summary, these are
3. Methods 51

presentation of the key words from which to derive syllable patterns
analysis of the key word(s) into syllables
practice and drill, and
testing in connected reading (Gudschinsky 1973:29).
As an aid to teaching analogy in the practice and drill step, Gudschinsky suggested a syllable
chart gradually built as each letter is taught (Gudschinsky 1973:3032).
An important general statement, capturing the essence of the method, was made by
Gudschinsky after hearing some Hindi learners read. These learners were completing a course
and were at the late-primer or post-primer stage of reading. From this encounter Gudschinsky
noted that
good readers in general use the syllable as the unit of analysis when they find a word that they do
not immediately recognize, and good readers use the phrase as a unit in normal smooth reading. By
contrast, the poor readers use individual letters as a unit for deciphering new words, and are
frequently unable to blend the individual letter sounds to make a meaningful word. They read word
by word and often fail to recognize the phrase breaks, so that their best reading is meaningless.
These findings reinforce my conviction that efficient reading lessons for adults should teach these
two skills: the reading of new words by syllables, and the recognition of phrases at a glance
(Gudschinsky 1973:144).
The striking differences between good and poor readers in this situation prompted this statement
on the basic lesson patterns of the method. Gudschinsky prepared a series of eleven detailed
worksheets as a guide for producing primers that would lead to efficient reading lessons where
the two skills of reading new words by syllables and recognition of phrases would be
paramount (Gudschinsky 1973:145161).
These worksheets were meticulously detailed with up to seventeen steps stating directions
and constraints in each area. The three main groups were: orthography and spelling, the primer,
and the teachers guide. The titles for the six worksheets for construction of the primer are listed
to show the thoroughness of assistance in preparation and to indicate the amount of detail and
expertise needed to develop a satisfactory primer.
Worksheet 3: Steps in the construction of literacy primers
Worksheet 4: The first lesson
Worksheet 5: Primer lessons after the first one
Worksheet 6: Stories for the primer
Worksheet 7: Checklist for primer lessons
Worksheet 8: Charting primer progression
The thesis for a primer is
The basic units to be considered in primer making are the symbols and the grammatical words or
word-parts. These are to be introduced in controlled order, taught in useful arrangements, and
practised in meaningful connected material (stories) (Gudschinsky 1973:148).
is an example of a typical primer lesson format for a letter. An example of the detail used in the
patter for teaching a lesson is given in Appendix A.
52 3. Methods

kaukau
kau
kau
kaukau
kam
kamaut
tu
tumas
sanap
kamap

au
au
kau
au
rau
au
nau
au
mau
Long san papa i laik go long gaden.
Em i go i go na kamap long gaden
bilong em. Em i lukim gaden na, olaman,

kau
rau
nau
mau

pik bilong em i kamautim sampela kaikai.
Pik i kamautim kaukau, mami na pinat.
Em i kaikai kon na kumu tu.

Papa i lukim na ai bilong em i ret!
Em i laik raunim pik na paitim em

long stik. Tasol pik i lukim papa na
kau rau nau mau i ronowe i go pinis. Sori tumas! Papa
kai rai nai mai i sot long kaikai nau.
ku ru nu mu


- 64 -

- 65 -
Figure 3.1. Primer lesson for teaching the vowel sequence au in the Gudschinsky method
These two primer pages show the layout for the six steps for teaching reading with focus on
learning letters:
Analysis
Synthesis
Identification
Contrast
Word building
Connected material
Following the teaching of the six steps, dictation of syllables, words, and sentences are included
for the writing step. Some relevant comments on the application of the method are considered in
the next section.
3.1.2. Application
The method has been adapted to many different languages and used successfully in adult
literacy in a number of countries in South America and Africa, in Papua New Guinea, and other
countries, for example:
Peru (Larson and Davis 1981)
Africa (Barnwell 1979)
Guatemala (Vreeland 1986)
3. Methods 53

Despite the explicit principles on which this method was developed, however, there have been
problems in practice, specifically in preparing the materials and in teacher-training.
In the preparation of materials there have been two main areas of difficulty: the complexity
of the languages, and the need to choose acceptable key words, which allow the generation of
interesting texts written in familiar, everyday idiomatic language, with a restricted group of
available letters. Languages with complex consonant-vowel syllable structures pose a problem
because of the need to develop a variety of lessons to teach the positions of letters in different
word contexts. Such complexities make the Gudschinsky method a method that newly literate
indigenous teachers do not find easy to develop. Although the method was developed to
accommodate all syllable types in phonologically complex languages, these two difficulties,
concerned with language complexity and the selection of suitable key words, make the
production of primers in such languages, especially in the early stages, a formidable task.
The second difficulty of finding acceptable key words to introduce letters and grammatical
items in controlled order is a time-consuming one. Difficulties are compounded in some
languages because of the need to show contrasting features and to include the items in idiomatic,
interesting connected material with a restricted number of letters. A further difficulty, as
explained above, is the need to have an in-depth understanding of the grammatical constructions
of the language to facilitate preparation of lessons for the primers. Training speakers of the
language to control this aspect of the method takes a long time.
Training teachers to learn the patter (see Appendix A) and present the material in a
methodical, step-by-step way does not seem to have been a particular problem because the
structure is straightforward and generally acceptable. One of the problems in presenting the
patter, however, is that the connection between the logical, step-by-step activities is not always
understood, and the pages are often learned by rote, including the sight functor exercises. There
have been problems, also, in teaching the method in languages with multiple syllable types and
in training teachers to teach by developing problem-solving techniques instead of reading or
telling the content of material as a model.
It has been noted that languages with many different syllable types, including consonant
clusters and vowel sequences, have been difficult to teach. For example, the Angaatha language
in Papua New Guinea is the most divergent in the Angan family of twelve languages and the
phonological systems of these languages are especially complex (Foley 1986:236). Literacy
materials were prepared for Angaatha in the Gudschinsky method but there was little success,
mainly because of the heavy teaching and learning load with difficult and varied syllable patterns
(personal communication with R. Huismanfor some phonological complexities see Huisman
and Lloyd 1981).
The training of teachers to develop problem-solving techniques, instead of the traditional
pattern of showing and telling, has been documented by van Dyken (1984). After extensive
experience in developing and testing primers for the Gudschinsky method in Nigeria, van Dyken
researched the training needs of teachers using the method in Southern Sudan. She noted that in
Nigeria, linguists, with or without prior teacher training, could use the method successfully to
teach literacy to preliterate adults but found it difficult to train newly literate Nigerians to
follow the guidelines for teaching with the method (page 15):
To illustrate, Gudschinsky designed one section of a typical primer lesson to teach learners to
decipher new words independently. The design requires the learner to use analytical skills and
analogy clues built into drills, to sound out syllables independently. However, colleagues working in
54 3. Methods

Nigeria and Papua New Guinea reported that teachers using the method often read the item to the
learner before giving them a chance to try for themselves. In many cases, these teachers were
originally taught to read by rote methods which appeared incompatible with basic principles taught
by Gudschinsky (van Dyken 1984:15).
The problem for the teaching method, where students were expected to learn individually,
seemed to be a general problem in countries where the method was being applied. Hence, van
Dyken (1984:15) sought to discover the type of training necessary to enable such teachers
effectively to use the Gudschinsky method.
In assessing teaching practice, van Dyken noted
While actual teaching practices suggested that the teachers viewed their role as one of modelling
reading, analysis of the learning and teaching tasks suggested a problem-solving approach is
essential to the teaching of reading acquisition (van Dyken 1984:216).
The teachers saw their role as providing the learners with a model to mimic which clashed
with the perspectives of learning as a problem-solving process. van Dyken noted that the
Sudanese trainers were caught between two worldsone highly literate, the other notand
that they indicated that the teachers needed to do both: guide the learners to solve the problems
associated with teaching miscues, and provide a model of the reading process (van Dyken
1984:227).
Although van Dyken suggested that an innovative approach was necessary to integrate the
two ways of teaching to help learners integrate form and meaning, at the conclusion of the
research this idea was not followed. Instead, she made a further suggestion to make up the
difference in teaching technique by including a linguistic dimension in the training by teaching
the relationship between linguistics and reading (page 271). Such a conclusion suggests more
training of a theoretical nature in an effort to change the teaching pattern, rather than an
innovative approach which would allow traditional teaching and learning styles to be
incorporated.
In the Sudanese study, van Dyken (1984:267) had ruled out the possibility of a conflict of
cultural values rather than of a training need. In a controlled study in Papua New Guinea
(Stringer 1983), however, it was found that cultural patterns played an important part in the
teaching/learning process.
7
This research in the Waffa language tested the feasibility of using
primers designed for adults in the Gudschinsky method in instruction for children. The teacher in
the study had no formal school education but had experience as a teacher in vernacular
literacy. He had been trained in the teaching technique of problem-solving, and when teaching
with the Gudschinsky method, he did not follow the traditional pattern of telling the students and
hearing them repeat the material; he questioned in a way to make each student find the answer
and be able to read the targeted portion. He also sought to explain the logic of the drills with the
relationship to the key word, word building, and the story. Despite his efforts, the children
concentrated on learning each page or each unit by heart, indicating a lack of understanding of
the logical connection from the drills to word-building and to the connected material. For them,
meaning was not in focus in such a pattern of reading.
In connection with learning in a verbal medium in an Australian Aboriginal context Harris
(1980) noted that

7
Some of the material in this section on the Gudschinsky method is based on Stringer (1983).
3. Methods 55

while the content and expression of this learning by rote is in the verbal medium, the learners are
not learning about anything verbally or being actually instructed through verbal teaching methods
(Harris 1980:83).
If a comparable explanation of rote learning applies to the Waffa literacy situation, we see that
instruction was in the verbal medium and out of context; therefore, expectation of the learners
was that they were not learning about anything, so learning was by rote. In contrast to the
conclusion of van Dyken, this study indicated that the underlying issue in teaching the
Gudschinsky method was cultural, connected to cultural teaching and learning styles and
expectations of the learners in the learning process, rather than of a training need.
One of a number of influences that led to the development and the first trial of the Multi-
Strategy method was the close observation of the participants in this controlled study among the
Waffa group. In the final test of the study, it was noted that the memorisation of primer lessons,
especially the functor lessons, dominated the reading strategies used. Although the piece of prose
in the primer that was chosen to be read for the test (see Stringer 1983:278) included all known
syllables, it had not been taught in the trial classes. During testing, some of the students showed
confusion about the reading mode or strategy they should use: whether to read by sight as
practised in functor lessons and the key words, or to read by concentrating on the syllabic groups
in the words.
In the results, the memorised phrase patterns dominated in the types of miscues recorded.
Despite the recognition of the key word ivaari for the picture of an eel, the word ivaari was read
as ivaara by 80 percent of the students. The suffix combination -ivaara about that had been
learned in a previous functor lesson and the students did not respond to the meaning of the
passage about the eel. Some students also found it difficult to read aavaa that since the
combination aavaara about that had been learned in a functor lesson. All students had
difficulty reading the portion although each of the syllables and syllable combinations were
familiar to them. It was concluded that they repeated fixed patterns learned by rote and did not
transfer the knowledge they had mastered to a new situation.
From this study there developed the hypothesis that, from the position of the learner, an
eclectic pattern of teaching and learning with mixed modes or styles of learning presented in a
seemingly purposeless series of activities has the potential for confusion. This hypothesis
stimulated the development of the Multi-Strategy method, as presented in the next section.
In summary, the Gudschinsky method has a linguistically oriented, highly structured set of
prescribed steps which take the learner from a meaningful, culturally emotive word through a
process of analysis, synthesis, contrast, and comparison of the components with focus on one
new element to be learned. A syllable is the smallest unit isolated and phonemes are learned in
comparative environments of syllables. Known syllables are built into words and the words read
in a connected piece of prose where most of the words are comprised of known syllables. The
method was developed before the introduction of whole language instruction, so there is no
holistic emphasis similar to the way that it is presented in whole language pedagogy, although
reading for meaning is a strong underlying principle. The connected material is as idiomatic as
possible within the confines of restricted phonemes. It is basically a bottom-up method, with
focus on teaching all the phonemes of the language and building up to full, idiomatic stories of
interest for fluency in reading. We now turn to the development and description of the Multi-
Strategy method.
56 3. Methods

3.2. The Multi-Strategy Method
An analysis of the difficulties encountered by the Waffa children when using the
Gudschinsky primer (Stringer 1983) led to the hypothesis that there were two distinct modes of
learning presented in the materials:
Reading by whole units
Reading by acknowledging syllable groups in words to decipher the text
The mixing of these two modes of learning was in contrast to an earlier presentation of literacy
for adults in Waffa (Stringer and Hotz 1966; Stringer and Franklin 1980:3134; Stringer
1983:282305). In this basic syllable method, only two sight words and one sight functor were
introduced in the early stages of the first primer (of a series of five primers) to allow sentences to
be included from the first lesson. All other words were introduced with a picture, broken into
syllables, and built again before being used in sentences. Apart from the early, limited reading by
sight, the one mode of learning to read by recognising syllables in words was used consistently
throughout the series. It was found that on encountering the sight words while reading, learners
needed to change the focus of their learning to a different mode of access for understanding the
written symbols. This change of mode of learning seemed to disrupt rather than assist fluency in
reading.
The highly successful programs for adults and children using these materials in Waffa (for
example, see a report of one program, with 95 percent independent readers, in Stringer and
Franklin 1980) were in contrast to the poor response of the program for children when materials
were changed to the Gudschinsky method. After the completed program, 10 percent of the
children were reading. The two programs were similar regarding theory: working from a bottom-
up perspective in a linear way, and regarding Gudschinskys fundamental principles of literacy
mentioned above. The difference was in the teaching patterns employed, and the different modes
of learning the learners were expected to engage in when using the materials. It was evident that
further research was necessary on the theory and practice of beginning literacy and their
relevance to the socio-cultural context.
3.2.1. Developing the method in a socio-cultural context
An extended study of the theory and practice of reading and writing, presented in a
condensed form in Chapter 2, led to the development of the reading and writing curricula of the
Multi-Strategy method.
8
Earlier research into the cultural learning styles in Papua New Guinea
(Stringer 1983:4458) showed that current literacy practice and the culture of practice of
traditional education in Papua New Guinea presented a paradox. Two interrelated problems were
how to incorporate
the everyday, cultural learning contexts known to the learners, and
texts written in everyday, familiar language in the materials.
At the time of this earlier developmental research, practitioners in Australia were
incorporating process writing (Graves 1983) and the psycholinguistic theories of the reading
process of Goodman and Smith (realised in Whole Language practice) into beginning literacy. In

8
Some of the material in sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 is based on Stringer (1988, 1992b).
3. Methods 57

Papua New Guinea, despite the traditional learning styles of observation, imitation, active
participation, and learning by doing, there seemed to be insurmountable obstacles to introducing
the whole language instructional techniques in the different cultural settings.
Firstly, in non-formal, beginning literacy in Papua New Guinea, it is necessary to recruit
men and women with little or no previous training and to instruct them in the teaching patterns
during short courses. On the other hand, a whole language teacher needs to be fully trained with
expertise in guiding individuals in the processes of reading and writing, especially in areas where
specific teaching is needed. An example of such teaching could be the need for more
individualised, incidental teaching of graphophonics for reading new words and for spelling.
Goodman (1992:50) noted that one role of whole language teachers (among many roles) is to
collaborate with learners in defining and solving problems and seeking answers to questions.
Secondly, there are virtually no printed materials in many of the 862 reported languages of
Papua New Guinea from which to set up a print environment to provide the necessary literature,
whereas whole language instruction is dependent on an available variety of suitable literature for
the levels of progress of learners to develop into literacy. Finally, teachers trained for short
periods need a purposeful, straightforward, structured approach, without a strong dependency on
instructional aids, whereas whole language teachers make their own decisions and build their
own implementations based on their own understandings (Goodman 1992:47).
The literature review of theory and practice of literacy in Chapter 2 shows that it is
necessary to include both top-down and bottom-up processes at some time in the instructional
process; contention is based on the degree of focus in any one area. The practical issue is not on
the necessity of grapho-phonemes, syntax, and meaning for the reading process, but on where
and how to begin to break the code into literacy. The discussion in Chapter 2 covered the
differences between a bottom-up emphasis (e.g., Shuy 1975) and a top-down emphasis as
exemplified in whole language instruction (Goodman 1992). In the development of the
curriculum for the Multi-Strategy method, it was argued that, if learning to read involves both
behaviour skills and cognitive processes, then breaking the code from both positions
concurrently at the onset of reading and writing seemed appropriate. In such a model, the more
traditional methods of instruction for the letter-sound correspondence could be presented as well
as instructional methods from whole texts with emphasis on meaning for the linguistic and
pragmatic contexts of reading and writing. As pointed out in Chapter 2, this division is not
inconsistent with theory presented by cognitive psychologists such as Sweller (1990).
Separate emphases on the two approachesbottom-up, sound/symbol print relationships
and top-down, holistic, meaning-centred print relationshipswould allow the inclusion of
appropriate socio-cultural contexts to be reflected in the materials and instructional procedures. It
was realised that the development of a method with a dual emphasis would be compatible with
additional socio-cultural factors: pragmatic, sociological, and psychological.
From a pragmatic point of view, it was necessary to formulate strategies that could
be presented in short, group oriented training courses and workshops for teachers
be handled by teachers innovatively after an understanding of the basic principles
fit into a simple, straightforward structure, and
require a minimum of daily preparation and making of aids such as books, charts, and flash
cards on which each lesson would depend.
58 3. Methods

With respect to social relations, the method needed to allow
teachers to have status, responsibility and satisfaction in their respective areas
teachers to work together without competing, and
learners to participate in group learning contexts with peer teaching and learning.
In the psychological area
teachers needed to be confident and in control in their respective areas of responsibility, and
learners needed an opportunity to be in control of their own learning for a positive
introduction to literacy to be generated.
Keeping these socio-cultural factors in mind, a two-track model was developed (Stringer
1988) with both tracks involving all levels of the reading and writing processes, but with separate
and distinctive emphases. One emphasis was holistic, meaningful learning with cognitive
strategies of meaning and comprehension in focus. The other emphasis was analytic, step-by-step
learning of syllables (and letters) from the context of meaningful words and sentences, with
awareness of phonemes and syntax in focus. Teachers were given training in both areas, but each
person specialised and became the teacher for one track, according to his or her preferred
teaching and learning style. The dichotomy of holistic/analytic is analogous with the cognitive
learning styles of field independent/field dependent discussed in Chapter 2.
The model was tested in the Enga Province of Papua New Guinea (Stringer 1985, 1987a,
1987b, 1990), incorporating multiple strategies within the two separate patterns of instructional
procedures as reported in Chapter 2. The success of this trial prompted the writing of a resource
book (Stringer and Faraclas 1987) to help people develop a literacy program in a language where
previously literacy has not been conducted. The book includes many aspects for a complete
literacy program; from an initial survey and orthography design (if needed), through teacher
training, instructional classes, to ongoing classes for fluent readers and creative writers. The
method was refined to describe clearly the basic elements needed in a successful literacy
program. The model and materials used in the adult programs in Urat and Tok Pisin are now
presented.
3.2.2. Model and materials
The main features of the model are as follows:
1. Two distinct ways of presenting literacy from different theoretical orientations: one emphasis
on holistic creativity in reading and writing for meaning; the other emphasis on learning
discrete skills necessary for reading and writing
2. Two different ways of training teachers to present the materials: one emphasis on learning
how to teach students to use holistic strategies when reading and writing; the other emphasis
on learning how to teach students to use different strategies to read new words and write with
correct spelling
In relation to the reading process, Duffy and Roehler (1987) defined strategies in contrast to
skills:
Strategies are plans readers use flexibly and adaptively, depending on the situation. Skills in contrast
are procedures readers overlearn through repetition so that speed and accuracy are assured every
time the response is called for (Duffy and Roehler 1987:415).
3. Methods 59

The point Duffy and Roehler made was that skills needed to be taught so that students
conceptualized reading as a strategic process and used skills strategically, rather than as
automatically learned procedures, to remove blockages to meaning in real text. Clay discussed
the importance of acquiring strategic control for independent reading (Clay 1991:288289)
and stressed that learning to read and write involves a literacy learning system that encompasses
a network of strategies (Clay 1991:325345). In the Multi-Strategy method, different strategies
are used for both approaches. Effort has been made to teach skills in relation to context and
meaning, not as isolated elements that readers overlearn through repetition without reference
to meaning and control in the literacy process. In Figure 3.2, a model for the Multi-Strategy
method is presented:
PROCESSES OF
READING AND WRITING
v N
Story Track Word-Building Track

Student-
Centred
Content
Control
Emphasis on
Holistic Creativity
with
Meaning and Comprehension

Acquired by practising
Creative Acts

Emphasis on
Analytic Skills
and
Accuracy of Form

Learned by practising
Discrete Skills

Teacher-
Centred
Content
Control
N v
SELF-INTEGRATION
+
FLUENT READERS AND WRITERS
Figure 3.2. The two-track model of the Multi-Strategy method
In the two separate and distinct approachesthe Story Track and the Word-Building Track
9

learners are provided opportunities to learn in different ways. They are given
the chance to choose the ways to learn that suit them best
time to learn when they are cognitively ready
opportunities to build on what they know, and
experiences to become competent in extending beyond what they know.
Separating the reading process according to the two distinct approaches is shown by defining the
process of gaining literacy in two ways: as acquisition and learning. The main difference is

9
The Word-Building Track material is not in the form of worksheets with written exercises that each learner
completes per lesson but a series of four books. The first is a reading readiness book which includes visual
discrimination and other readiness exercises. The other three are primers to teach reading through the grapho-
phoneme relationships of the language.
60 3. Methods

whether the focus is on meaning or on form (skills). Sheridan (1986) defines reading acquisition
as
the process by which people, in order to satisfy inner needs to understand meaning, teach themselves
about reading. In a reading acquisition activity, the mood of the classroom must change from a
place where accuracy is important and errors are corrected; to a place where the reader is allowed
free reign to acquire in his or her own way (Sheridan 1986:500502).
The Story Track allows this process of acquisition to take place. Students are given the
opportunity to interact with print in many varied activities so that they can teach themselves
about the literacy process. The Story Track is learner-centred. The four short lessons
(approximately fifteen minutes) centre around a weekly, culturally relevant theme (usually a
picturable item, that is, a person, an animal or an object) chosen by the teachers or learners. The
inclusion of the theme is the cohesive factor in the procedure and is the central topic in activities.
In the general format for the Story Track lessons, firstly the teacher and learners join in a
story-generating experience about the theme, for example, a village activity, a drama, or mime.
As a group, the learners generate the Experience Story of up to five sentences. The teacher writes
this story on the chalkboard or a large sheet of paper as it is generated and then leads the learners
in a pattern of reading by modelling. Next, the learners listen to and discuss a Listening Story on
the theme with the teacher. In this activity the teacher models fluent reading and guides learner
interaction with questions for prediction and comprehension. Following this, each learner
chooses a story and reads while the teacher reads with some of them to encourage them and to
note their progress. Then they read with the teacher from a large copy of the Shared Book and
write a Creative Story on the theme. In summary, the Story Track lesson components are as
follows:
1. The culturally relevant Experience Story generated by the learners, written by the teacher,
and then read with the teacher as a model
2. The Listening Story on the theme read by the teacher with learner interaction through
comprehension questions
3. Individual reading of stories including encouragement through reading with the teacher
4. Reading the large-sized Shared Book with the teacher as the model and individual reading
(including the smaller copies)
5. Writing creatively
(Components 2 and 3 are combined for the second fifteen-minute period of time.)
The materials for the Story Track consist of stories relevant to the community, and written,
illustrated, and published by the teachers, community members, or the learners. The topics and
the genres of this written material depend on the choices of the writers in the community. The
only necessary items to prepare in advance are a large-sized story book of four or five pages with
smaller multiple copies for each week, and interesting stories to be read to the learners as
Listening Stories for prediction and comprehension practice.
In contrast to reading acquisition, Sheridan (1986:502) stated that reading learning is usually
taught to us and focuses more on form (sound-symbol relationships, decoding, correct
pronunciation) and less on meaning. The Word-Building Track allows reading and writing
learning to take place, where the teacher presents the forms and the students master each skill
with accuracy.
3. Methods 61

There are four workbooks, one containing pre-reading and pre-writing (after Oatridge 1980)
activities and three primers. The pre-reading/pre-writing activities are as follows:
1. Preparing for phonological awareness by listening to beginnings of words (see Stringer 1982
for variations)
2. Training for visual awareness by selecting pictures, letters, syllables, and words that are the
same, and comparing the differences
3. Training in left-to-right orientation by drawing a series of three pictures of an activity in a
logical sequence of events
4. Training to write forms of letters in contrasting sets
In considering tests for assessing reading readiness Clay (1979b) noted that for children
Many research studies have found no benefit in training programmes derived directly from such test
results. The pictorial and geometric stimuli used with young retarded readers did not produce gains
in reading skill. And oral language training was no more useful. This may well be because they were
learning to analyse data which they did not require in the reading task and they were not learning
anything that was directly applicable in the reading activity. To try to train children to read on
pictures and shapes or even on puzzles, seems a devious route to reading. Preparation can be
done more directly with written language (Clay 1979b:7).
Although the context of these comments is remediation for children, these principles have import
for children and adults, especially in situations where print is not part of community life. In the
two studies in this research, visual discrimination exercises for the adults were confined to
identification of print. The readiness activities were planned for a four-week period but were
completed in three weeks (fifteen hours of instruction) as requested by the learners in the Urat
study. As it will be noted in Chapters 4 and 5 below, the follow-up research revealed that this
was seen to be adequate except for writing readiness, where many of the ex-students expressed
difficulty with writing.
In the Word-Building Track primers, each section includes two key words, a sentence-
making word, and sentences containing those words and other words built from syllables already
learned. One section is taught per week and each key word is taught in four, fifteen-minute
lessons per day. The role of the teacher is to teach particular skills perceived to be necessary for
learning to read and write. The learners practise and perfect each skill with emphasis on accuracy
of form. The teacher structures each lesson and controls the content so learners can master
discrete skills step-by-step. Through analysis and synthesis the learners understand how to
recognise syllables and letters in words and words in sentences. They also learn how to write by
forming letters and spelling correctly. All of the material is culturally appropriate and
meaningful, but there is more emphasis on form than meaning. The primer sections are not
specifically graded with each section dependent on the other.
The four components for teaching a key word are as follows:
1. Teaching the new letter from the key word through analysis of the word into syllables and
synthesis from syllables back to the word
2. Learning the syllables by contrast and building of words (known and new) through games, if
feasible
3. Learning the word in the syntax of a sentence through analysis and synthesis, and reading the
word in the context of a piece of prose
4. Writing of correct form with emphasis on spelling
62 3. Methods

These basic components were presented in a different format in the studies, with some parts
taught on different days (see Stringer and Faraclas 1987). As a result of the research and input
from Rempel (1992), a linear format was developed, with all components taught each day in a
regular pattern. This format is presented below in Chapter 5, and a simplified way of writing and
preparing primer sections using this format is given in detail in Appendix B.
The teachers teach each track for approximately an hour each day. The ideal is to have two
teachers; one for each track. This allows for
short training programs where all teachers are exposed to both tracks but each specialises in
the one that suits his or her preferred learning style
teachers to be in control of one specific area, to understand fully the basic principles and
teach innovatively
less preparation
status and satisfaction in the area of responsibility, and
a manageable number of students to teach when the class is divided.
A summary of the teaching patterns for each track is included in Appendix B (see also Stringer
1992a:1617). Details for teaching each lesson are found in Stringer and Faraclas (1987). Figure
3.3 shows an example of a typical section of a primer.

Figure 3.3. Sample of a two-page primer section for the Work-Building Track
3. Methods 63

These pages of the primer illustrate the primer format that was used in the two studies. As a
result of the research, the format was changed and tested in Kwanga with children and adults as
presented and discussed in Chapter 5 (see also Appendices C and K). In the next section, some
relevant comments on the application of the method are considered.
3.2.3. Application
During the short time since the publication of Working together for literacy (Stringer and
Faraclas 1987), there has been some application of the method with positive results. This has
occurred in
Papua New Guinea (Simpson 1988)
Solomon Islands (Allen 1991)
Cameroon (Rogers 1992), and
Egypt (Dale 1993).
The method has been applied in training programs in other countries in AfricaZaire and Kenya
(Morgan 1993)with adaptations using the Amharic script for instruction in Ethiopia (Breeze
and Morgan 1991; Morgan 1992). The long history of literacy in Papua New Guinea has resulted
in some language groups developing programs where existing primer series have been used for
the Word-Building Track, and new materials have been written by the communities for the Story
Track to be taught concurrently with the primers; for example, McCarthy and Gibson (1993).
One area reported to be a potential problem in programs where the Multi-Strategy method is
used, is the difficulty of providing finance for two teachers. In the Enga Province, after
successful classes with two teachers, the programs were changed to accommodate one teacher
per classbased partly on financial considerationswith the result that training programs for
teachers were extended from six weeks to ten. In other language groups, classes have progressed
well with two teachers, each taking responsibility for separate areas and supporting each other in
administration (e.g., Simpson 1988; Lock 1993; and McCarthy and Gibson 1993).
Another area that seems problematic is the preparation of materials. The areas of concern are
two-fold: the amount of material that needs to be prepared to provide a print environment in the
Story Track, and the difficulty of national literacy personnel controlling the preparation of the
primers in the Word-Building Track. The preparation of reading material to provide a print
environment is flexible and is related to the situational context in each program.
There are successful programs where nationals have prepared all of the materials for the
Story Track, either preceding or during the programs, and worked with experienced personnel to
complete the Word-Building Track primers. A simplified pattern of generating primer sections
was tried with success (Stringer 1993, see Appendix B) but some supervision was given.
Choosing key words for the systematic introduction of syllables was the most difficult part but
this was overcome to some extent once the writers were trained. It was found that there were few
crucial constraints. Generating texts for the primers with limited phonemes is not a particular
problem because the texts can be short, idiomatic, and focused on the key word. There is not the
need to have longer texts to give learners practice in reading because the Story Track provides
such material as a complement to the Word-Building Track.
64 3. Methods

3.3. Comparison of the Gudschinsky and Multi-Strategy Methods
The main difference between the Gudschinsky and Multi-Strategy methods is the addition of
holistic activities which focus on meaning at the textual level and are structured to form the Story
Track in the Multi-Strategy method. The basic patterns for these activities were originally taken
from two sources: publications from the Reading Treatment and Research Centre (1983) and
Fairfield Park Primary School (Duggan, Halley-Coulsen, Johns, and McFarlane 1983) in
Victoria, Australia. Both booklets described different methods for teaching with meaning focus
at the textual level. Ideas were gleaned from the methods and adapted to the socio-cultural
situation in which the Multi-Strategy method was applied. These ideas were developed into the
Story Track lessons as described above.
In the booklet from the Research Centre, three basic convictions underlying the methods
outlined were stated:
1. Reading is the process of getting meaning from print. It is an active, thinking process, based
on experience, competence in language, and perceptual competence.
2. The reader uses syntactic, semantic, and graphophonic cues to scan the reading material and
derive hypotheses which are then tested for meaning using the same cueing systems.
3. The primary objective of the teacher is to improve the strategies which the child is already
using to get meaning from print (Reading Treatment and Research Centre 1983:2).
It is important to note that specific focus is on meaning in each of these basic convictions; in the
methods described there were only three incidental references to graphophonics. This same focus
on meaning is the basis of the Story Track. In this track, attention is not given to specific
teaching of graphophonics within a meaningful reading or writing event. This lack of focus on
graphophonics enables learners to concentrate on the reading and writing processes from the
aspect of meaning, not from the aspect of specific parts of words which in themselves have no
meaning.
In the comparison between the Gudschinsky and the Multi-Strategy methods, this inclusion
of meaning focus in text-based activities in the Multi-Strategy method allows learners to interact
with a variety of culturally relevant, idiomatic text material separate from the systematic teaching
of graphophonics in the Word-Building Track sessions. There is a different purpose for the
connected material in the Word-Building Track primers. The short, idiomatic pieces of prose are
included for two reasons: to give practice in reading the syllables and phonemes that are in focus
in a meaningful context, and to satisfy a sense of closure in the learning process for that lesson.
This focus of the connected material adds to the ease of development of the materials. As
mentioned above, one of the difficulties of developing materials for the Gudschinsky method is
generating idiomatic, interesting texts for reading practice with a limited set of phonemes.
Apart from the difference in the focus on the connected material, the Gudschinsky method
and the Word-Building Track are similar, especially in basic principles and purposes. It will be
recalled from the research cited in Chapter 2 that to identify syllables, and to segment words into
syllables was easier and more spontaneous than to identify and segment writing into phonemes
(Adams 1990, for English; Ferreiro 1994, for Spanish; Pontecorvo 1994, for Italian).
In both the Gudschinsky method and the Multi-Strategy Word-Building Track the syllable is
the unit of pedagogy, and awareness of phonemes is learned through contrast, but the material is
3. Methods 65

presented in different activities for each method. In the lesson presentations, both methods
include
culturally meaningful key pictures and key words as the focus in teaching particular letters
teaching from the unit of the syllable in contrast
word building activities
connected reading material, and
the mechanics and form of writing.
There are differences in the lesson presentations, however, which extend to differences in the
learning processes in each method.
Firstly, in the analysis of the key word in the Gudschinsky method, only the syllable in focus
is separated from the word and the word is learned by sight. For example, to teach the letter t
using the word tamiok a small axe, the syllable ta is isolated, then the vowel a is further
isolated. The syllables mi and ok are not taught and tamiok is learned by sight. The presentation
would be as follows:
tamiok
ta
a
In contrast, in the Word-Building Track lessons the whole word is analysed and all syllables
learned. In each key word lesson there is one new syllable in focus (in which there is only one
new letter). All letters in other syllables are known and generally all of the other syllables have
been introduced previously. For example, the word tamiok is analysed as ta - mi - ok then the
syllable to be learned, ta is isolated. The syllables mi and ok would have been taught previously.
The presentation would be as follows:
tamiok
ta - mi - ok
ta
As an extension, there is synthesis, building back to the meaningful word.
ta
ta - mi - ok
tamiok
Conversely, if the syllable ok is to be taught, ta and mi would have been taught previously and
the pattern would be as follows:
66 3. Methods

The analysis:
tamiok

ta - mi - ok
ok
The synthesis:

ok
ta - mi - ok
tamiok
Secondly, in the Gudschinsky method the syllables are taught by analogy in the synthesis
step, and by further drills to show identification and contrast of the letter (phoneme) in focus. In
the Multi-Strategy method there are no drills, but syllables are learned in context with focus on
letters (phonemes) by contrast of syllables from a matrix of known syllables in boxes, from
which word building strategies also are taught.
Finally, the Multi-Strategy method is designed so that learning to read by holistic strategies
(that is, with sight words, sight syllables, or sight phrases) is not necessary in the Word-Building
Track. In this track, lesson material is developed so that learners read words and texts comprising
known syllables and phonemes, except for the new key words where one new phoneme may
occur. The difficulty of generating idiomatic reading material with limited phonemes in the
Gudschinsky method has led to the inclusion of sight words and sight functors in primer lessons
for some languages. Although including sight words allows more efficiency in preparing the
materials, it is less efficient for beginning readers when strategies for mixed modes of access to
reading are required during the reading process.
Morgan (1993) advocated some main points of the Multi-Strategy approach which focus on
some basic principles that are different from the Gudschinsky approach:
1. The development of the literacy teachers in their own command of reading and writing skills
by showing them how to create their own materials
2. The ongoing process of developing the pedagogical skills of these literacy teachers through
in-service training and continued production of materials
3. The provision for global and linear learners through the story and word-building tracks
4. The recognition that many cognitive skills are needed for anyone [sic] to become fluent
readers and writers, i.e., the need for both meaning based and decoding based methodologies
regardless of individual learning styles
5. The provision for a lot of easy reading material during the beginning literacy classes
6. The provision for creative writing from the onset of literacy classes
7. The involvement of mother tongue speakers in creating interesting and cultrally [sic]
appropriate basic literacy material
8. The ownership of the literacy program granted to the local communities through the creation
of local literacy/language committees (Morgan 1993:3)
These points emphasise the predominant features of the Multi-Strategy method and its socio-
cultural significance, particularly the development of the teachers in literacy techniques, and the
ownership of the program by the local communities. These factors are the fundamental
foundation on which the approach is based.
3. Methods 67

In summary, one of the purposes for the present research was to apply the Multi-Strategy
method in programs with adult learners
to ascertain its acceptability for literacy in phonologically complex languages, and
to overcome some of the frustrations experienced by literacy workers helping to develop
programs in such languages as Angaatha mentioned above.
The Multi-Strategy method has two emphases in producing meaning: a holistic emphasis at
the text-based level in the Story Track, and a specific emphasis at the syllable-graphophonic-
based level in the Word-Building Track. Within each track, however, interaction takes place
between all levels. In both tracks the content is presented in a structure of four short lesson
periods. The lesson format has a consistent procedure, but there is an allowance for flexibility of
presentation according to the culture and the teaching/learning style of the teacher. Each track is
taught separately, and ideally, by different teachers who are trained specifically to teach in the
style that fits the materials and the purposes confined to each track.
As the learners gain expertise in each area, integration of the separate emphases develops
individually when each person is cognitively ready. The holistic emphasis on meaning, with
themes that suit the socio-cultural interests of the community, gives opportunity for daily reading
and writing of idiomatic texts and helps to develop the notion of a word, word patterns, and
syntax skills. This emphasis on reading and writing prose in the Story Track alleviates the
pressure of including long sections of idiomatic texts when focusing on learning word
components, building words, and reading and writing with correctness in the Word-Building
Track. Such a dual emphasis allows learners more interaction with written language. This
approach allows an opportunity also, for learners to master the phonological complexities of the
language more easily and competently in beginning literacy, than a single emphasis on either
top-down or bottom-up instruction would allow.
It will be recalled that, in this project, the Gudschinsky and Multi-Strategy methods were
applied in two interventions in Urat and Tok Pisin, among culturally similar groups in the East
Sepik Province, Papua New Guinea. There are three areas of the studies which apply to the two
interventions: the design, the instruments for testing, and the dependent variables. These three
areas are presented at this stage before describing the main study in Urat and the replication in
Tok Pisin.
3.4. Design, Testing Instruments, and Dependent Variables
The design for this project was developed to allow comparison between the two
interventions in a systematic way with coherent but manageable structure and control. The
design was included to make the sheer physical task of implementation, continuity, and testing
possible. An effort was made to ensure equivalence on certain variables, such as
teacher education and training
participants literacy contact, and
time on task (with watches made available to the teachers).
Throughout the two programs, however, unexpected social and cultural factors and events made
many changes necessary. Such changes unavoidably reduced the neatness and controllability of
the interventions. Ethnographic data, in the form of interviews, were also collected from the
teachers in the formative stages and from teachers and participants after the completion of the
programs.
68 3. Methods

3.4.1. The design
An experimental, multiple post-test only design was applied with two treatment groups
(Gudschinsky method instruction and Multi-Strategy method instruction) which included four
occasions of testing for comparison between the two groups as shown in Figure 3.4. It was
expected that each group would be a reasonably representative group in Papua New Guinea
communities, with the expected range of initial competencies covered.
In this design the sample was randomly selected within each village and the baseline survey
was used to determine equivalence between groups. The survey included
demographic data
literacy contact information
scores for concepts about print questions
letter and word recognition, and
writing (Appendix C).
The Concepts About Print Test (Clay 1972) was used to help separate the literate from the
preliterate community members who wanted to join the programs. This test proved to be a good
predictor of the reading ability of those tested. Book 1 of the Niugini Readers Grades 1 & 2,
titled The big pig, was adapted and substituted for Sand from the Clay test. The text was
translated into the two languages of the studies (see a sample page for Urat in Appendix D). Clay
(1991:149150) elaborates changes necessary for other cultures and languages. In the adaptation,
the different text and pictures fitted the instructions with minor changes made to the tasks to
accommodate the tests.
3. Methods 69

Gudschinsky
Program Given


Baseline
Measure
+
+
Occasion
11 weeks
Occasion
15 weeks
Occasion
20 weeks
Occasion
24 weeks
Treatment One + + + + + +
Differences due to
treatment--------------------------------------------------------------


{Comparison to
{assure equivalence


Sample

Sample

Randomisation
of allocation
within villages


Target

Population


Differences due to
treatment-------------------------------------------------------------


Treatment Two ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Baseline
Measure
^
^
Occasion
11 weeks
Occasion
15 weeks
Occasion
20 weeks
Occasion
24 weeks

Multi-Strategy
Program Given

Figure 3.4. The experimental design
One of the socio-cultural features that became obvious during the gathering of the baseline
information was participants personal discomfort when the questions were not able to be
answered or performed correctly. Some of the questions about literacy were not expected to be
known by preliterate people but, despite explanations to this effect, some people were distressed
when they could not perform well. In this section, we look in some detail at the tests and testing
procedures for the four occasions in the two programs. Making adjustments to put participants at
ease was an underlying consideration, not only in the testing but also in the instructional
procedures in the programs.
3.4.2. The testing instruments
During the teaching sessions, opportunity was given for the teachers to do informal
evaluation as they read with the learners, heard them read, and checked their writing. It was
expected that the teachers would also make a more formal, weekly check on reading to ensure
that each individual was being monitored (for example, see Stringer and Faraclas 1987:19, 39
40). Teachers in the Gudschinsky classes were trained to include a similar weekly check.
Quantitative assessments for comparative purposes were given on four occasions. In the
literature it was difficult to find any information on the procedure and format of such quantitative
70 3. Methods

tests where a contribution was expected to be given by individuals without prompting from
peers. One way that such testing can be accomplished is given in detail by Stringer and Faraclas
(1987:8790), where three venues are used
with participants being instructed in one
with individuals moving from there to the second venue for testing, and then
proceeding to the third venue to take part in supervised activities until all have been tested.
When this procedure was tried in the adult program in Urat, it was unacceptable; there were not
enough venues or testing personnel and treating people in such an individual way seemed to
cause stress.
On the first occasion, the testing was carried out in the one available venue (the communal
church building) with three testers. Participants were instructed to wait their turn and then leave
after being tested. In the course of the testing, one young woman became so stressed she began
crying and others showed signs of anxiety, while those who had been tested were reluctant to
leave. The importance of eliminating anxiety from literacy learning is discussed by Downing
(1982). As the program progressed, there was less tension shown when giving individual
responses. At this stage in the program, it was obvious that another more comfortable way had to
be found to collect assessment data for comparison.
In the test on the first occasion, a number of procedures were included to make the students
feel at ease. The test was explained by the test supervisor so that the participants would know
what to expect. All students were given a piece of paper (with a sentence printed on it) on which
they were asked to write their names. This was a familiar activity which all could accomplish.
Students were then asked to read to one of the testers: first, a new sentence and then one they had
been given. All contributions were recorded on audio-tape. Next, the tester asked the student to
point out specific items, that is, two words and three syllables from the sentences read. Finally,
the tester chose a word from a list of known key words and asked the student to write it from
memory and then create and write a sentence including the word.
In giving a different sentence to the students individually, it was expected that they would
try to read it to add to their confidence before being asked to read it to the tester. This worked
well for the first few, but those who could not read asked their peers to help them read their
sentences correctly. The sentences were changed for these participants and the test went on, but
much closer supervision was needed if we were to use the same procedure in future tests.
One way to avoid some of these problems was to consider collecting more descriptive and
interpretive data for analysis. Such data would need to be collected by each teacher in the course
of the teaching program. Considering the short training, however, the lack of materials and
places to keep contributions from each student, such data would be difficult to collect and
analyse. At the end of the program, the teachers were certainly aware of the progress of each of
their students, but to require informal, interpretive assessments to be recorded each week for
each student seemed too much to expect from volunteer teachers in the circumstances in which
they worked. It would detract, also, from the systematic nature of the comparison.
The original testing format was continued with a number of changes to help relieve stress. In
the test format there were four components: recognition of words and elements within words,
reading, comprehension, and writing (see Appendix E for the final test format). As the classes
progressed, the learners were less anxious about being asked to give individual contributions. At
3. Methods 71

the beginning of each test, the participants were given more detail on what to expect to make
them feel more at ease.
For each test there were two or three trained testers to interact with individual students. The
first two items tested were identification of words and elements within words to give an
opportunity for each person to succeed before the reading section. Although it was less accurate,
it was more convenient for the testers to have the students point to the item to be identified rather
than have multiple copies where each item could be marked in some way. To help alleviate
tension, any negative feedback for an incorrect response, as well as any indication of the correct
response, was discouraged.
To control for comparability and continuity between groups, it would have been preferable
for the researcher to do all of the testing, but the physical and cultural situation made that
impossible. With the help of community volunteers the process became more manageable; the
teachers were able to continue with their classes while individuals went to village houses nearby
for testing. Some difficulties occurred when the testers had little or no experience with literacy
testing. Although each tester practised in trial situations before the tests, some difficulties
occurred with the use of the cassette recorders, the format and language of testing, and
prompting, which is acceptable in such a cultural setting.
The underlying cultural setting of group-oriented activities made it more acceptable for
students to return to the classroom after being tested. To help control for a contamination effect
through telling and copying, two or three similar excerpts for reading were prepared. These
excerpts were short, covered similar content (each in different contexts), and contained a similar
number of words of equal difficulty. These words included the same elements but with a variety
of word formations and syntax. Testers rotated the texts so that students did not know which
actual text to expect. In the final test, all students were expected to read from four longer
excerpts of texts, three of which had two different but similar sections for rotation.
There was some misunderstanding in communication when testing in both of the programs.
In the Tok Pisin situation, the second language was not always understood. The Urat program
proved more difficult because it was necessary to translate the test instructions into Urat and
check them for accuracy. For the early tests in Urat, even after using different drafts in trials,
there were still misunderstandings. One such misunderstanding became clear when the responses
to the comprehension questions continued to be other than were expected. During testing, after
the participant re-told what he or she thought had happened in the passage read, there were two
questions asked: what do you think might have happened before that? and, what do you think
might have happened after that? It was necessary to make the questions generic because of the
different texts in the instrument and the different responses.
When the Urat translation of the test format was translated back into Tok Pisin, which was
used by the researcher to check the sense, the meaning was acceptable. But it was not until an
English speaker translated the questions back into English that the misunderstanding became
clear. The two questions translated as: can you remember (think, sort out) what comes first?
and, can you remember what comes at the end? Thus the responses were correct as repeats of
the first and last instances in the passage, but not for the expected projection of thought outside
the passage read, giving clear evidence of understanding.
Since there were two different instructional methods involved, the texts used on the early
testing occasions were prepared according to the constraints of the material taught in the primer
series. The degree of difficulty depended on the amount of material already taught. For the
72 3. Methods

reading section of the first test in the Urat program, a number of sentences were prepared by the
linguist, who followed constraints dictated by the overlap of content taught in the two primer
series. For example, such sentences were: Ta sisipe metapa. She will taste the breadfruit; and Ti
wasme wi wat. She quit the game and came. Similar texts were prepared for the tests in the Tok
Pisin program by the researcher.
The test on the second occasion was based on the primers; for Urat the words, syllables, and
texts were read from the primer pages, but for Tok Pisin separate texts were prepared. The
purpose for using the primers in Urat was to ascertain if the teachers were teaching the content
adequately. For Urat there were three comparable sets of readings based on common vocabulary
from the Word-Building Track primer and the Gudschinsky primer. These sets were to be
rotated; one for each student. For Tok Pisin there were three comparable texts prepared. In
addition, students were asked to read one new sentence and to write a dictated sentence. Since
the portions to be read for occasions 1 and 2 were based on known material and were not
extensive, answers to comprehension questions were not relevant.
The third and fourth tests were fuller versions of the first test (see Appendix E). For the third
test, longer portions were prepared and rotated between participants. The tester read the first
sentences to introduce the topic and help the learners to be at ease and read more confidently.
The learners were expected to read the final sentences.
The final test included four different excerpts of texts. These texts were selected on the basis
of familiar and unfamiliar material. The first selection came from a familiar story of a predictable
legend which had been read in class. The second selection came from a story about an accident
to a man in the village. The third selection was an excerpt from a legend, with unfamiliar
language and circumstances. Similarly, the fourth selection had some unfamiliar language with
unpredictable content.
The data collected from the learners was scored in a similar way for all of the tests. The
appropriateness of each variable for each particular test was governed by the scope of material in
the test and the degree of expectation of skills learned. In the following section, a description of
the variables and scoring procedures is given.
3.4.3. The dependent variables and scoring procedures
For the scoring procedure for each test, the variables were divided into two components:
reading and writing. In the reading component there were two scoring sections: general reading
variables and specific reading variables, each with five variable divisions. There were also two
scoring sections in the writing component: mechanics of writing and meaning in writing, with
three and five divisions of variables respectively. The reading variables are discussed first.
3.4.3.1. General reading variables
There were five divisions of general reading variables:
1. Recognition of Elements (letters, syllables, words)
2. Engaging of the Text
3. Reading Time
4. Proportion of Correct Syllables
5. Comprehension
3. Methods 73

Recognition of Elements includes a variable set of Recognition of Letters, Syllables, and Words.
Relevant comments for each variable are now presented, to give an understanding of the scoring
procedures.
Variable: Recognition of elements1. Words
Each student was first asked to identify a word in a story with a named vowel in it and a
point was awarded if the attempt was correct. The student was then asked to read the word
identified. A problem arose when the word was incorrectly identified. A point was awarded if the
student could read the word correctly even if it did not contain the vowel asked for. A further
point was awarded for recognition of a named word.
Recognition of elements2. Syllables
This variable was a straight-forward identification of named syllables within words. A point
was awarded when the student pointed to the correct syllable.
Recognition of elements3. Letters
In the letter identification assessment, students were asked to point to two words in a story
where the words 1) began with the same letter, and 2) ended with the same letter. In the former
case the students were asked to read the syllable in each word which contained the letter.
It must be pointed out that this variable was not scored for test one and the variable was not
included in test two because the students had problems in the understanding the requirements for
this assessment. In the two methods being taught, the basic component of instruction in the
primers was the syllable, and students were not required to sound out letters. Phonemes were
taught by contrast of minimal differences between syllables, not as isolated letters, so at this
early stage few learners understood what was expected of them.
When scoring tests three and four, although some students did indicate words where only the
letters were identical, either identical letters or syllables were considered as correct. The problem
was compounded by the difficulty of finding the right terminology in both languages used for
testing. Some students in the Tok Pisin program did not understand the concepts of first and
last, and in the Urat program there was some misunderstanding due to the translation
difficulty. Consequently, to standardise the assessment, scores were not recorded for occasions 1
and 2 on this variable.
Variable: Engaging the text
Students who made some attempt to read and who showed in the taped attempt that they
could read some words of the selection, were given a point for engaging the text. Students who
created a text that had no relationship to the written text were considered as not engaging the
text.
In the final test, students were expected to read excerpts of four different stories. The tester
read the heading of each story to give some orientation to the topic, then asked the participant to
read a selected portion. Some students continually repeated the heading, while others created a
text about the topic that had no relationship to the written form. These were deemed not to have
engaged the text.
74 3. Methods

Variable: Time
Each reading session was taped and the reading time noted from the time the tester told the
student to read until he or she completed the portion.
Variable: Proportion of correct syllables
A calculation was made of the proportion of correct syllables in the students reading of
each text.
Variable: Comprehension
After research of the literature to find appropriate comprehension questions that could cover
the four tests, three were chosen:
1. What happened?
2. What do you think might have happened before that?
3. What do you think might have happened after that?
Certain problems soon became clear. The first question needed to be general because there were
different texts involved, and if the topic of the portion was mentioned by the tester, the reader
could possibly give an adequate answer without having read the text. As mentioned above,
translation of the second and third questions was difficult, especially in Urat, where think and
remember translate as the same word ngoihiryembe and before and after translate as
ngindehei first and yuwo last. There was confusion relating to the last two questions, so only
the first was scored. In the next section, the specific reading variables are described.
3.4.3.2. Specific reading variables
The five divisions for the specific reading variables were as follows:
1. Intonation Contours (letter, syllable, word, and phrase reading)
2. Substitution of Words (nonsense, compatible, and incompatible words)
3. Substitution of Elements within Words (consonant-vowel, consonant, consonant cluster,
digraph, vowel)
4. Fluency within Words (omission, insertion, self-correction of syllables)
5. Fluency within Sentences (repetition of syllables, words, and phrases)
Each of these variable groups included a variable set with three to five variables in each set as
shown.
First, we consider the Intonation Contours variable, which was scored for reading
letter-by-letter
syllable-by-syllable
word-by-word, and
phrase-by-phrase.
Phrase-by-phrase reading did not refer to phrases only but also included longer sections of text.
In scoring the Intonation Contours variable, each text selection was first marked for standard
syntactic intonation contour breaks, after listening to the texts read by a number of readers
3. Methods 75

(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 eteke'e} {tu'e ngaiye hwang Sumbu'e} {titi dul wanar ta'e.}
{Youll see him} {like the snake Sumbu'e} {just lying there.}
Variable: Intonation contour1. 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
syllablesthe 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 contour2. 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 contour3. 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 contour4. 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.
76 3. Methods

Variable: Substitution of words1. 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 words2. 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 words3. 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.
3. Methods 77

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 words1. 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 words2. 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 words3. 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 words1. 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 words2. 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 words3. 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.
78 3. Methods

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 print1. 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 print2. Use of capitals in appropriate places
Concepts about print3. Use of full stops in appropriate places
Concepts about print4. 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: Letters1. Number of letters attempted
Form of print: Letters2. Number of letters correct
Form of print: Letters3. Number of different letters attempted
Form of print: Letters4. 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
3. Methods 79

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: Words1. Number of words attempted
Form of print: Words2. Number of words correct
Form of print: Words3. Number of different words attempted
Form of print: Words4. Number of different words correct
Form of print: Words5. 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
80 3. Methods

sentence papa i kam lonamkpik was interpreted to read papa i kam long makim pik. In the
sequence of letters, the letter a was written for g without the tail in the word long, and the two
consonants m and k were written for makim. (English translation: Father came to select a pig.)
The number of different words was counted and the total of those correct was noted. If a word
was written more than once with a correct form appearing with incorrect forms, the correct form
was accepted. A further criterion was used for counting different words: a total was given for
words that were different and incorrect but recognisable. (Note that the words above long makim
pik are examples of being incorrect but recognisable.) We now consider the variables for
meaning in writing.
3.4.3.4. Meaning in writing variables
The five variables for meaning in writing:
1. Writing with Sense
2. Writing with Elaborations
3. Using Cohesive Ties (referentials, conjunctions, lexical) (see Halliday and Hasan 1976:329
339)
4. Using a Story Line (introduction, action, complication, resolution)
5. Interaction with the Picture (description, description plus previous information, description
plus interpolations, description plus post-picture information, description plus inferences).
See Appendix F for the series of three line drawings used for the test on occasion 4.
Variable: Writing with sense
In the writing section of the test, each student read onto an audiotape the text that he or she
had written. These recordings were taken into account when considering if the student had
preserved the sense of the text. There were variations in the degrees of correlation between the
written text and the oral renditionfrom strings of letters with no correlation, to varying degrees
of correlation, to contributions with a perfect match.
Another criterion for determining if the student could preserve the meaning was the topic of
the text as written. In the contributions there were memorised primer pages or material that had
no bearing on the pictures which were the basis for the text. Essentially the majority of the
students could preserve the meaning even with omissions and the error effect of incorrect
spelling. In these contributions also, there were incidents of nonsense words written but these
words were considered as flaws in texts that were readable. Consequently the student was
accredited with writing with sense although there were errors in the text and a score was
accorded.
Variable: Writing with elaborations
The main criterion for consideration in this variable was the acceptability of the text as a
story when words which were an elaboration in the text were omitted. Adjectives, adverbs,
adjectival and adverbial clauses, and phrases were counted: these generally elaborated on the
basic ingredients for a story as seen in the pictures. Examples of elaborations are seen in the
following text:
Wanpela man i go raun long bus long nait long bainim pilakpokis na em i sutim wanpela pilakpokis
na dispela pilakpokis i buntaun i kamtaun long giraun na bispela man i kisim dispela bilakpokis em
i no tai yet na em i putim na dok bilong em i kaikaim bispela pisin na em i dai.
3. Methods 81

In this text there are two areas which caused spelling difficulties: 1) the voiced and voiceless
stops p/b, t/d, k/g, and 2) the consonant cluster bl and gr. The rewritten text shows correct
spelling with elaborations highlighted. A point was given for each elaboration.
Wanpela man i go raun long bus long nait long painim blakbokis na em i sutim wanpela blakbokis
na dispela blakbokis i pundaun i kam daun long graun na dispela man i kisim dispela blakbokis em
i no dai yet na em i putim na dok bilong em i kaikaim dispela pisin na em i dai.
English translation:
A man went around in the forest at night to look for fruit bats and he shot one fruit bat and that
fruit bat fell down (and) came down to the ground and that man got that fruit bat, which was not
dead yet, and he put (it) and his dog bit that bird and it died.
In this text there are eight elaborations recorded: a, around, in the forest, at night,
one, came down to the ground, which was not dead yet, and it died.
Variable: Cohesive ties1. Referentials
Referential cohesive ties include substitutes: for example, pronouns, comparatives, and
phrases of time. In the above text there are examples of personal, demonstrative, and possessive
pronouns: em
10
he, she, it, dispela this/that, and bilong em his, hers, its. An example of
reference to time is taim bilong nait during the night found in other texts.
Cohesive ties2. Conjunctions
Conjunctions found in the Tok Pisin texts were: na and, o or, tasol but, and long wanem
because. The above text gives examples of na and.
Cohesive ties3. Lexical
Lexical items included to clarify the sense of the story were synonyms and repeats of words
and phrases. In the above text, dispela blakbokis is repeated and there are two examples of
synonyms: the sense of pundaun fall down is repeated in kam daun come down, and in the
last reference the blakbokis is called a pisin bird (fruit bats are classified as birds).
Variable: Story component1. Introduction
This variable relates to whether or not the opening of the text included a general statement to
set the stage with the content coming from outside the pictures. The first picture in the series
showed a man shooting a fruit bat with a bow and arrow. The text above gives an example of an
introduction: a general statement which sets the stage, and includes a time statement with an
introduction of purpose, that is, Wanpela man i go raun long bus long nait long painim fruit
bats. A man went around in the forest at night to look for fruit bats.
Story component2. Action
The three consecutive pictures allowed for plenty of action in the texts. The criterion for this
variable was action portrayed in the text as opposed to static description. The above text shows
action throughout the story whereas, in contrast, the text below is a description of the pictures
(with corrected spelling) with no instances of action other than that which was overt in the
pictures. For this contribution, therefore, there were no points scored.

10
It will be noted that some smaller components appear in longer sections of text in this analysis and are accorded
points on a more specific basis within a longer text.
82 3. Methods

papa i sutim pisin
papa is kisim banara
man i pasim
English translation: father shoots a bird; father gets a bow; a man holds (it).
Story component3. Complication
The text cited above as an example of elaborations gives an example of a complication, that
is, that man got that fruit bat, which was not dead yet, and he put (it) and his dog bit that bird
and it died. Another example is as follows (with corrected spelling):
dispela man i taitim banara long sutim blakbokis (em i) sutim pisin na dok i kisim pisin (em i) kilim
dok na kisim pisin.
English translation:
This man pulled his bow to shoot the fruit bat. (He) shot the bird and the dog got the bird. (He) hit
the dog and got the bird.
Story component4. Resolution
Texts which included a complication generally included a resolution. The above two
examples show two different outcomes when the dog grabbed the fruit bat, that is, it died and
he hit the dog and got the bird. A score was accorded when a resolution was included.
Variable: Picture reliance1. Description
A description of any part of the scene in each of the three pictures was accorded a score for
this variable.
Picture reliance2. Description prior to the first picture
A statement to set the stage for the specific action in the pictures was acceptable for this
variable. For example, one woman wrote that a man went to the forest and took his bow and
arrows, that is, man i go long bus na em i kisim banara bilong em na supsup. A man went to
the forest and took his bow and arrows.
Picture reliance3. Description of action with interpolations
Interpolations were additions to the description which added colour and interest to the story.
The following text (as corrected for spelling) shows the examples of interpolations highlighted (a
point was given for each interpolation):
Dispela man em i go raun na em i sutim dispela blakbokis. Nau dispela pisin blakbokis indai pinis
na em i pundaun i kam daun long graun. Nau dok bilong em i simelem dispela blakbokis na em i
kaikai i stap na em i lukim na em i pulim long maus bilong dok.
English translation:
That man he went around and he shot that fruit bat. Now that bird fruit bat died and it fell down
and came down to the ground. Now his dog smelt the fruit bat and was eating (it) and he (the man)
looked and he pulled (the fruit bat) from the mouth of the dog.
Picture reliance4. Description of the action after the last picture
Any addition to bring a completion to the story as depicted by the pictures was acceptable
for this variable. There were different versions of this general example: Ol i karim i go long ples.
They carried (it) and went to the village.
3. Methods 83

Picture reliance5. Description of action which included inference
Description which included any internal state of thinking or emotion was taken into account
for this variable. The following is an example of a text that shows emotion but it is also an
example of the dog being seen as a pig and the story created around a pig. The text is shown with
correct spelling and with inferences highlighted.
wanpela man i kisim spia na em i go long bus. na em i sutim wanpela pik long spia long em i
amamas nogut tru long dispela pik. famili bilong em i kaikai ol i amamas tru.
English translation:
A man took a spear and went to the forest. And he shot a pig with the spear so that he would be
very pleased about the pig. His family ate (it) and they were very pleased.
This concludes the descriptions of the dependent variables and the scoring procedures. In
addition to these descriptions, the Gudschinsky and Multi-Strategy methods have been described
in this chapter. The underlying principles and basic lesson patterns have been explained, and a
comparison made between the two methods with specific differences identified. The empirical
studies with the interventions for Urat and Tok Pisin are now developed. In Chapter 4, the Urat
intervention is described and the replication in Tok Pisin follows in Chapter 5.

84
4. The Urat Study
4.0. Introduction
One question this project addresses is whether men and women, after a short period of
training and with full community support, can successfully plan, adequately prepare necessary
materials for reading and writing instruction, and competently carry out adult literacy programs,
while receiving a minimum of advice and assistance from trained and experienced personnel.
The research set out to address this question using the two different instructional methods
described in the previous chapter: the Gudschinsky method and the Multi-Strategy method. Any
two languages have differing degrees of complexity of phonological structure. A full description
of the pertinent factors of the two languages chosen, Urat and Tok Pisin, and some aspects of
Kwanga (spoken in the area of the Tok Pisin study), is given in Chapter 2. The complex
phonological structure of Urat with consonant clusters, vowel sequences, vowel harmony, and
morphophonemic changes shows distinct differences from the phonological structure of Tok
Pisin. A description of the Urat study will be given in this chapter showing particular attention to
the physical and socio-cultural setting, the participants, the materials used, and the procedures
and results of the study.
4.1. Physical and Socio-Cultural Setting
The participants in this study live in the foothills of the Torricelli Mountains which run
parallel to the northern coast of Papua New Guinea (see Figure 2.3 for the location map). The
people of both Urat and Kwanga live along the southern fall of the range at an altitude between
200 and 300 metres. The two groups share similar topography and climate, and although their
languages are distinctly different the socio-cultural practices are closely linked (Allen 1976:24
25; Schindlbeck 1984:5). The socio-cultural setting for the Urat study is similar to that of the
Tok Pisin study, with the village as the identifying focus for the individual, where extended
families build their houses in close proximity (Allen 1976:29). One of the premises on which
both studies were based is that the community should be in control of the literacy intervention
from the outset. The strong binding force of the village played an important part in some of the
outcomes of the Urat study. To have the outcomes more clearly and appropriately understood,
some of the pertinent socio-cultural aspects of the group will be covered in this section.
The socio-cultural basis for internal village relationships is embedded in strong historical
affiliations between individuals through their clans and the dual division of males in the
tambaran cult and exchange partners. Throughout the detailed description which Allen gives
of the Urat people, the importance of village relationships between individuals is stressed:
Kin relationships form a network which spreads throughout the village Such links bind together
individuals, hamlet sections and hamlets into an integral whole. Clans are localised village
groups and the intensity of interpersonal relationships within the confines of the village, means
that the clan organisation becomes subliminal in every-day village activities (Allen 1976:3435).
Two of the villages in the present study, Nanaha and Musengwah, are located on the ridge
along which the Sepik Highway is built, so some of the houses are very close to the road. Houses
in the other three villages, Musemblem, Musingwi', and Tumam, cluster along a ridge near the
highway.
4. The Urat Study 85

Although the interpersonal relationships of an individual are bound up in the family and clan
within the village setting, there is a further set of relationships surrounding the dual division of
all adult males in a village into two identical groups (Allen 1976:39). In cultural affiliation
groups are ritually opposed in ceremonial exchanges and in initiations into the secret mens
cult, now widely known by the Pidgin term, tambaran. The dual division deeply influences all
aspects of village life, determining to a large extent relationships between people within the
village and links between villages (Allen 1976:39).
Allens study, giving details of the significance of the relationships between members of the
opposing groups, reveals that some ceremonies connected with this inherited, cultural affiliation
were still practised in the late 1970s.
Obrist van Eeuwijk (1992:59), concentrating on the Kwanga area, which is described more
fully in the following chapter, gives a description of the exchange partner relationships in the
opposing division. These relationships were of a different quality from the open competition at
the dual division level. In the partner exchanges, balance was the overriding objective with each
of the two men gaining in status and authority through the exchanges. Allen points out that, in
contrast, relationships between halves of the dual division were characterised by intense
competition. The opposing group were seen as a constant threat and source of danger (Allen
1976:41).
As the influence of the government and mission groups became more prominent, these dual
division ceremonies connected with the tambaran cult were discontinued. The overt division of
male members of a village into two opposing groups is no longer evident but there are practising
exchange relationships between individuals and groups. There also still seems to be a strong
competitive spirit between males within the society. This may be connected with a deep cultural
value to do well in all activities, but could have its roots in the opposing dual division so
prominent in ritualistic ceremonies being practised just two decades prior to this study.
The leadership and cohesion of individuals within each village had a bearing on the
decisions made in the literacy program: where the schools were located; who were chosen to be
teachers; with whom each teacher worked and, ultimately, which classes remained in the
program. As indicated earlier, the focus for identification of an individual was the village, not the
language. Villages began to be identified as belonging to language groups after contact (Allen
1976:28). The focus of the next section is on the main people involved in the program and their
participation in the proceedings.
4.2. Participants
The participants in the Urat study speak the Central dialect of Urat. Most of the people in
this group live along the Sepik Highway, west of Dreikikir and within walking distance between
villages of no more than an hour of time (see Figure 2.1). Residents of the two Northern villages,
Nanaha and Musengwah, speak a slightly different dialect with one phoneme change and some
vocabulary differences. As explained in Chapter 2, it was considered that such minor differences
would not present a difficulty in the literacy program. Decisions regarding the program were
made through discussions with village leaders, community members, and the linguist, who was,
at the time, resident in Tumam. The researcher used English and Tok Pisin, the lingua franca, to
communicate with the people. Otherwise, Urat was the language used in interactions. The main
participants of the Urat study, the teachers and the learners, are now described. We first consider
the selection, training, and allocation of the teachers.
86 4. The Urat Study

4.2.1. The teachers
At the outset, village leaders met with prominent men from the region to discuss literacy and
to choose a Regional Literacy Supervisor. The District Member of Parliament worked on a plan
with the leaders to develop a Regional Literacy Centre at Dreikikir. They chose a man from
Tumam village to supervise and coordinate literacy in the area, so the people contributed the
finances for him to attend a National Literacy Course in the East New Britain Province, where
the Multi-Strategy method was being introduced by staff from the University of Papua New
Guinea. At this course he developed basic materials in Urat and printed the books using a hand
silk-screen printer.
At the completion of the course, he returned to the village where the people chose seven
men to accompany him to a regional workshop, where the Multi-Strategy method was being
taught by the researcher. The linguist from Tumam attended the course as the Urat language
adviser. During this time more materials were produced and the basic materials refined. At the
completion of this course, the people of Nanaha village selected two men to be trained to teach
the Gudschinsky method of instruction. The ten men chosen to become teachers had all
graduated from the formal education system with a standard of Grade 6 (the sixth year of formal
schooling) but two of the Multi-Strategy group had had some vocational training.
The training course for the Gudschinsky method was held at the main centre for the Summer
Institute of Linguistics (SIL) where more facilities related to the method were available. The
course was held for four weeks with the researcher doing the basic training. Assistance was
given by a sociolinguist who was experienced in the Gudschinsky method and the two linguists
studying the Urat language. At this time the Gudschinsky primer for Urat was developed and a
detailed teachers manual was prepared. The SIL Literacy Coordinator checked the Gudschinsky
materials and gave advice. The man chosen to supervise Urat literacy also attended the course for
the purpose of gaining an understanding of the Gudschinsky method and to assist in the
preparation and refinement of materials for both methods. On the completion of the Gudschinsky
training session, everything was in place to determine the number of people motivated to learn to
read and write.
4.2.2. The learners
In the initial stages, the most southern villages, Musemblem, Musingwi', and Tumam, were
chosen for one treatment, the Multi-Strategy method. The most northern village, Nanaha, having
some slight dialect differences and being the most distant village, was chosen for the other
treatment, the Gudschinsky method. In choosing Nanaha, it was considered that the physical
situation would be helpful in controlling the effect of contamination between the two treatment
groups. New Gudschinsky materials needed to be prepared so it was also helpful to include the
dialect changes in the books. During the initial survey, the Musengwah people decided to take
part. This group was placed with the Multi-Strategy villages because of the closeness in
proximity to the southern villages. As will be seen later in this chapter, their close ties with
Nanaha, through language and social interaction, had an effect on their performance.
People in the target populations, who were interested in learning to read and write, were
encouraged to take part in the literacy contact survey. Those who could read were asked not to
respond. The purpose of the survey was to sort the people into groups:
4. The Urat Study 87

Those who showed no literacy skills
Those who had some understanding of literacy
To what extent the latter could read and write
The survey included four separate components (shown in detail in Appendix D):
1. Demographic Questions, covering personal background and literacy contact in relation to
self, family, and people living in the same house
2. Concepts about Print scores (based on Clay 1972)
3. Letter and Word Recognition scores
4. Writing scores related to writing his or her own name, letters, words, and sentences
Administering the survey was a team that included the researcher, the resident linguists, the
visiting sociolinguist, and the teachers who had been trained. At the completion of the survey,
the results were analysed with a Principal Component Analysis. A cut-off point was decided and
those participants with some formal literacy were separated from the preliterate people.
Motivation was high and the social situation was such that there was strong pressure for all to be
included, regardless of literacy expertise. There were almost twice as many participants in the
three larger villages (Nanaha45, Musemblem43, Tumam45) than in the two smaller
villages (Musengwah24, Musingwi'27). The larger villages were divided into two classes
each: one included the people showing no formal literacy training and with low literacy skills;
the other included those with some literacy training and some older people. The two smaller
villages were matched with equal numbers of people showing no formal training and three
people in each class who had experienced up to three months in a Tok Pisin class.
To determine the equivalence in literacy contact between villages, a Factor Analysis was
performed for the first class in each of the three larger villages. The variables used were
reading in vernacular
reading in Tok Pisin
recognising letters and sounds
recognising words
writing in Tok Pisin
concepts about print
school attendance
number of words written, and
number of letters written.
The varimax solution for the Factor Analysis is presented in Table 4.1.
88 4. The Urat Study

Table 4.1. Factor analysis solution
Variable Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Reading in vernacular
-0.08 0.18 0.78
Reading in Tok Pisin
0.20 0.76 0.34
Recognising letters and sounds
0.66 0.04 0.59
Recognising words
0.80 0.21 -0.01
Writing in Tok Pisin
0.13 0.76 0.27
Concepts about print
0.75 0.03 -0.05
School attendance
0.03 0.84 -0.22
Number of words written
0.56 -0.04 0.61
Number of letters written
0.60 0.25 0.38
The first factor is strongly defined by five variables:
Recognising letters and sounds
Recognising words
Concepts about print
Number of words written
Number of letters written
The second factor relates clearly to reading in Tok Pisin, writing in Tok Pisin, and school
attendance. The third factor is defined by reading in vernacular, and, to a lesser extent,
recognising letters and sounds and number of words written.
Factor scores were computed and entered into a MANOVA to test the equivalence of the
three groups: Tumam, Nanaha, and Musemblem. Results showed a significant multivariate effect
(MVF (6,174) = 3.45; p = 0.003), with univariate significance on all three factor scores. Follow-
up contrasts showed that the Tumam group scored significantly higher on all three factor scores
(MVF (3,86) = 6.08; p = 0.001; univariate p values; F1 = 0.002; F2 = 0.006; F3 = 0.013). The
contrast of Nanaha with Musemblem failed to attain significance. Therefore, it is clear that, on
all the variables assessed at this stage, the Tumam group had more general literacy capability and
more school attendance than the other two groups.
It is to be noted that subjects in this analysis were the preliterate groups from the three larger
villages as selected from the baseline survey. Classes consisting of men and women who had
experienced some literacy in Tok Pisin or English and others who wished to join the classes were
also conducted in these villages. In the final analysis, composite groups of students from all
classes who had persisted in the program were included.
The teachers who had been selected and trained were male members from the chosen
communities, except Musengwah. These men were allocated to the classes, one for each of the
two Gudschinsky classes in Nanaha; two for each of the Multi-Strategy classes (one for each
4. The Urat Study 89

track) in Musengwah, Musemblem, and Tumam; and one teacher for the Musingwi' class. The
latter was an experimental class to determine how one teacher reacted to, and accomplished, the
teaching of both of the tracks in the Multi-Strategy method. The other teacher, who had been
trained for the Multi-Strategy method, assisted in this class when the teacher was unable to
attend. The teachers had helped to produce the materials ready to begin classes and were familiar
with their content. Four days of in-service was held before classes were started so that each
teacher could re-familiarise himself with the teaching patterns.
4.3. Materials
The curricula for the Gudschinsky and Multi-Strategy methods were discussed in Chapter 3,
with a description of the materials used. All of the materials for the Urat program were
developed during teacher-training courses with the trainees taking part. In this way, much of the
content in the books was familiar to the teachers when they were ready to teach. The main
responsibility for the preparation of the Gudschinsky materials was carried by a linguist in
residence at Tumam. Guidance for the primer construction was mainly taken from A working
guide for primer construction (Barnwell 1979), developed for primer construction in Nigeria.
The man chosen to become the supervisor, and another linguist, took responsibility for the Multi-
Strategy materials. It must be noted that all of the materials were of a trial nature; this was the
first literacy program for the language.
For the Gudschinsky method there were three primers and a detailed teachers manual. The
manual gave the content and instruction for teaching twenty lessons for reading and writing
readiness. Following this, detailed instructions were laid out for teaching the first twenty lessons
of the primer series. After that time, the teachers were expected to substitute new content in the
same lesson patterns to complete the program. The books covered forty lessons with one long,
well-known mythical story at the end of the third primer. The teachers were trained to teach each
lesson for two days, and to revise the two lessons on the fifth day.
The materials for the Multi-Strategy method were developed during three different training
courses, with many people contributing. In the three primers for the Word-Building Track
described in Chapter 3, there were more lessons prepared than were required. Lessons were
added with the idea that adults would progress quickly in the dual approach and need more
material to read. The added material helped to cover the complexities of the language so not all
of these lessons were taught. The number of lessons was reduced at the end of the program when
the primers were revised to accommodate a spelling problem and the change of orthography (see
Appendix A).
Each classroom was fitted with a large blackboard and enough small blackboards for each
student. There were ample supplies of used paper available so crayons were purchased along
with chalk for the students to use in writing practice. As the program progressed, students bought
their own pencils and exercise books. When the materials were in place for the two methods, the
experimental design to compare the application of the materials with the two treatment groups
was put into progress.
4.4. The Design
It will be recalled from Chapter 3 that an experimental post-test only design was applied
in the study. There were two treatment groups, Gudschinsky and Multi-Strategy, and four
occasions of testing for comparison between the groups.
90 4. The Urat Study

A baseline survey was conducted with sampling from the villages involved to ascertain the
amount of literacy contact and competence of individuals. Random allocation of participants was
made within each village. Reading and writing proficiency was taken into account and those
reading well were excluded from the program. Only participants who spoke Urat as their first
language were included in the sample; all were of the same cultural environment. For the
baseline survey, the two linguists and the sociolinguist, who had assisted in the Gudschinsky
training sessions, were on hand to participate along with the teachers who had been trained. In
the sampling from the five villages, there were many more people interested than the 235
assessed. People known to have some literacy competence were discouraged from participating.
The sample was divided into five groups, according to residency status of individuals in the five
villages.
The baseline survey was also used to determine the degree of equivalence between the two
treatment groups. People with no apparent competence in literacy (to be referred to as
preliterates) were placed in a separate class in each of the three larger villages and those with
some literacy skills and some older people were placed in another class. The majority of the
people in the classes in the two smaller villages were preliterate.
At the outset, effort was made to ensure equivalence and control for the following variables:
Standard of education of the teachers
Time of training for the teachers
Time on task (with watches made available to the teachers)
Equality of literacy standard between groups of learners
Age of learners
Community support (with literacy committees)
Equal supervision between groups
The Gudschinsky method was taught in Nanaha and the Multi-Strategy method was taught
in the four other villages selected for the study. Instruction was for periods of four weeks at a
time, followed by one week of recess. Tests for comparison between groups were given after
approximately eleven, fifteen, twenty, and twenty-four weeks of instruction.
Questions addressed in the research were as follows:
1. Is the Multi-Strategy method suitable for teaching preliterate adults to read and write?
2. Is the Multi-Strategy method sufficient for teaching preliterate adults to read and write in
languages of complex phonological structures (that is, syllable-level linguistic complexity)?
3. Does the Multi-Strategy method have any effect on adult learners motivation to persist in
gaining literacy fluency?
4. Do adult learners taught the Multi-Strategy method show significant improvement over
learners taught with decoding strategies in the Gudschinsky method within six months?
5. Is the use of one teacher to teach literacy to adults using both tracks in the Multi-Strategy
method more, or less, efficient than using two teachers, one for each track?
It must be noted that the fifth question to be researched in the Urat study was specifically
added to determine the effectiveness of using one teacher to teach the two tracks in the Multi-
Strategy method. There was some speculation about the cost of training and paying two teachers
per class, so a one-teacher classroom was added to the research. Since there were four village
groups participating in the Urat study for the Multi-Strategy method, one teacher, instead of two,
4. The Urat Study 91

was allocated to teach in the village of Musingwi'. After the literacy contact survey, the teachers
were given four days of in-service before instruction of classes began. Motivation was high so
there was pressure from the people to proceed.
4.5. Procedures
It was pointed out in Chapter 1 that the cultural situation of the study did not allow for a
perfectly controlled program with stringent supervision. As a result, variables were not always
equally applied or assessed across all groups. The conditions in which the research was
conducted were uniquely difficult with many unforeseen circumstances to confound the plans. It
has also been pointed out that the research was designed to ascertain which method best fulfilled
the criteria that teachers trained for a short period could competently carry out an adult literacy
program with minimum help or supervision from experienced personnel.
There was extra help from experienced personnel in the early stages, particularly in the
initial survey and, to a lesser degree, in administering the four tests. But for the duration of the
program, the teachers, with consultant help from the researcher, made decisions and helped with
supervision and in-service sessions. When classes began, there was supervision for each class
every day for the first week, with a time of in-service to discuss problems and help to keep
continuity between the teachers. During the second week, there was rotated supervision for two
more weeks, followed by in-service for the teachers.
There were factors and episodes which had an influence on the beginning of classes for the
Gudschinsky group (Nanaha) and the village of Musengwah, where there were strong linguistic
and social ties between the two villages. At Nanaha, the death of an elder, who had enrolled as a
student, caused disruption to the beginning of classes, both in Nanaha and Musengwah.
According to custom, after a death, the village people come and sleep in the vicinity of the house
of the deceased for two weeks. A feast is then held and the people disperse. In this case, the
house of the deceased was next to the church where one of the classes was to be held; the people
slept in the church and gathered food for the feast there. A dramatic inter-village conflict further
helped to distract the people at this stage; an armed conflict occurred in which participants in the
study from both Nanaha and Musengwah were directly involved or threatened. Despite the
disruptions, classes began only a week late in both of the villages involved and in-service for the
Gudschinsky teachers was conducted at the end of the first week. All tests were conducted after
equivalent time was allowed for teaching in the two villages.
During the next six weeks the researcher was outside the area, but some supervision was
done by the linguists and classes continued. At this stage the linguists were unexpectedly called
away from the area for the rest of the research. Such interruptions made the kind of supervision
initially envisioned impossible. These circumstances were initially seen as a drawback on the
implementation of the study, but they can also be regarded as an important, while unpredicted,
feature of what happens in such circumstances. The results that are now recorded are the
outcomes of teaching and related decision-making by the nationals themselves. In fact, these
disruptions add some force to the results, even though they introduce some variability in the
monitoring.
The teachers were given comparable training, but it must be considered that some
unevenness of the applications is due to a number of variables related to the roles of particular
individuals and their positions within village life. There are intricacies about the nature of their
perceptions, and the perceptions that others hold of them, that lead to difficulties which were
92 4. The Urat Study

experienced by some of the teachers in these early stages. It soon became obvious that the
attitude of the teacher determined, to a large extent, the way that the lessons were presented in
each village.
The teachers of the Gudschinsky method in Nanaha had some difficulty getting the classes
started because one of the venues was consistently being used for church functions at the
scheduled time for classes. There also seemed to be some misconception about the purpose of the
classes, with competition between the teachers to recruit students and improve the standard of
each respective class. It became obvious that more lesson demonstrations and discussions were
needed to help improve the way the method was being presented.
The same competition between teachers was also evident between two of the Multi-Strategy
method classes. In one village, the two teachers put much effort into training their class for an
early, exploratory test to bring them to a standard which would surpass the students in the
neighbouring village. These teachers helped administer the test in the latter village on a Friday,
then spent hours teaching their students the content of the test by rote each night prior to the test
being given in their classes on a Monday. There was much excitement at the time of the test and
it was obvious from the results that the answers had been drilled; some knew all of the answers
and others gave the right answers to the wrong questions. It was reported that such action was
prompted by the desire of the two teachers to show their superiority over the teachers in the next
village. Such an attitude by the teachers fostered fierce competition between their students to
perform well quickly. This intensity of purpose resulted in complaints and contributed to the
drop in numbers participating in this village.
A further socio-cultural effect may have influenced the decline of class numbers in this
village and the village situated further along the highway from Dreikikir. At the outset,
community members chose the teachers for the program but each community did not have the
opportunity to choose their own teachers. As more villages were included in the program, a
nucleus of people allocated the trained teachers to each village. In the two villages where
numbers declined, the teachers lived in their home areas away from the villages in which they
taught. There was higher motivation, good attendances, and happier rapport between teachers
and learners in the two villages where the teachers were locally situated.
Another factor contributing to attendance rates and motivation of the students in each village
was the cooperation and support of the appointed head leader in each area. Where the support of
the leader was strong and overt, with consideration given during times of village activities, the
classes were well attended and motivation was high; but the converse was true in other areas.
Despite the competition between teachers cited above, there was also evidence of
cooperation between pairs of teachers at each school and between schools. In the school situated
further along the highway, a problem was noted in the ability of one of the teachers to relate to
the learners during the first six weeks of classes when the researcher was absent. The other
teachers were concerned enough to give special help to the teacher, including demonstrations in
the class. Later, further help was given to this class by the researcher but, despite these and other
facilitating actions, numbers declined.
The teacher of the two tracks as an experimental class also seemed to be having difficulty as
the classes progressed. One area of difficulty was coping with the two emphases of the method.
He was empathetic, wanted the students to learn, but he confused the order of lessons and the
content and improvised by leaving out parts that he did not think the students would want to try.
He also found it difficult to cope with preparation for the two different teaching modes. The
4. The Urat Study 93

assistant teacher was always available and left to teach on many occasions. Apart from these
factors, the Multi-Strategy classes went ahead as scheduled, with minor adjustments to the
curricula as the lessons progressed.
These factors and events emphasise the difference between controllable interventions and
interventions that are effected in remote areas and under difficult circumstances, and with the
intention of bringing about sustainable practices in the target communities. Although such
factors reduce the controllability of the interventions, they are distinct, culturally specific factors
which are, at the same time, features of genuine educational changes. They are described here to
provide a framework for the description of the effects of the intervention programs.
4.6. Results and Discussion
The results of analyses of the data in the Urat study are presented for reading and writing
scores taken on occasions after approximately eleven, fifteen, twenty, and twenty-four weeks of
instruction time. The results of the significant differences for the reading scores are presented
first.
4.6.1. Reading results
The reading scores were divided into ten variable divisions:
1. Recognition of Elements (letters, syllables, words)
2. Engaging the Text
3. Reading Time
4. Proportion of Correct Syllables
5. Comprehension
6. Intonation Contours (letter-by-letter, syllable-by-syllable, word-by-word, phrase-by- phrase)
7. Substitution of Words (nonsense, compatible, incompatible)
8. Substitution of Elements within Words (consonant-vowel, consonant, consonant cluster,
digraph, vowel)
9. Fluency within Words (omission of syllables, insertion of syllables, self-correction)
10. Fluency within Sentences (repetition of syllables, words, phrases)
The first five variable divisions deal with more general skills:
Recognising elements
The ability to begin reading new material
How long it takes to read
How accurately it is read
Whether the meaning is understood
The other five variable divisions cover finer details of aspects of the reading process as learners
interact with texts. These specific skills cover mastery of the reading units, types of
substitution, and reading fluency.
A cross-tabulation test was used to determine the differences between the groups on the
variable Engaging the Text because this variable was assessed as categorical. For all other
94 4. The Urat Study

reading variables, Univariate Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) and Multivariate Analyses of
Variance (MANOVA) 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 in detail. Analyses of the more general skills of the reading process are presented first.
4.6.1.1. General reading skills
Taking the first five variable divisions on general reading skills as a group, we begin with
the data that learners produced on recognition of elements before they read a continuous piece of
writing. For this first analysis, the following set of variables is entered into the MANOVA:
Dependent variables: Recognition of Elements
Letters
Syllables
Words
Independent variables: Gudschinsky Method
Multi-Strategy Method
A MANOVA was applied to the data for the variables Recognition of Elements by Method. As
discussed in Chapter 3, elements within words were taught through contrast of syllables using
the syllable as the basic unit. Single, isolated phonemes were not taught, so the awareness of
single letters was tested only on occasions 3 and 4, when the awareness of phonemes could
reasonably be expected. The means and standard deviations relating to these variables are
presented in Table 4.2.
4. The Urat Study 95

Table 4.2. Recognition of Elements: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups
Variable Group M (SD)
Occas. 1
n M (SD)
Occas. 2
n M (SD)
Occas. 3
n M (SD)
Occas. 4
n

Recogni- GM - - - - 1.27 15 1.44 23
tion of - - (0.70) (1.20)
letters
MSM - - - - 1.41 70 2.05 57
- - (0.69) (0.97)

Recogni- GM 0.86 36 1.41 27 1.27 1.22
tion of (0.87) (1.58) (1.28) (1.24)
syllables
MSM 1.37 94 2.58 74 1.96 2.05
(0.75) (1.39) (1.10) (1.17)

Recogni- GM 1.28 1.33 1.27 1.04
tion of (0.66) (0.78) (0.80) (1.07)
words
MSM 1.40 1.64 1.50 2.14
(0.75) (0.63) (0.72) (1.13)
The results of the MANOVA on the multivariate set of variables Recognition of Letters,
Syllables, and Words, and the univariate follow-up taken over occasions 1, 2, and 4 are shown in
Tables 4.3 and 4.4. Reference to the table of means indicates the instructional method with
learners who, on average, scored higher for each occasion. The analysis for occasion 1 is
presented in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3. Recognition of ElementsOccasion 1
df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 2 0.08 6.03
*
0.003
Error 127
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Recognition of Syllables 1 0.08 11.13
*
0.001
Error 128
On occasion 1, the independent variable Method showed a significant effect on the multivariate
set of variables. The univariate follow-up is examined for significant differences between groups.
A significant difference is shown for Recognition of Syllables and the table of means indicates
that the Multi-Strategy group scored higher, on average, than the Gudschinsky group on this
variable. On the variable Recognition of Words there was no significant difference between the
96 4. The Urat Study

two groups: the F value showed a probability of >0.10, indicating no trend toward significance.
The analysis for occasion 2 is presented in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4. Recognition of ElementsOccasion 2
For the second occasion, the method of instruction showed a significant effect on both the
variables. An examination of the univariate follow-up shows a significant difference between
groups for both Recognition of Syllables and Recognition of Words. Reference to the table of
means indicates the Multi-Strategy group, on average, recognised more syllables and words than
the Gudschinsky group. On the third occasion, the MANOVA did not show a significant
difference: the F value had a probability of >0.10. The analysis for occasion 4 is presented in
Table 4.5.
Table 4.5. Recognition of ElementsOccasion 4
df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 3 0.17 5.22
*
0.002
Error 76
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Recognition of Letters 1 0.07 5.77
*
0.019
Error 78

Recognition of Syllables 1 0.09 8.05
*
0.006
Error 78

Recognition of Words 1 0.17 16.04
*
<0.001
Error 78
df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 2 0.12 6.47
*
0.002
Error 98
Univariate Follow-up

Variable
Recognition of Syllables 1 0.12 13.06
*
<0.001
Error 99

Recognition of Words 1 0.03 3.95
*
0.050
Error 99
4. The Urat Study 97

For the fourth occasion, a significant effect was shown for the multivariate set and the effect held
for the three variables. From the table of means we see that the Multi-Strategy learners showed,
on average, more recognition of letters, syllables, and words than the Gudschinsky learners.
Considering these three occasions, there are significant effects on all of the variables except for
the variable Recognition of Words in occasion 1. These results indicate that on all of the
variables the Multi-Strategy learners scored higher, on average, for recognition of elements
within a word and the word itself over the time of the course. It is important to note that although
phonemes were not taught in isolation, there is significant evidence of phonemic awareness on
the final test.
The next four reading variable divisions are concerned with an overall reading of a text:
Engaging the Text
Reading Time
Proportion of Correct Syllables
Comprehension
These four variables were analysed separately, using cross tabulation and ANOVA tests, because
of some small cell sizes in the final stages of testing.
The ability of learners to engage the text was analysed using cross tabulations. The chi-
square analyses for engaging the text over the four occasions are shown in Tables 4.64.10. The
first four tables show matrices for the analysis for each occasion; each cell includes the observed
frequency, the expected frequency and the standardised residual score for that cell. The analysis
for occasion 1 is presented in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6. Engaging the TextOccasion 1
ENGAGE TEXT METHOD
GM MSM
Did not engage text
24 37

16.9 44.1

2.8 -2.8
Did engage text
12 57

19.1 49.9

-2.8 2.8
The analysis for occasion 2 is presented in Table 4.7.
98 4. The Urat Study

Table 4.7. Engaging the TextOccasion 2
ENGAGE TEXT METHOD
GM MSM
Did not engage text
13 29

11.2 30.8

0.8 -0.8
Did engage text
14 45

15.8 43.2

-0.8 0.8
The analysis for occasion 3 is presented in Table 4.8.
Table 4.8. Engaging the TextOccasion 3
ENGAGE TEXT METHOD
GM MSM
Did not engage text
11 21

5.6 26.4

3.1 -3.1
Did engage text
4 49

9.4 43.6

-3.1 3.1
The analysis for occasion 4 is presented in Table 4.9.
Table 4.9. Engaging the TextOccasion 4
ENGAGE TEXT METHOD
GM MSM
Did not engage text
16 14

8.6 21.4

3.8 -3.8
Did engage text
7 43

14.4 35.6

-2.8 2.8
4. The Urat Study 99

The chi-square values for occasions 1, 3, and 4 are presented in Table 4.10. The analysis for
occasion 2 showed no significant differences between groups: the value had a probability of
>0.10.
Table 4.10. Engaging the Text
Occasion Chi-Square
Value DF P
1 7.79
*
1 <0.01

3 9.88
*
1 0.001

4 14.16
*
1 <0.001
For the first occasion, more learners than expected from the Gudschinsky group did not engage
the text, while more than expected from the Multi-Strategy group engaged the text. Again, for
both the third and fourth occasions, more learners than expected from the Gudschinsky group did
not engage the text and more than expected of the Multi-Strategy learners engaged the text.
Reference to the tables of cell entries shows that more of the Multi-Strategy learners engaged the
text for all tests except the second one, on which the differences did not attain significance.
The second test was unique because it was set up to test the primers, as was explained in
Chapter 3. It was expected that the Gudschinsky group would perform better than the Multi-
Strategy group on this test because all of the available class time each day was focused on the
primer in the Gudschinsky classrooms. For the Multi-Strategy group, only half of the class time
was spent on the primer material. On this second occasion, there is no significant difference
between the groups for engaging the text, but the Multi-Strategy learners showed that they were
able to engage reading the texts with more confidence and accuracy on all other occasions.
The three variable divisions, Reading Time, Proportion of Correct Syllables, and
Comprehension, were analysed using ANOVA tests. For these analyses the following variables
are entered:
Dependent variables: Reading Time
Proportion of Correct Syllables
Comprehension
Independent variables: Gudschinsky Method
Multi-Strategy Method
The means and standard deviations relating to the analysis of these three variables are presented
in Table 4.11.
100 4. The Urat Study

Table 4.11. Time, Correct Syllables, and Comprehension: Means (and SDs) for the two
instructional groups
Variable Group M (SD)
Occas. 1
n M (SD)
Occas. 2
n M (SD)
Occas. 3
n M (SD)
Occas. 4
n
Time GM 18.08 12 100.07 14 115.60 5 117.61 7
(12.47) (71.95) (74.95) (82.02)

MSM 27.22 58
*

54.14 44 78.79 49 94.48 43
(18.64) (47.03) (57.54) (62.47)

Proportion GM 15.56 32 30.63 27 14.80 15 23.57 23
of Correct (29.75) (40.18) (31.37) (39.69)
Syllables
MSM 38.21 90 49.92 71 55.54 68 60.51 56
(37.66) (42.81) (42.05) (39.49)

Compre- GM - - - - 0.00 15 0.17 23
hension - - (0.00) (0.39)

MSM - - - - 0.27 70 0.39 57
- - (0.45) (0.49)
*
It will be noted that the numbers relating to the Time variable differ slightly from those relating to the
Engaging the Text variable above on occasions 1 to 3. This slight discrepancy between numbers applies also to
Tables 4.23, 4.26, and 5.4 below. These variations are due to faulty record keeping procedures. It is clear that
these minor differences would have no substantial effect on the statistical testing procedures.
The analysis of the variable Reading Time by Method for the second occasion, the only occasion
showing significant differences, is presented in Table 4.12.
Table 4.12. Reading TimeOccasion 2
The analysis of the variable Reading Time by Method for the first occasion showed
nonsignificance with an F value >0.10, but there was a significant effect on the second occasion.
Again, on the third and fourth occasions the analyses showed nonsignificance: these F values
showed probabilities >0.10. From the table of means it is interesting to note the significant effect
of reading time only on occasion 2, with the Multi-Strategy group, on average, taking less time
to read than the Gudschinsky group. As considered above, it was expected that the Gudschinsky
group would read more accurately and thus with less time while reading the primer on this test.
The analyses of the variable Proportion of Correct Syllables by method over the four occasions is
presented in Table 4.13.
Occasion df Effect Size F P

2 1
Error 56
0.02 7.72
*
<0.007
4. The Urat Study 101

Table 4.13. Correct SyllablesOccasions 14
Occasion df Effect Size F P
1 1 0.01 9.46
*
0.003
Error 120
2 1 0.01 4.1
*
0.46
Error 96
3 1 0.01 12.49
*
<0.001
Error 81
4 1 0.01 14.2
*
<0.001
Error 77
For the analysis of the variable Proportion of Correct Syllables by Method, there were significant
differences on all four occasions. Reference to the table of means shows that on all occasions the
Multi-Strategy learners, on average, read with more correct syllables than did the Gudschinsky
learners. This consistency of accuracy in reading by the Multi-Strategy learners over the four
occasions is comparable with reading more by phrase contours over the four occasions. These
results indicate that the teaching of meaningful prose in the Story Track alongside strategies for
word attack skills influences reading skill and fluency throughout the program and is not
confined to later stages when phonemes have been learned.
We now consider the variable Comprehension. Scores for this variable were only recorded
for occasions 3 and 4. As described in Chapter 3, the instruments were not extensive enough to
warrant comprehension questions on occasions 1 and 2. The analysis for the variable
Comprehension by Method for occasions 3 and 4 are presented in Table 4.14.
Table 4.14. ComprehensionOccasions 3 and 4
Analysis of the variable Comprehension by Method for the third occasion showed a significant
difference between the two groups, with the Multi-Strategy group, on average, showing more
understanding of the content being read than the Gudschinsky group. There was also a trend
toward more comprehension shown by the Multi-Strategy learners on the fourth occasion. On the
four occasions, reference to the table of means shows that the Multi-Strategy learners, on
average, not only read more quickly but they also scored higher for the variables of reading
Correct Syllables and Comprehension, indicating that, overall, they read with greater accuracy
and understanding than the Gudschinsky learners. We now turn to a more detailed analysis of the
data learners produced in reading the texts over the four occasions.
Occasion df Effect Size F P
3 1 0.01 5.48
*
0.022
Error 83
4 1 0.01 3.41 <0.068
Error 78
102 4. The Urat Study

4.6.1.2. Specific reading skills
For the analyses of the second five variable divisions, the specific reading skills, five
separate MANOVAs were performed:
1. Intonation Contours
2. Substitution of Words
3. Substitution of Elements within Words
4. Fluency within Words
5. Fluency within Sentences
Looking at the first of the five variable divisions, the following set of variables is entered
into the MANOVA:
Dependent variables:
Intonation Contours

WORD Letter-by-Letter
Syllable-by-Syllable
UNIT Word-by-Word
Phrase-by-Phrase
Independent variables: Gudschinsky Method
Multi-Strategy Method
The means and standard deviations relating to this analysis are presented in Table 4.15.
4. The Urat Study 103

Table 4.15. Intonation Contours: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups
Variable Group M (SD)
Occas. 1
n M (SD)
Occas. 2
n M (SD)
Occas. 3
n M (SD)
Occas. 4
n
Letter- GM 0.29 33 1.11 27 0.00 15 0.00 23
by-Letter (0.77) (3.00) (0.00) (0.00)

MSM 0.29 90 0.01 71 0.00 68 0.00 56
(1.65) (0.12) (0.00) (0.00)

Syllable- GM 0.14 0.37 0.68 0.75
by-Syllable (0.40) (0.63) (1.39) (1.49)

MSM 0.56 1.31 1.34 1.88
(1.30) (2.27) (2.35) (2.30)

Word-by- GM 0.27 1.85 1.67 1.20
Word (0.42) (2.13) (3.02) (2.01)

MSM 0.34 1.89 3.78 2.61
(0.41) (2.04) (2.96) (2.08)

Phrase- GM 0.08 0.52 0.00 0.44
by-Phrase (0.22) (1.25) (0.00) (0.93)

MSM 0.28 1.23 1.84 1.80
(0.39) (1.74) (2.23) (1.86)
Considering reading by Letters, Syllables, Words, and Phrases as a multivariate set, the
MANOVA is complete for occasions 1 and 2 with the main effect and significant univariate
results shown. For occasions 3 and 4, only univariate results are shown because there were
empty cells for the variable reading Letter-by-Letter. As mentioned in Chapter 3, it must be
noted that the variable reading Phrase-by-Phrase did not strictly refer to phrases only, but also
included longer sections of text. The results for the Intonation Contour variable for occasion 1
are shown in Table 4.16.
104 4. The Urat Study

Table 4.16. Intonation ContoursOccasion 1
For occasion 1, the MANOVA showed a significant main effect for the multivariate set of the
variable division Intonation Contours. Examining the univariate follow-up, for the variable of
reading Phrase-by-Phrase, the effect of Method of instruction is significant, while there is also a
trend toward significance for the variable of reading Syllable-by-Syllable. Reference to the table
of means shows that the Multi-Strategy learners, on average, scored higher, especially in reading
phrases or longer units of words. These results indicate that the reading for the Multi-Strategy
group was more meaning based with contours read in longer chunks. Similar results are shown
for the Intonation Contour variable on occasion 2 in Table 4.17.
Table 4.17. Intonation ContoursOccasion 2
df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 4 0.16 4.52
*
0.002
Error 93
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Letter-by-Letter 1 0.09 9.59
*
0.003
Error 96
Syllable-by-Syllable 1 0.04 4.46
*
0.037
Error 96
Phrase-by-Phrase 1 0.04 3.71 0.057
Error 96
df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 4 0.09 2.94
*
0.023
Error 118
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Syllable-by-Syllable 1 0.03 3.39 0.068
Error 121

Phrase-by-Phrase 1 0.06 7.89
*
0.006
Error 121
4. The Urat Study 105

For occasion 2, the MANOVA showed a significant main effect for the multivariate set of the
variable division Intonation Contours. Examining the univariate follow-up, there is a significant
difference between groups for the variables reading by letters and syllables. For the variable
reading by phrases there is also a strong trend toward significance. Reference to the table of
means indicates that the Gudschinsky learners, on average, scored higher for reading letter-by-
letter than the Multi-Strategy learners. On the other hand, the Multi-Strategy learners scored
higher, on average, for reading by syllables and with a strong tendency to read by phrases or
longer units of text.
It will be recalled that the instrument for testing on occasion 2 was taken from primer pages
to help determine if the material had been adequately taught. The results of the Intonation
Contour variable show that the Gudschinsky learners were continuing to respond to reading
letter-by-letter after fifteen weeks of instruction. This strategy for reading, where each consonant
was read with the vowel e as a syllable following the sound or the English alphabet name,
seemed to be a result of expectations of teachers and students on the nature of reading; a legacy
from previous literacy endeavours in the area. It must be noted, however, that letter reading was
evident for a few learners in only one Multi-Strategy class on occasion 1. For the Multi-Strategy
group, there is significance or trends toward significance for reading by syllables and phrase
contours on both occasion 1 and 2. It will be seen later in this chapter that, at the completion of
the course, there was evidence of some Gudschinsky learners persisting in interacting with print
at the level of the phoneme.
On occasions 3 and 4 there were significant effects on the multivariate set but, again, the
MANOVA analyses were not completed because there were empty cells for reading letter-by-
letter. The univariate analyses for Intonation Contours are presented in Tables 4.18 and 4.19.
106 4. The Urat Study

Table 4.18. Intonation ContoursOccasion 3
Table 4.19. Intonation ContoursOccasion 4
df Effect Size F P
Variable
Syllable-by-Syllable 1 0.06 4.73
*
0.033
Error 77
Word-by-Word 1 0.09 7.69
*
0.007
Error 77
Phrase-by-Phrase 1 0.13 11.29
*
0.001
Error 77
A striking difference at this stage, for both occasions 3 and 4, is that on the variable for reading
Word-by-Word, the effect of instructional method is significant. Reference to the table of means
shows, on average, a higher score for the Multi-Strategy learners on all variables on both
occasions than for the Gudschinsky learners. There were fewer constraints on the content of the
test material at this stage of the course so there was much more unfamiliar material included.
These results indicate that the Multi-Strategy learners applied more known strategies of using
syllables to read the new, unknown words than did the Gudschinsky learners. Reading phrase-
by-phrase indicates more meaningful, fluent reading so, on average, the Multi-Strategy group
also read with longer intonation contours and more fluency than the Gudschinsky group.
Now, turning to the second of the five specific reading variable divisions, the following set
of variables is entered into the MANOVA:
Dependent variables: Substitution of Words
Nonsense Words
Compatible Words
Incompatible Words
Independent variables: Gudschinsky Method
Multi-Strategy Method
The means and standard deviations relating to this analysis are presented in Table 4.20.
df Effect Size F P
Variable
Word-by-Word 1 0.10 6.21
*
0.015
Error 81
Phrase-by-Phrase 1 0.11 10.09
*
0.002
Error 81
4. The Urat Study 107

Table 4.20. Substitution of Words: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups
Variable Group M (SD)
Occas. 1
n M (SD)
Occas. 2
n M (SD)
Occas. 3
n M (SD)
Occas. 4
n
Nonsense GM 0.30 33 1.26 27 0.20 15 0.25 23
Words (0.75) (2.97) (0.56) (0.51)

MSM 0.35 90 0.34 71 0.37 68 0.68 56
(0.65) (0.97) (1.04) (1.15)

Compatible GM 0.15 0.19 0.73 0.30
Words (0.42) (0.48) (1.62) (0.60)

MSM 0.24 0.80 1.37 0.77
(0.50) (1.41) (2.12) (0.91)

Incompatible GM 0.03 0.56 0.47 0.09
Words (0.12) (1.34) (1.81) (0.18)

MSM 0.21 0.52 1.04 0.95
(0.42) (1.23) (1.95) (1.53)
The three kinds of word substitution, Nonsense, Compatible, and Incompatible Words are
taken as a multivariate set for the MANOVA and the univariate follow-up results are shown in
Tables 4.21 and 4.22. These results are presented for occasions 2 and 4. The MANOVAs for
occasions 1 and 3 were nonsignificant: the F values showed probabilities of 0.092 (for occasion
1) and >0.10 (for occasion 3). The main effect and the univariate follow-up analyses for the
second occasion are presented in Table 4.21.
Table 4.21. Substitution of WordsOccasion 2
df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 3 0.10 3.61
*
0.016
Error 94
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Nonsense Words 1 0.05 5.40
*
0.022
Error 96
Compatible Words 1 0.05 4.93
*
0.029
Error 96
108 4. The Urat Study

The independent variable Method showed a significant effect on the multivariate set and the
univariate analyses revealed significant differences for the two variables, Nonsense Words and
Compatible Words. The table of means clearly indicates that both of the independent variables,
Gudschinsky and Multi-Strategy methods of instruction influenced the effect with, on average,
Gudschinsky learners reading with more nonsense words and Multi-Strategy learners reading
with more compatible words. As indicated earlier, it was expected that the Gudschinsky group
would read more accurately, since the test, on this occasion, was centred on reading pages of the
primer. There was no significant difference between the groups for reading of incompatible
words: the F value probability was >0.10. The MANOVA and univariate follow-up analyses for
occasion 4 are presented in Table 4.22.
Table 4.22. Substitution of WordsOccasion 4
df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 3 0.10 2.64 0.056
Error 75
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Compatible Words 1 0.06 5.07
*
0.027
Error 77
Incompatible Words 1 0.09 7.25
*
0.009
Error 77
There is a strong trend toward a significant effect on the multivariate set and the univariate
analyses reveal significant differences for the two variables, Compatible Words and
Incompatible Words. The table of means indicates that on this occasion the Multi-Strategy
learners, on average, tended to read more by substituting words, both compatible and
incompatible, than the Gudschinsky learners. There was a trend toward significance on the
variable Nonsense Words but this was not considered to be reliable (p=0.088).
In the group of specific reading variables, for the third variable division of Substitution of
Elements within Words, the MANOVA did not yield a significant effect on the multivariate set.
The dependent variables were Elements within Words: Consonant-Vowel, Consonant,
Consonant Cluster, Digraph, and Vowel. These variables were highly correlated and the
independent variables of instructional Method did not show a significant effect on the
multivariate set on any of the occasions. On occasion 4, the univariate follow-up analyses did
show significant differences between groups for all variables, with the Multi-Strategy group
showing higher scores on the table of means. Such fine analysis was thought to be warranted
because there were some orthography decisions being considered, particularly with digraphs, as
referred to in Chapter 2. There were, however, no overall, reliable differences between groups.
The fourth set of variables in the specific reading variable divisions is concerned with
Fluency within Words. For this analysis, the following set of variables is entered into the
MANOVA:
4. The Urat Study 109

Dependent variables: Fluency within Words
Omission of Syllables
Self-Correction of Syllables
Insertion of Syllables
Independent variables: Gudschinsky Method
Multi-Strategy Method
The means and standard deviations relating to this analysis are presented in Table 4.23.
Table 4.23. Fluency within Words: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups
Variable Group M (SD)
Occas. 1
n M (SD)
Occas. 2
n M (SD)
Occas. 3
n M (SD)
Occas. 4
n
Omission GM 0.24 31 1.70 27 1.40 15 0.21 23
of Syllables (0.59) (3.69) (3.58) (0.42)

MSM 0.41 89 0.97 71 1.27 67 1.32 56
(0.68) (2.35) (2.48) (2.60)

Self-cor- GM 0.00 0.15 0.13 0.83
rection of (0.00) (0.36) (0.52) (1.59)
Syllables
MSM 0.15 0.32 0.57 2.32
(0.41) (1.67) (1.05) (2.82)

Insertion GM 0.94 1.78 0.27 0.78
of Syllables (2.35) (4.17) (0.80) (1.83)

MSM 0.74 0.38 1.55 3.17
(1.51) (0.80) (3.13) (4.82)
On the first occasion, for the set of variables Fluency within Words, the MANOVA yielded
a trend toward significance (p=0.088). On the univariate follow-up, this result did not relate to
significant differences between groups for the variables Omission and Insertion of Syllables, but
for the Self-Correction variable there was a trend toward significance (p=0.053). Such a result is
not considered to be a significant effect shown by the independent variables, but reference to the
table of means indicates that Multi-Strategy learners were, on average, tending toward reliably
more self-correction than the Gudschinsky learners. For occasion 2, the MANOVA produced the
results shown on Table 4.24.
110 4. The Urat Study

Table 4.24. Fluency within WordsOccasion 2
df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 3 0.12 4.20
*
0.008
Error 94
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Insertion of Syllables 1 0.07 7.37
*
0.008
Error 96
The independent variable Method of instruction showed a significant effect for the multivariate
set. It is only for the variable Insertion of Syllables that the univariate follow-up revealed a
significant difference between groups. Reference to the table of means shows that the
Gudschinsky group, on average, gained a higher score than the Multi-Strategy group on this
variable. Reading with many insertions could indicate that there was more guessing and less
accurate reading by the Gudschinsky group. There were no significant differences between
groups for the variables Omission of Syllables and Self-Correction: the F values showed
probabilities of >0.10.
The MANOVA did not yield a significant effect for this dependent variable, Fluency within
Words, on occasion 3: the F value showed a probability of >0.10. We now consider the results
produced by the MANOVA for occasion 4 which are shown in Table 4.25.
Table 4.25. Fluency within WordsOccasion 4
For the dependent variable Fluency within Words, the MANOVA yielded a significant effect for
method of instruction on the multivariate set. The univariate follow-up analyses show that the
effect held for each of the three variables in the set: Omission, Self-Correction, and Insertion of
Syllables. The table of mean scores reveals that the Multi-Strategy learners, on average, showed
df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 3 0.12 3.32
*
0.024
Error 75
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Omission of Syllables 1 0.05 4.14
*
0.045
Error 77
Self-correction of Syllables 1 0.07 5.71
*
0.019
Error 77
Insertion of Syllables 1 0.06 5.34
*
0.024
Error 77
4. The Urat Study 111

higher scores than the Gudschinsky learners on all variables. Such a result indicates that learners
from the Multi-Strategy group showed more concentration on determining the meaning of the
texts than the Gudschinsky group. This result is consistent over all of the variables on this final
test, where there were no restrictions of phonemes in the instrument for testing. Multi-Strategy
learners showed more ability to interact with the text and use the strategies they had learned for
word identification and meaningful reading than did the Gudschinsky learners.
The final variable to be considered in the group of specific reading variable divisions is
Fluency within Sentences. For this analysis, the following set of variables is entered into the
MANOVA:
Dependent variables: Fluency within Sentences
Repetition of Syllables
Repetition of Words
Repetition of Phrases
Independent variables: Gudschinsky Method
Multi-Strategy Method
The means and standard deviations relating to this analysis are presented in Table 4.26.
Table 4.26. Fluency within Sentences: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups
Variable Group M (SD)
Occas. 1
n M (SD)
Occas. 2
n M (SD)
Occas. 3
n M (SD)
Occas. 4
n
Repetition GM 0.47 32 0.82 27 0.27 15 0.72 23
of Syllables (0.20) (1.92) (0.59) (1.42)

MSM 0.79 90 1.87 70 1.31 68 2.47 56
(1.46) (4.55) (2.83) (3.40)

Repetition GM 0.17 0.82 0.40 0.51
of Words (0.58) (1.57) (0.91) (1.27)

MSM 0.69 2.00 2.97 2.92
(1.45) (4.12) (3.92) (2.61)

Repetition GM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03
of Phrases (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.09)

MSM 0.10 0.13 0.47 0.40
(0.29) (0.38) (1.47) (0.82)
Considering the three variables, Repetition of Syllables, Words, and Phrases, as a
multivariate set, the MANOVA produced the results shown in Table 4.27 for occasion 1.
112 4. The Urat Study

Table 4.27. Fluency within SentencesOccasion 1

df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 3 0.08 3.51
*
0.018
Error 118
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Repetition of Syllables 1 0.06 8.26
*
0.005
Error 120
Repetition of Words 1 0.03 3.83 0.053
Error 120
Repetition of Phrases 1 0.03 3.73 0.056
Error 120
The independent variable Method showed a significant effect on the multivariate set, so the
univariate follow-up analyses were examined for significant differences for each variable. It is
for the variable Repetition of Syllables that the effect of method is significant. For the variables
Repetition of Words and Phrases, there is a strong trend toward significance. From the table of
means it is clear that the Multi-Strategy group, on average, scored higher on the three variables.
It is considered that repetition of parts of words and parts of sentences, especially phrases,
indicates an attempt to read to make sense of the text. If this is so, the results show that Multi-
Strategy learners made more attempts to read for meaning on this first occasion than the
Gudschinsky learners.
For occasions 2 and 3, the MANOVA did not yield significant effects: both F values showed
probabilities of >0.10. We now consider the results of the MANOVA on occasion 4 shown in
Table 4.28.
4. The Urat Study 113

Table 4.28. Fluency within SentencesOccasion 4
The MANOVA for occasion 4 yielded a significant main effect on the multivariate set. On this
occasion, the effect held for the three variables in the set. Reference to the table of means reveals
that, on average, the Multi-Strategy group scored higher on all variables. The use of repetition
indicates that the Multi-Strategy learners showed control in each area, using different strategies
to decipher the texts. As was pointed out in Chapter 3, there were four pieces of text to be read,
three of which were excerpts from texts not seen before the test. These results indicate that in
reading the new texts, strategies such as reading by repetition of syllables in deciphering a word,
self-correction, and repeating words and phrases to understand a text were employed, on average,
more by the Multi-Strategy learners than by the Gudschinsky learners.
4.6.1.3. Summary of reading results
An overall consideration of the significant reading variables indicates patterns of reading
competence shown by the learners in the two instructional programs. A summary of the
indications of higher scores by each group shown on the tables of mean scores for these variables
is presented in Table 4.29.
It is only on occasion 2 that the Gudschinsky learners, on average, showed higher scores for
the variables entered. As was explained previously, it was expected that the Gudschinsky group
would perform well at this stage, because the test was taken from the primer material already
taught. It is surprising to note that the indications from the tables of mean scores for this occasion
do not show more reading competence for this group. The learners took longer to read, read
letter-by-letter with more nonsense words and read with more insertions than the Multi-Strategy
group. Such results suggest that there was more guessing than competent reading by the
Gudschinsky group on the primer reading. On all other significant variables the Multi-Strategy
group showed, on average, higher scores on the tables of mean scores indicating more positive
competence in reading.

df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 3 0.19 6.02
*
0.001
Error 75
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Repetition of Syllables 1 0.07 5.66
*
0.020
Error 77
Repetition of Words 1 0.19 17.66
*
<0.001
Error 77
Repetition of Phrases 1 0.06 4.66
*
0.034
Error 77
114 4. The Urat Study

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 - - 0 MSM
Syllables MSM MSM 0 MSM
Words 0 MSM 0 MSM
Engaging the Text MSM 0 MSM MSM
Reading Time 0 MSM 0 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 0 GM 0 0
Syllable-by-Syllable MSM
T
MSM 0 MSM
Word-by-Word 0 0 MSM MSM
Phrase-by-Phrase MSM MSM
T
MSM MSM
Substitution of Words 0 Sig. 0 Sig
T

Nonsense 0 GM 0 0
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) 0 GM 0 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 0 0 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
4. The Urat Study 115

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
116 4. The Urat Study

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)
4. The Urat Study 117

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.
118 4. The Urat Study

Table 4.30. Concepts about Print: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups
Variable Group M (SD)
Occas. 1
n M (SD)
Occas. 2
n M (SD)
Occas. 3
n M (SD)
Occas. 4
n
Word GM 0.24 33 0.35 23 0.27 15 0.35 23
Breaks (0.44) (0.49) (0.46) (0.49)

MSM 0.54 92 0.45 73 0.61 70 0.38 57
(0.50) (0.50) (0.49) (0.47)

Capital GM 0.06 0.35 0.27 0.44
Letters (0.24) (0.49) (0.46) (1.88)

MSM 0.07 0.19 0.19 0.10
(0.25) (0.40) (0.39) (0.31)

Full GM 0.12 0.04 0.20 0.48
Stops (0.55) (0.21) (0.41) (1.88)

MSM 0.09 0.01 0.13 0.12
(0.28) (0.12) (0.34) (0.33)

Complete GM 0.21 - 0.33 0.57
Sentence (0.42) - (0.49) (1.88)

MSM 0.31 - 0.47 0.61
(0.47) - (0.50) (0.49)
Taking the variables Word Breaks, Capitals, Full Stops, and Complete Sentences as a
multivariate set, the MANOVA yielded the results for occasions 1, 3, and 4 shown in Tables
4.314.33.
Table 4.31. Concepts about PrintOccasion 1

df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 4 0.08 2.71
*
0.033
Error 129
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Word Breaks 1 0.07 9.37
*
0.003
Error 123
4. The Urat Study 119

Table 4.32. Concepts about PrintOccasion 3
Table 4.33. Concepts about printOccasion 4
On occasions 1 and 4, the MANOVA showed a significant effect for the Concepts about
Print multivariate set of variables, and on occasion 3 there was a strong trend toward
significance. On occasion 2 there was no significant difference between groups: the F value had
a probability of >0.10. On occasions 1, 3, and 4, the univariate follow-up analyses showed
significant differences between groups for the variable Word Breaks. Examination of the table of
means reveals that the Multi-Strategy group, on average, scored higher than the Gudschinsky
group on the three occasions for this variable. This result indicates that the Multi-Strategy
learners showed more of an understanding of the concept of a word than the Gudschinsky
learners early in the program and sustained that advantage. For the test on occasion 2, the
learners were told a sentence of three words and asked to write it: there was no scope for self-
generated writing. For the other three variables in the multivariate set, there were no significant
differences between the two groups on all occasions: the F values on these results had
probabilities >0.10.
The second variable division is concerned with Form of Print, Letters Attempted and
Correct, and Different Letters Attempted and Correct. For the MANOVA used in this analysis,
the following set of variables is entered into the MANOVA:

df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 4 0.11 2.41 0.056
Error 80
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Word Breaks 1 0.07 6.35
*
0.014
Error 83

df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 4 0.28 7.12
*
0.001
Error 75
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Word Breaks 1 0.22 21.58
*
<0.001
Error 78
120 4. The Urat Study

Dependent variables: Form of Print, Letters
Letters Attempted
Letters Correct
Different Letters Attempted
Different Letters Correct
Independent variables: Gudschinsky Method
Multi-Strategy Method
The means and standard deviations relating to the analysis of these variables are presented in
Table 4.34.
Table 4.34. Form of Print, Letters: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups
Variable Group M (SD)
Occas. 1
n M (SD)
Occas. 2
n M (SD)
Occas. 3
n M (SD)
Occas. 4
n
Letters GM 19.91 33 9.96 23 15.33 15 28.57 23
Attempted (24.84) (5.35) (10.55) (18.87)

MSM 15.41 92 8.19 73 26.37 70 71.90 57
(9.38) (3.23) (16.21) (54.91)

Letters GM 14.97 8.61 12.27 24.65
Correct (19.41) (4.77) (10.07) (20.52)

MSM 14.11 7.51 24.36 69.60
(9.36) (3.01) (16.51) (55.90)

Letters GM 12.85 7.35 9.40 12.35
Different (16.25) (2.99) (4.15) (3.08)
Attempted
MSM 9.49 6.40 11.86 15.65
(5.52) (2.09) (3.64) (3.24)

Letters GM 7.36 6.22 7.07 9.57
Different (4.03) (2.56) (3.28) (4.14)
Correct
MSM 7.97 5.86 10.59 14.47
(3.49) (1.92) (3.73) (4.11)
Considering the variable division Form of Print, with Letters Attempted and Correct, and
Different Letters Attempted and Correct as a multivariate set, the MANOVA yielded the results
shown in Table 4.35 for occasion 1.
4. The Urat Study 121

Table 4.35. Form of Print, LettersOccasion 1

df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 4 0.08 2.72
*
0.033
Error 120
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Letters Different 1 0.02 3.00 0.086
Attempted Error 123
Figures 4.1 to 4.4 clearly graph the difference between the Gudschinsky and Multi-Strategy
methods on the four variables: Letters Attempted, Letters Correct, Different Letters Attempted,
and Different Letters Correct for the four occasions.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Occas.
1
Occas.
2
Occas.
3
Occas.
4
GM
MSM

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Occas.
1
Occas.
2
Occas.
3
Occas.
4
GM
MSM

Figure 4.1. Letters attempted Figure 4.2. Letters correct
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Occas.
1
Occas.
2
Occas.
3
Occas.
4
GM
MSM

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
O
c
c
a
s
.

1
O
c
c
a
s
.

2
O
c
c
a
s
.

3
O
c
c
a
s
.

4
GM
MSM

Figure 4.3. Different letters attempted Figure 4.4. Different letters correct
The independent variable Method of instruction showed a significant effect on the multivariate
set with the univariate follow-up showing a trend toward difference between groups on one
variable which is not considered to be reliable. The probability shows a tendency for the two
groups to be different on the attempts made to write different letters. Reference to the table of
means indicates that, on average, the Gudschinsky learners scored higher than the Multi-Strategy
learners. At this stage in the course, some learners tended to write long strings of letters with
little or no reference to meaningful print. This result indicates that the tendency was more
evident in the Gudschinsky group at the early stages of the program.
122 4. The Urat Study

On the second occasion, the MANOVA showed nonsignificant differences for the letter
formation multivariate set: the F value had a probability of >0.10. The results of the MANOVA
applied to data from occasion 3 are shown in Table 4.36.
Table 4.36. Form of Print, LettersOccasion 3

df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 4 0.14 3.19
*
0.017
Error 80
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Letters Attempted 1 0.07 6.35
*
0.014
Error 83
Letters Correct 1 0.08 7.41
*
0.008
Error 83
Letters Different 1 0.06 5.35
*
0.023
Attempted Error 83
Letters Different Correct 1 0.12 11.44
*
0.001
Error 83
The MANOVA for occasion 3 yielded a significant main effect on the multivariate set. On
this occasion the effect held for the four variables in the set. Reference to the table of means
shows that, on average, the Multi-Strategy group scored higher on all variables. These results
indicate that the Multi-Strategy learners wrote more clearly, with letters formed more accurately
than the Gudschinsky group. A similar set of results is shown for occasion 4 shown in Table
4.37.
4. The Urat Study 123

Table 4.37. Form of Print, LettersOccasion 4

df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 4 0.27 6.99
*
0.001
Error 75
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Letters Attempted 1 0.15 13.58
*
0.001
Error 78
Letters Correct 1 0.15 14.02
*
<0.001
Error 78
Letters Different 1 0.18 17.50
*
<0.001
Attempted Error 78
Letters Different Correct 1 0.23 23.26
*
<0.001
Error 78
Again, the MANOVA yielded a significant effect on the multivariate set for this occasion. For
the univariate follow-up, the effect also held for all variables. The table of mean scores shows
that, on average, the Multi-Strategy group scored higher on all variables. These results indicate
that the Multi-Strategy learners wrote more text and wrote with more correct formation of letters
than the Gudschinsky group.
The final variable division in mechanics of writing is also concerned with form of print but
with reference to words instead of letters: Words Attempted and Correct, and Different Words
Attempted and Correct. One further variable is included: Words Incorrect but Recognisable. For
this analysis, the following set of variables is entered into the MANOVA:
Dependent variables: Form of Print, Words
Words Attempted
Words Correct
Different Words Attempted
Different Words Correct
Different Words Incorrect but Recognisable
Independent variables: Gudschinsky Method
Multi-Strategy Method
The means and standard deviations relating to the analysis of these variables are presented in
Table 4.38.
124 4. The Urat Study

Table 4.38. Form of Print, Words: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups
Variable Group M (SD)
Occas. 1
n M (SD)
Occas. 2
n M (SD)
Occas. 3
n M (SD)
Occas. 4
n
Words GM 3.88 33
-
*

- 3.20 15 5.78 23
Attempted (3.42) - (2.21) (4.67)

MSM 3.49 92 - - 5.27 70 15.83 57
(2.17) - (3.11) (12.39)

Words GM 2.12 - - 0.80 2.04
Correct (3.49) - (1.27) (3.70)

MSM 1.43 - - 1.76 9.37
(2.22) - (2.91) (11.70)

Words GM 3.06 2.78 23 2.93 4.96
Different (2.21) (1.28) (1.91) (3.42)
Attempted
MSM 3.17 2.37 73 4.74 11.77
(1.99) (0.95) (2.64) (7.45)

Words GM 1.33 1.00 0.80 1.65
Different (2.29) (1.34) (1.27) (2.89)
Correct
MSM 1.20 1.23 1.87 6.53
(1.91) (1.28) (3.33) (7.36)

Words GM 0.70 0.61 0.87 1.35
Different (1.05) (0.78) (1.69) (2.44)
Incorrect
but Recog- MSM 0.92 0.62 1.67 3.51
nisable (1.09) (0.78) (1.73) (3.40)
*
In reference to the empty cells, it will be recalled that this test was specifically related to the primers. In the
writing component, students were asked to write a specific sentence of three words so there were no self-
generated words expected.
Taking the variables Words Attempted and Correct, Different Words Attempted and
Correct, and Different Words Incorrect but Recognisable as a multivariate set, the MANOVA
yielded a significant effect for occasion 1; MVF(5,119)=2.63, p=0.027. On examining the
univariate analyses, there were no significant differences between the means on any of the
variables: all F values had probabilities of >0.10. Reference to the table of means shows that the
differences on the variables are not in favour of any one group, so on this first test it is
considered that the differences are not sufficiently clear to allow conclusions about writing
words correctly. On occasion 2, the MANOVA yielded a trend toward significance on the
multivariate set as shown in Table 4.39.
4. The Urat Study 125

Table 4.39. Form of Print, WordsOccasion 2

df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 3 0.07 2.43 0.070
Error 92
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Words Different Attempted 1 0.03 2.78 0.099
Error 94
The independent variable Method of instruction showed a trend toward significance on the
variable division Formation of Words. The univariate follow-up showed a tendency toward a
difference between groups on the variable Different Words Attempted. It is not considered that
this is a noteworthy finding. Reference to the table of means indicates that, on average, the
Gudschinsky learners scored higher than the Multi-Strategy learners on this variable. On this
occasion, when the primer material was in focus, the learners were asked to write a three-word
sentence. This result may indicate that the Gudschinsky group showed more of a tendency to
write with more breaks between groups of letters than the Multi-Strategy group, resulting in
more words than the three expected in the sentence, but this conclusion is not reliable.
On the third occasion, the MANOVA was nonsignificant for the variable division Formation
of Words: the F value had a probability of >0.10. On the fourth occasion, the MANOVA yielded
the results shown in Table 4.40.
126 4. The Urat Study

Table 4.40. Form of Print, WordsOccasion 4
The MANOVA, for occasion 4, yielded a significant main effect on the multivariate set. On this
occasion, the effect held for the five variables in the set. Reference to the table of means reveals
that, on average, the Multi-Strategy group scored higher than the Gudschinsky group on all
variables. This indicates that those learners wrote more words more clearly and accurately than
the Gudschinsky learners at the end of the assessment period of approximately twenty-four
weeks.
In summary, for the variable sets in mechanics of writing, on average, the Multi-Strategy
group significantly had more understanding of the concept of a word (occasions 1, 3, and 4),
wrote more letters (occasions 3 and 4), and wrote words (occasion 4) more accurately and clearly
than the Gudschinsky group. Again, the advantage for the Multi-Strategy group develops
strongly as the program advances. We now turn to examining some of the more meaningful
aspects of writing which were appropriate for this stage of literacy.
4.6.2.2. Meaning in writing
Writing long texts in different genres was not required or expected in the test instruments.
As was mentioned above, the test instrument did not include meaning in writing on occasions 1
and 2. The variable divisions for meaning in writing are as follows:
1. Writing with Sense
2. Elaborations
3. Cohesive Ties (referentials, conjunctions, lexical)
4. Story Line (introduction, action, complication, resolution)

df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 5 0.22 4.07
*
0.003
Error 79
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Words Attempted 1 0.15 14.21
*
<0.001
Error 78
Words Correct 1 1.10 8.60
*
0.004
Error 78
Words Different Attempted 1 0.18 17.65
*
<0.001
Error 78
Words Different Correct 1 0.11 9.43
*
0.003
Error 78
Words Different 1 0.09 7.68
*
0.007
IncorrectRecognisable Error 78
4. The Urat Study 127

5. Interaction with the Picture (description, description plus previous information, description
plus interpolations, description plus post picture information, description plus inferences)
The first two variables, Writing with Sense and Elaborations, are analysed using ANOVAs,
while MANOVAs are used for all subsequent analyses. For the two ANOVAs the following
variables are entered:
Dependent variables: Writing with Sense
Writing with Elaboration
Independent variables: Gudschinsky Method
Multi-Strategy Method
The means and standard deviations relating to the analysis of these variables are presented in
Table 4.41.
Table 4.41. Writing with Sense and Elaboration: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional
groups
Variable Group M (SD) Occas. 3 n M (SD) Occas. 4 n
Writing GM 0.33 15 0.30 23
Sense (0.49) (0.47)



MSM 0.53 70 0.67 57
(0.50) (0.48)
Elaborations GM 0.20 15 0.08 23
(0.41) (0.28)



MSM 0.66 70 0.40 57
(1.10) (0.98)
On occasion 3, the ANOVAs did not yield a significant effect for either of the dependent
variables Writing with Sense or Elaborations: the F values had probabilities >0.10. On the fourth
occasion, the ANOVA yielded the results shown in Table 4.42.
Table 4.42. Writing with SenseOccasion 4
The ANOVA showed a significant effect for the variable Writing with Sense. Reference to the
table of means shows a higher mean score for the Multi-Strategy group indicating that, on
average, those learners wrote more meaningful material than the Gudschinsky group. On this
occasion, for the variable Elaborations there was no significant difference between groups: the F
value had a probability of >0.10.

df Effect Size F P
Variable
Writing sense 1 0.01 9.57
*
0.003
Error 78
128 4. The Urat Study

We now turn to a more detailed analysis of the data in terms of meaningful content in the
texts written by the learners on occasions 3 and 4. For these analyses there are three variable
divisions:
1. Cohesive Ties (referentials, conjunctions, lexical features)
2. Story Line (introduction, action, complication, resolution)
3. Picture Reliance (description, description plus previous information, description plus
interpolations, description plus post-picture information, description plus inferences)
For the analysis of the variable set Cohesive Ties, the following set of variables is entered
into the MANOVA:
Dependent variables: Cohesive Ties
Referentials
Conjunctions
Lexical Features
Independent variables: Gudschinsky Method
Multi-Strategy Method
The means and standard deviations relating to the analysis of these variables are presented in
Table 4.43.
Table 4.43. Cohesive Ties: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups
Variable Group M (SD) Occas. 3 n M (SD) Occas. 4 n
Referentials GM 0.47 15 0.48 23
(0.74) (1.12)



MSM 0.69 70 1.75 57
(0.97) (2.29)
Conjunctions GM 0.00 0.17
(0.00) (0.49)



MSM 0.07 1.40
(0.26) (2.13)
Lexical GM 0.00 0.13
(0.00) (0.46)



MSM 0.03 0.35
(0.17) (0.67)
4. The Urat Study 129

Considering the three variables referentials, conjunctions, and lexical features as a
multivariate set, the MANOVA did not yield a significant effect for occasion 3: the F value had a
probability >0.10. The results for occasion 4 are shown in Table 4.44.
Table 4.44. Cohesive TiesOccasion 4
For occasion 4, the independent variable Method showed a strong trend toward significance
on the multivariate set. On examination of the univariate follow-up for the three variables in the
set, significant differences between the groups are shown for two variables: Referentials and
Conjunctions. There is no significant difference between means shown for the variable lexical
features: the F value had a probability of >0.10. Reference to the table of means reveals that, on
average, the Multi-Strategy group scored higher than the Gudschinsky group on the variables
Referentials and Conjunctions. These results indicate that the Multi-Strategy learners tended to
write with more control of these features of the grammar than the Gudschinsky learners,
producing, in these respects, more explicitly cohesive texts in their writing.
The next variable division we consider is concerned with the story line of the texts written.
For this analysis, the following set of variables is entered into the MANOVA:
Dependent variables: Story Line
Introduction
Action
Complication
Resolution
Independent variables: Gudschinsky Method
Multi-Strategy Method
The means and standard deviations relating to the analysis of these variables are presented in
Table 4.45.

df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 3 0.09 2.60 0.059
Error 76
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Referentials 1 0.08 6.46
*
0.013
Error 78
Conjunctions 1 0.09 7.46
*
0.008
Error 78
130 4. The Urat Study

Table 4.45. Story Line: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups
Variable Group M (SD) Occas. 3 n M (SD) Occas. 4 n
Introduction GM 0.00 15 0.13 23
(0.00) (0.34)



MSM 0.11 70 0.26 57
(0.32) (0.44)
Action GM 0.33 0.26
(0.49) (0.45)



MSM 0.51 0.60
(0.50) (0.47)
Complication GM - 0.17
(0.39)



MSM - 0.32
- (0.47)
Resolution GM - 0.00
- (0.00)



MSM - 0.05
- (0.23)
Considering the four variables, Introduction, Action, Complication, and Resolution, as a
multivariate set, the MANOVA did not yield a significant effect for occasion 3: the F value had a
probability >0.10. Only the variables Introduction and Action were relevant on this occasion: the
instrument did not include stimulation to generate a story which would include the variables
Complication and Resolution. The four variables in the multivariate set are relevant for occasion
4. The results for occasion 4 are shown in Table 4.46.
Table 4.46. Story LineOccasion 4

df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 4 0.16 3.64
*
0.009
Error 75
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Action 1 0.15 13.68
*
<0.001
Error 78
4. The Urat Study 131

For occasion 4, the independent variable Method showed a significant effect on the
multivariate set. On examination of the univariate follow-up for the four variables in the set,
significant differences between the groups are shown only for the Action variable. There is no
significant difference between means shown for the other three variables: the F values had
probabilities >0.10. Reference to the table of means reveals that, on average, the Multi-Strategy
group scored higher for the Action variable. This result indicates that the Multi-Strategy learners
wrote with more action in their stories than the Gudschinsky group.
The final variable division, Picture Interaction, is concerned with the reaction of participants
to a photograph or a series of line drawings as stimulation for them to write a story. For this
analysis, the following set of variables is entered into the MANOVA:
Dependent variables: Picture Interaction
Description
Description plus Previous-Picture Information
Description plus Interpolations
Description plus Post-Picture Information
Description plus Inferences
Independent variables: Gudschinsky Method
Multi-Strategy Method
The means and standard deviations relating to the analysis of these variables are presented in
Table 4.47.
132 4. The Urat Study

Table 4.47. Picture Interaction: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups
Variable Group M (SD)
Occas. 1
n M (SD)
Occas. 2
n M (SD)
Occas. 3
n M (SD)
Occas. 4
n
Description GM - - - - 0.33 15 0.87 23
- - (0.49) (1.46)

MSM - - - - 0.57 70 2.33 57
- - (0.50) (2.01)

Description GM - - - - 0.00 0.09
plus - - (0.00) (0.29)
Previous
MSM - - - - 0.07 0.14
- - (0.26) (0.35)

Description GM - - - - 0.00 0.13
plus - (0.00) (0.46)
Inter-
polations MSM - - - - 0.17 0.93
- - (0.45) (1.36)

Description GM - - - - 0.00 0.00
plus Post - - (0.00) (0.00)

MSM - - - - 0.06 0.11
- - (0.23) (0.31)

Description GM - - - - 0.00 0.04
plus - - (0.00) (0.21)
Inference
MSM - - - - 0.03 0.12
- - (0.17) (0.57)
Considering the five variables for Picture Interaction as a multivariate set, the MANOVA
did not yield a significant effect for occasion 3: the F value had a probability >0.10. The results
for occasion 4 are shown in Table 4.48.
4. The Urat Study 133

Table 4.48. Picture InteractionOccasion 4
The independent variable method showed a significant effect on the multivariate set on occasion
4. On examination of the univariate follow-up for the five variables in the set, significant
differences between the groups are shown for the variables Description and Description plus
Interpolations. There is no significant difference between means shown for the other three
variables: the F values had probabilities >0.10. Reference to the table of means reveals that, on
average, the Multi-Strategy group scored higher for both variables. These results indicate that the
Multi-Strategy learners wrote more material related to the pictures and included more description
that added colour and interest to the story than the Gudschinsky group.
4.6.2.3. Summary of writing results
A summary of the indications of higher scores by each group shown on the tables of mean
scores for these variables is presented in Table 4.49.
It will be recalled that in this comparative study with the two different instructional methods,
individual, self-generated writing was not expected from the test instruments early in the
program. An overall consideration of the significant writing variables indicates that data from the
writing samples taken early in the literacy program did not show significant differences between
the groups but later, when individual, self-generated writing was collected, samples revealed a
strong difference. On occasion 4, when the primer material had been covered, the Multi-Strategy
learners, on average, not only wrote more but also showed more competence in writing down
their thoughts and creating an interesting piece of text than did the Gudschinsky group.

df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 5 0.15 2.52 0.036
Error 74
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Description 1 0.11 10.02
*
0.002
Error 78
Description plus 1 0.09 7.54
*
0.007
Interpolation Error 78
134 4. The Urat Study

A summary of the writing results indicates the following:
1. The Multi-Strategy group showed a greater understanding of the concept of the word than the
Gudschinsky group, noting breaks between words early in the program and sustaining the
significance.
2. The significant differences on writing the correct form of both letters and words, clearly
indicated that the Multi-Strategy group showed greater mastery than the Gudschinsky group
in the later stages of the program.
3. Samples of self-generated writing collected on occasion 4, when the stimulus was a series of
line drawings depicting a story, showed that the Multi-Strategy group wrote more
meaningfully, more cohesively, and with more action and clearer description than the
Gudschinsky group.
In the next section, the follow-up research is presented. There are two divisions: interviews
with ex-students, and interviews with teachers from the initial program. We first consider the
situation and the interview questions to be presented to the students who had participated in the
research.
4. The Urat Study 135

Table 4.49. Summary of indications on writing variables by group for the Urat program
VARIABLE SETS (MANOVA)
VARIABLES (ANOVA follow-up)
WRITING
Mechanics of Writing
Occas. 1 Occas. 2 Occas. 3 Occas. 4
Concepts about Print Sig.

0

Sig
T
Sig.
Word Breaks MSM 0 MSM MSM
Capitals 0 0 0 0
Complete Sentences 0 0 0 0
Letters Sig. 0 Sig. Sig.
Attempted 0 0 MSM MSM
Correct 0 0 MSM MSM
Different Attempted 0 0 MSM MSM
Different Correct 0 0 MSM MSM
Words Sig. Sig.
T
0

Sig.
Attempted 0 0 0 MSM
Correct 0 0 0 MSM
Different Attempted 0 0 0 MSM
Different Correct 0 0 0 MSM
Incorrect but Recognised 0 0 0 MSM
Meaning in Writing
Occas. 1 Occas. 2 Occas. 3 Occas.4
Makes Sense - - 0 MSM
Elaboration - - 0 0
Cohesive Ties 0 Sig
T
Referentials - - 0 MSM
Conjunctions - - 0 MSM

Story Line Sig.
Action - - 0 MSM
Reliance on Picture Sig.
Description - - 0 MSM
Description plus Interpolations - - 0 MSM
T
= Trend
Sig. = Significant
0 = No significant difference between groups GM = Gudschinsky Method
MSM = Multi-Strategy Method
136 4. The Urat Study

4.7. Follow-up Research in the Urat Program
After an absence of more than two years, the researcher returned to the area to study the
literacy activities of those who had participated in the program. There were no formal school
classes available for adults in the area. There was evidence, however, that the communities of
Tumam and Musingwi' had set up Open Classes and were highly motivated to continue classes
to help maintain literacy skills among the adults. These communities had received Multi-Strategy
instruction during the interventions. During the follow-up research, adult classes were held daily
in Tumam. In Musingwi' the classes were more spasmodic because the teachers were not
consistent. There was no evidence in any of the other villages of the research area that adults
were attending any classes to maintain their literacy skills.
It is not usual to see follow-up research after such a long period of time. On the completion
of any literacy program, one of the obvious variables to look for is indications of any
maintenance within the particular situation and any direct movement of the advantage into a
wider linguistic and cultural context. After two years it is difficult to show the maintenance of
some advantage.
Wagner (1990) claims that it is diffusion that sustains and enhances literacy. Diffusion of
literacy practices takes place within a congenial social climate: the socio-cultural situation of the
participants involved determining if literacy is ongoing. Accepting that to be so, the effect of
literacy within any cultural setting can be portrayed as shown in Figure 4.5.
Figure 4.5 shows that the efficacy and breadth of the initial literacy instruction are partly
verified in the way literacy is sustained and enhanced through maintenance and diffusion. As
maintenance takes place, it is highly probable that the advantage leads into the wider linguistic
and cultural contexts of reading and writing in the lingua franca and national languages. In any
cultural setting, however, for diffusion to take place, there also needs to be a suitable
environment: a social context where people are reading and writing within the family unit and in
the community. A further necessity is adequate, available material to read. Where creative
writing is included in the initial literacy program, there is potential for plenty of literature to be
written, in good quality and in different genres, to keep the build-up of local literature in progress
and to effect a change in the literacy practices of more people.
To probe some of the propositions implied by this model, a set of questions was devised to
see what effect the initial literacy program had had on the communities involved. The interviews
were conducted in a semi-structured style. The following general questions were posed:
1. Are ex-students from the two treatment groups reading and writing and to what extent?
2. Is there any evidence of diffusion of literacy from the two methods used and to what degree?
3. What positive or negative reactions do the ex-students have toward the two methods of
instruction?
In the interviews, it was made clear that the questions were related to the earlier program
and an explanation of the main purpose of the interview was given to each person. The intent of
the interviews was to find out which strategies had helped or not helped in learning to read and
write. The purpose was to see if any changes could be made to refine literacy to suit the socio-
cultural factors better and the learning styles of the communities involved.
4. The Urat Study 137



v
v
v
Initial Instruction
Efficacy and
Breadth of Literacy



^
^
^
v ^

Maintenance
Sustain Literacy




Diffusion
Enhance Literacy


+

7

^
^

+
Materials Available
Quantity plus


+
+

+
Quality plus
Diversity
Social Context
Individual plus

+
Family plus
Community
Access to Wider
Linguistic & Cultural
Contexts
Lingua Franca plus
National Languages


Legend: = Path: goal of any literacy program
= = Path: literacy as a community valuediffusion and enhancement by members
of the community
= Interaction: necessary ingredients for literacy to be ongoing
Figure 4.5. Schematic representation of the effects of instruction on the maintenance and
diffusion of literacy practices
Specifically, the questions were as follows:
1. Do you read now? Why dont you read? (Asked if the person responded negatively.)
2. What books do you have to read?
3. Do you write now? Why dont you write? (Asked if the person responded negatively.)
4. Do you read with anyone? With whom do you read?
5. Do you read to anyone? To whom do you read? Is there anyone else living in your house who
can read?
N

138 4. The Urat Study

6. Did you attend any school or literacy course before taking part in the program?
7. What did you think about the way that you were taught? Did any parts help you or not help
you to read and write?
8. Finally, each person was asked to attempt to read a story.
It must be noted that the questions used in the interviews were not identical for each person.
Certain factors such as the language of communication, age, and gender of the interviewee, and
the situational context determined the way each interview was conducted. Time was taken to
make each respondent feel at ease and enough dialogue entered into to ascertain if the answers
each respondent gave were valid. The evaluation of the reading, as conducted in the last point,
helped to determine to what extent the person was competent in reading, and to compare the
outcome with the self evaluation in point 1. Each person was asked to read up to three sentences
from a translated booklet available in Urat. The categories used in the analysis were
no attempt to read
an attempt but slow with few words attempted
reading very slowly with repetition or omissions
good reading but haltingly read with some omissions, and
very good reading in chunks of text.
A summary of the outcomes of the interviews for the Urat program is presented in the next
section.
4.7.1. Interviews with Urat adult learners
The interviews conducted with the adult learners in the Urat language area took place two-
and-a-half years after the completion of the initial program. The large disparity between the two
treatment groups in the outcomes of the original research in Urat influenced the number of
volunteers. In the results on the final occasion of the initial program, competency for reading in
the Gudschinsky group was 30 percent, whereas in the Multi-Strategy group, for the two villages
involved in the interviews, competency was 75 percent (village one 79 percent; village two 68
percent). The results of the interviews for the Urat program are presented in Table 4.50.
4. The Urat Study 139

Table 4.50. Number of positive responses to specific literacy questions in the Urat program
Chi-square analyses of the above results indicate that none of the contrasts between the
Gudschinsky and Multi-Strategy groups is significant. Considering the contrast between the
Gudschinsky group and the Multi-Strategy village one group (M-SM 1) and, to a lesser extent,
the Multi-Strategy village two group (M-SM 2), however, there is a pattern that shows a
consistent trend toward the proportionately better performance of the Multi-Strategy learners.
The positive attitude toward literacy among the people generally and the interview data show the
trend even though it is not substantiated statistically by a series of chi-square analyses.
Volunteers were sought from the three villages, and the following numbers were
interviewed: Gudschinsky group6; Multi-Strategy group22 (11 from each of the two
villages). The people interviewed from the Gudschinsky group and the M-SM 2 group were
representative of the people who completed the original programs. The circumstances and time
made it difficult to increase the numbers for this study. The main intent was to obtain feedback
on the methods used, so effort was given to conducting interviews with those who were readers
from each group. As explained above, a short test was given to verify the self-reported data on
reading. In the M-SM 1 group, two areas were not represented: those who had not engaged the
text in the final test of the original research and some good readers.
The Urat teachers were not always available, so they were not present at as many interviews
as were attended by the teachers in the Tau villages as presented in Chapter 5. To control for
consistency in the two programs, the researcher conducted the interviews in Tok Pisin and
conferred with the teachers and others to verify points not understood. The Urat people live close
to the main highway and the District Centre of Dreikikir, so the knowledge of Tok Pisin is higher
QUESTION METHOD
Gudschinsky Multi-Strategy
M-SM 1 M-SM 2
n=6 n=11 n=11
How many read now? 3 10 7
How many have books? 6 10 8
How many write now? 3 9 2
How many read with others? 2 1 2
How many read to others? 2 9 2
How many attended public school? 2 5 3
Methodhow many positive? 6 11 9
Methodhow many negative? 0 0 1
140 4. The Urat Study

for the Urat speakers than in the Tau villages, where the presence of a teacher at each interview
was more important. Comments on the results of the interviews are given in order of the
questions asked so the reading data are presented first.
1. Comments on reading results
For the Gudschinsky group, the three readers showed that they were competent. Another
person said that he only read a little, finding the longer words difficult. His final attempt at
reading showed that he was competent at naming the letters but not at reading words; there was
no evidence of blending the letters together to say the words. Among the people interviewed
from the Multi-Strategy group, all in the M-SM 1 group, who indicated that they were reading,
showed that they were competent to do so: all had transferred their skills from reading Urat to
Tok Pisin. The one person who said that she was not reading, made an attempt to read, then said
that she could read but had no books. In the M-SM 2 group, however, six women said that they
were not reading when their efforts to read showed that they were competent but lacked practice.
An important aspect of the Urat program is that, at the time of writing, little reading material
exists in the language. It became clear that some people, who did not purchase material in Tok
Pisin and use their skills with this new material, showed that they could read but not fluently.
The trend, showing competent readers using the lingua franca, was evident in the question
related to the types of books the respondents had to read. For the Gudschinsky group, all reported
having books in the language, but those who attempted to read also had access to the Tok Pisin
New Testament. All participants, except one person in the M-SM 1 group who could read, also
reported that they read the Tok Pisin New Testament. In the M-SM 2 group, where there was less
evidence of fluent readers, only two women said that they had material to read in Tok Pisin, as
well as the material available in Urat.
The only printed books available in Urat from which to make the simple test for reading
competence were short portions of translated scripture. Some of the smaller booklets were
learned by rote so a portion of a longer story was chosen. Where there were a number of people
being tested at the same time, different sentences were selected for reading. The respondents
were asked to read for the following reasons:
To give help in verifying the self-evaluations on reading
To see how each person approached reading an unseen text
To note any differences between the two treatment groups in the way the texts were read
Among those who were reading, in both treatment groups, motivation was the key factor,
along with a personal, active determination to sustain literacy. One of the readers in the
Gudschinsky group showed that he had mastered reading through self-generated learning, but he
did not read fluently with confidence; words and phrases were repeated throughout. Among all
of the Multi-Strategy group participants there was only one occurrence of repetition of a full
phrase contour; some words were repeated but generally this was done to form a phrase. The
high percentage (73 percent) of very good readers in the M-SM 1 group show the value of
literacy activities in the community. There were Open Classes for adults and young people (who
4. The Urat Study 141

had been through the English school system) as well as prep-school classes for children
functioning in the area.
11

As noted above, the categories used in the reading analysis were
no attempt to read
an attempt but slow with few words attempted
reading very slowly with repetition or omissions
good reading but haltingly read with some omissions, and
very good reading in chunks of text.
In both treatment groups there are examples of learners who did not make an attempt to
read. For the Gudschinsky group, the two people in this category could represent 78 percent of
the total; that is, those who lost interest and did not engage the text in the final test in the original
research. For the Multi-Strategy groups, the two people who did not read are representative of
some older people who persevered but did not engage the text, or people who could read some of
the extracts in the final test in the original research; 21 percent for Multi-Strategy group 1 (M-
SM 1) and 33 percent for Multi-Strategy group 2 (M-SM 2).
The person who attempted to read in the Gudschinsky group lives in an active reading
environment and is motivated to achieve in literacy, but he represents those who were tied to
learning the alphabet names. He could accurately name each letter in a word but could not put
them together to read the full word. As stated earlier, learning the names of letters in the alphabet
is not a focus of the Gudschinsky method. The socio-cultural, status-building dependency on
knowing the alphabet as part of school literacy was very strong in the area and this put the
teacher under pressure to include it in the classes. Despite strong encouragement to adhere to the
standard lesson patterns, on one visit to the class the researcher observed the teacher drilling the
English alphabet throughout the session.
The two people who attempted to read in the Multi-Strategy group represent a different
group of learners. These people could figure out and read words but they did not have enough
experience to read a new text. Lack of material to read and, resulting from that, lack of
motivation seem to be contributing factors to poorer progress.
In the Multi-Strategy group there were representatives of the middle category, where the
readers showed that they knew how to read but they did not read any part of the text fluently,
being hampered by the longer, more difficult words. As suggested above, the main reason for
this seemed to be lack of experience in reading Urat because there was little material available to
read. There was interest among this group to have ongoing classes where they could practise
their skills and master the more complicated syllable patterns.
2. Comments on writing results
In all groups, people were generally reluctant to say that they were writing. There is little
need for writing in the culture. Writing to friends living away from the village gives opportunity

11
After the adult literacy classes were completed in Tumam village, the teachers trained thirty new teachers who
produced more story books, and prep-school classes were started in five villages using the Multi-Strategy
method. In 1992, a regional training course was conducted at the Dreikikir Multi-language Resource Centre
using the same method, and prep-school teachers were trained for the four major dialects of Urat and for one
dialect of Kwanga (Barnes 1992).
142 4. The Urat Study

for some to practise this skill. In the Gudschinsky group, among those who were positive, one
woman said that she wrote her name and a young man said that he wrote letters to his brother in
both Urat and Tok Pisin. A man who said that he was not writing said that he could write some
things but not letters to friends.
Among the Multi-Strategy participants of the M-SM 1 group who indicated that they were
writing, all said that they wrote letters to friends except one. This man showed that he was
competent to do so, but he said that he was not fluent enough to write a letter. It was evident that
the rest, who said they were not writing, were also able to do so; they said that they wrote but
some words did not look right. As mentioned earlier, the language has difficult phonology with
many consonant and vowel clusters so it is understandable that there was some lack of
confidence in writing accurately after such a short time of exposure to literacy. One man, who
was preliterate at the beginning of the program, wrote to his brother living in another province,
and his brother was amazed that he could communicate in writing. In the M-SM 2 group, only
two people indicated that they were writing. One person was clearly not capable of doing so and
the other was writing in Tok Pisin. The rest of the group all said that it was hard to write.
The following comments give some indication of the types of felt problems of those who
indicated that they were not writing:
I dont write. My hand is not very good.
I can write but I also cant write good. It is clumsy yet. I dont write letters (to others).
When they (the teachers) take us, we can write but when we come outside (the classroom) we dont
write.
3. Comments on reading to or with others
When looking at the comments given in answer to the questions about reading with or
to a person, it is important to note that in a newly literate society it is not usual for a person to
read silently for pleasure or to read to another to give pleasure. Generally, the only time a person
would read with another person would be to give mutual help in the reading process. When
people read, they usually read aloud so there is generally an audience.
In the Gudschinsky group, a husband and wife couple said that they read together to give
mutual help and the children were an audience when reading. Another person said that there was
a woman in the house to hear her read (not that she actually read to her) while the other reader in
this group said that he lived alone and did not read with or to anyone. Only one person in the M-
SM 1 group said that she read with someone else, but a high proportion (82 percent) said that
they read to others. In this group, reading to others seems to indicate that the people were reading
more fluently than very new readers. In the M-SM 2 group, two people indicated that they read
with and to others.
4. Comments on prior attendance at a literacy course
Prior to the literacy program, some people from each treatment group had been taught some
literacy. Two people from the Gudschinsky group had attended formal primary education in
English: one for six years and the other for one year. Eight people from the Multi-Strategy group
had attended Tok Pisin schools or courses for varying lengths of time, ranging from four days to
three years: five participants from M-SM 1 and three from M-SM 2.
4. The Urat Study 143

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 Tasemeinis 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 (Tasemeinis 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 dont 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.
144 4. The Urat Study

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 didnt do it. When we
did it every time, it was all right. But we didnt. Sometimes we didnt 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
didnt 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.
4. The Urat Study 145

5. Comments regarding method were more positive from the Multi-Strategy learners than from
the Gudschinsky learners. The comments from the Gudschinsky group were more general
with emphasis on a desire for more help to gain the skills of literacy, whereas the Multi-
Strategy learners gave more specific comments on the method used, showing that they
understood some of the basic principles.
In both the Multi-Strategy villages there was active community involvement with Open
Classes arranged for people to attend to help improve their literacy skills. This type of social
support, with the community involved in literacy in the village, is further evidence that the
Multi-Strategy method gives scope for communities to take control, to direct their own programs
so that people succeed in learning to read and write, and to help sustain literacy through diffusion
in family and community activities. These interviews in Urat confirm the trends found in the
quantitative analyses of the data collected over two-and-a-half years earlier. It is evident from the
comments, abilities, and attitudes of the students that gains from Multi-Strategy method
instruction outweigh comparable gains from instruction in the Gudschinsky method in this
program.
4.7.2. Interviews with Urat teachers
Six teachers from the adult program in the Urat speaking area were interviewed in relation to
the suitability of the Multi-Strategy literacy method for adult learners. There were three men for
each of the two tracks. Questions were centred around how each teacher
assessed each lesson
changed lessons to make them more successful
thought the students handled the program, and
explained the method in terms of socio-cultural relevance.
Pertinent comments related to each of these areas will be exemplified here and further
compared with the Tok Pisin program in Chapter 5. The question of using English names for
letters (the ABC question) did not become an issue in the Multi-Strategy program in Urat so this
topic was not included in the interviews. One of the teachers in the Gudschinsky program, and
one of the teachers along with one of the students in the Multi-Strategy program had some strong
views on the subject. These comments are included here along with some of the comments of the
two Gudschinsky teachers related to their classes. We first consider the teachers comments on
each lesson.
4.7.2.1. Assessment of lessons
The teachers were generally positive about the lessons in each of the two tracks and made
specific comments where they felt a lesson or activity was particularly good or inappropriate.
Two lessons in the Story Track were singled out, namely, lesson one, the Experience Story,
and lesson three, the Big Book lesson.
In reference to lesson one, one teacher commented that the experience was the core and was
good because they (the students) can look and they will talk and stimulate their thinking.
Another teacher made the point that the content of the experience should be something that
adults would want to see and discuss. The theme should relate to ways important things happen
in the village, for example, sickness or the scriptures or the way to conduct a business
project to turn the theme to relate to something new for them. Following on from this he said
146 4. The Urat Study

that the story used for comprehension in lesson two should fit the thinking of adults, for example,
pig husbandry, building, or new ways of gardening that were important to them.
Lesson three featured as being very helpful because of the way it was presented: with
different ways of reading the Big Book; and with two presentations of the story (large and small)
to give practice in reading the same content in different environments.
In the Word-Building Track, two teachers commented about the readiness activities. There
was a very positive attitude toward the need for specific activities to help adults become oriented
to literacy, especially writing. One teacher suggested that the help given to students for learning
to write their names should continue into the second month.
Lesson two was selected as the most important lesson by two of the teachers because of the
varied activities to help with learning syllables and word-building. One teacher pointed out that
lessons one and two went together and that the adults needed more help in building words than
the children.
There was a difference of opinion regarding lesson three, where it was suggested activities
for learning syllables and building words be put in the format of competition between teams. In
the programs with children this lesson was popular, but one teacher reacted to the fact that the
lesson was a repetition of lesson two in the form of games. His objection went further:
play also doesnt help because it aims at helping one person who gets it quickly. When this person
does it again you will see that he will try to do it every day and try to score points for a group. So
from what I have seen I think that lesson three is not very good.
From this teachers experience, these points seem valid but the two other teachers both said that
the games were good; one said that the adults liked it and the other said he liked it but felt that
something else could be included in the time. The issue in the next section is the innovative ideas
the teachers used in substituting lessons they considered inappropriate.
4.7.2.2. Changes to lessons
There were no changes in the way that the lessons in the Story Track were presented. As
explained above, one teacher made the cultural theme more applicable to the adults. Another
man suggested that a longer course would be beneficial for adults who were taking a long time to
grasp the materials.
In the Word-Building Track, changes centred around lesson three where each teacher made
adjustments according to the response of the group of students in each class. The teacher who
felt that the games were a waste of time combined lessons two and three and gave more practice
in word building. Another teacher suggested more practice could be given in writing, especially
the names of students. As the students became more proficient, some activities with numbers
were given in this lesson. In the new format, taught as a trial in Kwanga, only one period is given
for activities with syllables and word building. The teachers comments on the responsibility of
the students in the learning process is covered next.
4.7.2.3. Students application of lessons
In the Urat program it seemed that some of the teachers felt that the onus was on the
students to attend classes so that they could learn adequately. One teacher said that those who
were consistent learned the tasks. The reason why some could only read and write the easy
words was because many times they did not come to class at the time when the syllables were
4. The Urat Study 147

being taught so that they could read and write them. He said it was hard for the teachers to help
them to catch up because they did not come all of the time and missed lessons.
Another teacher said that some learn, are pleased, and go ahead but some get behind because
they do not understand. He explained that it all depended on their motivation; those who were
self-motivated learned quickly. Others learned some things but not others and the man who has
a strong feeling or interest and he goes (to school) he learns enough, he is pleased because he did
something and he learns more. The idea that literacy could be gained quickly was a strong
expectation for some students and, as this teacher pointed out, it is a slow, persistent process. The
teachers views of the relevance of the method to the socio-cultural situation is summarised in
the next section.
4.7.2.4. Socio-cultural relevance of the method
In response to this topic, one teacher gave a general comment. He said that he thought the
students liked the two tracks and that these two ways are good, they are sufficient to help
them. He commented that these two ways to learn to read and write helped them and fitted the
way they lived in Urat. Another man gave some insight into how he viewed the relevance of the
method to the learning style of the group: we feel pleased that another (person) is helping us. So
we can understand what things you make (or do), we are able to see just what it is and we can
understand in that way. He said that the way to help someone learn something was to show
them and in that way the method fitted the culture: you came and showed us that good way and
we saw it, and we started it, and I think it is very good and it really fits. As we will see
reiterated in the Tok Pisin teachers comments in the next chapter, the key words for cultural
learning clearly seem to be: show; look, and do.
Although the question of the alphabet (recital of the names for letters in the English
alphabet) was not an issue for the Multi-Strategy classes in Urat, the topic was discussed after
the program was completed and it became clear that attitudes on the subject were strong among
the Gudschinsky classes.
4.7.2.5. The ABC question
When the research was started, the question of teaching the English names for phonemes
was a valid one. As explained above, there was some pressure put on the teachers by the students
learning by the Gudschinsky method of instruction to be taught the alphabet. The linguist in the
area strongly recommended that the English names not be taught. His main reason was the
confusion of the vowel names and their sounds as experienced among the semi-literate Urat
speakers. The teachers were encouraged to teach the Gudschinsky method as they were trained to
do and this did not include the English alphabet names. The main teacher in the program had this
to say when asked if those who dropped out of the class gave any reasons:
Plenty of them truly think this way, that if we take them and go with the way of the ABC, (or Tok
Pisin, I can say) thats right, they learn well. And we teach them in their language and these words
and syllables in this way, and they say they misunderstand or I am not sure, and so they talk this
way about not being able or learn these things well.
This teacher explained that the students had expectations about learning in Tok Pisin with the
alphabet because there was a history of all previous literacy being taught in Tok Pisin, using the
English names of the letters of the alphabet. So when they were taught syllables they were
confused and reacted despite the fact that the teacher did take time to explain the alphabet in the
context of the syllable.
148 4. The Urat Study

One student in the Multi-Strategy classes solved the problem for himself and became a very
fluent reader and writer. About halfway through the course he asked one of the teachers to tell
him about the ABC names. Then he worked with his daughters, who were learning English in the
primary school system, and they taught him the English alphabet names. He was already reading,
but he reported that the names helped him with fluency and writing.
The supervisor of the Urat literacy project commented that it should follow the way that
each person thinks. He pointed out that the man who learned the alphabet names after learning to
read was helped because his mind was ready to receive it because he wanted to learn. He said
that If you teach the ABC then later teach syllables, it will make them say ai only and in writing
you put something with it and then this says ki, that is, ke with ai is ki. He advocated following
the way that the classes were taught because the sounds followed the way that it was natural to
speak and think. Then at a later stage, if individuals wished to learn the alphabet names and it
helped them, they could do it that way. In the programs for children, the English alphabet is
being taught in the prep-schools in the term before the children go into the primary education
system.
The ABC question featured strongly in the attitude of the learners in the Gudschinsky
classes as explained above. There were other observations made by the teachers of the
Gudschinsky classes which are summarised in the next section.
4.7.2.6. Responses from the Gudschinsky teachers
When asked about the lessons, one teacher explained that the lessons were good to help the
people learn to read and write but the young people were able to understand and the older people
were not able to understand well. He thought the key word lesson was the way to learn other
things. The other teacher said that they did the training and taught the classes, but he did not
know what reason was behind the fact that the students could not read. He said that if the classes
were to function for two or three years, many would learn well. Yet the attendance dropped
drastically in the latter part of the program. At that time it was reported that the students did not
attend because they were not making progress.
Both teachers said that the reason for the poor attendance was the heavy garden work. As
mentioned above, there was also the strong expectation that the students had about making
progress if they learned the English alphabet. When asked why the teacher thought they had this
attitude, he commented:
I think this way, at the time when the sisters took them in that Tok Pisin class at Dreikikir and I
think they learned a little about that way. Now we get them for this Urat (class); now they are
completely confused. They are not able to pronounce these different syllables. They are really not
able to say these sounds and really understand this dialect and use it. It is very hard and confuses
them.
Both teachers commented on one younger man who could read. Prior to joining the class he
had not been to school but had taught himself to read some Tok Pisin. He had persisted, learned
to read Urat and gained in fluency in Tok Pisin. A summary of the comments from the teachers
interviews are now presented.
4.7.2.7. Summary of interviews with Urat teachers
The interviews with the teachers centred around the effect of the Multi-Strategy method of
instruction, which was a unique intervention, not having been tried with adult learners prior to
4. The Urat Study 149

the Urat program. All of the summary points relate to the Multi-Strategy intervention except the
last two, where the comments of the Gudschinsky teachers are included. A summary of the
interviews shows the following:
1. The comments regarding the specific lessons were positive, with the Story Track lessons one
and three singled out as particularly helpful. Comments on lesson one showed that the
experience was important because it allowed students to look, talk, and stimulate their
thinking; the content should include something adults would want to see and discuss, the
things important to them. The Big Book lesson was helpful because of the way it was
presented, with different ways to read the story, including the two presentations of the story
(large and small) giving the same story in different environments.
2. For the Word-Building Track lessons, the comments were generally positive but two areas
were emphasised: readiness activities prior to the primer and primer lessons two and three.
Readiness activities were considered to be important, particularly writing. Word-building
exercises in primer lesson two were valuable as an extension of lesson one: the students had
an opportunity to do what they had been taught. The teachers expressed different opinions on
the appropriateness of games for adults in lesson three:
Negative: it is a repetition of lesson two, and the same people dominate.
Positive: adults liked to participate.
3. There were no basic changes made to the Story Track lessons. The aim of the teachers was to
make activities and stories on the theme applicable to adults, especially the experience. In the
Word-Building Track, teachers made changes for lesson three of the primer lessons:
They combined lessons two and three giving more practice in word-building.
They suggested giving more writing exercises.
They taught simple arithmetic.
4. Comments related to how students handled the lessons were centred around two general
factors: consistent attendance and motivation. Spasmodic attendance helped to disadvantage
some; it was difficult for teachers to help the students catch up. The self-motivated
students learned quickly: they learned something, were pleased, and learned more. When
they did not understand, they lagged behind.
5. Generally, comments were positive regarding the cultural relevance of the method, with the
two tracks fitting the way the people learn in the society. In relation to learning styles, it was
pointed out that they understand through things that are done: they see and understand.
6. One reason given for the poor attendance and poor performance of students in the
Gudschinsky program was the strong expectation by students that learning the English
alphabet was the way to learn to read and write well. One man in the Multi-Strategy group
found that learning the names of the letters, after learning to read, especially helped in
writing. The supervisor stressed that teaching should follow the sounds (the way that is
natural to speak and think), then teach the names later as there is need.
150 4. The Urat Study

7. There were no specific comments on the lessons by the Gudschinsky teachers. One teacher
said that they taught the lessons in the way that they were trained and it was hard to know
why the students did not learn. Reasons given for poor attendance and performance were that
the students had heavy garden work
they expected to learn the English alphabet, and
they would learn if the course were to continue for two to three years.
These topics covered in the interviews are relevant to the overall findings in the research, in
Urat and Tok Pisin. In the Urat study, the summary statements of the interviews from ex-students
and teachers confirm the results from the quantitative analyses. The detailed comments about the
lessons of the Multi-Strategy method show an understanding of literacy and the instructional
process which was not evident in the Gudschinsky interviews. Such an understanding is reflected
in the attitudes and abilities of the teachers, and the greater expertise shown by the Multi-
Strategy learners, compared with the Gudschinsky learners in the quantitative results analysed
two-and-a-half years earlier. In Chapter 6, further comparisons are made and the topics are
discussed and integrated.

151
5. The Tok Pisin Study
5.0. Introduction
The second language to which the research design was applied was Tok Pisin. A description
of the pertinent factors of the language for this research is found in Chapter 2. At the time of the
research, the particular dialect of Kwanga, where the Tok Pisin study was carried out, had not
been analysed. Since the general research design has been described in Chapter 3, emphasis is
given here to the procedures and the results, with discussion related to the complexity of the
language situation and the socio-cultural setting.
In this chapter, the details of the Tok Pisin study include the physical and socio-cultural
setting, the participants, materials, design, procedures, and analysis of the research, and it
concludes with the results and a discussion of the findings. We first consider the physical and
socio-cultural situation of the study.
5.1. Physical and Socio-Cultural Setting
As will be recalled, the speakers of Urat and Kwanga live along the southern watershed of
the Torricelli Mountains in Papua New Guinea. The Kwanga speakers occupy the area along the
border between the East Sepik and Sandaun Provinces, whereas the Urat villages are mainly
situated along the Sepik Highway in the vicinity of Dreikikir. The two villages
12
studied in the
Tok Pisin study, Tau One and Tau Two, are in close proximity to the Urat group, approximately
22 kilometres south of Dreikikir (see Figure 2.1 for the location map).
A typical village is described by Allen:
The villages of the study area are like islands in a sea of drab green forested hills, marked by the
shining fronds of coconuts which stand above the forest, crowning the prominences and ridgetops
upon which the villages are built. Ridgetop locations and deep forested valleys accentuate an
impression of villages isolated from one another. Houses in the village hamlets cluster in semi-
circles around central plazas of hard, bare clay or line the narrow ridge top (Allen 1976:29).
Such hamlets made up the two Tau villages which are situated on a ridge stretching south from
the Sepik Highway and parallel to the Karp River. Access is by road, used mainly by government
and business vehicles during drier periods, but the people generally move between villages on
foot.
The present study is concerned with literacy and its maintenance within a community. To set
the stage for the literacy program, it is appropriate to give some description of the life of an
individual within that community. Schindlbeck (1984:56) mentions that Kwanga villages are
situated on mountain ridges and are composed of a great number of rather dispersed
hamlets. These hamlets are made up of close-knit family groups that in everyday life are of
more importance as social groups than the clan groups (Schindlbeck 1984:6). Within these
hamlets the focus of an individuals life centres around the family unit. Members of each family

12
The two villages are also called Tauhundor and Tauhimbiet, but Tau One and Tau Two are generally used.
Obrist van Eeuwijk (1992:26) explains the names as follows: The names Tauhundor and Tauhimbiet
supposedly mean Tau 1 and Tau 2 in the Urat language. The inhabitants themselves call their villages
according to their relative location on the Karp River.
152 5. The Tok Pisin Study

usually live within close proximity and strong interpersonal relationships occur within the
confines of the village. Such kinship relations are warm, close, and spontaneous (Allen
1976:32). The researcher lived in a house within the area occupied by a close family unit. The
open space of hard ground outside the house and a cooking annex off the nearest house were
meeting places for close kin at all times of the day. Such family groups made up the Tau One
village which was strung along the narrow ridge on either side of the road.
Another relationship that is important in a persons life is the clan relationship. Clans are
comprised of localised village groups which are most clearly recognised by the occupation of
village and agricultural land (Allen 1976:35). The significance of various relationships between
clan members is not pertinent to the present study, but it is important to note that clan members
support one another in economic, political and social endeavours (Allen 1976:35). The fabric
of relationships between individuals was evident in the decisions made by the people in relation
to the choice of teachers and the set-up of the schools.
There is another set of relationships in the village surrounding the dual division of all adult
males in a village into two identical groups (Allen 1976:39). Obrist van Eeuwijk (1992)
commented that the mens cult organization of the northern Kwanga actually belongs to a
network spreading over the whole Dreikikir area. One pertinent part of the mens cult in relation
to the Tau study is the equalisation between groups and individuals. As Obrist van Eeuwijk
described it:
Each cell of the mens cult organization is divided into two halves or moieties. This social structure
is usually called dual organization. Whenever the members of one moiety in a cult community
plan to stage a ceremony, they summon the men belonging to the corresponding moiety in partner
villages. These men come and provide food, labour and other services: at a later date, the inviting
cult community reciprocates whatever help it received. The same principle of delayed exchange
operates on all levels of the dual organization (Obrist van Eeuwijk 1992:5859).
Obrist van Eeuwijk further explained that the smallest unit represents an individual exchange
partner within the moiety which implies that the key unit of the dual organization is the
individual man. There are a multitude of partnerships and symmetry is an important criterion
to assure equality. Although ceremonial activities ended in Tauhundor in the 1950s and in
Tauhimbiet in 1965 with the last full initiation, there were initiation activities in the area in the
early 1980s and, in more recent years, some food exchange ceremonies without a preceding
initiation (Obrist van Eeuwijk 1992:59).
An additional relationship of individual members of the community that had bearing on the
results of the study was the church affiliation of the people involved. Within the two Tau villages
there were three strongly active denominations: South Seas Evangelical Church, Roman
Catholic, and Seventh Day Adventist churches. Although there were individuals who did not
claim affiliation with any group, those people who were active in each particular denomination
shared a bond which gave an extra dimension to village life. The significance of these affiliations
showed up in the way individuals participated and progressed in the literacy classes.
5.2. Participants
The two methods of instruction used in the research have been described in a generic way in
Chapter 3. It is inevitable that the kind of pedagogy that is put into practice from any
instructional method is different for each situation. In this section, it will be shown how these
5. The Tok Pisin Study 153

curriculum orientations were put into practice in the classrooms for the Tok Pisin program. We
consider first the teachers, then the learners.
5.2.1. The teachers
After much discussion and the strong indication of some men to become teachers, the
communities chose six men to participate in the training programs. These trainees had all been
educated in English to at least Grade 6 standard. Two men had increased their grade level to
Grade 9 through correspondence study, and one of the assistant teachers for the Multi-Strategy
method was a Grade 10 graduate. These men were all trained in courses of four weeks where
they were introduced to the particular method of instruction and given specific training in the
area that they chose. Training for both methods included opportunities for practical application
of skills learned. The researcher demonstrated the lessons and each individual student practised
until there was mastery of skills and understanding of the patterns for each class session. During
the final stages, opportunities were given for teaching practice in a real classroom situation. As
part of the training, trainees were expected to write and prepare materials through the use of a
silk-screen printer to facilitate understanding of the teaching method and ongoing production of
reading material.
The Gudschinsky training sessions were held at a central location (to include Urat and Tok
Pisin trainees) with an experienced sociolinguist, who had used the method in South America,
giving valuable assistance to the researcher. This assistance included a joint compilation with the
trainees of a detailed teachers manual. The lesson format followed Barnwell (1979). There were
no opportunities to observe the Gudschinsky method being taught, but situations for teaching
practice were made available.
The Multi-Strategy training sessions were held at Tumam village in the Urat area where the
researcher was in residence. Since classes in the Multi-Strategy method were already in progress,
trainees observed the method in practice as part of their training. Four men were trained in the
Multi-Strategy method: two for each of the two tracks. Training two teachers for each class
allowed for continuity when a teacher was not available. Each teacher worked in a voluntary
capacity because the community members, according to tradition, did not wish them to have
status above their peers.
During the teaching phase, supervision was given in the beginning stages and at
approximately four weekly intervals. At these times classes were monitored, and where
demonstrations were necessary, all classes were given similar demonstrations of the teaching
techniques and principles in focus. Discussions were also held with literacy committee members
and interested men from the communities. The Gudschinsky classes began well, but one teacher
left the program after the first session of four weeks; sessions included four weeks of instruction
with one week of recess. For the next session, the two classes were joined and an untrained
volunteer learned the teaching process by observation and participation. This man taught the
class when the teacher was unavailable so that the class sessions could continue. The Multi-
Strategy classes functioned well; there was one change when the Word-Building Track class
changed venues to make the changeover of classes more efficient.
5.2.2. The learners
The learners were chosen after conducting an initial survey with the same procedures as
used in the Urat program (Appendix D). As described above, this literacy contact survey
154 5. The Tok Pisin Study

included four separate components: Literacy Contact, Concepts about Print, Letter and Word
Recognition, and Writing. The survey set out to determine those who had no expertise in literacy,
those who had experienced some formal literacy learning, and to what extent they were reading
and writing. Motivation was high and 130 people participated in the survey.
There was one government school in the area, which was set up in the period of early
contact by the Catholic Mission. Males had preference for education because of the role of male
members within the patrilineal society (Allen 1976; Schindlbeck 1984:6, 17). In the initial
survey, many women said that their parents did not send them to school because they could only
afford to send the boys in the family. The long history of English education in the district meant
that a core of educated men lived away from the area, being employed in the towns. Most of the
younger men in the village had received some education in English to Grade 6 standard and
some had upgraded their standard through correspondence lessons. There were three categories
of people who participated in the survey:
Older men and women who had had some literacy training in Tok Pisin (approximately three
to six months)
Young married women who had taught themselves to read in Tok Pisin but who could not
write
A group of people with very little idea of the notion of reading and writing, the majority of
whom were married women about 2025 years of age with some in their late 50s
Table 5.1 shows the approximate numbers of learners attending the literacy program.
Table 5.1. Numbers attending the Tok Pisin literacy program
ATTENDANCE
CLASS
Occasion
Pre-CAP
*
Beginning 1 2 3 4 Post-CAP
Gudschinsky 51 47 32 30 19 20 25
Multi-Strategy 52 41 28 28 22 25 28
* Concepts about Print questionnaire
In the initial survey there was no difference between the two groups in the number of people
wishing to attend. Those people who had experienced some form of literacy schooling, in Tok
Pisin or English, were encouraged not to attend classes. Those who were reading well were
excluded. Included in this group were the young married women who had taught themselves to
read from studying a Tok Pisin Kisim Save series of primers. Despite a careful analysis of the
literacy contact survey, some people with expertise in literacy attended at first because
motivation was high, but they discontinued during the first weeks.
There was a wide age-range among those who attended consistently, from teenage to the
fifties or sixties. Some of the highly motivated older people, who had had some literacy contact,
attended regularly in classes separate, as far as possible, from those who had shown no expertise
in literacy. In the Gudschinsky group, it was necessary for these classes to combine when one
teacher left the program.
It was difficult to tell if the records kept were completely accurate but, from the information
available, the percentage of those who continued in the program was the same for both groups
5. The Tok Pisin Study 155

(68 percent) after the first few weeks. However, there was more consistency of attendance in the
Multi-Strategy group than in the Gudschinsky group. The next section covers the differences
between the materials used in each of the two methods of instruction.
5.3. Materials
A description of the method procedures used in the materials for the Tau program is given in
Chapter 3. The Gudschinsky materials consisted of a primer (Brown 1988) and a detailed
teachers manual. The Tok Pisin dialect in the primer, originally prepared for use among the
Yangoru speakers in the Maprik District of the Sepik Province, is the same as that used in the
Tau area so new primer materials were not prepared. The teachers manual was prepared during
the training course by the trainers and the trainees. The manual covered twenty readiness lessons
for pre-reading and pre-writing and twenty lessons to accompany the primer. Each of the fifty-
four lessons in the primer were to be taught for two days, with revision every fifth day. After
following the manual for the first four weeks of the primer, the teachers were expected to use the
same lesson format with substitution of lesson content. A copy of the primer was available for
each student.
The Multi-Strategy materials consisted of a pre-reading book and a set of three primers
(covering fifty-five key-word lessons) for the Word-Building Track and enough stories to cover
one per week for the Story Track. A detailed teachers manual was not prepared, but teachers had
access to the teachers guide in the book Working together for literacy and lesson outlines and
notes in Tok Pisin. Each lesson pattern was learned thoroughly during training sessions and
teachers substituted different content twice a week. The Literacy Committee and other
community leaders chose two of the trained teachers, who had received some high school
education, to attend a National Literacy Training Workshop at Maprik in the East Sepik
Province. This course was run by staff and students from the University of Papua New Guinea to
give training in the Multi-Strategy method. Much of the material for the Story Track was
prepared at this course while other stories were written and printed during the village training
sessions. The basic Tok Pisin primer material for the workbooks was prepared at a national
training course in Rabaul in the East New Britain Province. These basic lessons were revised and
added to by the researcher and men from the Sepik area, mainly to accommodate dialect
differences.
Other necessary materials were: one large blackboard for each classroom, one small
blackboard for each student, chalk, and blackboard dusters. Crayons and used paper were useful
for practising writing, when available. As the classes progressed, students bought pencils and
exercise books for writing.
After the classes were in progress, school fees were used to help pay for ongoing materials
but at the outset, much of the finance for materials was provided through grants during training
workshops. Once the teachers were trained and the materials prepared, the design for the
program was ready to be implemented.
5.4. The Design
All aspects of the design, as described above for the Urat program, were the same for the
Tok Pisin study so the details will not be repeated in this section. The baseline survey was used
to determine two things: the amount of literacy contact and expertise of individuals, and the
degree of equivalence between the two treatment groups. People considered to be preliterate
156 5. The Tok Pisin Study

were placed in a separate class in each treatment group, with older people and those with some
literacy skills placed in another class. The sample was divided into two groups according to
residence in either one of the two villages, Tau One and Tau Two.
There were also steps taken in this study to control the variables:
Teachers education standard and time of training in the two instructional methods
Time on task with the provision of watches
Equality of literacy standard between the two treatment groups
Comparable age of learners between groups
Literacy Committees formed in each village for community support
Equal supervision between the two groups
Equable training time for teachers has been described above and other areas of equality were
controlled as far as possible. The education standard for the main teachers for the Word-Building
Track of the Multi-Strategy method and for the Gudschinsky method was Grade 6. The assistant
teacher for the Gudschinsky method also had reached Grade 6 standard, but the assistant teacher
for the Word-Building Track and the main Story Track teacher in the Multi-Strategy classes had
reached Grade 9 standard through correspondence. The Story Track assistant was a Grade 10
graduate. Each of the teachers were given watches to help control for time on task. The controls
for equality between groups in relation to the students have been described above.
Each treatment group was given instruction in one of the two different literacy methods,
Gudschinsky or Multi-Strategy, for periods of four weeks at a time, followed by one week of
recess. Tests for comparisons between the two groups were administered after periods of
approximately eleven, fifteen, twenty, and twenty-four weeks.
The research questions for this study were as follows:
1. Is the Multi-Strategy method suitable for teaching preliterate adults to read and write?
2. Is the Multi-Strategy method sufficient for teaching preliterate adults to read and write in
languages of complex phonological structures (that is, syllable-level linguistic complexity)?
3. Does the Multi-Strategy method have any effect on adult learners motivation to persist in
gaining literacy fluency?
4. Do adult learners taught the Multi-Strategy method show significant improvement over
learners taught with decoding strategies in the Gudschinsky method within six months?
5.5. Procedures
The first step in beginning the Tau program was to train the teachers. Two men were chosen
by the communities to train as teachers for the Gudschinsky method for four weeks. As
explained above, this course was held outside the area where training was given to both the Tau
and Urat trainees for the Gudschinsky classes. At a later stage, four men were selected by the
two Tau communities to train as teachers for the Multi-Strategy method. These men were trained
by the researcher in the Urat area where there were opportunities for trainees to observe and
interact with Urat teachers in the classroom setting. At the end of three weeks the researcher
returned to Tau with the four trainees, who assisted in conducting the initial survey. The
following week, the four men completed their training by teaching adult classes in the Urat
5. The Tok Pisin Study 157

villages. At this time, one of the Tau teachers, who had been trained for the Gudschinsky
method, also attended an in-service class in the Urat village of Nanaha. The other trained
Gudschinsky teacher had deserted the program so classes could not begin.
Five weeks later, with an untrained man chosen by the community as a substitute teacher,
the program was ready to start. At this time the trained man returned to the village. Despite
misdemeanours on his part, there was general consensus by the community that he should teach
while the substitute teacher observed and gave assistance, so the classes began. The substitute
teacher was highly motivated and gained enough experience to assist in teaching when the
trained teacher again left the program after four weeks because of business interests.
The Literacy Committee for the Multi-Strategy group chose the two trained men with Grade
6 English education (one upgraded to Grade 9 by correspondence) to teach the Multi-Strategy
classes, while the other two men attended the National Literacy Training Workshop for three
weeks. This meant that the Multi-Strategy teacher for the Word-Building Track was of the same
educational standard as the Gudschinsky teachers. When the two men returned from the
workshop, they were given responsibility for the overall literacy program and they assisted in
teaching the adult classes. After the Christmas break, these two men began prep-school classes
for the children and the adult classes were taught by the two original teachers. These four men
formed a close-knit group who worked together well and substituted for one another when they
were unable to teach.
Classes in both treatment groups continued, but there were times when the communities
closed the classes for community events, mainly when deaths occurred. Changes were made to
keep the time in class as equal as possible for the two groups. Roll books were not all kept
accurately, so the number of days that classes were held was approximate for some teachers. The
following section covers analyses and discussion of the results of the tests taken at approximately
four-weekly intervals of instruction.
5.6. Results and Discussion
At the outset, it must be noted that there were certain unavoidable constraints in this Tok
Pisin program which made it clearly different from the Urat program. Some of these constraints
were that
materials were prepared and teachers were instructed to teach in Tok Pisin, a second
language
the two villages were situated along the same mountain ridge in reasonably close proximity
some participants in the two programs had clan and church affiliations which prompted much
social interaction between the groups, and
testing was very difficult due to lack of supervision to ensure and verify individual
contributions.
In the language situation, despite instructions not to use Kwanga, the language of every day
interaction, there was no way to control its use by the teachers to explain the content when
learners did not understand the second language. There were also phonological differences
between the two languages, Tok Pisin and Kwanga (as explained in Chapter 2), which made
pronunciation and writing of the second language difficult. At the outset, the people involved in
the program were given an opportunity to express themselves in Tok Pisin so that their degree of
understanding could be checked. Some younger women and older people showed the most
158 5. The Tok Pisin Study

difficulty in speaking and understanding Tok Pisin, but there were no strong differences
observed between the two groups.
The physical distance and social interaction between the two village groups made any
control for contamination effect between the two methods impossible. The testing situation, as
discussed in Chapter 3, was difficult because some of the people administering the tests had a
tendency to indicate the correct responses to the participants and some of the participants told
each other what was to be read and what to write. It was difficult to ascertain if the results of the
first two writing tests were individual, self-generating contributions or if there was influence
from others; in some instances it was noted that participants did copy from each other or from
their books. There was more supervision available on occasions 3 and 4.
A further problem occurred in relation to testing for the Tok Pisin study. Both the time of
instruction given and the test content influenced the results. Regarding time, the Gudschinsky
teacher was quite conscientious and drilled for long periods on the primer lessons, despite the
two-hour limit specified. In contrast, there were two classes in the Multi-Strategy group with a
constraint on the time because the learners changed classrooms after the first hour. Regarding
test content, the main constraint was that only material could be included to which both groups
had been exposed. The holistic introduction to the reading process, along with the concentrated
primer lessons, did not allow time for prolonged teaching which would allow for memorisation
of the content of the materials used in the Multi-Strategy classes. In contrast, the Gudschinsky
group was exposed to a more restricted vocabulary and, as a result, these students responded
with more memorised material.
The same variable groupings and the same statistical tests used in the Urat study above were
applied in the analyses of the quantitative data for the Tok Pisin study. The results of these
analyses are presented now for reading and writing scores taken after periods of approximately
eleven, fifteen, twenty, and twenty-four weeks of instruction time. The reading results are
presented first.
5.6.1. Reading results
It will be recalled from the Urat study that the reading scores were divided into ten variable
groups:
1. Recognition of Elements (letter, syllable, word)
2. Engaging the Text
3. Reading Time
4. Proportion of Syllables Correct
5. Comprehension
6. Intonation Contours (letter-by-letter, syllable-by-syllable, word-by-word, phrase-by- phrase)
7. Substitution of Words (nonsense, compatible, incompatible)
8. Substitution of Elements within Words (consonant-vowel, consonant, consonant cluster,
digraph, vowel)
9. Fluency within Words (omission of syllables, insertion of syllables, self-correction)
10. Fluency within Sentences (repetition of syllables, words, phrases)
The first five variable groups are presented as general reading skills and the last five are
presented as specific reading skills. A Cross-Tabulation test is used to determine the differences
5. The Tok Pisin Study 159

between the groups on the variable Engaging the Text. For all other variables, the tests used are
Univariate and Multivariate Analyses of Variance to ascertain differences between the two
treatment groups, the Gudschinsky and Multi-Strategy methods of instruction.
The analyses of data from learners in each of the groups are presented subsequently, but
only results of data showing significant differences between means are discussed in any detail.
All other variables had F values with probabilities >0.10 and are not shown.
5.6.1.1. General reading skills
Results for the variable division Recognition of Elements is the first of the general reading
results to be presented. The data analysed were produced by learners on recognition of elements
before they were asked to read continuous text material. For this analysis, the following set of
variables is entered into the MANOVA:
Dependent variables:
Recognition of Elements
Letters
Syllables
Words
Independent variables: Gudschinsky Method
Multi-Strategy Method
In the same way as this variable division was analysed in the Urat program above,
recognition of a single letter within a word was not expected until near the end of the program.
Phonemes were not taught in isolation, but an awareness of a letter was gained by learners
through contrast of syllables in the context of a word. In this study, there were difficulties in
translation and understanding because of the use of the second language, on the part of both
testers and test participants. Consequently, recognition of letters was not included in the
instrument until occasion 4. The means and standard deviations relating to the analysis of these
variables are presented in Table 5.2.
160 5. The Tok Pisin Study

Table 5.2. Recognition of Elements: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups
Variable Group M (SD)
Occas. 1
n M (SD)
Occas. 2
n M (SD)
Occas. 3
n M (SD)
Occas. 4
n
Recognition GM - - - - - - 1.25 20
of Letters - - - (0.97)

MSM - - - - - - 2.08 24
- - - (0.93)

Recognition GM 1.50 30 0.91 22 0.79 19 1.50
of Syllables (1.04) (0.92) (0.63) (1.10)

MSM 1.71 28 1.10 20 1.09 23 1.67
(1.01) (0.91) (0.79) (0.96)

Recognition GM 1.23 1.36 1.42 1.50
of Words (0.86) (0.66) (0.61) (1.00)

MSM 1.46 1.30 1.65 1.63
(1.03) (0.66) (0.65) (1.10)
Significant differences were found only on occasion 4: the results of the MANOVA for the
Recognition of Letters, Syllables, and Words and the univariate follow-up for occasion 4 are
shown in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3. Recognition of ElementsOccasion 4
On the fourth occasion, a significant effect is shown for the multivariate set for the variable
Recognition of Elements. Reference to the table of means shows that the Multi-Strategy group,
on average, scored higher than the Gudschinsky group. This result indicates that the Multi-
Strategy learners had more understanding of the concept of a single phoneme or letter than the
Gudschinsky group.
On all of the other general reading variablesEngaging the Text, Reading Time, Proportion
of Syllables Correct, and Comprehensionthere were no significant differences between the two
groups: the F values had probabilities >0.10.

df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 3 0.19 3.15
*
0.035
Error 40
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Recognition of letters 1 0.17 8.47
*
0.006
Error 42
5. The Tok Pisin Study 161

5.6.1.2. Specific reading skills
There are five variable groups for the specific reading skills:
1. Intonation Contours
2. Substitution of Words
3. Substitution of Elements within Words
4. Fluency within Words
5. Fluency within Sentences
For the first of the five variable divisions, Intonation Contours, the following set of variables
is entered into the MANOVA:
Dependent variables:
Intonation Contours
WORD
Letter-by-Letter

Syllable-by-Syllable
UNIT Word-by-Word

Phrase-by-Phrase
Independent variables: Gudschinsky Method
Multi-Strategy Method
The means and standard deviations relating to this analysis are presented in Table 5.4.
162 5. The Tok Pisin Study

Table 5.4. Intonation Contours: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups
Variable Grou
p
M (SD)
Occas. 1
n M (SD)
Occas. 2
n M (SD)
Occas. 3
n M (SD)
Occas. 4
n
Letter-by- GM 1.44 31 0.65 23 0.95 19 0.65 20
Letter (2.00) (1.92) (1.39) (1.89)

MSM 1.34 28 0.74 23 1.49 23 1.02 25
(1.86) (2.16) (3.90) (2.62)

Syllable-by- GM 0.50 0.35 0.84 0.60
Syllable (0.86) (0.65) (1.12) (0.71)

MSM 0.55 0.61 1.13 0.79
(1.00) (1.12) (1.52) (0.97)

Word-by- GM 2.08 4.00 4.95 4.90
Word (1.19) (2.64) (3.14) (2.82)

MSM 1.61 3.48 4.30 3.80
(1.24) (2.76) (3.15) (2.62)

Phrase-by- GM 0.16 1.00 1.42 1.35
Phrase (0.42) (1.21) (1.53) (1.49)

MSM 0.43 1.26 1.74 2.00
(0.78) (1.69) (2.40) (1.90)
Considering reading by Letters, Syllables, Words, and Phrases as a multivariate set, the
MANOVA produced a significant effect only for occasion 4 as shown in Table 5.5.
Table 5.5. Intonation ContoursOccasion 4

df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 4 0.22 2.75
*
0.041
Error 40
On occasion 4, no particular contrast in the means is, in the univariate sense, statistically
significant, but the whole multivariate set is working at the overall level to bring the multivariate
F value into significance. Reference to the table of means shows that on all of the variables,
except the variable Reading Word-by-Word, the Multi-Strategy group, on average, scored higher
than the Gudschinsky group. These results indicate that the Multi-Strategy learners showed more
tendency to use word-attack strategies to decipher unfamiliar words and thus facilitate more
fluent reading of phrases or longer sections of text. On the other hand, the Gudschinsky learners
were more inclined to read word-by-word. For the other three occasions, there were no
significant differences shown between the two groups on this variable Intonation Contours: the F
values had probabilities >0.10.
5. The Tok Pisin Study 163

Analysis of the second of the five variable groups, Substitution of Words, showed a result
similar to the variable intonation contours for occasion 4. For this analysis the following set of
variables is entered into the MANOVA:
Dependent variables:
Substitution of Words
Nonsense Words
Compatible Words
Incompatible Words
Independent variables: Gudschinsky Method
Multi-Strategy Method
The means and standard deviations relating to this analysis are presented in Table 5.6.
Table 5.6. Substitution of Words: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups
Variable Group M (SD)
Occas. 1
n M (SD)
Occas. 2
n M (SD)
Occas. 3
n M (SD)
Occas. 4
n
Nonsense GM 0.95 31 0.52 23 0.90 19 0.53 20
Words (1.70) (0.95) (1.76) (1.23)

MSM 1.43 27 0.26 23 0.91 23 0.20 25
(2.13) (0.69) (2.00) (0.34)

Compatible GM 0.97 2.91 2.63 2.23
Words (1.04) (3.06) (2.06) (2.08)

MSM 0.41 1.52 2.65 1.82
(0.54) (1.78) (2.44) (1.41)

Incompatible GM 0.73 1.65 3.58 1.23
Words (0.93) (2.23) (3.41) (1.28)

MSM 0.57 1.35 2.44 1.86
(0.69) (2.06) (2.79) (1.97)
The three kinds of word substitution, Nonsense, Compatible, and Incompatible Words are
taken as a multivariate set for the MANOVA, and the univariate follow-up results are shown in
Tables 5.7 and 5.8. These results are presented for occasions 1 and 4. The MANOVA for
occasions 2 and 3 did not show significant effects on the multivariate set: the F values showed
probabilities >0.10. The main effect and the univariate follow-up analyses for the first occasion
are presented in Table 5.7.
164 5. The Tok Pisin Study

Table 5.7. Substitution of WordsOccasion 1

df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 3 0.12 2.34
*
0.084
Error 54
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Compatible Words 1 0.10 6.35
*
0.015
Error 45
The MANOVA yielded a main effect result not considered to be reliably trending toward
significance. The univariate follow-up shows a significant difference between groups for
substitution of compatible words. Reference to the table of means shows that the Gudschinsky
group, on average, scored higher than the Multi-Strategy group, indicating a tendency for the
Gudschinsky learners to read more by substituting compatible words than the Multi-Strategy
learners. This result is understandable because, on this first occasion, the instrument of testing
included only material that had been covered in the primers. However, this interpretation must be
treated with caution. It will be recalled that the Gudschinsky learners tended to memorise the
primer content.
On occasion 4, for the multivariate set Substitution of Nonsense, Compatible, and
Incompatible Words, the MANOVA yielded the results shown in Table 5.8.
Table 5.8. Substitution of WordsOccasion 4
For occasion 4, considering the variables Substitution of Nonsense, Compatible, and
Incompatible Words as a multivariate set, only the MANOVA showed a significant effect. On
this occasion, similar to Table 5.5 above, no particular contrast in the means is significant, but
the whole group of variables is working at the overall level to bring the multivariate F value into
significance. Reference to the table of means shows that for the variables substitution of
nonsense words and compatible words the Gudschinsky group, on average, scored higher than
the Multi-Strategy group, but the Multi-Strategy group scored higher for the variable
Incompatible Words.
It will be recalled that the instrument for occasion 4 tested the ability of learners to read new
texts. These results indicate that the Gudschinsky learners showed more of a tendency to read
word-by-word, substituting nonsense words when trying to decipher new words, and compatible
words. On the other hand, the Multi-Strategy learners showed more of a tendency to substitute
incompatible words while reading longer sections of text.

df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 3 0.22 3.86
*
0.016
Error 41
5. The Tok Pisin Study 165

For the third, and for the fourth of the five variable divisions, Substitution of Elements
within Words and Fluency within Words, the MANOVA results did not show a significant main
effect on any of the four occasions; all F values had probabilities >0.10. Analysis of the last of
the five variable divisions, Fluency within Sentences, shows a trend toward significance on
occasion 2. On the other three occasions the results were nonsignificant: the F values had
probabilities >0.10. For this analysis the following set of variables is entered into the MANOVA:
Dependent variables:
Fluency within Sentences
Repetition of Syllables
Repetition of Words
Repetition of Phrases
Independent variables: Gudschinsky Method
Multi-Strategy Method
The means and standard deviations relating to this analysis are presented in Table 5.9.
Table 5.9. Fluency within Sentences: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups
Variable Group M (SD)
Occas. 1
n M (SD)
Occas. 2
n M (SD)
Occas. 3
n M (SD)
Occas. 4
n
Repetition GM 0.65 31 0.00 22 0.47 19 0.25 20
of syllables (1.17) (0.00) (1.26) (0.49)

MSM 1.09 28 0.00 22 1.04 23 0.70 25
(3.18) (0.00) (1.58) (1.81)

Repetition GM 1.39 4.32 3.90 3.23
of words (1.44) (4.93) (3.48) (2.91)

MSM 1.77 2.41 4.04 2.44
(5.61) (3.28) (4.76) (1.75)

Repetition GM 0.21 0.00 0.11 0.24
of phrases (0.60) (0.00) (0.46) (0.35)

MSM 0.54 0.27 0.61 0.30
(0.21) (0.70) (1.95) (0.39)
The three types of repetition, Syllables, Words, and Phrases are taken as a multivariate set
for the MANOVA and the univariate follow-up results for occasion 2. The MANOVA did not
yield a main effect because there was an empty cell for repetition of syllables. The univariate
result is shown in Table 5.10.
166 5. The Tok Pisin Study

Table 5.10. Fluency within SentencesOccasion 2
The univariate analysis shows a result considered to be trending toward significance between
groups for the variable repetition of phrases. Reference to the table of means shows that the
Multi-Strategy group, on average, scored higher than the Gudschinsky group. This result,
although unreliable, suggests that the Multi-Strategy learners showed a tendency to read by
phrases or longer sections of text, in contrast with the Gudschinsky learners.
5.6.1.3. Summary of reading results
An overall consideration of these quantitative results of the reading scores for the general
and specific reading variables does not indicate a clear pattern of differences shown by the
learners in the two instructional programs. A summary of the indications of higher scores by
each group, shown on the tables of means for the reading variables, is presented in Table 5.11.

df Effect Size F P
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Repetition of phrases 1 0.07 3.32
*
0.076
Error 42
5. The Tok Pisin Study 167

Table 5.11. Summary of indications on reading variables by group for the Tok Pisin program
T
= Trend
Sig. = Significant
0 = No significant difference between groups GM = Gudschinsky Method
MSM = Multi-Strategy Method
The main indication of differences in this study is on the level of strategies that the learners
tended to use in reading. A summary of the main reading results are as follows:
1. On occasion 4 there was a significant effect with the Multi-Strategy group showing more
understanding of the concept of a single phoneme or letter than the Gudschinsky group.
VARIABLE SETS (MANOVA)
VARIABLES (ANOVA follow-up)
READING
General Reading Skills
Occas. 1 Occas. 2 Occas. 3 Occas. 4
Recognition of Elements 0 0 0 Sig.
Letters - - 0 MSM
Syllables 0 0 0 0
Words 0 0 0 0
Engaging the Text 0 0 0 0
Time 0 0 0 0
Syllables Correct 0 0 0 0
Comprehension - - 0 0
Specific Reading Skills
Occas. 1 Occas. 2 Occas. 3 Occas. 4
Intonation Contours 0 0 0 Sig.
Letter-by-Letter 0 0 0 0
Syllable-by-Syllable 0 0 0 0
Word-by-Word 0 0 0 0
Phrase-by-Phrase 0 0 0 0
Substitution of Words 0 0 0 Sig.
Nonsense 0 0 0 0
Compatible 0 0 0 0
Incompatible 0 0 0 0
Fluency within Words 0 0 0 0
Omission (syllables) 0 0 0 0
Insertion (syllables) 0 0 0 0
Self-Correction 0 0 0 0
Fluency within Sentences 0 0 0
Repetition of Syllables 0 0 0

0
Repetition of Words 0 0 0 0
Repetition of Phrases 0 MSM
T
0 0
168 5. The Tok Pisin Study

2. The significant results on the fourth occasion of testing give an indication that the
Gudschinsky learners had a tendency toward reading more by words, while the Multi-
Strategy learners had a tendency toward reading more by phrases or longer sections of text.
The tendency for the Multi-Strategy group to read in longer contours of text is also shown on
occasion 2. Such a tendency indicates that the Multi-Strategy learners were reading with
more emphasis on understanding the meaning of the text than the Gudschinsky readers.
This summary of the indications of differences between the two groups on reading variables
does not show a pattern of significant differences. The results do show, however, that there is a
tendency for the two groups to use different strategies in the reading process. It will be recalled
from the beginning of this section that the two Tok Pisin groups had close social and community
affiliations in everyday life. These results, therefore, may be the by-product of contact and
shared materials between groups.
There was also a difference in time on task because the Multi-Strategy learners changed
venues after an hour of instruction with each teacher, whereas the Gudschinsky learners were in
the same venue and teachers did not restrict themselves to the specified two hours of instruction,
as was necessary for the Multi-Strategy teachers. The longer class time allowed the Gudschinsky
teachers to give closer attention to accountability so that learners grasped the content of the
primer. Such close attention to a restricted corpus of text resulted in the Gudschinsky learners
being more familiar with the content and language patterns in the testing instruments. Such a
difference in the time variable may be a contributing factor in these quantitative results.
Overall, the explanation for lack of significant differences between the two groups on the
variables specified appears to be concerned with language. As was shown in Chapter 2, Tok
Pisin is a lingua franca with simple language structure both phonologically and grammatically
compared with Urat. Considering the differences of complexity in language structure, similar
results to the Urat reading results could have been expected. One plausible explanation for the
above flat results is that the language of instruction is a second language which was not as well
known as was expected, especially by the women. In such a situation, learning to read whole
texts and learning to generate stories in a second language, as was expected in the Story Track,
would have been difficult because concepts and meanings of the texts would not have been clear.
This kind of interaction was required throughout the instructional time, especially in writing. It is
clear, therefore, that the Multi-Strategy learners had less time to interact with the primer material
in the Word-Building Track than the Gudschinsky learners, and they would have taken longer to
grasp the concepts and meanings of texts in the Story Track.
As was stated above, the results do show a tendency for the two different groups in the study
to use different strategies for reading. It will be seen in a later section on the follow-up,
ethnographic study, that initial, learned patterns for reading appear to have an effect on
motivation and continuity of literacy. We now turn to the writing results for the Tok Pisin study.
5.6.2. Writing results
The writing data collected from learners after approximately eleven, fifteen, twenty, and
twenty-four weeks of instruction are examined in this section. For all four occasions, the same
format and scoring categories as used in the Urat program are applied to the data. The two main
groups are mechanics of writing and meaning in writing. On the first two occasions, the
participants were expected to write single words and short sentences, so the results were not
5. The Tok Pisin Study 169

scored for aspects of meaningful writing. The degree of difference between the data collected on
each occasion was the length of written text expected for each of the tests.
ANOVA and MANOVA tests are applied to the writing variables in the Tok Pisin program
in the same way that they were applied to the Urat data. Over the four occasions, data from
learners in each of the two groups, Gudschinsky and Multi-Strategy, 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 first section to consider is mechanics of writing with the following variable divisions:
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)
5.6.2.1. Mechanics of writing
On the first two testing occasions, it could not be verified that self-generated, individual
contributions from the participants were gathered, mainly due to lack of personnel to help with
supervision during the tests. On the first occasion, in the Gudschinsky group many contributions
were the same and some were exact copies of extracts from the primer. Two women were found
to be copying from the primer page; and one young man had his contribution written before
being given instructions for the test. More supervisory help was available for testing the Multi-
Strategy participants on this occasion. Similar problems occurred on occasion 2, when a number
of participants in the Multi-Strategy class read the same thing for their written contribution
regardless of what was written. It was assumed that an appropriate text had been generated and
passed among some of the participants; verification that the contributions were self-generated
texts of each participant was difficult.
The analysis begins with the concepts about print variable division: 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:
Dependent variables:
Concepts about Print
Word Breaks
Capital 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 5.12.
170 5. The Tok Pisin Study

Table 5.12. Concepts about Print: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups
Variable Group M (SD)
Occas. 1
n M (SD)
Occas. 2
n M (SD)
Occas. 3
n M (SD)
Occas. 4
n
Word GM 0.43 30 0.64 22 0.68 19 0.85 20
Breaks (0.50) (0.49) (0.48) (0.37)

MSM 0.50 28 0.80 20 0.68 22 0.80 25
(0.51) (0.41) (0.48) (0.41)

Capital GM 0.07 0.09 0.05 0.20
Letters (0.25) (0.29) (0.23) (0.41)

MSM 0.11 0.45 0.18 0.24
(0.32) (0.51) (0.40) (0.44)

Full GM 0.20 0.23 0.21 0.40
Stops (0.41) (0.43) (0.42) (0.50)

MSM 0.07 0.20 0.18 0.20
(0.26) (0.41) (0.40) (0.41)

Complete GM 0.67 0.77 0.79 0.70
Sentences (0.48) (0.43) (0.42) (0.47)

MSM 0.29 0.60 0.55 0.68
(0.46) (0.50) (0.51) (0.48)
Taking the variables Word Breaks, Capitals, Full Stops, and Complete Sentences as a
multivariate set, the MANOVA yielded the results for occasion 1 shown in Table 5.13.
Table 5.13. Concepts about PrintOccasion 1
The four Concepts about Print variables, Word Breaks, Capitals, Full Stops, and Complete
Sentences, are taken as a multivariate set for the MANOVA with a significant main effect for the
first occasion. An examination of the univariate follow-up shows a significant difference for the
variable writing complete sentences. Reference to the table of means indicates that the

df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 4 0.24 4.15
*
0.005
Error 53
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Complete Sentences 1 0.15 9.51
*
0.003
Error 56
5. The Tok Pisin Study 171

Gudschinsky group, on average, wrote more complete sentences than the Multi-Strategy group.
For occasion 2, the MANOVA yielded the results presented in Table 5.14.
Table 5.14. Concepts about PrintOccasion 2
For the variable Concepts about Print multivariate set, the MANOVA shows a significant
effect for occasion 2. The univariate follow-up shows a significant difference between the two
groups for the variable writing capital letters. Reference to the table of means shows that, on
average, the Multi-Strategy group scored higher, indicating that the Multi-Strategy learners
wrote using capital letters more correctly than the Gudschinsky learners. The MANOVA for
occasions 3 and 4 did not yield significant effects on the multivariate set: the F values showed
probabilities of >0.10.
For the analysis of the second writing variable division, Form of Print, Letters, the following
set of variables is entered into the MANOVA:
Dependent variables:
Form of Print, Letters
Letters Attempted
Letters Correct
Different Letters Attempted
Different Letters Correct
Independent variables: Gudschinsky Method
Multi-Strategy Method
The means and standard deviations relating to the analysis of these variables are presented in
Table 5.15.

df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 4 0.31 4.23
*
0.006
Error 37
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Capitals 1 0.17 7.98
*
0.007
Error 40
172 5. The Tok Pisin Study

Table 5.15. Form of Print, Letters: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups
Variable Group M (SD)
Occas. 1
n M (SD)
Occas. 2
n M (SD)
Occas. 3
n M (SD)
Occas. 4
n
Letters GM 19.97 30 18.91 22 44.74 19 50.65 20
Attempted (9.25) (4.47) (42.57) (30.90)

MSM 16.21 28 30.95 20 27.50 22 71.64 25
(9.43) (21.10) (17.88) (62.58)

Letters GM 18.00 18.09 37.05 48.40
Correct (8.89) (4.76) (29.33) (31.46)

MSM 15.29 29.75 25.55 105.32
(9.46) (21.50) (18.14) (188.47)

Letters GM 10.77 8.73 14.05 11.90
Different (1.98) (1.88) (13.96) (3.75)
Attempted
MSM 6.96 11.50 10.77 13.64
(2.53) (3.24) (4.02) (2.66)

Letters GM 9.43 8.09 11.53 11.25
Different (2.70) (1.77) (7.68) (3.91)
Correct
MSM 6.39 10.95 9.64 12.68
(2.66) (3.35) (3.86) (2.90)
Considering the variables concerning Form of Print in reference to Letters: Letters
Attempted and Correct, and Different Letters Attempted and Correct as a multivariate set, the
MANOVA yielded the results shown in Table 5.16 for occasion 1.
Table 5.16. Form of Print, LettersOccasion 1

df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 4 0.48 12.43
*
<0.001
Error 53
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Letters Different Attempted 1 0.42 40.95
*
<0.001
Error 56
Letters Different Correct 1 0.25 18.65
*
<0.001
Error 56
5. The Tok Pisin Study 173

The independent variable method of instruction showed a significant effect on the
multivariate set, with the univariate follow-up showing significant differences between groups on
the variables Different Letters Attempted and Different Letters Correct. Reference to the table of
means indicates that, on average, the Gudschinsky learners scored higher than the Multi-Strategy
learners. These results indicate that the Gudschinsky group wrote more letters and more correct
letters than the Multi-Strategy group. As mentioned above, unavoidable events at the time of the
test may have resulted in skewing of these two variables into significance. Now the analysis of
the MANOVA for occasion 2 is considered from the results shown in Table 5.17.
Table 5.17. Form of Print, LettersOccasion 2
For occasion 2, the MANOVA yielded a significant main effect on the multivariate set. On
this occasion, the effect held for the four variables in the set. Reference to the table of means
shows that, on average, the Multi-Strategy group scored higher on all variables. These results
indicate that the Multi-Strategy learners wrote more clearly, with letters formed more accurately
than the Gudschinsky group. As mentioned above, it was not clear that the contributions of all
participants for the Multi-Strategy group were self-generated, so there may have been some
skewing of results on this occasion. On the third and fourth occasions, the MANOVA did not
yield significant effects for the variable Letter Formation: the F value had a probability of >0.10.
The final variable division in mechanics of writing is concerned with Form of Print in
reference to Words: Words Attempted and Correct, Different Words Attempted and Correct, and
Words Incorrect but Recognisable. For this analysis, the following set of variables is entered into
the MANOVA:

df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 4 0.31 4.11
*
0.007
Error 37
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Letters Attempted 1 0.15 6.84
*
0.012
Error 40
Letters Correct 1 0.13 6.15
*
0.017
Error 40
Letters Different Attempted 1 0.23 11.79
*
0.001
Error 40
Letters Different Correct 1 0.24 12.29
*
0.001
Error 40
174 5. The Tok Pisin Study

Dependent variables:
Form of Print, Words
Words Attempted
Words Correct
Different Words Attempted
Different Words Correct
Different Words Incorrect but Recognisable
Independent variables: Gudschinsky Method
Multi-Strategy Method
The means and standard deviations relating to the analysis of these variables are presented in
Table 5.18.
Table 5.18. Form of Print, Words: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups
Variable Group M (SD)
Occas. 1
n M (SD)
Occas. 2
n M (SD)
Occas. 3
n M (SD)
Occas. 4
n
Words GM 5.67 30 6.00 22 11.84 19 14.95 20
Attempted (2.54) (1.38) (9.04) (9.43)

MSM 3.93 28 8.25 20 7.73 22 18.92 25
(2.52) (5.64) (5.11) (16.13)

Words GM 3.53 3.77 5.74 9.40
Correct (2.78) (2.14) (5.48) (7.42)

MSM 2.00 6.05 4.36 12.36
(2.60) (5.55) (4.50) (15.79)

Words GM 5.00 5.27 9.42 10.60
Different (1.37) (1.24) (5.61) (4.88)
Attempted
MSM 3.57 7.00 6.82 13.20
(2.08) (3.40) (4.09) (6.82)

Words GM 3.07 3.23 4.26 6.70
Different (1.98) (1.97) (3.21) (4.44)
Correct
MSM 1.68 5.00 3.59 7.52
(2.18) (3.57) (3.63) (6.98)

Words GM 1.23 1.68 2.63 3.25
Different (1.25) (1.13) (2.57) (2.45)
Incorrect
Recognition MSM 1.18 1.55 2.09 3.92
(1.09) (1.43) (2.31) (3.29)
5. The Tok Pisin Study 175

Taking the variables Words Attempted and Words Correct, Different Words Attempted and
Different Words Correct, and Different Words Incorrect but Recognisable as a multivariate set,
for occasion 1 the MANOVA yielded the results shown in Table 5.19.
Table 5.19. Form of Print, WordsOccasion 1
The MANOVA, for occasion 1, yielded a significant main effect on the multivariate set. On this
occasion, the effect held for four of the five variables in the set. Reference to the table of means
reveals that, on average, the Gudschinsky group scored higher than the Multi-Strategy group on
all variables except incorrect, recognisable words. The results on these variables indicate that
these Gudschinsky learners, at the early stages of the program, wrote a greater number of words
more clearly and accurately than the Multi-Strategy learners. This result is consistent with other
findings which show reliance on the primer content at the time of testing for the Gudschinsky
group.
The MANOVA did not show significant effects for the variable Formation of Words on all
other occasions of testing: the F values had probabilities of >0.10. We now examine some of the
more meaningful aspects of writing which were appropriate for this stage of literacy.
5.6.2.2. Meaning in writing
It will be recalled, that for the Urat program, the scoring variables in this section were not
appropriate for the data collected on the first two occasions after eleven and fifteen weeks of
classes. At this stage, the learners were at a level of literacy where writing long texts was not
expected. Similarly, for the Tok Pisin data, results of analyses for occasions 3 and 4 only are
presented.
The scoring variables for meaning in writing are as follows:
1. Writing with Sense
2. Elaborations

df Effect Size F P
Multivariate Effect
Method 5 0.20 2.53
*
0.040
Error 52
Univariate Follow-up
Variable
Words Attempted 1 0.11 6.83
*
0.011
Error 56
Words Correct 1 0.08 4.70
*
0.034
Error 56
Words Different Attempted 1 0.15 9.69
*
0.003
Error 56
Words Different Correct 1 0.10 6.46
*
0.014
Error 56
176 5. The Tok Pisin Study

3. Cohesive Ties (referentials, conjunctions, lexical)
4. Story Line (introduction, action, complication, resolution)
5. Interaction with the Picture (description, description plus previous information, description
plus interpolations, description plus post picture information, description plus inferences)
The first two variables, Writing with Sense and Elaborations, are analysed using ANOVAs
while MANOVAs are used for all subsequent analyses. For this analysis, the following variables
are entered:
Dependent variables: Writing with Sense
Writing with Elaborations
Independent variables: Gudschinsky Method
Multi-Strategy Method
The means and standard deviations relating to the analysis of these variables are presented in
Table 5.20.
Table 5.20. Writing with Sense and Elaborations: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional
groups
The analysis of the variables Writing with Sense by Method and Elaborations by Method for
the third occasion is presented in Table 5.21.
Table 5.21. Writing with Sense and ElaborationsOccasion 3
Variable Group M (SD) Occas. 3 n M (SD) Occas. 4 n
Writing GM 0.89 19 0.60 20
Sense (0.32) (0.50)

MSM 0.64 22 0.76 25
(0.49) (0.44)

Elaborations GM 0.89 19 2.20 20
(0.88) (2.21)

MSM .41 22 2.52 25
(0.67) (2.74)

df Effect Size F P
Variable
Writing Sense 1 0.02 3.86 0.057
Error 39
Elaborations 1 0.02 4.06 0.051
Error 39
5. The Tok Pisin Study 177

For this occasion, the analysis of the variables Writing with Sense by Method and
Elaborations by Method showed strong trends toward significance. Reference to the table of
means shows that the Gudschinsky group scored higher on both variables. These results indicate
that there was a strong trend toward the Gudschinsky group writing sentences with more sense
and elaborations than the Multi-Strategy group on this occasion. On the fourth occasion, the
analysis showed nonsignificance: the F values had a probability of >0.10.
On the third and fourth occasions, the MANOVA did not show significant effects for the
variable cohesive ties: the F values showed probabilities of >0.10. The next variable division we
consider is concerned with the story line of the texts written. For this analysis, the following set
of variables is entered into the MANOVA:
Dependent variables: Story Line
Introduction
Action
Complication
Resolution
Independent variables: Gudschinsky Method
Multi-Strategy Method
The means and standard deviations relating to the analysis of these variables are presented in
Table 5.22.
178 5. The Tok Pisin Study

Table 5.22. Story Line: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional programs
Considering the four variables Introduction, Action, Complication, and Resolution as a
multivariate set, the MANOVA showed empty cells for the variables Resolution and Comp-
lication on this occasion, so results of the univariate analyses are presented in Table 5.23.
Table 5.23. Story LineOccasion 3

df Effect Size F P
Variable
Action 1 0.09 3.86 0.057
Error 39
The univariate analyses showed a strong trend toward significance for occasion 3 on the
variable Action. Reference to the table of means reveals that, on average, the Gudschinsky group
tended to score higher, indicating that these learners tended to write showing participants more
actively involved in the story than the Multi-Strategy learners. There is no significant difference
between means shown for the other three variables: the F values had probabilities >0.10. For
occasion 4, the MANOVA did not show a significant effect for the variable division Story Line:
the F value had a probability >0.10.
The final variable division is concerned with picture interaction with the following set of
variables entered into the MANOVA:
Variable Group M (SD) Occas. 3 n M (SD) Occas. 4 n
Introduction GM 0.16 19 0.65 20
(0.38) (0.45)

MSM 0.18 22 0.52 25
(0.40) (0.51)

Action GM 0.90 0.40
(0.32) (0.50)

MSM 0.64 0.64
(0.50) (0.49)

Complication GM 0.05 0.10
(0.23) (0.31)

MSM 0.00 0.16
(0.00) (0.37)

Resolution GM 0.05 0.50
(0.23) (0.22)

MSM 0.00 0.12
(0.00) (0.33)
5. The Tok Pisin Study 179

Dependent variables: Picture Interaction
Description
Description plus Previous Picture information
Description plus Interpolation
Description plus Post-Picture information
Description plus Inference
Independent variables: Gudschinsky Method
Multi-Strategy Method
The means and standard deviations relating to the analysis of these variables are presented in
Table 5.24.
Table 5.24. Picture Interaction: Means (and SDs) for the two instructional groups
Considering the five variables for picture interaction as a multivariate set, the MANOVA
was not complete for occasion 3 because of empty cells for the Inference variable. The univariate
results for this occasion are shown in Table 5.25.
Variable Group M (SD) Occas. 3 n M (SD) Occas. 4 n
Description GM 0.90 19 1.10 20
(0.32) (0.79)
MSM 0.64 22 1.28 25
(0.49) (0.89)

Description GM 0.05 0.60
plus Previous (0.23) (0.50)
MSM 0.14 0.48
(0.35) (0.51)

Description GM 0.68 0.40
plus Interpolation (0.48) (0.60)
MSM 0.46 0.80
(0.51) (1.04)

Description GM 0.21 0.25
plus Post (0.42) (0.44)
MSM 0.14 0.28
(0.35) (0.46)

Description GM 0.00 0.10
plus Inference (0.00) (0.45)
MSM 0.00 0.00
(0.00) (0.00)
180 5. The Tok Pisin Study

Table 5.25. Picture InteractionOccasion 3
The univariate results showed a strong trend toward significance for occasion 3 on the
variable Description relating to the picture. Reference to the table of means reveals that, on
average, the Gudschinsky group scored higher, indicating that these learners tended to write
more with a straight description of the picture than the Multi-Strategy learners. There is no
significant difference between means shown for the other four variables: the F values had
probabilities >0.10. On occasion 4, the MANOVA did not show a significant effect for the
variable Picture Interaction: the F value had a probability >0.10.
5.6.2.3. Summary of writing results
The writing results are similar to the reading results in this study. There is no clear pattern of
differences shown by the learners in the writing variables, although there is a tendency for the
Gudschinsky learners to show more expression of meaning on occasion 3. A summary of the
indications of higher scores by each group shown on the tables of mean scores for these variables
is presented in Table 5.26.

df Effect Size F P
Variable
Description 1 0.09 3.86 0.057
Error 39
5. The Tok Pisin Study 181

Table 5.26. Summary of indications on writing variables by group for the Tok Pisin program
T
= Trend
Sig. = Significant
0 = No significant difference between groups GM = Gudschinsky Method
MSM = Multi-Strategy Method
A summary of the writing results are as follows:
1. The significant writing variables for the mechanics of writing showed the Gudschinsky group
writing more clearly with correct letters and words in complete sentences than the Multi-
Strategy group on the first occasion. On the second occasion, the results are reversed in the
first two variable sets and the Multi-Strategy group showed more aptitude in using capitals
VARIABLE SETS (MANOVA)
VARIABLES (ANOVA follow-up)
WRITING
Mechanics of Writing
Occas. 1 Occas. 2 Occas. 3 Occas. 4
Concepts about Print Sig. Sig. 0 0
Word Breaks 0 0 0 0
Capitals 0 MSM 0 0
Complete Sentences GM 0 0 0
Letters Sig. Sig. 0 0
Attempted 0 MSM 0 0
Correct 0 MSM 0 0
Different Attempted GM MSM 0 0
Different Correct GM MSM 0 0
Words Sig. 0 0 0
Attempted GM 0 0 0
Correct GM 0 0 0
Different Attempted GM 0 0 0
Different Correct GM 0 0 0
Incorrect but Recognisable 0 0 0 0
Meaning in Writing
Occas. 1 Occas. 2 Occas. 3 Occas. 4
Makes Sense - - GM
T
0
Elaboration - - GM
T
0
Cohesive Ties

0

0
Referentials - - 0 0
Conjunctions - - 0 0
Story Line 0
Action - - GM
T
0
Reliance on Picture 0
Description - - GM
T
0
Description plus Interpolation - - 0

0
182 5. The Tok Pisin Study

and writing correct letters. In the results as presented above, the difficulties encountered in
the collection of data on the first two occasions have been explained and may account for
some skewing of results through a contamination effect at the time of testing.
2. There is some trending toward significance in meaningful writing on the third occasion, with
the Gudschinsky group tending to write with more action and interest than the Multi-Strategy
group.
As was stated above in relation to the reading results, there is not a clear pattern of
differences shown in the writing results. The longer time on task in the Gudschinsky method
where the concentration on accountability in each class session resulted in memorisation of the
primer pagesmay have influenced the results on occasion 1 and the trends shown toward
significance on occasion 3. As discussed above in the reading results, the lack of full command
of the second language seemed to be a disadvantage for the Multi-Strategy learners, especially in
the Story Track, where reading and writing activities were focused on whole texts. This
disadvantage seems to be reflected in the writing results. It is to be noted, however, that in the
interviews with ex-students in the follow-up research described below, greater numbers among
the Multi-Strategy group were positive about continuing to write than among the Gudschinsky
group.
5.7. Follow-up Research in the Tok Pisin Program
We now turn to the follow-up research for the Tok Pisin study. It will be recalled that, two
years after the completion of the program, the researcher returned to the Tau villages to do
follow-up research. There were no formal school classes available for adults in the area and there
was no evidence that adult classes had been held or that adults were attending any classes to
maintain their literacy skills.
Of particular interest in the Tau area was the opportunity to make format changes in the
workbooks and make a transition in the materials from Tok Pisin, the lingua franca, to Kwanga,
the language spoken in the area. There are three topics covered in this follow-up research:
Interviews with the adult learners
Interviews with the teachers
Changes in the format for primer lessons in the workbooks and results of implementation
The first two topics are covered in detail here, but the discussion related to format changes is
summarised with more details given in Appendix K.
Much of the discussion related to the outcomes of interviews with students and teachers for
the Urat program (Chapter 4) is applicable to the Tok Pisin study, especially the discussion on
the model depicting diffusion of literacy practice (Figure 4.1). The set of specific questions
devised to see what effect the literacy program had had on the communities were as follows:
1. Do you read now? Why dont you read? (Asked if the person responded negatively.)
2. What books do you have to read?
3. Do you write now? Why dont you write? (Asked if the person responded negatively.)
4. Do you read with anyone? With whom do you read?
5. Do you read with anyone? To whom do you read? Is there anyone else living in your house
who can read?
5. The Tok Pisin Study 183

6. Did you attend any school or literacy course before taking part in the program?
7. What did you think about the way that you were taught? Did any parts help you or not help
you to read or write?
8. Finally, each person was asked to attempt to read a story.
A summary of the outcomes of the interviews with the adult learners in the Tok Pisin study is
now presented.
5.7.1. Interviews with Tok Pisin adult learners
Two years after the original literacy program had been completed in the two Tau villages,
the learners gave some revealing information when answering questions about their reading and
writing abilities. During a period of eight days, while living in one of the Tau villages and with
the help of some of the teachers, the researcher interviewed men and women who had
participated in the earlier literacy program in Tok Pisin.
The interviews followed the same procedure used in the Urat interviews described in
Chapter 4. Where questions were not clear, the teachers used Kwanga to convey the import of
what was being asked. In almost all of the interviews, one of the six teachers was present. The
presence of a teacher helped to clarify the situation when the Tok Pisin used in questioning was
not understood or the respondents were reluctant to express themselves in the lingua franca.
Respondents were made to feel at ease and enough dialogue was entered into to ascertain that the
answers to the questions were valid. In some instances, after the interviews, the teachers verified
answers on which there was some doubt. The results of questions posed are shown in Table 5.27.
Table 5.27. Number of positive responses to specific literacy questions in the Tok Pisin program
Chi-square analyses of these findings indicate that significant associations between method
and response were obtained on two of the questions:
QUESTION METHOD
Gudschinsky Multi-Strategy
n=16 n=16
How many read now? 7 10

How many have books? 9 14

How many write now? 0 9

How many read with others? 2 4

How many read to others? 1 7

How many attended public school? 5 5

Method: how many positive? 4 13

Method: how many negative? 2 2
184 5. The Tok Pisin Study

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
5. The Tok Pisin Study 185

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 dont 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.
186 5. The Tok Pisin Study

3. Comments on reading with or to others
In questions four and five, an attempt was made to see if there was any diffusion of literacy
from the participants to others. In the answers to both questions, there was more evidence of
interaction between people reading with or to others from respondents in the Multi-Strategy
group than from those in the Gudschinsky group. In the Gudschinsky group, only two people
indicated that they were reading at home. In the Multi-Strategy group, nine people said that they
were reading in the home with or to others, and some mentioned that they were reading material
with others in church activities. For example:
I regularly read with the family and I regularly read with some of the people from my church in the
church.
I read the Bible and the book that has all kinds of choruses in it in services and other kinds of books
in the services.
4. Comments on prior attendance at a literacy course
Both treatment groups had equal representation of people who had some literacy schooling
before joining the class. In both groups, four people had attended some kind of school for a few
months in Tok Pisin. There was also one person in each group who had been to primary school
where they were taught in English: one for three years and the other for one year.
5. Comments on method
Regarding the teaching methods used, there is a great difference in the number who
responded positively; four comments from the Gudschinsky group and thirteen from the Multi-
Strategy group. There were two negative comments from each group and nine did not give any
comment in the Gudschinsky group contrasted with one in the Multi-Strategy group. Apart from
this, there was a strong difference in the quality of the remarks from each group.
Considering the positive comments first, in the Gudschinsky group there were four:
The first person said the class was good because she could read but it was hard to writeI
read, I see, it helps me. It is good. I like it all and I read. Only writing is hard, and reading, I
am pleased and I read. To write, my hand is slow. (This student could not read the new text
presented for the test.)
The second person said it was good but made the point that poor attendance made it difficult
to progressIt is good. If you do this, you think that you are able to learn something. If you
do not go to school all the time and stay away sometimes, learning one or two days, you
forget some words. Then you find it hard to go on reading.
The third commentedIt was only in the writing that he (the teacher) did not understand
how to teach me well. I write and I make mistakes.
And the fourth said the class was some help.
In contrast, there were more strongly positive comments in the Multi-Strategy group, with
only one person commenting that some things (teaching techniques) were clear but not others.
Since there were two tracks with two teachers in the Multi-Strategy method, the people were
asked to comment on both parts. Eight responded positively to both of the tracks, while three
focused on one track only. Some of the comments from the Multi-Strategy group were as
follows:
5. The Tok Pisin Study 187

I think this way. All the lessons we learn and all the books each teacher uses to teach us I think are
good for helping us to learn things that are hard. I think this school is good. We did not understand
and we learned and we understand.
They (the two tracks) are good. They know how to help us well, to show how to read, and if he (the
teacher) looks at the two tracks and teaches some things like letters, it is good.
I learned the two ways well. This way of Francis, it teaches me because it is broken up. We learn
with Francis (Word-Building Track) and we put them together this way, we put letters or some
things this way and we know. We learn with Vincent (Story Track) this way, he writes (a story),
some we see (and understand), some we do not see (and understand). Some we know, some we do
not know.
We understand Francis book, and Vincents book that is long, we understand a little. Some things
we understand and some that are long we understand a little.
(The way of) Vincent is a little bit hard. We learn with Francis and I think it is easy for us.
The negative comments in the Gudschinsky group came from two men who had difficulty
learning to read and write. The first, who did not become fluent, felt that the students should
have been taught the alphabet the same way that students are taught in English. He also made
general (negative) comments, remarking that plenty of the students from the class did not know
how to read and write. The other man said that the classes helped him, but he did not go to
school all of the time. He said that if he had gone to school from one to three years he would
have learned it. He remarked that some learned to read from the book and that was a help. The
thing that he felt was hard was to write on the blackboard because their hands were very clumsy.
The negative comments in the Multi-Strategy group came from two young women who did
not learn to read and write. They both commented that the time was too short and that they did
not understand well, for example, one commented, I only hear the speaking, not reading and
writing (in reference to Tok Pisin). It would be enough if we had school one or two years. This
comment reiterates the point made earlier that the lingua franca was not well understood by some
sections of the community. Both of the husbands of these young women suggested that the
reason for failure was the fact that the English alphabet had not been taught. A summary of the
interviews is presented in the next section.
Summary of interviews with Tok Pisin adult learners
In answer to the general questions asked at the outset, the results show that people from the
Multi-Strategy group responded more favourably than the Gudschinsky group in all areas. The
Multi-Strategy group members were not only reading and writing more skillfully, but they also
showed more commitment to and were actively interested in finding more material to read than
the Gudschinsky group. Such positive interest in literacy shows that there was a greater degree of
diffusion of literacy among those who learned from the Multi-Strategy method. A summary of
the interviews shows the following:
1. Half of the people interviewed in the Multi-Strategy group showed that they could read well,
whereas only a quarter performed well in the Gudschinsky group. Those who were reading
well were using their skills in community activities, such as church services, with a high
proportion coming from the Multi-Strategy group.
2. For the Multi-Strategy group, more than 60 percent indicated that they were writing, with
some using their skills in community activities. The one person in the Gudschinsky group
who indicated an aptitude for writing said that she did not write for others to read.
188 5. The Tok Pisin Study

3. In regard to finding evidence that competency in literacy was being passed on to others, there
was a substantial difference between the two groups in the number of people who indicated
that they read in the home and church functions. Nine people (56 percent) from the Multi-
Strategy group indicated that they were actively involved with reading to others and with
others at home and some extended this to other activities in the village. Only two people (12
percent) from the Gudschinsky group indicated that they read with their families.
4. There is more evidence of people who were preliterate, prior to the beginning of the program,
showing more of an aptitude toward reading from the Multi-Strategy group than from the
Gudschinsky group.
5. The comments on method were general for the Gudschinsky group, with poor attendance
singled out as a factor in poor performance. There were also some negative comments on the
teaching of writing. Those who learned from the Multi-Strategy method were positive about
the method and specific in their reactions to the two tracks. They felt more comfortable
learning from the workbook with analysis and synthesis than from holistic strategies.
Thirteen (81 percent) of the people involved in the Multi-Strategy method gave positive
comments about the method. These comments were specific and helpful, with only one woman
indicating that some aspects of teaching were not clear; particularly writing. One woman made
no comment about the method, but two responded negatively. From the group taught by the
Gudschinsky method, five people (31 percent) responded positively with general comments
saying the program was good or helped a little. One person said that the writing was not good.
Nine people did not comment and two were negative.
It is evident from these interviews that there were greater gains in literacy acquisition for the
Multi-Strategy group than were reflected in the quantitative analyses of data collected two years
earlier. In the Tau villages, the efficacy of teaching and learning through the Multi-Strategy
approach, which resulted in greater diffusion of the skills of reading and writing in the family
and the community, shows more effective maintenance of literacy for this method than literacy
taught by the Gudschinsky method.
Acquiring literacy through interaction with whole texts needs a long time of exposure to
written material. Holistic strategies taught concurrently with grapho-phoneme strategies,
however, provide the basis for greater individual control over the literacy process, but the gains
are cumulative and not always evident. It is clear from this Tok Pisin study that, in practice, and
in the perceptions of this sample of ex-students, the Multi-Strategy method tends to have greater
and more durable gains, both cognitively and attitudinally, compared to the Gudschinsky
method.
5.7.2. Interviews with Tok Pisin teachers
Semi-structured interviews were arranged with five of the teachers from the adult program
in the two Tau villages to find out how each teacher
assessed each lesson
changed lessons to make them more successful
thought the students handled the program
explained the method in terms of socio-cultural relevance
viewed the question of including the English alphabet names
5. The Tok Pisin Study 189

reacted to writing and preparing materials, and
compared the old and new formats of the primer material in the Word-Building Track (for
Word-Building Track teachers).
These interviews centred on the suitability of the Multi-Strategy method for teaching adult
learners to read and write, concentrating particularly on the change of format for the Word-
Building Track materials. In this program, the benefit and function of reporting on these
interviews is primarily concerned with appropriate development and application of the Multi-
Strategy method and not, at this level, about explicit contrasts between the Gudschinsky and
Multi-Strategy methods. The main teacher for the Gudschinsky program, although taking part in
teaching the children, did not show the same interest as the other teachers, was absent from the
village during much of the time during this period and, as a consequence, there is no interview
material to represent his opinions. The interviews will be summarised and comments grouped
under the above headings. An example of a full interview covering the comparison of the
variations in the Word-Building Track primer format can be found in Appendix I. In this section
the findings are reported, but more detailed discussion is presented in Chapter 6 where
comparisons are made with findings from the teacher interviews in Urat.
5.7.2.1. Assessment of lessons
All of the teachers were favourable toward the four lessons. They considered them helpful
for the students to learn to read and write, but there were specific lessons singled out as being
particularly helpful or of little help in both of the tracks. The Story Track teachers chose the first
lesson, with the experience and student-generated story, as one of the most valuable lessons.
The lesson coupled with this as being the most helpful was different for each teacher according
to his particular interest and expertise. One teacher, who was most innovative and created
interesting ways for new presentations of the lessons, linked writing in lesson four with the
Experience Story as most helpful. The other teacher was more interested in placing emphasis on
reading the Big Books in lesson three.
In the Word-Building Track, the teachers did not single out any lessons as being more
significant, but some described particular areas that were more difficult to teach to the adults.
One teacher said that the students found it hard to learn to read the sentences because of their
length. Another teacher commented on an area that seemed particularly difficult for adults in
lesson three. He found that, in the process of using the syllables and words in competitive games,
the older people did not like to come to the front to point out or write the items. He also said that
he did not think that the adults liked to laugh and joke as they competed, in the same way as the
children.
5.7.2.2. Changes to lessons
The teacher who showed the most understanding of the purpose for each lesson showed
flexibility in the changes he made to the Story Track lessons. He substituted as a teacher in the
adult program so the innovations were usually carried out in the classes with children. As an
occasional change for lesson one, after the Experience Story was created and read on the first
day, he did not write the story on the blackboard ready for the cloze activities on the second day.
Instead, he asked the students to tell him what to write for the story. This is how he described the
change:
190 5. The Tok Pisin Study

Sometimes we did some drama of incidents in the village so we repeated the story that they had
given me and I had written. They learned this story of theirs and told me as I wrote it and it looked
the same (as the story I had written on the wall chart). They all knew it. They all found it easy to
read it and sometimes some of the children wrote some of that story in lesson four (the writing
lesson).
In lesson two, this same teacher occasionally made a change in the period where the students
read individually. Instead of reading individually, all students turned to the same story in the
book and followed while one person read aloud. When the reader stumbled over a word and
could not work it out, the whole group worked orally to break the word into syllables and build it
again to help the reader.
In lesson three, after teaching the Big Book, it was usual for the students to read through
the same story from a smaller copy. In the Tok Pisin classes, there were not enough books for
each person so the teacher put the students into groups with one advanced reader in each group
to guide the reading. Another teacher followed this idea and reported that it was most helpful for
the teacher as well as for the students.
The Story Track teacher made another change in lesson four, the creative writing lesson. He
explained it this way:
About one thing I found out in the Story Track lessons it is like this: When we come to lesson four
and I ask them to put their thinking inside, as if they were inside a certain situation that comes (to
mind) and they put themselves each one inside, now I tell them to think this way: that they are in
this situation and they are looking at the things that are happening. When I ask them and they think
that way, I tell them to write down their stories. I do it this kind of way now. This thinking of theirs,
where they think and really go inside (the situation), it brings the thinking they think about this story
straight into their own thoughts. And sometimes, when they write, they write just the words they are
thinking. When they write, plenty of them write good stories with correct spelling.
This innovation brought most satisfying results as the students participated and wrote
individualised stories to read to their classmates each day.
In the Word-Building Track, one teacher made a change in lesson three where syllables and
words learned were reinforced through competition between two teams. When asked if there was
anything in the adult program that did not help students to read and write, he responded:
It is just this, where I feel that it does not really help the adults to think of a name of something
(build a word) on the blackboard or in the syllable box when it is the time for games.
When asked if he made a change he said:
Yes, in this number three lesson I did, and it is this way: They are ashamed to go to the front to the
blackboard to do it. I said to them, You sit down and I myself will show you on the blackboard and
you will stay in you places, stand up and have a race and just say it. I said it that way. They stayed in
their places. They liked it that way. To get up and go a long way, you understand, they have already
sat down, would they get up and walk about? They dont like that.
These changes helped the teachers to be effective in their teaching. In the following section,
the teachers comments are presented on the way the students handled the lessons.
5.7.2.3. Students application of lessons
The teachers were clear in their comments on particular problems for adult learning because
they had had experience in teaching children. In the Story Track, one teacher felt that there was
too much material for the adults to absorb and learn in one week. To create a print environment,
the method provides for one main story per week (with a Big Book and smaller copies) with a
5. The Tok Pisin Study 191

second Big Book and two experience stories included. The teacher said that he had made two
Big Books for the week, but the adults did not learn them both. He felt that the first Big Book,
which was an enlarged version of the story for the week, was clear and on the theme, but the
second book on the same theme seemed to confuse the students.
This teacher also thought that having a picture with the story content was helpful. He chose
lesson one, the Experience Story, as the most helpful part of the program because the students
could see some activity and read the story that they had generated about the things they had seen.
He said that the pictures in the Big Book for each part of the story were very important because
they were the essence of the story that needed to be clear to the students. In one exercise, while
reading the Big Book, teachers encouraged individual students to walk to the front of the
classroom and point as they read. This particular teacher said that the adults did not do that; he
pointed while the students read. His comment was:
Before, for the adults, they themselves did not read (while they pointed). We (teachers) only (did it),
I myself with them, I marked and they read. So now with the children we change a little and we tell
each child to go and they mark and read. I think this is good and it helps them.
Another point made by the same teacher to explain why some adults did not learn to read
and write, was that the language of instruction was the lingua franca, Tok Pisin. He explained
that some people just talk without understanding Tok Pisin; they can talk and say the words, but
they do not learn to read and write because they do not really know the meaning of things they
say. He named some people who could read and they were from homes where there was an
active reading environment in Tok Pisin. The reasons he gave for the other members not being
able to read were that some felt shame about making mistakes in school and that when they took
the books home, they did not read. Another Story Track teacher commented that the adults had
many things on their minds and this interfered with their writing. He said that they had not been
writing for very long, and if they tried over a longer period they would be able to write.
The Word-Building Track teachers said that the students handled the lessons well but they
had some difficulties in two areas. One teacher pointed out that they only had one period to learn
the sentence (with analysis and synthesis) and it was hard at first because learning the sentence
took longer than learning one word. The other area of difficulty, reported by another teacher,
concerned joining syllables to build words in lessons two and three. Some students learned to
build the words quickly, but others took a long time. The exercise was complicated by being
associated with activity in the classroom. The students were expected to go to the blackboard,
point to appropriate syllables, and join the syllables to make words, while the class looked on
and applauded their efforts. This teacher felt that this was difficult for those adults who could not
build the words quickly; especially where there was laughter and fun involved.
5.7.2.4. Socio-cultural relevance of the method
All of the teachers responded positively, saying that the method fitted the socio-cultural
situation and they stressed different aspects with some detailed information. Two men
commented that the content of the lessons included aspects of their everyday lives and that was
good. There were not elements from outside the culture that did not belong to them. They agreed
that the time for classes fitted into the life of the people. Another teacher gave details on how he
thought the everyday life of the adults could be included more appropriately in the cultural theme
for the Story Track lessons to make the lessons easier. He explained it this way:
192 5. The Tok Pisin Study

If we get (the cultural theme) straight from those things that they understand how to do, such as,
how to place firewood, how to make a string bag, then I think like this: all of this thinking of theirs
will go straight to the things that they know how to do. So then somehow they will try first or
think about this thinking that will be very strong in their heads and they will be able to try and try to
put their writing or marks that they are thinking in their heads down on paper.
A definite point is made here that the theme for stories should not only be cultural, but that it
should be relevant to the things they know how to make and things they do (expository texts).
This teacher suggested that the people could be asked what they thought about the relevance of
the method to their lives and gave his comment about the method:
I think it is an easy way where we (the teachers) find that it is sufficient for them to understand. I
think that all of the ways for making them understand how to read and write are good.
One of the teachers said that the method was good because it was a good way for showing
the children, so that they can understand in the same way that they do something in the village.
He explained the relevance of the workbook in terms of a cultural way of learning:
Concerning the workbook it is all right because it is this way: something you show and you do it,
they look and they follow. They follow and later they go, they themselves go, they go and try to do
it and say, Yes before the teacher he taught us, we do that to do it this way. And that is the same
way with the adults, they show the children. When the children go to some place are they lazy? No.
(One of them thinks), Father showed me this way and I did something this way. And he does it; he
does it the way he wants to at another time. That too, is the same kind (of thing). When you taught
us in the workbook, we showed them and we put all the small syllables inside; they saw them. All
right, later when they went to the house again these things are with them that they learned before in
school when the teacher taught them and said, The words are this way, you learn them this way. So
the workbook too, is all right. It is good.
It is important to note that these comments relating to teaching the workbook do not include
telling the students anything. The emphasis is on showing and doing; you show and you do it,
they look and they follow. One Story Track teacher seems to have had the same idea when he
heard that the stories were being taught without pictures. He was adamant that without the
pictures it was cranky and said, But they (the teachers) must draw a picture and write.
Because the picture is an important thing. Because it is the essence (source), we get the whole basis
of what belongs to this (story). They must understand about a picture and later they must understand
about something. If they dont understand about a picture they will not be able to understand.
The concept of having a visual stimulus reiterates the point made earlier that the cultural
theme should come straight from those things that they know how to do; something they do
they can visualise and, therefore, understand. Another teacher, when discussing the way the
method fitted the culture, emphasised the same idea. He pointed out that everything they taught
belonged to their culture: but everything in the village belongs to us and we use them and all
things, they are good.
5.7.2.5. The ABC question
The teachers in Tau did not seem to have strong views about the need to include the names
of the English alphabet in the lessons. As it has been described above, the students who had been
exposed to literacy in their early lives with emphasis on the English names for the alphabet, as
well as the sounds of each letter, were confused about the reading process. The teachers were
aware of the difficulties in trying to help these older people to overcome the unproductive pattern
of sounding out each letter with its name or the sound (consonants were said with the sound e,
5. The Tok Pisin Study 193

for example, ke, ne, se). There was no indication that the teachers wished to teach letters in
isolation using the English names or sounds to the adult learners.
The English alphabet has a strong schooling status in the societies in the Tau and Urat areas.
It seems that being able to recite the English alphabet is part of school expertise and has high
status. Therefore, adults in particular, seem to think that knowing the ABC has merit. As
explained earlier, learning the pattern of the names in early literacy interfered with fluency of
some of the adults. In the Tau One class, when two of the young women did not master literacy,
their husbands, who had been to English school, were adamant that the reason was obvious; the
English alphabet had not been taught.
The teachers had developed a Multi-Strategy literacy program for young children in a
preparatory year before the children entered the national English system, so some of their
comments related more to children and transition into English. Each teacher had a different way
of introducing the names of the letters after the students had some expertise in reading and
writing. In the trial adult class using the new format, the letters of the Kwanga alphabet were
introduced at the beginning of the classes. The letters were each explained from the context of an
appropriate word using the sounds, but also including the English names (see Appendix L for
more detailed comments).
5.7.2.6. Reactions to writing and preparing materials
The comments on preparing materials came from the teachers who were most involved in
the process. When asked if it was easy or hard to prepare the literacy books, all agreed that it was
not hard to prepare the story books for the Story Track, but that some supervision would be
helpful for the Word-Building Track materials. They agreed that they knew how to write, edit,
and publish books using a silk-screen printer because they had been shown. More detailed
comments are included in Appendix L.
5.7.2.7. Summary of interviews with Tok Pisin teachers
In summary, the overall reaction of the teachers to the content of the two tracks was positive
with one teacher using some successful, innovative ways of teaching the Story Track lessons
with children. Since the alternative activities were strongly group oriented, it was suggested they
could be acceptable to adults, who were more reticent to try to read or write in front of the class
than the children were. A summary of the comments by the teachers shows the following:
1. For the Story Track, the teachers agreed that lesson one, the Experience Story, was the most
valuable lesson. Lesson three, the Big Book lesson, and Writing in lesson four were
coupled with lesson one as important.
2. For the Word-Building Track, teachers said that all lessons were equally helpful, but one
teacher pointed out that the adults found it hard to learn the sentences. Another teacher
explained that the adults did not like to come to the front to point out the syllables and words
in the competitive games in lesson three.
3. The only change in the Word-Building Track was in primer lesson three, where one teacher
pointed to items and asked the adults to say them instead of walking to the front to point
them out. An innovative teacher also used some variations in the Story Track lessons with
children and suggested they be tried with adults:
In lesson one, the students told the Experience Story to the teacher again on the second
day and made sure he wrote it on the blackboard the same way as the story on the chart.
194 5. The Tok Pisin Study

In lesson two, individual reading was done aloud with all assisting the reader with word
analysis to decipher difficult words.
In lesson four, the teacher stimulated creative writing by asking the students to put their
thinking inside a situation as if they were there and seeing what was happening, and then
to write it all down.
4. One comment regarding how students handled the lessons was that learning to read and write
in a second language was difficult for some. For the Story Track, one teacher suggested it
would be helpful to limit the amount of print per week to enable the students to handle the
lessons more efficiently. He suggested using one Big Book per week in lesson three so that
students could learn to read it well. It was claimed that things that helped students to read
were
drama and drawings about the content (things they saw)
pointing under the print while reading, and
learning in their own language.
Things that hindered reading and writing, it was stated, were
feeling shame about making mistakes, and
not having enough time to write.
For the Word-Building Track, the teachers said students handled the lessons well, except for
two areas:
There was not enough time to learn to read the sentences.
Building words quickly, during the activity with games in lesson three, was difficult for
some.
5. Teachers gave positive comments related to the relevance of the method to the socio-cultural
situation:
The content of the lessons included aspects of their everyday lives.
Time for classes fitted village life.
Things were done in the same way as the students did things in the village and that made
it easier to understand (you show and do it; they look and follow).
6. Knowing the English alphabet names had a strong schooling status in the society: some semi-
literate students persisted in an unproductive pattern of sounding out letters with names or
sounds as reading, without pronunciation and comprehension of the words. The teachers
did not include the names with the sounds of letters, but advocated teaching with sounds in
context and introducing the English alphabet names in the final term of prep-school for
children, and when the adults desired to learn them.
7. There were three points in the teachers reactions to writing and preparing materials:
Selecting the alphabet and getting everything ready was difficult.
It was easy to write and publish stories (for the Story Track) because they had found
out the spelling rules for the language and they had observed and practised how to make
up the books.
The workbook stories were not hard to devise and write, but it would be helpful to have
some supervision.
5. The Tok Pisin Study 195

The teachers were positive, highly motivated, and confident that they could assist in setting
up literacy in a related dialect. They had participated in all aspects of the program and felt
assured of their ability to continue the prep-school classes and assist neighbouring groups to
begin literacy if requested to do so. We now cover in more detail the
preparation of materials with the format changes to the primer lessons in the workbooks
application of the new materials in prep-school and adult classes, and
teachers evaluation of the new format.
5.7.3. Changes to the format of the workbooks
A particular interest in the follow-up research was related to the format and presentation of
the lessons in the workbooks which contained the primer lessons. Through the original research
and subsequent training of teachers, it became evident that teachers would be able to handle the
teaching of the workbooks in a more efficient way if some changes were made. Some of the
reasons for the changes were prompted by feedback from trainers and teachers. The main change
was in lesson one, where the connected material was introduced and read before teaching the key
word, and re-read after lesson three where syntax was taught. Another change in lesson one was
the isolation of each phoneme in the analysis and synthesis stage. The letters are brought into
focus by being written in a box, but not taught in isolation; they are always read in the context of
the syllable and word. Figure 5.1 shows the new format for a Word-Building Track primer page
which can be compared with the format used in the Urat and Tok Pisin classes, as shown in
Chapter 3.
196 5. The Tok Pisin Study


Figure 5.1. The new Word-Building Track primer page format
The teachers and other community members worked together to develop a trial orthography
to test the new format in Kwanga. Many people worked together to write, edit, and help publish
the materials for the classes. These materials were applied in the classes for children and some
adult classes in the neighbouring village of Warmenakor. The results of these classes were very
encouraging. Details of this process to test the format, from orthography production to the trial
classes, and comparison between the two formats is outlined in detail in Appendix K. A
summary is now given of the application of the new materials which incorporated the change of
language from Tok Pisin to Kwanga and the format changes in the workbooks.
5.7.4. Summary of the application of the new materials
It is clear that the new pattern of arranging the necessary elements for teaching in the Word-
Building Track was acceptable to the teachers in the Tau area. The Warmenakor teachers also
handled this teaching format well, using the same pattern each day, with more emphasis on
sentences and with more focus on the single phoneme than in the original pattern. The materials
in Kwanga were applied to classes for children and adults. A summary of the interviews with the
teachers on the effect of these changes shows the following:
1. The children gave spontaneous, positive reactions to the materials in their own language,
especially in the area of writing in the Story Track where they could think and write. In the
Word-Building Track, the teachers did not experience difficulties in adjusting to the new
format because the activities were taught in essentially the same way as previously.
5. The Tok Pisin Study 197

2. The experimental adult class, with teaching and learning done together in a cooperative way,
demonstrated that the method was applicable, the materials were acceptable, and easy to
grasp and use in a way that was meaningful in the cultural setting.
3. Teachers and students benefited from using the same pattern every day for the Word-
Building Track lessons, which included an introduction to the connected material in the first
lesson and analysis and synthesis of both the key word and a sentence in which it was found.
Using the same basic teaching pattern each day was most acceptable to the teachers, for ease
of teaching and preparation.
4. Placing focus on each phoneme but reading the phonemes in the context of the main syllable
and the key word, and not in isolation, was helpful for both reading and writing.
5. To help students understand the names of letters, individual English alphabet names were
explained in context but not emphasised, to help avoid confusion with the sounds when
reading.
The active, spontaneous participation of teachers and students in the trial classes for the new
material in Kwanga, gives substantial and positive evidence that the Multi-Strategy method is a
viable and acceptable way of introducing literacy in a rural community. Comments by the
teachers show that the new workbook format for the primer pages enhances the quality of
teaching and learning, and thus results in more effective participation by those engaged in the
tasks. In the next chapter, comparisons are made between the results of the two interventions
with summaries and conclusions, implications and directions for further research, and limitations
of the studies.


198
6. Conclusions and Implications
6.0. Introduction
Researching two literacy interventions in languages with differing degrees of language
complexity can give some insight into the productive strategies for adult literacy programs. In
this chapter
the major conclusions from each section of the results are listed
an overall set of general conclusions are formulated, and
the implications of these outcomes for adult literacy and future research are discussed.
The list of summaries of conclusions for each topic is now presented with the results from the
two programs shown consecutively.
6.1. Summaries of the Major Conclusions
At the outset, tables of comparisons of the reading and writing results are presented. These
tables are followed by lists of the major conclusions, firstly from the Urat program, then from the
Tok Pisin program on each of the following topics:
Reading
Writing
Interviews with adult learners
Interviews with teachers
The effects of the new materials when applied to classes for children and adults
A comparison of the reading and writing results of the two programs is shown in Tables 6.1 and
6.2. These tables are concatenations of four tables presented in the two previous chapters.
6. Conclusions and Implications 199

Table 6.1. Comparison of reading results: Urat and Tok Pisin
READING
General Reading Variables
VARIABLE SETS
(MANOVA) Variables
(ANOVA follow-up)
URAT TOK PISIN
Occ. 1 Occ. 2 Occ. 3 Occ. 4 Occ. 1 Occ. 2 Occ. 3 Occ. 4
Recognition of Elements Sig. Sig. 0 Sig. 0 0 0 Sig.
Letters - - 0 MSM - - 0 MSM
Syllables MSM MSM 0 MSM 0 0 0 0
Words 0 MSM 0 MSM 0 0 0 0

Engaging the Text MSM 0 MSM MSM 0 0 0 0

Time 0 MSM 0 0 0 0 0 0

Syllables Correct MSM MSM MSM MSM 0 0 0 0

Comprehension 0 0 MSM MSM
T
- - 0 0
Specific Reading Variables
URAT TOK PISIN
Occ. 1 Occ. 2 Occ. 3 Occ. 4 Occ. 1 Occ. 2 Occ. 3 Occ. 4
Intonation Contours Sig. Sig. 0 0 0 Sig.
Letter- by-Letter 0 GM 0 0 0 0 0 0
Syllable-by-Syllable MSM
T
MSM 0 MSM 0 0 0 0
Word-by-Word 0 0 MSM MSM 0 0 0 0
Phrase-by-Phrase MSM MSM
T
MSM MSM 0 0 0 0

Substitution of Words 0 Sig. 0 Sig
T
0 0 0 Sig.
Nonsense 0 GM 0 0 0 0 0 0
Compatible 0 MSM 0 MSM 0 0 0 0
Incompatible 0 0 0 MSM 0 0 0 0

Fluency within Words 0 Sig. 0 Sig. 0 0 0 0
Omission (syllables) 0 0 0 MSM 0 0 0 0
Insertion (syllables) 0 GM 0 MSM 0 0 0 0
Self correction 0 0 0 MSM 0 0 0 0

Fluency within Sentences Sig. 0 0 Sig. 0 0 0
Repetition of Syllables MSM 0 0 MSM

0 0 0

0
Repetition of Words MSM
T
0 0 MSM 0 0 0 0
Repetition of Phrases MSM
T
0 0 MSM 0 MSM
T
0 0
T
= Trend
Sig. = Significant MANOVA
0 = No significant difference between groups GM = Gudschinsky Method
MSM = Multi-Strategy Method
200 6. Conclusions and Implications

Table 6.2. Comparison of writing results: Urat and Tok Pisin
WRITING
Mechanics of Writing
VARIABLE SETS
(MANOVA) Variables
(ANOVA follow-up)
URAT TOK PISIN
Occ. 1 Occ. 2 Occ. 3 Occ. 4 Occ. 1 Occ. 2 Occ. 3 Occ. 4
Concepts about Print Sig
T
0

Sig
T
Sig. Sig. Sig. 0 0
Word Breaks MSM 0 MSM MSM 0 0 0 0
Capitals 0 0 0 0 0 MSM 0 0
Complete Sentences 0 0 0 0 GM 0 0 0

Letters Sig. 0 Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. 0 0
Attempted 0 0 MSM MSM 0 MSM 0 0
Correct 0 0 MSM MSM 0 MSM 0 0
Different Attempted GM
T
0 MSM MSM GM MSM 0 0
Different Correct 0 0 MSM MSM GM MSM 0 0

Words Sig. Sig
T
0

Sig. Sig. 0 0 0
Attempted 0 0 0 MSM GM 0 0 0
Correct 0 0 0 MSM GM 0 0 0
Different Attempted 0 0 0 MSM GM 0 0 0
Different Correct 0 0 0 MSM GM 0 0 0
Incorrectrecognisable 0 0 0 MSM 0 0 0 0
Meaning in Writing
URAT TOK PISIN
Occ. 1 Occ. 2 Occ. 3 Occ. 4 Occ. 1 Occ. 2 Occ. 3 Occ. 4
Makes Sense - - 0 MSM - - GM
T
0

Elaboration - - 0 0 - - GM
T
0

Cohesive Ties

0 Sig
T
0

0
Referential Words - - 0 MSM - - 0 0
Conjunctions - - 0 MSM - - 0 0

Story Line Sig. 0
Action - - 0 MSM - - GM
T
0

Reliance on Picture Sig. 0
Description - - 0 MSM - - GM
T
0
Description plus Interp. - - 0 MSM

- - 0

0
T = Trend Sig. = Significant MANOVA
0 = No significant difference between groups GM = Gudschinsky Method
MSM = Multi-Strategy Method
6. Conclusions and Implications 201

Urat group: Reading
To summarise the Urat reading results, the Multi-Strategy learners showed reliable
advantages over the Gudschinsky learners in the following aspects:
1. Recognition of syllables and words and, particularly, awareness of phonemes on the final test
2. Ability to engage the text on all occasions except the test on the primer pages, where there
was no significant difference
3. Reading correctly and reading by phrases or longer sections of text
4. Aptitude in recognizing and using syllables in the reading process
5. Meaningful reading where repetition, substitution, omission, insertion, and self-correction
were compatible with reading fluently by phrases or longer contours, especially in the last
test with unfamiliar material
Tok Pisin group: Reading
The main indication of differences in the Tok Pisin study is on the level of strategies that the
learners tended to use in reading. The Gudschinsky learners read more by words; the Multi-
Strategy learners read more by phrases or longer sections of text, which indicated more
meaningful reading. There was a significant advantage for the Multi-Strategy group over the
Gudschinsky group, on occasion 4, in understanding of the concept of a single phoneme.
In the light of the Urat results, greater differences were expected. The most plausible
explanations for the flat results are as follows:
Close social and community affiliations between the two groups made materials accessible.
Uneven time on task: the Gudschinsky group had a stable venue and longer time was taken
for individual accountability; the two Multi-Strategy classes changed venues after an hour of
instruction.
Different amounts of reading material and accessibility: the Gudschinsky learners each had a
copy of the primer; the Multi-Strategy group had a larger corpus of material to learn from
both tracks which was generally kept in a central location.
Bias of the testing instruments toward the primer content which was learned more thoroughly
by the Gudschinsky group.
The language structure of Tok Pisin was less complex than Urat and both interventions
progressed at a similar rate. The holistic emphasis in the Multi-Strategy method seemed to
allow more control over the linguistic complexities of Urat, but this feature was not so
evident in Tok Pisin, the second language instruction, where there was less control over
unfamiliar discourse patterns and semantic concepts.
Linguistically, in the Tok Pisin study, there was some relationship between the method of
instruction and the fact that the language of instruction was a second language. It has been
made clear that the lingua franca was not known well, especially among the women. In such
a case, it is hypothesised that the Story Track would have been difficult because interaction
with self-generated texts was required throughout the instructional time, especially in
writing.
After listing these variables that explain some inequalities between the two groups, it is still
arguable, in light of the Urat results, that there should have been some discernible findings and
that these findings would favour the Multi-Strategy group. It may not have been the power of
202 6. Conclusions and Implications

one of the listed variables that brought about the even results, but the interaction of the whole set
acting together.
The simplicity and high regularity of Tok Pisin combined with time on task may account for
the lack of differences on more mechanical knowledge. There is evidence from the interviews,
however, that the hypothesis related to the second language is a strong indication of the lack of
differences on meaningful understanding in this study compared with the Urat study. Pertinent
responses by the Tok Pisin teachers of the Story Track and Word-Building Track on the
importance of the language of instruction are now given. The Word-Building Track teacher
stated the following:
They find it hard only at the sentence (where) it is longer. And it is all right at lesson 4 in the
writing. In this we tell them what thing we will teach them (to write) and they write it. That is all
right. Three lessons are all right. Only the sentence is a bit long. At first they do it wrong. So after a
long time it gets a bit clearer. (See Appendix I for the full interview.)
The Story Track teacher noted the following:
We show them when it is time to write and they write the name of something correctly. It is
true that they write stories wrongly but they write the theme word that comes from the Experience
Story correctly.
In Tok Pisin some are good and some are no good. The reason is there is plenty of Tok Pisin that
they just know how to speak but when it is written they havent got hold of the reading and writing.
They can speak. They can say it. The things that are not well known like a saucepan or a dish they
can see. They buy them and bring them but they dont really understand what it is in Tok Pisin.
When we have a class in the vernacular and explain to them about this and they understand the
meaning completely and they will understand its reading and writing too because they use this all
the time and they talk about it in their language. When we started the classes, I, in my class, I taught
them in Tok Pisin with a translation of the vernacular. When they finished school and left they spoke
well but they forgot about that and went back and said the opposite because that way of speaking
was there before and is still there inside their heads. So we will have to teach them over and over,
two or three times to make them understand. I think it will be all right in the vernacular. For us
teachers too, it will be easy to think. We can just show them how to spell sugar, how the writing
goes, and only teach them how to read and write.
The first two excerpts stress modelling, that is, students are shown what to do and when asked to
do the activities, they can do them. These last two excerpts explain that the basis for difficulties
in texts is that students did not understand the concepts behind the words. When it is in their own
language, where they understand the concepts and the meaning of the texts, all the teacher has to
do is teach them reading and writing, that is, teach them the code and how it all fits together. It
will be recalled that when the children changed from Tok Pisin to Kwangain the prep-school
classesthey were excited and remarked that they now knew how to do it because they could
think and write.
Urat group: Writing
To summarise the writing results for the Urat study, the Multi-Strategy learners showed
strong advantages over the Gudschinsky learners in the following areas:
1. Understanding of the concept of the word noting breaks between words early in the program
and sustaining the significance
2. Accurate writing of the correct form of letters and words
3. Meaningful writing which included cohesive ties, action, and clear, interesting description
6. Conclusions and Implications 203

Tok Pisin group: Writing
In the summary of the writing results for the Tok Pisin study, there was no clear pattern of
differences shown:
1. In the mechanics of writing, the Gudschinsky group wrote more clearly with correct letters
and words in complete sentences on the first occasion. On the second occasion, the Multi-
Strategy group showed more aptitude in using capitals and writing correct letters. Difficulties
in the collection of data, as explained above, may account for some skewing of results on
both occasions.
2. The Gudschinsky group tended to write clearly with more action and interest on the third
occasion.
3. The longer time on task and the restricted amount of material for the Gudschinsky group,
resulting in familiarity with the words and patterns in the test instruments, may have
influenced the results on both occasions 1 and 3.
Urat group: Interviews with ex-students
The results of the interviews with ex-students give some indication of the maintenance and
diffusion of literacy. The Multi-Strategy learners showed strong advantages over the
Gudschinsky learners in the following areas:
1. Reading was sustained through material in the lingua franca, Tok Pisin, since only a few
booklets were available in Urat.
2. Writing was practised, especially in writing letters to friends (M-SM group 1).
3. Reading to others was exercised (group 1), and motivation was strong among both M-SM
groups to attend Open Classes to improve their skills in reading and writing.
4. Formerly preliterate ex-students were able to read.
5. Comments regarding method were positive, specific, and showed an understanding of some
of the basic principles; whereas the Gudschinsky ex-students made general comments about
the program.
6. Active community involvement was practised with Open Classes arranged to improve their
literacy skills.
Tok Pisin group: Interviews with ex-students
In the interviews with the Tok Pisin ex-students, the Multi-Strategy learners showed
advantages over the Gudschinsky learners as follows:
1. Twice as many of the Multi-Strategy people interviewed were reading well and using their
skills in community activities, such as church services.
2. More than 60 percent indicated that they were writing, with some using their skill in
community activities (against one person in the Gudschinsky group who indicated an ability
to write).
3. Over half (56 percent) indicated active involvement in reading to others and with others at
home, and some extended this practice to other activities in the village (against 12 percent
from the Gudschinsky group who indicated that they read with their families).
4. Formerly preliterate ex-students were able to read.
204 6. Conclusions and Implications

5. Comments regarding method were positive and specific and showed an understanding of
some of the basic principles. The analysis/synthesis strategies of the Word-Building Track
were favoured more than the holistic strategies of the Story Track.
6. Comments of this sample of ex-students confirmed greater maintenance of literacy, greater
cognitive gains, and more positive attitudes toward the efficacy of the Multi-Strategy method
compared with the Gudschinsky method.
Urat group: Interviews with teachers
In the interviews with the teachers of the Urat program, the Multi-Strategy teachers showed
greater understanding and control of the method and program details than the Gudschinsky
teachers as follows:
1. Comments on specific lessons were positive and important lessons singled out:
Story Track lesson one allowed students to look, talk, and stimulate their thinking in the
Experience Story (the context should be pertinent to their lives and topical).
Story Track lesson three, the Big Book presentation, allowed different ways to read the
story with the large and small copies showing the text in different environments.
Word-Building Track readiness activities were important, particularly writing.
Word-Building Track word-building exercises in primer lesson two were valuable as an
extension of lesson one to practise what had been taught.
Word-Building Track lesson three (learning through games) was seen as helpful for some
and not for others.
2. Story Track lessons were not changed:
Activities and stories on the theme were considered to be applicable to adults.
Word-Building Track lesson three (learning through games) was changed and teachers
substituted
more practice in word-building
more writing exercises, and
some simple arithmetic.
3. Comments on students progress were
sporadic attendance helped to disadvantage some, and
self-motivated students learned quickly and were pleased and learned more.
4. Comments were positive regarding the cultural relevance of the Multi-Strategy method: The
two tracks fitted the way the people learn in everyday life, because understanding for these
learners comes through seeing things that are done.
5. In the Gudschinsky program, reasons given for poor attendance and poor performance of
students were that they
had heavy garden work
expected to learn the English alphabet, and
would learn if the course were to continue for two to three years.
6. The Gudschinsky teachers did not make specific comments on the lessons. One teacher said
that they taught the lessons in the way that they were trained and it was hard to know why the
students did not learn.
6. Conclusions and Implications 205

Tok Pisin group: Interviews with teachers
In the interviews with the teachers in the Tok Pisin program, the following comments were
specifically related to the Multi-Strategy method:
1. All teachers agreed that for the
Story Track, lesson one (Experience Story) was the most valuable lesson, with lessons
three (Big Book) and four (writing) also important, and
Word-Building Track, the teachers agreed that all lessons were equally helpful.
2. Individual teachers pointed out the following:
For the Story Track, we should limit the amount of print per week so that students could
learn to read it well, for example, one Big Book per week in lesson three.
Things that helped students to read were
drama and drawings about the content (things they saw)
pointing under the print while reading, and
learning in their own language.
Things that hindered reading and writing were
feeling shame about making mistakes, and
not having enough time to write.
For the Word-Building Track, adults found it hard to learn the sentence and did not like
to participate actively in the games in lesson three.
3. Teachers gave positive comments related to the relevance of the method to the socio-cultural
situation:
The content of the lessons included aspects of their everyday lives.
Time for classes fitted village life.
Things were done in the same way as the people did things in the village and that made it
easier to understand (you show and do it; they look and follow).
4. Commenting on the strong schooling status of the English alphabet names in the society,
teachers advocated teaching by sound-symbol correlation in context of syllables and words,
and introducing the English alphabet names in the final term of prep-school for children, and
when the adults desired to learn them.
5. The teachers were positive, motivated, and confident that they could assist in setting up
literacy in a related dialect because they had participated in all aspects of the program. Three
points were pertinent in their comments on writing and preparing materials:
Selecting the alphabet and preparing to teach was difficult.
It was easy to write and publish stories (for the Story Track) because of experiences in
alphabet preparation and writing, editing, and printing books.
The workbook stories were not hard to devise and write, but it would be helpful to have
some supervision.
We now cover in more detail the preparation and the effect of the use of the materials in the
Kwanga language, including the format changes to the primer lessons in the workbooks.
206 6. Conclusions and Implications

Tok Pisin group: Interviews with teachers and effect of Kwanga materials
The summary of the interviews with the teachers on the effect of the materials in Kwanga
including the new format of the primer pageswhen applied to classes for children and adults
shows the following:
1. For the Story Track, the children gave spontaneous, positive reactions to the materials in their
own language, especially in writing.
2. For the Word-Building Track:
Teachers adjusted well to the new format because the activities were taught in
essentially the same way as previously; there was more ease in teaching and preparation.
Teachers and students benefited from using the same pattern every day.
Focusing on each phonemeread in the context of the syllable and the key word and
not in isolationwas helpful for both reading and writing.
3. General consensus of the teachers was that individual English alphabet names could be
explained in context but not emphasised or taught, to help avoid confusion with the sounds
when reading.
4. The experimental adult class, with teaching and learning done together in a cooperative way,
demonstrated that the method was applicable and the materials were acceptable, easy to
grasp, and presented in a meaningful way in the cultural setting. In the next section, a set of
general conclusions for each area of the research is presented.
6.1.1. General conclusions
Issuing from a compilation of the results of each of the areas presented, the general
conclusions are centred around specific topics. The conclusions are presented in the general
order as above: reading and writing, interviews, and the effects of the new materials.
1. From the quantitative data, there is evidence in the Urat program that learners taught by the
Multi-Strategy method gained more control in all aspects of the reading and writing
processes than learners taught by the Gudschinsky method in
reading confidently
being aware of phonemes
reading correctly
using syllables, words, and phrase contours for reading fluently
reading meaningfully with understanding and comprehension
writing with breaks between words
writing letters, syllables, and words correctly, and
writing with meaning, cohesion, action, and interest.
2. In the replication in Tok Pisin, the quantitative evidence is not as clear or strong. Results of
interviews with ex-students from both the Urat and Tok Pisin programs, however, suggest
that those with Multi-Strategy training showed more positive and lasting gains in literacy
than those with Gudschinsky training in
general reading and writing
being aware of, and comprehending, specific literacy activities and principles
6. Conclusions and Implications 207

previously preliterate people sustaining literacy, and
reading and writing in family and community activities resulting in greater diffusion of
literacy.
In both programs, some of the reasons students gave for poor attendance and performance
were heavy garden work, the program was too short and, for the Gudschinsky program in
Urat, expectations of learning the English names for letters.
3. The following teachers comments on the effectiveness of the Multi-Strategy method show
most points common to both programs:
All of the Story Track lessons are important, but lessons 1 and 3 are the most valuable
(with one person including lesson 4). Lesson 1, the Experience Story, is most valuable
for teaching students to look, talk, and stimulate their thinking on topics important to
them. Lesson 3, reading the Big Book, is valuable because of the way it is presented
with large and small copies of the story for the week.
All of the Word-Building Track lessons are equally important, but readiness activities,
especially in writing, and primer lesson 2 (word-building) are particularly valuable.
Primer lesson 3, with syllable recognition and word building reemphasised in
competitive activities, was not acceptable to some teachers and students, so some
substitutions were made.
In teaching both of the tracks, there was positive socio-cultural relevance in lesson
content and presentation according to cultural learning styles (show and do; look and
follow).
4. The previous training and experience, and therefore, the attitudes toward literacy and
instruction that the teachers had prior to the interventions, were crucial components in the
way the materials were presented in both of the programs. If the experiences of the teacher,
for example, were in the area of a mechanistic view of literacy acquisition, then there could
be an overriding tendency to work toward that as the level of authority, regardless of the
particular emphasis in the method in which the person was working. If the teachers
definition of literacy and how to apply the principles (concepts) were contrary to the goals
and instructional procedures of the literacy program, then the goals of the program itself
could be seriously undermined. Allowing the people to control procedural decisions and
matching people to the specific teaching tasks were crucial factors in the two programs.
5. The teachers from the Tok Pisin study reacted positively to writing and preparing books in
Kwanga. They were highly motivated and confident in their ability to assist the people to
prepare materials and establish literacy in a related dialect. An important point that emerged
from their comments, which was substantiated by their attitude and confidence in using
written language, was a positive attitude of satisfaction regarding the input and control they
exercised in the orthography decisions made.
6. The format change in the workbooks, with the same pattern of presentation for primer pages,
was a benefit for both teachers and students, but particularly for teachers in the ease of
preparation and teaching. The addition of specific focus on each phoneme, read in context of
the syllable and the word, was helpful for reading and writing. The new materials, tried with
adults in a cooperative model-do pattern of presentation were acceptable, easy to grasp,
effective, and meaningful in the culture.
208 6. Conclusions and Implications

6.1.2. Overall summary of the conclusions
In consolidating the results of the two studies and drawing conclusions, it is necessary to
consider the questions posed for the research and stated in the two preceding chapters. The four
questions applicable to both studies are as follows:
1. Is the Multi-Strategy method suitable for teaching preliterate adults to read and write?
2. Is the Multi-Strategy method sufficient for teaching preliterate adults to read and write in
languages of complex phonological structures (that is, syllable-level linguistic complexity)?
3. Does the Multi-Strategy method have any effect on adult learners motivation to persist in
gaining literacy fluency?
4. Do adult learners taught the Multi-Strategy method show significant improvement within six
months over learners taught with decoding strategies in the Gudschinsky method?
For the Urat study, the specific concern about engaging two teachers per class for the Multi-
Strategy method was addressed in question 5.
5. Is the use of one teacher to teach literacy to adults using both tracks in the Multi-Strategy
method more, or less, efficient than using two teachers, one for each track?
We now address each question in turn and consider to what degree the results, as presented
for the two studies, point to a positive or negative answer.
Question 1. Is the Multi-Strategy method suitable for teaching preliterate adults to
read and write?
There is no doubt that the results from each of the programs studied show the efficacy of the
Multi-Strategy method for teaching preliterate and semi-literate adults to read and write. The
qualitative evidence of readers from the Multi-Strategy classes in both programs maintaining
literacyas long as two years after the programs were completedis a positive finding
supporting the quantitative results in the studies. This evidence shows that from the beginning of
a literacy program, presenting activities which include holistic reading and writing strategies is
sufficient for fluency and competence in reading and writing. Initially, the program included
strategies separate from, but concurrent with, activities to teach means of learning components of
words (syllables and grapho-phonemes) in relevant contexts.
Question 2. Is the Multi-Strategy method sufficient for teaching preliterate adults to
read and write in languages of complex phonological structures (that is,
syllable-level linguistic complexity)?
The clear contrast, firstly, in the difference between the language complexities of Urat and
Tok Pisin and, secondly, between the results of the two programs, leaves no doubt that the
answer to this question is in the affirmative. In the complex Urat language, compared with the
relatively simple construction of Tok Pisin, the results are significant and in favour of the Multi-
Strategy method across almost all of the variables. In Tok Pisin, where there is much less
language complexity, the findings are not so conclusive in the quantitative data. Speculations
about the lack of differences, such as time on task and second language instruction, have been
presented. There is no doubt that acquiring literacy through interaction with whole texts takes
longer. Holistic strategies taught concurrently with strategies focused on the identification of
components of words, however, provide the basis for greater individual control over the literacy
6. Conclusions and Implications 209

process, although the gains are cumulative and not always evident. The long-term gains in this
project are strongly in favour of the Multi-Strategy method, in generalisation of the abilities
learned, and in maintenance and diffusion of literacy evident in the communities.
Question 3. Does the Multi-Strategy method have any effect on adult learners
motivation to persist in gaining literacy fluency?
It was shown in the Urat study that there was greater consistency in class attendances in two
of the Multi-Strategy classes than was shown in the Gudschinsky classes. In the Tok Pisin study,
the difference was not so clear. In both language groups, however, results of the follow-up
ethnographic data show a greater persistence among the Multi-Strategy ex-students in gaining
fluency in reading and writing than among those who were taught through the Gudschinsky
method. There was more evidence in community activities of generalisation of literacy abilities
with maintenance and diffusion of literacy from the Multi-Strategy groups than from the
Gudschinsky groups.
Question 4. Do adult learners taught the Multi-Strategy method show significant
improvement within six months over learners taught with decoding
strategies in the Gudschinsky method?
The answer to this question is certainly in the affirmative for the Urat program but, from the
quantitative analyses, the results were generally inconclusive in the Tok Pisin program. As
mentioned above, reasons for this seem to be related to a number of variables. For the
Gudschinsky group, these variables include gains from the longer time on task and for the Multi-
Strategy group, they include lack of semantic and discourse control of the second language when
learning from whole texts.
One result of the time difference was teacher variability, allowing for greater accountability
and learning on the part of the students in the Gudschinsky group. This situation, coupled with
the smaller corpus of material to learn, allowed greater familiarity with the content and language
patterns of the test instruments by the Gudschinsky learners.
The hypothesis, mentioned above, that second language literacy is difficult when learning
through whole textswhere the concepts and the meaning of the words in context are not
completely understoodseems to be confirmed through the interviews in Chapter 5 and in the
previous section. If this hypothesis holds, the Multi-Strategy learners were handicapped in the
Story Track, where interaction was dependent on knowledge of concepts and discourse patterns
of texts and on self-generated materials. In the follow-up research, however, the generalisation of
the learned skills to other reading contexts was stronger for the Multi-Strategy group in both
programs, showing more lasting gains in maintenance and enhancement of literacy within the
communities.
Question 5. Is the use of one teacher to teach Multi-Strategy literacy to adults more
or less efficient than using two teachers, one for each track?
In the Urat program, there were two classes (one of which was the one-teacher class) where
numbers remained strong throughout the program. In comparing these two classes, there are a
number of observations which show that the class with one teacher was less efficient than the
class with two teachers.
210 6. Conclusions and Implications

At the time of training, the teachers involved were equally competent. From observations of
the teaching and from analysis of audio-taped samples of class interaction, however, there was
not the same clarity of teaching procedure and student-teacher interaction in the one-teacher
classroom that there was in the other classes. As a result of observation and of reports from the
teacher of the one-teacher class, some of the problems were as follows:
There was some confusion through mixing the two procedures for the different tracks.
The preparation load for the two tracks was seen as a burden.
It was necessary to choose an assistant teacher.
Motivation to teach was not consistent and the teacher appointed to assist was often left in
charge.
Culturally it is more acceptable to work in pairs, but there was more evidence of cooperation
when each had his or her area of responsibility.
In the follow-up research, the group with the two teachers showed more maintenance and
expertise in reading and writing than the group taught by one teacher. In this particular study, the
socio-cultural and pedagogical ramifications of the implementation showed that it was more
efficientand produced greater long-term gainsto have two teachers to present the Multi-
Strategy materials.
6.2. Limitations of the Research
In this research there were the following limitations:
1. The usual limitations of experimental interventions in educational research where crucial
variables cannot be controlled due to factors to do with
teachers abilities, attitudes, and training
teachers faithful adherence to the method of instruction
time on task
attendance of students, and
idiosyncrasies of social activities within community life.
2. Limitations due to the unavoidable absence of the expected resource personnel.
3. Limitations of testing:
There were no models for preparation of instruments for testing in similar socio-
cultural settings and, therefore, there was no full trial of the test instruments.
There was insecurity among the adult learners in a new domain of learning which made
testing difficult in the initial stages. The cultural code of conduct was practised where
peers were appealed to for help in areas of insecurity. As the program progressed there
was more confidence to give individual contributions in the tests.
There were not enough experienced personnel available for testing; testers were the
researcher, local village personnel, and newly arrived volunteer workers from other
countries. As experience was gained by students and testers alike, the pattern of
individual testing became more acceptable and manageable.
4. A further limitation in the Tok Pisin study concerned the certainty that the data collected
resulted from the method of instruction for each intervention, rather than from a
6. Conclusions and Implications 211

contamination effect between the two treatment groups generally, and specifically at the time
of testing on the first two occasions.
The conclusions presented in this research have implications for theorists and practitioners
involved with literacy acquisition, especially in cross-cultural contexts. The implications are
discussed from four perspectives:
Theories of literacy acquisition
Research methods in cross-cultural contexts
Teaching practice
Administration and policy making
6.3. Implications from the Studies
6.3.1 Implications for theories of literacy acquisition
In Chapter 2, it was shown that there is currently general agreement that literacy acquisition
includes the global (holistic), meaning-centred modes of learning, and linear (analytic), script-
centred modes of learning. There is not, however, agreement on the method of introduction of
the two areas and the sequencing of necessary components. One implication of this research for
literacy acquisition theory is the insight that is given into the psychological effect of the initial
method of instruction. There is clear evidence, in the reactions of the learners in the two
programs, that the way literacy is acquired in the first encounters with reading and writing is the
way that it persists (cf. Stanovich 1986).
In this research, the reactions of some of the semi-literate non-achievers showed that they
could have profited by a period of concentrated re-learningbeginning from what they
knewto break strongly practised, nonproductive habits of learning. As mentioned previously,
the most prevalent pattern was reading out each consonantusually with an accompanying
vowelaccording to the sound or the English name of the consonant. Two contributing factors
to the persistent use of this habit were the pervading culture of practice for literacy acquisition,
and the age of the students. This culture of practice was built on the concept of linear acquisition
of skills, building from phonemes to words, then sentences. There was a strong belief that
reading was being able to say each lettereach consonant said with an accompanying
vowelso that such readers showed extreme difficulty in generating the word in focus. In these
studies, learners, with some previous literacy exposure who were instructed with Multi-Strategy
acquisition techniques, were able to make the shift from skills-based learning to meaningful,
context-based learning more quickly, with more durable gains, and with more motivation to
sustain literacy than the semi-literate learners exposed to the Gudschinsky method of instruction.
As has already been discussed in Chapter 2, Freebody has argued for
necessary status of four roles in any characterisation of successful reading : the roles of code-
breaker (How do I crack this?), text-participant (What does this mean?), text-user (What do I do
with this here and now?), and text-analyst (What does this do for me?) (Freebody 1992:58).
When we apply the findings of the present research to these roles, we can construct an
explanation for the greater degree of literacy acquisition among Multi-Strategy semiliterate and
nonliterate learners alike. Freebody (1992:58) has noted two crucial points of difference related
to the instructional process of literacy between practitioners when incorporating these four roles,
that is, sequencing of the roles, and the necessary degree of explication in instruction. As
212 6. Conclusions and Implications

considered earlier, the two major emphases in this research in beginning literacy were primarily
concerned with the roles of code-breaker and text-participant. Although potential for the
other two is built into the Multi-Strategy method, the extent to which these are incorporated
depends on cultural demands and subject content of the materials. Freebody noted that
all of these roles form part of successful reading therefore any program of instruction in literacy
needs to confront these roles systematically, explicitly, and at all developmental points (Freebody
1992:58).
As will be recalled, the Multi-Strategy method is not based on a linear sequence of instructional
skills with acquisition of each skill dependent on the other in the sequence. There is systematic,
explicit, and concurrent instruction in the two tracks from the onset of the program. The method
incorporates a set of heuristics where instruction of skills is presented in contextual settings
to enable learners to learn how to attack new material confidently, and
to understand the meaning conveyed in the texts presented.
In an attempt to focus more specifically on the roles of code-breaker and text-participant, a
basic model of literacy acquisition incorporating the guiding principles for instruction is
presented in Figure 6.1.

Figure 6.1. Model of literacy acquisition based on guiding principles for instruction
In Figure 6.1, the model shows the codes relevant for literacy acquisition but not with equal
emphasis. The inter-linking code between the Script and Meaning codes is the Morphological or
6. Conclusions and Implications 213

Lexical code, where focus is on the word. The overlaps cover blending parts of words below the
word level, and emphasis on syntax and fluency at the sentence and discourse levels. An
application of this basic model to the Multi-Strategy method is presented in Figure 6.2.
WORD-BUILDING TRACK
Emphasis on
SCRIPT CODE
(Phoneme/Syllable level)








W
O




+
STORY TRACK
Emphasis on
MEANING CODE
(Comprehension level)
plus R
D
plus

MORPHOLOGICAL/
LEXICAL CODE
within a SENTENCE
(Blending/Fluency level)

MORPHOLOGICAL/
LEXICAL CODE
within a TEXT
(Blending/Fluency level)
Figure 6.2. Model of the Multi-Strategy method based on guiding principles of instruction
A feature of the model shown in Figure 6.2 is that both areas of emphasis are introduced from
the inception of the program: equal time for instruction in each area is given each day. In the
Word-Building Track, there is emphasis on the script code with teacher-centred activities which
focus on parts of words and word-building, to enable learners to read and write words correctly.
These activities also focus on words in the syntax of a sentence to aid learners to read and write
fluently. The word is the mutual component occurring as the overlap between the two tracks,
with focus on elements below the word level in the context of a sentence in the Word-Building
Track, and focus on the meaningful context of the word in full texts in the Story Track.
This project has shown that activities in the Story Track guide learners to fluency in reading
and writing with comprehension. In the present research, there was much evidence from the
interviews with teachers and students that they understood many of the underlying principles of
the method, not only from their descriptions of activities and strategies used, but also from their
insights into outcomes of the learning processes involved. In contrast, although the Gudschinsky
method does include the script code in learning syllables and the meaning code in reading
continuous texts, teachers and students did not show the same awareness of the principles
underlying the activities used. In spite of equal thoroughness in teacher training, the
Gudschinsky teachers were not able to articulate about the activities used in the teaching and
learning processes of the Gudschinsky method in the same way that the Multi-Strategy teachers
described the activities and principles of the Multi-Strategy method. There was indication,
however, that the main learning strategy of the Gudschinsky method was memorisation of the
primer pages as an end in itself. There was also some indication of a lack of understanding of the
function of the syllable drills and their connections with the words and the story material.
214 6. Conclusions and Implications

From the material presented in Chapter 3, it will be recalled that the Gudschinsky method
uses mixed learning modes in its presentation: learning by wholes in conjunction with learning
by analysis and synthesis and focus on the parts of words. In contrast, the Multi-Strategy method
separates the instruction, with emphasis on the two main learning modes for literacy acquisition,
so that learners know what to expect, and how to use the strategies being applied to learn the
content at the time of each activity. Further discussion on the separated emphases on the two
modes of learning is presented below in guidelines for future research. We turn now to some of
the implications of this research for research methods in cross-cultural situations.
6.3.2. Implications for research methods in cross-cultural traditional contexts
Much of the discussion in this section is related to the evaluation of Literacy for
Development programs as presented by Bhola (1990b:1112). Bhola distinguished between
evaluation and research. He noted that although both researchers and evaluators use similar
inquiry designs, methodologies, tools and instruments, and have similar concerns for the
defensibility of their findings, they differ significantly in terms of their inquiry frameworks
and their task objectives. According to the distinctions given, this present project employs
research techniques but also includes evaluation as a focus in seeking to improve program
performance and demonstrate improvement in program implementation.
One of the reasons for developing the project in the Dreikikir area, in the East Sepik
Province of Papua New Guinea, was the high motivation for the acquisition of literacy from the
two language groups involved. It was argued that responding quickly to the pressures of highly
motivated people to gain literacy skills is more profitable, in terms of qualitative and quantitative
results, than to delay and to find waning motivation and poor responses to the program when
everything is ready. As already mentioned, community involvement was a cornerstone of the
research. Therefore, there was participation of the people in all phases of the programs, including
planning, preparing materials, and implementation. From the perspective of the village
communities, there were no problems regarding the availability of materials and other needs for
the implementation of the programs, so all activities went according to schedule. As mentioned
above, most materials were prepared at teacher-training courses with finance provided from
grants. Other materials were financed through school fees.
Regarding planning, the programs fitted into the three interlinked systems and sub-systems
presented by Bhola (1990b:5661). One of the vital points made by Bhola is that the literacy
program is set in a community which is, in turn, part of a social system. Everything that is
planned is to be in perfect interface with the community within which literacy skills will be
utilized (page 56) so that problems which arise within the social context can be dealt with by
people within that system. In the present project, the fact that the teachers, in consultation with
Literacy Committee members, took control, made decisions, and managed the social
complications of the programs, was a strong underlying force in administration of the programs.
A strategic point to note is that such a situation is possible only when there is a core of people
available to participate who have some degree of education, that is, people who can at least read
and write in the language of instruction. Included in the training program for potential teachers
there often needs to be a Writers Workshop to help people bridge the gap from literacy in a
national language to fluency in literacy in the vernacular. From the perspective of the people, and
from the point of view of planning, the programs went according to schedule.
One area where problems did occur was in assessment. The manner of testing needs much
thought because it is not within the cultural or personal experience of an adult who has not
6. Conclusions and Implications 215

experienced formal schooling to be tested as an individual. Despite attempts to alleviate stress,
the early attempts at recording reading and collecting individual writing samples were difficult.
Lack of suitable venues and enough experienced personnel to assist were some contributing
factors. The need for quantitative data was part of the research methodology chosen and the
techniques used to obtain satisfactory results have been discussed previously in Chapter 3.
In considering the research in terms of Bholas analysis, a rationalistic design is used and
evaluated within a community-based setting, but including some naturalistic research
techniques such as observation and interviews. Bhola has given an extended discussion of
different models of evaluation. Further consideration of research methods is presented below in
guidelines for future research.
6.3.3. Implications for teaching practice
It is outlined above that the Multi-Strategy method incorporates a set of guiding principles
built into a format of teaching, with emphasis on two separate modes of learning. The results of
this empirical research have implications for practitioners in industrialised societies as well as in
traditional, non-industrialised societies. It will be recalled that the method was developed after
research into literacy theory and practice as found in industrialised countries where English is the
medium of instruction. Culturally appropriate applications of many of the principles were
incorporated to develop the Multi-Strategy method for cross-cultural situations where there is
linguistic and cultural diversity.
It is clear from the literature that there is general agreement that the two ways of
approaching initial instruction in reading and writing (holistic and analytic) are necessary at
some time in the process. It is also clear that habits learned in initial encounters with literacy
affect the outcome as learners endeavour to move on to mature reading and writing.
Some unique features of the Multi-Strategy method are that
both approaches (holistic and analytic) begin at the same time
both field independent and field dependent learning styles are incorporated, and
the emphases on the two modes of learninglearning to read and write with meaning within
texts and learning to read and write from an understanding of the elements within wordsare
kept separate.
Even though the two modes of learning are kept separate, the interplay between the various
features within the modes is crucial and evident empirically. In application, however, one
important point to note is that the interaction between the two approaches does not need to be
taught in contrived activities: the learners put the resources together when they are cognitively
ready. When that happens there is understanding, and the learner is in control of his or her own
learning. All aspects of the reading and writing processes are included in the activities of the two
approaches, but in each approach one mode of learning is emphasised so that the expectation of
the learner is always to read or write in that mode.
Some implications for practitioners are that
training of teachers is simplified because specialised, in-depth training only needs to be
carried out in one of the approaches for each individual trainee
teachers benefit because they have control of their area of expertise, which allows for more
flexibility and innovative teaching practice and results in more motivation, and
216 6. Conclusions and Implications

students receive more specialised instruction from two sources, which are, fundamentally, the
same processes of reading and writing.
For literacy programs in cross-cultural traditional societies, these implications mean that
teacher-training courses can be short because all aspects of the two instructional processes do
not need to be taught initially to each trainee
less financial outlay is needed than would be necessary for longer training courses when
teaching all aspects to all participants
teachers can concentrate on the preparation and instruction of only one area, which allows for
more control, greater motivation, and less competition between teachers, and
students have two teachers to whom they relate, which allows for a better understanding of
the two areas of emphasis and more control over their own learning.
One further implication for teaching practice is evident from a combination of the literature
review in Chapter 2on the importance of the syllable in beginning literacy instruction (Adams
1990; and others)and the research results of the two empirical studies in this project. In aspects
of the teaching program that address bottom-up strategies, it is recommended that, for
phonemically written orthographies, the syllable is the unit from which to begin breaking the
code. The syllable seems to be the optimal point from which both learning to read and write
words (and by extension, sentences, and texts), and learning to manipulate and control phonemes
for spelling and reading accuracy can be initiated.
In Chapter 2 also, a particular point of discussion centred on the inconclusive evidence
regarding a connection between the orthographic regularity of the sound/symbol correspondence
and teaching method. This discussion suggests that a pedagogical framework is needed that
capitalises on and makes room for the different kinds of orthographic sound/symbol relationships
and the relationship between such orthographies and the construction of meaning in text.
Evidence from this project suggests that the Multi-Strategy method provides such a framework.
It allows for a multiplicity of sound/script relationships to be accommodated productively,
regardless of differences in regularity and whatever unit of representation (phoneme, morpheme,
syllable, or word) is required for a specific language. Such a framework seeks to capitalise on the
long history of literacy instructional methods practised in industrial societies, in order to allow a
range of techniques for literacy acquisition to be accommodated.
One area of difficulty for implementation of the method in rural areas, where means of
economic gain are minimal, is that finance is needed for two teachers salaries instead of one.
The attrition rate can be high so a surplus of teachers needs to be trained. There are fewer
problems with salaries when a group of teachers work together. When there are two teachers per
class, mutual help can be given so that the classes can continue when teachers need to be absent.
Training teachers by holistic, model-do techniqueswhich cover the basic structure and
application of the lessons similar to the pattern described in Chapter 2 (Davis 1991:53)fits the
cultural learning pattern the teachers in the Tok Pisin program described as show and do; look
and follow. In the two studies, training in short courses followed by practical application in the
classroom with regular in-service, discussion, and practice (as described in Chapter 3) was found
to be an acceptable and practical way of training.
The type of in-service that developed through the expertise of the supervisor in the Urat
program was the model-do method of interaction which lessened embarrassment through non-
threatening participation. There was focus on each specific lesson in a routine that allowed
6. Conclusions and Implications 217

each teacher to explain the procedure or demonstrate the way the lesson was presented in the
classroom, and
discussion
to highlight the differences and emphasise the preferred way to do each activity
to clarify the main principles, verify the purpose for each activity and thus, teach theory
in context after practical experience, and
to encourage the use of innovative ideas that kept the principles intact.
As mentioned earlier, the attitude of the teacher was a strategic factor in the practical
application of training. Previous training and experience determined the authority over the way
the material was presented in some cases, despite demonstrations and encouragement to follow
the goals and instructional procedures of the particular program. There was a marked difference
between the way that the teachers in each method preferred to work.
This research revealed that, in times of insecurity, there was a tendency for the teachers to
revert to teaching with well-known strategies learned from previous experience. It was important
that enough teacher-training be given to help the trainees master the procedural patterns and gain
some understanding of the purpose behind each activity, so that they felt secure in their role as
teacher. These studies also revealed that it was more beneficial to help teachers understand
theoretical orientation in short in-service courses after periods of practical experience, rather than
to hold prolonged courses of training in the initial stages.
The nature of the research, with high motivation and pressure to proceed, was such that time
was not allowed for a full trial of the materials. This meant that the person chosen as the
supervisor was not experienced in teaching practice or in the methods of instruction. It seemed
that not having these two prerequisites in place was a potential drawback for the programs and
the research. Steps were taken to give the supervisor as much training and experience as possible
with the two methods prior to the beginning of the program. It was also decided that this man
should take part in the teaching program to give him vital experience for his ongoing supervisory
role.
One of the parameters for the research was to fit the programs to the particular
circumstances of the communities involved, with the community members participating in all
decisions. This condition took precedence over aspirations for ideal preparation and follow-up
procedures. It is recommended that in setting up a new program steps be taken for full
preparation of all aspects of the research methodology chosen (see Bhola 1990b), to minimise
problems during implementation.
In summary, some general guidelines for successful, ongoing literacy follow from this
research. These guidelines are strongly supported by the outcomes of the two studies,
particularly in respect to Urat, and they point to the following kinds of general principles:
Community members should be involved and should have a sense of control over the
program.
The attitude of teachers and, by extension, the attitude of learners should be positive, with
those involved understanding something of the purpose behind the teaching patterns so that
motivation, progress, and an ongoing sense of accomplishment are fostered.
Adequate time should be allowed for systematic, controlled instruction to bring about
learners awareness of the phoneme/grapheme relationship, through the context of syllables,
words, and sentences, and to foster learners accountability in the learning process.
218 6. Conclusions and Implications

Adequate involvement with print, where emphasis is on holistic activities with texts, should
be included in the curriculum to ensure meaning-centred acquisition of the reading and
writing processes by the learners.
Adequate care should be taken to match activities to the learners with respect to age and
status.
6.3.4. Implications for administrators and policy makers
While the special focus has been on the two methods of instruction in this project, there also
has been focus on supplementary issues related to the ease, control, and success of
implementation of programs within specific cultural contexts. There is evidence that the
principles stated by Gudschinsky in Chapter 3, and many of the suggestions for solving problems
which are found in her publications, are sound for any pedagogy related to breaking the code into
literacy with focus on the elements from a more bottom-up perspective. This research has shown,
however, that holistic strategies, taught as a complement to the bottom-up strategies, furnish a
complete framework where different styles of learning are introduced and emphasised. This dual
emphasis gives opportunity for learners to experience the literacy process in different ways, to
choose the strategies that suit them best and to take control of their own learning from the
beginning of the process.
Ernest Kilalang (Vernacular School Coordinator, East New Britain Province, Papua New
Guinea) has stated the following:
In the past, the expatriates came and did the work for us. But they left without showing us how. We
want people who will come, work alongside of us and show us how. Then when they leave, we will
be able to carry on by ourselves (Summer Institute of Linguistics Literacy Section 1990:7).
It has been demonstrated in this research that the Multi-Strategy teachers have understood the
dual approach, have taken control, and have conducted literacy projects (including ongoing
classes) for adults to gain access to knowledge that is available through print. A dual emphasis,
giving learners access to the meaning-centred approach to literacy acquisition, complemented
with a script-centred approach to literacy techniques, gives opportunities for maximum learning
and the confidence to persevere into fluency. The manner in which some of the communities
have encouraged the continuation of classes and trained new teachers (who have begun the cycle
over again in other communities without expatriate help) is something not documented in the
literature for other methods in similar circumstances in non-industrial countries.
This research, developed in the East Sepik Province of Papua New Guinea, gives insight
into the necessary components for a literacy program. In countries where there is much diversity
with many multi-lingual and multi-cultural domains, before any uniform literacy effort can
become viable, there needs to be an assessment made of the types of literacy teaching already in
practice (Street 1984). Evaluation of the components of each program through observation and
measurement (if feasible) of the results, the responses of the recipients, and areas of confident
control by those involved gives a basis for developing policies. [See Bhola 1990b:276279 for a
summary of the standards for evaluation.]
The research presented in this project involves only two programs and is, therefore, limited.
Nevertheless, issuing from the comparison of the two methods of instruction, conducted and
evaluated in the two different environments, are clear indications of necessary components for a
literacy curriculum as shown in Figure 6.3.
6. Conclusions and Implications 219

READING
v N
WRITING
v N
WORD PARTS
(letters &
syllables)
to
UNDERSTAND
the
NEW WORDS
TEXTS
(sentences)

to
UNDERSTAND
the
MEANING
LETTER FORM
AND SPELLING

for
OTHERS to READ
the
WORDS
CREATIVE TEXTS


for
OTHERS to READ
the
MESSAGE
Figure 6.3. Necessary components for an initial literacy curriculum
Figure 6.3 shows that there are two basic areas of literacy: Reading and Writing. For these
two areas to be fully mastered there are two components necessary for each area:
For Reading it is necessary to master reading
the parts of wordseither by recognising and combining single letters or syllablesto
understand how to read new words, and
of texts (connected sentences that make sense) with understanding of the meaning.
For Writing it is necessary to master the
skill of writing words accurately with clear letters and correct spelling so that others can
read the text, and
process of thinking and writing down thoughts so that others can understand the message.
Including instruction in reading and writing with focus on the script codehow to read
and write accuratelyseparately but concurrently with focus on the meaning codehow to
read and write to understand and convey the meaningas presented in the Multi-Strategy
method is an example of helping learners to acquire the necessary components for learning to
read and write and to sustain literacy.
This research has shown the value of presenting holistic, generative reading and writing
consecutively, so that, cognitively, the creative purpose of the literacy task is realised and
practised by the learner without being inhibited by the need for accuracy. The research also has
shown the value of teaching the more meticulous, mechanical tasks of reading and writing
consecutively, so that the learner can concentrate on learning to decipher the words of the text
accurately and to spell automatically. This ensures understanding when reading and the ability to
convey the message when writing. Any program which has adequate inclusion of the necessary
components as stated above, regardless of implementation methodology, has potential for
success.
There are also a number of other criteria necessary for successful community literacy which
have been addressed in the body of this study. The requirements in any local community will
differ; Graddol (1994) summarised these points in relation to communities in India:
The dominant form of educational discourse which will emerge in a particular community can be
expected to be one which satisfies a variety of local cultural requirements. It must establish a proper
authority relation between student and teacher; it must package knowledge in forms appropriate for
the age and status of the students in that community; it must incorporate a model of learning which
220 6. Conclusions and Implications

is acceptable to the community; it must accomplish these in contexts of class size and mixed social
backgrounds of students; and it must accomplish all these in a way which is learnable by teachers in
the kind of training available (Graddol 1994).
The import of Graddols comment is that the extent to which these local cultural requirements
are met, is the extent to which we can expect the results that are envisaged. Therefore, in
planning and developing a literacy program, the crucial component must be the involvement of
the local community so that
a proper authority relation between teacher and student is established
the curriculum fits the age and status of the students in the community
the model of learning is acceptable to the people in that community
the class is made up of people with socially acceptable backgrounds
the size of the class is appropriate, and
a training program is available for the teacher to gain the expertise to accomplish all that is
planned.
When decisions related to these kinds of program requirements are controlled by members of the
local community involved, there are strong prospects that the outcomes will include sustained
educational changes for that community.
Educational changes in literacy programs can to be considered from two perspectives: from
the perspective of the members of the cultural group among whom the program has been
implemented, and from the perspective of outside administrators and policy makers. The above
discussion has been concerned with success from the point of view of the participants. The
project has emphasised the need for culturally relevant materials and pedagogies, and for control
and ownership by the communities involved as a means of developing a realistic value system
for literacy within the society. Although the kind of individual testing procedures included in this
project were not culturally appropriate, they were included in order to answer questions for other
audiences.
The need for such testing was noted by Limage (1993) in relation to evaluating the progress
of adult learners in the context of industrialised societies:
Since examinations of all types can lead to stress for the learner, most perceptive adult educators
have avoided testing where possible. When funding of programmes depends on such evaluation,
however, programmes have had to compromise (Limage 1993:32).
In order to answer certain questions about educational practice, such as, administrative
procedures, teacher training, and methods of instruction, the assessment procedures in this
project were administered as a compromise to meet requirements of the different audiences. Such
audiences view programs from a broader perspective, that is, to provide information for
evaluators and policy makers, for educators, program designers, and funding agencies.
Therefore, in assessment of student learning there is a tension of audiences: one, immediate and
local; the other, long-term and international. The need for further research in this area is
considered in the next section.
6. Conclusions and Implications 221

6.4. Suggestions for Future Research
There are several aspects of this project that suggest the need for further research, such as
research methodology
socio-cultural factors
linguistic structure of the target language
refinement of the instructional method
assessment procedures, and
adaptability to other settings.
Some general suggestions for such research emerge from the research procedures of the two
studies and are now presented:
1. The research design, following Bholas analysis of evaluation of projects mentioned above,
was a rationalistic design evaluated within a community-based setting with some
naturalistic research techniques such as observation and interviews included. Future
research using a naturalistic paradigm with ethnographic data collection within a
Management Information System (see Bhola 1990b:75ff), similar to that which was used
in the present programs, would be helpful for comparison. Such research would, of necessity,
have clearly defined parameters and include intensive, personal interaction of the researcher
in data collection. Ideally, a trained researcher from within the language group as a co-
researcher would add to the socio-cultural accuracy of the enquiries and observations.
2. In this project, focus on socio-cultural factors and the participatory functions of community
members took precedence. Further study in this area, where community involvement is more
intertwined with planning and implementation, and where outcomes in relation to
maintenance and diffusion of literacy are documented, could lead to valuable information on
the importance of cultural identity and language in literacy pursuits. (See Dubbeldam 1994
for further insights into socio-cultural research.) Dubbeldam noted that
if one believes that literacy should be attuned to the needs of a particular population, proper
research, in which the people concerned do actively participate, is an essential
requirement. Literacy research demands a multi-disciplinary approach. It concerns both
technical linguistic and educational aspects, but also cultural, social and economic aspects
(Dubbeldam 1994:421).
Dubbeldam has asserted the importance of active participation of the people in literacy
practice so that the dimensions of cultural, social and economic aspects are encompassed.
He also recognised the need, however, for the technical aspects concerned with the linguistic
and educational fields. Documentation of further research in multi-disciplinary programs
could help by providing models for practitioners that fit the socio-cultural domains and allow
participation and control by the participants.
3. In planning for this project, two languages with contrast in phonological complexity were
sought. A language with relatively simple phonology, including a predominantly consonant-
vowel syllable pattern, in a suitable location and with other suitable conditions was not
found. Therefore, the replication was carried out in Tok Pisin. In light of the hypothesis on
second language literacy proposed above, a project including two vernacular languages, one
with a complex phonological structure and the other with a relatively simple phonology,
could give further insight into the problems of literacy instruction in languages with complex
222 6. Conclusions and Implications

linguistic structures. The project could include the Multi-Strategy method compared with the
Gudschinsky method or other methods currently being used for adult literacy.
4. Further studies concentrating on the components of the Multi-Strategy method could be
beneficial in refining the techniques for maximum learning. For example, literacy programs
have been carried out in Papua New Guinea using the Multi-Strategy method with
Gudschinsky materials substituted for the Word-Building Track and taught alongside the
Story Track (Simpson 1988). As discussed in Chapter 3, one main difference between the
workbooks of the Multi-Strategy method and the primers of the Gudschinsky method is the
inclusion of sight words and sight affixes in the Gudschinsky materials. There could be some
value in future research which compares two Multi-Strategy programs, where workbooks are
different in specific areas such as the rejection or inclusion of sight words and sight affixes.
Such research would have value in determining the correlation between ease or difficulty of
preparation of the primers and the quality and ease of instruction and learning.
5. The discussion above, which centred on assessment for evaluative purposes, showed the need
for concentrated research in this area. It will be recalled that there was stress for the learners
in the early stages of testing in the present project. In the village setting, checking on the
progress of learners is necessary for the benefit of the teacher and can be done informally.
When results are necessary for evaluators and policy makers, however, there need to be some
guidelines for testing procedures. Further research, building on the proposed methods in the
present research or developing other techniques, could be beneficial for evaluating progress
of learners and programs.
6. In this research, there are indications of some of the benefits of initial mother-tongue literacy
over initial second-language literacy. Statistically, the small numbers in some cells and lack
of comparable instruments for testing on some variables did not make cross-language
comparisons viable in this project. Further research, with the efficacy of initial mother-
tongue literacy in focus in similar implementations, could be valuable for practitioners and
policy makers.
7. Although this study has been framed as a cross-cultural study, the underlying theories of
literacy acquisition were derived from studies of research in industrialised nations and,
therefore, could conceivably be applicable to pedagogy in those settings. It could be valuable
for practitioners to conduct further research to determine if advantages from separating the
pedagogical techniques as practised in the Multi-Strategy method are applicable to
classrooms in industrialised nations. The Multi-Strategy method makes the agenda of
practice in the classroom clear and focused, allowing students to enter into activities with
informed expectations and with a sense of closure at completion. Such a scenario is
completely different from that portrayed in the research by Baker and Freebody (1989) (see
especially Chapter 7), where agenda criss-cross continually. A study comparing a classroom
showing practices, such as those documented by Baker and Freebody, and a classroom where
instruction follows the dual approach of the Multi-Strategy method could supply valuable
information on the reactions and progress of the students both socially and cognitively.
In an attempt to make literacy applicable and a value in the societies of Papua New Guinea,
the long-term experiences of the researcher were combined with indigenous expertise to develop
a useful literacy curriculum. In this project, attention was given to the details of pedagogy for
adult learners, and community involvement in the cultural and social aspects combined with the
technical, linguistic, and educational aspects. The combination of quantitative and qualitative
6. Conclusions and Implications 223

assessment supplied systematic converging evidence from both assessment techniques, and this
evidence provided a unique opportunity to evaluate two methods of literacy in respect to adults.
The assessment was realised in the detailed analysis of educational skills gained by the learners,
and in the detailed analysis of the contributions from the learners themselves gathered in the
follow-up interviews. This project also provided valuable insight into the training needs of
untrained, indigenous teaching personnel, the cultural teaching patterns as exhibited by those
teachers, and the effect of social patterns on literacy in the community.
All of this was accomplished in a remote area, where specific cultural patterns needed to be
understood in two different linguistic domains, within a relatively short period of time, and with
six-month overlapping teaching programs. In terms of linguistic and cultural understanding, and
in terms of theory and practice in beginning reading and writing instruction, background research
was necessary. This research gave substance to significant pedagogical policy implications for
the people involved and for other societies.
This project has shown that the Multi-Strategy method is effective and sufficient for adult
literacy in languages with complex linguistic structures. It also has shown that the instructional
procedures of that method stimulate learners to persist into fluency in reading and writing. At the
same time, teachers are stimulated to proceed into training workshops for new teachers, so that
they can replicate classes for different age groups in their own and neighbouring communities.
The socio-cultural emphasis of this research substantiates the view that literacy programs that are
embedded in the culture, with members of the community participating in all aspects of the
programs, are a viable and acceptable way of introducing people to literate practices. Through
both their goals and their stages of accomplishment, such programs enable community members
to practise literacy in domains of value in their lives and, in turn, expand those areas of social
value through the use of literate practices.


224
Appendix A. Symbolisation of the Voiced Velar Nasal
As the students progressed into fluency in the Urat program, the problem of the orthographic
representation of the voiced velar nasal became obvious. A predominant criterion for choosing
orthographic symbols is to use symbols which assimilate most closely to the same phonemic
representation in the national language. In Papua New Guinea, English is the medium of
instruction in schools, so orthography choices adhere to English symbols as far as possible.
In Figure A1, the orthographic representations of the voiced velar nasal in Urat are
compared with the voiced prenasalised velar stop in Urat, and with the voiced velar nasal and
voiced velar stop in English.
Figure A1. Orthographic Representations in Urat and English
Using the English symbol ng for the voiced velar nasal in Urat fits very well in the final
position, but there are complications in the initial and medial positions. The digraph ng in the
initial position is a difficult phoneme for new readers to grasp. Coupled with this difficulty is the
high frequency of the velar nasal in the initial position. In the final reading test of the adult
literacy program, the most frequent problem was reading words beginning with the velar nasal.
Words which had been encountered every day in the texts, for example, ngam I and ngaiyea
frequently occurring connective word signalling interclausal subordinationwere handled well
by most of the students, but only the fluent readers could read new or infrequent words
beginning with ng.
In the medial position, the same representation ng is used for the voiced prenasalised stop
which brings confusion. Since there is no voiced stop in Urat, it was suggested that the g be used
for initial and medial positions for the voiced prenasalised stop. This suggestion was not
acceptable to the literate members of the community. In the orthography used in the research,
many literate people confused the ng and nng symbols in the medial position, especially in
writing. The voiced prenasalised stop does not occur word finally and the occurrences of the
voiced velar nasal in this position are infrequent, so there is not such potential for confusion in
this position.

Phoneme
Word
Initial
Word
Medial
Word
Final


URAT



ng

nng

ng

g g ng -



ENGLISH



-

ng

ng

g g g g

Appendix A: Symbolisation of the Voiced Velar Nasal 225


Some advantages of using the symbol are as follows:
Problems related to reading and writing digraphs and consonant clusters are reduced. (In the
earlier orthography, digraphs needed to be learned, and the lack of prenasalisation
represented in the initial position for the voiced velar stop needed to be understood.)
The volume of text is reduced.
A simple system is now available for typing on a computer.
As a result of the research, the symbol has been substituted for the ng digraph in the
materials, there has been full acceptance of the change, and the new readers have made progress
in fluency. This change in the orthography has made teaching and acquiring of literacy simpler
tasks than was experienced by the teachers and learners in the research implementations.


226
Appendix B. Gudschinsky Primer Lesson Patter
Excerpts from Appendix B: Sample Lessons and Lesson Parts for Teachers Guides
(Gudschinsky 1973:162171).
Sample 1: How to Teach a Key Word
(a) Introduce picture and key word bap.
Teacher (pointing to picture): This is a picture of bap. Say bap. Pupils say bap.
Teacher (pointing to word beside picture): This word says bap. Say bap. Teacher continues
to point: What does this say? Pupil again says bap. etcetera.
Sample 2: How to Teach Parts of a Key Word
(a) Introduce the new letter a in a key word.
Teacher (pointing to key word bap on chart or board): What does this say? Pupils say bap.
Teacher covers p and says, And this part of bap says ba. Teacher writes ba under bap in
this way:
bap
ba
Teacher has pupils read ba.
Teacher covers b and says: This is the part of ba that says a. Say a. Pupils say a. Teacher
then writes a under ba in this way:
bap
ba
a
He [sic] points to bap: What does this say? Pupils say bap.
He points to ba: What does this say? Pupils say ba.
He points to a: What does this say? Pupils say a.
(b) Present the new letter in syllables with several familiar letters.
The board looks like this:
TEACHER writes a on the board and asks,
What does this say? Pupils say a.
a

TEACHER writes ba below a and asks,
What does this say? Pupils say ba.
a
ba

TEACHER writes bap under ba and asks,
What is this? Pupils say bap.
a
ba
bap
Etcetera, building to three words: bap cat tan.


227
Appendix C. Multi-Strategy Word-Building Track Preparation and
Format
Published in Stringer, Mary. 1993. Community Involvement in Multi-Strategy Literacy. Read
28.2:1017.
Community Involvement in Multi-Strategy Literacy
In any literacy programme, full involvement and participation of community members is
most desirable. There are many ways to bring interested people into the program. In this article I
will show how two communities in the Tau villages, Dreikikir District, East Sepik Province of
Papua New Guinea became involved and finally controlled the whole programme in one dialect
of the Kwanga language.
Early beginnings
During 1990, when a neighbouring language group began adult literacy, interest was strong
in the Tau villages. After numerous discussions with village leaders, some men were finally
chosen for training as teachers. There had not been any linguistic analysis in the dialect so the
first programme was taught in Tok Pisin (the lingua franca), using the Multi-Strategy method, for
two large adult classes of people of varying ages. All materials had been prepared outside the
area prior to the beginning of classes. Each month I visited with a team to do testing, to
encourage the teachers and meet with the village leaders to discuss the programme. At the end of
six months, after twenty-five weeks of lessons, we completed the programme, I left the area and
the teachers set up and developed very successful Prep School classes for the children.
The vernacular programme
Two years after completing the adult programme, I returned and lived in the area for the
purpose of assisting the people to prepare materials in their dialect of Kwanga. The literacy for
Prep School students had positive results and there were two large classes in progress using Tok
Pisin. The following events took place over a period of three-and-a-half months as a strong,
locally-controlled literacy programme emerged:
A large group of men met for one afternoon and developed a working orthography.
Following this, many people of all ages participated in preparing materials (writing stories,
drawing pictures, suggesting key words, and drafting sentences) over a period of four-and-a-
half days.
Twenty stories were chosen and three workbooks with sixty key words were made in draft
form and many pictures drawn.
The literacy committee members and other interested people met to discuss and make a
decision regarding one problem with the orthography.
Three men helped in editing and typing the texts for the stencils.
Different people drew pictures and many community members, including the Prep School
children, assisted in printing the books on silk-screen printers.
Term two Prep School classes began in the local language.
228 Appendix C. Multi-Strategy Word-Building Track Preparation and Format


Teachers were more confident and in control of their areas of responsibility.
Neighbouring village people heard about the change and asked for help to set up classes.
The Prep School teachers
demonstrated lessons
assisted in training four men from a nearby village, and
helped them to get an adult class started in a natural, observe-do style of training.
An older man wrote some legends, so a group of young men edited them, wrote more stories,
and prepared and illustrated a book for extra reading material.
Community members participated in building a new double classroom.
Preparing materials
When I arrived in the village to help in the programme, the teachers stated that they could
write the stories and take care of materials for the Story Track part of the Multi-Strategy method.
In the Story Track, a print environment is encouraged, so that during a week of lessons, learners
interact with five different stories created around a central theme. It is only necessary to write
and print one story as an enlarged book with smaller multiple copies in preparation for classes.
Teachers and students create the other stories each week as they are needed.
The teachers in Tau particularly wanted help in setting up workbooks. Many people assisted,
but a core of men and women gained an understanding of the process and did the bulk of the
choosing of key words and writing of the sentences and stories. The following instructional
pattern was used.
A core of men and women gained an understanding of the process and did the bulk of the
choosing of key words and writing of the sentences and stories.
Preparing key word lessons
Requirement
You will need to know how to speak and write the language (or work closely with people
who do).
Materials needed
A list of the letters of the alphabet of the language
A list of all of the syllable patterns of the language; that is, how consonant and vowels fit
together
A dictionary or word list to use in the preparation of the lessons (optionalthis was not used
in the Tau programme)
An exercise book and pencil to write the words and sentences used in the lessons
Steps in preparing for key word lessons (using syllables)
There are three things to do to prepare for key word lessons with focus on teaching
syllables:
1. Make a list showing two picturable key words (nouns, people, animals, or things) for each
letter of the alphabet of the language.
Appendix C. Multi-Strategy Word-Building Track Preparation and Format 229


2. Write sentences using each key word.
3. Find a sentence-making word (verbs, descriptives, pronouns) that fits with each key word in
a natural sentence.
To list the picturable key words
1. Choose key words in pairs. Start with some of the most frequent vowels and consonants.
Choose the first pair of words with all letters the same except one, if possible.
Examples
1. aka house asa dog (Kwanga, E.S.P.)
2. enda woman anda house (Enga, E.P.)
3. kiri ceremonial pole piri shell (Waffa, M.P.)
Note: When choosing key words, it is helpful to ask a group of people to
write all the picturable key words they can think of for every letter in the
alphabet of the language. List the words on the blackboard for each
letter. Choose the two most suitable words to introduce each letter (or
think of other words that will fit in better in the sequence). The syllables
with the new letter in them can be at the beginning, the middle, or the
end of each word.
Choose one extra key word for the first pair of words to help you find a sentence-making
word to write sentences using only the syllables that are found in the key words.
Examples
1. aka house asa dog (Kwanga, E.S.P.)
Extra key word: papi clay cooking pot
Sentence-making word: kapa bad
Sentences:
Aka kapa. A bad house.
Asa kapa. A bad dog.
2. enda woman anda house (Enga, E.P.)
Extra key word: kana stone
Sentence-making word: kanda Look.
Sentences:
Enda kanda. Look at the woman.'
Enda anda kanda. Look at the womans house.
2. Choose all other pairs of key words, introducing one new letter for each pair. Try to have
only one new syllable in each word, especially for the early lessons. Try to use only two
vowels for at least the first three pairs of words. For example, the first five pairs of words
used in Kwanga were as follows:
230 Appendix C. Multi-Strategy Word-Building Track Preparation and Format


Pairs of words Sentence-making words
aka (papi) kapa
asa
kira kipi
sisa sira
masi ka
mari kasira
nika nikan sa
nakira rani
hirapa nihi
hapa kasiri
3. Put extra pairs of key words in the list, using different syllable patterns as you need them to
make sentences. Do not use key words with any new letters in them. Try to introduce a
different syllable pattern early in the list if possible. Most languages have syllables with a
consonant and vowel pattern (CV). It is best to choose words with consonant vowel (CV)
syllable patterns and vowel (V) syllable patterns at first, if possible.
For example, in Kwanga:
aka = V.CV
kira = CV.CV
hirapa = CV.CV.CV
In the sixth pair of words in Kwanga, two new syllable patterns were introduced to help find
sentence-making words. No new letters were introduced.
For example:
arna = VC.CV
parka = CVC.CV
4. List as many pairs of words that you need, to cover all of the letters and all of the syllable
patterns in the language. When you introduce a new vowel, you may want to put in extra
pairs of words, using the new vowel with some of the consonants already taught. Do not try
to cover all of the syllables in the language. It is not necessary to teach every syllable because
the learners are reading full, natural texts every day in the Story Track.
To write sentences using the key words
1. Use the syllables from the key words you have introduced to write natural sentences. Fit
sentences together to make a connected piece of writing as you introduce more letters and
syllables. You may need to change the order of introducing key words so that you can use
letters the students know. When writing the sentences, it is best to use only letters and
syllables that the students know.
Appendix C. Multi-Strategy Word-Building Track Preparation and Format 231


2. Use each new key word in the sentences you write for that lesson. As more syllables are
introduced, try to write interesting connected sentences with the key word as the topic.
Change any words that have letters that have not been introduced. You may re-write the
sentences two or three times before you are satisfied with them. The main objective is to help
students to read and write clear, natural sentences with meaning.
Note: When writing sentences, it is helpful to write the letters in a box as
you introduce them. Write the vowels across the top and the consonants
down the side. Then fill in each syllable to show you which ones have
been used in the words you have introduced.
For example, in Kwanga:
a i
s sa
k ka
p pa pi
To find a sentence-making word that fits the key word
1. Choose a sentence-making word that can naturally be used in a short sentence with the new
key word.
2. In the sentence, use only syllables that have been taught. In the sentence-making word, try
that has the new letter in it.
How to teach the lessons
Aim
The learners will learn
to read all the letters of their language through analysis and synthesis of key words
to recognise letters, syllables, and words that they have been taught, and
to write words, sentences, and stories in their language.
Materials needed
The teacher will need the
list of key words and sentences chosen
lesson format, and
classroom blackboard, chalk, and duster.
The learners will need paper and pencil for writing.
Teaching summary
1. Write the connected sentences on the blackboard while the learners read the parts as you
write.
2. Teach the key word by breaking it down and building it back to the word again.
3. Teach the syllables and ask the learners to build words.
232 Appendix C. Multi-Strategy Word-Building Track Preparation and Format


4. Teach sentence formation using the key word.
5. Dictate syllables, words, and sentences and ask the learners to write them.
Note: The Prep School classes used printed books for the Story Track
and Word-Building Track, but in the new adult class the teaching and
learning was done almost exclusively from the large classroom
blackboard. There was very good progress with the students and teachers
working through each lesson together. Once the teacher has shown the
pattern for each activity, the learners can interact with the teacher as he
or she writes. In this way, the learners will think about what is being
taught and learn more quickly as they work together with the teacher in
cooperative learning.
Key wordsyllables: Session 1
(Two key words)
1. Talk about each key picture and teach each key word and its parts by breaking it down and
building it back to the word again as you write the key word teaching pattern on the
blackboard.
2. Teach the syllables and ask learners to build words from syllables in the big box.
3. Using dictation ask learners to write syllables and wordsrepeat each part 2 or 3 times.
Appendix C. Multi-Strategy Word-Building Track Preparation and Format 233


Sample pagekey wordsyllable: Session 1

Key word syllables: Sessions 2 to the end
1. Ask the learners to read the sentences as you write them on the blackboard and to identify
the syllables, build the words, and read the sentences naturally.
2. Talk about the key picture with the learners and teach the key word by breaking it down
and building it back to the word again. Ask the learners to identify each syllable and word as
you write them on the blackboard. The letters are shown clearly in small boxes, but ask the
learners to say them in syllables while pointing to the parts.
3. Ask learners to help you fill the big box with known syllables. Write the syllables to show
contrast between letters by writing similar syllables under each other. Ask the learners to
build words from the syllables (use games if it fits the class).
4. Teach the sentence-making word and write a sentence using the key word and the
sentence-making word. Teach the sentence pattern by breaking down the sentence to the key
word and building it back again, asking the learners to identify the parts as you write.
5. Ask the students to each try to read (silently) the sentences on the blackboard (from point 1)
then all read them together.
234 Appendix C. Multi-Strategy Word-Building Track Preparation and Format


6. Using dictation, ask the students to write syllables, words, and sentencesrepeat the parts
two or three times.
7. Repeat each key word lesson before going on to the next.
8. Copy the lesson to put into a book for extra reading if you have not already printed
workbooks.
Sample page: Sessions 2 to the end

Revision key word syllables
(Every fifth session)
1. After teaching each key word session for two days, during the fifth session, revise the two
key word patterns. Ask the learners to read the lessons in the workbook (if you have printed
a workbook) or any books available in the language while you listen to individuals read.
2. Prepare a sheet of paper with sentences from the two key word lessons written on it. Ask
each learner to read one of the sentences. Make a note of the progress of the learner to help
you in your teaching.
Appendix C. Multi-Strategy Word-Building Track Preparation and Format 235


3. Ask each student to write a sentence using one of the key words they have learned during
the last two sessions. Collect the papers and note the progress of each learner to help you in
your teaching.
Conclusion
The Tau community members were aware of literacy activities, participated in decision making,
helped in preparing and printing materials, and supported the teachers in the control and
maintenance of classes, especially during the most recent vernacular programme. In this
programme, the students showed much enthusiasm and progressed well as they participated in
learning in their own language.
The teachers were conscientious in preparation and teaching and were confidently in control.
They willingly took on the role of training and assisting the teachers from the neighbouring
village. To this stage, all their efforts have been voluntary, which seems to be quite unique and
most commendable. Such consistent interest and enthusiasm may be based on a number of
reasons. Two that seem obvious are community involvement and control from the outset, along
with successful classes as the teachers have become more competent.


236
Appendix D. Baseline Survey
Literacy Contact Survey Questionnaire
Province____________________________________________________________
District_____________________________________________________________
Language_________________________Village____________________________
1. Personal background
1. Name___________________________
1. I D 13 Name 001300+
2. Gender___________
2. Gender 4 Gender M = 1; F = 2
3. Age___________
3. Age 5 Age 1215 = 1; 1619 = 2;
2024 = 3; 2529 = 4;
3034 = 5; 3539 = 6;
4044 = 7
4. Religion________________________
4. Rel. 6 Religion Catholic = 1;
SSEC = 2;
Apostolic = 3
5. Group__________________________
5. Gr. 7 Group for each school Tumam = 1 (M-SM);
Nanaha = 2 (SG);
Tau 1 = 3 (M-SM);
Tau 2 = 4 (SG);
Musemblem = 5 (M-SM1);
Musingwi' = 6 (M-SM2);
Musengwah = 7 (M-SM3)
6. What language(s) do you speak?

Vernacular____ Tok Pisin____ English____
0 = None 1 = A little 2 = A lot 3 = A great deal
6. Q LangV 8 Do you speak vernacular? None = 0; A little = 1; A
lot = 2; A great deal = 3
Q LangT 9 Do you speak Tok Pisin?
'' '' ''
Q LangE 10 Do you speak English?
'' '' ''
Appendix D. Baseline Survey 237


2. Literacy contact
Personal
1. Do you read?
Vernacular____ Tok Pisin____ English____

0 = None 1 = Occasionally 2 = Weekly 3 = Every day
1. Q ReadV 11 Do you read vernacular? None = 0; Occasionally = 1;
Weekly = 2; Every day = 3
Q ReadT 12 Do you read Tok Pisin?
'' '' ''
Q ReadE 13 Do you read English?
'' '' ''
2. Do you write?
Vernacular____ Tok Pisin____ English____

0 = None 1 = Occasionally 2 = Weekly 3 = Every day
2. Q WriteV 14 DO you write vernacular? None = 0; Occasionally = 1;
Weekly = 2; Every day = 3
Q WriteT 15 Do you write Tok Pisin?
'' '' ''
Q WriteE 16 Do you write English?
'' '' ''
3. Have you ever been to a
Mission School?___ Government School?___ Literacy Class?____
3. Q School 17 Have you ever been to
school?
None = 0; Mission school =
1; Government school = 2;
Literacy class = 3
4. How many years?______
4. Q Years 18 Years at school. 19
5. Why did you leave?____

1 = No finance 2 = Distance 3 = Parents stopped me 4 = I didnt like it 5 = No school
5. Q Leave 19 Reason for leaving No finance = 1;
Distance = 2;
Parents stopped me = 3;
I didnt like it = 4;
No school = 5
6. Why didnt you go to school?____

1 = No finance 2 = Distance 3 = Parents stopped me 4 = I didnt like it 5 = No school
6. Q No school 20 Reason for no school 15
238 Appendix D. Baseline Survey


Family
7. Can any of your family read?
Father? Vernacular____ Tok Pisin____ English____
Mother? Vernacular____ Tok Pisin____ English____
Husband? Vernacular____ Tok Pisin____ English____
Wife? Vernacular____ Tok Pisin____ English____
Brother 1? Vernacular____ Tok Pisin____ English____
Sister 1? Vernacular____ Tok Pisin____ English____
Brother 2? Vernacular____ Tok Pisin____ English____
Sister 2? Vernacular____ Tok Pisin____ English____

0 = None 1 = Occasionally 2 = Weekly 3 = Every day
7. Q Family 21 Parents or spouse reading Father = 1; Mother = 2;
Husband = 3; Wife = 4
QF readV 22 Parents or spouse reading
vernacular
None = 0; Occasionally = 1;
Weekly = 2; Every day = 3
QF readT 23 Parents or spouse reading Tok Pisin
'' '' ''
QF readE 24 Parents or spouse reading English
'' '' ''
QSib 1 25 Siblings reading Brother = 1; Sister = 2
QS1readV 26 Sibling reading vernacular None = 0; Occasionally = 1;
Weekly = 2; Every day = 3
QS1readT 27 Sibling reading Tok Pisin
'' '' ''
QS1readE 28 Sibling reading English
'' '' ''
QSib 2 29 Siblings reading Brother = 1; Sister = 2
QS2readV 30 Sibling reading vernacular None = 0; Occasionally = 1;
Weekly = 2; Every day = 3
QS2readT 31 Sibling reading Tok Pisin
'' '' ''
QS2readE 32 Sibling reading English
'' '' ''
8. How many of your children have been to community school?____
8. Q HM CS 33 Number of children at or been to school 19
9. What grade was each one in when he/she left?
Child 1.____ 2.____ 3.____ 4.____ 5.____
9. Q Grade 34 The most schooled child 19
Appendix D. Baseline Survey 239


10. Do your children read?
Child 1.____ 2.____ 3.____ 4.____ 5.____

0 = None 1 = Occasionally 2 = Weekly 3 = Every day
10. QC1readV 35 Child 1 reading vernacular None = 0; Occasionally = 1;
Weekly = 2; Every day = 3
QC1readT 36 Child 1 reading Tok Pisin
'' '' ''
QC1readE 37 Child 1 reading English
'' '' ''
QC2readV 38 Child 2 reading vernacular
'' '' ''
QC2readT 39 Child 2 reading Tok Pisin
'' '' ''
QC2readE 40 Child 2 reading English
'' '' ''
QC3readV 41 Child 3 reading vernacular
'' '' ''
QC3readT 42 Child 3 reading Tok Pisin
'' '' ''
QC3readE 43 Child 3 reading English
'' '' ''
Home
11. How many people living in your house read?____
11. QHMhouse 44 People living in same house reading 19
12. How often?

12. Q1oftenV 45 Person 1 how often reading
vernacular
None = 0; Occasionally = 1;
Weekly = 2; Every day = 3
Q1oftenT 46 Person 1 how often reading Tok Pisin
'' '' ''
Q1oftenE 47 Person 1 how often reading English
'' '' ''
Q2oftenV 48 Person 2 how often reading
vernacular
'' '' ''
Q2oftenT 49 Person 2 how often reading Tok Pisin
'' '' ''
Q2oftenE 50 Person 2 how often reading English
'' '' ''
Q3oftenV 51 Person 3 how often reading
vernacular
'' '' ''
Q3oftenT 52 Person 3 how often reading Tok Pisin
'' '' ''
Q3oftenE 53 Person 3 how often reading English
'' '' ''
13. How many books do you have in your home?____

0 = None 1 = 12 2 = 34 3 = Over 4
13. Q Books 54 Number of books None = 0; 12 = 1; 34 = 2;
Over 4 = 3
14. Do you have newspapers in your home to read?



0 = None 1 = 12 2 = 34 3 = Over 4
14. Q News 55 Number of Newspapers
'' '' ''
Blank 6

240 Appendix D. Baseline Survey


3. Concepts about print
Items 124

No score = 0; Score = 1
Q CAP 6480 Response to questions No score = 0; Score = 1
(New Line) 17 Clay CAP
Blank 8


4. Letter and word recognition
1. Letter Cards5 vowels; 5 most frequent consonants
(Have all of the consonants ready.)
Write each letter on a card (3x5).
Show one letter at a time.
Say, Tell me a word with this letter in.
Write the response ________________________.
1. Q Vowels 9 Word with the correct vowel 15
Q Cons 1011 Word with the correct consonant 119
2. Word Cards10 most common words
Write a short sentence on a card using the word.
(Progress from very simple sentences to more complex.)
Read the sentence.
Say, Show me the word that says __________. (Insert word.)
2. Q Word 1213 Pointing out the word 110
Blank 14
5. Writing
1. Write Your Name
Give a blank paper and a pencil to the person.
Say, Write your name.
1. Q Name 15 Writing his/her name None = 0; Some form = 1;
Correct = 2
2. Sound-Symbol Correspondence
Say, I will say a sound, then a word with the sound in it. Try to write the
sound.
Say the sound.
Say the word with the sound in it.
Repeat the sound.
Say, Try to write the sound.
2. Q soundV 16 Hearing and writing vowels 15
Q soundC 17 Hearing and writing consonants-
(continuants)
15
Appendix D. Baseline Survey 241


3. Words and Sentences
Show a sequence of three pictures (line drawings).
Say, Write something about each picture.
3. Q words1 18 Writing for picture 1 Words 01 = 1; Words 23
= 2; Words 45 = 3;
Sentence = 4; Sentence with
clauses = 5
Q words2 19 Writing for picture 2
'' '' ''
Q words3 20 Writing for picture 3
'' '' ''


242
Appendix E. Multi-Strategy Lesson Pattern Summary
*

Multi-Strategy Method Teaching Patterns
Teach one thing at a time.
Use one learning mode at a time.
Have a purpose so that students get the point.
Story Track Word-Building Track
Meaning Mode Analysis/Synthesis Mode
Teacher orchestrates Teacher teaches
Focus on prose: Focus on elements:
* In Context plus Meaning
* Teacher sets the stage
Students in control of learning
* Out of Context lacks Meaning
* Teacher in control; teach skills
Students learn
Core: ProcessHow? Core: Mastery of parts
Teacher Models, Students Do Teacher Teaches; Students Build
Theme Word Two Key Words
Lesson 1: Generate an Experience Story Lesson 1: Analysis and Synthesis
T Provides experience: look/drama/mime T Breaks down and Builds up word
S Generate story S Read break down and build up
T Writes story S Clap break down and build up
T Reads story T Teaches Sentence-making word
S Read with T and individually S Read Key Word in sentence
Lesson 2: Listen to a Story and Read Alone Lesson 2: Learn Parts of Words
T Reads Listening Story fluently S Compare and contrast syllables
S Listenpredict events S Find same syllables
S Read Alone S Build new words
T Reads with each S, using the
Neurological Impress Method (N.I.M.)


*
Excerpt from Stringer, Mary. 1992a. How does the Multi-Strategy Method fit? Read 27:1120.
Appendix E. Multi-Strategy Lesson Pattern Summary12F* 243


Lesson 3: Read the Shared Book Lesson 3: Build New Words
T Introduces Big Book S Learn syllablesgames
S Predict picture content S Build wordsgames
T Reads naturally S Read words in context
S Read with T and individually S Read, break and build new words
S Answer comprehension questions

Lesson 4: Write Creatively Lesson 4: Write Accurately
T Introduces Writing T Dictates syllables, words, sentences
S Draw pictures S Write and check spelling
S Write creative stories S Correct spelling
S Do Not Copy story from BB or books
T Encourages and hears stories
S Read own stories
Students integrate these two tracks by using elements in the Story Track in reading and
writing and by using meaning in the Word-Building Track to build new words.
Note: Details of lessons found in Stringer and Faraclas (1987). Discussion of NIM in Stringer (1988).



244
Appendix F. Concepts About Print Test Book Sample
English text: The Big Pig (Cover).
The woman and her son have no house. They live in a big hole (Page 1).
Niugini Readers Grades 1 and 2


245
Appendix G. Final Test Format
Test24 WeeksLiteracy Research (Tok Pisin 1991)
Preparation
1. Choose four long stories and two short texts and pick out parts to read which use vowels,
consonants, and words taught by both methods.
2. Organize three tape recorders and cassettes.
3. Train testers and one Test Supervisor to administer the test.
Test
The students are assembled as a group in the classroom. Explain the procedure and make
everyone feel at ease.
Procedure
Each person will go to the tester to answer questions, read, and write.
1. Concepts About Literacy and Motivation
1. Why did you want to learn to read and write?
2. Did you come to class all/most of the time?
3. Why did you continue/not continue to come to class?
Show the text of the Moon Story, tell students what to do in points 2, 3, and 4:
2. Word Recognition
1. Point to a word that has ai in it.
2. Read the word.
3. Point to the word haus.
3. Syllable Recognition
1. Point to the syllables bi, sol, tu.
4. Letter Recognition
1. Point to two words that begin with the same letter.
2. Read the two syllables.
3. Point to two words that finish with the same letter.
246 Appendix G. Final Test Format


5. Reading
Turn on the tape recorder. Say the name of the student.
Before the reading of each sentence say, I want you to read this story. Wait while I
read the title.
Read the title. Then point to the sentence to be read and say, Read this sentence.
1. The Drum Story
a. Sentences 2 and 3. Start sentence 2 at em i kam
b. Sentences 4 and 5 (familiar languagepredictable legend)
2. The Pig Story
a. Sentence Na em i pulim and next sentence
b. Sentence Na em i pulim and sentence Em i lukim olsem (familiar
languageunpredictable)
3. The Moon Story
a. Sentences 2 and 3
b. Sentences 3 and 4 (unfamiliar languagepredictable legend)
4. The Fight Story
Sentence Taim ol i laik pait (unfamiliar languageunpredictable)
Text 1
a. Em i kisim dispela kundu na ranawe i go haitim. Na em i kam tokim lapun meri
em i holim ston tamiok bilong em.
He took that drum and ran away and hid it. Then he came and talked to the old
woman who had his stone axe.
b. Em i kisim ston tamiok wantaim dispela kundu na ranawe i kam antap long
ples. Na em i karim i go long haus bilong em.
He took the stone axe and that drum and ran away and came up to the village.
Then he took them and went to his house.
Text 2
a. Na em i pulim han bilong em long maus bilong dispela pik. Na em i lukim
tupela han bilong em i bagarap nogut tru.
Then he pulled his hand inside the mouth of that pig. Then he looked at his two
hands and they were hurt real bad.
b. Na em i pulim han bilong em long maus bilong dispela pik. Em i lukim olsem
na em i no wari long pen na bagarap long bodi bilong em.
Then he pulled his hand inside the mouth of that pig. He looked that way and
he didnt worry about the pain and how bad his body was hurt.
Appendix G. Final Test Format

247

Text 3
a. Em dispela mun em i stap hait tasol long haus bilong tupela manmeri. Tupela i
save yusim olsem lam bilong tupela long haus tasol.
This moon only hides in the house of a couple. They just use it like their lamp
inside their house.
b. Tupela i save yusim olsem lam bilong tupela long haus tasol. Olgeta manmeri
bilong dispela graun i no save long mun.
They just use it like their lamp inside their house. All the people on the ground
dont know about the moon.
Text 4
Taim ol i laik pait wantaim wanpela ples ol i kisim dispela kil bilong diwai ol i
sapim long en wantaim skin bilong pik. Ol i kisim skin bilong pik na haitim
bodi bilong ol.
At the time when they want to fight with another place they get this base of a
tree which they have sharpened and the pigs skin. They get the pigs skin and
hide their bodies.
6. Comprehension
Say, Tell me that story (text 4) in your own words.
What do you think might have happened before that?
What do you think might have happened after that?
7. Writing
When the student has finished, turn off the tape recorder and say, Look at these
three pictures and write a long story about what is happening.
When the student has finished writing, turn on the tape recorder and ask the student
to read the story.


248
Appendix H. Picture Sequence for Writing in Test Four







249
Appendix I. Follow-up Semi-Structured Interview
Teacher Interview
1. Assessment of the four lessons
1. Which parts have you found the most useful?
2. Which parts have you found to be useful enough to continue with?
2. Changes made to the lessons
1. Which parts have you changed?
2. What are the positive changes that you feel you have made?
3. Attainments of students
1. In your view, how many of the students have found/are finding this method a successful
way? What are some of the ways they show you that they find it a good way to learn to
read and write.
2. How many of the students have found/are finding it not so successful? In what ways do
they show you that?
4. Sociocultural factors
1. Do you think that the way the classes were taught fits in with the everyday way you live?
If yes, what are some of the things about the way that the classes were taught that fit with
the way things are learned in village life?
2. Think about each lesson and tell me if you think they fit the way you do things in village
life or not.
5. The ABC question
1. What do you think about teaching the ABC?
6. Writing materials
1. Did you find the process of writing the Story Track/Word-Building Track easy or
difficult?
2. Which parts were the easiest to work out?
3. Which parts were the most difficult to work out?
4. Now that you have been shown what to do, do you think that you could help other village
groups to work out the lessons for their dialect?
Sample Interview With a Word-Building Track Teacher
I: Now the two of us will think about that way that I showed you when you taught the
adults. That way has four lessons:
The first one is the key word lesson.
The second is the Big Box lesson.
The third is games from the Big Box.
The fourth is writing.
Do you feel that there is something in these four lessons that really helps students to
learn to read and write or not?
250 Appendix I. Follow-up Semi-Structured Interview


T: Yes, the key word is all right, and the sentence too, is all right, the Big Box is all right
and writing too, is all right. All of them are all right. But in this (the sentence) only in
this, it is like this: that (the first key word) is on Monday, then that (the sentence)
Tuesday, that (the second key word) Wednesday, that (the second sentence) Thursday,
and Friday everything is repeated. So it is only in this (the sentence) that is hard. It is
that way. Now, in the new way that you made, it is really good. It is this way: Monday it
is the sentence, no, the key word. On Monday you do it all, everything, the key word and
the sentence.
I: So this helps them?
T: I think it is good. Then, on Tuesday too, you do the same thing with the key word and
the sentence, the Big Box and the writing. That is good for helping them again. On the
second time they can really understand this and learn it.
I: You said about the adults: the key word is all right, the Big Box is all right, and writing
is all right. And the third lesson with games, with this joining of syllables to make words
of different things in the games, you did not say anything about it. What do you think
about that?
T: Yes, about that too, it is all right. That too is good. That is good, but I told you before
about these only: we do it here (key word) only once and we leave that again and
Tuesday we come down to here (sentence). They dont learn this well, this first lesson,
the key word. And we leave this (key word), we do it only one day, we leave it and
come down again to here (sentence). That too, we do one day and finish it. Then we
leave these each day. A person is not able to understand well. And this (the new format)
in the new way you do it twice instead of one day. It is good. This helps them all. They
can understand. Now we do it, then we stop, sleep, and in the morning they do this
again; they can understand. They still look at this (the old format), it is good. But
concerning this, the new way, it is good.
I: All right, now I understand because before the key word was on Monday and the
sentence on Tuesday, so the key word was not done again. That is very good.
I: When you taught the adults did you yourself change anything in the four lessons or not?
T: No, I followed the same way as this (book).
I: Now you think about the adult classes. What did they do and what helped them to learn
quickly? Which parts in these four lessons did they learn quickly? Do you have some
thinking about this?
T: I have some thinking. About the key word, they (the teachers) give it. They (the
students) understand that well, break and break it at the divisions and do it.
I: This is the best for helping them?
Appendix I. Follow-up Semi-Structured Interview 251


T: In the box too, they look at the small spaces where a syllable is inside and one says,
Yes, this is this way, this is this way, and you put them together to make it this way (to
build a word). Only the sentence, it is a little bit long and they find it a bit hard. And in
lesson four in the writing, it is all right. It is good. So, we tell them what things we are
teaching them and they write. That is all right. The three are all right.
I: All right, only the sentence is hard.
T: Only that. It is a bit long. When they are new they make a few mistakes. So, they go a
longer time and they understand it more clearly.
I: I have been around and I have looked at the way of children, or anyone who learns
something in the village. And what do you feel? This way of starting a school to read
and write with a workbook and a story book, with two ways inside of it, what do you
feel? Is it pleasing to all because it is the same kind as something to learn inside the
village or not? Do you think this fits with their way that they start this kind of thing to
learn something inside the village? Does it fit the way to learn things in the village or
not?
T: Yes, that, it is good. It is a good way for showing the children so that they can
understand in the same way that they so something in the village. And this too, is the
same kind (of thing). These (the books) teach us and we teach them. They understand in
this way, Yes, these things we will do them this way, we will go to school and we will
do these things and they will be this way.
I: I taught all of you and you taught the children. In this way of learning, what way of
teaching is the same as a good way in the village?
T: Concerning the workbook it is all right because it is this way: something you show and
you do it, they look and they follow. They follow and later they go, they themselves go,
they go and try to do it and say, Yes, before the teacher he taught us, we do that to do it
this way. And that is the same way with the adults. They show the children. When the
children go to some place are they lazy? No. One of them thinks, Father showed me
this way and I did something this way. And he does it, he does it the way he wants to at
another time. That too, is the same kind (of thing). When you taught us in the workbook,
we showed them and we put all the small syllables inside. They saw them. All right,
later when they went to the house again these things are with them that they learned
before in school when the teacher taught them and said, The words are this way. You
learn them this way. So the workbook too, is all right. It is good.
I: Some say that it was harder for the students to learn to read and write when they learned
in Tok Pisin. What do you think about that?
252 Appendix I. Follow-up Semi-Structured Interview


T: Now, before when you did the Tok Pisin (books) the children did not feel very pleased
and be smart to do something. No. They were a bit afraid or they were a bit ashamed. It
was that way but when you came and we did it in our language and we used our
language from our own village and taught them in our language and talked with them in
our language, they were smart. And they were pleased to do whatever we wrote and we
said. They raced each other, and another one put his/her hand and another one put
his/her hand and another one said, Me, me! Another one wanted to beat another one
and he/she said, No me! It is that way and we are pleased with the new way you made
and also our language too, it is good for us to teach them. It is that way and I am pleased
with this.
I: What do you think about teaching the ABC?
T: About the ABC, I dont teach them with the ABC because this school you gave to
us, in it we use this to talk the same as the sounds that go with our language. It is that
way and we must teach them completely in our language. Later when they go to the
Community School or later if in this way you yourself tell us to teach the ABC, all
right, we will go with the ABC. Now at this time we have been to this course where
you gave it straight in language. It is that way and now we must teach them in our
language.


253
Appendix J. Follow-up Reading Test Examples for Tok Pisin
6 7


Pik
Pik em i makim pasin bilong stil na pasin bilong
kaikai na dring planti. Em i save brukim banis na iI
go long gaden na i stilim kaikai bilong yumi. Sapos
yumi daunim planti kaikai na pulimapim nating bel
bilong yumi inap long yumi kisim bel i pen na i
traut, em i no stret long ai bilong God. Jisas i tokim
ol disaipel bilong en: Tasol yupela lukaut gut.
Nogut yupela i dring nabaut oltaim na yupela i spak..
Mumut
Mumut i save kirap long nait na wok long bungim
kaikai i go i go. Em i save sutim longpela nus bilong
en long graun na em i save mumutim planti kaikai.
Haus bilong en em i save wokim insait long graun.
Olsem i gat planti man, tingting bilong ol i pas tru
long samting bilong dispela graun. Tasol God i tok
long maus bilong pikinini bilong em Jisas Kraist:
8 9


Snek
Snek em i makim pasin bilong mangal na giaman.
Snek i bin giamanim Iv taim em i stap long Paradais.
Adam na lv tupela i bin stap wanbel tru wantaim
God. Tasol Seten, papa bilong giaman, em i mangal
planti long tupela i stap wanbel wantaim God. Em i
go giamanim tupela na mekim ol i pundaun. Em i
brukim wanbel bilong tupela na i bagarapim laip
God i bin givim long tupela.
Muruk
Muruk em i man bilong belhat na pait. Sapos muruk
i pait wantaim yumi, yumi no inap winim em. Em
bai i bagarapim yumi nogut tru.
Planti manmeri tu ol i save belhat kwik na i paitim
wantok bilong ol. Man i paitim meri bilong en na
meri i paitim man bilong en. Long I Jon 3:15 Baibel
i tok: Man i save bel nogut long brata bilong en,
em i olsem em i save kilim man i dai. Na yupela i



254
Appendix K. Multi-Strategy Word-Building Track Format Change
Interview
Sample Interview
I: I want to ask you about these two ways of teaching because you started teaching the
Word-Building Track one way, in the book we made in Tok Pisin. Now I have brought
another way that has a few changes. I would like you to talk about this. Do you some
thinking, feeling or belief about these two ways?
T: Yes. About the first way you brought to us and we taught the adults, it is a somewhat all
right. But if we had taught them for a long time, then they would have learned well. But
now we had them for only six months and they didnt learn well; that was the adults.
I: Yes, many have spoken like that, If we had gone on a bit longer, we would have
learned.
T: All right, about this second way which you came and showed the children and we taught
them in our language, that is really easy. They have learned well now and they are all
right. This new way is good. So now we want it like this, we must grasp this new way
that is really good.
I: Now do you have any feeling about what things in this new way help them to learn
quickly?
T: In this new way it is like this: you do those lessons, the lessons you put in there, they are
there like that one day, then later we repeat them again for another day. And later, for
the second page, we get that for the next day and later on the fourth day we repeat it.
Then on Friday we read all of that. So it is good for all of the school children, they learn
and can understand well.
I: All right, now you can think about what things inside the four lessons in this new way
help them to understand. The other old way has different things. Now it is turned about.
What do you feel this new way does to help them well? Do you have some thoughts
about this or not?
T: Yes. I have some thoughts about this. Like this, you clap with your hands this way (for
each syllable) and tap this way (with the finger) for each letter.
I: You think this helps them?
T: Yes.
I: You tap, tap on the finger for each time there is a letter. Will this help them all?
T: Yes, this helps them well.
I: What kind of help? What do you think it does? What do they know?
Appendix K: Multi-Strategy Word-Building Track Format Change Interview 255


T: They know that this little piece (a letter) is like this and this little piece (another letter) is
like this. Being like that, that is good.
I: They then understand how much writing is in each syllable.
T: Thats right.
I: In this, did you mark two parts, one with one sound and the other with the other sound or
not?
T: No.
I: Did you say one sound for the two together and this that I marked in one box and
another box, these two parts are just marked to help them to understand?
T: Yes.
I: And do you feel that this helps them to read and write, or only to read, or only to write?
Where does it help?
T: In the way they hear. It is like this: that is the same, and this (one), it is the same. Later
they look with their eyes too. It is the same kind (of thing), such as this (one) and this is
the same way. And too, when they clap hands it is this way, it follows the same as that,
in this way (tapping with a finger).
I: Do you think it is some help in writing?
T: Yes, it is some help too. They look in a box and they write the small part and again they
go to anotherthere is another small boxthey look again, they write again and follow
it.


256
Appendix L. Tok Pisin Teachers Reactions to Teaching the
Alphabet and Writing and Preparing Materials
1. Teachers Comments on the ABC Question
In the Multi-Strategy literacy program, for young children in the preparatory year before the
children entered the national English system, each teacher had a different way of introducing the
names of the letters after the students had some expertise in reading and writing. The Story Track
teacher who gave spelling helps by writing the theme word on the blackboard then rubbing it out
and putting a horizontal mark for each letter did not teach the names, but he emphasised the letter
forms in the context of the sound of the whole word. One of the Word-Building Track teachers
did tell the children the names of letters in the context of teaching the sound in a syllable. He
wrote the letter in isolation and taught that it had one name when it was on its own, but in
context with another letter it had a different name. When asked if he told the English ABC
alphabet names to the students, he said that he used the sounds. There seems to be some
confusion about the meta-language used because the English names and the sounds for letters are
both spoken of as names. The ABC is interpreted as a recitation of the whole English
alphabet by some people.
Another Word-Building Track teacher said that he did not teach with the ABC because he
had been taught to use the sounds that go with their language. He indicated that if it were thought
necessary, he would teach the ABC names. For example, he would teach the alphabet names
when the children were almost ready to go to the primary school ready for transition into
English. Another teacher strongly recommended that they continue the practice of teaching the
English alphabet names to the children in the last term before going into the national primary
school.
In the adult class taught by the Warmenakor people, as described below, a different
approach was tried. Instead of only introducing the sounds in the context of the key words, at the
request of the people all of the sounds in the Kwanga alphabet were outlined early in the
program. Each letter of the Kwanga alphabet was written on the blackboard and explained in the
context of a wordthe sounds were emphasised and the English names told to the students.
Neither the sounds nor the names of the letters were drilled in the lessonssounds were taught
in the context of the key words as the lessons progressed and the English names were told when
students asked. This seemed to satisfy the students who were progressing well in their efforts to
read and write.
2. How Teachers Reacted to Writing and Preparing Materials
The comments on preparing materials came from the teachers who were most involved in
the process. When asked about the ease or difficulty of preparing the literacy books, one teacher
said that making the books was all right, but selecting the alphabet and getting everything ready
for teaching in the language was difficult. He said that now that they had been able to work
closely with a model and do it all, it was all right and they could do it. In answer to a question
about being able to set up a literacy program in another dialect, he said:
Appendix L. Tok Pisin Teacher Reactions to Teaching the Alphabet and Writing and Preparing Materials 257


We would be able to go and do it. In some parts of the workbook, now that you talk about it, yes, I
understand enough to do it. In the story (book) it doesnt have anything hard in it, it is easy for us to
be able to do it. On the story side, how is it easy? Because we have found out the small rules in order
to spell the language and it is all right. We are able to do it.
Another teacher said the workbook stories were not hard to develop and write. He said that
they would be able to do it because they had been shown how. He added that having someone
that they could talk to about it and who could check on what they did would help. He said that he
did not find anything in the story books that was hard; it was easy to do them. The same
comment was made by another teacher who said that the teachers wrote the stories (or people in
the community could write them), edited them, and made them into books. He said that they
understood how to make books because they had been shown how and it was not hard for them
to do.


258
Appendix M. Workbook Format Changes, Application, and
Comparison
1. Changes to the Format of the Primer Material in the Workbooks
In returning to the Tau villages in the Kwanga area after an absence of two years, the
researcher had a particular interest in research related to the format and presentation of the
lessons in the workbooks which contained the primer lessons. Through the original research and
subsequent training of teachers, it became evident that teachers would be able to handle the
teaching of the workbooks in a more efficient way, if some changes were made. Some of the
reasons for the changes were prompted by feedback from trainers and teachers:
1. The linguist working in Urat reported that the trainers had experienced some confusion and
difficulty when training teachers to use the format to teach different content on different days
in lesson one.
2. A teacher pointed out that each part of lesson one was only taught once with no provision for
revision and consolidation each week.
3. The content of lesson three was similar to that taught in lesson two, but with an opportunity
for students to participate in games, which some teachers pointed out, were not appealing to
all adults.
4. There was not enough opportunity given for reading the connected material.
In the new layout (see Appendix C), after the first session (where two key words were
introduced and practice given to identify the syllables used) the format remained the
same for all subsequent sessions. The changes were related to lessons one and three. The
lessons were taught in the same way as previously, but with a different order of
presentation.
The connected sentences were put first as part of lesson one, to give an opportunity for
self-generated learning, with individuals attempting to read the text before all read it
together.
The key picture and the key word, taught by analysis and synthesis, completed lesson
onethe phonemes of the syllable in focus were isolated but were taught only in the
context of the syllable, not in isolation.
The big box was left as lesson two but with selected activities from lessons two and three
of the previous format taught as fitted the class.
The sentence using the key word, previously taught in lesson one, was taught as lesson
three, after which the students re-read the connected material previously read in lesson
one.
Writing was left as lesson four to be taught as previously planned.
During the intervening two years since the adult program, the teachers had successfully set
up and taught prep-schools in Tok Pisin using the Multi-Strategy method. Interest in literacy was
high. To begin writing the books for the changeover from Tok Pisin into Kwanga, community
members were encouraged to join together to discuss the orthography and decide on a trial
alphabet. A group of literate men met together, wrote stories, noted and discussed words with
spelling difficulties and, in a one-day session, settled on a working orthography.
Appendix M. Workbook Format Changes, Application, and Comparison 259


In the next step, interested members of the community of varying ages met and discussed
suitable materials, wrote and edited stories for the Story Track, and chose the key words and
wrote the pages for the workbooks in the Word-Building Track. In a week, all the necessary
books were in draft form, so three men did the final editing and helped prepare the stencils for
the first books. People of all ages, including children, helped in the printing on silk-screen
printers in the village, after which, they collated the books ready for the classes. The teachers
were given a short two-day in-service course, then they used the books in the current prep-
schools, where there was a very enthusiastic changeover from Tok Pisin to Kwanga.
People in the neighbouring village of Warmenakor heard about the activities and came to
ask if they could have some help to begin an adult class. The Tau teachers demonstrated and
gave four young men some training for two days. It was not possible to continue training at this
stage, so the Warmenakor men took some copies of the books and started a class. They began
teaching a highly motivated group of young adults who had not had a previous opportunity to
learn to read and write. These applications of the new material in the prep-school classes and the
adult class are presented in the next section.
2. Applications of the Materials With Format Changes
1. Use of the material in prep-school classes
When the teachers began using the new Kwanga materials in the prep-school classes, the
researcher monitored the lessons to note any difficulties. One outcome of the change to their own
language was quite dramatic in the Story Track lessons. The children made such comments as,
Now it is easy because we can think and write. Now we can write because we know what to
write next. Such spontaneous comments support the notion that in the area, especially with
children and women, enough Tok Pisin is known to use in everyday conversation but there is not
the in-depth knowledge and understanding to enable full expression in writing. There seemed to
be few difficulties in using the story booksreading with comprehension was evident along with
spontaneous, creative story telling and writing.
In the Word-Building Track, the teachers made the transition to the new format without
problems because the activities were essentially the same as previously taught in Tok Pisin. In
the activity with analysis and synthesis of the key word, the new extension of breaking the
syllable into phonemes was done appropriately. Two children in one class did say a vowel with
the separated consonant (for example, ka.a, instead of ka) at first, but quickly understood the idea
because the letters were always said consecutively in the context of the syllable. There was very
little confusion in clapping the syllables: to differentiate between syllables and phonemes, the
phonemes were tapped on the fingers. From observation and feedback from the teachers, this
further breaking down of the syllable did seem to help the children to identify the single letters.
There was no problem of blending because the individual letters were learnt in context, being
immediately read in larger units of syllables and words.
The teachers gave favourable comments about the new format, both for ease of teaching and
for preparation, with the same structure used each day. The enthusiastic transition from Tok Pisin
to Kwanga materials and the full acceptance of the new format for the workbook in the prep-
school classes boosted the resolve to test the materials with an adult class. The next section gives
a description of the beginning of classes for preliterate adults in the neighbouring village of
Warmenakor.
260 Appendix M. Workbook Format Changes, Application, and Comparison


2. Use of the materials in an adult class
The Warmenakor group of preliterate people were highly motivated to become part of the
reading community in the church. In the new class, the teachers were encouraged from the
outset, to take complete control and conduct the program in a model-do cooperative learning
style closely related to a traditional way of learning a new skill. During the two days of training,
the trainee teachers had learned in this model-do way; they had observed the Tau prep-school
teachers in their classes, the Tau teachers had demonstrated further and explained each lesson,
and had then given opportunity for the trainees to practice. In the Word-Building Track, the
readiness activities in Workbook 1 were not included; the instruction began in the primer lessons
in Workbook 2.
After the new class was started, the researcher made three visits to observe, to give
encouragement, and to explain further the principles and lessons as needed. On one occasion,
one of the prep-school teachers gave extra help with a demonstration and explanation for the
Story Track. Twenty-one people attended this new class initially. On the occasion of the last
visit, sixteen members were present and had been consistent in their attendance.
The new teachers took control and handled setting up the class with very little equipment.
The basic equipment was a large blackboard, chalk, some paper and pencils, and a black marker
pen. (When the pen went dry, the teachers dipped it in the juice from the seed pod of the Lipstick
Tree (Bixa orellana) which worked efficiently.) The men were encouraged to be innovative and
to teach within the basic structure given to them, but they were also expected to adjust it to suit
their situation. The dialect was slightly different, so the lessons were taught mostly from the
blackboard in a flexible way with cooperative learning between the teachers and students. The
teachers involved the students by writing the material on the blackboard, while the students
interacted by reading each part as it was written, or by suggesting the content of the text to be
written. The prepared books were mostly used as a reading resource for the teachers and
students.
The progress that was made after eighteen days of lessons was most encouraging. The class
was held intermittently over a period of seven weeks for two to three hours per day. On the
eighteenth day of class, a short test in reading and writing was given by the researcher. The test
was given to ascertain the progress that had been made. The students were asked to identify and
read two syllables and three words, and to read a short story of three sentences which contained
known syllables and words. The students were also asked to write a story about a louse (the topic
of the story they had read). The results of this test are shown in Table M1.
Table M1. Number of participants successfully reading test items after 18 days of instruction
READING ITEMS
Number of items completed Syllable n=14 Word n=14 Sentence n=14
3 - 5 7
2 10 3 2
1 4 3 2
0 0 3 3
Appendix M. Workbook Format Changes, Application, and Comparison 261


Table M1 shows the results of the reading test with three items isolated; syllable, word, and
sentence. In the reading, students were asked to identify and read syllables and words in texts.
All of the students showed that they were able to identify and read syllables, but only 79 percent
were able to point out and read words. The members of this group were able to read the story
with varying degrees of accuracy. Half of the students read the text correctly, while two more
read with some meaningful word substitutes and self-correction. Two students read some words
correctly and were able to read isolated syllables in other words. There was some evidence of
meaningful reading with 36 percent reading with phrase contours and 43 percent reading word-
by-word.
The writing attempts were evaluated in a different way. All students were able to write
letters well, so the basis for assessing the writing was to note those who understood the notion of
a syllable, a word, a sentence, and a story; accuracy of spelling was not taken into account. The
exercise showed that 64 percent of the students had some understanding of how to write
syllables, while the rest had difficulties writing some syllables. These students wrote the vowel
before the consonant or left it out. Fifty percent of the students indicated that they had some
understanding of a sentence and wrote up to five words per sentence; the rest wrote generally
only two words. Those who wrote connected stories wrote from twelve to fifteen words. Three of
the group wrote new, spontaneous stories with content that had not been covered in the
workbook class.
The classes were held three days a week because those involved were also committed to
work for the community two days a week. The group consisted of mostly young married people
who had to work hard to plant and tend gardens to gather enough food for their families. There
was little time for extra reading out of class so such progress, after only eighteen days in class,
was remarkable. Seventy-nine percent showed that they understood how to read and 64 percent
had mastered the material very well. Fifty percent had also grasped the basics of writing and
three attempted to write creatively; one man was writing creative stories in his spare time.
One of the teachers wrote the following about his experience:
I came down to the village and on Monday I started to teach the adults and they also liked this
school. They were not afraid, they really went ahead, They liked it in this way: this school will help
us to read the Bible and write letters to our friends. In no time some of them knew a little about
writing and reading. No matter that they didnt know; they tried their best. And I was very pleased
with them. I thought that later in a year it seems that they would all know how to read and write. I
was very pleased about this work. It seems that this work helps many things and also the adults.
This comment relates to how the students felt, what motivated them, and the teachers positive
response to their efforts to try to do their best. Another teacher explained how he saw the
teaching side:
I thought a lot, What will I go and do? What? But when I learned I wrote it down. Later I will do
what this writing says. It isnt a long time and I have done it. All right, I do something and what I
do it teaches me about itself, what is good and what is not good. And it has helped me and I have
learned to know more.
This personification of something as the teacher aptly covers the concept of teaching and
learning by doing. The learner, through doing it, is able to discern what is helpful and what is
not helpful, and through this go on to learn more The whole atmosphere of learning in a
cooperative way with the teacherswho had virtually no trainingshows that the method and
the materials were acceptable to the group, easy to grasp, and easy to use in a way that was
meaningful in the cultural setting. In the next section, we consider the comments of the teachers
262 Appendix M. Workbook Format Changes, Application, and Comparison


who were involved in using the early material in the Tok Pisin program and the new material in
Kwanga, which included the format changes.
3. How Teachers Compared the Old and New Formats of the Workbook
The three teachers from the Tau villages, who had worked with both versions of the
workbooks, were asked to comment about the new format while they were being interviewed
(see Appendix K for a full interview). One teacher said:
All right, about this second way which you came and showed the children and we taught them in our
language, that is really easy. They have learned well now and they are all right. This new way is
good. So now we want it like this: we must grasp this new way that is really good.
Another teachers first comment was its very exciting. He said that when he came to lesson
one he thought, It is an interesting one where it will make the children smart and they will feel
that it fits something all right. When asked why he thought it was exciting, he said that it was
because it was in the language and the children knew what the key word was as soon as they saw
the picture and they could talk about it.
In the interviews, the two main areas the teachers discussed were, firstly, the change from
teaching different lessons on different days to a single format to be used each day, and secondly,
breaking the syllable in focus into individual parts. Regarding the first, one teacher made this
comment:
The way that Bansis showed to us before, that (way): on Monday it was another (kind of) lesson, the
key word lesson; the key word on Monday and the sentence, it was on Tuesday. Tuesday we taught
the sentence lesson. In this way then, at first it was one way on every Monday, that was only one
lesson and Tuesday it was another lesson. In this way with the new way then it is really easy
because we put the two together. In this way a short sentence on top (of the page) and the key word.
All right, the big box, syllable games and we come down to the sentence-making word. And after
the sentence-making word we say the writing. This new way now, it is easy because we use the two
together; the key word and the sentence. And I dont think about getting another lesson for
another day because it is just the same way; it is easy (with) the two together.
It seems that using the same format for the lessons each day, with a change of content after two
days and revision on the fifth day, made the preparation much easier for the teachers. The three
teachers each commented that this format made it easier for the students as well.
One teacher in particular said that breaking the words up and putting them together again
helped the students to think about how to write and say the name of something. He was referring
to the analysis and synthesis of words into syllables then the syllable in focus being further
analysed with the letters in boxes. He explained it this way:
Isnt this (syllable) that has two or three letters in it too long? It is too long in that way and we break
it into three parts where they (the students) are able to go to each one where they will understand the
basis and the meaning of this small thing that is in the box. Later when they come down (in the
analysis) and go to join them, then they will know enough about all these small things that are in
their boxes there to put them together and come up with the name of something that is down below.
This teacher went on to explain that this format helped the students very much in reading and
writing. From this explanation, it is clear that the teacher considered the phoneme as part of the
syllable and word and not as an isolated element. He went on to explain that he told the children
the sounds of each letter in the context of the syllable, with the syllable said as a unit while
pointing to each letter. He said that he told the students that when each letter was on its own it
Appendix M. Workbook Format Changes, Application, and Comparison 263


had a name, and at this time he gave them the English name but he did not drill them on the
English alphabet. He pointed out that each letter had a different name (sound) when it was joined
to another letter.
Another teacher reiterated the idea that the letter is a part of a larger unit and it helps the
students to understand this by clapping the syllables and tapping the letters. He said that this
format helped the students through comparing the letters in context in three ways: in the way
they hear; and later they look with their eyes too, it is the same way, and too, when they
clap hands, it is this way, it follows the same as that (the syllable).


264
References
Adams, Marilyn Jager. 1990. Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. London:
MIT Press.
Adams, Marilyn Jager, and Bertram C. Bruce. 1980. Background knowledge and reading
comprehension. ERIC 181 431.
Ahai, Naihuwo. 1991. Literacy in an emergent society: Papua New Guinea. Read 26:313.
Allen, Bryant J. 1976. Information flow and innovation diffusion in the East Sepik District, PNG.
Thesis submitted for Ph.D. at Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Allen, Bryant J. 1984. The importance of being equal: The colonial and post-colonial experience
in the Torricelli foothills. Paper prepared for the Wenner-Glen Foundation for
Anthropological Research, International Symposium 95. Basel, Switzerland. Unpublished
manuscript.
Allen, Jan. 1991. Story Track workshop report. Unpublished manuscript.
Allen, J. E., and Donald L. Rubin. 1993. Cross-cultural factors affecting initial acquisition of
literacy among children and adults. In Steven R. Yussen and M. Cecil Smith (editors),
Reading across the life span. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Altwerger, Bess, Carole Edelsky, and Barbara M. Flores. 1987. Whole language: Whats new?
The Reading Teacher 41:144154.
Anderson, Richard C., Elfrieda H. Heibert, Judith A. Scott, and Ian A. G. Wilkerson (editors).
1985. Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the commission on reading.
Washington, DC: The National Institute of Education.
Andrews, Sally. 1992. A skills approach: Optimising initial reading instruction. In Alan
Watson and Anne Badenhop (editors), Prevention of reading failure. Sydney, NSW:
Ashton Scholastic.
Ashton-Warner, Sylvia. 1964. Teacher. London: Martin, Seeker, and Warburg.
Armbruster, Bonnie B. 1976. Learning principles from prose: A cognitive approach based on
schema theory. ERIC 134 934.
Badenhop, Anne M. 1992. Phonological awareness skills: The first two years of school. In
Alan Watson and Anne Badenhop (editors), Prevention of reading failure. Sydney, NSW:
Ashton Scholastic.
Baker, Carolyn D., and Peter Freebody. 1989. Childrens first school books: Introductions to the
culture of literacy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Baker, Nate, and Judi Baker. 1981. Tentative phonemic statement of Urat. Ukarumpa, Papua
New Guinea: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Unpublished manuscript.
Barnes, Barney. 1989. Urat grammar essentials. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: Summer
Institute of Linguistics. Unpublished manuscript.
Barnes, Barney. 1992. Report: Dreikikir teacher training course. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea:
Summer Institute of Linguistics. Unpublished manuscript.
References 265


Barnes, Barney. 1994. Organised phonology data. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: Summer
Institute of Linguistics. Unpublished manuscript.
Barnett, Marva A. 1989. More than meets the eyeforeign language reading: Theory and
practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Barnwell, Katherine. 1979. A working guide for primer construction. Jos, Nigeria: Nigeria Bible
Translation Trust. (Reproduced in Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.)
Barton, David. 1994. The social impact of literacy. In Ludo Verhoeven (editor), Functional
literacy: Theoretical issues and educational implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Baynham, Mike. 1990. Adult literacy in the UK: Current issues in research and practice.
Prospect 5:2738.
Beck, Isabel L. 1977. Comprehension during the acquisition of decoding skills. In John T.
Guthrie (editor), Cognition, curriculum and comprehension. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Bendor-Samuel, Margaret. 1987. Will they go on reading the vernacular? Read 22:310.
Bertelson, Paul, and Beatrice de Gelder. 1994. The cognitive psychology of literacy: Some
basic findings. In Ludo Verhoeven (editor), Functional literacy: Theoretical issues and
educational implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bhola, Harban S. 1990a. Literature on adult literacy: New directions in the 1980s.
Comparative Education Review 34:139144.
Bhola, Harban S. 1990b. Evaluating literacy for development projects, programs and
campaigns. Hamburg, Germany: UNESCO Institute for Education and German
Foundation for International Development.
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1942. Linguistics and reading. The Elementary English Review 19:125
130, 183186.
Bloomfield, Leonard, and Clarence L. Barnhart. 1961. Lets read: A linguistic approach. Detroit,
MI: Wayne State University Press.
Borneman, Barry. 1992. Holding your reading theories lightly. Notes on Literacy 18:717.
Bouffler, Chrystine M. 1990. Literacy teaching in Australia: Whole language, its impact and
prospect. In Thao L, Thien Do, and Jenny Hepburn (editors), Language and learning:
Theory and practice. Launceston, TAS: Tasmanian State Institute Press.
Bowen, Earle A., and Dorothy N. Bowen. 1988. Contextualization of teaching methodology in
theological education in Africa. Paper presented at the Accrediting Council for
Theological Education Conference of Theological Educators. ERIC 315 382.
Bradley, Lynette, and Peter E. Bryant. 1983. Categorizing sounds and learning to reada
causal connection. Nature 301:419421.
Bradley, Lynette, and Peter E. Bryant. 1985. Rhyme and reason in reading and spelling. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Breeze, Mary J., and Mary Morgan. 1991. Literacy guidelines for Ethiopian languages.
Unpublished manuscript.
266 References


Brookfield, Stephen D. 1986. Understanding and facilitating adult learning: A comprehensive
analysis of principles and effective practices. CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, Gay. 1988. Tok Pisin: A Pidgin primer. 4th edition. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea:
Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Bruner, Jerome S. 1966. On cognitive growth II. In Jerome S. Bruner, Rose R. Olver, and
Patricia M. Greenfield (editors), Studies in cognitive growth. New York, NY: John Wiley
and Sons.
Bussis, Anne M., Edward A. Chittenden, Marianne Amarel, and Edith Klausner. (1985) Inquiry
into meaning: An investigation of learning to read. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Byrne, Brian, and Ruth Fielding-Barnsley. 1990. Acquiring the alphabet principle: A case for
teaching recognition of phoneme identity. Journal of Educational Psychology 82:805
812.
Cambourne, Brian. 1979. How important is theory to the reading teacher? Australian Journal
of Reading 2:7890.
Carroll, John B. 1976. The nature of the reading process. In Harry Singer and Robert. B.
Ruddell (editors). Theoretical models and processes of reading. 3rd edition. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Cattell, James M. 1886. The time it takes to see and name objects. Mind 11:6365.
Chall, Jeanne S. 1967. Learning to read: The great debate. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Chall, Jeanne S. 1987. Developing literacy in children and adults. In Daniel A. Wagner
(editor), The future of literacy in a changing world. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Phonology and reading. In Harry Levin and Joanna P. Williams
(editors), Basic studies on reading. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York, NY: Harper
and Row.
Clay, Marie M. 1972. The early detection of reading difficulties. A diagnostic survey including
full details for the administration of the concepts about print test entitled Sand.
Auckland, NZ: Heinemann Educational Books.
Clay, Marie M. 1979a. Reading: The patterning of complex behaviour. 2nd edition. Auckland,
NZ: Heinemann Educational Books.
Clay, Marie M. 1979b. The early detection of reading difficulties. A diagnostic survey with
recovery procedures. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann Educational Books.
Clay, Marie M. 1991. Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Auckland, NZ:
Heinemann Educational Books.
Dale, Isabel. 1993. Reading materials for adults in Arabic. Cairo, Egypt. Unpublished
manuscript.
References 267


Dallas, S. 1992. Teach readingavoid failure: Preventative strategies in the regular classroom.
In Alan J. Watson and Anne M. Badenhop (editors), Prevention of reading failure.
Sydney, NSW: Ashton Scholastic.
Davis, Patricia M. 1991. Cognition and learning: A review of the literature with reference to
ethnolinguistic minorities. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
DeFrancis John. 1989. Visible speech: The diverse oneness of writing systems. Honolulu, HI:
University of Hawaii Press.
Department of Education. 1989. National language and literacy policy: Secretarial directive.
Waigani, Papua New Guinea.
Department of Education. 1993. Using Tok Ples to learn how to read and writeinservice
training program: Participants workbook. Waigani, Papua New Guinea.
Department of Education N.S.W. 1979. Learning to read. In Reading K-12 Support Statement
No. 3. [Sydney, NSW]: Directorate of Studies, NSW Department of Education.
Deutrom, Brian. 1988. Report: Visit to Enga Province. Unpublished manuscript. Papua New
Guinea Department of Education.
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1991. The endangered languages of Australia, Indonesia and Oceania. In
Robert H. Robins and Eugenius M. Uhlenbeck (editors), Endangered languages. Oxford:
Berg.
Downing, John (editor). 1973a. Comparative reading: Cross-national studies of behavior and
processes in reading and writing. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Downing, John. 1973b. Comparative reading: A fourteen nation study. In Robert Karlin
(editor), Reading for all. Newark DE: International Reading Association.
Downing, John. 1978. Linguistic awareness, English orthography and reading instruction.
Journal of Reading Behaviour 10:103114.
Downing, John. 1982. The failure-threat anxiety syndrome in reading disability. Australian
Journal of Remedial Education 14:6270.
Downing, John. 1986. A source of cognitive confusion for beginning readers: Learning in a
second language. Read 21:1218.
Downing, John. 1987. Comparative perspectives on world literacy. In Daniel A. Wagner
(editor), The future of literacy in a changing world. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Dubbeldam, Leo. 1994. Towards a socio-cultural model of literacy education. In Ludo
Verhoeven (editor), Functional literacy: Theoretical issues and educational implications.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Duffy, Gerald, and Laura Roehler. 1987. Teaching reading skills as strategies. The Reading
Teacher 40:414418.
Duggan, S., H. Halley-Coulsen, J. Johns, and T. MacFarlane. 1983. Language a practical
framework for language learning. Melbourne, VIC: Fairfield North Primary School.
Dunn, Rita. 1988. Teaching students through their perceptual strengths or preferences. Journal
of Reading 31:304309.
268 References


Edelsky, Carole. 1991. With literacy and justice for all: Rethinking the social in language and
education. New York, NY: Falmer Press.
Ehri, Linnea. 1984. How orthography alters spoken language competencies in children learning
to read and spell. In John Downing and Renate Valtin (editors), Language awareness
and learning to read. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Ehri, Linnea. 1985. Effects of printed language acquisition on speech. In David R. Olson,
Nancy Torrance, and Angela Hilyard (editors), Literacy, language and learning. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ehri, Linnea, and Lee S. Wilce. 1985. Movement into reading: Is the first stage of printed word
learning visual or phonetic? Reading Research Quarterly 20:163179.
Ferreiro Emilia. 1994. Problems and pseudo-problems in literacy development: Focus on Latin
America. In Ludo Verhoeven (editor), Functional literacy: Theoretical issues and
educational implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Flesch, Rudolf. 1955. Why Johnny cant read: And what you can do about it. New York, NY:
Harper and Row.
Foley, William A. 1986. The Papuan languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Freebody, Peter. 1992. A socio-cultural approach: Resourcing four roles as a literacy learner.
In Alan J. Watson and Anne M. Badenhop (editors), Prevention of reading failure.
Sydney, NSW: Ashton Scholastic.
Freebody, Peter, and Allan Luke. 1990. Literacies programs: Debates and demands in cultural
context. Prospect 5:716.
Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Seabury Press.
Fries, Charles Carpenter. 1963. Linguistics and reading. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston.
Goodman, Kenneth S. 1965. A linguistic study of cues and miscues in reading. Elementary
English 42:639643.
Goodman, Kenneth S. 1967. Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the
Reading Specialist 6:126135.
Goodman, Kenneth S. 1970. Behind the eye: What happens in reading. In Kenneth S.
Goodman and Olive S. Niles (editors), Reading: Process and program. Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English.
Goodman, Kenneth S. 1973a. The psycholinguistic nature of the reading process. In Kenneth
S. Goodman (editor), The psycholinguistic nature of the reading process. Detroit: Wayne
State University.
Goodman, Kenneth S. 1973b. Analysis of oral reading miscues. In Frank Smith (editor),
Psycholinguistics and reading. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Goodman, Kenneth S. 1976. Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. In Harry Singer and
Robert B. Ruddell (editors), Theoretical models and processes of reading, 497508. 2nd
edition. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
References 269


Goodman, Kenneth S. 1981. Letter to the editors. Reading Research Quarterly 16:477478.
Goodman, Kenneth S. 1984. Unity in reading. In Alan C. Purves and Olive Niles (editors),
Becoming readers in a complex society. NSSE Yearbook. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Goodman, Kenneth S. 1986. Whats whole in whole language? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
Educational Books.
Goodman, Kenneth S. 1992. Whole language research: Foundations and development. In S.
Jay Samuels and Alan E. Farstrup (editors), What research has to say about reading
instruction. 2nd edition. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Goodman, Yetta M. 1989. Roots of the whole-language movement. Elementary School
Journal 90:113127.
Goodman, Yetta M., and Carolyn Burke. 1980. Reading strategies: Focus on comprehension.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Gough, Philip B. 1972. One second of reading. In James F. Kavanagh and Ignatius G.
Mattingly (editors), Language by ear and by eye. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gough, Philip B. 1985. One second of reading: Postscript. In Harry Singer and Robert B.
Ruddell (editors), Theoretical models and processes of reading. 3rd edition. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Graddol, David. 1994. Texts, talk and ritual knowledge. Paper presented at Griffith University,
Brisbane, QLD. Unpublished manuscript.
Grant, Audrey N. 1986. Defining literacy: Common myths and alternative readings. Australian
Review of Applied Linguistics 9:122.
Graves, Donald H. 1983. Writing: Teachers and children at work. Exeter, NH: Heinemann
Educational.
Gray, William S. 1956. The teaching of reading and writing. Paris: UNESCO.
Gudschinsky, Sarah C. 1959. Recent trends in primer construction. Fundamental and Adult
Education 11:357396.
Gudschinsky, Sarah C. 1973. A manual of literacy for preliterate peoples. Ukarumpa, Papua
New Guinea: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Gudschinsky, Sarah C. 1976. Literacy: The growing influence of linguistics. (Trends in
Linguistics: State-of-the-art Report 2.) The Hague: Mouton.
Gudschinsky, Sarah C. 1992. Is linguistics still necessary? Or is literacy enough? (Version of a
presentation at the SIL Corporation Conference, 1975.) Notes on Literacy 18.2:15.
Gunn, Steven J. 1991. Review of literature. In James J. Cumming and Anne Morris (editors),
Working smarter. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1978. Breakthrough to literacy. Foreword to the American edition. In
Michael A. K. Halliday, Language as social semiotic. London: Arnold.
270 References


Halliday, Michael A. K. 1984. Three aspects of childrens language development: Learning
language, learning through language, and learning about language. In Yetta Goodman,
Myna Haussler, and Dorothy Strickland (editors), Oral and written language
development research: Impact on the schools. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers
of English.
Halliday, Michael A. K., and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hannaway, Jane. 1992. Higher order skills, job design and incentives: An analysis and
proposal. American Educational Research Journal 29:321.
Harris, Stephen. 1980. Culture and learning: Traditional education in Northeast Arnhem Land.
Darwin, NT: Northern Territory Department of Education.
Harste, Jerome C., and Robert F. Carey. 1984. Classrooms, constraints, and the language
process. In James Flood (editor), Promoting reading comprehension. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Harste, Jerome C., Virginia Woodward, and Carolyn L. Burke. 1984. Examining our
assumptions: A transactional view of literacy and learning. Research in the teaching of
English 18:84108.
Heath, Shirley B. 1982. What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school.
Language and Society 11:4976.
Heath, Shirley B. 1983. Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and
classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heath, Shirley B. 1986. Literacy learning in the making of citizens. AESA 1985 Butts Lecture.
American Educational Studies Association Newsletter. November 1985:1621.
Henderson, Leslie. 1982. Orthography and word recognition in reading. London: Academic
Press.
Holdaway, Don. 1979. The foundations of literacy. Sydney, NSW: Ashton Scholastic.
Holmes, Jack A. 1953. The substrata-factor theory of reading. Berkeley, CA: California Book.
Huey, Edmund B. 1968. The psychology and pedagogy of reading. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
First published by Macmillan in New York in 1908.
Huisman, Ronald D., and Joy Lloyd. 1981. Angaatha tone, stress, and length. In Phyllis M.
Healey (editor), Angan languages are different: Four phonologies. (Language Data,
Asian-Pacific Series 12.) Huntington Beach, CA: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Hymes, Dell H. 1987. Foreword. In Daniel A. Wagner (editor), The future of literacy in a
changing world. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Javal, Louis mile. 1879. Essai sur la Psysiologie de Lecture. Annales d'Ocolistique 82:243
253. Bruxelles: Tircher.
Juel, Connie. 1993. The spelling-sound code in reading. In Steven R. Yussen and M. Cecil
Smith (editors), Reading across the life span. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Kintsch, Walter, and Teun van Dijk. 1978. Toward a model of text comprehension and
production. Psychological Review 85:363394.
References 271


LaBerge, David, and S. Jay Samuels. 1974. Toward a theory of automatic information
processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology 6:293323.
Larson, Mildred L., and Patricia M. Davis (editors). 1981. Bilingual education: An experience in
Peruvian Amazonia. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Dallas, TX:
Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Laycock, Donald. 1973. Appendix B: Overview of classification of Sepik languages. Pacific
Linguistics B25:7278.
Laycock, Donald. 1984. Three vowels, semivowels, and neutralisation: Orthographic and other
problems of Sepik languages. Paper prepared for the Wenner-Glen Foundation for
Anthropological Research, International Symposium 95. Basel, Switzerland. Unpublished
manuscript.
Lee, Ernest W. 1982. Literacy primers: The Gudschinsky method. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute
of Linguistics.
Limage, Leslie J. 1993. Literacy strategies: A view from the International Literacy Year
Secretariat of UNESCO. In Peter Freebody and Anthony R. Welch (editors), Knowledge
culture and power: International perspectives on literacy as policy and practice. London:
Falmer Press.
Lloyd, Arthur S. 1972. Freire, conscientization and adult education. Adult Education 23:320.
Lock, Arjen. 1993. Audiotaped interview. Wewak, Papua New Guinea: Summer Institute of
Linguistics.
Lovett, Maureen W. 1981. Reading skill and its development: Theoretical and empirical
considerations. In G. Ernest Mackinnon and T. Gary Waller (editors), Reading research:
Advances in theory and practice. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Maha, A. 1992. The new education system. Catalyst 22:713.
Mashayekh, Farideh. 1974. Freire, the man, his ideas and their implications. Literacy
Discussion 5:162.
McCarthy, Joy, and Gwen Gibson. 1993. Audiotaped interview. Ukarumpa, Papua New
Guinea: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
McClelland, James L., and David E. Rumelhart. 1981. An interactive activation model of
context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological
Review 88:375407.
McCormick, Thomas W. 1988. Theories of reading in dialogue: An interdisciplinary study. New
York, NY: University Press of America.
McCracken, Marlene J., and Robert A. McCracken. 1972. Reading is only the tigers tail. San
Rafael: Leswing Press.
McCracken, Marlene J., and Robert A. McCracken. 1979. Reading, writing and language: A
practical guide for primary teachers. Winnipeg, Canada: Peguis Publishers.
McCracken, Marlene J., and Robert A. McCracken. 1986. Stories, songs and poetry to teach
reading and writing. Literacy through language. Chicago: American Library Association.
272 References


McGee, Lea M., and Richard G. Lomax. 1990. On combining apples and oranges: A response
to Stahl and Miller. Review of Educational Research 60:133140.
Mead, Margaret. 1943. Our educational emphases in primitive perspective. The American
Journal of Sociology 48:633639.
Messick, Samuel. 1978. Personality consistencies in cognition and creativity. In Samuel
Messick and Associates (editors), Individuality in learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Mihalic, Frank. 1971. The Jacaranda dictionary and grammar of Melanesian Pidgin. Milton,
QLD: Jacaranda Press.
Modiano, Nancy. 1973. Indian education in the Chiapas Highlands. New York, NY: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.
Monroe, Marion. 1932. Children who cannot read. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Morgan Mary M. 1992. Forms of bilingual education in Cushitic languages in Ethiopia: First
phase report. Paper presented at the International Conference on Maintenance and Loss
of Minority Language in the Netherlands. Unpublished manuscript.
Morgan, Mary M. 1993. Applications of Multi-Strategy approach in literacy for Zaire and
Kenya. Unpublished manuscript.
Mhlhusler, Peter. 1977. Sociolects in New Guinea Pidgin. Pacific Linguistics C40:559566.
Nicholson, Tom, and David Hill. 1985. Good readers dont guess: Taking another look at the
issue of whether children read words better in context or in isolation. Reading
Psychology: An International Quarterly 6:181198.
Oatridge, Desmond. 1980. Pre-writing. Read 15:3448.
Obrist van Eeuwijk, Brigit. 1992. Small but strong: Cultural contexts of (mal-)nutrition among
the Northern Kwanga (East Sepik Province, Papua New Guinea). Basel, Switzerland:
Museum fur Volkerkunde und Schweizerisches Museum fur Volkskunde Basel.
Perfetti, Charles A. 1984. Reading acquisition and beyond: Decoding includes cognition.
American Journal of Education 93:4060.
Perfetti, Charles A. 1985. Reading ability. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Perfetti, Charles A. 1986. Continuities in reading acquisition, reading skill, and reading
disability. Remedial and Special Education 7:1121.
Pigeon, Daniel. 1984. Theory and practice in learning to read. In John Downing and Renate
Valtin (editors), Language awareness and learning to read. New York, NY: Springer-
Verlag.
Pike, Kenneth L. 1947. Phonemics: A technique for reducing languages to writing. Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan Press.
Pontecorvo, Clotilde. 1994. Emergent literacy and education. In Ludo Verhoeven (editor),
Functional literacy: Theoretical issues and educational implications. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
References 273


Porter, Doris. 1986. Gudschinsky and phonic methods compared. Notes On Literacy Special
Issue 1:1126.
Reading Treatment and Research Centre. 1983. Helping readers: A collection of methods used at
the Reading Treatment and Research Centre. Upper Ferntree Gully, VIC: Upper Ferntree
Gully Primary School Council.
Rempel, Robin. 1992. How to make a modified Multi-Strategy primer. Ukarumpa, Papua New
Guinea: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Rempel, Robin. 1993. A model for evaluating reading methods: Four basic elements. Read
28:1826.
Rogers, Mendall. 1992. Pioneering with the Multi-Strategy method. An Information Bulletin
for Literacy Workers of the Cameroon/Chad Branch 2:12.
Ruddell, Robert B. 1969. Psycholinguistic implications for a system of communication model.
In Kenneth S. Goodman and James T. Fleming (editors), Psycholinguistics and the
teaching of reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Ruddell, Robert B., and H. G. Bacon. 1972. The nature of reading: Language and meaning. In
Richard E. Hodges and E. Hugh Rudorf (editors), What teachers should know about
language. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Ruddell, Robert B., and Robert Speaker, Jr. 1985. The interactive reading process: A model. In
Harry Singer and Robert B. Ruddell (editors), Theoretical models and processes of
reading. 3rd edition. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Rumelhart, David E. 1977. Toward an interactive model of reading. In Stanislav Dornic
(editor), Attention and Performance 6. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rumelhart, David E. 1980. Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In Rand C. Spiro,
Bertrand C. Bruce, and William F. Brewer (editors), Theoretical issues in reading
comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial
intelligence, and education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Samuels, S. Jay, and Michael L. Kamil. 1984. Models of the reading process. In P. David
Pearson (editor), Handbook of reading research. New York, NY: Longman.
Scribner, Sylvia, and Michael Cole. 1981. The psychology of literacy. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Schickedanz, Judith A. 1990. The jury is still out on the effects of Whole Language and
Language Experience approaches for beginning reading: A critique of Stahl and Millers
study. Review of Educational Research 60:127131.
Schindlbeck, Markus. 1984. Tradition and change in Kwanga villages. Paper prepared for the
Wenner-Glen Foundation for Anthropological Research, International Symposium 95.
Basel, Switzerland. Unpublished manuscript.
Sheridan, Sally. 1986. Reading acquisition vs. reading learning. The Reading Teacher 39:500
503.
274 References


Shuy, Roger W. 1975. Pragmatics: Still another contribution of linguistics to reading. In
Sandra S. Smiley and John C. Towner (editors), Learning: Language and reading. Sixth
Western Symposium, Western Washington State College.
Simpson, Stephen. 1988. Incorporating the story book track in the East New Britain Pre-school
program. Read 23:1923.
Singer, Harry. 1985a. A century of landmarks in reading research. In Harry Singer and Robert
B. Ruddell (editors), Theoretical models and processes of reading. 3rd edition. Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
Singer, Harry. 1985b. Hypotheses on reading comprehension in search of classroom
validation. In Harry Singer and Robert B. Ruddell (editors), Theoretical models and
processes of reading. 3rd edition. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Smith, Frank. 1971. Understanding reading. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Smith, Frank. 1975. The role of prediction in reading. Elementary English (Language Arts)
52:305311.
Smith, Frank. 1978. Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, Frank. 1979. Conflicting approaches to reading research and instruction. In Lauren B.
Resnick and Phyllis A. Weaver (editors), Theory and Practice of Early Reading 2.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Smith, Frank. 1982. Understanding reading. 3rd edition. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston.
Stahl, Steve A. 1990. Riding the pendulum: A rejoinder to Schickedanz and McGee and
Lomax. Review of Educational Research 60:141151.
Stahl, Steven A., and Patricia D. Miller. 1989. Whole Language and Language Experience
approaches for beginning reading: A quantitative research synthesis. Review of
Educational Research 59:87116.
Stanovich, Keith E. 1980. Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences
in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly 16:3271.
Stanovich, Keith E. 1984. The interactive-compensatory model of reading: A confluence of
developmental, experimental, and educational psychology. Remedial and Special
Education 5:1119.
Stanovich, Keith E. 1986. Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual
differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly 21:360407.
Stanovich, Keith E. 1991a. Cognitive science meets beginning reading. American
Psychological Science 2:7081.
Stanovich, Keith E. 1991b. Word recognition: Changing perspectives. In Rebecca Barr,
Michael L. Kamil, and Peter B. Mosenthal (editors), Handbook of Reading Research
2:418452. New York, NY: Longman Publishing Group.
Stanovich, Keith E., Anne E. Cunningham, and Barbara B. Cramer. 1984. Assessing
phonological awareness in kindergarten children: Issues of task comparability. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology 38:175190.
References 275


Sticht, Thomas G., and Barbara A. McDonald. 1992. Teaching adults to read. In S. Jay
Samuels and Alan E. Farstrup (editors), What research has to say about reading
instruction. 2nd edition. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Stotsky, Sandra. 1987. A comparison of the two theories about development in written
language: Implications for pedagogy and research. In Rosalind Horowitz and S. Jay
Samuels (editors), Comprehending oral and written language. London: Academic Press.
Street, Brian V. 1984. Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Street, Joanna C., and Brian V. Street. 1991. The schooling of literacy. In David Barton and
Roz Ivanic (editors), Writing in the community. London: Sage.
Stringer, Mary D. 1982. The effect of disyllabic units in teaching oral/aural discrimination in
pre-reading. Read 17:1921.
Stringer, Mary D. 1983. Cognitive development and literacy in Papua New Guinea: A study of
the appropriateness of the Gudschinsky method for teaching young children to read.
Unpublished MA thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Stringer, Mary D. 1985. Matching reading methods to traditional learning contexts in Papua
New Guinea. In Michael Crossley, Joseph Sukwianomb, and Sheldon Weeks (editors),
Pacific perspectives on non-formal education. Suva, Fiji: Institute of Pacific Studies of
the University of the South Pacific and Waigani, Papua New Guinea: University of Papua
New Guinea Press.
Stringer, Mary D. 1987a. The Multi-Strategy method used for pre-school literacy in the Enga
Province. Read 22:39.
Stringer, Mary D. 1987b. Pre-school literacy in the Enga Province using the Multi-Strategy
method. Port Moresby, PNG: Division of Education Research. The National Research
Institute.
Stringer, Mary D. 1988. Can adults learn to read using the Multi-Strategy method? Read
23:1018.
Stringer, Mary D. 1990. Culturally appropriate literacy for rural children in Papua New Guinea
using a dual approach. In John Howell, A. McNamara, and M. Clough (editors), Social
context of literacy. Selected Papers from the 15th Australian Reading Association
Conference. Canberra, ACT: ACT Department of Education.
Stringer, Mary D. 1992a. How does the Multi-Strategy method fit? Read 27:1120.
Stringer, Mary D. 1992b. What is the Multi-Strategy method? Notes on Literacy 18:116.
Stringer, Mary D. 1993. Community involvement in Multi-Strategy literacy. Read 28:1017.
Stringer, Mary D., and Nicholas G. Faraclas. 1987. Working together for literacy. A guidebook
for local language literacy programs. Wewak, Papua New Guinea: Christian Books
Melanesia.
Stringer, Mary D., and Joice Franklin (editors). 1980. Reports on vernacular literacy
programmes conducted by the Summer Institute of Linguistics in Papua New Guinea.
Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Workpapers in Papua
New Guinea Languages 28.
276 References


Stringer, Mary D., and Joyce M. Hotz. 1966. Kua kaanaa: Primers 15. Ukarumpa, Papua New
Guinea: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Summer Institute of Linguistics Literacy Section. 1990. Towards a branch literacy strategy for
PNG. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Unpublished
manuscript.
Sweller, John. 1990. Cognitive processes and instructional procedures. Australian Journal of
Education 34:125130.
Szwed, John F. 1982. The ethnography of literacy. In Marcia F. Whiteman (editor), Variation
in writing: Functional and linguistic-cultural differences. Writing: The nature,
development, and teaching of written communication. Series 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Thorndike, Edward. 1917. Reading as reasoning: A study of mistakes in paragraph reading.
Journal of Educational Psychology 8:77110.
Tierney, Robert J., and P. David Pearson. 1981. Learning to learn from text: A framework for
including classroom practice. ERIC 205 917.
Tierney, Robert J., and P. David Pearson. 1983. Toward a composing model of reading.
Language Arts 60:568580.
UNESCO. 1989. APPEAL Training material for literacy personnel (ALTP). Bangkok, Thailand:
UNESCO-Principal Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.
van Dyken, Julia R. 1984. What teachers should know about language: An assessment of in-
service training needs of reading acquisition teachers in Southern Sudan using the
Gudschinsky literacy method. Unpublished manuscript. Ph.D. thesis, Indiana University.
Verhoeven, Ludo. 1994a. Functional literacy: Theoretical issues and educational implications.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Verhoeven, Ludo. 1994b. Modeling and promoting functional literacy. In Ludo Verhoeven
(editor), Functional literacy: Theoretical issues and educational implications.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vreeland, Ruth. 1986. Where there is no teachers guide. Read 21:2932.
Wagner, Daniel A. 1987. Literacy futures: Five common problems from industrialized and
developing countries. In Daniel A. Wagner (editor), The future of literacy in a changing
world. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Wagner, Daniel A. 1990. Whos a literate? Assessment issues in a global perspective.
Psychology and Developing Societies 2:515.
Watson, Alan. J., and Anne M. Badenhop (editors). 1992. Prevention of reading failure. Sydney,
NSW: Ashton Scholastic.
Wendell, Margaret M. 1982. Bootstrap literature: Preliterate societies do it themselves. Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
Whipp, Joan. 1994. Teaching phonemic awareness skills in the classroom. Special Education
Perspectives 3:1320.
References 277


Wille, Cornelius, and B. Fiala. 1992. Enriched language: A wholistic approach to beginning
reading. In Alan J. Watson and Anne M. Badenhop (editors), Prevention of reading
failure. Sydney, NSW: Ashton Scholastic.
Witkin, Herman A. 1978. Cognitive styles in personal and cultural adaptation. Worcester, MA:
Clark University Press.