11 _There was no relationship between self-ratings of learners and reading scores._ There was also no relationship between learners' evaluation of their own reading skills, reported reading frequency, and reading performance on the paper and pencil tests (Appendix 2, Table I1). It would have been expected for literates to have some insight about how well they were reading. This lack of relationship brings into question the validity of self-ratings of competence among literacy programs that use them, such as REFLECT. Similarly, a sample of learners tested in Bangladesh after course completion showed 92 percent pass, but a later retest showed only 32.3 percent of learners passing. Nevertheless, a tracer study of the same population using self-reports found that 85 percent of participants still wrote from time to time and 97 percent still read two years after program completion.<sup>6</sup>

> It was noted that learners who had attended the rapid reading courses tended to rate themselves as better readers. It is possible that the lively reading activities promoted by this method created **in** the minds of the participants illusions of competence or comprehension, which are known

> to happen when learners are exposed to dynamic teachers and challenging learming events.<sup>7</sup>

About 135 graduates were interviewed and retested in May 2002, but time and funding did not permit reliable research. Most had not had anything to read for the previous year. Several had forgotten individual consonants and could read with difficulty. They did remember numbers.and still could do phonological awareness exercises. Many expressed pleasure at the rapid reading and phonological exercises and some went again to the literacy class hoping that the new methods would be again applied. Given the informal observation conditions, it was not possible to estimate the incidence of relapse into illiteracy. Due to the short duration of the classes (34 months) learners apparently did not receive sufficient practice to consolidate skills for the long term.

# **Discussion**

The findings indicate that even with the short literacy class duration and the vanous test admmistration problems in the field, effects could be discerned for both cognitive methods that were tried out. The alternative hypotheses that these two methods improve reading scores above those of control classes using "traditional" method were accepted. The research team recommended to the National Literacy Institute that these methods be adopted, and teacher training videotapes were made available to the agency.

The results of the reported research are best viewed as a pilot effort that demonstrates the potential benefit of weaving aspects of modern reading instruction into the fabric of traditional adult literacy training in developing countries. The treatments evaluated in the project were mostly "addons" to traditional procedures rather than tightly integrated instructional methods. Even so, the learners receiving the supplemented instruction outperformed their control school counterparts.

Possibly some of the effects of rapid reading may be due to the increased engagement and time on task that this method requires. Instead of learners watching others read inactively, they were engaged in reading with their partners much of the time. If new methods were coupled with increased time on task, literacy outcomes might be even more beneficial. Future research should evaluate this expectation. It should also move beyond techniques targeted solely at low-level reading skills. It should evaluate reading comprehension methods that have proved effective **in** developed countries. Instruction that moves from phonological awareness training, to rapid processing of syllables, words, 6. Ahmad and Lohani 2001.

7. Bjork 1994, _1999._