DFID experience of adult literacy

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0738-0593/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.ije

$This paper

official recognit

some now or fo

responsible for

may help to exp

An initial draft

into literacy co

meet the requ

experience in l

‘‘What Third W

adult literacy in

this draft was c

contributions.

personal view. I

could find avai

individual enqu

direct experienc

to be provision

E-mail addr

International Journal of Educational Development 26 (2006) 339–346

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedudev

DFID experience of adult literacy$

A. Rogers

School of Education and Professional Studies, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

The UK government Department for Interna-tional Development (DFID, formerly the OverseasDevelopment Administration, ODA) has in therecent past been recognised as one of the leadingdonor agencies for literacy. This reputation hasbeen built up over many years by pioneeringprojects and programmes in many parts of theworld, but it appears that currently adult literacy isno longer a priority for DFID, although it remainsa key part of the Education for All strategy(Convergence 2004) and remains an aspiration of

e front matter r 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

dudev.2005.07.017

is a personal statement and does not carry any

ion. I have sought the help of others including

rmerly inside DFID, but they are not in any way

any statement in this paper.The background

lain the nature of the paper and its limitations.

was prepared as part of a DFID consultancy

mmunication and development programmes to

irement to ‘‘take into consideration DFID’s

iteracy’’. Following a NRDC conference on

orld literacy experience could contribute to

the UK’’ held at Lancaster in December 2003,

irculated and resulted in several further valuable

Nevertheless, the paper remains a partial and

t is based on a review of as much material as I

lable in the public domain, several interviews,

iries (many of which failed to yield fruit), and

e of some of the activities listed. It must be held

al; a more in-depth study would pay dividends.

ess: [email protected].

many recipient countries. The key problem forDFID would seem to be its reluctance to focus onsuch areas as adult literacy and its failure to learnfrom the wide range of experience its projects andprogramme accumulated and to disseminate thatexperience to its current staff located in manycountries. This paper seeks to review some of thisexperience and to suggest ways in which DFIDmight build on it to move further ahead in thisparticular field while maintaining its other educa-tional commitments.It has been suggested (COLLIT, 2004) that there

is a fault line in adult literacy in the context ofdeveloping societies between those who see literacyas an educational activity and those who see it as adirect developmental activity. DFID or its pre-decessor ODA took a step some years ago to movefrom the developmental model to an educationalmodel: for several years, adult literacy in develop-ing society contexts was located within that part ofODA that dealt with social development butduring the 1980s, it was transferred to the sectiondealing with education1. ODA formerly had aDevelopment Communications Support Unit

1It will be suggested below that more recent attempts to

revive the developmental model by concentrating on literacy

and livelihoods now look as if they have been only very short-

lived.

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedudev

ARTICLE IN PRESS

A. Rogers / International Journal of Educational Development 26 (2006) 339–346340

which raised awareness of the importance of non-literate communications in development, but Ihave been unable to access an evaluation of thework of that unit. Apart from that, until veryrecently, DFID experience has been concentratedon the ‘education’ approach to adult literacylearning, the provision of adult literacy classesaimed at helping adults to gain access to further/continuing education usually connected withequivalency standards.

Over the last 20 or so years, ODA and DFIDaccumulated a great deal of experience of adultliteracy activities. In reviewing this experience, Ihave divided the experience into three sections.

(a)
programmes which DFID directly funded andran in association with local agencies andconsultants.
(b)
programmes which DFID supported in wholeor in part but which were managed by otheragencies.
(c)
research activities.
This division is my own and others may notmake such a distinction. But it seems valid to me.

1. Direct programmes

Kenya 1980s: ODA participated substantially inthe new National Adult Literacy Programme ofKenya, including the provision of motor cycles forfield level workers. The campaign appeared tohave spectacular successes at first but then fadedfast, and within a short time none of the motorcycles was found to be working. The Kenyagovernment made no provision for their main-tenance or replacement in due course. Theexperience deterred ODA from engaging in na-tional adult literacy campaigns for several yearsalthough support for some small scale interven-tions continued (Macharia pers comm). During aproject identification consultancy in 1993, Kenyagovernment officials asked for more motor cycles,but the DFID staff decided to focus on girls’secondary education rather than adult literacy.

Ghana 1990s (Street pers comm; Yates, 1995):This programme specifically set out to work in 15

local languages rather than in one of the nationallanguages. The key lesson seems to have been thatmaterial initially prepared in workshops in Englishor one other major language cannot easily betransferred into appropriate material in anotherlanguage for a different cultural group simply bytranslation and cultural adaptation, for it willreflect the culture of the region in which it isprepared (e.g. material prepared in Accra, evenwhen translated into a different language, reflectedthe culture of the capital rather than the smallermarket towns or more remote rural, pastoral orfishing cultures). Locally or learner-generatedmaterials (LGM) would appear to be a moreeffective way forward (this lesson was successfullyapplied to agricultural development, see Carter,1999). Diversity rather than uniformity is thelesson which the DFID Ghana project seems tooffer.

Nigeria 1990s (McCaffrey pers comm; Omolewapers comm; Digby Swift pers comm; Nigeria,2002). DFID supported a community-focusedadult literacy programme as part of the NigeriaCommunity Education Programme in south-eastand north-east Nigeria (including nomadic clans);each project was located in a different and distinctcultural and linguistic context with very differentprevious experiences of education. The pro-gramme drew on past experience of literacyprogrammes, the theories of New Literacy Studiesand the REFLECT approach then being trialled(Cottingham and Archer, 1996). The people whoattended the literacy classes determined the curri-culum so that it addressed the literacy andnumeracy skills they required in everyday life intheir communities. This was achieved by discus-sion and dialogue between participants and facil-itators through a nine stage process ofidentification of needs, prioritisation of goals,identification and development of materials. Themost important lessons from the adult literacyelement in the Nigeria Community EducationProgramme can be summarised from its report,although this was written by internal consultantsto the project, not by an external evaluation team:

‘‘The Community Education Programme wasparticularly successful in linking adult education

ARTICLE IN PRESS

A. Rogers / International Journal of Educational Development 26 (2006) 339–346 341

to community development. This was becausethe methods used to teach adults were rooted inthe communities’ needs.

The traditional method of teaching literacy is tohave a standard textbook containing vocabu-lary and content considered suitable by outsideexperts. The adult literacy instructors thenprogress through the textbook until the classis able to memorise the words in it. In theCommunity Education Programme, instructorswere trained in a completely different methodknown as Learner Oriented Community AdultLiteracy (LOCAL). When they used the LO-CAL method, they found that most of theirstudents learned to read very quickly.

Facilitators were asked to identify what theparticipants needed literacy for and to bringmaterials related to these needs into the class-room. Materials included voter cards, hospitalcards, driving licences, birth certificates, receiptsand other material used in daily life. These aresometimes termed ‘real materials’.

The LOCAL approach [also] draws on thecultural traditions of the communities. It usesthe actual words of the learner, who reports alife experience, tells a story or relates a piece oflocal history. The instructor writes the wordsdown and the learner reads them back’’(Nigeria, 2002).

In six languages 76 small books written byparticipants and facilitators were published. Thekey lay in the recruitment, training and support oflocal adult literacy facilitators. The objective wasto develop the expertise and the training ofnational facilitators and subsequently local facil-itators who would be able to continue training andsupporting facilitators after the period of theproject ended. In addition, training was providedfor key local facilitators on the production oflearner-generated materials and on monitoringand evaluation. Once again diversity and partici-patory approaches led to a more successfulprogramme of adult literacy learning.

Nepal 1997–2003 (pers comms; CLPN news-letters and reports): The DFID-supported Nepalliteracy programme has developed what has beencalled the Community Literacies Approach. This

approach was inspired by the fact that traditionaladult literacy programmes were not concerned withwhether the literacy skills were being used but onlywith whether they had been learned as shown by atest at the end of the learning programme. Inassociation with a local NGO (World EducationNepal), a resource centre was created and sup-ported for 5 years and a diversified programme ofactivities in conjunction with different bodies andagencies was developed. The aim of the Commu-nity Literacies Project in Nepal (CLPN) was toincrease the use of literacy in the community. Theproject was clear that there are many localliteracies rather than one literacy. CLPN thusworked with a relatively small number of differentbodies seeking to enhance the literacy componentin their work—for example credit and savingsgroups. In some cases, there was no literacyinstructor, nor any ‘‘teaching–learning materials’’;the work involved building up and spreading theliteracy activities of the group to all of its members.One example of the work of this project was the

insertion of literacy development into the existingactivities of the new Forest Users Groups, groupsof local residents (literate and non-literate alike)which were being established by the NepaleseGovernment in association with internationaldevelopment agencies in an attempt to conserveforests and utilise them more effectively with localcommunity participation. Equally, literacy ele-ments have been included in legal literacy pro-grammes. The programme is regarded as havingbeen very successful and innovative and it has ahigh international reputation, but it is not clearhow far it has changed the dominant practice ofliteracy teaching inside Nepal. One issue which thisapproach to the development and spread ofliteracy through the community raised is how tomeasure the impact of the project in literacy termswhich the donors and government agencies (forexample, the Ministry of Education’s Bureau ofNon-Formal Education) involved in the CLPNexpected rather than in terms of forestry enhance-ment or the increased awareness of legal rights orin other developmental terms (CLPN; Kevin Lillispers comm; Maddox pers comm).

Literacy for Livelihoods (publications and re-ports): It was in one sense out of the CLPN that

ARTICLE IN PRESS


the literacy for livelihoods approach emerged in asearch to link literacy with poverty reduction. Thiswas first articulated at a ground-breaking regionalconference held by DFID in December 2000 inKathmandu (DFID Nepal, 2000) and subse-quently in a series of seminars and workshopsand reports (CLPN, 2001a, b; DFID Nepal, 2001,2002). In March 2002, DFID brought out abriefing paper on Literacy for Poverty Reduction(DFID, 2002). The paper is keenly aware thatliteracy needs to be seen not as a uniform set ofskills but as multiple and life- (or livelihood-)related. Again, a one-size-fits-all approach is seennot to be effective with adults. It draws togetheradult learning principles with literacy lessons tooffer guidance for future programmes.

India 2003: Despite the Government of India’sacceptance of the fact that the Total LiteracyCampaign to India is ended and a concentrationon post-literacy and continuing education as themajor concern of the day, there is an awarenessthat further provision for adult literacy learning isneeded. DFID assisted with the planning of a largeliteracy programme to be launched in four statesof India. Each state was helped to design its ownformat for a literacy learning programme, takinginto account a livelihoods approach. The contractto assist them to design the programme wasawarded to the National Council for AppliedEconomic Research with substantial experience oftraining and development programmes for smallenterprises rather than to an educational agency,an indication of DFID-India’s intention to breakaway from the ‘literacy as education’ model into aliteracy for livelihoods approach. The resultseemed to be a hybrid form of programme, butall the four states became committed to abandonthe ‘one-size-fits-all’ kind of literacy learningprogramme and to develop a demand-led widerange of different learning programmes withdifferent formats of instruction, different trainingof trainers’ programmes, and different teachin-g–learning materials to meet the very variedliteracy needs to be found within each area(Sudarshan pers comm; Sinha pers comm).

Egypt 2000–2004 (Oxenham and Hamed, 2005;Juliet Millican, Dona Williams, Brian Street,Hamdi Qenawi, Aisha Sabri, pers.comm.; reports

of workshops): The literacy programme was firstidentified during two consultancies to Egypt in1993–1994 at a time when the Egyptian govern-ment was launching its new General Authority onLiteracy and Adult Education (GALAE) but theCELL (Capacity Enhancement for Lifelong Lit-eracy) programme was not launched for someyears after that. DFID has been supporting agovernment-run agency for developing the curri-culum and teaching–learning materials for anation-wide programme by concentrating on tutortraining in two areas of Egypt. One aspect whichseems to have been developed is the use of ‘‘realtexts’’ as in Nigeria for teaching and learningliteracy, and the encouragement of story-telling bythe participants as providing texts for literacylearning. Again there seems to be an intention todevelop a diversity of programmes. A recentevaluation suggested that ‘‘its combination ofcommunity participation, a curriculum derivedfrom local interests and independent of a standardprimer, ‘‘active’’ learning methods, good trainingand close support was more effective than thenational programme’s reliance on individual in-itiative and a standard curriculum embodied in asingle set of literacy primers, unsupported bysystematic training and regular follow-up super-vision. As regards cost-effectiveness, the first cycleof implementation showed that costs per successfulgraduate were twice as high for the experimentalproject as for the national project’’—which mayindicate that success cannot be achieved without asatisfactory level of investment. I would howeverpoint out that no reports which may be cited havebeen issued by CELL, only small scale reports ofindividual activities. This is symptomatic of manyDFID literacy activities. Reports on activities suchas training workshops and consultancies are notwidely shared and are not built upon by succeed-ing activities; and no overall report of CELL hasbeen produced by the programme itself and madeavailable.

South Africa: Perhaps the strongest influence tobe felt on DFID most recently is South Africa.Several projects have been supported by theBritish Council and DFID in that country,including two major developments in recent yearswhich are influencing policy and practice in adult

ARTICLE IN PRESS


literacy and basic education not only in the regionbut internationally:

(a)
The Social Uses of Literacy Project (Prinslooand Breier, 1996): The clearest conclusionfrom this large-scale research and developmentprogramme was that different people anddifferent groups have different literacy activ-ities (tasks and needs): for example, the literacyactivities of taxidrivers are quite specific to thatlivelihood. Secondly, that learning literacyskills on its own will not necessarily lead toempowerment: women who developed literacywere often still confined to traditional workroles or low pay; something more is needed.The implications for adult learning pro-grammes have been drawn out from thesestudies into a concern for starting where theparticipants are, with their concerns, andmoving beyond these into wider issues ofsocio-cultural development. As with the Nepalproject, however, the impact of these studieson the ground would seem to have been morelimited than their circulation internationally(Lillis pers comm).
(b)
Muthande Project (Older People’s Literacy):This project in association with Help the Agedprovided literacy learning opportunities to anon-traditional adult group, older persons;and it concentrated on some of the immediateliteracy tasks which the participants wished toundertake, such as letter writing. But onceagain no formal report is available andenquiries have failed to provide informationas to the key lessons learned. Incidentalinformation indicates that important experi-ence was gained from this programme, espe-cially relating to multi-lingual literacy learningand developing learning programmes relevantto the immediate concerns of the particulargroups involved. In particular, adult learningtheory was apparently employed in this pro-ject.
(c)
The UNISA-SANLI Programme: SANLI (theSouth Africa National Literacy Initiative) is aprogramme on a very large scale. It standsnear the centre of the continuum between theeducational model and the livelihoods model.
Thus part of the programme consists of acommon literacy learning programme; it em-ploys examinations and qualifications ofequivalency with formal schooling. But it hasdrawn major elements from the literacy forlivelihoods model within it. Thus it adopts adiversified and contextualised approach inwhich the participants along with their literacyteachers play a part in determining the kinds ofactivity and learning they engage in and thekinds of texts they work with. Here the uniquecharacteristics of the South African situationneed to be taken into consideration—theclimate of ‘‘newness’’ which is lacking in othercountries; the size of the issue of creatinglearning programmes for huge swathes of theadult population denied access to schoolingthrough apartheid; the willingness to takelong-term planning of adult learning seriously,etc. Among the key elements of this pro-gramme identified by the organisers are thefollowing:

�
In UNISA, SANLI has a strong basis in aparastatal agency and it therefore adopts arelatively flexible approach while at the sametime maintaining a strong EMIS data collection. � Because of this non-governmental feature, a
strong sense of commitment can be seenthroughout all levels of the programme whichit is believed can be maintained as the pro-gramme gets to scale.
� Adult Basic Education and Training (ABET) is
not envisaged as a short-term campaign to ‘mopup’ the problem but as a long-term and on-going strategy to develop adult continuing andlifelong education. So the literacy instructorshave a potential career in adult basic educationof several years of employment unlike mostother countries where adult literacy learningprogrammes stand divorced from further con-tinuing or basic education programmes.
� Probably the most important and innovative
element in this programme is the DFID-supported UNISA-based programme of pre-service training of the literacy instructors. Thisis longer and much more intensive than in allother countries, even though many of the

ARTICLE IN PRESS


trainees are already of a higher educationalattainment level than literacy facilitators inmost other countries—for SANLI is able tomake higher requirements for its literacy facil-itators than most other national programmes.This training of trainers uses distance learningmethodologies and consists of an initial 1-yearcourse leading to certification followed by on-going support, provided by UNISA on acascade model. No other country has been ableto work on a basis of long-term pre-servicetraining of literacy facilitators for long-termemployment, although most countries haveacknowledged that the short- term nature ofthe training programmes for the difficult task ofhelping adults to learn literacy has been one ofthe major weaknesses of their own programmes.However, more literacy instructors have beentrained than have been able to obtain employ-ment in adult literacy programmes.
� This training seeks to equip the literacy teachers
both to use the common literacy textbook andalso to supplement this with other texts drawnfrom the immediate locality which the teacherslearn how to survey; so that learning groups areencouraged to use many texts, not just theliteracy primer.
� The instructors are also trained in the encour-
agement of the learning groups to engage inother developmental activities of their ownchoice, so that the range of activities in anyone area is very wide and demand led.
� The flexibility required to manage such a system is
provided by a strong sense of partnership betweenUNISA, DFID-South Africa and SANLI.

DFID’s inputs to this programme (apart fromfunding) seems to have been relatively small, forthe approach of linking adult literacy learning withABET pre-dated DFID’s assistance. The discourseof livelihoods however seems to have come fromDFID (UNISA reports; McKay pers comm;Payne pers comm).

There has been other assistance by DFID toliteracy in South Africa such as the North Cape

Adult Basic Education and Training (ABET)

programme but detailed information on the out-comes of that is not available.

2. Assistance with programmes largely run by other

agencies

At least two major programmes have beenassisted by DFID

REFLECT: This began with support to thePRA, Literacy and Empowerment project1993–1995 in Uganda, Bangladesh and El Salva-dor, which piloted the use of PRA for literacylearning in three different contexts. This led to thedevelopment of the Reflect approach. Groups areformed or existing groups adopted, PRA is usedwith them to identify their local communitydevelopment goals, literacy learning is providedfor those in the group who express the need for it,using not a textbook (primer) but flashcards withwords chosen from the development tasks beingundertaken. This programme has been furtherrefined and manuals have been produced; it hasspread to many countries and regions. Several ofthe learning/development groups do not proceedto literacy learning, preferring to concentrate onother developmental tasks; and the transfer of theliteracy learning into regular daily use is notalways apparent. DFID assisted the publication ofthe action research report on Reflect in 1996 as anODA education paper (DFID, 1996). DFID hasalso provided support to scale up Reflect inBangladesh in two phases since 1997, and thiswould seem to be ongoing. DFID is also providingthe support for work linking Reflect and Informa-tion Communication Technologies in India, Ugan-da and Burundi from 2003–2005. The key lessonfrom Reflect seems to be that starting with thepriorities of the learning group (which may notinclude literacy learning among their main goals)and using participatory approaches can lead tolocally owned development activities.

COLLIT: From 1999 to 2002, DFID helped tofund a second project linking literacy with com-munication technologies in India and Zambiathrough the Commonwealth of Learning and localagencies; thus for example, in India, the IndiraGandhi National Open University and the M SSwaminathan Foundation have been involvedwith two State Resource Centres. The report onthe website (COLLIT) indicates substantial andsomewhat unexpected results (e.g. local groups

ARTICLE IN PRESS


used ICT for many different purposes not origin-ally envisaged) but the precarious nature of thefunding means that such innovations can rarely besustained.

Other forms of assistance have also beenundertaken:

Global Monitoring Report of UNESCO: DFIDhas been assisting with this, and it is hoped thatthe experience gained by DFID will feed into theGlobal Monitoring Report of 2005 on literacyeducation.

LAMP: More recently DFID has becomeinterested in supporting the UNESCO Instituteof Statistics in their search for better forms ofmeasuring literacy and literacy learning throughthe LAMP Project.

UPPINGHAM SEMINARS: DFID supportedtwo major seminars in this series, one on Literacyand Livelihoods (2000) and the other on Measur-ing Literacy (2003). The reports of these are on theUppingham Seminars website. It is hoped thatsome follow up activities will develop from thesecond of these, including a DFID Seminar.

3. Research

DFID has commissioned several pieces ofresearch on literacy. Among these are the follow-ing:

A technical note on women’s literacy developedin 1991. This important paper sprang out of alinking between the literacy and gender sections ofODA (ODA, 1991).

Two reports on post-literacy 1994 and 1999:

Local requests to DFID to fund the printing ofpost-literacy materials such as ‘‘easy readers’’ foradults led to research that suggested such ap-proaches compartmentalised literacy apart fromdaily life. The key aim of all literacy learning wasto help the literacy learners to use literacy in theireveryday life, so post-literacy would seem to bemore effective if it concentrated on the existingand new uses of literacy in the immediate contextof the literacy learners (DFID, 1994 and DFID,1999).

DFID also contributed to the support for longterm research on Reflect in Uganda and Bangla-desh. This was published by DFID (DFID, 2003).

One final note needs to be added. DFID inLondon has been promoting a series of Seminars

at which research and practice can be discussed.These have been most valuable. But they are notwidely known, they are not capitalised upon andtheir findings are not published.

4. Conclusions

Several points stand out from this survey.The first is that this survey is only partial. There

are other DFID-supported programmes and pro-jects which include adult literacy in them whichhave not been identified. There are many individualconsultancies examining adult literacy as a possiblefield of assistance which do not result in activeassistance, such as a Malawi consultancy in 2003;these reports remain hidden from view. It would be

valuable if DFID would commission a more com-

prehensive survey than this superficial overview.But what is clear is that ODA/DFID has in fact

built up a wide range of experience over many yearsin the area of adult literacy, probably one of thelargest among donor bodies (IIZ-DVV has workedin adult literacy for many years and publishes widelyin this field; SIDA too has much experience and hasconsolidated its experience with several full-time staffemployed solely on literacy (often with a stronggender component) and a strong publishing tradi-tion; and CIDA too has a high reputation for adultliteracy). It is also noticeable that DFID is perceivedby other countries as being in a leadership role in thissector. For example, DFID was the only bilateralagency invited to speak on adult literacy at theEducation for All (EFA) Working group meeting inParis in 2003. Some staff appear to be supportive ofthe current NGO challenges to the World Bank’sreduction of Education for All to Universal PrimaryEducation, and it is reported that DFID assisted inthe opening up of the Fast Track Initiative to EFAinvestments as achieved in the Oslo Donor Con-sortium meeting in November of 2003. There is asolid basis of interest, extensive experience andsubstantial concern to be built upon, if DFIDwished to play a leadership role in adult literacy.There is also considerable interest in literacy as a

part of development. For example, it is reportedthat the research reports on literacy are amongst

ARTICLE IN PRESS


the most requested of the research reports to beissued. They have contributed to DFID’s reputa-tion in this field.

However there are many signs of the loss ofinstitutional memory, especially since the experi-ence gained in one country or region is notdisseminated to other countries or regions. Fewof the above programmes have published criticalreports indicating the lessons (both positive andnegative) to be learned. Earlier reports are notmade available to subsequent consultancies. Andthere is no centre inside DFID where suchcollective memory can be stored—unlike thelivelihoods section of DFID. And this means thereis little critical reflection on the gains from all thisexperience. For example, some DFID projectshave acquired considerable international exposurefar beyond their impact on the ground in thecountries or regions in which they are located.Such assessments can only be taken by a focalpoint which brings together the very valuableexperience gained over so many years.

It would therefore seem useful if DFID couldinstigate a comprehensive review of its pro-grammes rather than this partial and impressio-nistic one and publish its findings as a majorresearch report. And to maintain the momentum,it would be useful if DFID could create eitherwithin itself or in association with another body afocal point where the experience gained fromliteracy in development can be accumulated,reviewed and made available both to its own staffand to others.

References

Carter Isabel, 1999. Locally generated printed materials in

agriculture: experience from Uganda and Ghana, DFID

Research Report 31.

CLPN, 2001a. Literacy across the sectors conference report,

Kathmandu: World Education, Nepal.

CLPN, 2001b. Community Literacies: Newsletter 4. CLPN,

Kathmandu.

CLPN Nepal, Papers and newsletters of DFID Community

Literacy Project, Nepal.

COLLIT, see website http://www.col.org./literacy.html.

COLLIT, 2004. ICT and Literacy: who benefits? Experience

from Zambuia and India. In: Farrell, G.M. (Ed.), Vancou-

ver: Commonwealth of Learning.

Convergence 2004. Education for All: putting adults back in the

frame. Convergence 37 (3) (Special issue).

Cottingham, S., Archer, D., 1996. Mother manual for

REFLECT London, Action Aid.

DFID, 1994. Using Literacy: a new approach to post-literacy

materials, London: DFID Research Report 10.

DFID, 1996. Action Research Report on REFLECT, DFID

Research Report 17.

DFID, 1999. Re-Defining Post-Literacy in a Changing World

London: DFID Research Report 29.

DFID, 2002. Improving livelihoods for the poor: the role of

literacy Background Briefing paper, London, DFID.

DFID, 2003. Literacy, Gender and Social Agency Research

Report.

DFID Nepal, 2000. Literacy for livelihoods: report of

Kathmandu Conference December 2000 Kathmandu:

DFID/CLPN.

DFID Nepal, 2001. Literacy for livelihoods concept paper.

DFID Nepal, 2002: Literacy for livelihoods, Report on a

seminar 2001–2.

Nigeria, 2002. Nigeria Community Education Project, Abuja:

ODA, 1991, Women and Literacy, Technical Note. British

Council.

Oxenham, J., Hamed, M.R., 2005. Lessons from a Project in

Capacity Enhancement for Lifelong Learning (CELL),

Egypt, unpublished paper issued by Social Research Centre,

American University in Cairo.

Prinsloo, M., Breier, M., 1996. Social Uses of Literacy,

Benjamin and Johannesburg, SACHED, Amsterdam.

Yates, R., 1995. Functional literacy and the language question.

International Journal of Educational Development 15 (4),

437–448.

http://www.col.org./literacy.html

Documents

DFID experience of adult literacy