Upload
frances-tay
View
451
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Some writers regard literacy as a technology of the intellect, that it strengthens the power of thought and contributes to the development of human consciousness, and self-understanding. This is a critical analysis article that explores the role literacy plays in promoting consciousness.
Citation preview
Frances Tay McHugh ([email protected]) 1/20
Some writers regard literacy as a technology of the intellect, that it strengthens the
power of thought and contributes to the development of human consciousness, and
self-understanding. Provide a critical evaluation of this statement.
Keywords: Literacy, Language, Skill, Cognitive Processes, Education, Transmission
of Knowledge, Consciousness, Conscientisation, Freire
There is general acceptance that literacy brings about many benefits and empowers. What
is less conclusive are the ways in which literacy does so. Some writers regard literacy as
the technology of the intellect, that it strengthens the power of thought, and contributes to
the development of human consciousness and self-understanding. One can imagine how
this hypothesis may raise contention. It opens a Pandora’s box of difficult questions,
among them: Does being literate promote cognitive processes? If so, does this result in
heightened awareness? Does heightened awareness necessarily imply greater self-
understanding? How does literacy affect such changes; are these changes physiological,
psychological or behavioural in nature? How ‘literate’ does one need to be to set in
motion such developments?
To explore these various dimensions, we must first acknowledge that literacy
occupies multiple dimensions or spaces. As a functional skill, it has been equated with
social status and the opportunity for better employment; as a transformative skill, it has
been seen to promote thinking and habits conducive to continuous learning, and as a
political tool, it is seen to empower and liberate the learner from the oppression of
imposed servitude (Bantock, 1967, Freire, 2004, Kelder, 1996, Oxenham, 2004). At the
Frances Tay McHugh ([email protected]) 2/20
heart of literacy debates remain the over-arching question of what constitutes literacy.
Earlier definitions of literacy, such as “the ability to read and write” (Oxenham, 1980, p.
15), put forward simplistic notions focused on the mastering of the alpha-numeric text.
This promulgated a view of literacy as an autonomous model; a “general, uniform set of
techniques and uses of language, with identifiable stages and clear consequences for
culture and cognition” (Collins, 1995, p. 75). Mass literacy campaigns, like those
promoted in the Third World under the auspices of organisations such as the World Bank
and UNESCO, lent primacy to the acquisition of language as a development goal in itself.
The promulgation of mass literacy was believed to “equate with overall development”
(Pennycook, 1999).
Mass literacy seemed to offer hope as an avenue in which to play catch-up with
the developed world. It was “expected to produce miracles among the poor – self-esteem,
empowerment, citizenship-building, community organisation, labour skills, income
generation, and even poverty alleviation” (Torres, 2003, p. 141, cited in Oxenham, 2004).
However, the promises of economic and social mobility associated with the acquisition of
literacy did not always eventuate as expected. Benefits accrued were neither uniform nor
universal. As Giroux (1987) cautioned, “literacy neither automatically reveals nor
guarantees social, political, and economic freedom” (p. 11). Royer (1994) and Kelder
(1996), in reviewing the experience of literate black slaves in North America and the
historical evolution of literacy studies respectively, refer to Graff’s use of the term
“literacy myth” (1987, p. 265); and reiterate that historically, how literacy has been
defined and linked to social, economic and political progress, as well as the development
Frances Tay McHugh ([email protected]) 3/20
of cognitive skills, is mired in ambiguity. Hence, its mythical reputation for predicating
almost automatic or magical transformation has proven too narrow and simplistic to
capture the complexities of how literacy is actually acquired and practised.
As such, our exploration of literacy necessitates a broader conception. The
universalist or autonomous model of literacy mentioned above has been eschewed
somewhat; various relativist or situational models have been discussed in its stead in an
attempt to make sense of how literacy is embedded within diverse historical, cultural and
social contexts (Collins, 1995). In effect, we can no longer speak simply about literacy
but acknowledge that there are multiple literacies. The notion of multiple literacies has
come to the fore, fuelled in part by the dynamic changes brought about by globalisation.
As the world grows closer in terms of communication, the complications brought about
by the diversity of languages, the many ways in which people communicate and new
modes of communication have necessitated new literacy concepts. Literacy is no longer
restricted to mastery of the alphabet or numeracy; it “transcends the written word and
other representational texts such as visual art, television, information technologies and
photography…” (Rassool, 1999, p. 50), it encompasses “other forms of cultural
expression which do not use the spoken language” (UNESCO, 1999, p. 2) and includes
localised forms of literacy which reflect “the ‘applied’ nature of the skills” (Oxenham,
2004, p. 1). Literacy is therefore not a decontextualised psychological skill that is static in
nature; instead, “people are continuously modifying established literacy practices,
adapting them to new situations, and, at times, straightforwardly challenging and
sabotaging established literary practices” (Sheridan, Street and Bloome, 2000, p. 5). As a
Frances Tay McHugh ([email protected]) 4/20
result, various expressions of communication beyond that of the oral and written varieties
are now formally recognised to constitute particular forms of literacy (UNESCO, 1999,
2006).
Nevertheless, literacy – regardless of how it is defined – remains a paramount
goal; it continues to underpin the universal human right to education: “it is a right and the
foundation for all learning” (UNESCO, 2006, p. 448). The development of a literate
culture continues to be credited with the empowerment of citizens and with the
development of political, economic, cultural and social infrastructure in nations. As
recently as 2006, the annual UNESCO Education for All Global Monitoring Report
touted the many potential benefits of literacy; among them, improved self-esteem in the
individual, expansion of democracy, preservation of cultural diversity, promotion of
gender equality and economic growth. It is evident then that the shining promises
associated with literacy have not lost their lustre; they continue to exert hope and remain
“fundamental to informed decision-making, personal empowerment, active and passive
participation in (the) local and global social community” (Stromquist, 2005, p. 12). As
literacy remains the cornerstone upon which systems of education are constructed,
discourses about literacy, language and education are rarely examined in isolation. In the
following sections, our inquiry into literacy and its impact on human development will
necessitate the use of the terms ‘literacy’ and ‘education’ interchangeably to reflect this
symbiotic relationship.
Frances Tay McHugh ([email protected]) 5/20
Literacy: a skill or a cognitive process?
The brief examination of the various concepts of literacy above does not lead us any
closer to identifying how literacy may impact upon cognitive skills or greater self-
awareness. However, it does set the scene for our inquiry. For one, it suggests that the
issue of literacy, if viewed at surface level, can be deceptively simple. Secondly, the
various concepts of literacy highlight that literacy is not merely a thing to be acquired, it
is multidimensional and carries far-ranging connotations from communicative
competencies, cultural continuity to power relations.
When we engage with the written word, we are not merely concerned with text
construction, we ascribe multi-layered meanings to what is written and read and in so
doing, the act of writing and reading is at once symbolic, metaphoric and culturally
suggestive. Therefore, the potential impact of literacy on the learner is not confined to the
ability to make out letters or words; for the written and printed word carries within it “a
whole traditional culture of great verbal, emotional, and intellectual complexity”
(Bantock, 1967, p. 20). Hence, acquiring the technique that allows one to comprehend
letters, words, numbers or images is not the ultimate goal.
Method or technique by itself does not promote understanding; the learner
understands only when he actively reflects, questions and assimilates what is learnt. This
dialectical process between the learner and his learning is what informs true learning and
promotes consciousness (Chochol, 1968). Therefore, the process of how literacy is
acquired, developed and applied, the process of becoming literate if you will, is what
Frances Tay McHugh ([email protected]) 6/20
provides insight into the power of literacy on the development of the self. In short, it is
not whether one reads and writes but whether one “understand(s) what one reads and to
write what one understands” (Freire, 1996a, p. 48) that suggests the degree of cognition
or consciousness. And what one does with what one understands is reflective of the
transformative power of literacy, for to “every understanding, sooner or later an action
corresponds. The nature of the action corresponds to the nature of the understanding.
Critical understanding leads to critical action.” (Freire, 1996a, p. 44).
Therefore, in exploring the impact of literacy on the intellect and consciousness,
one must acknowledge that there are two distinct and separate issues at stake. We need to
distinguish between skills, or operational methods or techniques, from cognitive
processes (Scheffler, 1991). Scheffler illustrated this differentiation through the example
of how basic mathematical skills are acquired and applied. He suggested that the ability
to follow a mathematical argument is not derived from acquiring mathematical skills per
se but that it also involved “psychologically significant skills” that are utilised and
required outside of mathematical problem-solving, such as “perceptual, symbolic,
inferential, mnemonic, questioning, strategic and imaginative capacities” (p. 73-76).
Scheffler therefore proposed that while skills can be taught, understanding or cognitive
processes cannot, because “there is no substance to the notion that there must be simple
rules for translating methods or operations into underlying psychological processes” (p.
72). To rephrase this, we can say that how we use our literacy skills may reveal how we
think but our literacy skills in themselves do not determine how we think. In this case,
Frances Tay McHugh ([email protected]) 7/20
skill is separated from the cognitive process; how they may possibly correlate forms the
next section of our inquiry.
Literacy and the cognitive processes
Goody and Watt (1963), for example, have presented that literacy promotes rational
logic. They point to traditional literary societies such as Greek literacy society,
comparing this to traditional oral societies, for evidence of “characteristically analytic,
teleological and relational thinking (p. 341).” Their basis for the supposition that literacy
led to the development of rational logic rested upon their assertion that writing creates a
“different kind of relationship between the word and its referent,” one which created an
objective distance that engendered abstract thinking. It allowed the writer “to objectify
his own experience” (p. 339) and put down his thoughts for posterity and reflexive
analysis. Goody and Watt proposed that through the act of recording, one could engage in
critical analysis in a categorical, abstractive fashion; the past is viewed as distinctly
separate from the present, and thus, is freed from the constraints of the immediacy of
time. In their argument, traditional oral societies lacked in this regard and were therefore
“restricted to (the) impermanency of oral converse” (p.344). In so doing, they argued, a
literate society is “impelled to a much more conscious, comparative and critical attitude
to the accepted world picture” (p. 325).
Goody and Watt’s premise is echoed somewhat by Bantock (1967) who suggested
that to learn to read and write implies “modifications of consciousness” (p. 112) as the
written text afforded one the opportunity to “look forwards and backwards, to ponder and
Frances Tay McHugh ([email protected]) 8/20
repeat…” resulting in the development of cognitive processes which were “sequential”
and “linear.” (p. 119) Bantock proposed that in this way “logic and structure came to
dominate over tone and feeling,” promoting greater introspection or “inwardness,” which
in turn “stimulated extended experience” (p. 120-121). Unlike Goody and Watt however,
Bantock went one step further and linked the cognitive processes to emotion and identity,
suggesting that the ability to read and thus, share (though from a distance) the
experiences of others, forged greater empathy and also created a sense of identity, with
the self and with others. While Bantock was steadfast in his acknowledgement of the
potential benefits of literacy for self-development, he was mindful that literacy, if offered
as a one-size-fits-all prescription, would “induce… a widespread apathy, once the basic
skills of reading and writing have been – often tardily – acquired” (p. 130).
In a scathing rebuttal, Halverson (1992) challenged Goody and Watt’s premise
that literacy develops logical thinking. By presenting several examples, such as the oral
practices inherent in Talmudic scholarship, he proposed that “logical processes do not
require abstraction” (p. 307). In so doing, Halverson refuted the claim that different
mental capacities were required to critically analyse information or order thinking when
dealing in written as opposed to oral form. Halverson argued that literacy skills and
cognitive processes are inter-related but not inter-dependent. His disagreement with
Goody and Watt’s literacy thesis had less to do with their assertion that the writings of
traditional literate societies provided evidence of rational logic; rather, that such
evidentiary proof was offered up as equating to causal proof. In Halverston’s view,
“languages do not think, only individuals do” (p. 314), therefore, just because rational,
Frances Tay McHugh ([email protected]) 9/20
logical and conceptual thinking is evident in the writings of literate societies, it did not
establish prima facie cause for such thinking.
Instead, Halverson asserted that it was “a certain type of schooling, not literacy,
that develops the kind of rationality in question” (p. 312). Collins (1995) cautions
similarly, that it has been the “failing to separate effects of schooling from effects of
literacy” (p. 80) that has resulted in a misconception of literacy’s impact on the cognitive
processes. Therefore, if how literacy is taught, rather than the acquisition of literacy per
se, serves as a catalyst for the development of cognitive processes, it would also stand to
reason that pedagogy is the determining factor to what type of cognitive process is
promoted, practised and rewarded. Whether or not this process extends to increased
cognition or self-awareness is another matter. This further implies that there must be
pedagogies which promote cognition and some which do not. To elaborate on this point
for the purposes of clarity, it is my assertion that cognitive processes inform how a
learner thinks things through but this does not equate to cognition, or awareness of self in
relation to others. That is, how I think is distinct from what I think about in terms of
myself and others.
When Halverson suggested that a ‘kind of rationality’ was promulgated by a
‘certain type of schooling’ he was critiquing primarily Western-schooling environments
which promoted what he termed “modes of Western rationality” (p. 312). In brief, his
contention was that the kind of rational logic prized by Western academics was shaped by
teaching and learning contexts which promoted and rewarded the demonstration of a
particular form of deductive reasoning. As evidence of further proof, he referred to the
Frances Tay McHugh ([email protected]) 10/20
results from the Vai Literacy Project conducted by Scribner and Cole (1981), where
comparisons were made between the performance of Vai subjects who were literate but
who had not received formal schooling to those who had received schooling. It was found
that the amount of schooling exerted the most influence on how students answered logic
problem questions. Therefore, in this case, literacy in itself was determined not to be the
influencing factor in the shaping of rational logic of the kind suggested by Goody and
Watt; rather, it was the learning context.
Education: knowledge transmission or promotion of consciousness?
If whether one is schooled influences one’s cognitive processes, what about those who do
not receive formal schooling? Rather than infer an inferior kind of rational logic or lack
thereof, it should be expected that someone who is unschooled and illiterate would
demonstrate a less standardised and predictable reasoning. Cognitive skills are evident
whether or not one is schooled or literate. Scribner and Cole asserted this when they
wrote:
“The assumption that logicality is in the text and the text is in school can lead to a
serious underestimation of the cognitive skills involved in non-school, non-essay
writing, and reciprocally, to an overestimation of… intellectual skills….”
(Scribner and Cole, 1988, p. 61.)
Frances Tay McHugh ([email protected]) 11/20
Scheffler alluded to the same when he proposed that method or skills should not
be mistaken for the cognitive processes. Therefore, we can surmise that how an
individual expresses reasoning, whether in song, through dance or other forms of
communication apart from reading and writing, is equally demonstrative, evidentiary and
valid. However, reasoning – and by extension consciousness – can be subverted or
expanded depending on whether or not the student is included as the architect of his own
learning. As Shor (1993) advanced, whether a student is allowed to critically examine his
learning, question and reflect upon his experience or interpret his own reality, will
influence his level of consciousness.
Indeed, it has been the contention of many writers that ‘schooled literacy’ often
results in a top-down transfer of standardised knowledge that does little to empower the
individual or promote his consciousness. In such cases, the goal of literacy is not to
promote cognition, raise awareness or allow the identity of the self to emerge, but to
subjugate learners to patterned thoughts and ideas, and by extension, to a bound reality; it
is education that “reproduces the dominant ideology” (Freire and Macedo, 1987, p.38).
An alternate pedagogy, one that empowers, is education that promotes teaching and
learning from the “inside out” (Freire, 1996, p. 48).
Giroux (1987, 1993, 2006) has, on numerous occasions, argued against literacy
which simply offers “transmission and mastery of a unitary Western tradition” (1987, p.
3) and pointed out, rather cynically, that this is a result of collusion between enterprise
and education to churn out workers for the job market; even going as far as to suggest
this reduces training costs for employers. Chonchol (1968) raised a similar point with
Frances Tay McHugh ([email protected]) 12/20
regards to education; he cautioned against a perception of education as a “systematic
extension of knowledge” (p. 138), where the teacher is viewed as all-knowing and
students as mere recipients of knowledge. Chonchol suggested that such a conception of
education dehumanised as it did not promote consciousness within the student. Shor
(1993) termed such education as a process that domesticates and under-develops rather
than liberates the learner. Along this same cautionary vein, Collins (1995) has likened the
mass promulgation of literacy as a “hegemonic project.” In his view, this has resulted in
the “displacement of non-standard varieties of language,” the “discrediting of alternate
literacies” (p. 84) and reinforced social divisions pitting those who are literate against
those who are illiterate. The results can be disastrous. In referring to the Native American
experience for illustration, Collins suggests that literacy and schooling have perpetuated
“cultural genocide and self-loss” (p. 85). Hence, we can deduce that literacy or education
which transmits knowledge subverts consciousness for it is based on “a discourse of
recognition whose aim is reduced to revealing and transmitting universal truths” (Giroux,
1993, p. 178).
Instead, education that empowers and promotes consciousness must therefore be
one which respects the learner’s context, engages the learner as a free agent in his own
learning, and equips him with the tools to take necessary action for further self-
development. It must impart upon the learner a sense of self, a thirst for inquiry and
exploration, the ability to confidently assess and reflect upon his own learning, as well as
acquaint him with himself and the world about him (Bantock, 1976, Scheffler, 1991).
Scheffler (1991), in referring to Dewey (1961), concurred that the aim of education must
Frances Tay McHugh ([email protected]) 13/20
“first and foremost… develop critical methods of thought. Its task is not to indoctrinate a
particular point of view but rather to help generate those powers of assessment and
criticism by which diverse points of view may themselves be responsibly judged” (p.
146). To do so requires enlisting “the student’s purposes in learning, so that the relation
of the various studies to his own choices may become evident” (p. 148). Undoubtedly,
the most well-known of pedagogies which exemplify the above would be of that taught
and practised by the Brazilian educator Freire. For example, the objective behind the
adult education program he coordinated in Recife was not focused merely on teaching
adults to read, but “how to read in relation to the awakening of their consciousness”
(Freire, 1996a, p. 43). Consciousness, according to Freire, meant “conscience of the
world” for this “engenders conscience of the self, and of others in the world, and with the
world.” Further, Freire stressed that “it is by acting in the world that we make ourselves”
(Freire, 2004, p. 72). In short, Freire advocated literacy education which not only
empowered but promoted a realisation of self and a demanded that one exercise one’s
potential as an agent for social change.
The basis of Freirean pedagogy lies in his belief that man is in a constant
dialectical exchange with himself and with his world, that “the role of man was not only
to be in the world, but to engage in relations with the world” (Freire, 1996a, p. 43). In
proposing this, Freire charged the individual as agent and interventionist in his own
reality and his own learning. He imbued the individual with the power of creation; what
was man made he termed culture, distinct from that of the world of nature. Hence,
whether one was literate or illiterate, he was not powerless; he was not subjugated to
Frances Tay McHugh ([email protected]) 14/20
adapt to the reality about him. Instead, he had the power within him to create culture and
by extension, his reality. Therefore, upon acquiring the skills to read and write, another
avenue for participation is open to the illiterate. The act of communicating, of forming
words, of writing it down or reading become acts of culture. Thus the learner, through
creating literate culture, becomes co-creator of his reality by inserting himself into an
extended world, one which, if he were illiterate, he would be reduced to the periphery. In
this way, “literacy learners” become “active subjects” rather than “mere incidentals”
(2004, p. 70). Therefore, man first reads the world, then the word; after which “reading
the word implies continually reading the world” (Freire and Macedo, 1987, p. 35). In this
way, “literacy education,” equates to “an act of knowing” (Freire, 1996b, p. 128).
Knowledge and consciousness expands, for “the more accurately men grasp true
causality, the more critical their understanding of reality will be” (Freire, 1996a, p. 43).
Therefore, to be literate is to be actively engaged, not a state of attainment to be simply
achieved. As Giroux (1987) has suggested, “to be literate is not to be free, it is to be
present and active in the struggle for reclaiming one’s voice, history and future” (p. 11).
The use of literacy education in such a context empowers because it engages
individuals as “historical and ethical beings, capable of opting, of deciding, of breaking
away” (Freire, 2004, p. 73). Thus, it is pedagogy that champions hope, reveals hitherto
unseen choices and promotes possibilities. It propels the learner to engage with the
written word in such a way as to see literacy as not external from himself or reserved
specifically for the elite or literates. It challenges the learner to move from a limited
consciousness that suggests his situation is hopeless and fatalistic, to one of critical
Frances Tay McHugh ([email protected]) 15/20
consciousness, where “men reflect about themselves and about the world they are in and
with” (Freire, 1996a, p. 81). It promotes literacy not as a skill to be mastered but as a tool
for expanding consciousness.
This approach to literacy, inherent in Freire’s pedagogy, has been applied by more
than 350 organisations in 60 or more countries. ActionAid, for example, utilises a
strategy called REFLECT (Regenerated Freirean Literacy through Empowering
Community Techniques), which allow for participants to express themselves through
various communicative means such as graphs, maps and the like. In doing so, participants
first learn to read their world before naming them through words and numbers. Upon
critically reflecting on their situations, the participants then prepare action points to
realise these into concrete results. Thus, the learner acquires not just literacy skills but
“an attitude of creation and re-creation, a self-transformation providing a stance of
intervention in one’s context” (Freire, 1996a, p. 48).
Conclusion
We have explored the many potential benefits of literacy, chief among them as to
whether literacy strengthens the power of thought, and contributes to the development of
human consciousness and self-understanding. In doing so, we have proven that literacy is
not a “monolithic technology with predictable social and cognitive consequences”
(Brandt, 1990, p. 25, cited in Royer, 1994). We have also established that historically,
how literacy has been defined and understood, has influenced how literacy has been
taught. When delivered merely as a means to transmit knowledge, it limits the learner’s
Frances Tay McHugh ([email protected]) 16/20
exercise and practise of consciousness. We conclude that the power of literacy does not
lie in the ability to read and write, but rather to understand what it means to read and
write. It is only through understanding the larger implications of literacy that literacy can
be harnessed to promote consciousness and self-understanding.
“Literacy makes sense only in these terms, as the consequence of men’s
beginning to reflect about their own capacity for reflection, about their world,
about their position in the world… about literacy itself, which thereby ceases to
be something external and becomes a part of them, comes as a creation from
within them.”
(Freire, 1996a, p.81)
Word count: 4,103 words
Frances Tay McHugh ([email protected]) 17/20
References
Bantock, G.H. (1967) Education, Culture and the Emotions. Bloomington and London:
Indiana University Press.
Brandt, D. (1990) Literacy as Involvement: The Acts of Writers, Readers and Texts.
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Cited in Royer, D.R. (1994).
Chonchol, J. (1968) Preface to “Extension or Communication.” In Freire, P. (1996a)
Education for Critical Consciousness. New York: The Continuum Publishing Co.
(Previous editions: 1969, 1973)
Collins, J. (1995) Literacy and Literacies. In Annual Review of Anthropology. Vol. 24:
75-93
Dewey, J. (1961) Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan. Cited in Scheffler,
I. (1991).
Freire, P. (1996a) Education for Critical Consciousness. New York: The Continuum
Publishing Co. (Previous editions: 1969, 1973)
Freire, P. (1996b) Letters to Cristina: Reflections on my Life and Work. New York:
Routledge.
Freire, P. (2004) Pedagogy of Indignation. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
Freire, P. and Macedo, D. (1987) Literacy: Reading the Word and the World. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.
Frances Tay McHugh ([email protected]) 18/20
Giroux, H.A. (1987) Introduction: Literacy and the Pedagogy of Political Environment.
In Freire, P. and Macedo, D. Literacy: Reading the Word and the World. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.
Giroux, H.A. (1993) Paulo Freire and the Politics of Postcolonialism. In McLaren, P. and
Leonard, P. (Eds.) Paulo Freire: A Critical Encounter. London: Routledge.
Giroux, H.A. (2006) Higher Education Under Siege: Implications for Public Intellectuals.
In Thought and Action, Fall 2006: 63-78
Goody, J. and Watt, I. (1963) The Consequences of Literacy. In Comparative Studies in
Society and History. Vol. 5 (3): 304-345
Graff, H.J. (1987) The Legacies of Literacy: Continuities and Contradictions in Western
Culture and Society. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Cited in Royer, D.R.
(1994)
Graff, H.J. (1995) The Labyrinths of Literacy. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Cited in Kelder, R. (1996)
Halverson, J. (1992) Goody and the Implosion of the Literacy Thesis. In Man, New
Series, Vol. 27 (2): 301-317
Kelder, R. (1996) Rethinking Literacy: From the Past to the Present. In 1996 World
Conference on Literacy: Improving Literacy, Changing Lives, Innovations and
Interconnections for Development, March 12-15. Philadelphia, PA.
McLaren, P. and Leonard, P. (Eds.) (1993) Paulo Freire: A Critical Encounter. London:
Routledge.
Frances Tay McHugh ([email protected]) 19/20
Oxenham, J. (1980) Literacy: Writing, Reading and Social Organization. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Oxenham, J. (2004) The Quality of Programmes and Policies Regarding Literacy and
Skills Development. Background paper for EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005.
Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Pennycook, A. (1999) Development, Culture and Language: Ethical Concerns in a
Postcolonial World. In The Fourth International Conference on Language and
Development, Oct 13-15. Hanoi, Vietnam.
Rassool, N. (1999) Literacy for Sustainable Development in the Age of Information.
London: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Royer, D.R. (1994) The Process of Literacy as Communal Involvement in the Narratives
of Frederick Douglass. In African American Review, Vol. 28 (3): 363-379
Scheffler, I. (1991) In Praise of the Cognitive Emotions and Other Essays in the
Philosophy of Education. New York: Routledge.
Scribner, S. and Cole, M. (1981) The Psychology of Literacy. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press. Cited in Halverson, J. (1992)
Scribner, S. and Cole, M. (1988) Unpackaging Literacy. In Kintgen, E.R., Kroll, B.M.
and Rose, M. (Eds..) Perspectives on Literacy. Carbondale: Southern Illinois
Press.
Sheridan, D., Street, B.V. and Bloome, D. (2000) Writing Ourselves: Mass-Observation
and Literary Practices. Creskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc.
Frances Tay McHugh ([email protected]) 20/20
Shor, I. (1993) Education is Politics: Paolo Freire’s Critical Pedagogy. In McLaren, P.
and Leonard, P. (Eds.). Paulo Freire: A Critical Encounter. London: Routledge.
Stromquist, N. (2005) The Political Benefits of Adult Literacy. Background paper for
EFA Global Monitoring Report 2006. Paris: United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Torres, R-M. (2003) Lifelong Learning: A New Momentum and a New Opportunity for
Adult Basic Learning and Education (ABLE) in the South. Stockholm: Sida.
Department for Democracy and Social Development and Bonn. Adult Education
and Development, Supplement to Vol. 60, 2003. Cited in Oxenham, J. (2004)
UNESCO (1999) Manual on Functional Literacy for Indigenous Peoples. Bangkok:
UNESCO PROAP.
UNESCO (2006) Education for All: Literacy for Life, Education for All Global
Monitoring Report 2006. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization.