The traditional view:
Developing new approaches
A re-definition of 'post-literacy'
Materials for 'post-literacy'
LGM:
Post-literacy and initial literacy programmes
Post-literacy service:
Cost-effectiveness
Cost benefit
Conclusion
Summary of possible courses of action
On the basis of the field visits and the literature review conducted during the research project, it would seem that the large majority of literacy and post-literacy programmes are built upon a traditional approach to literacy. Literacy is seen as a process by which a set of technical skills of reading, writing and numeracy are acquired, and once grasped, these skills can be applied in all kinds of contexts for many different forms of print-based learning. The approach is similar to that of primary school: it urges that one should learn literacy first and practise it afterwards. Literacy is seen as a prerequisite for further development programmes - without literacy, the participant groups are felt to be severely disadvantaged. This 'literacy comes first' model rests on a number of assumptions that are questionable. It is founded, for instance, on a deficit view of illiteracy, on the belief that autonomous learning and development activities can only start after the acquisition of literacy. Furthermore, it assumes that the acquisition of literacy itself brings with it several clear advantages in thinking and reasoning and other abilities to relate to the outside world. Literacy within this view is thought to be acquired in a sequential process, part of a continuum from being illiterate to learning literacy, to developing literacy skills further (the post-literacy phase), leading eventually to independent learning. The process of learning literacy associated with these assumptions is based upon a limited and specially prepared group of materials (primers) which are received by those who attend the literacy classes.
The implications of this for post-literacy are clear. Most post-literacy programmes consist of a further programme of training, aimed at those who have completed the initial primerbased programme, and using materials written specifically for this group of learners.
There are signs however that this traditional view of literacy is changing.
First, there is a growing awareness that there is no one universally applicable form of literacy. Rather, there are different literacies for different groups - urban and rural populations, for example, ethnic, racial, religious or linguistic groups, or people clustered round economic activities (e.g. fisherfolk etc).
Secondly, some agencies (for example in Tanzania) speak in terms of post-literacy activities rather than further classes. They therefore seek to reach a much wider audience than simply those who are or have been in adult literacy classes.
Thirdly, a number of agencies are starting their programmes with developmental activities and working subsequently towards literacy related to those activities. This presents a different approach (a 'literacy comes second' model) of the relationship between literacy and development programmes.
Fourthly, instead of materials being prepared for and received by the learners, we have seen a number of cases where the materials are being prepared by or with the assistance of the learners (LGM).
Other trends: A number of other trends serve to reinforce these developments. First, what has come to be called 'the new literacy' (Willinsky 1990) sees literacy as a set of practices within a given cultural context, not as a set of neutral technical skills (Barton 1994). Thus within any one setting, there are different literacies which are culturally determined (Street 1984, 1993). It follows that there can be no one form of literacy (and post-literacy) provision which will be universally applicable,
Secondly, since literacy is now seen as a set of practices, it follows that even those who are unable to read or write are already coping with these literacies using many different strategies, just as many who are literate use non-literate strategies from time to time. All adults - literate and non-literate -are engaged in literacy practices, dealing with literacy events.
Thirdly, surveys of the retention of literacy skills (Roy et al 1975; Ramaswamy 1994) indicate that such skills are best retained when they are used in 'real' situations with 'real' materials. Evaluations have shown that, despite some difficulties, the use of existing literacy practices as the basis of learning literacy (as in the Language Experience Approach of ELP and Storyteller in South Africa and other countries, where the authentic language transactions of the learners are used as the basis of learning literacy skills) is in many cases more effective than more formal primer-based methods, even in countries where the written form of the language is significantly different from that which is spoken.
Finally, current understandings of lifelong learning are challenging the view that autonomous lifelong learning can only start once an adult has completed the first stages of learning literacy. It is now clear that learning is not dependent on literacy. Non-literate adults are already autonomous learners; they are engaged in lifelong learning (Rogers 1992). Those who talk about a learner achieving the status of 'independent learner' only towards the end of the process of learning literacy have a particular form of learning in mind - book learning (study) - which they usually see as superior to experiential learning.
The implications of these trends
It is thus clear that literacy is not a prerequisite for development. Development activities are often commenced by non-literate groups, and the need to master literacy skills in these cases arises primarily and most effectively from these activities. The evidence we have received indicates that programmes built on the assumption that the acquisition of literacy has to come first and that these skills will subsequently be used for development are less effective than those built on a 'literacy comes second' model where the acquisition of literacy skills is a step within a process of helping people to complete some task on which they have already embarked. Adults learn literacy best when they feel that they need these skills and that they are able to use them to achieve some immediate purpose.
The fact that there are different uses of literacy must call for different forms of literacy instruction and post-literacy provision. And this implies that the idea of sequential stages which is implied in the word 'post-literacy', even when seen within a continuum, is no longer acceptable. The concept of a distinguishable post-literacy stage needs to be rejected.
Instead of post-literacy being seen as a stage following on from adult literacy classes, a more appropriate definition might be the provision of support to all those who feel that they have difficulty in the practice of literacy in real situations. Post-literacy is the promotion of more effective literacy practices in the community by all those who have limited literacy experience and confidence in given contexts. Such support, to be most effective, will need to be provided more frequently at the point of use rather than in special classes and by other helpers as well as by literacy practitioners.
One implication of this is that the promotion of more effective literacy practices in the community will be achieved not so much through specially designed post-literacy materials as through a range of activities using real or ordinary materials in real situations. It is therefore appropriate to talk about 'post-literacy activities' rather than 'post-literacy materials'. Materials will be needed for these activities, but the materials used will be real materials arising from real literacy situations rather than contrived learning materials.
Participants in post-literacy: And it follows that 'post-literacy' provision will extend not simply to the members of initial literacy classes but to others who need help in developing further their literacy competencies in different contexts. The need for some form of continuing assistance for people in both rural and urban communities to encourage and help them to practise literacy in real situations has been demonstrated in almost every country, both developing and industrialised. There are growing numbers of adults in every society who have attended part or all of primary school or adult literacy programme and who therefore possess a limited range of basic skills, but who are now outside the formal and non-formal systems of education. All of these are increasingly being called upon to practise literacy for real, and they will often need assistance with this activity. The literacy situations which face them are many and are socio-culturally dependent, even group dependent. Thus the help provided will need to be context-dependent. General adult post-literacy classes may not be the most appropriate form and certainly should not be the only form of post-literacy provision to meet the needs of all these persons. Provision of facilities such as 'drop-in centres' offering immediate advice and assistance would seem to be more effective and more lasting in certain cases than further adult post-literacy classes and similar activities.
As we have seen, in almost every context, rural as well as urban, a great deal of reading and writing material exists. Not all of it is in a form appropriate to those with limited literacy experience and confidence, but it is material with which they need to cope. The use of this material, suitably adapted and mediated to meet the needs of these people, we argue, could - and should - form the basis of all forms of post-literacy provision. This would be the most effective way of developing usable and sustainable literacy and numeracy skills within a particular context. The main finding of this report is that support for the practice of literacy in real situations using real materials will be more effective than support for further literacy instruction using special 'post-literacy' materials.
There is however one circumstance in which writing and publishing projects with special 'post-literacy' materials have been particularly effective. This is the case of locally or learner-generated materials (LGM). There are two reasons for this. The first is that LGM is a method by which materials which are culturally appropriate can most surely be produced. To be effective, literacy and post-literacy materials need to be culturally acceptable to the users. The normal way in which materials produced by experts are assessed is to field test them with local groups of learners. The example of Storyteller in South Africa shows that the workshop process can be used to obtain feedback during the generation stage to develop user-centred materials. But one of the most effective ways in which culturally appropriate materials may be produced is by providing opportunities for learners and other groups to write and produce what they feel is most appropriate in their specific context.
The second and more important reason to encourage LGM is that in itself it provides a major learning process for the participants. It builds confidence and motivation; it encourages further learning; and it develops literacy skills through using them to achieve participant-set goals. The learner satisfaction derived from seeing the process through from origination to printed piece, thus demystifying the notions of authorship, publishing and printed materials, is the main justification for support being given to this form of literacy activity. The process of producing such materials has a greater impact on the participants than the more passive reception of texts characteristic of traditional literacy classes. The Banda case study (p26 below) indicates that LGM is most effective when it takes place within a context of achieving some developmental task rather than within the more artificial context of a further programme of 'post-literacy'.
It is the argument of this report that the production of specialised 'post-literacy' materials should only be supported when the learners are themselves included as active participants in the writing and production of these materials rather than having the materials prepared by experts, even when there is a major process of field testing.
Post-literacy provision then is best seen as assistance for people with limited experience and confidence of reading and writing in coping with 'real' literacy practices and 'real' literacy materials.
Many literacy agencies speak of 'post-literacy' as overlapping with primer literacy in terms of language level and subject matter. Although 'post literacy' activities follow on after the end of the primer-based literacy programme, the specially produced materials "go back to below the level" achieved at the end of the initial course so as to provide reinforcement to learning.
This approach to 'post-literacy' is however still based upon the assumption that a learner needs to learn first and to practise afterwards. But modem understandings of learning, especially as applied to adults, based on considerable research, indicates that the division between learning first and practising afterwards, even with such an overlap of materials, is not always a helpful distinction (Rogers 1986; Brookfield 1987). Much learning is best undertaken by doing. It is impossible to learn to swim without swimming, to type without typing. Thus with regard to literacy, it is impossible to learn to read, write or to calculate without at the same time practising reading, writing and calculation - with assistance from the teacher.
We therefore do not see 'post-literacy' as following after the initial literacy programme. Rather, we would argue that 'post-literacy activities' in the form of 'using literacy competencies in real situations under guidance' should overlap with instructional activities fight from the start of the literacy programme. The practice of literacy, based on the existing literacy practices which the participants are already engaged in, should increase consistently as the learning of literacy progresses. In place of a sequential model of primer literacy followed by an overlapping post-literacy programme, we would see the overlap as follows:
Fig.2: diagram illustrating the overlap between initial literacy instruction and the practice of literacy using real materials.
Rather than learn now and practise later, this approach involves the literacy participant learning through practising, increasingly using 'real' materials in class as apprentice readers or writers or calculators with gradually diminishing support from the instructor. In this way, the practice of literacy will be more sustainable after the end of the initial literacy provision. We know that many literacy agencies and practitioners do not believe that adult learners are capable of using real materials while they are learning basic literacy skills, but the examples we have seen show that adults learn literacy best when they are enabled to use their newly acquired skills immediately in real situations on real materials and not after a delay.
The main implication of this approach is the need for more and different forms of training of literacy practitioners to help them to identify real literacy materials in the community and to use these in their literacy classes and activities. This is a new approach to the teaching of literacy for adults and it will call for new training programmes.
Post-literacy and continuing education: A distinction has sometimes been drawn between 'post-literacy' and what is often called 'continuing education'. It can be argued that 'continuing education' can best be regarded as that part of post-literacy activities which is directly related to the formal education system - either in terms of covering the same curriculum as primary or secondary school or of assisting those participants who wish to gain entry into the formal system at an appropriate point. The kind of assistance for those with reading and writing and numeracy difficulties advocated here will include for some persons learning things which they would have learned in primary school or building up formal learning skills which will be required if they were to enter or reenter school, while for others it may mean help with writing letters, filling in forms, responding to state documents (e.g. in health matters) etc on a specific task basis without recourse to schooling or formal educational provision.
It follows that a national post-literacy programme is not likely to reach all those who need such assistance, nor provide the range of literacy formats needed. What is needed is increased provision for guidance and counselling for those with limited reading and writing skills to help them cope with the real literacies which they are likely to encounter or need in their own personalised situation. A national post-literacy service will, we believe, be more effective in providing appropriate forms of help where they are most needed.
The form of this service will of course vary from country to country. Apart from the basic function of providing direct assistance to those with limited literacy experience and confidence, it might well include some or all of the following:
· training of literacy practitioners in the identification and use of existing 'real' materials· bridging the gap between the producers of real materials and the users, and working with the producers of these materials to adapt them to the needs of those with literacy difficulties
· supporting local groups in the development of new literacy agendas
· training other professionals (e.g. agricultural and health workers etc) to assist the participants in their programmes with their literacy activities
Resourcing this 'service', using real materials which already exist, adapting and mediating them as necessary to the needs of those who have some but relatively limited literacy experience and confidence, would be the key element to an effective post- literacy aid policy.
The cost-effectiveness of supporting the production of special post-literacy materials.
The cost-effectiveness of using 'real' materials for the enhancement of literacy practices
Sustainability:
It would also seem that the dissemination and utilisation of real materials would be the most cost-effective way of developing a literacy and post-literacy programme which would more appropriately enhance the practice of literacy than would the support of specialised post-literacy materials.
Quality: Any assessment of the cost-effectiveness of assisting with the production of yet more special post-literacy materials will need to take into account not simply the costs of different methods of production but also the quality of the materials in terms of design and usability.
Production costs: The literature on methods of material production such as silk screen presses is more concerned with reducing costs than with ensuring local control over the processes involved (e.g. Zeitlyn 1988). But the interest in alternative methods of printing seems to be declining, in part because the quality of much of the material produced in this way is almost always low, and secondly, because good reliable and relatively cheap methods of printing are now more widely available. It is not possible to make generally applicable conclusions about different methods of materials production - the situation changes from place to place and over time. Silk screen printing would not be cost effective in Madras at the moment when printing costs are low and the quality of the finished materials can be high. In other locations, such techniques could be cost effective. The local situation will always need to be borne in mind when making such judgments.
LGM and LCM: Locally or learner generated materials (LGM) programmes have traditionally used low-cost methods (LCM) of production - but this has more to do with the possibility of the participants having direct control over the processes than with lower costs. Nevertheless, both educational and economic advantages concur with LGM.
Production quality: The quality of the materials including their design features such as layout, use of illustrations and colour, and their legibility in terms of typeface, spacing, size of font etc, does not always correlate directly with the cost of their production -although of course there is a greater likelihood that low costs will produce low quality materials.
Recent research (Eade 1993) shows that different participants, donors, writers, literacy agencies, publishers, literacy practitioners, learners etc, make different judgments on the quality of materials. In these circumstances, the judgments of the users (learners) rather than those of the producers will more accurately reflect the true value of the materials since they will directly affect the learning outcomes. This relates as much to high quality as to low quality materials - some materials are of such high quality that some learners may find themselves deterred from using them.
Usability: Just as important is the usability of these materials in terms of their readability (vocabulary, grammar, style, etc) and their cultural appropriateness (content and acceptability etc) (Wright 1980). The effectiveness of these materials will depend in part on the clarity with which the aims of the materials and the intended target group are set out and the support provided to the materials. The aim of the BOBP technical leaflets and comic book was to enhance the ways of working of local fisherfolk so as to relieve their poverty. There are signs that these materials have been to some extent effective in reaching these people and in promoting economic improvements. To use these materials for enhancing literacy practices will call for different assessments of effectiveness. The aim of many specialised post-literacy materials on the other hand is primarily to enhance literacy competencies but they also often contain many developmental messages. The effectiveness of these materials in reaching all the people who need these messages and in influencing them is less clear.
Further, the costs and processes of the distribution of these materials (how widely they reach out into the community) and their use once they have reached their intended audience need to be included in any assessment of their usability. Specially prepared post-literacy materials tend to have a limited distribution to those who are or have been in adult literacy classes, and their usefulness is also relatively limited. Problems of distribution are reported regularly in relation even to those materials intended for wide distribution. The Chittoor newspaper for example reached, and was read and discussed in, the adult literacy groups but it did not reach into their homes or to those outside the literacy groups. Literacy agencies rarely set out clearly the objectives of their materials or assess the spread of their distribution and their effectiveness. Evaluations of the outreach and effectiveness of these materials are needed before further support is provided.
To ensure the most cost-effective approach to any materials production project, support will normally need to be guaranteed at every stage - not just the initial development of the texts through workshops or in other ways but also the printing, publication, distribution and utilisation (including mediation and feedback) of these materials. To intervene at only one or some of these stages without ensuring that the other stages are adequately resourced is unlikely to prove cost-effective.
The cost-effectiveness of using 'real' materials for literacy and post-literacy programmes would seem to be higher in every respect.
Production costs: The costs of producing real materials have already been borne by the agencies concerned. Local newspapers use their existing plant to print the supplements. Publishers of magazines and other literature produce these materials in their own way and at their own cost. Agencies and government bodies issuing extension materials, technical leaflets and other real materials cover the cost of these through their own budgets. In many development programmes, the basic costs of producing the materials have already been met, provided largely in the form of technical assistance by educationalists and linguists on forms of language and presentation to facilitate these materials being used more widely and more effectively, or funding increased print runs and distribution mechanisms. Donor support for these materials would seem to be a more cost-effective way of enhancing local literacies than supporting the costs of the preparation and production of special post-literacy materials ab initio.
Production Quality: Because real materials often have a quality at least as high as, if not higher than, those specially prepared for post-literacy programmes, they are frequently taken as a model by literacy agencies for their own productions. Real materials are often professionally designed, and they sometimes take into account readability and cultural appropriateness. Several agencies producing such materials have indicated that they would welcome some technical assistance with the 'literacy dimensions' of their materials at the design and production stages. This approach will be more effective in ensuring high quality materials at a relatively low cost than providing support for the whole process of the production of new materials. At the same time, the process of collaboration will have advantages in educating other agencies into the special needs of those who have limited literacy skills and experience. We feel that this approach should be tested in the field as soon as is practicable.
Usability: Real materials usually have a wider circulation in the communities concerned and a wider application than materials specially produced for post-literacy programmes. Local publishers and government and other agencies use their existing channels of distribution to bring their materials to the attention of intended users, a wider audience than the attenders in literacy programmes. And some of these materials seem to possess reader credibility and acceptance in a way that educational organisations at times find difficult to achieve. Some adaptation of these real materials to meet the special needs of those with limited experience of reading, writing and calculating will of course often be necessary. We were assured several times that assistance with these aspects of the production of real materials would be welcomed. This would not be very costly.
Sustainability in relation to all forms of literacy materials has been found to be problematic. The production of literacy materials - like all educational materials - will always need resourcing. But real materials produced in the normal course of governmental, commercial, political or other activities, provides a sustainable source of local and culturally appropriate materials for the further development of literacy skills. This approach to post-literacy will be more sustainable than the traditional approach.
In conclusion, it would seem that subsidising extra runs of real materials to meet an identified wider range of users (as already occurs in one or two cases); assisting with the adaptation of real materials to meet the needs of those who are having difficulty with literacy in the community; training literacy staff to identify and to use real materials; providing support for mediation and resource services - these would be more cost-effective than paying for new material to be produced and published for a narrower target group, with all the implications of distribution and utilisation.
"If we are going to continue to use a cost-benefit method of assessing education, it must include weightings for improvements in quality of life. Orthodox economic analysis cannot quantify the social rate of return from the education received by a non-working mother of four children; for the benefits of her education range over improved nutrition of her family, the ability to plan its size, her capacity to take on part-time work at home, her participation in the development of her community and her own ability to improve the quality of her life through cultural and political activity" (ODA 1990 p7).
The above statement indicates that traditional approaches to educational cost-benefit analysis (CBA) (Hough 1992), with their emphasis on economic rates of return set against inputs in terms of the amount and the levels of formal education received, cannot apply to adult literacy and post-literacy.
The value and significance of literacy and post-literacy programmes are best related to the quality of life issues noted above. These will of course depend on the practices of literacy in each area. But there is a lack of any criteria for assessing the benefits of literacy programmes. Other than in the health sector (Bown 1990 - which indicates that even here there are doubts about the direct causal impact of literacy on health practices), contrary to what is often assumed, it is simply not known whether the acquisition of literacy skills brings with it any direct economic or other benefits. There is some anecdotal evidence but nothing systematic.
There are however indications that the newer approaches to literacy which have been emerging over recent years show clear economic advantages over the traditional approach to literacy. The traditional approach, with its view that adults need to learn literacy first and apply it later to developmental activities, implies that the economic and other benefits will spring from a further developmental programme to be conducted after the end of the literacy course rather than from the literacy programme itself There will then be some delay between the literacy programme and any economic and social improvement which flows from literacy. It is true that many literacy programmes organise an income-generation activity alongside the literacy, but the economic benefits which derive in this case come from the income-generation programme, not from the literacy programme.
The introduction of literacy practices in real situations using real materials into initial literacy teaching, will bring greater and more immediate benefits to the learners, especially when those real literacy situations are related to social and economic activities. Many literacy practices in all societies are concerned with the management of money, access to credit, record keeping, budgeting and accounts. If these literacy practices are introduced as part of initial literacy teaching, the skills they embody will be assimilated more thoroughly and more permanently than if they form part of a 'bolt-on' programme delivered later. There will also be less delay in the benefits reaching the beneficiaries. It is the effective use of literacy skills rather their acquisition that will bring cost benefits to the users. Post-literacy, if seen as using literacy in real situations with real materials, and introduced during the initial literacy programme, will have greater and more immediate cost benefits than post-literacy seen as a further stage of literacy instruction.
These views have been based on an extensive review of the literature and consultation with leading experts in the field and on a number of visits made to case studies over a period of more than a year. They have been elaborated in the course of the research team debates. The view has been expressed to us by some of those who work in the field that the traditional 'literacy first' approach has been expensive, largely ineffective and even where the initial response has been positive - rarely sustainable in the long run. This review has given some positive evidence of the potential of the 'literacy second' approach to create a cost-effective programme, using real or ordinary materials rather than special post-literacy materials to achieve greater and more lasting results. What is needed is for some trials to be conducted on the basis of this newer approach outlined in this report.
General
1. Surveys at local level of existing perceptions of literacy and of literacy practices and the relationship of these to the perceptions of agencies, so as to provide the basis on which to build new literacy and post-literacy programmes.
2. Assistance with the spread of real literacy materials so as to build up a literate environment; this needs to be monitored to see if increased supply of materials encourages increased demand for literacy provision.
3. Assistance to local libraries/resource centres and the training of their staff.
Literacy Programmes: special post-literacy materials
4. Support for literacy programmes seeking to develop locally generated materials, especially learner-generated materials.
5. Assistance to those writing and producing special post-literacy individually or in writing workshops to develop culturally appropriate and gender sensitive materials based on existing literacy practices.
6. Assistance for local producers of materials (especially local publishers) in production processes to strengthen local capacity.
Real materials
7. Assistance to literacy agencies to identify, adapt, disseminate mediate and utilise real materials for literacy purposes.
8. Assistance to agencies producing real materials to develop their materials in formats appropriate to those with limited literacy experience and confidence.
9. Training of literacy practitioners in how to use real materials within literacy programmes so as to develop literacy practices further.
Post-literacy service
10. Assistance with the development of a national or local service to provide support, expertise, mediation and adaptation for all forms of post-literacy activities to reach all those who need help with literacy practices.
11. Training to other support and development professionals so that they can help their participant groups with their literacy practices.
