Arti 7

Understanding literacy: A concept paper Jude Fransman
2006/ED/EFA/MRT/PI/32
Background paper prepared for the

Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2006
Literacy for Life
Understanding literacy: a concept paper

Jude Fransman
2005
This paper was commissioned by the Education for All Global Monitoring Report as
background information to assist in drafting the 2006 report. It has not been edited by the
team. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and should not
be attributed to the EFA Global Monitoring Report or to UNESCO. The papers can be cited
with the following reference: “Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report
2006, Literacy for Life”. For further information, please contact efareport@unesco.org
1
Understanding Literacy: A Concept paper

By Jude Fransman
Introduction
This paper aims to provide a summary of the major understandings of literacy, as they
have evolved since the 1950s. In doing so, it seeks to unearth some of the implications
that these different understandings have for monitoring literacy. Drawing largely from
a background paper prepared for the GMR 2006 by Brian Street (2004) it charts four
key components of literacy which define the evolution of the dominant (and largely
Anglophone) discourse; literacy as a set of skills, literacy as applied and socially
situated, literacy as a learning process, and literacy as text. Finally, a tentative
framework which combines these dimensions as a heuristic device for understanding
literacy is proposed.
Since the mid-twentieth century considerable scholarly attention has been devoted to
unpacking the meaning of literacy and the implications that this has for approaches to
practice and policy. Different countries have entered the debates surrounding literacy
in significantly different ways, according to their various epistemological traditions
and their different political and socio-cultural experiences with literacy (see Box 1).
Of course, external influences – from international organisations or dominant
intellectual traditions – have partly shaped recent understandings of literacy (or at
least those reflected by policy rhetoric) so that many contemporary understandings
now echo the Anglophone tradition. The Francophone world is a case in point, with
the recent adoption of the term littératie deriving directly from the OECD’s emphasis
on information skills for the knowledge society.
Box 1: Chinese and Francophone understandings of literacy

Haar and Behr’s extensive bibliographies of literacy, writing, education and orality in
Chinese culture reveal the ongoing importance of the oral tradition in China and pay
special attention to the culture of manuscript production and the impact of printing
and libraries on how literacy is conceived. Political manipulation of literacy through
propaganda and censorship have also contributed to understandings of the concepts,
while subversive writing traditions such as Nüshu or ‘women’s script’ and religious
links with literacy through, for example, ‘spirit writing’ show how interactions with
texts can go well beyond coding and decoding.
Ferdandez 2005, in his background paper for the GMR 2006 charts the evolution for
the concept in French reflected by the utilization of different words for
‘literacy/illiteracy’. Thus, literacy as a concept has developed from alphabetisation
(literacy learning), analphabétisme (illiteracy identified initially in immigrants)
illetrisme (illiteracy identified in those with some schooling but lacking basic skills)
alphabétisme (literacy according to OECD notions of skills for the ‘knowledge
society’) littératie, littératies and littérisme (notions of functional literacy, literacies
and literacy learning largely consistent with the Anglophone tradition).
Sources: Fernandez, 2005; Haar, 2005 (last revised: 12-6-2005) available at:
http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/bth/literacy.htm
2
Though the Anglophone literacy discourse is probably the most influential - both to
international and national understandings of literacy, it is by no means an exhaustive
theoretical tradition. Moreover, understandings of literacy in the Anglophone world
are structured around a complex set of inter-disciplinary debates. Academics from
disciplines as wide-ranging as psychology, economics, linguistics, sociology,
anthropology, philosophy and history have engaged in these debates, and as such it is
highly contested and ever-evolving.
In light of this theoretical diversity, there is some sense in charting out the major
traditions, approaches and critiques within a heuristic framework which encompasses
the different ways that literacy has been understood in the Anglophone tradition: as a
set of skills; as applied, practiced and situated; and as a process of learning1.
These broad areas of enquiry accommodate most theories of literacy, but not all. A
more recent development is the understanding of literacy as text whereby literacy is
seen as engagement with a particular form of symbolic ‘meaning-making’. Drawing
from this, more radical strands of this postmodernist understanding of literacy have
started to perceive literacy as an instrument of power and oppression, legitimating
dominant discourses and endangering languages, cultures and local knowledge. While
this perspective is not so conducive to monitoring literacy (particularly at the global
level) it nevertheless raises an important caution regarding the ultimate vision and
direction of the ‘literacy project’.
1
This conceptual distinction is adapted from that proposed by Brian Street (2004) in his background
paper for the GMR 2006.
3
Literacy as skills
Cognitive approaches to reading and writing

Even today, the term ‘literacy’ is interpreted by many people to refer to ‘reading’ and
more particularly to the learning of reading by young children. Nevertheless, the issue
of how children learn to read has been highly contested and those debates have
implications for how adult literacy is conceived (Street, 2004). The distinction
between a focus on ‘phonetic’ principles on the one hand (Adams, 1993) and on
‘reading for meaning’ on the other (Goodman, 1996) has lead to talk of the ‘reading
wars’. More recently, perspectives which emphasise meaning2 have given way to
‘scientific’ attention to ‘phonetics’. The key to improvement in literacy, especially
amongst the ‘economically disadvantaged’, is ‘phonetic instruction… word
recognition, spelling, and vocabulary’ (Adams, 1993 cited in Street, 2004). This
perspective has been further developed in the field of cognitive science research to
take into account important features of human memory (e.g. Abadzi, 2004; 2003) as
shown in Box 2.
Box 2: Cognitive science research on literacy

Time is of essence in reading. Reading must become automatic, fast, effortless, and
accurate in order to be useful. The short-term memory (working memory) needed to
store the deciphered material exceedingly brief. In educated people it lasts about 12
seconds and holds about 7 items, and in illiterates it may even last less. If the
information in short-term memory is not rehearsed or transferred to long-term
memory, it gets wiped out. Neoliterates must read a word about 1-1.5 second (45-60
words per minute) in order to understand a sentence within 12 seconds. If they take
longer, they forget the end of the sentence what they read at the beginning. This
speed, which corresponds to oral-reading U.S. norms for grade 1 children, is pretty
fast and not often attained in literacy classes. Research in Burkina Faso (Annex A)
indicated that most literacy graduates need 2.2 seconds to read a word and are correct
only 80-87 percent of the time.
To be effective, reading instruction needs to conform to the way the brain processes
reading patterns, and techniques such as phonological awareness training and
increasingly faster reading tasks for participants may be effective in improving skills.
However, few adult educators know the relevant issues and techniques.
(Abadzi, 2004, 2003)
Whereas reading is about comprehending a text (either by relating the text

phonetically to speech or by gauging meaning by ‘guessing’ from the whole language
context), writing is more bound to the specific structures of a particular linguistic
script. Scripts differ to the extent that they are meaning-based or sound-based. As
David Barton illustrates (1994), the logographic script of Chinese is usually cited as
the modern example of a language which relies on meaning, though most characters
are more complex and contain some clue to the pronunciation of the word as well as
its meaning. Japanese uses both sound-based and meaning-based units and is a good
example of a syllabic writing system. In the English alphabetic writing system, the
2
such as the ‘whole language’ view of learners engaged in a ‘guessing game’ (Goodman, 1967) and
the view that the spelling of words are minimally relevant to reading (Smith, 1971) both discussed in
Street 2004.
4
syllables bare some relation to the sound of the language. Though it is also true that
English utilises both sound and meaning through symbols such as numeric markers.
This is similarly the case for the Arabic alphabet.
As with the discourse surrounding learning to read, research into learning to write has
also become increasingly dictated by ‘scientific’ principles of phonetic instruction.
This has given rise to the establishment of literacy myths or ‘beliefs’ that writing is
the transcription of speech, and is, moreover, ‘superior’ to speech. A consequence of
this reasoning is the assumption that, given its proximity to phonetics over meaning,
the alphabetic writing system has technological superiority over other forms of scripts
(Olson, 1994 cited in Street, 2004). This in turn has some impact on the alleged
superiority of languages based on an alphabetic script over less phonetic scripts. With
the increasing emphasis on learning methods that are based on phonetics, there is a
tendency towards teaching literacy in languages that compatible with these methods.
As Street points out, many of these theories have rested on deeper assumptions about
the ‘cognitive consequences’ of learning to read and write. Anthropologists (e.g.
Goody 1977) and psychologists (e.g. Olson 1994) have linked the cognitive argument
to broader patterns of development, regarding the importance of the acquisition of
literacy for a society’s functioning and ‘progress’, and thus, implying a ‘technology’
of literacy (Ong, 1982). However, as recognised through the work of social
psychologists Sylvia Scribner and Micheal Cole in the 70s, many of the assumptions
about literacy in general are ‘tied up with school-based writing’ which leads to serious
limitations in the accounts of literacy: ‘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’ (Scribner and Cole, 1978 cited in Street,
2004- see Box 6 on literacy practices). Olson similarly recognises that ‘The focus on
literacy skills seriously underestimates the significance of both the implicit
understandings that children bring to school and the importance of oral discourse in
bringing those understandings into consciousness in turning them into objects of
knowledge.’ (Olson, 1997 cited in Street 2004)
Oral skills
With increased dichotomous distinction between ‘oral’ and ‘literate’ cultures3 came a
gradual usurpation of oral modes of communication by the ‘technology’ of writing
(Ong, 1982: 24). This, according to Ong, transformed human consciousness. Not only
did it allow for the representation of words as signs, it gave a linear shape to
thought and provided a critical framework within which to think analytically. This is
exemplified by the beginnings of Greek philosophy which were bound to the
restructuring of thought brought about by writing. Plato's exclusion of poets from his
Republic displays a rejection of the old oral culture "in favour of keen analysis and
dissection of the world and of thought itself made possible by the interiorization of the
Greek alphabet." Plato's term "idea" (eidos, form or model) is, like writing, visually
3
See, for instance, Harvey Graff (1987) who refers to the 'tyranny of conceptual dichotomies'; binary
distinctions between literate and illiterate, written and oral, print and script. Many studies refer to
idealised types of society as if 'orality' and 'literacy' were polar opposites. Thus, cultures characterised
as representative of 'orality' are small-scale, rural, communal, non-individualistic, authoritarian and
conformist, whilst those characterized as exemplars of 'literacy' are large-scale, urban-industrial,
individualistic, heterogeneous and rationalistic (Chandler, 1994).
5
based and derives from the same root as the Latin "video," which means "to see" (bid.
80).
Whilst emphasizing the importance of carefully studying actual uses of orality and
literacy, Finnegan concludes that “looking for recurrent patterns and differences can
still be illuminating in the study of human societies even if one has to treat them with
caution, and (as I would urge) avoid the idea of universally applicable causal
mechanisms based on specific technologies” (Finnegan 1988, p. 168). Box 3 draws
out some of these patterns.
Box 3 Some dichotomies of the ear and eye
Spoken word Written word
aural visual
impermanence permanence
fluid fixed
rhythmic ordered
subjective objective
inaccurate quantifying
resonant abstract
time space
present timeless
participatory detached
communal individual
(Source: Chandler, 1994).
However, opposition to the dichotomous ‘Great Divide’ theories, in the form of

'Continuity' theories, stress a 'continuum' rather than a radical discontinuity
between oral and literate modes, and an on-going dynamic interaction between
various media (Finnegan 1988, pp. 139, 175). Indeed, there can be a great variety of
modes of 'orality' and 'literacy' within a single society. Even the practices of
individuals in their use of these modes may change from situation to situation. While
one critic, Peter Denny, has argued that 'decontextualization' seems to be a distinctive
feature of thinking in Western literate societies, he nevertheless insists that all human
beings are capable of rationality, logic, generalization, abstraction, theorizing,
intentionality, causal thinking, classification, explanation and originality (in Olson &
Torrance 1991, p. 81). All of these qualities can be found in oral as well as literate
cultures.
Taking into account oral competencies as well as reading and writing skills has
important consequences for literacy outcomes. As noted by Robinson, empowerment
of women, for example, also involves development of oral expression and the
knowledge that women already have. ‘This needs to be an integral part of literacy
work with women – for women to have increased voice in family, community and
society at large, both oral and written expression will be required’ (Robinson, 2003).
In terms of numeracy, most adult learners already know oral counting and some
mathematical structures and have an art of mental arithmetic more or less adequate for
6
their daily life; in fact, many ‘illiterate’ adults (especially those involved in trade) are
better at mental arithmetic than are more ‘educated’ people (Archer and Cottingham,
1996). These skills should be taken into account and built upon.
Finally, as a means of language preservation, it is important to maintain and develop

oral skills since many languages do not have or are less compatible with equivalent
textual scripts and run the risk of extinction as younger generations adapt to written
languages employed in schools.
Numeracy skills
Today, ‘numeracy’ (and the competencies it comprises) is often understood either as a
supplement to the set of skills encompassed by ‘literacy’ or as a component of
‘literacy’ itself. According to the Research Review by the UK’s National Research
and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy4, the term ‘numeracy’ was
coined in the Crowther Report (DES, 1959) as the "mirror image of literacy" to mean
a relatively sophisticated level of what might nowadays be called scientific literacy.
Twenty years later there were signs of a less utilitarian usage when, in an article
originally published in 1978, Girling argued that being numerate involved the sensible
use of a 4-function calculator (Girling, 1992).
Numeracy is most often assumed to be the outcome of a sound mathematical

education and innumeracy an indictment of poor schooling. Accordingly, numeracy is
often equated with elementary mathematics and considered to be basic, superficial,
and commonly understood, a view emphatically rejected by Ma (Ma, 1999).
Similarly, a ‘limited proficiency’ vision of numeracy, similar to the arithmetic
element of the ‘3Rs’ of Victorian elementary education, with the emphasis on
equipping the workforce with the minimum skills required for industry and
commerce, has proved remarkably persistent. FitzSimons, among others, challenges
what she sees in this perspective as a dangerously limited competence-based agenda
for adult mathematics/numeracy education in the vocational context in Australia
(FitzSimons, 2002).
Building on these critiques, Johnston and her colleagues distinguish between concepts
of numeracy with narrowly-defined goals or learning outcomes, such as have been
adopted by many national and international bodies, which they characterise as
approaching numeracy from a human resources or accountability perspective, and
approaches which would allow for the development of critical citizenship
(Johnston, FitzSimons, Maaß, & Yasukawa, 2002). This distinction (and the
dominance of the former, more cognitive approach) is elaborated by Gal (see Box 4)
Box 4: Numeracy situations

Gal approaches the issue of conceptualising numeracy in a slightly different way (Gal,
2000). He describes three different types of "numeracy situations": "generative",
"interpretive", and "decision".
4
This section draws on the extensive literature review conducted by the NRDC and presented in the
report: Coben et al, 2003. All of the references listed in this section are cited in this report, available at:
http://www.nrdc.org.uk/uploads/documents/doc_2802.pdf
7
Generative situations require people to count, quantify, compute and otherwise

manipulate numbers, quantities, items or visual elements, all of which involve
language skills to varying degrees.
Interpretive situations demand that people make sense of verbal or text-based
messages that may be based on quantitative data but require no manipulation of
numbers.
Decision situations "demand that people find and consider multiple pieces of
information in order to determine a course of action, typically in the presence of
conflicting goals, constraints or uncertainty" (p15).
Gal sees adult numeracy education as helping students "to manage effectively
multiple types of numeracy situations" (p24). He characterises numeracy as a semi-
autonomous area at the intersection between literacy and mathematics (p23) and
asserts that conceptions of numeracy should address not only purely cognitive issues,
but also students’ dispositions and cognitive styles (p21).
Source: Coben et al (2003)
The ‘limited proficiency’ or cognitive or ‘generative’ approach to numeracy, which is

prevalent today, has its roots in the dominant epistemology of mathematics.
Traditionally, mathematics has been divided into ‘absolutist’ and ‘fallibilist’
perspectives5. The absolutist view is based on belief in the certainty and neutrality of
mathematics, while the fallibilist view treats mathematics as a social construct. A
proponent of the latter, Benn, argues that approaches based on a fallibilist view are
more inclusive and lead to more andragogical, or adult-friendly teaching and learning;
by contrast, the absolutist view is associated with the product view of mathematics, in
which mathematical skills and concepts are seen as external to the learner (Benn,
1997a).
Acknowledging both perspectives, Evens offers a "provisional working definition for

a reconstituted idea of numeracy" as meaningful social practice: the ability to process,
interpret and communicate numerical, quantitative, spatial, statistical, even
mathematical, information, in ways that are appropriate for a variety of contexts, and
that will enable a typical member of the culture to participate effectively in activities
that they value. (Evans, 2000b:236)
Skills enabling access to knowledge and information

The term literacy is sometimes broadened to become a metaphor for any kind of skill
or competence. Street (2003), Lankshear and Knobel (2003), Cope and Kalantzis
(2000) and others have all advocated alternative perspectives as more suited to life in
the 21st century. These authors suggest that a more useful concept is multiple
literacies, ways of reading the world in particular contexts- technological, health,
information, media, visual, scientific, and numerous others (see following section on
‘Multimodalities’ in Literacy as Text). These ‘new literacies’ range from concepts
depicting an clear set of competencies (as in the case of 'palpatory' literacy – skills in
body massage, ‘Xerox’ literacy or ‘computer’ literacy) to concepts implying skills
5
Other epistemologies of mathematics exist (such as constructivist, socio-cultural, feminist and
ethnomathematics schools of though) and will be discussed in the following sections.
8
that enable access to knowledge and information (and sometimes promote active
engagement with meaning-making processes) (see Table 1).
TABLE 1: Non-textual Literacies

Information "the abilities to recognize when information is needed and to locate,
literacy evaluate, effectively use, and communicate information in its various
formats" - State University of New York (SUNY) Council of Library
Directors. Information Literacy Initiative 1997
http://www.sunyconnect.suny.edu/ili/final.htm
"the ability to decode, analyze, evaluate, and produce communication
(New) Media in a variety of forms" - Trent Think Tank on Media Literacy (Ontario,
literacy Canada). 1989. http://digitalliteracy.mwg.org/studies.html
In recent years, this refers more to digital/electronic communications
forms, particularly the internet and the World Wide Web, rather than
the ‘old’ media, of newspapers, film, radio, television, and so on.
While computer literacy generally refers to the competencies needed to
Digital/computer/ perform a variety of tasks related to computer language and use such as
ICTs literacy "the regular use of a major microcomputer application, such as word
processing" (The Instructional Technology Program and Its Curriculum
Instructional Technology, University of South Florida, Tampa)
increasingly this term has been broadened to ‘Digital’ literacy or
competence: this involves the confident and critical use of electronic
media for work, leisure and communication. These competences are
related to logical and critical thinking, to high-level information
management skills, and to well developed communication skills.
(European Commission (2004) Implementation Of “Education And
Training 2010” Work Programme, Key Competences For Lifelong
Learning A European Reference Framework November 2004, P.7)
Visual literacy Visual literacy has been used as an interdisciplinary concept that
includes theoretical perspectives, visual language perspectives,
presentational perspectives, and technological development, including
digitization. The International Visual Literacy Association (IVLA)
suggests that it includes:
• A group of competencies a human being can develop by seeing and
at the same time having and integrating other sensory experiences.
• The learned ability to interpret the communication of visual symbols
(images), and to create messages using visual symbols.
• The ability to translate visual images into verbal language and vice
versa.
• The ability to search for and evaluate visual information in visual
media. (IVLA, 1989)
Environmental Although the idea of environmental literacy appears to be a long way
literacy from the traditional idea of literacy as reading and writing text, it is one
of the oldest explicit uses of literacy as a non-text based context.
Charles E. Roth coined the term in 1968 and refined it over the next 25
years, explaining that: “environmental literacy is essentially the
capacity to perceive and interpret the relative health of environmental
systems and take appropriate action to maintain, restore, or improve the
health of those systems” (Dsinger and Roth 1992 cited in Hull et al
2003).
9
Political/civic/ ‘Political’ literacy or ‘civic’ literacy encompasses the skills required to

citizenship understand, utilise and critically engage in political citizens. ‘Civic’
literacy literacy refers more particularly to a knowledge of and access to
citizenship rights, usually at the national level.
Cultural literacy ‘Cultural’ literacy is a very new concept, denoting access to and
engagement with ‘high culture’ such as literature and the arts. To date
the concept has been predominantly employed in the United States
(Barton 1994).
Today, the concepts of “information literacy,” “visual literacy,” and “media literacy”
are often used interchangeably. Their definitions tend to have diverse and shifting
meanings, and are often used very selectively. These range from the view of literacy
as neutral technical skills, which tends to predominate in the United States (Hull et al
2003) to the application of these skills in a critical way and for transformative
purposes. For example, in the case of ‘information’ literacy, the term in its broadest
sense refers to the ability to access and use a variety of information sources to solve
an information need. But, it can also defined as the development of a complex set of
skills that allow people to express, explore, question, communicate and
understand the flow of ideas among individuals and groups in a vastly changing
technological environment. Similarly, media literacy can refer to the knowledge and
utilisation of a variety of mediums. But it can also imply a critical understanding of
the more insidious subjectivism, biases and hidden objectives within these mediums.
Fundamental to these latter interpretations is an emphasis on skills of critical
enquiry.
However, the notion of multiple literacies is not without controversy. To some (e.g.
Jones 1997) literacy has become a debased term with its core reference to reading
obscured. Others question why we are using literacy as a metaphor for everything else
(Wysocki and Johnson-Eilola 1999). Those advocating a multimodality approach
would argue that while reading is still an essential part of literacy, it is not just reading
script, but also other symbols in different contexts for different purposes that
constitutes literacy.
Monitoring literacy as a skill
Box 5 summarises the understanding of literacy as a set of skills.
Box 5 Literacy as skills
• The ability to read, write and (to a lesser extent) calculate constitutes the
conventional understanding of literacy. Most alternative understandings also
recognise these outcomes as desirable and build on, rather than reject, this
understanding. Indeed, the motivation to learn and the central goal of literacy
programmes is usually to develop these skills. Other skill-sets such as visual
literacy, oral literacy and information literacy have been recognised more recently
but with less global consensus.
• This understanding tends to isolate literacy as a set of outcomes which can be
broken down into parts to teach and test. While outcomes may be linked to a set of
inputs, the processes of learning, broader uses of the skills and context dimensions
are often neglected. The skills are also often assumed in a dominant or official
10
language, either explicitly or implicitly (by failing to specify the language of

literacy).
• An example of this understanding would be perceiving someone as ‘literate’ if
they can read a newspaper and write a letter. The processes by which people have
acquired these abilities (at school, through an adult programme, at home, at work)
are in this perspective relatively unimportant. Similarly, what people might do
with these abilities (e.g. critically respond to articles, communicate news or pursue
rights) – the uses - remain unacknowledged. Finally, the context of these skills is
usually ignored (e.g. the type of newspapers available, the written language; social
conventions surrounding letter-writing or newspaper-reading etc).
• Such a focus on tangible outcomes tends to assume that these outcomes are
neutral and can be standardised. A misguided inference of this has been that these
‘universal’ skills can be achieved through similarly universal processes and
regardless of learners’ age, socio-cultural background and other contextual
factors.
The ‘autonomous’ or ‘skills approach’ to understanding literacy is undoubtedly both

the most dominant and also the most practical for the purposes of monitoring.
Literacy skills can quite easily be proxied by learning outcomes and assessed in much
the same way as ‘achievement’ in formal schooling.
However, as this section has shown this understanding is not without its limitations.
Barton, amongst others offers a hefty critique of the ‘skills approach’ to literacy
which derives from the discourse of psychology and implies an ‘autonomous’ view of
literacy, seeing reading (for example) as a set of skills which can be broken down into
parts and taught and tested. This assumes that there are clear and discrete stages in
learning, with the separate skills learned in a linear order. Underlying this, deep down,
is the organising idea of there being only one way of learning to read (David Barton
(1994) Literacy: An Introduction To The Ecology Of Written Language, Blackwell:
Oxford). Others, such as Street have argued that this model disguises the cultural and
ideological assumptions that underpin it, presenting them as though they are neutral
and universal. He claims that in practice, dominant approaches based on the
autonomous model are simply imposing western (or urban or male etc.) conceptions
of literacy on to other cultures (Street, 2001).
Nevertheless, the notion of skills may be useful when examining a specific situation
and is an important foundation for monitoring activities. In order to mitigate its
simplifications, one approach may be to see skills as situated within social ‘practices’
and to acknowledge that these same practices determine the skills. (Scribner and Cole,
cited in Barton, 1994)
11
Literacy as applied, social, and situated
Functional literacy
Acknowledging the limitations of a skills-based approach to literacy, attempts were
made in the latter half of the twentieth century to focus more on the application of
these skills in ‘meaningful’ ways. One of the first coordinated efforts to do this came
in the form of ‘functional literacy’. This new understanding of literacy was first
defined at the World Congress of Ministers of Education on the Eradication of
Illiteracy, Tehran September 1965:
“Rather than an end in itself, literacy should be regarded as a way of

preparing man [sic] for a social, civic and economic role that goes beyond
the limits of rudimentary literacy training consisting merely in [sic] the
teaching of reading and writing.” (Yousif, 2003)
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s ‘functional literacy’ was preoccupied with linking
literacy to socio-economic development (a perspective put into practice through the
Experimental World Literacy Programme in conjunction with the UN’s first
Development Decade on Literacy6.)
In principle then, the notion of functional literacy takes our understanding of literacy
a step further by moving beyond a fixed set of skills. In practical terms, however, as
Barton and many others recognise, functional literacy has often meant teaching
literacy as a set of skills thought to be universal and applicable anywhere, with the
idea of there being one literacy which everyone should learn in the same way.
Moreover, there are several limitations in the functional approach to literacy. Firstly,
it is not obvious what the functions of literacy in a particular situation are. Whose
functions are being considered and in what particular context? Secondly, There is a
need to go beyond mere ‘functions’ in order to identify the possibilities which literacy
can offer (as illustrated previously in the previous section). Beginning with people’s
needs is important. But people’s perceived needs can only ever be a starting point –
what is critical, is beginning to encounter new uses and new possibilities for
individual and social transformation. Thirdly, In practice, the notion of functional
literacy in UNESCO campaigns has always been closely tied to employment and
related to economic development. Literacy has been treated as a variable, which is
measurable and the related to other variables of development, such as economic
development and modernity. The idea has been that resources are put into literacy and
this then aids development. In this sense, literacy is seen as an external factor which is
brought into a society. (Barton, 1994: 192-195)
Social approaches to literacy
6
The notion of functional literacy became a linchpin of UNESCO’s Experimental World Literacy
Programme (EWLP), initiated at the General Conference on Education in 1965, implemented in eleven
countries, and discontinued in 1973. The EWLP, funded by the United Nation’s Development
Programme (UNDP) and other agencies, aimed to provide literacy acquisition via experimentation and
work-oriented learning. Four projects were implemented in 1967 (in Algeria; Ecuador; Iran, Islamic
Republic of; and Mali), five in 1968 (Ethiopia, Guinea, Madagascar, the United Republic of Tanzania
and Venezuela), and two in 1971 (India and the Syrian Arab Republic). The EWLP paid particular
attention to organization, methodology, financing, international cooperation and monitoring and
evaluation (Yousif, 2003). Overall, it was commonly regarded as a failure.
12
More recently, a new perspective influenced by ‘ethnographic’ research has emerged

which emphasises understanding of literacy practices in their social and cultural
contexts. This new paradigm has been referred to as ‘New Literacy Studies’ (NLS)
(Gee 1999; Barton and Hamilton 1999; Collins 1995 all cited in Street 2004). NLS
tends to focus on ‘the everyday meanings and uses of literacy in specific cultural
contexts and links directly to how we understand the work of literacy programmes,
which themselves then become subject to ethnographic enquiry’ (Street 2004).
Contrary to the ‘autonomous’ skills approach to literacy, the NLS school is based on
an ‘ideological’ approach which recognises that literacy is a social practice, not
simply a technical and neutral skill; that it is always embedded in socially constructed
epistemological principles. The ways in which people address reading and writing are
themselves rooted in conceptions of knowledge, identity and being. The argument
about social literacies suggests that engaging with literacy is always a social act even
from the outset (ibid). Indeed, even so-called ‘objective’ skills associated with literacy,
such as numeracy skills can be situated socially (see Box 5)
Box 6: Situated numeracy and ethnomathematics

Although the nature of the relationship between numeracy and context is contested, in
many modern definitions numeracy is seen as contextualised. Indeed, sociocultural
epistemologies of mathematics education which acknowledge adults’ ‘common sense’
knowledge in their everyday contexts are gaining prominence.
The term ‘ethnomathematics’ encompasses both ‘the mathematics which is practiced

among identifiable cultural groups’ (Coben et al., 2003) and educational approaches
geared to engagement with these forms of mathematics. It is a field of
anthropological, political and educational research and practice championed since the
mid-1970s by Brazilian educationalist Ubiratan D’Ambrosio and since developed by
Paulus Gerdes, Gelsa Knijnik, and others. Although mathematics is sometimes
claimed to be a universal language, much of mathematics education depends on
Western assumptions and values. The development of ethnomathematics as an active
area of research and practice has encouraged a growing recognition that mathematics
may, like literacy, be embedded in a range of practices. Studies on folk mathematics,
for example, have examined the methods by which members of various indigenous
groups acquire numeracy skills. For instance, despite being illiterate, adults in rural
Tamil Nadu acquire sophisticated numeracy skills, including the ability to calculate
time and seasonal changes on the basis of the length of the Sun’s shadow; likewise,
village women must know how to count in order to make sophisticated geometrical
patterns in the rice-paste designs known as kolums (Dighe, 2004).
Sources: Coben et al. (2003), Dighe (2004).
The NLS approach has implications for both research and practice. ‘Researchers,
instead of privileging the particular literacy practices familiar in their own culture,
now suspend judgement as to what constitutes literacy among the people they are
working with until they are able to understand what it means to the people
themselves, and which social contexts reading and writing derive their meaning from.
Many people labelled ‘illiterate’ within the autonomous model of literacy may, from a
more culturally-sensitive viewpoint, be seen to make significant use of literacy
13
practices for specific purposes and in specific contexts’ (Doronilla, 1996 cited in
Street 2004).
Key concepts in the field of NLS include the notions of literacy events and of literacy
practices (see Box 6). Shirley Brice Heath characterised a ‘literacy event’ as ‘any
occasion in which a piece of writing is integral to the nature of the participants’
interactions and their interpretative processes’ (Heath, 1982, p. 50). Brian Street
employed the phrase ‘literacy practices’ (Street, 1984, p. 1) as a means of focussing upon
‘the social practices and conceptions of reading and writing’ though more recently,
‘literacy practices’ also incorporates ‘literacy events’ (Street, 1988).
Box 7 Literacy events and literacy practices

Heath (1983, Way with Words) draws on studies from Appalachia, USA to recognise
the contrast between what literacy does for people and what people do with literacy.
Her work urges researchers to focus on actual instances of people using reading and
writing in their day-to-day lives, literacy events.
Sylvia Scribner and Michael Cole in (The Psychology of Literacy, 1981) worked
within traditions of cross-cultural psychology and carried out a study of the uses of
literacy among the Vai of north-west Liberia. Their detailed study covered the writing
systems, how people learned to read and write, and the uses of literacy. In their book
we can see how they shift their ideas from the notion of literacy as a set of skills with
identifiable consequences. They are edging towards their alternative notion of a
practice account of literacy, arguing that literacy can only be understood in the
context of the social practices in which it is acquired and used (Barton, 1994).
The NLS approach has, however, been criticized by some scholars, who claim it
overemphasizes local exigencies and insufficiently recognizes how external forces
(e.g. colonial administrations, missionaries, international communication, economic
globalization) have impinged upon the ‘local’ experiences of specific communities
(Brandt and Clinton, 2003; Collins and Blot, 2003). Maddox (2001) and Stromquist
(2004) question the reluctance of advocates of this approach to examine the potential
of literacy to help people move out of ‘local’ positions into fuller economic, social
and political participation.
Monitoring literacy as applied and situated

Boxes 8 and 9 summarise the understandings of literacy as applied and literacy as
socially situated.
Box 8: Literacy as applied
• Building on the skills-approach (while acknowledging its limitations) this understanding

focuses on the application of these skills in meaningful ways.
• The dominant concept in this understanding is the notion of ‘functional literacy’, which
insists that reading, writing and numeracy skills are developed with a view to enabling a
person to function in his or her community, to develop individually or to help to develop
her or his community.
• In this approach, the skill outcomes are still the focus but are strongly connected to their
eventual uses. Context also starts to play a role. For example, learning reading skills for
the purpose of reading a religious text (and example of functioning in the community);
14
learning these skills in a second language (an example of developing oneself); or learning
numeracy skills for micro-credit schemes (an example of community development).
• The functional literacy approach has been criticised for being too focused on outcomes
and for its tendency to focus on economic rather than socio-cultural functions – though
this notion has been interpreted and used in many different ways.
Box 9: Literacy as socially situated
• This understanding is closely linked to the emphasis on functions or applications of

literacy. While building on skills and on the uses of these skills, it goes one step further in
stressing the impact of social context on both the uses of skills and the construction of
these skills themselves. Literacy here is not just individualised but can be societal too.
Similarly, people who don’t have conventional literacy skills, still engage in literate
activities.
• The notion of ‘literacy events’ or ‘practices’ is key to this approach. It starts with an
analysis of the pre-existing social practices surrounding the ways literacy is used in a
given context – even by so-called ‘iliterates’. Skills are then developed around and in
accordance with these practices.
• For example, women in a literacy programme in Rajasthan, India rejected their traditional
and irrelevant textbooks in favour of cinema adverts and movie clippings. Since they
already new many of the names and words and were interested in the topic they learnt
quickly and gained much confidence. In a programme in Uganda, woman filled out health
census forms in class, while a literacy group in Nigeria focused on signs and notices in
the market (Rodgers, 1999).
• This understanding is criticised for being limited to ‘the local’ and failing to take account
of external influences and people’s own demand for ‘upward mobility’ and skills that will
help them integrate into the ‘modern’ world.
While ‘functional literacy’ has been incorporated into national and international
monitoring efforts and has expanded some of the simplifications of the skills
approach, it is more difficult to monitor the socially situated understanding of literacy,
particularly at the international level.
Indeed within monitoring efforts, there has always been some tension between global
comparability and local validity (Wagner, 2006) and to date these two approaches to
monitoring have been more of less pigeon-holed: the former employing simplified
measures to monitor quantitatively at the macro level; and the latter using
ethnographic and other qualitative methodologies to investigate practice at local and
occasionally national levels.
A critical challenge is in bringing these two approaches closer together; in bridging

quantitative and qualitative methodologies and in scaling-up local realities for the
purpose of international policy.
15
Literacy as a learning process

Constructivist approaches to literacy view literacy as a process, rather than a product,
whereby knowledge is gained by doing. Building on the work with children by Dewey
and Piaget, constructivist educators focus on ways in which the individual learner
makes sense of their learning experience. In the field of adult education, educators
such as Kolb and Knowles both position experience as a central resource for learning.
Adult education in this tradition tends to embody an individualising approach to
learning, with critical reflection as a key method for personal transformation.
Experience is one of Knowles’s (1980) five principles of ‘andragogy’ or adult
learning theory in which he argues for a learner-centred educational process, with
reflection as central. Kolb (1984) developed an experiential learning cycle with
‘concrete experience’ as the starting point for learning, based on reflection.
More recently, social psychologists and anthropologists have used notions like
‘collaborative learning’, ‘distributed learning’ and ‘communities of practice’ to shift
the focus away from the individual mind and towards more social practices (see
Rogoff, Lave and Wenger, Rogoff and Lave 1984, Lave 1988, Rogoff 2003 and Lave
and Wenger 1991 all cited in Street 2004). In discussions of informal learning Rogoff
and her colleagues, for example, distinguished between ‘the structure of intent
participation in shared endeavors’ and ‘assembly-line preparation based on
transmission of information from experts, outside the context of productive activity’
(Rogoff, 2003 discussed in Street 2004). Intent participation refers to a process
whereby facilitators often participate alongside learners as they define together the
learning experience. On the contrary, assembly-line preparation views teachers as
managers, who establish tasks and don’t participate themselves. As Street explains,
the two processes are differences in motivation and purposes, in sources of learning
(e.g., observant participation or lessons out of the context of productive, purposeful
participation), in forms of communication, and in forms of assessment (to aid or test
learning).
A similar distinction has been made by Rogers between ‘task-conscious’ learning and
‘learning-conscious learning’, each of which has its own methods of evaluation (task-
conscious by the task fulfilment, learning-conscious by measurements of learning).
Where these issues are not addressed (for example, in cognitive science research) the
more traditional literacy learning of children (including ‘assembly-line preparation’
and ‘task-conscious’ or ‘test learning’) tends to be used for adults, as evident in many
adult literacy programmes.
Perhaps the most famous adult literacy educator who has integrated both
constructivist and socio-cultural elements into his work, has been Paulo Freire (see
Box 7)
Box 10 Reading the world

Every reading of the word is preceded by a reading of the world. Starting from the
reading of the world that the reader brings to literacy programs (a social- and class-
determined reading), the reading of the word sends the reader back to the previous
reading of the world, which is, in fact, a re-reading.
Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the City (1993, translated by D. Macedo)
16
According to Paulo Freire, dialogue provides the link between oral and literate forms
of interpreting, understanding and transforming the world. It is not a matter of
speaking first, then developing reading skills, and then learning to write. Rather,
speaking, reading and writing are interconnected parts of an active learning process
and of social transformation. The words that people use in order to give meaning to
their lives are fashioned, created and conditioned by the world in which they inhabit.
In this approach, literacy acquisition encompasses critical exploration of the social
and political dimensions of learners’ experience. The objective here is
“conscientization” or becoming critically aware of social, political, economic, and
historical forces that shape oppression and, ultimately, social transformation. Quality
in this approach requires meeting four standards:
- First, learners must learn to code and decode print
- Second, the processes involved in learning must be collective and democratic.
- Third, the problems that serve as the basis for discussion and literacy learning
must come from the group which must “own” the process.
- Fourth, conscientization and social action must result from the learning
experience.
Sources: Freire (1995), Gadotti (1994).
Freire’s emphasis on bringing the learner’s socio-cultural realities into the learning
process itself and then using the learning process to challenge these realities stresses
the potential of teaching and learning processes. Crucial to his pedagogy is the notion
of critical literacy, in part, though engaging with books and other written texts, but,
more profoundly, through reading (i.e. interpreting, reflecting on, interrogating,
theorizing, investigating, exploring, probing, questioning etc.) and writing (acting on
and dialogically transforming) the social world (Roberts, 2000).
This approach is not, however, without its critics. Opposition to Freirean pedagogies
has mainly come from the feminist lobby (who claim that the methodologies
themselves are somewhat gendered, though Freire started to address this in his later
work) and postmodern criticisms of universalistic thought (see, for example, Elizabeth
Ellsworth, K. Weiler, Bowers, Berger and Walker, all discussed in Roberts 2000).
Nevertheless, Freire’s approaches are currently practiced and in some cases even
institutionalised, most notably in ActionAid International’s Reflect projects7.
Monitoring literacy as learning
Box 11 summarises the understanding of literacy as a learning process
Box 11 Literacy as learning
7
Reflect (Regenerated Freirean Literacy through Empowering Community Techniques) is an approach
by which “the written word is increasingly placed alongside other forms of communication – the
spoken word, images and numbers. This does not involve a rejection of literacy but a repositioning of
it. Even if literacy is a central part of what you wish to (or have to) work on, it can be helpful to place
this in a wider context. Most people’s daily experience of disempowerment is probably not linked to
literacy – but rather to situations where the spoken word is the dominant medium – which reinforces
the need to address other media of communication”. (Archer in UNESCO 2003)
17
• Understanding literacy as learning implies focusing predominantly on the

acquisition processes (e.g. what is learnt, how its learnt, which institutions are
responsible etc).
• Although the objectives are generally to develop literacy outcomes linked to
contextually relevant uses, the argument is that learning processes are critically
influenced by all these factors, and have a critical influence on them too. Carefully
planned learning processes can enhance completion, achievement and retention of
skills but also generate additional outcomes which may not constitute the primary
goals but can be just as desirable (e.g. critical reflection, creativity, emotional
maturity, values, changes in attitudes and behaviour, collective action etc)
• For example, a rural literacy programme in Ghana which taught adults to read and
write English from British primary school textbooks would give rise to very
different outcomes and completion rates to a contextually relevant learning
process which built on adults’ own experiences and objectives.
• While no-one could claim that the learning process of literacy is unimportant, it is
a highly complex dimension and thus, most difficult to formulate policy strategies
on.
For monitoring purposes, it is undoubtedly easier to measure ‘task conscious’ or ‘test’

learning based on ‘assembly line participation’ than the learning process itself, since
the outcomes are clearly identified.
However, measure to monitor outcomes that are more bound up with learning as a
process (such as ‘empowerment’, confidence, critical thinking, changes in values,
attitudes and behaviour) have been developed (see Riddell, 2000).
Even where the impact of learning processes cannot be ‘scientifically’ measured,

there is still clear worth in paying attention to the ways in which people learn, the
formal and informal curricula employed (and the implications of this for the training
of teachers of facilitators) as well as nonformal means of acquiring literacy. Similarly,
the pedagogic importance of language choice and use cannot be underestimated.
18
Literacy as text
Subject matter and Discourse

Linguists, literary theorists and educationalists have tended to look at literacy in terms
of the ‘subject matter’ (Bhola, 1994) and the nature of the texts that are produced and
consumed by literate individuals. Texts can vary in terms of subject and genre (e.g.
textbooks, technical/professional publications, fiction), in terms of levels of difficulty
of the language used, and in terms of ideological content (explicit of hidden). More
complex understandings of texts have adopted a constructivist view of language.
According to this perspective, texts are bound to each other through intertextuality;
people are positioned by them, and the study of literacy, as of all languages, is the
study of practices and the study of texts. Constructivists argue that language has been
constructed historically, is constructed again when the child learns it, and is
constructed whenever someone uses it (Barton, 1994). Since the reader is constructed
too (as there are limited subject positions for a reader) texts have the power to
legitimate and reproduce social inequalities, such as gender relations.
This position has been built on by more radical critics who have focussed on stretches
of text referred to by socio linguists as ‘discourse’. Influenced by broader social
theory and by uses of the term Discourse by Foucault and others, they have developed
an approach to what Gee(1991) calls Discourse with a big D. This locates literacy
within wider communicative and socio-political practices. The work of Gee (1990)
and Fairclough (1991) represents a central plank of this approach (Street, 2004).
Multi-modalities and multi-literacies

Kress and others have developed this position further, arguing that language should be
seen as just one of several modes through which communication is conducted (Kress
and van Leeuwen, 2001 cited in Street 2004): 'We suggest that, like language, visual
images, gesture and action have been developed through their social usage into
articulated or partly articulated resources for representation'. People select different
‘representational resources’ depending on the situation and context. A multi-modal
perspective can help to chart the various motivations (conscious or otherwise) for
these decisions.
The broader policy question raised by all of this work is whether “the literacies being
taught in schools and in mainstream adult programmes are relevant to the lives that
learners are leading and will have to lead in the globalised world with its ‘new work
order’ demands of flexibility, multi modality and multi literacies” (Street 2004
referring to Gee et. al. 1996). Contemporary researchers have focused on workplaces
to discern the different literacy practices utilised. Many of these studies show that
there are often conflicts between such actual uses of literacy in the workplace and the
kinds of literacy skills prioritised in official strategies and campaigns (Street 2004).
The ‘Dark Side’ of Literacy

Drawing on some of the ‘Discourse-analysis’ discussed above, a new school of
postmodernists have recently cautioned against the ‘dark side of literacy’
(Shikshantar: The People’s Institute for Rethinking Education and Development,
2003). Arguing that literacy is frequently promoted as a ‘universal good’ or a
powerful and ‘value-neutral’ tool which can only stand to benefit those who imbibe it,
19
this school takes a radically critical look at literacy and the potentially dangerous
implications of certain types of literacy discourse on so-called ‘illiterates’.
Positioning a large part of the literacy movement within the ‘culture of schooling’, the
Shikshantar institute argues that it:
• Labels, ranks and sorts humans creating a rigid social hierarchy consisting of a
very small elite class of ‘highly educated’ and a large lower class of ‘failures’
and ‘illiterates’ based on levels of school achievement
• Imposes uniformity and standardization
• Spreads fear, insecurity, violence and silence
• Forces human beings to violently compete against each other
• Confines the motivation for learning to examinations, certificates and jobs
• Commodifies all human beings, Nature, knowledge and social relationships
• Fragments and compartmentalises knowledge, human beings and the natural
world
• Artificially separates human rationality from human emotions and the human
spirit
• Privileges literacy over all other forms of human expression and creation
• Reduces the spaces and opportunities for ‘valid’ human learning by demanding
that they all be funnelled through a centrally controlled institution.
• Destroys the dignity of labour, devalues the learning that takes place through
manual work
• Breaks intergenerational bonds of family and community and increases people’s
dependency on the State/Government, on science and technology, and on the
global market for both their livelihoods and identities.
These arguments primarily fall into three categories: Firstly, neo-Marxist critiques of
the legitimating and reproduction of the capitalist economic order; Secondly,
postmodernist or relativist critiques of the social construction of text and its
implications for gender and other power relations, and the standardisation of human
‘rationality’, undermining emotions and creativity; And thirdly, anthropological or
ecological critiques against the negative impact of literacy movements on language
diversity and preservation.
Monitoring literacy as text
Box 12 summarises the understanding of literacy as text.
Box 12 Literacy as text
• This is the most radical understanding of literacy. Literacy here is equated to the
textual processes at play as literacy is acquired and used. These processes conceal
intricate power relations and serve to reproduce pre-existing inequalities.
- During the learning process, this occurs through the ‘hidden curriculum’. For
example, textbooks which repeatedly use images of woman as mothers, legitimate
the idea that women’s functions are limited to this role.
- In broader society, this takes the form of ‘Discourse’. For example, the idea that
children should go to school is not universal, but rather originated from some
20
societies based on a particular ethical system and was imposed on to others by

missionaries and colonisers. As the world becomes more interconnected these
societies become increasingly trapped in the foreign ‘Discourse’ and are obliged
to conform in order to compete at best or to minimise exploitation at worst.
• This understanding perceives literacy skills as tools which legitimate dominant
‘Discourses’ and enhance inequalities. This perspective is not compatible with
literacy efforts.
Of all the understandings of literacy, the notion of literacy as text is the most difficult
to monitor, and particularly at the macro level. Indeed, the only dimension that
accommodates some standardisation of measurement is the emphasis on ‘subject
matter’, which should be recognised as an important consideration.
The notion of literacy as Discourse and the caution against literacy’s ‘dark side’ are
also helpful qualifiers of the power of literacy, however, they are simply not
compatible with global monitoring efforts.
However, the concept of multi-modalities and more specifically, the questions

surrounding the choice of different literacies for different purposes in different
contexts should remain in our minds as we turn to monitoring.
21
Towards a Framework
Table 2 summarises the 4 major understandings of literacy discussed in this chapter.
Table 2 Understandings of literacy and their implications for monitoring

Literacy as…. Aspects Critiques Monitoring
Skills Criticized for its Cognitive learning
(traditional Reading and writing skills in standardization and outcomes such as
understanding) one or more language assumptions that scripts those measured in
are superior to oral achievement testing
Oral skills in one or more communication and that are the easiest to
language reading and writing are monitor.
Numeracy akills neutral activities that can More difficult to
Skills enabling access to be decontextualised. measure oral skills
knowledge and information and other knowledge-
based skills.
Applied, Functional literacy (skills – Functional literacy Functional literacy
social, and defined usually in the traditionally linked just to incorporated into
situated traditional sense – applied for socio-economic international
different purposes) development. monitoring, but more
difficult to
Literacy as socially constructed NLS ‘limited to the local’, quantitatively
and consisting of pre-existing failing to take into monitor socially
‘events’ and ‘practices’ which account of outside situated literacy at a
derive from the context, are influences associated with macro level.
often learnt informally and are literacy Therefore, a
used in day-to-day life. need to bridge
qualitative and
quantitative
methodologies and
scale up local
realities
Learning The process of learning literacy Processes always harder Difficult to monitor
is as important as the outcomes. to plan against than learning processes
Adults learn in different ways outcomes. To engage since variables and
from children, and adult significantly with the contextual factors are
learning is built on prior quality of the literacy numerous and non-
knowledge and experience with process can be highly cognitive outcomes
often transformative goals. costly and time- (changes in values,
exhausting. attitudes, behaviour
etc) are harder to
ascertain. Some
qualitative micro
assessments though
attempt to do this
Text Subject matter Tends to reject all literacy ‘Subject matter’ can
Discourse and the ‘hidden efforts – at least, those be factored into
curriculum’ (legitimation and which don’t monitoring as an
reproduction of inequitable spontaneously emerge at input, process and
power relations) the local level. outcome factor but
Runs risk of being so often is not.
relative that institutions/ Discourse is entirely
systems are redundant. contextual and thus
impossible to monitor
globally.
Are there commonalities within all these traditions which might allow for a common
definition of literacy to be arrived at? Is it even desirable to attempt this?
22
In a background paper to a recent Expert Meeting on Literacy Assessment at

UNESCO, Paris (10 – 12 June, 2003) Dr. Abdelwahid Abdalla Yousif reviews the
evolving definitions of literacy, concluding that:
“There is agreement in all the definitions and concepts we have reviewed

on some core elements that are common denominators. Those elements
include the whole range of communication skills, including reading,
writing and arithmetic. There is also a consensus in those definitions that
literacy should originate from a demand that reflects the need of the
learner or learners in a particular context. Whatever the demand may be,
that demand cannot be isolated from other concerns in the life of the
individual. For this act of learning, the learner and his community must be
involved in the conceptualization and the design of what will be offered by
way of literacy training. The learning environment should be designed to
empower the learner rather than reduce him to a silent powerless receiver
of instructions.” (Yousif, 2003)
He then questions whether there is a need for a universal definition of Literacy and
reasons that in fact a “water-tight compartment universal definition of literacy is
neither possible nor desirable. What is desirable is a broad-based definition which can
be used to plan, implement and assess literacy programs.” To this end, he presents a
rough draft for a definition of literacy to be discussed in the meeting:
“Literacy is a technical capacity and a social act whose principal focus is

reading, writing and numeracy as a step in a lifelong learning process that
can lead to creative expression and conceptual problem-solving skills. Its
principal objective is to enable the individual to achieve his goals and to
contribute to the welfare of his community”
Is this definition sufficient for the monitoring purposes of this report? This final
section addresses this question and presents a framework for organising literacy
which will then be utilised in different ways for the dual objectives of monitoring and
framing policy strategy on literacy.
The definition quoted above incorporates most of the conceptualizations of literacy

discussed in the previous section8. At its core, is a focus on literacy as a set of
cognitive skills (reading, writing, numeracy) but it also stresses the important by-
products of literacy; non-cognitive skills of ‘creative expression and conceptual
problem solving’. Inherent in this definition is the recognition of literacy as a learning
process in itself as well as being instrumental to other ‘lifelong learning’ process.
Finally, the use or application or purpose of literacy is appropriately stressed. While
this is couched primarily in terms of the individual’s own goals and does not make
explicit reference to the context of the globalizing world, it does acknowledge the
social context and emphasizes the benefits of literacy to the community.
8
The exceptions being the notion of literacy as a Discourse and the postmodernist arguments against
the ‘dark side of literacy’. In addition, while Yusuf and UNESCO more generally acknowledge and
integrate some of Freire’s principles of ‘reading the world’ for transformative purposes into their
understandings and practice, this is not explicitly mentioned in their working definition.
23
This definition of literacy is reasonably sound and inclusive of much of the

conceptual discussion of the last half century. However, for the purpose of monitoring
it is somewhat limited by its complication of the various dimensions and the
vagueness of some of its terms. Nevertheless, utilizing this definition as a basis for
understanding literacy gives birth to a framework in which one might locate a
diversity of ways in which to monitor literacy (see figure 1)
Figure 1: Heuristic framework for understanding and organizing literacy
CONTEXT
Learning Literacy skills
Literacy uses
processes (in which language(s)?) - What
- Curriculum uses?
- Learning - Reading - For what
methods - Writing benefits?
- Language - Speaking - Defined
- Literate - Listening by whom?
environment - Viewing - To
Etc. Etc. transform
The spheres in which literacy is acquired and/or used, e.g.:
- Family/ household
- Community
- School/ workplace
- At individual, local, national or global level
Literacy skills
Central to this framework is the notion of literacy as a tangible set of measurable
skills. As a minimum, this would include the cognitive skills of reading, writing and
numeracy in a language (or languages) that is (or are) relevant to the learner.
However, where appropriate, literacy competencies can be extended to include skills
of oral communication (speaking and listening) and ‘newer’ forms of communication
such as the ability to understand and use ICTs (e.g. computers and mobile phones).
Skills of ‘visual literacy’ (decoding signs, symbols and images) can also be important
for certain purposes. It is crucial to remember that none of these skills is dichotomous,
but rather constitutes a continuum in terms of the extent to which they are mastered.
Consequently, it may not be correct to say that someone can read and write if they are
only able to identify a selection of words or letters and can only sign their name. As
such, there is considerable value in the UNESCO definition of literacy as the ability to
“with understanding, both read and write a short simple statement on his or her
everyday life.”
Given the diversity of skills which can contribute to ‘literacy’, the broad continuum
within each, and the subjective assumptions regarding what constitutes being able to
read or write or calculate, there are many ways in which literacy skills can be
measured and monitored and many associated challenges. However, isolating the
24
skills dimension of literacy remains the most pragmatic and commonly used
methodology for monitoring purposes.
Literacy uses
The need to acquire and develop functional literacy is especially salient under
conditions of globalisation and regionalisation, since young people and adults must
perform capably in multi-lingual environments, whether socially, emotionally or
psychologically, in business, trade, cultural and religious practice and exchange,
politics, practices of citizenship, in other learning environments or developmental
activities. Consequently, literacy skills must be directly linked to enabling access to
and participation in these different spheres, events and practices. The type of skills
required and the way in which these skills are learnt and taught depends largely on the
envisaged uses and objectives of the learner.
Efforts have been made to incorporate the functional dimension into international
monitoring activities. The most renowned of these has been the IALS initiative which
measures literacy according to the knowledge and skills needed to understand and use
information from texts and information contained in various functional formats as
well as that required to apply arithmetic operations to numbers embedded in printed
materials. However, this approach to monitoring fails to take into account the more
questioning, critical and transformative uses of literacy for political purposes. While
the previous section on the benefits of literacy illustrates that there have been both
qualitative and quantitative evaluations of these political functions, the studies are
primarily focused at the local and national level. Due to the considerable contextual
variation in the uses of literacy, it is much more difficult to monitor this dimension
comparatively than the relatively objective skills dimension.
Literacy learning processes

As the previous sections have shown, the processes by which one acquires literacy
can have significant impact on the motivation for learning, the skills that are learnt
and the way that these skills are used in later life. The by-products of learning might
include creative expression, critical engagement with the world, psychological
empowerment and the accumulation of values: outcomes that may not be tangible and
may not even transpire until much later. It is therefore incredibly difficult to measure
or monitor literacy according to the processes of learning and teaching it. However,
by recognizing the learning dimension throughout monitoring efforts, important
questions surrounding the different learning processes for children, youth and adults;
the importance of the content of texts and other learning materials throughout these
processes; the significance of language use to teach and learn and the implication of
this for the training of facilitators and teachers, for curriculum development and for
programme organization come to light.
Context
Literacy can be acquired, used and sustained in different spheres and at different
levels to different degrees and depending on the various literate environments,
language mediums, and type of literacies at play in each. While literacy is most
commonly identified at the individual level, notions such as family literacy,
community literacy, and even global literacy are gaining prominence. Similarly, the
different ways that literacy can be acquired in the community, work place or in
educational settings, the different skills that are needed, and the different ways in
25
which they are used all combine to comprise a type of ‘literacy’ that is very much
dictated by context. As the NLS have shown, literacy is socially constructed and at the
same time has an impact on society. However, accepting such local diversity poses
serious challenges for global comparability.
Monitoring efforts must therefore as far as possible acknowledge context and the
caveats that this imposes on analysis, while at the same time attempting to bridge the
quantitative-qualitative divide by employing more ethnographic studies as
complementary analyses to assessments at the macro level.
The organising framework presented above attempts to provide a broad understanding

of the various interrelated dimensions of literacy and the impacts they have on
monitoring. While with our current state of data and limited methodologies no
exercise in monitoring literacy at the global level could possibly take into account all
of these dimensions (and is generally limited to understanding literacy as a set of
skills), it seems nonetheless useful to have an indication of what and how the various
measures are monitoring and what they are neglecting or assuming.
26
References
Abadzi, H. 2004. Strategies and Policies for literacy Background Paper for the GMR
2006
———. 2003 ‘Improving Adult Literacy Outcomes’ World Bank: Washington
Adams, M 1993 ‘Beginning to read: an overview’ in Beard, R Teaching Literacy

Balancing Perspectives Hodder & Stoughton: London ‘Introduction’ pp. 204-215
Archer, D. and S. Cottingham. 1996. Action Research Report on REFLECT. DFID

Educational Paper No. 17. London: Department for International Development.
Barton, D. Hamilton, M. and Ivanic, R. 2000. (eds) Situated Literacies. Routledge:

London
Barton, D. and Hamilton, M. 1999. Situated Literacies: reading and writing in context
Routledge: London edited Barton,D, Hamilton,M & Ivanic., R Ch 1 'Literacy
practices' pp. 7-15
Barton, D. 1994. Literacy: An Introduction To The Ecology Of Written Language.

Oxford: Blackwell
Bhola, H. S. 1994. A sourcebook for literacy work: Perspective from the grassroots.
Paris: UNESCO.
Brandt, D. and Clinton, K. 2002. “Limits of the local: Expanding perspectives on

literacy as social practice.” Journal of Literacy Research 34 (3): 337-356
Chandler, D. 1994 'Biases of the Ear and Eye: "Great Divide" Theories,
Phonocentrism, Graphocentrism & Logocentrism' available at
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/litoral/litoral.html [accessed 19.04.2005]
Coben, D., with Colwell, D., Macrae, S., Boaler, J., Brown, M., and Rhodes, V. 2003.
Adult Numeracy: Review of research and related literature, NRDC: London.
Collins, J. 1995. 'Literacy and Literacies' in Annual review of Anthropology 24: 75-93
Collins, J. and Blot, R. 2002. Literacy and literacies: Texts, power and identity. New
York: Cambridge University Press
Cope, B. and Kalanztis, M. 2000. Multiliteracies: literacy learning and the design of
social futures Routledge: London
Dighe, A. 2004. Pedagogical Approaches to Literacy Acquisition and Effective

Programme Design. Think-piece for EFA Global Monitoring Report 2006.
Doronilla, M.L. 1996. Landscapes of Literacy: an ethnographic study of funcitonal

literacy in marginal Philippine communities. UIE: Hamburg
27
Evans, J. 2000. Adults’ Mathematical Thinking and Emotions: A study of numerate

practices. London: Routledge/Falmer, Taylor & Francis Group.
Fairclough, N. 1991. 'Discourse and text: linguistics: an intertextual analysis within

discourse analysis'. in Critical Discourse Analysis: the critical study of language.
Longman: London pp. 187-213
Fernandez, B. 2005. Literacy in Francophone Countries, Situations and Concepts.

Background Paper for GMR 2006.
Finnegan, Ruth. (1988) Literacy and Orality: Studies in the Technology of

Communication. New York: Basil Blackwell
FitzSimons, G. E. 2002. What Counts as Mathematics? Technologies of power in

adult and vocational education (Vol. 28). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers. Cited in Coben, D. et al 2003, Adult Numeracy: Review of
research and related literature, NRDC: London
Freire, P. 1995. Pedagogy of Hope. Reliving Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York:
Continuum
––––. 1993. Pedagogy of the City. Translated by D. Macedo. New York: Continuum.
Gadotti, M. 1994. Reading Paulo Freire: His life and work. New York: SUNY Press.
Gal, I. (2000). The numeracy challenge. In I. Gal (Ed.), Adult Numeracy

Development: Theory, research and practice (pp. 9-31). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press. Cited in Coben, D. et al 2003, Adult Numeracy: Review of research and
related literature, NRDC: London
Gee, J. 1999. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: theory and method. Routledge:

London
———. 1990 Social Linguistics and Literacies: ideology in discourse Falmer Press:
London and Philadelphia
Gee, J. Hull, G. and Lankshear, C. 1996. The new work order: behind the language of
the new capitalism Allen & Unwin: London
Goodman, K. 1996 On Reading Scholastic: Canada. Ch 8 ‘Learning and Teaching

Reading and Writing’ pp. 117-125
Goody, J. 1977 The Domestication of the Savage Mind ‘Evolution and

Communication ‘pp. 1-18 Cambridge University Press: Cambridge pp. 10-18
Graff, Harvey J. 1987. The Labyrinths of Literacy. London: Falmer
Haar, B. T. (2005) Literacy, writing and education in Chinese culture: bibliography

available at: http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/bth/literacy.htm (last revised: 12-6-
2005)
28
Heath, S.B. 1993 ‘The madness(es) of reading and writing ethnography’

Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 24(3): 256-68.
———. 1983. Ways with Words CUP: Cambridge
Hull, G. A. 2003. Youth culture and digital media: new literacies for new times.
Research in the Teaching of English, 38 (2), 229-333.
Hull, G.A., Mikulecky, L., St. Clair, R. and Kerka, S. 2003. Multiple Literacies: A
Compilation For Adult Educators available at:
http://www.cete.org/acve/docs/compilation-literacies.pdf
Johnston, B., FitzSimons, G., Maaß, J., & K. Yasukawa. 2002. Editorial. Literacy and
Numeracy Studies, 11(2), 1-7.cited in Coben, D. 2003, Adult Numeracy: Rreview of
research and related literature, NRDC: London
Jones, P. 1997. The World Bank and the Literacy Question: Orthodoxy, Heresy, and
Ideology. International Review of Education 43(4), 367-375.
Knowles, M. S. 1980.The modern practice of adult education. New York: Adult

Education
Kolb, D. 1984, Experiential Learning: Experience as a Source of Learning and

Development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. 2001. Multimodal Discourse. Arnold: London
Lankshear, C. and Knobel, M. 2003. New Literacies: Changing Knowledge and

Classroom Learning. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Lave, J. 1988. Cognition in Practice. Cambridge: CUP
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. 1991. Situated Learning: legitimate peripheral participation.

Cambridge: CUP
Maddox, B. 2001. ‘Literacy and the market: the economic uses of literacy among the
peasantry in north-west Bangladesh’ in Street,B ed. Literacy and development ed.
2001 Routledge: London pp. 137-151
OECD.1997. Literacy Skills for the Knowledge Society: Report of the International
Adult Literacy Survey. Paris: OECD
Olson, D. 1994. The World on Paper. CUP: Cambridge. Esp. Ch 1 ‘Demytholgising

Literacy’
———. 1977. From Utterance to Text. Harvard Educational Review. 47.
29
Olson, D. and Torrance, N. (eds.) 2001. The Making of Literate Societies. Oxford,
UK: Blackwell Publishers.
Ong, Walter J. 1982. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. (New
Accent Series, Terrence Hawkes, ed.) New York: Routledge.
Riddell, A. 2001. Review of 13 Evaluations of Reflect, edited by I. R. C. (CIRAC).

London: Action Aid.
Roberts, P. 2000. Education, Literacy, and Humanization: Exploring the work of

Paulo Freire, Bergin and Garvey: Westport, Connecticut
Robinson, C. 2003. ‘The Ongoing Debate’ in UNESCO. 2003. Literacy as Freedom:

A UNESCO Round-table. Paris: UNESCO.
Rogers, A. 2003. What is the Difference? A new critique of adult learning and
teaching. Leicester, NIACE.
Rogoff, B. 2003. The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Rogoff, B. and Lave, J. 1984. Everyday Cognition: Its Development in social context.
Harvard
Scribner,S and Cole,M 1978 "Unpackaging Literacy" in Social Science Information

Vol. 17 no. 1 pp. 19-39
Shikshantar. 2003. The People’s Institute for Rethinking Education and Development,
2003, featuring Anushka Meenakshi, Catherine Odora Hoppers, Dana Stuchul,
Dayal Chandra Soni, Devi Lal Samar, Frederique Apffel-Marglin, Gustavo
Esteva, Ivan Illich, Jacques Ellul, KB Jinan, Leonard Shlain, Madhu Suri Prakash,
Manish Jain, Munir Fasheh, Panna Lal Patel, Proteek Dey, Rosa Maria Torres,
January 2003 The Dark Side of Literacy, Shikshantar: Udaipur, Rajasthan
Street, B. 2004 Understanding and defining literacy. Background Paper for EFA
Global Monitoring Report 2006.
———. 2003 ‘What's 'new' in New Literacy Studies? Critical approaches to literacy
in theory and practice’ Current Issues in Comparative Education. 5(2)
May 12 , 2003 ISSN: 1523-1615 http://www.tc.columbia.edu/cice/
———. 2001. 'Literacy and development: challenges to the dominant paradigm' in

Rethinking Literacy: Dominant and Alternative Discourses Aditi Mukherjee and
Duggirala Vasanta Sage: London OR ‘Introduction’ to Literacy and development
ed. 2001 Routledge: London
———. 1984. Literacy in Theory and Practice. CUP: Cambridge
Stromquist, N. 2004 ‘Women’s Rights to Adult Education as a Means to Citizenship’

paper to conference on ‘Gender, Education and Development: beyond access’’
30
Seminar 4 ‘Developing Gender Equality in Adult Education’, University of East

Anglia, June 04; DfID; IoE; Oxfam
UNESCO. 2003. Literacy as Freedom: A UNESCO Round-table. Paris: UNESCO.
Wagner, D. 2005. Monitoring and Measuring Adult Literacy: Different Models for
Different Purposes, Background Paper for EFA Global Monitoring Report 2006.
Wysocki, A. F., and Johnson-Eilola, J. 1999. Blinded by the Letter: Why Are We
Using Literacy, as a Metaphor for Everything Else?. In Passions, Pedagogies, and
21st Century Technologies, edited by G. E. Hawisher and C. L. Selfe, pp. 349-
368. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1999.
Yousif, Abdelwahid Abdalla, 2003 Literacy: An Overview of definitions and

assessment, Paper Presented to the Expert Meeting on Literacy Assessment,
UNESCO, Paris (10-12 June, 2003)
31

Arti 7

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arti 7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Understanding literacy: A concept paper Jude Fransman

Background paper prepared for the

Understanding literacy: a concept paper

Understanding Literacy: A Concept paper

Box 1: Chinese and Francophone understandings of literacy

Cognitive approaches to reading and writing

Box 2: Cognitive science research on literacy

(Abadzi, 2004, 2003)

Whereas reading is about comprehending a text (either by relating the text

Box 3 Some dichotomies of the ear and eye

Spoken word Written word

(Source: Chandler, 1994).

However, opposition to the dichotomous ‘Great Divide’ theories, in the form of

Finally, as a means of language preservation, it is important to maintain and develop

Numeracy is most often assumed to be the outcome of a sound mathematical

Box 4: Numeracy situations

Generative situations require people to count, quantify, compute and otherwise

Source: Coben et al (2003)

The ‘limited proficiency’ or cognitive or ‘generative’ approach to numeracy, which is

Acknowledging both perspectives, Evens offers a "provisional working definition for

Skills enabling access to knowledge and information

TABLE 1: Non-textual Literacies

Political/civic/ ‘Political’ literacy or ‘civic’ literacy encompasses the skills required to

Monitoring literacy as a skill

Box 5 summarises the understanding of literacy as a set of skills.

Box 5 Literacy as skills

language, either explicitly or implicitly (by failing to specify the language of

The ‘autonomous’ or ‘skills approach’ to understanding literacy is undoubtedly both

Literacy as applied, social, and situated

“Rather than an end in itself, literacy should be regarded as a way of

Social approaches to literacy

More recently, a new perspective influenced by ‘ethnographic’ research has emerged

Box 6: Situated numeracy and ethnomathematics

The term ‘ethnomathematics’ encompasses both ‘the mathematics which is practiced

Sources: Coben et al. (2003), Dighe (2004).

Box 7 Literacy events and literacy practices

Monitoring literacy as applied and situated

Box 8: Literacy as applied

• Building on the skills-approach (while acknowledging its limitations) this understanding

Box 9: Literacy as socially situated

• This understanding is closely linked to the emphasis on functions or applications of

A critical challenge is in bringing these two approaches closer together; in bridging

Literacy as a learning process

Box 10 Reading the world

Sources: Freire (1995), Gadotti (1994).

Monitoring literacy as learning

Box 11 summarises the understanding of literacy as a learning process

Box 11 Literacy as learning

• Understanding literacy as learning implies focusing predominantly on the

For monitoring purposes, it is undoubtedly easier to measure ‘task conscious’ or ‘test’

Even where the impact of learning processes cannot be ‘scientifically’ measured,

Subject matter and Discourse

Multi-modalities and multi-literacies

The ‘Dark Side’ of Literacy

Monitoring literacy as text

Box 12 summarises the understanding of literacy as text.

Box 12 Literacy as text

societies based on a particular ethical system and was imposed on to others by

However, the concept of multi-modalities and more specifically, the questions

Table 2 summarises the 4 major understandings of literacy discussed in this chapter.

Table 2 Understandings of literacy and their implications for monitoring

In a background paper to a recent Expert Meeting on Literacy Assessment at

“There is agreement in all the definitions and concepts we have reviewed