Why is Literacy so Difficult to Define? (S1)
Presenter: Richard Venezky
Defining literacy, like betting on the lottery, is a risky business. Where oncemany years agoits definition was simple and non-controversial, now a wave of political, economic, and educational theories have impinged on the definition, pulling it in different directions. Literacy definitions have become the battleground over competing social theories, obscuring a common core of understanding that crosses most interests. The purpose of this presentation is to review the major competing definitions, to analyze their intentions, and to try to provide a synthesis that can be used by countries at different levels of literacy development to advance their national interests.
Readings: (Literacy and Development, Section 3)
-Definitions of Literacy (Venezky)
-Gathering Up, Looking Ahead (Venezky)
Session Summary
At the opening session of the Theory and Practice component of SLTP'98, Dr. Venezky presented a review of the history of attempts to define literacy and how these definitions have been shaped by the prevailing social and political trends of the time. Among these are different definitions formulated to meet the needs of the state or for religious purposes, and those linking literacy to empowerment. Definitions of literacy continue to change today, especially with the development of new technologies.
In the ensuing discussion on the problem of defining literacy, Venezky asked participants for their own definitions. Some of the responses were:
- basic reading and writing skills in English (Sierra Leone);
- the ability to read and comprehend a newspaper article (Pakistan);
- basic reading and writing skills as well as a sense of empowerment (Nepal); and
- multi-level literacies, where, at a basic level there is a minimum requirement for reading and writing skills (1500 characters), and at another level there is a need for functional literacy skills linked to productivity and employment (China).
Since literacy is culturally bound and socially derived, we do not need to form a definition that fits all cultures, Venezky said. Despite the many different cultural contexts for literacy, in conceptualizing literacy programs, we can still look for common threads, such as motivation of learners, basic skills requirements, and the number and types of texts to be included in the curriculum. In addition, psychological learning processes are identical across cultures-in every type of reading, eye movement, word recognition, and inferencing are the same.
Venezky also outlined the necessary steps for developing literacy programs.
These include: gaining an understanding of the psychological processes of
learning; formulating appropriate pedagogies (which includes developing
relevant materials that address the specific needs of a particular group
of learners); and examining the function of literacy within a particular
learning community.
INTERNATIONAL LITERACY
INSTITUTE