Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Literacy in the 21st century: Towards a dynamic nexus of social relations

  • Published:
International Review of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Literacy is an essential means of communication. It enables individuals, communities and institutions to interact, over time and across space, as they develop a web of social relations via language. Effective literacy policies, programmes and practices expand the scale of social communication and interaction. Thus, literacy thrives when a state of connectedness – or social nexus of relations – is forged and sustained among individuals, households, communities and social institutions. This paper provides an overview of recent literacy trends and challenges as well as core aspects of the policy strategies which seek to address them. It reviews the main barriers or complicating factors which limit the effective implementation of literacy policies. The paper describes how the notion of non-formal education, which frames many scholarly and policy accounts of adult literacy work today, is under-conceptualised. One result of this is a relatively undifferentiated view of literacy programmes and their specific non-formal components. The author argues that the concept of the social nexus of literacy is implicit in many analyses of literacy policies and strategies. Thus, well-defined, context-specific and sharply conceived literacy policies, which enhance the social nexus of literacy, are crucial for improving the effectiveness of literacy work.

Résumé

Alphabétisme au XXIe siècle : vers une connexion dynamique des relations sociales – L’alphabétisme est un moyen essentiel de communication. Il permet aux individus, communautés et institutions d’interagir dans le temps et dans l’espace en nouant un tissu de relations sociales à travers le langage. Les politiques, programmes et pratiques efficaces d’alphabétisation élargissent l’ampleur de la communication et de l’interaction sociales. Ainsi, l’alphabétisme prospère quand une situation de connectivité – ou un tissu social de relations – est forgée et entretenue entre individus, ménages, communautés et institutions sociales. Cet article présente un panorama des tendances et défis récents en alphabétisme, ainsi que les éléments décisifs des stratégies qui tentent de les traiter. Il recense les principaux obstacles ou facteurs de complication qui entravent l’application efficace des politiques d’alphabétisation. L’auteur décrit comment la notion d’éducation non formelle, qui encadre aujourd’hui nombre de rapports scientifiques et stratégiques sur l’alphabétisation des adultes, est sous-conceptualisée. Une conséquence en est une vision relativement indifférenciée des programmes d’alphabétisation et de leurs composantes spécifiquement non formelles. L’auteur constate que la notion de tissu social à travers l’alphabétisme est implicite dans de nombreuses analyses sur les politiques et stratégies d’alphabétisation. Ainsi, des politiques d’alphabétisation clairement définies, adaptées au contexte, conçues de manière ciblée et qui affermissent le tissu social, sont décisives pour améliorer l’efficacité de cette mission.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The concept of a “nexus” derives from Latin, the past participle of “nectere” (to bind or to connect). It may be defined as a means of connection between members of a group or things in a series, a link; a bond.

  2. Citizen-led learning assessments in South and West Asia (India and Pakistan) and sub-Saharan Africa (Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Mali and Senegal), based on non-school-based sampling designs, also report figures reflecting the low literacy skills of young children (World Bank 2015).

  3. The contours of this ongoing debate can be found in: Street (2003), Hamilton (2012); Maddox and Esposito (2011); Wagner (2010, 2011); O’Cadiz and Torres (1994); Robinson-Pant (2008); Guadalupe and Cardoso (2011) and UNESCO (2005).

  4. The global estimate of adult illiterates or low literates would likely increase by about 20–25 per cent if it were based on direct assessments of literacy skills (UNESCO 2005).

  5. See the website of The Reading and Writing Foundation in the Netherlands, which bases its estimates on the 1998 International Adult Literacy Survey: http://readingandwriting.eu/about-us [accessed 11 January 2015].

  6. In the PIACC survey, OECD defines literacy as “the ability to understand, evaluate, use and engage with written texts to participate in society, achieve one’s goals, and develop one’s knowledge and potential”. The survey assessed six levels of literacy, ranging from below level 1 through level 5 (OECD 2013, p. 61ff).

  7. For a variety of reasons, ranging from choosing to opt out to failing basic computer skills pre-tests (i.e., the capacity to use a mouse or scroll through a web page), 24.4 per cent of adults did not complete the technology literacy portion of the PIACC survey (OECD 2013, p. 87ff).

  8. Goal 2 on universal primary education was mentioned in every plan both before and after the Dakar World Education Forum.

  9. The Chinese “National Two Basics” literacy strategy refers to an official policy aimed at achieving universal 9-year compulsory education as well as eliminating illiteracy among all youth and middle-aged adults by the 21st century (Ross et al 2006).

  10. For a recent discussion of this distinction see http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/isced-2011-en.pdf [accessed 11 January 2015].

  11. This definition, and others like it, stem from a widely cited definition put forward by Philip Coombs and Manzoor Ahmed (1974, p. 8) more than 35 years ago: “Non formal education … is any organized, systematic, educational activity carried on outside the framework of the formal system to provide selected types of learning to particular subgroups in the population, adults as well as children.”

  12. Alan Rogers (2004), building on work of others, lists attributes of NFE which contrast with formal education such as greater openness and flexibility, less selectivity, less time commitment, different learning objectives and outcomes, provision throughout the life course, and legitimising indigenous knowledge.

  13. “School systems have been experiencing innovation and important changes over the past years. In many countries, especially in Asia and Africa, the term non-formal is also used today to refer to schools and school education policies and programs that feature some of the characteristics once attributed to NFE … Building bridges between NFE and FE, rather than developing them as separate systems, has been and continues to be a goal in many parts of the world” (Torres 2001, p. 50).

  14. Reuven Kahane (1975, 1986, 1997) refers to these components as components of “informality” – a term derived from the English translation of the Hebrew term “bilti formali”. The actual meaning of the original Hebrew term more closely approximates the international definition of “non-formal” used in the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) (see UIS 1997).

  15. Gad Yair (1997, 2000), for example, examines the impact of these different dimensions on student learning and motivation in schools.

References

  • ANLCI (Agence Nationale de Lutte Contre l’Illettrisme). (2007). Illiteracy: The statistics. Analysis by the National Agency to Fight Illiteracy of the IVQ survey conducted in 2004–2005 by INSEE (the French National Statistics Institute). Paris: ANLCI (French National Agency to Fight Illiteracy).

  • Archer, D. (2005). Writing the wrongs. International benchmarks on adult literacy. London: Action Aid International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bougroum, M., Diagne, A. W., Kissami, A. & Tawil, S. (2014). Literacy policies and strategies in the Maghreb: Comparative perspectives from Algeria, Mauritania and Morocco. In Regional perspectives on literacy policies, strategies and financing. Emerging trends in adult literacy, (Vol. I). Paris: UNESCO.

  • Cara, O., & Brooks, G. (2012). Evidence of the wider benefits of family learning: A scoping review. BIS Research paper number 93. London, UK: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Retrieved 11 January 2015, from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/34666/12-1238-evidence-benefits-of-family-learning-scoping.pdf http://databases.unesco.org/thesaurus.

  • Carr-Hill, R., & Roberts, F. (2014). Approaches to costing adult literacy programmes in Africa. In Regional perspectives on literacy policies, strategies and financing. Emerging trends in adult literacy, (Vol. I). Paris: UNESCO.

  • Coombs, P. H., & Ahmed, M. (1974). Attacking rural poverty: How non-formal education can help. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Pierro, M. C., Chilante, E. F., & Gil, J. (2014). Policies for youth and adult literacy and education in Argentina, Brazil and Chile. In Regional perspectives on literacy policies, strategies and financing. Emerging trends in adult literacy, (Vol. I). Paris: UNESCO.

  • Easton, P. (2014). The demand for literacy. Background paper for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2015. Paris: UNESCO.

  • EC (European Commission). (2012). EU High Level Group of Experts on Literacy. Final Report, Luxembourg: European Union. Retrieved 11 January 2015, from http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/school/doc/literacy-report_en.pdf.

  • Govinda, R., & Biswal, K. (2014). Literacy policies in South, West and Central Asia. In Regional perspectives on literacy policies, strategies and financing. Emerging trends in adult literacy, (Vol. I). Paris: UNESCO.

  • Guadalupe, C., & Cardoso, M. (2011). Measuring the continuum of literacy skills among adults: educational testing and the LAMP experience. International Review of Education, 57(1), 199–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, M. (2012). Literacy and the politics of representation. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann, U., Glanz, C. & Grossklags, A. (2015). Evolution of literacy campaigns and programmes and their impact since 2000. Background paper for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2015. Paris: UNESCO

  • Hoppers, W. (2006). Non-formal education and basic education Reform. UNESCO-IIEP: A conceptual review. Series on quality education for all. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahane, R. (1975). Informal youth organizations: A general model. Sociological Inquiry, 45(4), 17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahane, R. (1986). Informal agencies of socialization and integration of immigrant youth into society. International Immigration Review, 20(1), 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahane, R. (1997). The origins of postmodern youth. Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamens, D. H., & Benavot, A. (2011). National, regional and international learning assessments: Trends among developing countries, 1960–2009. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(2), 285–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamens, D. H., & McNeely, C. L. (2010). Globalization and international testing and national assessment. Comparative Education Review, 54(1), 5–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, R., Levine, S. E., Schnell-Anzola, B., Rowe, M. L., & Dexter, E. (2012). Literacy and mothering: How women’s schooling changes the lives of the world’s children. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, A. (2008). Literacy for all: Making a difference. Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, K., Martens, D., Hannett, K. & Tunks, T. (2009). Review of the literature: Family literacy programs. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, University of Canberra.

  • Maddox, B., & Esposito, L. (2011). Sufficiency re-examined: A capabilities perspective on the assessment of functional adult literacy. Journal of Development Studies, 47(9), 1315–1331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meng, H.W. (2014). Literacy policies, strategies and financing in China. In Regional perspectives on literacy policies, strategies and financing. Emerging trends in adult literacy, (Vol. I). Paris: UNESCO.

  • Mitra, A. (2014). Coalitions and Partnerships for Adult Literacy and Non-Formal Education: Experiences from Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan. In Regional perspectives on literacy policies, strategies and financing. Emerging trends in adult literacy, (Vol. I). Paris: UNESCO.

  • Ndoye, M. (2014). Literacy policies strategies and financing in Africa. In Regional perspectives on literacy policies, strategies and financing. Emerging trends in adult literacy, (Vol. I). Paris: UNESCO.

  • NRDC (National Research and Development Centre). (2011). A literature review of international adult literacy policies. Prepared for NALA by the NRDC, Institute of Education, London. Dublin: National Adult Literacy Agency (NALA).

  • O’Cadiz, M. P., & Torres, C. A. (1994). Literacy, social movements, and class consciousness: Paths from Freire and the São Paulo experience. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 25(3), 208–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2000). Literacy in the information age: Final report of the international adult literacy survey. Paris: OECD

  • OECD (2013). OECD skills outlook 2013: First results from the survey of adult skills. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD & Statistics Canada (2005). Learning a living. Paris-Ottawa: OECD-Statistics Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owens, T. L. (2013). Thinking beyond league tables: A review of key PISA research questions. In H.-D. Meyer & A. Benavot (Eds.), PISA, power, and policy: The emergence of global educational governance (pp. 27–49). London: Symposium Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxenham, J. (2008). Effective literacy programmes: Options for policy-makers. IIEP Series on Fundamentals of educational planning, (Vol. 91). Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning.

  • Paulston, R. (1973). Nonformal education alternatives. In Cole Brembeck & Timothy Thompson (Eds.), New strategies for educational development (pp. 65–85). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulston, R. & Leroy, G. (1982). Nonformal education and change from below. In P. Altbach, R. Arnove & G. Kelly (Eds.), Comparative education (pp. 336–362). London: Macmillan.

  • Popovic, K. (2014). Regional perspectives on literacy: Adult literacy supply and demand in South-Eastern Europe. In Regional perspectives on literacy policies, strategies and financing. Emerging trends in adult literacy, (Vol. I). Paris: UNESCO.

  • Robinson, C. (2014). Languages in adult literacy: Policies and practices during the 15 years of EFA (2000–2015). Background paper for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2015. Paris: UNESCO.

  • Robinson-Pant, A. (2008). Why literacy matters: Exploring a policy perspective on literacies, identities and social change. Journal of Development Studies, 44(6), 779–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, A. (2004). Non-formal education: Flexible schooling or participatory education? Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong.

  • Ross, H., with contributions from Lou, J., Yang, L., Rybakova, O. & Wakhunga, P. (2006). China country study. Background paper for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2006: Literacy for life. Paris: UNESCO

  • Simkins, T. (1977). Non-formal education and development. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, M., Castro, L. M. & Meyer-Bisch, M. (Eds.). (2007). Literacy, knowledge and development. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning and Mexican National Institute for Adult Education.

  • Smyth, J. (2005). UNESCO’s international literacy statistics 1950–2000. Background paper for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2006.

  • Street, B. (2003). What’s new in new literacy studies? Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torres, R.-M. (2001). Amplifying and diversifying learning: Formal, non-formal and informal education revisited. ADEA Biennial Meeting: Papers contributed by the Working Group on Non-Formal Education (Arusha Tanzania).

  • Torres, R. M. (2006). Literacy and lifelong learning: The linkage. Paper prepared for ADEA for its Biennial Meeting, Libreville, Gabon, 27–31 March 2006.

  • UIL (UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning). (2009). Global report on adult learning and education. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.

  • UIL (2010). CONFINTEA VI: Belém framework for action. Harnessing the power and potential of adult learning and education for a viable future. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.

  • UIL (2013). Rethinking literacy. Second global report on adult learning and education. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • UIS (UNESCO Institute for Statistics). (1997). International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 1997 (Document No. BPE-98/WS/1). Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved January 15, 2015, from http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Pages/international-standard-classification-of-education.aspx.

  • UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). (2005). Literacy for life. Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2006. Paris: UNESCO.

  • UNESCO (2007). Education for All by 2015 – Will we make it?., Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2008 Oxford/Paris: Oxford University Press/UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO (2011). UNESCO Thesaurus. Retrieved January 15, 2015, from http://databases.unesco.org/thesaurus.

  • UNESCO (2012). Youth and skills: Putting education to work. Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2012. Paris: UNESCO.

  • UNESCO (2014). Teaching and learning: Achieving quality education for all. Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2013/14. Paris: UNESCO.

  • UNESCO (2015). Education for all 2000–2015: Achievements and challenges. Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2015. Paris: UNESCO.

  • UNESCO-IIEP (International Institute for Educational Planning). (2015). The impact of the EFA agenda: comparing national education plans before and after Dakar. Background paper for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2015. Paris: UNESCO.

  • Varghese, N. V. (2014). Total literacy campaigns in India: A study of their organization and cost-effectiveness. In A. Mathew & J. B. G. Tilak (Eds.), Literacy and adult education: Select readings (pp. 313–342). New Delhi: National University of Educational Planning and Administration.

  • Wagner, D. (1990). Literacy assessment in the Third World: An overview and proposed schema for survey use. Comparative Education Review, 34(1), 112–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, D. (2010). What happened to literacy? Historical and conceptual perspectives on literacy in UNESCO. International Journal of Educational Development, 31(3), 319–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, D. (2011). Smaller, quicker, cheaper: Improving learning assessments for developing countries. Paris/Washington, DC: UNESCO: International Institute of Educational Planning/Education For All – Fast Track Initiative.

  • Warrican, J. (2014). Public policies, strategies and programmes for literacy and adult education in nations of the Caribbean. In Regional perspectives on literacy policies, strategies and financing. Emerging trends in adult literacy, (Vol. I). Paris: UNESCO.

  • World Bank. (2015). Citizen-led basic learning assessments: An innovative approach. Retrieved 15 January 2015, from http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/Event/education/2013_Citizen-led%20Learning%20Assessments%20Oct%2030.pdf.

  • Yair, G. (1997). Contexts as switchmen: The variable effects of formal and informal instructional strategies on student achievement. Social Psychology of Education, 1(3), 269–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yair, G. (2000). Reforming motivation: How the structure of instruction affects students’ learning experiences. British Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 191–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yousif, A. A. (2014). Adult Literacy and Adult Education in the Arab States: Bahrain, Egypt, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. In Regional perspectives on literacy policies, strategies and financing. Emerging trends in adult literacy, (Vol. I). Paris: UNESCO.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Administration and Policy Studies, School of Education, University at Albany – State University of New York, Albany, NY, 12222, USA

    Aaron Benavot

  2. UNESCO, 7 Place de Fontenoy, 75352, Paris 07, SP, France

    Aaron Benavot

Authors
  1. Aaron Benavot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aaron Benavot.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Benavot, A. Literacy in the 21st century: Towards a dynamic nexus of social relations. Int Rev Educ 61, 273–294 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-015-9463-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-015-9463-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation