Skip to main content
Log in

Reading materials for post-literacy: The development and testing of a model of social writing

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

Abstract

A model of social writing, for use in writing socially relevant, easy-to-read, follow-up books for neo-literate adults, is presented. The model was fully developed and tested in the context of a series of writers' workshops during 1981–87; and incorporates all of the three aspects of writing: the expressive, the cognitive, and the social. Specifically, the following elements are included: selection of subject and topic within a dialectic of national development needs and community learning needs; negotiable definitions of general and specific objectives; acquiring knowledge of subject matter, and establishing necessary collaboration with subject-matter specialists; content planning to choose content and language of discourse, participatively with the future community of readers; choice of treatment of content as didactic or dramatic; outlining of manuscript as argument, dialogue or story; writing easy-to-read yet interesting materials; trying out the manuscript and making revisions; working with the illustrator and the editor; and preparing the manuscript for printing.

Both the development and the testing of the model involved reflection-in-action and not stand-alone research exercises. The successful use of the model in workshops to train writers of post-literacy materials provided one source of support for the model. A comparison of this model of social writing with other models of writing available in literature has provided further support for the conceptual and procedural structure of the model. Transfers of the model to other cultural settings as well as to the writing of other types of educational materials, such as distance education texts and units, have also proved effective.

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Artikel wird ein gemeinsames Schreibmodell zum Schreiben von sozialrelevanten, leicht-zu-lesenden, weiterführenden Büchern für neu alphabetisierte Erwachsene vorgestellt. Im Zusammenhang mit einer Reihe von Schriftsteller-Workshops zwischen 1981 und 1987 wurde dieses Modell entwickelt und getestet. Es berücksichtigt alle drei Aspekte des Schreibens: den expressiven, den kognitiven und den sozialen. Insbesondere wurden die folgenden Elemente mit einbezogen: die Auswahl des Gegenstandes und des Themas innerhalb einer Dialektik des nationalen Entwicklungsbedürfnisses und des lokalen Lernbedürfnisses; ständig aufgearbeitete Definitionen von allgemeinen und spezifischen Zielen; der Umsatz von inhaltsbezogenen Fachkenntnissen und der Aufbau der notwendigen Zusammenarbeit mit betreffenden Spezialisten; die inhaltliche Planung, um die Sprache und Inhalte mit der zukünftigen Lesergemeinde gemeinsam zu wählen; die Auswahl der didaktischen bzw. dramatischen Inhaltshandhabung; der Entwurf des Manuskripts als Argument, Dialog oder Geschichte; das Schreiben von leicht-zu-lesendem doch interessantem Material; das Überprüfen und Revidieren des Manuskripts; die Zusammenarbeit mit Illustrator und Redakteur; die Vorbereitung des Manuskripts zum Drucken.

Sowohl die Entwicklung als auch die Erprobung des Modells beruhten auf aktionsbezogenen Reflektionen, es waren also keine reinen Forschungsübungen. Die erfolgreiche Anwendung des Modells bei Workshops, bei denen Schriftsteller für Alphabetisierungsmaterial ausgebildet wurden, stärkte dieses Modell. Ein Vergleich dieses gemeinsamen Schreibmodells mit anderen in der Literatur vorhandenen Modellen bestätigt ebenfalls die Konzept- und Verfahrensstruktur des Modells. Auch die Übertragungsmöglichkeiten des Modells sowohl auf andere kulturelle Strukturen wie auf das Schreiben von anderem Bildungsmaterial — wie Fernbildungstexte und -einheiten — erwiesen sich als effektiv.

Résumé

On présente un modèle de rédaction sociale pour l'élaboration de livres de suivi, socialement pertinents, faciles à lire, destinés aux adultes néo-alphabètes. Ce modèle a été entièrement développé et testé dans le cadre d'une série d'ateliers d'écrivains durant 1981–1987; et comporte les trois aspects de l'écriture: expressif, cognitif et social. Il comprend en particulier les éléments suivants: la sélection du sujet et du thème au sein de la dialectique des besoins de développement national et d'apprentissage de la communauté; des définitions praticables des objectifs généraux et spécifiques; l'acquisition de la connaissance d'une matière et l'établissement des liens nécessaires avec les spécialistes de la matière étudiée; la planification du contenu en vue de sélectionner celui-ci et la langue de communication, en accord avec la future communauté de lecteurs; le mode de présentation du contenu: didactique ou dramatique; la mise en relief dans le manuscrit d'un argument, d'un dialogue ou d'une histoire; la rédaction de matériels faciles à lire et intéressants; l'expérimentation du manuscrit et les révisions nécessaires; le travail avec l'illustrateur et l'éditeur; et la préparation du manuscrit pour impression.

Le développement comme l'expérimentation de ce modèle ont inclus une réflexionaction et non pas des exercices de recherche isolés. L'utilisation réussie de ce modèle dans des ateliers de formation d'écrivains de textes de postalphabétisation a fourni une source de soutien à ce modèle. Une comparaison de ce modèle d'écriture sociale avec d'autres formes de rédaction disponibles dans la littérature a apporté un autre soutien à la structure conceptuelle et au mode de traitement de ce modèle. Les transferts de ce dernier à d'autres cultures ainsi qu'à la rédaction de matériels pédagogiques de types différents, tels que les textes de matériels pédagogiques de types différents, tels que les textes et unités d'enseignement à distance, se sont également révélés efficaces.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beach, R. and L. Bridwell, eds. 1984.New Directions in Composition Research. Perspectives in Writing Research. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhola, H.S. 1967. Do You Plan Your Books before You Write Them?Lekhak (The Writer) 4(3): 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 1980a.Program and Curriculum Development in the Post-Literacy Stages. Bonn: The German Foundation for International Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 1981.Writing for New Readers: A Book on Follow-up Books. Bonn: German Foundation for International Development (rev. 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 1983.Action Training Model (ATM) — An Innovative Approach to Training Literacy Workers. (Child, Family, Community Services: Notes and Comments No. 128). Paris: Unesco (Unit for Cooperation with Unicef and WFP).

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 1984a. A Policy Analysis of Adult Literacy Promotion in the Third World: An Accounting of Promises Made and Promises Fulfilled.International Review of Education 30(3): 249–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • --. 1984b.Writing for New Literates: The Design, Delivery and Evaluation of a Writers' Workshop in Zambia. ERIC No. ED 258 225.

  • ——. 1985. Some Curricular Aspects of Post-literacy and Continuing Education of Neoliterates. In: R.H. Dave, D.A. Perera and A. Ouane, eds.,Learning Strategies for Post-Literacy and Continuing Education: A Cross-National Perspective, (183–210). Hamburg: Unesco Institute of Education (2nd ed., 1988, pp. 217–244).

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 1986.Writing for New Readers: Message-Making in Print. (DSE Occasional Papers on Basic Education, Paper No. 1; DOK 1407 C/a). Bonn: German Foundation for International Development (DSE).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brower, R.A., ed. 1966.On Translation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. et al. 1980.Towards Reform of Program Evaluation: Aims, Methods, and Institutional Arrangements. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale, E. and J.S. Chall. 1982.Readability: Updated, Expanded and Explained. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deetz, S. 1980. Hermeneutics, Textuality and Communication Research. ERIC No. ED 197 419.

  • Delavenay, E. 1974.For Books. Paris: Unesco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Development Forum. 1989. Amid Other Troubles, Africa Starves for Reading Matter.Development Forum 17(1): 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W. and L. Carey. 1985.The Systematic Design of Instruction. 2nd ed. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eraut, M. 1985. Objectives, Educational. In: T. Husen and T.N. Postlethwaite, eds.,The International Encyclopedia of Education: Research and Studies, Vol. 6 (3619–3637). New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faigley, L. 1986. Competing Theories of Process: A Critique and a Proposal.College English 48(6): 527–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L. 1981.Problem-solving Strategies for Writing. New York: Harcourt Brace and Jovanovitch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, R.M. 1987.Instructional Technology: Foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentry, L., ed. 1982.Research and Instruction in Practical Writing. Los Alamitos, CA: SWRL Educational Research and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunning, R. 1968.The Technique of Clear Writing, (rev. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunig, J.E. 1983. An Axiomatic Theory of Cognition and Learning. ERIC No. ED 233 353.

  • Hartley, J. 1986.Designing Instructional Text, 2nd ed. New York: Nichols.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levie, W.H. and R. Lentz. 1982. Effects of Text Illustrations: A Review of the Research.Educational Communication and Technology 30(4): 195–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. and E. Guba. 1985.Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mager, R.F. 1962.Preparing Instructional Objectives. Palo Alto, CA: Fearon Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ornatowski, C.M. 1985. Readings for Writers: Composition Readers, Discourse Studies, and the Reading-Writing Connection. ERIC No. ED 270 756.

  • Pearce, D. 1982.Textbook Production in Developing Countries: Some Problems of Preparation, Production and Distribution. ED — 82/WS/60. Paris: Unesco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrosky, A.R. and J.R. Brozick. 1979. A Model for Teaching Writing Based upon Current Knowledge of the Composition Process.The English Journal 68(3): 96–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, C.G., ed. 1959.The Provision of Popular Reading Materials. (A Collection of Studies and Technical Papers). Paris: Unesco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schon, D.A. 1983.The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unesco. 1963.Simple Reading Material for Adults: Its Preparation and Use. Paris: Unesco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmer, A. and F. Zimmer. 1978.Visual Literacy in Communication: Designing for Development. Amersham, Bucks, UK: Hulton Educational Publications. (In: Literacy in Development, Series of Training Monographs, H.S. Bhola, Series Editor, Commissioned by the Unesco/Iranian Institute for Adult Literacy Methods, Tehran, Iran).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bhola, H.S. Reading materials for post-literacy: The development and testing of a model of social writing. Int Rev Educ 35, 463–478 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00597630

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00597630

Keywords

Navigation