Sociolinguistic context of literacy programs : a review of non-formal adult literacy programs in AID

Despite A.I.D."s mandate to promote literacy among the rural poor and disadvantaged minorities within developing countries, A.I.D. has done relatively little in this field. So says this study, prepared to help A.I.D. design and implement effective nonformal education (NFE) literacy programs. The following conclusions were reached. (1) Not all literacy projects have to be NFE teaching projects; language planning assistance, expanded elementary education, and minority language publication all contribute to increased literacy. (2) The motivation of beneficiaries depends largely on whether the language of instruction is useful to them, i.e., whether they know or can easily learn the language and have access to material published in it. (3) Choice of language must take into account both host country policy and local use. (4) This choice should be made on a case-by-case basis with sociolinguistic information incorporated into any decision. The study recommends that A.I.D. broaden its literacy programs to include elementary education projects and support for language planning and for publishing in previously unwritten languages. A.I.D."s country planning should incorporate sociolinguistic information about language distribution, communicative functions of languages, and social patterns of language use. As part of project identification, A.I.D. should assess the need for literacy in the target area"s economic development, the language use of various social groups in the target area, and the appropriateness of the project given the area"s literacy climate. Finally, in project design, A.I.D. should carefully consider which language to use when teaching literacy, the developmental stage of a nation"s writing system, and the match between teaching methods and the type of writing system. A 37-item reference list (1953-80) is appended.