Bernardo, A. B. I. (1998). Literacy and the Mind: The
Contexts and Cognitive Consequences of Literacy
Practice. UNESCO Institute of Education
Hamburg, UIE; Box, Eng., Luzac Oriental.
146 pp.
ISBN 9282010-87-2
ISBN 1-898942-19-6
Reviewed by Ailie Cleghorn
Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
February 18, 2000
Literacy and the Mind: the Contexts and Cognitive
Consequences of Literacy Practice is an attempt to
determine the mediated and direct effects of literacy on
thinking, and whether such effects are independent of
schooling. The study assumes that if people can perceive
the benefits of literacy acquisition, they would have a
clear motivation to continue their participation in
literacy education programs, and maintain and expand the
use of their literacy skills.
Chapters one and two provide a description of each of the
five target communities.
They briefly discuss their geographical location, rural
urban characteristics, economic base, population,
occupational structure, basic literacy rate, and degree to
which literacy is integrated into community. None of the
five communities operate much above a subsistence level.
Four of the communities are rural. The last community is a
suburban squatter village on the outskirts of Quezon City
where the main source of nourishment appears to be the city
garbage dump.
The rest of the chapters describe in sequence the effects
of literacy based on five factors: conceptual
understanding, conceptual categorization, conceptual
comparison deductive reasoning, and explanation. These
chapters also include a brief reconceptualization of
literacy and development as well as a discussion of the
role of the community in the development of literacy and
thinking.
Although the author attempts to use quasi-experimental and
psychological approaches, he, however, draws on a recent
ethnographic study by Doronila which emphasizes the
importance of the connection between the literate and the
traditional knowledge of a community for literacy
acquisition and retention.
Bernardo struggles throughout with the methodological
approach, namely, quasi-experimental, which does not
support the study's assumption of "literacy as independent
variable." For example, the total sample consisted of 135
adults, ages sixteen to thirty from the five communities
selected. With the exception of one community where no non-
formal literates could be found, each community sample was
subdivided into literates, non-formal illiterates, and
formal literates. The distinction between non-formal and
formal literates was to provide a way to eke out schooling
effects from literacy effects. The study then compared the
performance of literate and illiterate groups on a number
of cognitive tasks, with differences between the non-formal
and formal literates being taken into account to indicate
schooling effects. On this point, one wonders about the
validity of the interpretation since the author offers
little explanation about the ways in which the non-formal
literates acquired their literacy. Moreover, the majority
of non-formal adult literacy programs tend to replicate the
kinds of routines and teaching strategies found in schools.
The investigation of the first three cognitive tasks
mentioned above (conceptual understanding, organization and
comparison) was intended to elicit information about the
ways the respondents mentally represent existing knowledge
that stems from local experience. The last two tasks
(deductive reason and explaining, which involve inductive
reasoning) were to show how people think about what they
know. The participants were asked to respond to several
items for each of the five types of tasks, using procedures
that respect the need for systematic control when creating
a laboratory type of situation. For example, each
respondent was asked to define nine concepts. One set of
concepts was drawn from agricultural setting, the second
set from a fishing environment and the third from an urban
milieu. The study sought to examine the participants'
ability to talk about the familiar and the less familiar
(contextualized/de-contextualized), depending on the
features of their own particular community (e.g.,
agriculture, fishing, urban).
The author, dealing with mediated versus direct effects of
literacy selected five communities varying in terms of the
extent to which literacy skills were part and parcel of the
communities' central activities. This dimension was thought
to allow the research to compare the effects of literacy as
a disconnected set of skills (providing individuals with
tools for more abstract thought) with literacy practice
(practice itself explaining whatever cognitive consequences
might be observed). But, literacy is still something that
brings about something else.
Although Bernardo chose a wrong methodological approach to
explore the question he sought to answer, his conclusions
are welcome relief to this reader. This is because the
conclusions describe the design of the study saying that
quasi-and experimental designs are meant to study the
relationships among variables, and to determine the effects
of independent variables on dependent variables. The
conclusions also shed important light on the research
findings. There was no evidence of direct effects of
literacy on thinking, and differences between the formal
and non-formal literates were such that they pointed to
schooling rather than literacy effects. Different cognitive
approaches to thinking skills are evident in communities
with relatively high degrees of literacy integration, but
only when applied to community activities and practices.
When literate activities are carried out, not everyone who
takes part in the activity has to be literate. It is not
literacy acquisition itself that affects thought, but
rather the degree to which literacy is integrated into the
life of a community. That is, the effects are mediated by
the individual's participation in the literate activities
of the community. The effects of literacy seem to arise as
a result of being a participant in the community activities
that incorporate literacy skills.
The last two points were especially important in the
findings. Literacy may be the result of a complex,
community-based process and set of practices. It is
unfortunately though that Bernardo brought this point out
quite late in the study. Yet, it is a "myth" that without
literacy a human being's mind is a lesser mind, less
capable of abstract thought, deprived of all those
wonderful things that literacy is believed to bring about.
Another backtrack seems to come from the insights that
literacy may be a dependent variable for further expansion
of cognitive functions, to which literacy can again be
assimilated.
The conclusions also shed light on the reconceptualization
of literacy and development. They point out that the issue
is not the establishment of literacy skills, but
integrating them with existing community practices for a
chain of effect, from "community development-to-literacy-to
changes in thought."
According to Archer and Cottingham, in Uganda, Bangladesh
and El Salvador, literacy in itself does not bring benefits
in terms of health, productivity, or population growth.
Instead, literacy gives people practical skills which help
in the empowerment process (e.g., as they assume positions
of responsibility in community organizations), and the
empowerment process in turn creates uses for literacy in
people's everyday lives. This mutual consolidation and
reinforcement is the essence of why it makes sense to fuse
the two processes. Literacy programs, then, can be very
empowering if the literacy process is interwoven with other
processes through a well-structured participatory
methodology.
Finally, this book is thought provoking. It challenges
assumed ideological and methodological biases. Having
taught a graduate course in cross-cultural Perspectives on
Literacy for several years, I found myself deciding to
assign this book (among others) when the course is given
next year. The book is well structured and clearly written.
It is an excellent example of a particular way of looking
at research questions, and profoundly illustrates how
academics can become blinkered by the ways in which they
have been socialized into particular areas of professional
specialization. This book will definitely force many
scholars to re-examine some of their ideas. I hope that
these thoughts also contribute to Professor Bernardo's
research so that he continues to work to integrate literacy
practices within the Philippine communities that he so
clearly cares about.
About the Reviewer
Ailie Cleghorn, Ph.D.
Department of Education
Concordia University, Monrtreal, Candada
|
No comments:
Post a Comment