context or key? language in four adult learning programmes

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0738-0593/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.ije

E-mail addr

International Journal of Educational Development 27 (2007) 542–551

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedudev

Context or key? Language in four adult learning programmes

Clinton Robinson

38 rue des Entrepreneurs, 75015 Paris, France

Abstract

Context is a key factor in dedigning and delivering adult learning programmes, and in multilingual environments the

choice of language plays a decisive role. Four programmes, two in Asia (Bhutan Myanmar) and two in Africa (Ghana and

Uganda), which focus on learning for development, integrate language considerations in different ways, related both to the

broader socio-political contest and to the purposes and assumptions of the programmers themselves. Both the functional

and the symbolic roles affect the choice of language, and its impact, and must be factored into the design and

implementation of adult learning programmes.

r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Language; Multilingualism; Non-formal education; Adult learning; Literacy; Rural development

1. Learning in context

Chambers’ challenges to ‘put the last first’ and to‘put the first last’, as the subtitles of his classic 1983and 1997 books on development express it, are partof his plea to take seriously the lived realities oflocal people in planning and implementing initia-tives for social change and transformation. He wasappealing to those with the power to order anddirect development to give their full attention to thecontext of the disadvantaged and the poor inplanning and implementing programmes and pro-jects. This same cry has long been heard in adultlearning circles, an arena where the principalactors—learners—stubbornly refuse to be co-optedinto programmes which may be someone else’s goodidea, but which do not engage usefully with the localcontext. This has meant that adult learning pro-

e front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

dudev.2006.10.008

ess: [email protected].

grammes must address the detail and specificity oflocal factors if they are to have any impact at all.

This paper looks at four adult learning pro-grammes in so-called developing countries in whichlanguage and language choice are significant fac-tors—two in Asia and two in Africa: Bhutan,Myanmar, Ghana and Uganda. Data are drawnfrom evaluations, in which I took part, of adultlearning programmes, and these serve as a basis toconsider the place of language in relation to otherfactors of context. This will lead to an assessment ofthe place that language occupied and how decisionsabout language influenced the effectiveness of adultlearning programmes. The notion of ‘learning’ isitself complex, as are its conceptual links witheducation as the delivery of learning. This debate isaddressed here only from the perspective of the roleof language, as manifest in four programmes, whichalthough distinct in purpose and content anddifferently organised, may be characterised as non-formal education.

.

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedudev

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2006.10.008

mailto:[email protected]

ARTICLE IN PRESSC. Robinson / International Journal of Educational Development 27 (2007) 542–551 543

As Rogers (2004) argues, adult learning is bynature context-dependent, with the purpose, dura-tion, process and content of learning linked to theadult learners’ environment, experience, hopes andaspirations. For adults, learning grows out of whatthey know about themselves and the world andleads into the possibility of changing certain aspectsof their individual or collective environment.(Rogers and Uddin, 2005) It has therefore becomeaxiomatic that adult learning must respect thecontext in which it takes place. What does it meanto respect context? How far is it the respect or lackof respect of context, which makes learning effectiveor not? What aspects of context must be taken intoaccount? Are there aspects of context that are moreor less important? What are the ‘particularities ofcontext’ (Higgins and Rwanyange, 2005, p. 23) thatmust be better understood? It is clear that questionsabout context will not find a neat or final answer:context is dynamic, interlinked, messy, changingand complex.

Within adult learning, the New Literacy Studies(NLS) propound the principle that literacies arefundamentally shaped by their social context(Street, 1995) and that any understanding of whatliteracy means must take account of ‘the importanceof social context and the many contingent factorsthat must be considered’ (Maddox, 2005, p. 124).Studies of literacies and literacy practices havetherefore adduced factors, most often at the microlevel, which pertain to the motivations and purposesof using literacy (Barton and Hamilton, 1998;Prinsloo and Breier, 1996). In a sense this studytakes this same approach forward for adult learningin general, that is at the level of programme designand implementation, situating language among thecontingent factors which were addressed.

As Rogers (2004) again points out, educationmay be more or less contextualised—a continuumwhich, he suggests, underpins the differences be-tween informal, non-formal and formal education.This contextualisation addresses not only thespecific nature of the context in which the learningtakes place, but also the extent to which the learningprocess is driven by the participants. More highlycontextualised learning is structured by the learners,adapted to their needs, while decontextualisedlearning delivers a pre-planned and often centrallydetermined curriculum in a standardised manner. Interms of analysing programmes, Rogers suggeststhat ‘we can ask to what extent and in what areas

(logistics or educational) the participants are able to

influence the construction and implementation ofthe programme’ (Rogers, 2004, p. 261 emphasis inthe original). Thus this approach to contextualisa-tion examines how far the learners are in control ofthe learning programme.

Rogers’ concern is to sort out what is meant bynon-formal education and to propose tools foranalysing and planning programmes; the questionof the larger context in which programmes takeplace remains, however, and it this that is addressedhere, with particular reference to language. Thewider connections of a programme with its contexthave a major influence on its design and itseffectiveness, and such connections intersect inmultiple ways with the degrees of contextualisationin implementation. Even where a programme ishighly contextualised in its delivery, its successdepends also on factors in the larger context. AsHarley puts it:

Contexts are not simply the scene of action:through their unique distinctive enabling anddisabling features, contexts influence the natureof social action taking place within them. (Harley2005, p. 38)

1.1. Language as context

The question of language choice in development,as in education, arises where contexts are funda-mentally multilingual. Most frequently, and formost of those involved in the programmes docu-mented here, this means that people habitually usemore than one language. In this study, I payparticularly close attention to the place that people’sown languages have in learning and developmentprocesses.

The question arises as to whether language isconsidered to be part of the context of a learningprogramme. The language-in-education debate—which I would prefer to call the language-in-learning debate in order to ensure that all formsof learning are taken into consideration—makeslanguage a central concern in educational deliveryand cognitive development, as well as emphasisingarguments about socio-cultural identity (e.g. Brock-Utne, 2000; Dutcher, 2004). UNESCO (2003), in itsrecent statement of principles that echoes andreplaces the well-known declaration of 1953 (UN-ESCO, 1953), puts these arguments in the context ofthe value of and respect for diversity. The role ofeducation in maintaining the use of indigenous

ARTICLE IN PRESSC. Robinson / International Journal of Educational Development 27 (2007) 542–551544

languages also figures prominently (e.g. Aikman,1999; Trudell, 2004).

However, adult learning programmes may beconceived as much as development interventions aseducational processes. In the development debate,the language of communication and learning is seenas one of the many characteristics of the people whoparticipate in particular programmes. Socio-eco-nomic status, gender, livelihood types and locationmay feature more strongly in overall programmedesign. Language merits a tangential mention inChambers’ work (Chambers, 1983), as an aspect ofthe cultural context which it is important to respect.Anacleti (2002) pleads for a close appreciation oflocal cultural patterns in development and for a fullinvolvement of people ‘in discussing their owndevelopment’ (p. 173); he also advocates fullrecognition and use of local knowledge in designingdevelopment programmes. However, questions ofcommunication and language are not raised, eventhough they are essential to the processes heespouses. In the same volume, Mompati andPrinsen (2002) argue vigorously for acknowledgingthe impact of ethnicity on participatory approachesand they document the lack of participation ofethnic minorities. Tantalisingly, they note that theseminorities speak their own languages, yet make noobservations on how far language may be a factor inthe discrimination they describe.

In others words, where socio-economic develop-ment is in focus, the language issues raised byeducationalists are largely absent. This is the caseeven though development as a whole may beconceptualised essentially as a learning process.Cultural arguments may carry weight, with lan-guage understood to be a concomitant factor ofcultural identity, but the communicative function isunderplayed and therefore language factors are notseen as fundamental issues in learning-for-develop-ment programmes. Rather, they are relegated to thelevel of implementation, where practitioners may beexpected to decide whether and how they will usethe languages available to them and to local people(Robinson, 1996). Where language issues surface indevelopment discourse it is largely a result ofpractical experience in multilingual situations,coupled with personal attempts to learn a locallanguage. Marsden’s (2004) illuminating and typicalaccount of interaction between villager and devel-opment agent makes the point that patterns ofpower can be cemented or changed by using one oranother language.

From an educational point of view, languagequestions are seen as central, even though opinionsmay differ on which languages to adopt forlearning. From a development point of view, theyare most often considered as another aspect ofcontext, receiving attention to the extent that the‘target group’ demonstrates linguistic distinctive-ness. In calling for appropriate development forindigenous peoples, for example, language use isoften adduced as a relevant factor (von Gleich,1998). In terms of the adult learning programmesexamined here, a key issue will be how far languagequestions were factored in from the start, as part ofthe design of the programme and, if so, on whatbasis and what difference this made to the way theprogramme was structured.

2. Language in four adult learning programmes

The following four projects all had a grassrootsfocus where local context was important—to whatextent and in what ways were questions of languagepart of the design and process of the interventions?

2.1. Bhutan

‘Some 20 or so languages and dialects’ are spokenin Bhutan according to Namgyel’s (2003) socio-linguistic study of language use. The Ethnologue(Gordon 2005) puts the number at 24. Of these,Dzongkha was chosen by the government as thenational language; it is used alongside English ineducation and promoted as a symbol of Bhutaneseculture and identity. Dzongkha means ‘language ofthe dzong or fortress’, a term used for the govern-ment administration which now occupies thesetraditional landmarks; thus the term signifies ineffect ‘official language’, which it is. It is spoken as afirst language by approximately a quarter of thepopulation of about 700,000, and is the language ofthe capital, Thimphu and the western part of thecountry. Languages in central and eastern Bhutanare related to Dzongkha, but mutually unintelligible(Namgyel, 2003). The promotion of Dzongkha hasmade it increasingly a lingua franca, though theremoteness and inaccessibility of many communitiesmeans that many do not speak it or, if they do, mayuse it only rarely. Only Dzongkha is regularly writtenand this tends to give it the status of a ‘language’ inrelation to the other unwritten ‘dialects’. Thesedesignations reflect the deliberate promotion ofDzongkha as the language of Bhutanese national


unity (Planning Commission, 1999). There is norestriction on developing the other languages inwritten form, although, as far as could be estab-lished, communities are not currently promotingtheir languages in this way.

English is the language of formal schooling, butthe government chose to use Dzongkha for thepurposes of adult literacy. This choice is bothpolitical and pragmatic, in the sense that it reflectsgovernment policy to promote the status and use ofDzongkha, while at the same time being a moreaccessible medium than the language of formalschooling (cf. Namgyel, 2003, p. 60).

The experimental Village Basic Education andSkills Development Programme (VBESD) aimed totackle human capacity development through acombination of literacy and training in relevantskills in rural areas (Royal Government of Bhutan-UNESCO, 2003). More broadly the programmewas designed to inform government policy onoptimal ways of integrating the acquisition ofliteracy with its uses and applications in generatingnew socio-economic opportunities. Within a cau-tious approach to economic development ‘whereour overriding concern has been to ensure that suchdevelopment does not compromise national sover-eignty, contribute to the growth of inequalities, orundermine our cultural heritage’ (Planning Com-mission, 1999, p. 23), policies for education arecentred around access and quality. The adultliteracy rate is estimated at 54%, although femaleliteracy in some rural areas may be as low as 20%(Department of Education, 2003, p. 28). Thus, theilliterate adult population numbers between 150,000and 180,000. The programme focused on three ruralareas, two of which were inaccessible by road andoutside the Dzongkha-speaking area, Bumthangkhaand Kengkha, respectively. In view of the govern-ment’s language policy, the design of the pro-gramme gave no consideration to the languageissue. How does the language question relate toother aspects of the programme?

The design of the programme was motivated inpart by the desire to move Bhutanese society in thedirection of a liberal market economy whereindividuals and households have opportunity tosustain a viable livelihood by marketing naturalassets transformed by their skills. In this case, thegeographic, demographic and macro-economic con-texts put severe limitations on what could beachieved. Geographically, many villages in Bhutanare not served by roads, but by mountain tracks—

villages may lie anything from a few hours’ to tendays’ walk from the nearest centre of population.These distances and times impose heavy constraintson the transport of goods and the movement ofpeople. Further, markets as such are few and farbetween, all the more so as the population is smalland widely scattered. These factors are part of thereason why the market economy is so littledeveloped outside of the capital city, and this inturn explains the lack of buying and selling at locallevel. In the VBESD project, it was noteworthy thatwoven products, created with newly acquired skills,were for the most part for villagers’ own use, ratherthan for sale. The only exception to this was rugs,which were marketed at an outlet on the main(tourist) road about half a day’s walk away.

In such a context, the acquisition of literacy inDzongkha becomes more a matter of integrationinto national culture than participation in a func-tional literate environment, with the local primaryschool being the only locus of use of Dzongkha.This is not to say that cultural integration necessa-rily threatens local linguistic and cultural identity,or that national integration is perceived as negative.Given the desire to maintain national identity in aglobalised world and as a neighbour of two giantregional powers, there is reason to allow Namgyel’sassertion that ‘it appears that both government andindividuals are hand in hand in regard to thepromotion of the national language’ (2003: 51).However, the very concern of promoting nationalidentity through language creates the paradox ofrestricting the linguistic expression of local identity.

In terms of designing adult learning, the onlyquestion raised with respect to language waswhether the programme should use English orDzongkha. The choice of Dzongkha—made atnational level and applied to all adult learningprogrammes in Bhutan whatever the local linguisticsituation—is determined above all by nationalpolitical considerations; at the same time, thischoice was not without functional merit, sinceDzongkha is related to languages of the centreand west of the country making it certainly moreeasily accessible as a medium of learning thanEnglish. Looking at the programme as a whole, it isclear that the language dimension was not the mostcritical to its success; learners in the rural environ-ment were able to acquire new practical skillsthrough Dzongkha (weaving, building, carpentry,etc.), but could not use them for economicadvancement because of the lack of markets,


distances and lack of accessibility. The questionremains as to how far new self-confidence andinitiative may have developed through the use of alanguage more closely expressing local socio-cultur-al identity.

2.2. Myanmar

The adult learning programme in Myanmar hadlanguage as a focal point. It aimed to producematerials for rural development which adults coulduse in groups, on topics of relevance to their lives—health, childcare, nutrition, as well as facilitatingprocesses such as mobilising the community andforming effective groups. It was a fundamentalprinciple of the implementing NGO to use the locallanguage in the minority areas of Myanmar.1

Gordon (2005) lists 108 languages in the country,many of whose communities extend into neighbour-ing states. The programme was operative in 13languages at the time of the evaluation, whichprovided the data for this study.

Use of minority languages in this situation cannotbe seen merely as a response to the functional needsof adults reached through the programme, becauseof the status of minorities in the country. Ethnicdifferences carry a heavy political significance in asituation where the central government marginalisesand discriminates against the minorities within itsborders, and where there is armed resistance tomilitary rule. There is no use of minority languagesat all in education and only very limited use onregional radio stations. The Christian churches,which are fairly strong among some of the minoritygroups (another reason for discrimination by thegovernment), are the principal users of the minoritylanguages in written form, although such use cannotgo beyond the institutional context of the churches’programmes.

Languages differ in their vitality—with the largergroups having developed a certain range of writtenmaterials, while some smaller groups, whose lan-guages have a more recent written tradition, aremore vulnerable to dominance by Burmese. How-ever, even in language communities such as one inthe south of the country, where there are clear signsof a shift towards Burmese, there is a movement topromote the local language, led both by the

1Specific names of groups and organisations in Myanmar are

deliberately omitted in order to avoid putting the work described

here under unnecessary risk.

Christian church and Buddhist monks, with colla-boration between them in literature or culturalcommittees. Collaboration of a similar nature wasobserved in another language community in thecentral provinces.

The project took place therefore in a contextwhere it is impossible to use local languages for thepurposes of functional learning without politicalimplications. The very fact of selecting the minoritylanguage, however practical and limited the pur-poses involved, has great significance, both for thecommunity of speakers themselves as for the widerpolitical scene. It is certainly a matter of assertingidentity, but goes far beyond that, representing anexpression of countervailing power—subtle, non-violent, but potentially far-reaching, laying afoundation for fuller cultural self-expression oncethe regime changes.

The political context raises the stakes in terms oflanguage choices, but this should not obscure thefunctional benefits of using minority languages inadult learning. The programme built on the limiteduse of local languages, for instance by churches, andcited additional reasons for choosing to use the locallanguage, namely to enhance ‘‘the self-confidenceand skills of local community groups seeking tomanage their own change and extend their liveli-hood options by greater access to relevant informa-tion in their own language’’ (Myanmar, 2004, p. 1).The programme evaluation showed that this goalwas in process of being achieved and linked thefunctional and socio-cultural benefits of using locallanguages—these benefits have particular resonancein a situation where room for manoeuvre andinitiative are limited in other ways:

Producing development materials in the locallanguage raises people’s confidence and culturalself-esteem, providing a better basis for self-initiated and self-managed change. (Myanmar,2004, p.31)

The creation of language-related groupings suchas literature committees and the collaboration thathas evolved around them show that there is a slowdevelopment of the institutional context. Withoutfor a moment underestimating the overwhelmingpower of central military authority enshrined incurrent political arrangements, this provides bothan outlet for cultural self-expression in a repressiveclimate and enables minorities to make a low-keypolitical statement that pushes steadily against thehegemonic influence of mainstream political power.


2.3. Ghana

The Adult Education and Development project inNorthern and Central Ghana also put language atthe centre of its design. This recognises the multi-lingual and multi-ethnic composition of the countrya (total of 79 languages according to Gordon, 2005)and in particular the greater number of smallerethnic groups in the regions where the projectoperated. The emphasis also reflects the origins ofthe implementing NGO, the Ghana Institute ofLinguistics, Literacy and Bible Translation(GILLBT), founded in the 1970s and building onthe missionary approach of using local languages.With a focus on the broad purposes of literacy, theapproach to development was based on a recogni-tion of socio-cultural identity and an acknowl-edgement that local languages are key vectors ofcommunication and markers of identity for thesegroups. As the project was designed, therefore, itwas not a matter of bringing language issues intothe design of a development programme, but ratherof understanding what kind of development wouldbest build on the use of local languages as a learningtool. The result was a programme that combinedadult literacy with women’s groups, income genera-tion, and English within a rights-based approach topoverty reduction, in 22 language groups. Inpreparing the project design, the emphasis shiftedto the socio-economic goals and outputs, eventhough the use of the local language was the meansof communication and learning. A particularfeature was the translation of a summary of thenational constitution into 24 languages, resulting inaccess to this document for the first time for manyin those groups.

The impact of using the local language on thedevelopment outcomes is difficult to measure interms of additional income generated, for example,but the project report makes clear that the ‘soft’impact is considerable—it is worth quoting theconclusions in full:

�
Attention to local culture and language leads to adifferent way of doing development, based on thefundamental importance of the ‘software’ ofdevelopment: social relationships, communica-tion, learning and identity. � The approach focuses on communication, whose
absence is recognised to be a fundamental causeof project failure and of wasted developmenteffort and resources. Communication in the

learners’ language is clear and direct. It is notthat concepts such as human rights or genderequality, for example, are necessarily foreign andit is certainly not that they cannot relate to themor understand them. However, concepts articu-lated in a language that is not the mostcommonly used or first language remain vague,ill-defined and can only be explained with greatdifficulty. This project has freed whole commu-nities to discuss these concepts openly and fully,and with the participation of all.
� It accepts and works with ethnic identity in an
open-ended way, rather ignoring or down play-ing its importance in the lives of Africans. Aspart of this it builds respect across ethno-linguistic groups (through training sessions,visits, etc).
� It builds solidarity on the basis of shared culture
and language, not on artificial criteria of groupformation. Using the local language enablespeople to act cooperatively and creatively withintheir traditional relationships and networks—and challenge them from within at the same time.They are freed from the tension of trying to actor being asked to change (by governments,outsiders, agencies) while little account is takenof their own identity or communication patterns.
� It takes a long-term approach recognising that
social change is not easy or quick, and cannot beimposed. This project, while forming a consistentwhole in itself, is part on ongoing social changeand investment, which started before the currentproject and will continue afterwards. It is morestrategic to recognise this from the start anddesign interventions of limited duration accord-ingly (SIL-UK 2004, p. 34).

The project aimed at functional benefits andachieved some of them. It also had important effectson the status and cultural self-esteem of thepopulations speaking these minority languages.Such effects are well known and widely reportedwhere perceptions of learners are documented, butthere is somewhat of a paradox in this. While theNGO and its funders justified their use of the locallanguage in learning entirely on functionalgrounds—for example, income generation or learn-ing English—one of the most frequent responsesfirst given by learners in response to questionsabout the impact of literacy on their lives wasabout identity: ‘we can now write and read our


own language and write our children’s names.’Government institutions, NGOs or developmentagencies rarely list such outcomes as objectives, evenwhen cultural diversity and respect for indigenousknowledge and practices are part of theirdevelopment rhetoric. In spite of a strong interna-tional consensus of the value of diversity, andsupport in some quarters for addressing culturalpatterns in the design and implementation ofdevelopment programmes (cf. Eade, 2002; Grovesand Hinton, 2004), funding is almost alwaysgranted on the basis of functional goals andoutcomes. The point here is that a careful appraisalof the use of languages and close attention toenabling local, minority languages to be used forpractical purposes build awareness of culturalidentity and enable speakers to confidently assertthe value of their cultural/linguistic heritage (Fish-man, 1991, 2001). The Ghana project report notesthat the frequency of the response referred to aboveis highly significant in a context where, untilrelatively recently, the language was used only inoral form:

A principal value of literacy and motivation fortaking part in literacy groups is the possibility touse one’s own language in written form and forlearning purposes, thus putting to one side thebarrier of having to learn and adopt someoneelse’s language and, to a certain extent, someoneelse’s culture and ways of thinking. This responsemay be taken as an expression of many differentemotions, ranging from relief to pride, fromcultural self-assertion to joy in learning. (SIL-UK, 2004, p. 20)

These positive effects and the resulting high valueplaced on the local language in no way led people tooppose the learning and use of their own languageto that of English. Rather, to the contrary—local-language literacy was a step to English, seen now forwhat it is: not as an unattainable necessity orinaccessible language which undermines or threa-tens local cultural identity, but a means, accessiblethrough their own language, to wider opportunitiesand more effective participation in society. In acontext such as Ghana, the development of therequisite linguistic capital, as Yates (1995) demon-strates, must be must always include more than onelanguage, recognising multilingual dynamics inpersonal and social spheres.

2.4. Uganda

The programme of the NGO Literacy and AdultBasic Education (LABE) focuses on building thecapacity and giving technical support to agenciesengaged in adult literacy in a number of districts inUganda. The agencies include both governmentaland non-governmental bodies, and the capacitybuilding addresses programme planning, materialdevelopment and facilitator training. In a countrywith up to 43 languages (Gordon, 2005, butestimates vary), language issues are ever-present indiscussions about literacy. Uganda’s policy since1992 has been that local languages should be usedfor initial literacy (Brock-Utne, 2000; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000), both for children and for adults. Forschooling, six languages were chosen at nationallevel, but individual districts had the freedom todevelop and use others. Districts were to set upLanguage Boards, though it is doubtful whether anyexist. Schooling also aims at competence in Englishand final primary examinations are in English. Onthe ground, Brock-Utne (2000) observed that littleteaching is done in the local languages, given thepressure to acquire English. LABE’s partners alsoreport a strong desire for English among adults. Inmany situations in Africa and elsewhere, this wouldlead to offering literacy directly in English, with theperception of either-or alternatives: literacy either inthe official language or in the local language.However, LABE and its partners have managed toavoid this dichotomy, offering both local languageliteracy and the learning of English. Even wherelearners expressed desire to learn English, they wereoffered first a literacy course in their own languagebefore instruction in English.

In Uganda, then, these adult learning pro-grammes aim largely at acquiring literacy per se,rather than at other kinds of learning throughliteracy. This is borne out in the kinds of materialsprepared with LABE’s help, most of which areprimers and instructional aids (Education ActionInternational and NOVIB-Oxfam International(EAI), 2003). Language choices seem to be relativelyuncontroversial in political and institutional terms,with functional reasons predominating for the useof local languages and the later addition of English.However, the need to develop a literate environmentin the local language is hampered by the lack ofpromotion and use of local languages in schools andby the tenuous links between literacy acquisitionand learning that can result in the application of


relevant knowledge in people’s lives and localdevelopment. Issues of socio-cultural and ethnicidentity are as prominent in Ugandan life asanywhere else, but language seems to play a lesspotent symbolic role in people’s perceptions.Although it fell outside the scope of the evaluationon which this evidence is based, it would be worthinvestigating the language attitudes of adult learnersin order to assess the relative importance of reasonsfor using the local language: pragmatic reasons andease of learning, as compared to reinforcement ofcultural identity.

3. Language and learning in context

These four programmes all aimed at change in thelocal context, through adult learning. It wasimportant to take account of a wide range ofcontextual factors if learning was to be relevant andapplied in the lives of the adult learners. Factors ofgeography, socio-economic activity, political statusand participation, the institutional landscape andcultural patterns—as well as language—all played arole in the design of these interventions.

However, can language be treated in the sameway as other contextual factors? In the fourprogrammes examined here, the functional andsymbolic aspects of language were important in allcases. In some of the programmes language wasspecifically part of the intervention and one of thefactors of the local context on which the programmewas designed to have an impact. In the case ofBhutan, however, the existence and use of languagesother than that used in the programme was treatedas background noise. Thus the detailed languagesituation of each context where the programme wasimplemented was to be ignored, not because of anyreason inherent to the nature of the learningprogramme, but because of the overriding politicaland social environment. As indicated earlier, func-tional reasons—ease of learning, application ofknowledge to the local environment and so on—would argue for the use of the first language of thelearners. However, Dzongkha has an undisputedrole in adult learning across Bhutan because itcarries a high symbolic load as a marker and carrierof identity. Thus a concern for identity at thenational level takes precedence over local identity, asituation replicated across the world where centralauthority imposes a language. What is ironic in thissituation is that the aim of the learning programmesis to provide locally sustainable livelihoods based on

the socio-cultural environment, and yet the possibleuse of local languages—of huge import bothfunctionally and symbolically in such an enter-prise—is not factored into the equation.

In the three other programmes, local languagesfulfilled the functions of use of local knowledge andfacilitating access to wider knowledge. In Myanmarand Uganda these functions were relatively new inadult learning, while in Ghana there is a longerhistory of using local languages in this way.However, the impact of using languages is thisway on local identity was in each case highlysignificant—adult learners felt better about theircultural environment and about the value of theirlanguages as a result seeing them used in practicallearning functions. It is significant that these threeprogrammes were initiated by NGOs, while theBhutan programme was government-driven. Whileit is unwarranted to dichotomise NGO and govern-ment action too strongly (Eyben and Ferguson,2004), these programmes nevertheless strengthenthe view that NGOs and civil society organisationsare more able to capture and work with localcontextual realities than are governments.

It is the fact that the functional and symbolicaspects of language are inseparable that makeslanguage a key factor in designing any interventionin multilingual contexts. As an aspect of culturalbehaviour—like other symbols and like the struc-ture of social relationships—language cannot beseen merely as a functional tool. On the other hand,to focus on language mainly as a an interestingfactor of cultural diversity—as some kind ofcultural museum piece—is to ignore the highfunctional value of using a community’s firstlanguage for learning purposes.

The point is that language intersects with all thesecontextual dimensions—in the lives of learners andin the institutional framework within which theintervention takes place. The implications are thatinterventions of this kind are more likely to beeffective the more detailed and local the analysis ofcontext and that this takes time, effort and cruciallymeans that, in the planning and in the implementa-tion, learners insights into their own context,however they are articulated, will be the mostvaluable resource. Higgins and Rwanyange (2005)catalogue a range of evaluations of educationalinitiatives where inadequate local consultation ledto lower levels of ownership and quality. To put itanother way, there was not enough input on andfrom the local context, although, as is often the case,


there is no indication of the kind of informationfrom the local context that would have made adifference. There is a need to unpack useful butopaque assertions such as: ‘undertakings need tospin around the community’ (Higgins and Rwa-nyange, 2005, p. 21).

Indeed, whatever kind of intervention is planned,language becomes not only a vector of implementa-tion, but a resource for planning. Once a decision ismade to engage local people in planning, questionsof language choice will determine how far theyparticipate. However, in the four interventionsexamined here, there was no evidence of planningof this kind, even where the local language was afundamental factor of design, as in Myanmar andGhana.

The further question, evoked at the beginning ofthis paper (Rogers, 2004), arises concerning theareas in which learners are able to influence theshape of learning as it takes place. From the fourprogrammes above it is clear that using the people’sown language facilitates such influence, whereasusing a language which is less familiar or unfamiliar,and crucially which is not their own, makes suchinfluence less possible and less likely. What the fourprogrammes also show is that the role of languagein enabling learners to take control of their learningand its outcomes is not only about the functionalbenefits of better communication, but about expres-sion and validation of identity—this is a key factorin development, raising the level of confidence toinitiate, manage and sustain change.

These conclusions in relation to language incontext have implications for the design andimplementation of development initiatives morebroadly. Lack of attention to context by thepowerful and the decision-makers can lead toblaming the failure of educational interventionsand programmes on the attitudes or cultures of thelocal people themselves, the supposed beneficiaries.Such assessments often hide an unwillingness toquestion the ways of doing things adopted by theimplementing agencies and a lack of commitment tounderstanding local cultural processes in depth.This externalisation of the agencies’ own short-comings on to the attitudes of the local people maybe compounded by inadequate communication; thepurposes, aims, structures and processes of pro-grammes and projects may be inadequately ex-plained, with little attempt to link the newness of theintervention to existing socio-cultural patterns(Higgins and Rwanyange, 2005). The evidence

presented here shows that the use of the locallanguage in development goes beyond an increase infunctional impact to the heart of the relationshipbetween agency and the ‘target’ community. Hinton(2004) spells out this deeper message:

Sensitivity to local culture, understanding themotivations of others and embracing locallanguage all demonstrate an attitude of respecttowards local people’s beliefs and perspectivesy(Hinton, 2004, p. 217).

While calls such as this are increasingly heard,and local realities are seen as vital, the connectionswith programme design and the implications foragency behaviour are all too rarely observed.

References

Aikman, S., 1999. Intercultural Education and Literacy. John

Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

Anacleti, O., 2002. Research into local culture: implications for

participatory development. In: Eade, D. (Ed.), Development

and Culture. Oxfam, Oxford, pp. 168–173.

Barton, D., Hamilton, M., 1998. Local Literacies: Reading and

Writing in One Community. Routledge, London/New York.

Brock-Utne, B., 2000. Whose Education for All? The Recoloni-

zation of the African Mind. Falmer Press, New York/

London.

Chambers, R., 1983. Rural Development: Putting the Last First.

Longman, Harlow.

Chambers, R., 1997. Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First

Last. Intermediate Technology Publications, London.

Department of Education, 2003. Education Sector Strategy.

Realizing Vision 2020: Policy and Strategy. Ministry of

Health and Education, Thimphu.

Dutcher, N., 2004. Expanding Educational Opportunity in

Linguistically Diverse Societies, second ed. Center for

Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC.

Eade, D. (Ed.), 2002. Development and Culture. Oxfam, Oxford.

Education Action International, NOVIB-Oxfam International,

2003. Mid-term review of Project Literacy and Continuing

Education in Uganda 2000–2005. Unpublished Report.

Eyben, R., Ferguson, C., 2004. How can donors become more

accountable to poor people. In: Groves, L., Hinton, R. (Eds.),

Inclusive Aid: Changing Power and Relationships in Inter-

national Development. Earthscan, London/Sterling, VA,

pp. 163–180.

Fishman, J., 1991. Reversing Language Shift. Multilingual

Matters, Clevedon.

Fishman, J. (Ed.), 2001. Can Threatened Languages be Saved?

Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

Gordon, R. (Ed.), 2005. Ethnologue: Languages of the World,

fifteenth ed. SIL International, Dallas, TX. Online version:

http://www.ethnologue.com.

Groves, L., Hinton, R. (Eds.), 2004. Inclusive Aid: Changing

Power and Relationships in International Development.

Earthscan, London/Sterling, VA.

http://www.ethnologue.com


Harley, K., 2005. Learning from logframes: reflections on three

development projects in East and Southern Africa. Compare

35 (1), 27–42.

Higgins, L., Rwanyange, R., 2005. Ownership in the education

reform process in Uganda. Compare 35 (1), 7–26.

Hinton, R., 2004. Enabling inclusive aid: changing power and

relationships in international development. In: Groves, L.,

Hinton, R. (Eds.), Inclusive Aid: Changing Power and

Relationships in International Development. Earthscan,

London/Sterling, VA, pp. 210–220.

Maddox, B., 2005. Assessing the impact of women’s literacies in

Bangladesh: an ethnographic inquiry. International Journal

of Educational Development 25, 123–132.

Marsden, R., 2004. Exploring power and relationships: a

perspective from Nepal. In: Groves, L., Hinton, R. (Eds.),

Inclusive Aid: Changing Power and Relationships in Inter-

national Development. Earthscan, London/Sterling, VA,

pp. 97–107.

Mompati, T., Prinsen, G., 2002. Ethnicity and participatory

development methods in Botswana: some participants are to

be seen and not heard. In: Eade, D. (Ed.), Development and

Culture. Oxfam, Oxford, pp. 92–109.

Myanmar, 2004. Project evaluation report. Unpublished report.

Namgyel, S., 2003. The Language Web of Bhutan. KMT

Publisher, Thimphu.

Planning Commission, 1999. Bhutan 2020: A Vision for Peace,

Prosperity and Happiness. Planning Commission Secretariat,

Thimphu.

Prinsloo, M. Breier, M. (Eds.), 1996. Social Uses of Literacy.

John Benjamins, Amsterdam and SACHED, Pretoria.

Robinson, C.D.W., 1996. Language Use in Rural Develop-

ment—An African Perspective. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

Rogers, A., 2004. Non-Formal Education: Flexible Schooling or

Participatory Education? University of Hong Kong, Hong

Kong.

Rogers, A., Uddin, M., 2005. Adults learning literacy. In: Street,

B. (Ed.), Literacies Across Educational Contexts. Caslon

Publishing, Philadelphia, pp. 235–260.

Royal Government of Bhutan & UNESCO, 2003. Village Basic

Education and Skills Development Programme: An Evalua-

tion of the Pilot Project.

SIL-UK, 2004. Adult education and development in Central and

Northern Ghana: an evaluation. Unpublished report.

Street, B., 1995. Social Literacies: Critical Approaches to Literacy

in Development, Ethnography and Education. Longman,

London and New York.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T., 2000. Linguistic Genocide in Education—

or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights. Lawrence

Earlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ/London.

Trudell, B., 2004. The power of the local: education choices and

language maintenance among the Bafut, Kom and Nso’

communities of Northwest Cameroon. Ph.D. Thesis, Uni-

versity of Edinburgh.

UNESCO, 1953. The Use of Vernacular Languages in Education.

UNESCO, Paris.

UNESCO, 2003. Education in a Multilingual World. UNESCO

Education Position Paper. UNESCO, Paris.

von Gleich, U., 1998. Linguistic rights and the role of indigenous

languages in adult education. In: King, L. (Ed.), New

Perspectives on Adult Education for Indigenous Peoples.

UNESCO Institute for Education, Hamburg, pp. 33–50.

Yates, R., 1995. Functional literacy and the language question.

International Journal of Educational Development 15,

437–447.

context or key? language in four adult learning programmes

Documents