Folks,
 
I'd like to link in my essay, Discerning the Contexts of Adult Literacy Education to illustrate something of the diversity of schols of thought of context-based education.  http://www.nald.ca/fulltext/george/discern/cover.htm.
 
In part, modeling my essay on Sylvia Scribner's classic 1984 article, Literacy in Three Metaphors, I take a typological approach in identifying functional-context theory (Sticht), critical literacy (drawing on Auerbach for my model), and the new literacy studies (based on Fingeret & Drennon) as a sort of synthesis between them.  Clearly, the contexts are a lot more complex than either Scribner or I depict, though I think we both do in our slightly different ways get to some of the complexities through our respective typologies. m In contrast, the body of Tom's work makes its major contribution in the great range of empirical evidence he lays out through his underlying theory.  Where I take some issue with him is I don't see the need for the adjective "functional," particularly for any model of contextual-based education that proposes to be comprehensive or inclusive.
 
I do agree with Tom that functional-context theory has the capacity to include an enlightened pedagogical emphasis, which clearly reflects Tom's  desire especially in the past couple of decades where he acknowledges the importance of all contexts that students identify as important, including the religious. His work goes back to the 1960s where he initially concentrated on context-based education in relationship to training in the military and industry.  As a result, and given the influence of Freire on the thinking of progressive adult literacy educators, Tom has often been mis-interpreted as exhibiting a form of behaviorism a la Skinner, though that is far from the case in his information-processing model.  I do think his early work reflects broad symmetry with the modernization thesis that was giving shape to adult literacy education in the early post WWII era with various UN campaigns and extending into the Kennedy administration.  I think in the 1960s, in fact, Tom's work was largely empathetic to the broad-based goals of the New Frontier and the Great Society, which would have characterized his pedagogy as broadly liberal, though by the end of the decade the modernization theory was under the critical scrutiny of the Pedagogy of the Oppressed, which from that angle of vision might have placed his "functional" literacy in an oppressor categorization. These historical factors need to be brought in coming to terms both with Tom's legacy and his current thinking--and the fact that 40+ years he's still at it and as thoughtfully feisty as ever has a great deal to be said for it.
 
What I do argue is that within the framework of a broad-based contextual approach, there are significant differences between Sticht, Auerbach and Finget & Drennon and the differences matter, but not in the absolute type of way as is sometimes characterized in perspectives that polarize "functional" from "critical" literacy. I think we've moved a good way beyond these polarities, in which Paul Jurmo 's career provides a nice model in that he has done a great deal of work in both workplace and participatory literacy education.  At the same time I do think it is important that we continue to address the complex issue of the politics of literacy and the underlying political culture that gives shape to such work.  The pedagogical, the personal, and the political remain as subtly entwined as ever of which my 21 year career is one reflection as are many others--all of us, I venture in one way or another.
 
George Demetrion
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/professionaldevelopment/attachments/20081230/c1613644/attachment.html