History and Culture

A common denominator among Latin American countries is a history of European colonization. Those located in the “connected” lands of North, Central, and South America (that is, those other than the Caribbean island nations) also share long pre-Columbian histories of well-developed civilizations, some of which are estimated to date from 3000 B.C. Today, long history and old civilizations still exert their weight in the region's culture, along with the legacy of colonization and modern global influences.

The present political and economic status of Latin America is considered by some analysts to be in a necessary state of transition. One major change taking place is the decentralization of formerly totally centralized systems, brought on mainly because of economic demands. The decline of military governments, difficulties in management of large administrations, and the weakening of formerly monolithic labor unions are also pressing factors (Namo de Mello, 1996; Rodríguez, 1995; Rodríguez & Bernal, 1990; Schiefelbein, 1993; Schiefelbein & Tedesco, 1995).

Tensions between neoliberal ideology, Marxist traditions, and long cultural histories, particularly in the connected lands of Latin America, create new demands for change in the socioeconomic and political structures of the region. Marini (1994) analyzes the situation within the perspective of the Marxist notion of long-term cycles. He maintains that Latin America entered into a cycle 25 years ago that will entail sudden changes and unexpected situations. These situations include increased competition among countries, accelerated industrial development, and the emergence of newly industrialized countries -- as is now the case with Mexico and Brazil -- which he envisions will expand to affect the majority of countries in the region. Larger gaps between social classes and increased demands for higher levels of training will result, thus altering the structure of the labor force and of employment conditions

This path is seen as a necessary one for developing countries in general, in order that they be integrated into the new world economy. Influenced by neoliberal ideology, demands for reduction of state controls and growth in a larger private sector will continue to exist. However, Latin American nations' need to be competitive requires that they use creative means to strengthen their inner forces and to establish more favorable economic terms for themselves (Marini, 1994). They need to move forward through balanced development on various fronts while maintaining their own identities. Education is a major enabling factor in reaching these goals, as Latin American nations work to develop their own technologies, economic models, and cultural advances.

Back to menu

Language, Literacy, and Culture

In the Spanish language, there is no direct equivalent of the English word literacy. The closest term is letrado, which corresponds to “learned person,” while iletrado corresponds to analfabeta-- literally, someone who is illiterate and cannot read or write, and figuratively, someone who is ignorant. The opposite of analfabeta is alfabetizado, which usually refers to someone who has acquired the written code. Alfabetizado and alfabetización (the process of becoming alfabetizado) are the terms commonly used in Latin American professional literature in literacy research and practice. In recent times, though, the meaning seems to have expanded toward the letrado connotation.

Any discussion about literacy and education in Latin America needs to address language issues. The diversity of indigenous groups and languages within the region requires special educational efforts for most nations. In Mexico alone, for example, the indigenous population of approximately 5 million has been estimated to represent 62 vernacular languages (Nahmad, 1975). In the Vaupués territory of the Colombian Amazon, an area of approximately 65 square kilometers (25 square miles), the indigenous population was estimated in 1985 to be five times larger than the white population in a total population of 19,000. The norm for the indigenous in the Vaupués is to be bilingual and most likely multilingual in several vernacular languages, but print (and consequently print literacy) essentially does not exist (Alfonso, Oltheten, Ooijens, & Thybergin, 1988).

Policies concerning national languages and the language of instruction have traditionally been sensitive issues (Heath, 1972). Literacy programs in Latin American countries that had been colonized by the Spanish were originally termed “programs of castellanización”-- that is, programs of learning Castillian. Today, educational systems in the region make efforts to provide education to the indigenous populations, and advances have been made in creating graphic codes to represent some of the vernacular languages. However, most programs continue to be in essence transitional, with the goal being to teach literacy in the so-called “prestige” languages of the colonizers [see, e.g., Larson & Davis, 1981; Secretaría de Educación Pública (SEP), 1986; Troike & Modiano, 1975).

By the same token, mainstream education has been met with overt resistance by some indigenous groups, while others, indigenous and the poor in general, find themselves excluded from educational systems. In a 1995 meeting sponsored by the Centro Regional para el Fomento del Libro en America Latina y el Caribe [Regional Center to Promote (the Use of) Books in Latin America and the Caribbean], a group of specialists advised Latin American governments to establish policies governing literacy education. Rodríguez (1995) writes that although this recommendation was understandable from the standpoint of moving Latin America into the modern industrial age, it did not take into account the region's neoliberal mindset or the natural resistance to legislating literacy. Beyond that, and more significantly, he notes the “limits and conditionings” of cultures. Among these are the times to be lived and experienced by and within cultures, such as times of silence (as in Choles' time without time and words without language); times of speech when things are named; and times of writing when words are written. Rodríguez argues for a communicative attitude toward literacy (rather than a legislative one), which takes into account the subjective, objective, and social worlds of groups and cultures.

At the same time, efforts toward universal education in the region have been fruitful (see Figure 1). Between 1980 and 1992, the population of students rose 30 percent, with greatest growth seen at preschool and higher education levels; basic education (terminating at the equivalent of North America's Grade 9) has kept pace with the annual population growth of 1.6 percent (Central Intelligence Agency, 1999). Thus, access to schooling has ceased to be the main concern of Latin American educational systems.

Data drawn from Central Intelligence Agency, 1999

At present, the main concerns with respect to education in Latin America are its quality and its many ramifications, particularly those related to equity. Beyond problems associated with multiple languages and cultures, issues of poverty and the gaps among social classes are pressing factors. Inequities in education generate greater inequities in society, yet efforts to advance economic systems require greater individual participation and contribution to a common social goal. As García-Huidobro (1996) states,

If all children truly had the same possibilities of access to the cultural codes which allow them to conduct themselves in society, the legitimacy of social order would be unquestionable, social mobility a common fact; on the contrary, when inequalities are passed down from one generation to the next, the social order which maintains those differences becomes as illegitimate as the privileges it guards (p. 92; my translation)

In essence, the particular linguistic code in which to address literacy, illiteracy, and education is a varied and complex landscape requiring both general and specific solutions for nations and their particular contexts and peoples. Any solutions need to take cultural, political, and economic demands into consideration if they are to be effective in maintaining national unity and contributing to economic advancement.

Back to menu

Literacy Programs in Latin America

To meet the goal of universal education, education systems in Latin America began a period of considerable expansion. Central governments accepted the challenges posed by numerous and varied responsibilities toward education, as well as by the need to develop or acquire appropriate resources [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 1974; United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), 1979)]. Besides formal education, nations have undertaken to develop programs of open education, distance education, and nonformal education (Puiggrós, 1995). Some are geared for school-age children and youth and others for unschooled or poorly schooled adults. Programs are based in all physical locations: urban, rural, among urban marginal populations (at the peripheries of cities), in remote rural areas, and in urban shantytowns (Rivera-Pizarro, 1991; Rockwell, 1996; SEP, 1986; UNESCO; UNICEF). To be successful, they all must take into account the ethnic and linguistic diversity of those enrolled. Figures 2 and 3 depict advances in reducing illiteracy in the population aged 15 years and over.

Figure 2 Illiteracy Rates Among Males, 15 Years and Older	Figure 3 Illiteracy Rates Among Females, 15 Years and Older
Data drawn from Central Intelligence Agency, 1999

Mainstream Education

The discourse of official government documents and among education professionals about primary and secondary school literacy in Latin America is clearly influenced by current theories from the developed nations of the world. At the same time, there seems to be a revival of some aspects of ideological traditions of education in the region, mainly a critical perspective. Definitions of literacy, however, seem to fluctuate from the characteristics exhibited by Cicero's learned person to the Middle Ages conception of minimal ability in reading as discussed by Venezsky (1991) to Heath's (1991) literate behaviors.

In school learning, the common term for reading and writing is lecto-escritura [read-write], a single hyphenated word that may signify as a unit (Seda-Santana, 1993). Although the term suggests a holistic view, in practice reading and writing are mainly viewed and taught as separate processes (Braslavsky, 1995). For example, once a learner has command of the letter-sound correspondence and can decode words, she or he is considered alfabetizado.

Official Spanish-language curricula and goverment frameworks for elementary teaching of lecto-escritura favor what Heath (1991) describes as being literate with emphasis on literacy skills and literate behaviors (see, e.g., for Argentina, Braslavsky, 1995; for Mexico, Gómez-Palacio, 1982, and SEP, 1992; for Nicaragua, Dirección de Educación Primaria/UNESCO, 1994; for Paraguay, de Romero & de García, 1994) The point is that although the official discourse favors a constructivist, social construction, and holistic perspective, in instructional practice atomistic and behaviorist tendencies prevail.

Alternative Education

Alternative education in this context refers to any program that differs from traditional schooling, including popular, indigenous, bilingual, adult, and community education. Of prime importance in alternative education are community organization and development, which go hand in hand with completion of basic education.

In the Latin American region, ideological conceptions of education often fluctuate between a view of education having its purpose in national development (i.e., characterized by a technological society, ideals of reason, efficiency, and development of human resources) and a dichotomy between dependency on others (a vestige of our colonial past) and self-determination and liberation (Castro, 1994; Rodríguez, 1995; Torres-Novoa, 1977). The latter purpose is also evident in formal education programs, be they directed toward national development or personal empowerment.

An important theoretical influence in educational systems in Latin America is Freirian thought. The Freirian ideal of education as liberation (Freire, 1969, 1970), derived from experiences in rural Brazil, aspires for participants in education programs to develop a critical conscience and a commitment to decision making, and for them to take effective action to affect their reality. This notion of “education for liberation” typifies an important segment of pedagogical movements in Latin America (Castro, 1994).

With few exceptions, alternative education and programs for alfabetización in general are government sanctioned and funded. The programs, as might be expected, have had various degrees of success and duration. When they stem initially from local efforts and then expand to become “official,” they often begin to suffer some of the problems of formal education, mainly bureaucratization and inflexibility (Rockwell, 1996; UNICEF, 1979). On the positive side, however, once a program becomes official, certification of studies becomes possible for participants.

Recently, in an attempt to overcome the short-lived participation of teachers in many alternative education programs, efforts have been made, particularly in indigenous education, to involve and prepare members of the groups targeted for participation. Although in principle a good solution, other problems often arise -- such as lack of teacher education, training, and experience to meet the demands of the roles teachers are to play, including providing community leadership and development.

Adult Education: Alfabetización and Post-Alfabetización

In Latin America adult education programs for alfabetización may subsume other educational efforts, such as popular education and indigenous or bilingual education, while maintaining their own specific characteristics. Adult education, however, requires a broad definition of adult in the context of alternative education and of marginalized groups. An adult may be anyone of any age who actively participates in group or family production or contributes to a subsistence economy and is not attending school (Infante, 1983; Isáis-Reyes, 1957; Schmelkes, 1990). Thus, in adult education, the socioeconomic characteristics of individuals and their geographical location determine eligibility for participation.

A major difficulty faced by programs of alfabetización is students' loss of acquired abilities through lack of opportunities to practice them and lack of printed material in their environments (Ferreiro, 1997; Infante, 1983). Freire and Macedo (1989) argue that those who have previously developed a critical conscience and a need to modify their own reality (liberation) may form a need to “break the code.” Thus, programs for alfabetización have the most impact when individuals understand the need for and the functionality of literacy.

Recent work in post-alfabetización programs has attempted to reach some understanding about the results of adult education programs and their impact on the lives of participants (Schmelkes, 1990). Post-alfabetización, in a strict sense, refers to programs that occur after acquisition of lecto-escritura to reinforce functional skills and avoid their loss (Medina-Ureña, 1982). In a broader sense, post-alfabetización refers to programs that help individuals advance in their lives, not just maintain their skill levels -- that is, to “advance toward higher personal goals and to ease participant's introduction into new social and occupational roles” (Nagel & Rodríguez, 1982, p. 51). These programs have emerged from varied needs and demands: government, private, joint government-private initiatives, and community efforts.

Educación Popular

Educación popular, or “popular education,” in essence refers to education for social movements (Bengoa, 1988; Ortíz-Cáceres, 1990). It is characterized “by its political-pedagogical nature, with the intent of turning education into a vehicle of support for popular organizations, and to increase for its people their participatory capabilities in decision-making processes that affect their daily lives” (Sirvent, 1993, p. 19, my translation). In this view, education should promote critical thought and its effects should be manifested in the social organizations of its recipients (Ortíz-Cáceres; Sirvent; Torres-Novoa, 1977).

Popular education programs in Latin America represent important social movements. Literacy is a major goal of the programs; however, promoters and organizers have begun to recognize that literacy is only one of many components required in programs intended for marginalized populations. Helplessness and issues of access to the cultural codes of the mainstream society must also be addressed (García-Huidobro, 1996).

Back to menu

The Research Scenario

Educational research undertaken in developing countries necessarily differs ideologically from that pursued in industrialized nations. In 1979, Mexico's Centro de Estudios Educativos [Center of Educational Studies], or CEE, and the U.S. Comparative and International Education Society (CIES) sponsored a meeting of researchers from the Americas. The goal was to reach some understanding of the nature and ideology of research in the different regions. It was concluded that a major difference between the research practices of the northernmost (industrialized) nations and the southernmost (developing) nations was that in the former, research may or may not have a clear relation to practice. When it does, implementation may be conducted by others not necessarily involved in the praxis of research. In Latin America, on the other hand, the relationship between educational research, policy, and practice is surrounded by an aura of immediacy, and researchers are frequently immersed in the practical applications of research and in policy decisions. Thus, Patricio Carriola, from the Centro de Investigaciones y Desarrollo Educativo [Center for Research and Educational Development] in Santiago, called for establishing a common ground of understanding between researchers across the Americas.

Today, 20 years after the CEE-CIES meeting and in this era of free-trade agreements, immediacy still pervades Latin American research. Research intended to effect change, including qualitative, participant, and critical research, allows a good fit with the practical context (Montero-Sieburth, 1991; Sirvent, 1993). Qualitative research paradigms, with their historical leftist tradition, find fertile ground in the Marxist and Freirian-influenced thought of educational movements in Latin America (Montero-Sieburth, 1991). Recently these research paradigms have been expanded to include research in classrooms and schools (see, e.g., Beltrán-Rueda & Campos, 1992; Campos-Saborio, 1990; Montero-Sieburth, 1992) and gender studies (Montero-Sieburth, 1992).

In light of the need for immediacy, the content of Latin American research has focused mainly on program development and implementation and evaluation of educational programs. The immediacy of problem solving within formal schooling, a traditionally closed setting, has opened itself to analyses of these sorts.

Literacy research in Latin America has responded and is continuing to respond to its context. Current theoretical influences from developed nations are creating new demands and needs for literacy research in the region, but old demands and needs still have to be addressed. Among the latter are the generalized alternative education demands made by the region's diverse populations. The following examples of recent research should help illustrate.

In a Mexican study, Rockwell (1991) posits that children are less likely to become literate in school, where instruction focuses primarily on skill acquisition, than through a variety of experiences that she refers to as “extrainstructional activities.” Rockwell presents evidence suggesting that children appropriate reading and writing processes for themselves, in spite of instruction. Convergent evidence for Rockwell's work is the fact that, as a topic of discussion, instruction of lecto-escritura virtually disappears from the literature about formal education (although by no means from educational concerns and evaluation studies) after Grade 3 (Colbert & Arboleda, 1990; Vélez, 1992).

In Chile, Ortíz-Cáceres (1990) compared and characterized three different popular education programs for adults. She found that the “pedagogical discourse” in these programs was slanted toward collective conscience, group organization, and participation in the greater society. She concludes that the positive effects of these programs were mainly on three fronts:

1. Participants acquired a more realistic perspective (social representation) about social mobility.
2. They were exposed to alternatives to the societal “free rider” (dependency) notion.
3. They generated internal group norms favorable to collective action and monitored these within the group.

Schmelkes (1990) compared 76 post-alfabetización programs in 13 countries in the region. In her conclusions, she claims a direct link between education and work. The mission of one group of programs was preparation for work, and work skills were added to the curriculum. The mission of the second group was production of goods, and educational activities were a necessary ingredient to achieve program goals. For the first group of programs, Schmelkes found that it was difficult to link educational efforts with work objectives in their implementation. In the second group, there was a close link between the content of instruction and the need to be productive. In these programs, instruction became instrumental and functional to the goals of participants, thus extending implementation beyond the normal activities of the programs.

These examples represent the tenor of most of the existing research literature -- that is, of analyses of programs in existence, of program implementations in quantitative terms (Rivera-Pizarro, 1991), or discussion of sociopolitical and philosophical issues (Rodríguez, 1995; Rodríguez & Bernal, 1990).

Basic research related to school literacy is less common, although there are important contributions from Ferreiro (1989, 1997), Ferreiro and Teberosky (1979), Braslavsky (1983, 1995), Rockwell (1991), and Rojas-Drummond, Hernández, Vélez, and Villagrán (1998), to name a few. Other research consists of general analyses of school programs and program implementations (e.g., Barocio-Quijano, 1990; Braslavsky, 1995; Rockwell).

Back to menu

Implications for Educational Practice

In the midst of multiple demands on education in Latin America, research has not been a major priority. Although many efforts and advances have been made in the field, the ground is fertile both for research and for development. At the forefront of educational concerns is the demand for universal literacy. Here alternative education programs have offered the most interesting settings and activities for educators in general.

Also of prime importance is teacher education, both pre- and in-service, given that national efforts to advance education lean heavily toward program development. The need still exists to bridge the gap between national programs and teacher education (see, e.g., Braslavsky, 1983; Campos-Saborio, 1990; Dirección de Educación Primaria de Nicaragua/UNESCO, 1994; Ferreiro, 1997; Rivera-Pizarro, 1991). Theoretical influences such as those related to reflection and action within one's own reality (Freire, 1969, 1970, 1996; Schon, 1983) are emerging in the literature of formal education; however, detailed analyses of processes of change and educational practice are virtually nonexistent, appearing only tangentially and primarily in relation to program implementation (e.g., Barocio-Quijano, 1990; Campos-Saborio; Dirección de Educación Primaria de Nicaragua/UNESCO).

In keeping with the immediate nature of education research in Latin America and the established paradigms of participant and critical research, action research would seem a natural candidate as a methodology for future studies. Although the intrusion of “outsiders” into a class or program encounters strong resistance among both researchers and school personnel (Seda-Santana, 1994), the possibilities for action research are wide open and some efforts are beginning to emerge in this direction (e.g., Macotela-Flores, Seda-Santana, & Flores-Macías, 1997; Rojas-Drummond et al., 1998). Joint studies involving school- or program-based educators and researchers are desirable; however, they need to clearly establish the direct practical benefits to the context in which the research is to occur.

In relation to the complex ethnic, linguistic, and geographical landscape of the region, educational practice should take into account possible alternative routes to mainstream, traditional literacy, as well as to many literacies. Teachers in formal education programs and community promotores (the common term for instructors in nonformal education programs) need to consider whether and how literacies exist or are part of their students' lives (Taylor, 1997). Lessons from alternative education programs may be useful sources of information (e.g., Schmelkes, 1990).

Similarly, it is important that instruction in lecto-escritura move beyond the learning-to-read phase, both in mainstream and alternative education programs. Literacy development for different purposes in the lives of program recipients needs to be emphasized at all proficiency levels. For some marginalized groups, the only textual material available may be popular literature such as comic books -- that is, if any texts are available at all. Popular literature may therefore be a valuable educational resource in that it represents an alternative route to literacy while at the same time playing a social role. The sociopolitical aspects and domination ideology of comic books have been explored (see, e.g., Dorfman & Mattelart, 1980; Emmanuelli, 1991; Ortíz, 1991; Zalpa-Ramírez, 1997), but not in relation to literacy learning and development.

Educational practice and literacy research in Latin American ought to maintain and respond to the immediacy of their context and address problems that exist within that context. At the same time, both research and practice must move forward by taking advantage of existing knowledge bases and addressing in more detail particular concerns. Issues of ownership and functionality of literacy, in particular, are important for alternative education movements to move more directly into the Freire's (1996) ideal of a pedagogy of hope.

Back to menu

References

Alfonso, L.A., Oltheten, T., Ooijens, J., & Thybergin, A. (1988). Educación, participación e identidad cultural: Una experiencia educativa con las comunidades indígenas del nordeste amazónico [Education, participation, and cultural identity: An educational experience with the indigenous communities of the Amazonic northeast]. The Hague, Netherlands: Centro para el Estudio de la Educación en Países en Desarrollo (CESO).
Back

Barocio-Quijano, R. (1990). El currículo con orientación cognoscitiva: Una alternativa para la educación de los niños preescolares [Cognitively-oriented curricula: An alternative for preschool education]. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos, XX(2), 79-93.
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation)

Beltrán-Rueda, M., & Campos, M.A. (1992). Investigación etnográfica en educación [Ethnographic research in education]. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Back

Bengoa, J. (1988). La educación para los movimientos sociales [Education for social movements]. In A. van Dam, J. Ooijens, & G. Peter (Eds.), Educación popular en America Latina: La teoría en la práctica [Popular education Latin America: Theory into practice] (pp. 7-42). The Hague, Netherlands: Centro para el Estudio de la Educación en Países en Desarrollo.
Back

Braslavsky, B.P. (1983). La lectura en la escuela [Reading in school]. Buenos Aires: Kapelusz.
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation)

Braslavsky, B.P. (1995). La lectura inicial: Ensayo de un paradigma didáctico [Beginning reading: Rehearsal of an instructional paradigm]. Revista Latinoamericana de Innovaciones Educativas, VII(19), 45-95.
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation) | (3rd citation)

Campos-Saborio, N. (1990). Learning-teaching styles in classrooms of schools located in marginal urban areas. San Jose, Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica, Instituto para el Mejoramiento de la Educación Costarricense.
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation)

Castro, I. (1994). Propuesta pedagógica y organización escolar en América Latina [Proposal for school organization and pedagogy in Latin America]. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos, XXIV(1-2), 129-144.
Back

Central Intelligence Agency. (1999). The world factbook. Washington, DC: Author. Available: www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html
Back

Colbert, V., & Arboleda, J. (1990). Universalization of primary education in Colombia. Paris: UNESCO/UNICEF.
Back

de Romero, A.T., & de García, M.C. (1994). La reforma educativa en el aula [Educational reform in the classroom]. Revista Latinoamericana de Innovaciones Educativas, VI(18), 119-167.
Back

Dirección de Educación Primaria/UNESCO. (1994). Sistematización del proyecto PAM-PALE: Propuesta para el aprendizaje de las matemáticas y de la lengua escrita [Systematization of project PAM-PALE: Proposal for learning mathematics and written language]. Revista Latinoamericana de Innovaciones Educativas, VI(18), 69-84.
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation)

Dorfman, A., & Mattelart, A. (1980). Para leer al Pato Donald: Comunicación de masa y colonialismo [To read Donald Duck: Mass communication and colonialism]. Mexico City: Siglo XXI.
Back

Emmanuelli, J. (1991). El comic de la mujer [The woman's comic book]. Cupey, VIII(1-2), 109-128.
Back

Ferreiro, E. (Ed.). (1989). Los hijos del analfabetismo: Propuesta para la alfabetización escolar en America Latina [Children of illiteracy: Proposal for school alfabetización in Latin America]. Mexico City: Siglo XXI.
Back

Ferreiro, E. (1997). Alfabetización: Teoría y práctica [Literacy: Theory and practice]. Mexico City: Siglo XXI.
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation) | (3rd citation)

Ferreiro, E., & Teberosky, A. (1979). Literacy before schooling. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Back

Freire, P. (1969). La educación como práctica de la libertad [Education and liberation]. Mexico City: Siglo XXI.
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation) | (3rd citation)

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogía del oprimido [Pedagogy of the oppressed]. Mexico City: Siglo XXI.
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation) | (3rd citation)

Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogía de la esperanza [Pedagogy of hope]. Mexico City: Siglo XXI.
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation)

Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1989). Alfabetización: Lectura de la palabra y lectura de la realidad [Alfabetización: Reading the word and reading reality]. Barcelona, Spain: Paidós.
Back

García-Huidobro, J.E. (1996). Las reformas de la educación básica en América Latina [Reforms of basic education in Latin America]. In Memorias del encuentro Latinoamericano de innovaciones educativas en el medio rural [Memoirs of the Latin American meeting of educational innovations in rural areas] (pp. 85-100). Mexico City: Consejo Nacional de Fomento Educativo.
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation)

Gómez-Palacio, M. (1982). Propuesta de aprendizaje para la lengua escrita [A learning proposal for written language]. Mexico City: Secretaría de Educación Píblica.
Back

Heath, S.B. (1972). Telling tongues: Language policy in Mexico, colony to nation. New York: Teachers College Press.
Back

Heath, S.B. (1991). The sense of being literate: Historical and cross-cultural features. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume II (pp. 3-25). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation)

Infante, M.I. (1983). Educación, comunicación y lenguaje: Fundamentos para la alfabetización de adultos de América Latina [Education, comunication, and language: Bases for adult literacy in Latin America]. Mexico City: Centro de Estudios Educativos.
Back

Isáis-Reyes, J.M. (1957). Algunas ideas sobre alfabetización [Some ideas about literacy]. Pátzcuaro, Michoacán, Mexico: Centro Regional de Educación Fundamental para la America Latina.
Back

Kamil, M.L., Mosenthal, P.B., Pearson, P.D., & Barr, R. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of reading research: Volume III. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Back

Larson, M.L., & Davis, P.M. (Eds.). (1981). Bilingual education: An experience in the Peruvian Amazonia. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Back

Macotela-Flores, G.S., Seda-Santana, I., & Flores-Macías, R.C. (1997). Desarrollo y evaluación de un programa de colaboración entre maestros de aula y maestros de apoyo y su relación con el logro académico de niños de primaria [Development and evaluation of a collaborative program between regular and resource teachers and its relation to children's academic achievement]. Unpublished manuscript. Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (CONACyT Ref. No. 26369-H).
Back

Marini, R.M. (1994). Latin America at the crossroads. Latin American Perspectives, 21(1), 99-114.
Back

Medina-Ureña, G. (1982). La postalfabetización en América Latina [Post-alfabetización in Latin America]. Pátzcuaro, Michoacán, Mexico: Centro Regional de Educación Fundamental para la America Latina.
Back

Montero-Sieburth, M. (1991, October). Corrientes, enfoques, e influencias de la investigación cualitativa para Latinoamerica [Trends, perspectives and influences of qualitative research in Latin America]. Paper presented at the First Latin American Conference on Qualitative Research, San Jose, Costa Rica.
Back

Montero-Sieburth, M. (1992). Models and practice of curriculum change in developing countries. Comparative Education Review, 36(2), 175-193.
Back

Nagel, J.A., & Rodríguez, E. (1982). Alfabetización: Políticas y estrategias en América Latina y el Caribe [Alfabatización: Policies and strategies in Latin America and the Caribbean]. Santiago, Chile: Oficina Regional de Educación para America Latina y el Caribe de la UNESCO.
Back

Nahmad, S. (1975). La política educativa en regiones interculturales de México [Educational policy in the intercultural regions of Mexico]. In R.C. Troike & N. Modiano (Eds.), Proceedings of the first Inter-American conference of bilingual education (pp. 15-24). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Back

Namo de Mello, G. (1996). Autonomía de la escuela: Posibilidades, límites y condiciones [School autonomy: Possibilities, limits, and conditions]. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos, VII(22), 11-46.
Back

Ortíz, J.C. (1991). Canales y la contralectura de las felices parejas: Mujer, matrimonio y marginalidad [Channels and the counter-reading of happy couples: Women, marriage and maginalization]. Cupey, VIII(1-2), 101-108.
Back

Ortíz-Cáceres, M. (1990). Educación popular y acción colectiva. Estudio de los efectos educativos [Popular education and collective action. A study of educational effects]. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos, XX(2), 95-109.
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation)

Puiggrós, A. (1995). América Latina: Crisis y prospectiva de la educación [Latin America: Educational crisis and prospectus]. Cuadernos, Argentina: Instituto de Estudios y Acción Social.
Back

Rivera-Pizarro, J. (Ed.). (1991). Investigación sobre educación en algunos países de América Latina [Educational research in some Latin American countries]. Ottawa, ON: International Development Research Center.
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation) | (3rd citation)

Rockwell, E. (1991). Los usos escolares de la lengua escrita [School uses of written language]. In E. Ferreiro & M. Gómez-Palacio (Eds.), Nuevas perspectivas sobre los procesos de lecto-escritura [New perspectives about reading-writing processes] (pp. 296-320). Mexico City: Siglo XXI.
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation)

Rockwell, E. (1996). Cursos comunitarios: Una primaria alternativa para el medio rural [Community courses: An alternative primary education program for rural areas]. Revista Latinoamericana de Innovaciones Educativas, VIII(22), 111-135.
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation)

Rodríguez, P.G. (1995). ¿Política nacional de lectura? Meditación en torno a sus límites y condicionamientos [National reading policy? Reflection about its limits and conditioning factors]. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos, XXV(3), 25-53.
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation) | (3rd citation) | (4th citation) | (5th citation)

Rodríguez, P.G., & Bernal, E. (1990). Razón y alfabetización [Reason and literacy]. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos, XX(3), 97-109.
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation)

Rojas-Drummond, S., Hernández, G., Vélez, M., & Villagrán, G. (1998). Cooperative learning and the appropriation of procedural knowledge by primary school children. Learning and Instruction, 30(1), 37-61.
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation)

Schiefelbein, E. (1993). Desafíos, mitos, avances y posibilidades de la educación básica [Challenges, myths, advances, and possibilites of basic education]. Memoria del seminario de analisis sobre politica educativa nacional , Tomo I [Proceedings from the seminar for the analysis of national educational policy] (Vol. I, pp. 9-26). Mexico City: Fundación SNTE.
Back

Schiefelbein, E., & Tedesco, J.C. (1995). Las nuevas líneas de la transformación educativa [The new lines of educational transformation]. Revista Latinoamericana de Innovaciones Educativas, VII(21), 11-32.
Back

Schmelkes, S. (1990). Post-alfabetización y trabajo en America Latina [Post-alfabetización and work in Latin America]. Mexico City: Oficina Regional de Educación para America Latina y el Caribe de la UNESCO & Centro Regional de Educación Fundamental para la America Latina.
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation) | (3rd citation) | (4th citation)

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic.
Back

Secretaría de Educación Pública. (1986). Bases generales de la educación indígena [General bases for indigenous education]. Mexico City: Author.
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation)

Secretaría de Educación Pública (1992). Acuerdo nacional para la modernización de la educación básica [National agreement for modernization of basic education]. Mexico City: Author.
Back

Seda-Santana, I. (1993, December). ¿Qué es la lecto-escritura? [What is read-write?]. En línea: Organo informativo de la maestría en educación, I(4). Monterrey, N.L, Mexico City: Instituto Tecnológico de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey.
Back

Seda-Santana, I. (1994). La investigación participativa: Un testimonio [Participant research: A testimony]. Contextos, I(5), 6-9.
Back

Sirvent, M.T. (1993). La investigación participativa aplicada a la renovación curricular [Participant research applied to curricular change]. Revista Latinoamericana de innovaciones educativas, XXX, 11-74.
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation)

Taylor, D. (Ed.). (1997). Many families, many literacies: An international declaration of principles. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Back

Torres-Novoa, C.A. (1977). La praxis educativa de Paolo Freire [Paolo Freire's educational praxis]. Mexico City: Ediciones Guernika.
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation)

Troike, R.C., & Modiano, N. (Eds.). (1975). Proceedings of the first Inter-American conference on bilingual education. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Back

United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). (1979). Situación de la infancia en América Latina y el Caribe [The situation of children in Latin America and the Caribbean]. Santiago, Chile: Author.
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation)

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1974). Evolución reciente de la educación en América Latina I: Progresos escollos y soluciones [Recent evolution of education in Latin America I: Progress, difficulties and solutions]. Mexico City: UNESCO y SEP Setentas.
Back

Vélez, E. (1992). Factors affecting achievement in primary education. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Back

Venezsky, R.L. (1991). The development of literacy in the industrialized nations of the west. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume II (pp. 46-67). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Back

White, R.A. (1979). Alfabetismo: ¿Causa o efecto del desarrollo social? [Literacy: Cause or effect of social advancement?]. In Centro de Estudios Educativos (Eds.), Perspectivas de la Educación en America Latina [Educational perspectives in Latin America] (pp. 111-128). Mexico City: Centro de Estudios Educativos.
Back

Zalpa-Ramírez, G. (1997). Comicidad y sociedad: El mundo imaginario de la historieta [Humor and society: The imaginary world of the comic book]. Caleidoscopio, I(1), 9-36.
Back

Back to menu

Informational Web Sites

• The Latin American Network Information Center, housed at the University of Texas
• Portal to the Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe [Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean], with link to information in both Spanish and English
• The Latin American Studies Association, based at the University of Pittsburgh
• The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
• The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)

Back to menu

About the Author

Ileana Seda-Santana received her Ph.D. in education from The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA. Currently she is a professor of educational psychology in the School of Psychology, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City. Her work focuses on literacy education, assessment, and change processes in teaching practice. She has published in both English- and Spanish-language journals in psychology and education.

Back

To print this article, point and click your mouse anywhere on its text; then use your browser's print command.

Citation: Seda-Santana, I. (2000, October). Literacy research in Latin America: Context, characteristics, and applications/Investigación sobre alfabetización en América Latina: Contexto, características y aplicaciones. Reading Online, 4(4). Available: http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/handbook/seda/index.html

Reading Online, www.readingonline.org
Posted October 2000
© 2000 International Reading Association, Inc.   ISSN 1096-1232