Descripción de la medida o programa de medidas

Based on the contents of the Complementary Education Programme Facilitator’s Manual and the primers, it appears that learning to read is not made easy for learners. The lesson objectives do not consistently address literacy acquisition, which is a stated School for Life goal; rather, lessons address the text topic. Furthermore, the mechanics of learning to read are not at the forefront of the curriculum, and what children really need to know is not always highlighted. Again, one could question the sequencing: the first lesson is overcrowded in terms of content when it should ideally form a basis for following lessons. The other side of the argument is that the literacy programme in Complementary Education Programme is grounded in the concrete reality of the children as espoused by the developers of the programme. This in itself is a positive departure from that of the programme in the formal school.

Also noticeable is that the emphasis in most lessons is on syllables, a method that would work if pupils were taught word attachment skills more effectively. Some attention is given to letter–sound correspondence, but there is no mention of blending the sounds together to pronounce words. Instead, the teaching techniques described seem to lead to rote learning, there being endless repetition to encourage pupils to memorize keywords. Rote learning does not challenge the learner or the social order of things. The learner must be able to create linkages between instruction and learning. Learners are then able to move from the mere regurgitation of facts to a “critical analysis of social and political construction of knowledge” (Sefa Dei, 2004:92).

It is probably helpful for children to learn some of the key words listed in the manual, but not all of them. It is also difficult to tell how appropriate the choice of some keywords is, for example, the word ‘ingredients’; it is difficult to say whether the Dagbani term for

120 ‘ingredients’ is a word that children are likely to know or whether it occurs frequently in everyday discourse.

There is also a focus on concepts that children may not need to know in order to start learning to read. The very first lesson has children learning about vowels and consonants; they do not have to know that syllables consist of a vowel and one or more consonants. Pupils are also expected to learn to recite the whole alphabet, which may be a daunting prospect for children with no previous schooling experience. While mastering the alphabet may be relevant, the process is effective if it makes use of “interactional approaches to alphabetisation” (Gadotti, 1994).

In Lesson 1, pupils begin with a drawing activity as a way of getting them to start writing. Drawing seems effective because it introduces children to representation; but it is not clear what is to be written. Each lesson indicates that they should do some written work, but there is not always any guidance on what they should be writing; sometimes, they are instructed just to write letters. Children start to write words and sentences within the first month of the programme, but it is difficult to tell whether what they write is related to lesson topics. It is also uncertain as to whether facilitators insist on correct spelling. What can be deduced, however, is that there is a conscious attempt to encourage pupils to experiment with the letters they are learning to make words and sentences. Since the lessons get them to use syllables in keywords to form new words, it is assumed that they can use this technique to write sentences and stories. However, the instructions for moving from keywords to writing sentences and stories are not given.

Picture discussion features prominently in most lessons. This can be an effective way of interesting pupils in a text before they read it. Indeed, picture reading or discussion is central to social constructive methods of learning to read, Sutherland (1992) noting that the Vygotsky concept of teaching reading involves the child interacting with the text. This technique includes reading and discussing pictures through which the child internalizes the reading process. Sutherland also cites Hickman (1985), a social constructive advocate who believes that the process of the child telling a picture story to an adult enhances the child’s acquisition and mastery of language and reading. Thus, the concept of the language experience approach to reading through picture discussion is utilized in the Complementary Education Programme curriculum.

121 Facilitators need to spark interest in the pictures with questions that generate discussion, but most of the suggestions in the manual do not achieve this. Occasionally, there is a good one such as, “What do you think will happen if we continue to fetch firewood without planting trees?” If the story that follows the discussion is interesting, it could form the basis of a fruitful lesson, but questions about who can be seen in the picture may not be as successful when pupils use their first language. Thus the utilisation of higher order questions that encourage critical thinking skills rather than closed ones can generate more discussion and lead to a more interactive lesson and learner-centred instruction.

On the other hand, the fact that there is inculcation of discussion and dialogue in the prescribed lesson delivery in itself provides a platform for constructive and critical learning. Freire (1970) insists on the necessity of dialogue as a teaching strategy. The school should always listen to what their pupils say about what is taught to them. He makes a distinction between vertical and horizontal dialogue. Vertical dialogue is the kind where the person being educated only needs to listen and obey. However, in order to pass from the state of ingenious consciousness to critical consciousness, there is the need for horizontal dialogue which is fed by love, humility, hope, faith and confidence (Gadotti 1994; Freire, 1970).