Women's Literacy Power:
Collaborative Approaches to Developing and Distributing Women's Literacy Resources

 

WE LEARN:
A Critical Feminist Pedagogy for Women's Literacy

Framework & Process
Understanding the Knowledges
Recommended Future Strategies
Women Expanding

Framework & Process: Some Reflections

 

"…nothing is essentially liberating." -- Rebecca Jarvis

As was stated earlier in the Dissertation Framework and Methodological Process section of this dissertation project, one of the goals has been to explore the process of developing a network with a focus on creating and distributing women-centered literacy materials. Prior to any long-term projects to include women learners in the process of writing or creating women-centered literacy materials, it was necessary for me to have some understanding of what it would involve to work with women learners in their various settings&emdash;to listen to their levels of interest in or need for women-centered literacy materials. Throughout this writing, I included comments and reflections on both the process and content revealed in each site of learners, as well as with the interactions with literacy workers and librarians. In addition to creating space for the knowledges made visible by learners and literacy workers, some process concerns were acknowledged throughout both Knowledges in Views sections. It is important to revisit some of the most compelling research spaces opened by this project.

 

What IS This?

Throughout this dissertation project I have intentionally and consistently avoided using the terms method or methodology as much as possible. For me, these terms imply systematic and static steps, orderly procedures, disciplined rules, and predictable techniques&emdash;steeped in the hegemony of scientific research protocol. The terms framework and process, however, provide a basic conceptual structure or general shape based in principles allowing for activity, growth, reflection, flexibility and evaluation, thus opening the possibility for transformative change and new paradigms. In shaping this dissertation project, I anticipated several challenges would create interesting tensions and sometimes inherent contradictions.

One dilemma has been what to name or how to identify this particular research paradigm. In Dissertation Framework and Methodological Process, I outlined the general principles and characteristics of (feminist) participatory action research. This was my goal and model. In fact, this dissertation project cannot be strictly considered participatory in the traditionally recognized descriptions (Auerbach, 1994; Fals-Borda & Rahman, 1991; Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Joyappa & Martin, 1996; Maguire, 1987; Merrifield, 1997; Park, et.al. 1993), or even as I described it. There are far too many inconsistencies, most notably the ways in which the women learners and literacy workers (the participants) did not set the agenda, analyze the data, or control the outcomes of the knowledge. Additionally, most PAR events center for long periods of time in only one local community in which the researcher is often invited to participate in the research.

The dissertation project as it moved forward might not be claimed as participatory action research, nor can it be claimed as many other forms of generally acknowledged or legitimized quantitative or qualitative research methods. There are many things this project was NOT in their traditional definitions&emdash;quantitative survey, ethnography, grounded theory, focus-group, action research, case-study, correlation or comparative, historical, text-based analysis and so on. The only decidedly clear agreement we might come to about research perspectives for this dissertation project is its feminist focus&emdash;multiplicity of research methods, focus on gender-oppression, affirmative view of women as subjects, commitment to creating social change, inclusion of the researcher as participant with voice, inclusion of the researched as subjects rather than objects, and recognition of human diversity and wholeness (Joyappa & Self, 1996; Lather, 1992; Reinharz, 1992).

Though not entirely so, it may be that this dissertation project had more characteristics of action research as described by Wilfred Carr and Stephen Kemmis (1986) when they outlined three conditions: (a) social practice, (b) spiral of cycles, and (c) widening participation and collaborative actions. As Davydd Greenwood (1998) points out, action research is a "pragmatic combination of analyses and methods for linking elements of participation, action and research in concrete situations. We don't need fewer and purer tools, but more and more diverse approaches to meet the endless challenges of inequality and oppression" (p. 181). There are many things this research project DID. It legitimately borrowed from several research practices and refashioned them to achieve a feminist and critical Freirean-based research paradigm relying heavily on action research and participatory paradigms and principles. This dissertation project had several threads operating simultaneously which may give it a random and chaotic appearance. However, this process remained rigorous in its reflection, and general use of research tools and strategies&emdash;including survey/questionnaire, interview, conversation circles, literature-base, thematic coding and other qualitative tools.

This hybrid framework and process broached a new genre for research and allowed for flexibility in multi-layered opportunities for women learners and literacy workers to voice what they know. It is participatory in a number of ways:

This dissertation project maintained a spiral of action-reflection-action, honored the importance of theory and practice mutually informing each other, and developed generative, open-ended spaces. It straddled the difficult chasm between the academy and the community. It negotiated through academic/institutional educational spaces/requirements while making the knowledges raised accessible and available to a larger community outside the academy&emdash;the community of women learners and literacy workers who potentially can gain the most from these research activities&emdash;through written summaries and the website. The work of this dissertation project opens opportunities for future participatory actions of women learners and literacy workers under the networking foundations of WE LEARN. In sum, this dissertation project models what Alastair Pennycook (1994) asserts as a critical pedagogy approach to research:

…critical pedagogy could be said to be fundamentally concerned with questions of schooling and inequality. In this sense, then, critical pedagogical research could be defined, first of all, by its focus on questions of social and cultural inequality in education. The aim of this research, however, is not merely descriptive; rather, it aims also to be transformative. Thus, a second defining feature of critical pedagogical research would be its aims to change those conditions of inequality that it describes: It requires research to be answerable to a broader politics of social transformation. Finally, a great deal of critical pedagogy has also focused on the broad question of knowledge production....The third defining feature, therefore, would be a critique of positivistic knowledge, an attempt to pursue different possibilities of research and a self-reflexivity about the types of knowledge produced by academic inquiry. (p. 691)

 

Who Is Community?

Participatory action research, and action research for that matter, are community defined and directed. But who is "the community" when considering adult women learners and women-centered literacy materials? Where is local knowledge? What are the difficulties and tensions between local and general spaces? When considering women-centered literacy materials for the heterogeneity (differences and commonalties) of women learners, finding the bridge between local, long-term participatory projects and broad inclusion of more women's voices in short-term opportunities becomes necessary. Giving voice to specificity while avoiding the tendency to generalization as typical in positivistic research methods becomes complicated and tricky. Finding the breadth without glossing over AND finding the specifics without losing or ignoring multiple communities remains difficult to balance.

We have seen the damaging affects patriarchal and whiteness assumptions of positivistic research and theory make when generalizing across communities (Bunch, 1983; Giroux, 1983; Hartsock, 1987; Lather, 1991; LeCompte, 1995; McLaren, 1995; McLaren & Giarelli, 1995; Thompson, 1983; Weedon, 1987/1997). Mainstream 20th century feminism dominated by white-middle-class-heterosexual-able-bodied contexts has tended to generalize what is best for all women from their specific viewpoints. "Othered" women (such as Anzaldúa, 1990; Bell & Klein, 1996; Clare, 1999; Collins, 1998; hooks, 1984; Lorde, 1984; Minh-ha, 1989) have criticized / critiqued those feminist viewpoints. Also, it is more accurate to recognize the range of feminisms (Ebert, 1996; Jackson & Jones, 1998). From my own experience of feminist activism and having been "called out" for various assumptions pertaining to women's collective experiences across communities, I have been reluctant&emdash;even resistant&emdash;to using only two or three local groups from which to understand what is needed for and from women-centered literacy materials.

The commitment on my part to finding ways of involving women learners and bringing their multiple and often silenced voices as sources of knowledge proved to be a difficult and complicated task. In contradiction to the typical (participatory) action research of living and working in a community for an extended period of time and focusing in one locale, I believed in the importance of visiting several programs, involving more women, and wrestling with the difficulties inherent in one-time discussions. There are many interviews or case studies of working with women learners over extended periods of time in the context of research or participatory actions (Boudin, 1999; Heller, 1997; Martin, 2001; Rigg, 1991; Young & Padilla, 1990; and for more examples see Appendix Participatory). But how do we involve, include, give opportunity to those women who may not have access to such local community-based options, especially in educational settings?

There are several ironies here. If Women Leading Through Reading had still been functioning with several book groups, I may have worked with them as conversation circles in a more on-going and in-depth way. I could have had assistance from more sites and group facilitators to conducting conversation circles thus enlarging the participatory and local benefits. Unlike employed literacy workers consistently connected to specific sites, I had no on-going option for long term interaction with groups of women learners. This forced me to consider a broader vision for creating alternatives to connecting with women learners. The conversation circle sites as they developed reflected my own position as outsider,1 sitting on the margins with a different kind of vision and gaze.

Each location of learners was different&emdash;area and regional location, programmatic goals, and sociocultural and personal identities.2 The selection of the groups purposefully tried to acknowledge the heterogeneity of women learners. Similarly, no group was homogenous, even if it may have appeared to be (e.g. all African American women, all Latina ESL learners).3 Because my contact with the groups was so limited, it is also hard to know how those identity differences affected the power dynamics of each group. It is beyond the scope of this research to analyze those dynamics but nonetheless important to recognize how they probably exist. What factors were operating4 -- within each woman and between (among) the women -- no doubt affected who spoke when and how and what topics got raised or silenced. Meeting with these same women at a different time may have raised a completely different set of interests and concerns. With the two groups I met with over a longer period, I could see how daily issues both affected and changed their primary focus or selection of reading materials. Their priorities, interests, and choices were never static. For one-time groups, then, I needed to understand I was getting only their opinions for that particular day. This cannot be assumed as their complete or only set of opinions and viewpoints about women-centered literacy materials.

By involving different kinds of groups in various locations in the conversation circle format, what became more transparent is how social and educational context informed the ways in which women learners described and defined the kinds of women-centered literacy materials of interest to them. This may not have become so obvious through working in detailed contact with only a few groups. The broadening of the contexts and site selections -- even if only with short-term contact -- provided information that may not have surfaced by using one or two localized groups. Also, while some commonalties existed for certain topics or kinds of women-centered literacy materials across several groups, the level of priority and specificity shifted among groups, and sometimes even within groups or individuals.

As we saw in Something in My Mind, adult education theories discuss the ways in which context, content and participatory curriculums may provide more stability in learning situations due to increased relevance. The conversation circles using the form of book discussion group (Family Learning and Hubbs) provided the best context for discussing reading materials. These conversations did the most to forward insights about access, presentation and availability of reading materials though it also happened that these two groups of learners also seemed least interested in creating their own writings. This may have been more a reflection of the participants than the process. On the other hand, the group that seemed to have the most internal camaraderie and sense of connection to their learning program (Caroline Center)&emdash;although they met with me only twice&emdash;had the most interest in writing about their context and lives. They might have been well served by more on-going contact with me&emdash;or the commitment of a teacher to continue the process of facilitating their enthusiasm into tangible product.

However, adult learners, especially women, can be transient for numbers of reasons. This transience became most obvious through the conversation circles that met more than once. They were never stable groups and the women who attended varied from meeting to meeting. In spite of participatory community-building activities, the stresses on women's daily lives are considerable making their steadiness in programs difficult. With any group of people, trust must be built over a period of time and contact. We might assume that the groups with more continuous contact might have provided more in-depth information across the time span. To some extent, this was true but even the two groups that met only once5 -- and both ironically under very strained conditions -- made significant contributions.

In one draft of this writing, a reader suggested this research process did not match PAR because "the participants' identities changed over time" (Stephen Brookfield, email correspondence). If we agree with this, are the methodologies or principles of PAR incompatible with the realities of women learners? Even if I had only worked with 2 or 3 groups for a longer period of time, on-going consistency with the same groups of regularly attending learners would have been nearly impossible. In both book groups,6 the participants changed from week to week. It may be possible that more direct involvement in a project of their own making could keep them more consistently engaged, but this cannot be at all guaranteed. Because of the ways in which women learners can be transient and "because of the ways in which their lives are dis / organized by others" (Horseman, 1991, p. 224) is a participant research methodology requiring relative consistency even possible? When women's literacy education is connected to workfare requirements, longevity (more than 3 months) in programs may be systemically discouraged (see Appendix Welfare).

In this context, how can PAR really work? What does this mean for maintaining on-going participation in action or pursuing conversations with them to analyze the data? In this way, how do learners control the use of the data? How can limited encounters become workable in an on-going process? Where and how does community exist, especially for women learners? This led me to wonder&emdash;is PAR or popular education really all that different from good community organizing and activism? In my experience, there may exist a core group, but the attendance of most participants fluctuates from meeting to meeting, especially among women. Various people in the group take on research. Decisions are made by those who "show up." And we work hard to question who is not present and why and try to find ways to make meetings as accessible as possible.7 While it may be frustrating and time-consuming to continuously revisit old ground, bring people up-to-date, and find ways to include them the current level of discussion, this is the nature of community groups and social activism. It's a process demanding patience and on-going community building.

As outlined in Something in My Mind, the lack of women-centered literacy materials relates to larger systemic issues in two areas: (a) the power of commercial, educational, and literary publishing, and (b) adult literacy education policy, curriculum, and schooling. While local community and participant-based efforts will chisel away at the issues and satisfy immediate needs, this may not be enough to address the systemic problems. The bridge building and networking of active local communities and the inclusion of broader numbers of women learners opinions and views&emdash;even if only one time&emdash;may have more impact in the long run. As several of the one-time conversation circles revealed, limited contact with groups did provide some compelling additions to the knowledge base. Perhaps for the development of women-centered literacy materials, both long-term intensely (truly?) participatory groups can be balanced with one-time or short term advisory or informational conversation circles thus providing a more accurate overall picture of women-centered literacy materials needed across communities of women learners and their overall transformative effects. What still needs to be developed are the ways in which to build those networks, though this project offers some meaningful first steps.

 

How is participation possible?

The question of participation exists not only to the principles of PAR but also as a concern for how we include women learners (and literacy workers for that matter) as subjects with knowledge pivotal to the topic of women-centered literacy materials. What does it mean to involve women learners in a conversation about women-centered literacy materials? In this research, what women were invited to participate in (content) was essentially the same for all sites -- namely, a conversation about their perceptions, needs/desires, and interests for women-centered reading materials, followed by a summary evaluation. How those conversations happened (context) was different in each site providing insight into ways that some approaches for learner participation may provide better opportunities than other approaches.

One major concern must be addressed -- women never really had a chance to decline being involved in the conversation circles. Their teachers had not previously informed many of them about the scheduling of the conversation circles. Only 1 of the 7 groups of learners had clear alternatives not to attend the discussions.8 In all of the settings, the teachers had agreed to allow the conversation circles but the learners were often uninformed about them, even (in 3 cases) up to the moment when sitting in the circle with me. In spite of this, I tried as much as possible to offer them choices within the restrictions. They could decide to leave for some alternative activity. They did not have to speak. They did not have to fill in the forms provided. In some settings, they did not have to return9 to subsequent conversations.

In two of the groups (Expanding Life Choices and Family Learning), I had a preliminary discussion in which I presented the conversation circle format and requested women's participation. Even in those cases, I am uncertain if women would have declined to participate, especially as a group. To do so would have meant having a group decision-making process, which neither of them did. As individuals, it seems more likely they would have followed the strongest personality in the group (as in the case of ABE Fall River, MA & Expanding Life Choices) or made no strong commitment in any direction thus letting me and the teacher decide for them (as in the case of Family Learning). In school settings such as these in which women already lack confidence in their own knowledge (Horsman, 1990; Laubach Literacy Action, 1995), women expect they will be told what to do.10 As recipients of this "free" social service, they generally have not been asked or expected to make decisions about what would happen in that setting&emdash;to take charge of their own curriculum for learning beyond the initial needs assessment.

Adult women learners attend literacy programs for a variety of reasons, with a variety of goals, and under different stress levels affecting motivation. What does it mean to ask for participation from those for whom attendance is mandated by court or workfare, or any other outside authority? Does this affect the validity and value of the information received? Does this negate what women said or cast suspicion on it? I don't think so but these power dynamics are important to keep in mind.

I do not mean to make it sound like I expected women learners to refuse to participate or for their discussions to be suspect because of the conditions under which they participated, or for their group dynamics to be dysfunctional. Actually, I suspected and hoped the recommendations of their teachers, who they may trust, would encourage their willingness to participate. I only mean to explore the relations of power and possibility in ways that help literacy workers and women learners to consider varying degrees of participation and resistance&emdash;agreement for action and change in the development and use of women-centered literacy materials. It occurs to me that simply asking learners, "Would this be all right to have this conversation with you?" does not open the discussion of changing power relations or necessarily constitute good pedagogical practice.

I said more clearly to some groups than to others that their discussion of the topics would help determine the future availability of reading materials, thus assisting future learners. I presented the possibility for them to become more involved long term if they chose. However, this does not clearly create a discussion on or opportunity to explore changing power dynamics or involvement in a decision-making process. It would be easy and accurate for me to say time was an issue. But time is always an issue&emdash;and often used to excuse inadequate/disempowering process&emdash;and one that needs to be addressed. Hopefully, literacy workers who take on some of these concerns in the future will continue to address with their learners (as they possibly already do) how to navigate time constraints when taking on a decision-making process. Additionally, several other factors affect the ways in which we understand participation. For groups in which using the English language becomes a barrier to negotiating (as with the 2 ESL sites), additional tools and strategies must be considered in order to allow for full consent and participation.

One principle of PAR views the participants as subjects of the inquiry who set the agenda, participate in the data collection and analysis, and control the use of the outcomes, including deciding what future actions to take or directions to go. Without stretching too far, learners did have more participation in this research than they may have in other situations. Though the groups who met more than once may not have been actively involved in writing their own group summaries, they did have opportunities to review them, make changes, and discuss them in more detail. One might rightfully ask if learners would have the courage, interest, or investment to challenge what a researcher/authority had written. In general, women did not make corrections on the summaries ("yeah, it's ok") but on four or five separate occasions, women did expand on or clarify some details. On the surface, women with more confidence seemed more willing to make those changes. For future conversation circles, I would recommend the Post-It process used with the Caroline Center. Also, if only a one-time conversation circle is possible, I would suggest taking 5 minutes at the end of the time for a wrap-up effort, thus initiating some participation in summarization (albeit limited).

If we believe participant research and action is desirable, does our understanding of what constitutes participation need to be adjusted or flexible given the context of women learners? The principles of feminist PAR call for accountability, recognition of knowledges of all participants, and a transformative shift of power imbalances. How are the knowledges of learners acknowledged if their identities are anonymous? Why is it that the researcher becomes the only person acknowledged? How does this provide validity or value to learners' opinions and viewpoints if they become collapsed into the voice of the text writer? Is inclusion of direct quotes enough to give voice and visibility? Perhaps their quoted statements (voices) here are better than nothing is but would be more powerful if presented on their own terms. The Samaritan House PAR Group (http://www.nald.ca/CLR/lifehope/cover.htm) provides an example of PAR with a specific group of women learners. How we take this to a broader context of participation between and among communities remains to be seen though I believe the work from the Canadian Congress of Opportunities for Women (CCLOW) may serve as a model (Atkinson, Ennis, & Lloyd, 1994; Lloyd, with Ennis, & Atkinson, 1994).

 

Do Conversation Circles Expand the Characterizations of Participation?

In groups with Freirean-based contexts, culture circles work to create long-term opportunity for reflection, education, and action. Based on this model, PAR and participatory educational practices place their focus on the long-term contact within a local community. In research for transformative social change, participatory emphasis shifts the paradigms of power by engaging community members in all aspects of the research&emdash;naming the problem or issue, creating and asking the questions, understanding what was learned, and deciding what are the next steps. This dissertation project adapted the Freirean process and used the conversation circle format in order to open generative and dialogic spaces.

As previously stated, this dissertation project is not pure PAR. However, it does explore additional uses of conversation circles. Unlike questionnaires, interviews or focus-group methods dependent on a strict question and answer format, the conversation circles allowed women learners to affect the direction of the conversation and the resulting emergent knowledges. In this limited sense, they did control the conversations and the direction of the research. I posed some initial problems (questions) but women's responses determined subsequent questions or areas of discussion. Some groups (especially Hubbs and Caroline Center)11 used this opportunity well to engage, question and encourage each other within a discussion format. However, the use of conversation circles involved two areas of contradiction.

The first challenge relates to the use of the conversation circle itself. For one group, the circle setting created discomfort. In some groups, women only talked to me and did not necessarily engage each other, though in a couple of groups the conversation started this way but eventually moved to dialog. For some ESL learners, conversation proved difficult because of their discomfort of using English conversationally. Working with an interpreter in one group shifted the dynamics from conversation to more question/answer process. In that situation, having a native language speaker facilitate the conversation may have provided more actual conversation.

From this research, I cannot make any real assumptions about whether sitting in a circle presented dis-empowerment or discomfort for the women learners significant enough to affect how they entered into or spoke-up in the conversations, or if the circle created more disengagement for them. In 4 of the 7 sites, the classrooms were normally arranged in a square-shaped/circular fashion. In all of the settings, I had my seat already visibly selected so learners could choose where to place themselves in relation to me. In those situations, women would cluster with each other and sit somewhat across from me, creating a noticeable space between us. This could indicate their placement of me either as teacher or as outsider or as someone they did not initially trust. The tables added another protective barrier. Because this was the normal setting for those rooms, I do not know how they responded to this arrangement in their regular classes. Did they do this with their teachers as well as with me?

In one site (ABE), I invited the women to sit with me around one of the tables in a room where several tables were scattered about. Because the teacher had tried to establish me at a podium in front of them, I do not know if their reluctance to sit around the table had to do with the circular arrangement or more to do with my willingness to come to their level. Clearly, this was a more intimate arrangement with a teacher-like outsider person than they were used to experiencing. In spite of their initial hesitancy though, I believe this arrangement, for that group, actually facilitated some dialog. One woman in the group dominated the conversation but I was able to direct enough opportunity for other women to participate. In that group, when the dominating woman left, the others participated more comfortably. However, the general informality of the arrangement, I think, opened permission to speak more freely than they may have in their normal, teacher-centered classroom arrangement.

At Hubbs, women were moved from larger row-based classrooms to a smaller conference room around a solitary table. Because of the number of women in a more intimate smaller sized room, a "kitchen table" atmosphere was created. The women in this group had no trouble conversing with each other and did not (could not) isolate me because of the smallness of the space.

In all of the circles, I invited women to introduce themselves and talk about their interests so all voices came into the circle at least once. The women were told they could pass, though no one did. I couldn't distinguish if the circle arrangement, topic, or peer pressure facilitated their willingness to introduce themselves. In all of the groups, all of the women spoke about equally. Only one group (Caroline which was the largest at 15) created a situation in which some women did not speak very frequently. All of the other circles were small enough so all women received about equal air time. As the facilitator, when I noticed women were particularly quiet, I would acknowledge them directly and ask for their opinion. In most cases, women would use this opening (invitation) to make longer contributions to the conversation. They appreciated being acknowledged and asked. Only a few women were extremely quiet or used short verbal answers.

The circle arrangement may or may not have impacted on women's willingness to speak in the conversation circles. Some other room arrangement (like traditional rows) may have allowed women to hide. I believe non-circular arrangements would have contributed to more of a question and answer session rather than create an atmosphere of discussion. More than anything else, though, I think by arranging the room in circular arrangement and telling the learners this was a conversation circle provided a clear signal for them&emdash;what they were about to do was different than a typical class, and their participation as an individual and group was valuable.

The second contradiction for conversation circles had to do with the decision to include numbers of groups&emdash;even if they met only one-time&emdash;rather than limiting to two or three on-going groups and working more in-depth with them. Gaining access to women learners through multiple sites reflects tensions beyond the methodological inconsistencies previously discussed. Mostly, this tension exists through the pressures in the current state of the literacy field. This helped me to understand to a limited extent what is possible in certain kinds of contexts and to understand some overall process considerations for thinking about how to work with learners in the long-term continuation of WE LEARN.

On the one hand, it is magnanimous to claim this research as participatory because literacy workers in each site could decide the best way to use conversation circles within the context of their curriculum. In reality, while their choices may have reflected genuine concern for the needs of learners, the structures also had much to do with educational policy demanding attendance, seat time, curriculum design, and other institutional mandates. All but one of the sites in the research used a functional-based literacy paradigm. In this context, long-term research or discussion with groups of women learners would have nearly been impossible, unless I was placed in a context of classroom teacher as happened with the book groups. Due to my geographic location and resource limitations, these were the types of programs generally available. I later learned of one or two local sites using more Freirean-based or participatory focused curriculums.

Several questions come to mind. How might conversation circles been different if I could have found more sites already using a more participatory curriculum? Would they have challenged the questions posed to deeper levels of critical understanding? What is the value of working with learners to enlist their participation in exploring what they want to learn or read, especially when it potentially stands in contradiction to the policies and standards currently being established in national and local government policy for adult literacy programs or educational goals connected to workfare programs? In the more traditional school-based adult literacy settings, does the opportunity for conversation circles, even if one time, provide space for those who don't normally have it? What is the power of simply gathering women into conversation circles?12 In what ways do the opportunities for conversation circles provide challenge to models of school-culture reinforcing deficient and delinquency models of adult women learners?

When initially considering the research paradigm for this project, I had envisioned sponsoring conversation circles regionally across the country to gain as much input as possible from the many communities of women learners and literacy workers. This is a vision I still hold and I do not see me as the only person who can facilitate these opportunities. Overall, as a tool to elicit the input and participation of women learners, conversation circles worked well and could be recommended for future use, in spite of the issues outlined above. Through WE LEARN, I hope learning communities will explore ways to continue conversation circles on women-centered literacy materials&emdash;both as short term information gathering or as long-term writing projects&emdash;as a way to bring additional knowledges together for future use among literacy communities. Perhaps these pockets of possibility will add to the growing network and create bridges to transformative actions challenging the current systemic-based dearth of women-centered literacy materials.

 

Expanding Modes of Presentation and Possibility?

This dissertation project challenges the notion of standard bound document presentation in APA style by a) intersecting with the dynamic spaces of a website and, b) developing the structure of an on-going organization. The website allows for various interactive possibilities and non-hierarchical movement among the pages, makes room for ranges of language discourse from academic through standard to basic, and provides space for dynamic networking possibilities. It creates multi-modal and generative spaces while developing opportunity for on-going action/reflection, learning and community building. Most importantly, it offers the benefits of this research immediately to those who participated and to their communities. This is especially true of the learner summaries and the Resource List. The website makes raw data and knowledges gained immediately accessible for communities to use in their own ways.

As noted in Appendix Internet Technology, I am quite concerned about the ways in which the Internet is not an accessible tool for most women learners. But this format is available to many women learners and literacy workers who generally would not have access to usable information locked away in bound dissertations gathering dust in academic libraries. Within the months following the dissertation, sections of this information will be available in more print-based formats. As for the website itself, several design steps have been taken to assure its accessibility. Colors have been used to signal areas of interest. For example, all the learner pages have a yellow background while all the educator pages have a purple background. Also, learner's pages are written in Plain English while the research pages use more academic language. The site has been created in tables rather than frames to allow for accessibility for blind users. The Resource List has used as many cover pictures as possible.

Still, several areas of the website need much work, which can develop over time. These include the use of more open space and graphics and pictures. More adaptive measures need to be added for persons with a range of disabilities. Simple forms and other tools need to be added to encourage interactivity, evaluation, and participation. Some redesign may need to be done for better use by centers still using smaller screens found on old Apple computers. Sound, movement, graphics and other such devices could be added to make the pages more live rather than flat. Over time, it is hoped users will share their interests to help the site become an adventurous learning place revisited by learners and educators alike.

In addition to the use of the Internet, this dissertation project develops a place through WE LEARN to build community, add collaborative knowledge, continue on-going dialog, and to read the world. In some ways, WE LEARN can act as a feminist critical pedagogy for women's literacy (see Appendix Pedagogy). Rather than placing the generated knowledges into the scientific storehouse for use only by professionals, both the website and WE LEARN "restructures this relationship between knowing and doing, and puts the people in charge of both the production and the utilization of the knowledge" (Park, 1993b, p. 3-4).

 

Are Literacy Workers Participants?

Though the dissertation project primarily focused on the knowledges of women learners, literacy workers have been pivotal in this process not only as they have responded to questionnaires but also in the ways they facilitated contact with women learners through their sites. Though the literacy workers involved with the sites may not have chosen the topic of women-centered literacy materials as their first research need, they did recognize the topic as vital and important to them. Four of the seven sponsoring sites had previous connections to this research either through Women Leading Through reading or the Spring 2000 research (Miller, 2000a) thus signaling the willingness of the literacy workers to continue their participation.

The literacy workers who voluntarily responded to questionnaires, who agreed to be interviewed or attended conference workshops, or who wrote during the nifl-womenlit e-list conversations clearly wanted their voices and knowledges to be recognized. But I can ask here the same questions I wondered with women learners. Who does it benefit for the literacy workers to be kept anonymous? How are their knowledges then considered valuable? What power dynamics exist in the course of the various conversations? How do cultural, educational, or interpersonal differences affect the directions of these conversations? Who are the voices and what are viewpoints currently absent from the dialog? How do the ways in which literacy workers are overworked, especially those who may be part-time or working at multiple sites, affect the ways in which they enter the discourse? How does their position&emdash;as teachers, administrators, educated professionals or paraprofessionals, librarians, tutors, or volunteers and other roles&emdash;affect their willingness to participate in the discussion or determine their viewpoints about women-centered literacy materials? More work needs to be done in these areas to encourage the participation of literacy workers as WE LEARN moves forward with its work.

 

As Reflective Practitioner and Co-learner, What Did I Learn?

One of the important aspects of feminist, critical, qualitative research involves the ways in which the researcher acknowledges her biases and learning. Freirean-based research challenges us to be reflective co-learners. Though we bring some expertise to the situation, we too have much to learn&emdash;not only about the topic at hand but also about ourselves as subjective human beings. In Claiming My Place, I began this project with reflections on the places from where the research questions emerged. Throughout the writing of this dissertation, I have included reflective pieces along the way. Though what I have learned from the knowledges of women learners and literacy workers exist through the remainder of this section, I would like to address here my reflections on the process and how it has affected me.

Throughout this research, I have questioned my place as subjective participant and objective knower. As a feminist who cares about seeking social justice for women and participating in transformative actions, am I an insider or outsider to the topic of women-centered literacy materials? Clearly, I am outsider to the multiple cultures of adult women learners. As a literacy volunteer in an unusual way (book group facilitator), I also stand somewhat on the edges of the literacy field. And yet I am an insider to women's issues both as a woman and as an activist. I am very much an insider in relation to publishing issues and women's writing. I do not want to make the liberal mistake of placing myself inside a community to which I do not belong, but nor do I want to deny my place, knowledge and location. How do I claim where and who I am in relation to my roles as a women in print activist and educator who sees the power of publishing as potentially transformative&emdash;the access to print as a source of women's power?

Where does my role as participant co-researcher begin and end? Where are the boundaries of local community? If (participatory) action research is initiated by the participants in articulation of their community needs for social change, how am I both simultaneously insider and outsider to this project? I have viewed myself alternately as both, depending in which aspect or what phase of the research I was doing. I have learned to let the discomfort exist as a source of new knowledge. Regardless, this framework has reinforced one of my positive abilities&emdash;the ways in which I enjoy and have a talent for networking and sharing knowledges among and between individuals, organizations and communities.

As an educated, mixed-class, white, fat, middle-aged, lesbian woman, I have also been challenged to review my privileges of race and education while further exploring the places of commonality in oppression related to class and gender. Both have affected the ways in which I approach aspects of this work. I was also challenged once again to claim my out-ness as a feminist and as a lesbian. My experiences and knowledges change and I have been humbled by the ways in which I lack certain insight and how I have made mistaken assumptions. My comfort level was tested on many occasions, the touchstone where I know new learning takes place.

Perhaps the most challenging aspect of this work has been my struggle with the use of language. With women learners, I have wanted to affirm their places as experienced knowers, that is, I have wanted to avoid all the ways in which women learners have been perceived under a deficit and damaged model. While trying to be clear and direct I have wanted to avoid patronizing condescension. I struggled with how to write summary pieces of this work for learners in simple ways allowing for women's accessibility to and engagement with them while avoiding the tendency to dumb-down the ideas and issues. In conversation I wanted to be relaxed and real and understandable while avoiding elitist language but also while avoiding street talk&emdash;either of which I can easily fall into. To address this, I needed to be continuously aware of my surroundings and context. I also needed to acknowledge how much I still have much to learn and re-learn in these areas. Open listening and critical thinking helped.

However, throughout this process, I now wish I had taken more time to enlist the feedback and reflections of other literacy workers. The two interviews with literacy workers and attending the LVA student conversations helped with my perceptions and understanding of the conversation circles with adult learners. As co-learner, both the research and my self-learning may have been aided and made stronger if my journal had not been the only (primary) place for my reflection and discourse. As literacy workers reflected on their needs for dialog with each other, especially in sharing curriculum resources, I have a sense too for this need of community support and insight. This may have helped me through several of the questions I have already asked throughout this section. I value the ways in which dialog helps me to reflect and learn. I could have used more of this&emdash;which does seem relevant to the strength of action research.

I have also consistently struggled with the paradigms of literacy and how I talk or write about literacy. I have had a tendency to write about literacy in consistently functional terms even while I critique those terms. While I have a firm commitment to the understandings of critical literacy, to the views of literacy events and social practices and to the liberatory nature of multiple literacies, I still fall into the discourse trap of functional literacy. I continue to work this out. However, I also believe the focus on women-centered authentic reading materials and literacy resources encourages a certain kind of dialog. This dialog affirms the ways in which we view literacy as liberatory, we understand the topics and formats of reading materials as provocative, and we acknowledge the ways in which the access to such materials might change the power dynamics in many contexts, both functional and critical.

Finally, and most importantly, I have accomplished the goals I had for the dissertation piece of my on-going work related to women-centered literacy materials. The conversation circles and the input from literacy workers have greatly expanded my own understandings about the issues and contentions in adult literacy education, the place of publishing, the paradigms of literacy, and the multiple needs for authentic reading materials for women. This learning process will never end. However, I do have the initial insights into the processes and knowledges needed to proceed confidently with the work of WE LEARN.

 

Understanding the Knowledges

The Power of Talk

It is tempting to view participation as doing that produces a product or to prioritize participation as a set of transformative actions that change some social-political aspects of the classroom or community. These conversation circles, however, involved a subtler form of participation&emdash;the opportunity for women learners to discuss their ideas about their own reading needs and desires and to break the culture of silence. Feminist theorists and educators have written extensively about the empowerment of women emerging from silence and having their voices heard (Belenky, et.al., 1986; Ellsworth, 1989; Foss & Foss, 1991; Hayes, 2000; Nonesuch, 1996; Sheared, 1994; Tisdell, 1998). Deborah Cameron (1990) points out that women are not silent but silenced. Similarly, bell hooks (1989) notes that in black communities, unlike in white middle-class communities, women are not silent&emdash;their struggle "has not been to emerge from silence into speech but to change the nature and direction of our speech" (p. 6).

 

The conversation circles invited women learners not only to consider what they would prefer to read but also to talk about this, along with their learning needs and perceptions of reading. Their participation, then, involved the power of talk (voice). This may be viewed as too simple for those who take for granted their ability to make their voices heard or for those whose speech counts. However, the conversation circles presented a unique opportunity for women who have rarely or never really been asked&emdash;in their learning situation&emdash;what they like to read. Women in the conversation circles have rarely been asked to claim what they need to know or would like to know more about&emdash;to bring their life experience to their learning. When women entered their learning programs, they probably had their learning needs and goals assessed. However, the problem-posing questions were very different. Being asked to sit and chat about their reading and learning raised suspicion and curiosity, hesitancy and interest. The conversation circles offered women and opportunity for self-reflection about their literacy practices rarely offered in classroom settings. As we saw in Something in My Mind (especially p. 84), community discussion helps women come to deeper knowledge about themselves and the world around them.

For many women, this was not a question easy to answer. The newness and unfamiliarity of the questions meant their conversations were slow in starting. It took some women a little time to find their voice. Some women could only say they would read more if they could find something interesting&emdash;but then they could not say what interested them.

However, once women learners got started talking, they had much to say. They did not seem reluctant to talk about their reading interests or how they felt about reading or what they wanted to know. Some of the discussions were very animated. In general, women seemed to like the chance to talk about what they want to read, why it is hard, and how they would like to have access to more things to read.

We have never really been asked what we want to read or what we would like to read. Mostly we just read what the teacher assigns. That's what will help us to get our GEDs. The teacher knows best what we should read to get our GEDs. (Women seemed reluctant to say whether they liked those readings or not.) Mostly we just want to get our GEDs and be done. (-group summary, Fall River MA, April 2001)

 …teachers always teach what they know but they never take the time to figure out something new. Teachers teach what they were taught. And it goes backwards. So nobody ever gets anywhere new. In school they don't want the students to think. The way to get through high school was just to tell them (the teachers) what they wanted to know. They didn't care about the student's opinions on anything. They teach the same thing over & over (like Macbeth or Hamlet or Romeo & Juliet) and want to always know the same answers."(--learner reflecting on her high school experience, South St. Paul, MN, May, 2001)

It's like when I was in the 5th grade and the teacher really didn't like me. and if I didn't like to read it she really made me read it, you know and I just didn't have any interest in it and I just couldn't do it and she'd say read this book and it was always all this stuff over slavery and I couldn't. I would just leave out the classroom and sit out - because it hurt. I like a whole lot of cultural things but I just did not like slavery, I don't know. I can't read it. It paranoids me. (--learner, St. Paul MN, May, 2001)

 …they might take us to the library every once in the while but no we ain't got no classes on no types of books, nothin'. If it's something that they want us to read, like you said, they hand it out and we can have a nice day wid it but something that we want to read?? We got to find it out ourselves. (--learner, St. Paul MN, May, 2001)

 We also depend on the teacher to choose what we should read to improve our English. (--ELC group summary, Minneapolis, MN, May, 2001)

 …but my interests were more in sports & entertainment, but even my tutors were like, "Well, this is a cute story so let's just do this." And I had to go figure it on my own, not in the classroom, because I wasn't interested in some of the other stuff. (learner, Brooklyn Center, MN, April, 2001)

 

There were many times when the conversation would divert into what I would call "ambient conversation." These were the moments when women would wander away from the direct conversation or posed questions into areas of their own interest. It would have been tempting for me as a researcher to perceive these directions as off task or a waste of time. I could easily have tried to facilitate women back to the questions I thought were important. I realized that what women wanted to know about or read about were certainly contained in those moments. In fact, they involved provocative discussion. It was also in these moments when women spoke more to each other and less to me. In some situations, I perhaps became invisible. As women talked with each other, they would also challenge and question each other onto the next topic or into a deeper layer of conversation, thus introducing more areas of interest and building trust. These conversations became rich sources for generative themes for future student-created curriculum. Some of the topics emerging in those spaces included parenting tips, bus schedules, how to care for chickenpox, eating disorders (specifically anorexia), how to do class assignments, scheduling the weeks events, TV shows, recipe exchange, clothes shopping, welfare issues.

As the facilitator, I engaged in what Elsa Auerbach (1992) has called conscious listening, "an openness to going with the flow, hearing what's hidden between the lines, following up on diversions, etc." (p. 43). The contents of the side conversations were informative&emdash;but so were the silences. There were two obvious spaces when this happened: (a) the initial moment when I posed the questions about reading materials and women hesitated before answering, and (b) when subsequently women were asked to reflect directly on women's issues. Allowing those moments of silence to exist gave women the chance to consider new spaces about themselves as women and about their reading interests.

The conversation circles provided the opportunity to explore questions about reading in their lives that they may not have previously considered. This was especially true for a group like Expanding Life Choices. Though not formally gathered for literacy learning, they were able to make the connections about how reading informed their lives. However, as these women discussed their reading and learning experiences, the power of talk in their lives became evident. The ways in which they experience dialog and conversation has been crucial to their learning&emdash;"connected knowing" (Flannery, 2000). For women involved in the book groups, the combination of selecting reading materials and engaging them in critical dialog with larger groups of women further encouraged and supported their appreciation for the readings they selected.

Unfortunately, ESL learners inexperienced with English conversation had a harder time claiming the power of their talk. In these situations, for the purposes of WE LEARN, more work needs to be done with bilingual materials and the use of translators. However, even as women struggled to make their thoughts clear in conversational English, they still engaged with the questions in news ways.

 

The Power of Talk
What learners said
The Power of Talk
What researchers have written

"I like it because of women talking together discussing different ideas. I learn from talking with other women. We bring our ideas. I learn from their ideas with my ideas.
(--learner participant in WLTR book group, Spring 1997)

"You know what. I have an idea - if you just bring in some books about the topics like what we're talking about and we just decide on that book and we can get together and we can read the book and we can take turns reading and read by ourselves and at the end of the book we should just say what we thought about it felt about it at the end of the book" (--learner, St. Paul MN, May 2001)

"Probably for me its in the conversations I've had, getting the real life side of it. Getting the feedback so that's it's not just me but everyone else kind of thing and that's what I like and that's what I've gotten out of it from the groups I've been in. It's that real life side of it even with the real stories that people have written down about their experiences. I really like that, it brings it home. And I've seen so many things happen because of the program and women coming out of their shell" (--learner at Atlanta conference, January, 2001)

"I think we should have a book club where they can hand out books for women to read and we come back the next week and talk about them" (--learner, Baltimore MD, April 2001)

We might be able to read a whole book with a group. We couldn't take it home to read it because we would never have the time to finish it. It's better to read it together in the class. (--learner, South St. Paul MN, May 2001)

Do you think it is important for women to have time to read and talk together? Why?
Because I can heard how you read. And after I can pronunse close by you. For my mean it is very important to read together because when I make misteyk you cou help to me.
(--written response to learner questionnaire, Minneapolis MN, May 2001)

"Talk between women, without the presence of men, and without the pressure to respond to men's language and to provide the emotional management of male egos, can be subversive and revolutionary" (Thompson, 1983, p. 118).

"In small groups, individuals do not need to be equally literate or literate at all because the information in primarily shared through conversation, in dialogue which is necessarily a liberatory expression….Reforming small groups would subvert the appropriation of feminist thinking by a select group of academic women and men, usually white, usually from privileged class backgrounds" (hooks, 1989, p. 24). hooks goes on to say that women move from personal to political by integrating analysis with discussion of personal experience.

"For many women, social aspects of the program seemed to be crucial, and yet for many programs, program workers and funders, time spent socializing is seen as irrelevant and an inappropriate use of time" (Horsman, 1990, p. 225).

"What is perhaps most remarkable about the El Barrio Popular Education Program is the extent to which the collective environment generates the opportunity for each participant's self-definition and growth" (Torruellas, 1991, p. 210).

 

"We now see that becoming literate involves complex translations between the many styles of spoken language and the many forms and purposes that written language may take" (Hartley, 1994, p. 2).

 

 

What does it means to read? What does it get used for?

Women learners talked about what they like to read, what they think about reading, and what they want to know. They talked about how they use reading and what more education (reading better) will do for them. What they want from reading materials depends on how they define and use reading (literacy) for themselves. Their reading practices are based in their school and life experiences, goals and needs, cultural priorities, knowledge use, and the hopes they have for their lives.

The women in the conversation circles identified many uses for reading, including: 

  • To go to school or to get GEDs
  • To get a better job or some job training
  • To learn English in the U.S. and the American culture
  • To get through everyday life
  • To be entertained
  • To relax or for escape from reality
  • To do practical things -- like sewing, sports, fix things, get a driver's license
  • To read to our children and to help our children do better in school and life
  • To improve or enhance vocabulary
  • To make changes in communities (like get rid of drug dealers & pursue workers rights)
  • To get better health care
  • To find out something in the news or in the world
  • To be able to read instructions and directions
  • To know our rights, especially as immigrants at work or in the U.S.
  • To understand ourselves and our lives better and our relationships
  • To start a business
  • To understand feelings and behaviors
  • To find out what is interesting
  • To not feel so alone
  • To write our own story
  • To learn how to talk about difficult things with children (like sex & sexuality, menstruation, etc.)

The multiple uses of reading identified by women learners reflect several issues raised in the earlier discussion on the paradigms of literacy (see Something in My Mind). When women enter learning programs, do they tend to identify the functional uses of literacy (get a GED, get a job, improve vocabulary) because of their needs or because of their schooling? Are these aspects then further reinforced by the types of functional curriculums generally taught in most programs? As the list above shows, women did talk about reading and literacy in ways suggesting more complicated uses of literacy. Reading helps women learners to see their lives as informed by the life experiences of other women&emdash;to not feel so alone or "like the only one." As they talked about what they wanted to read in the atmosphere of openness and questioning in the conversation circle, women talked about the many issues, concerns, realities and struggles they encounter everyday. They could reflect on the ways in which their literacies, especially when supported by community conversation, might guide them to better understanding and different forms of decision-making. How can educators and publishers make room for women to explore in more depth the critical and social practices dimensions of literacy for which they already have some appreciation? How do they continue to make contact with their own sense of women's literacy power? From women's reaction to the suitcase of books and the list of topics they generated, more needs to be done to publish and distribute authentic women-centered reading materials in basic, easier-to-read English.

 

"Women's" Interests and Materials

Sometimes the types of materials women learners discussed related to the focus of their learning program. For some, it may have been a schooled response&emdash;they said what they think they were supposed to say. For example, women in the program with parenting classes said they wanted more books on parenting. Immigrant women in the program connected to labor issues talked more openly about wanting materials connected to human and civil rights and more bilingual materials. Women at the other ESL site wanted anything that would help them with their English. Women in the workplace and GED programs talked about enhancing their vocabulary and improving their writing.

One goal of this dissertation project has been to discover what literacy (reading) materials, if any, are needed or wanted by women learners that specifically might help them to understand their lives and experiences as women. They raised a number of diverse ideas and generated a long list of issues and topics of interest to them. Some of their interests seemed related to their racial and geographic locations.

 

I asked women learners what specific women's issues concern them. Did they want to read about or know more about certain women's issues? Which ones? In some cases, these questions were greeted with silence or ignored. I doubt this was a refusal to participate (Ellsworth, 1989) because, as they talked about their interests and lives, many issues of concern to women or in relation to gender-oppression surfaced. Also, when asked if they thought having reading materials about women's lives and concerns was important, women responded positively. Some of the responses included: "Yes. Because women like to know that there not the only ones that are going through whatever it is that there going through." and "Yes. Because it makes me feel like I'm not alone. Other women feel the way I feel. And sometimes my life doesn't seem so bad." They were very much interested in the real life stories of other women as a way to gain insight into their own lives but they were also interested in women throughout history as well.

Women talked more frequently about non-fiction options rather than fiction. This may have been somewhat related to how the questions were framed&emdash;as they were asked what they wanted to know about as well as what they would choose to read.

 

 

In selections for fiction, women mentioned mystery and horror more frequently than even romance. In the general reading population, mysteries are quite popular so this is not so surprising, though their interest in horror was surprising. They especially liked the more violent ones. I began to ask early on why they liked these genres so much.

From their comments, I realized that horror fills a specific function. There are so many violent and out of control things in women's lives and horror fiction provides some thrill and suspense but in a safe (fake) and controllable way. More research needs to be done about women as readers of horror. I did a quick library search through literature indexes and could find no references or research on this. The research tends to focus on women as victims in horror.

Similarly, mysteries are fast paced (therefore, interesting and not boring) and provide women with a way they can be smart. Several women said they could figure out the mystery before the end and would keep reading to find out if they were right. It validates their cleverness. Mysteries too are controllable with the bonus of righteousness because usually some vindication or justice happens at the end. Both mystery and horror may offer a way&emdash;through fiction&emdash;to introduce various topics to women learners for their reflection and discussion (like what Stephen King does with domestic violence).

I like to figure out the problem before the end, and I'm mostly successful at it. (--learner, South St. Paul MN, April, 2001)

 …it's because with horror at least the thing that's most horrifying is under control. You can tell when it' going to happen and you know it will go away or be over. Someone else suggested that the books with characters like Freddie Kruger are so unbelievable that even if it's scary you can still remember that it's not real. Some of the ones with characters like stalkers or that seem more believable, are harder because you know there are real people like that and they may be out there. It's more difficult to read because it's too real and might possibly happen. (-group summary, South St. Paul MN, April, 2001)

 It's fake, It's fake. (--learner, St. Paul MN, April 2001)

 I'll read horror or mysteries. I like them because you don't know what will happen next…. and because something good comes of it. Where are the morals of this society? (--learner, Fall River MA, April 2001)

 Yeah, I read a lot of Stephen King and murder mayhem. I like him. Because I'm more of a tomboy than a girl. [then later about mysteries] I was interested in more the intrigue stuff, clues and stuff like that….It always intrigues me to find out if I'm right or wrong. I have to find out if I'm correct. So I keep going. I can't put it down because I have to finish.

Two of his books were about domestic violence….It was a woman's story and she was running from her husband and I think in the 1st three chapters she was getting up the nerve to leave the house before he got home…but it was Stephen King though (--learner, Brooklyn Center, MN, April 2001)

 

 

Literacy workers were asked what issues and needs have emerged in relation to women-centered literacy materials, based on their experiences of working with women. For them, issues surfacing with most frequency centered on domestic violence, sexual abuse and relationships. However, in the conversation circles, learners wanted more materials focusing on real life stories about women, parenting, and health. They did mention violence&emdash;of all sorts&emdash;but these mentions were significantly fewer in number.14

Another topic for future research emerged as well. I began to notice the stereotypical nature of women learner's interests in reading materials and areas of concerns. Not surprisingly, they parallel reading interests of the general population of women who buy books (Solotaroff, 1987; Waddington, 2001). How does "what women want" in their reading reinforce gendered stereotypes of women's domestic positions (e.g. parenting, childcare, reproductive health, relationships, cooking, sewing, and so on)? How do divisions of labor reinforce women's choices? Only two women who described themselves as tomboys discussed wanting to read books about sports. One of those women also talked about fixing snowmobiles and looking for fix-it type books. One woman talked about wanting to learn the skills she needed to work in an office on computers, but this did not extend to reading books on computers themselves. One of the Mexican immigrants mentioned wanting information on technical labor.

These groups of women learners generally did not talk about nontraditional choices for women&emdash;sports, business, law, medicine, math, science, computers, trades (carpentry, electrician, machinist, plumber), accountant, firefighter, police officer, and so on. It would be interesting to distinguish (if possible) how these reading interests focus on gendered arrangement as compared to literacy /education level and cultural, socioeconomic backgrounds. Women talked of jobs or financial stability but not careers. They talked of being able to decipher legalese and contracts but not of becoming lawyers. One woman talked about being a nurse and some women were in training to be health care assistants but no one mentioned wanting to be a doctor or alternative healer. One woman talked of being a peer tutor but no one discussed becoming a teacher. In many ways, the social reproduction of expectations for their labor potentials&emdash; waitress or fast food worker, health care assistant, factory, office work, cashier or retail, mother, work-at-home, 15 laborer -- were obviously determined by gender and class and race and reinforced by their education.

The other part of this gender stereotype was their interest in gossip columns, make-up, relationships, cooking, sewing, parenting, memoirs, books on feelings or self-help, reproductive health, and other "women's stuff." Clearly, these are issues of extreme importance to women&emdash;as gendered relational, bodied humans. How does what they want originate from their socialization? How does what women say they want reinforce and reproduce gender-based stereotypes? How would having access to women-centered literacy materials bring them into the reading of a different world? As Barbara Bee (1981) has pointed out, the act of reading connects to the politics of literacy. Functional uses will reinforce the maintenance of the economy and the current production of culture. It is not enough to leave women with what they want (gossip columns, mystery novels) unless some effort is also made to open discussion on the places of oppression.

Additionally, there were several populations of women whose experiences were not included in this round of conversation circles. What might we learn differently or more profoundly from Deaf women, incarcerated women, women with physical disabilities, women living in rural areas, sex workers, "out" lesbians, old women and many Others whose positionalities are not considered here? How would they describe women's issues and what might they add to the perceptions and uses of women-centered literacy materials?

 

However, the insights of women in the conversation circles hint to some acknowledgment of the places needing critical thinking and discourse. They wanted reading materials on human and civil rights, on controlling violence and drugs in their neighborhoods, on history and culture and current events&emdash;free of sexist language. They wanted reading materials to support their own transgressive ideas.

Information in and of itself does not change or transform sociopolitical structures. Learners have a keen sense of the world around them. Reading the word may add to their language, give direction to their experience, and support the power in voicing and asserting their authorities in these areas.

I have a sister who is going through menopause and I want to read about menopause because I don't know much about it. Some people think it's a disease and I don't think it's a disease. I would like to learn more about it so I can learn about these issues. (--learner, Minneapolis MN, May, 2001)

 We want something that presents an alternative view to "the Surrendered Wife." How can we have good equal relationships? How you can make relationships better for yourself? How do you leave an abusive relationship? (-group summary, South St. Paul MN, May 2001)

I want a book on beauty products and a woman's point of view about how to use them and what works. I want consumer information and real women's experiences, not just advertisers telling us what's good. (--learner, Fall River, MA, April 2001)

 How do we talk to the drug pushers in our neighborhood and how they disrespect us by selling drugs while we're walking our children to school or to the bus. (--learners, Baltimore, MD, April 2001)

 Books on anorexia shouldn't only focus on 16 & 17 year old girls. I'm a 32 year old woman still struggling with anorexia and now I see it happening to my 8 year old son. I want something that talks about the family connections of anorexia and various age groups that suffer from it.
(--learner summary, So. St. Paul MN, May 2001)

 

In Consideration of Men

When attempts are made to focus on women or women's issues, a discussion about men always seems to be inevitable. For women learners, the discussions about men focused differently than the concerns expressed by literacy workers.

In 4 of the 7 site locations,16 women learners were separated from mixed classes in order to participate in the conversation circles. I made it clear that the discussions centered on women's needs and concerns. Not one learner questioned the need for this separation or questioned why men were not included. They were not angry about it nor did they express concern or anxiety, tough I do not know if they would have challenged this point either. In listening to this silence, I wondered if this opportunity for a women-only group was unusual in the school setting and possibly in other places in their lives as well. Perhaps the unusualness of it peeked their curiosity to experience it. Maybe they were just grateful for the break.

The women learners did talk about men, though. Their relationships with men surfaced in ways to suggest their observations of women's oppressions.


Why do men think they have to protect women? Why can't women fight their own battles? (--learner, Fall River MA, April 2001)

 

I want something that will help us to learn more about how teach our boys to become good men. (--learner, South St. Paul MN, May 2001)

 

Everything I found was about boys or men fishing. Nothing about girls fishing. And the only girls stories are about somebody's birthday party, there's no sports out there for girls, for reading of any kind….I read a lot of manuals like my snow mobile motorcycle manuals and stuff and the very first chapter, "and then he takes…" to change the oil, then "he would remove…." Not "you" or a person in general, just he, he, he, he, he, he and I think though that I have found more sports things to read if there were more women. I would read more on that even most basketball, hockey and baseball, it's all about men.
(--learner, Brooklyn Center MN, April 2001)17

 

Women have heavy duty work hard in society after have to take children and husband but sometimes they aren't lucky. Their husband are betray for in love. (--learner writing, Minneapolis MN, April 2001)

 

How do I talk to my daughter about getting her period, about body changes, about boys and sex, or safe sex, or no sex, and about having babies?… If girls were more involved in sports they wouldn't have time for boys. Sports keeps them away from boys. (--learner, Fall River MA, April 2001)18

 

Several women talked about wanting to leave abusive situations. One group talked about equality in relationships and what men expect women to do. In listening to the silence, it is interesting to note that both sites made up primarily of African American women did not discuss relationships with men at all&emdash;with exception of one passing reference to domestic violence.

Literacy workers also recognized some important gender-related issues. In many of the responding sites, women make up the largest numbers of learners. Literacy workers mentioned how immigrant women have difficulty dealing with abusive husbands who have total control over their situations and who may sometimes have multiple wives. 19 Literacy workers discussed the ways in which issues of domestic violence, sexual abuse, and other abusive men and their behaviors emerge regularly for women from all backgrounds.

Unlike the women learners, though, literacy workers had some anxiety about accounting for men in mixed classes. It was problematic for them to figure out how to not leave out the men when talking about women's issues. "Our classes are generally integrated. We don't mean to completely exclude the men" was a common theme, especially among the responses from Spring 2001. This may be a reason why more literacy workers do not demand more in the way of women-centered literacy materials.

However, the Spring 2000 responses recommended a few ways to encourage both women and men to recognize and address gender oppression. One Hispanic male literacy worker asserted the need for more easier-to-read materials about Hispanic machismo and sexism in general. Another literacy worker suggested a "need for books with male characters who are dealing with women who stick up for themselves. Male students therefore get a role model, and shows women students that some men are willing to change." Rosa Torruellas et.al. (1991) discusses the importance of engaging men in reflection and analysis of realities for both men and women. "It is important that gender oppression be challenged by all and recognized for what it is: an expression of inequality and a practice that reinforces powerlessness" (p. 213).

 

Poor women don't have time to read

The comment of an academic in adult education in response to this dissertation project was, "Poor women don't have time to read." I experienced this statement as dismissive about the need for women-centered literacy materials. In that moment, I felt the effort to create simpler reading materials for women might be a wasted one. After all&emdash;as an educated bookseller&emdash;the availability of and access to reading materials was certainly my priority, but perhaps not one for women learners. Does this project constitute a privileged and oppressive assertion of reading culture onto women whose culture is not centered in print media? I began to think critically about "Poor women don't have time to read" and realized I could problematize it in many different ways. I began to look further into my own experiences as well as the discussions I was having with adult learners.

Perhaps this statement goes to the definitions and uses (paradigms) of literacy. Could the phrase "women-centered literacy materials" conjure only or primarily visions of fiction or other forms of leisure reading? Does the availability of reading materials necessarily connote a wealthy-class or privileged-by-class activity? Do we perceive the literacies of reading for reflection, self-knowledge, more information, current events, or action research as something reserved for educationally literate and privileged people? In listening to women learners in the conversation circles, several of them did say they did not have the time or interest to read for leisure&emdash;for them, their reading was limited to the functional uses of school activity or to get a job. For others, reading provided a place of joy, support, information, relaxation, and enrichment.

Do poor women not have time then because they are always working, traveling on buses or foot, caring for family, sitting is social service offices, going to school, cleaning, or generally dealing with the "disorganization" of their lives (Horsman, 1994)? Can it simply be a matter of time? I can not begin to list the numbers of instances, as a bookseller, I have listened to experienced readers complain about how they have no time to read any more. Many books sit by many bedsides or scattered on living room floors because their owners or borrowers have not had the time to read them&emdash;though the desires to do so are clearly there. Does this lack of time reflect more on the lives of women in general, compounded then by class status and labor exploitation? 20 Does "poor women don't have time to read" mean that they do not have the necessary time and resources to pursue their educational interests or needs? In this context, does women-centered literacy materials mean strictly educational materials?

Does "poor women don't have time to read" speak more to our understanding of the culture of poverty and cultural attitudes towards reading in general? Hanna A. Fingeret (1990) points out how non-reading adults tend not to depend on print media for knowledge acquisition. They are more likely to learn through interpersonal interactions, watching others, having others tell them how to do things and other life experiences. They develop systems for mutual exchange independent of the ability to read. As one learner said in a conference workshop:

I'll tell you what it is. Even though I didn't read very well, I can find the mistakes in the commercials. I can find what's missing in the movies. So I picked up this 2nd sense, because I wasn't reading I could become more aware of what was going on. And I've had fast food jobs for 25 years and I can be doing 4 things at once and hear what's going on the other side of the room. Because I have picked up - it's like a disability - the blind person will hear more and yet it's where I've picked up to learn to deal with everything that's going on at the same time. And I can be wrapping sandwiches and listening to the new orders and know what's going on at the register, because that's not reading, it's mathematics. And I've learned how to deal with all that's going on around me…. It's very new because I just learned to read. And I enjoy more of it now than I did before. And it was too intimidating because my vocabulary was very bad. (-- learner, Brooklyn center, MN, April, 2001)

Wendy Luttrell (1989) makes similar observations about working class women. Common sense or "real intelligence" is highly valued among women from working class backgrounds which is nourished in the day-to-day and comes from experience. It is marked by the ability to cope and survive on a daily basis. Developed independently from school-based knowledge, it may be ruined by too much education. Common sense relies on the common bonds of family and community. This has ramifications for how poor and working class women approach reading materials. "'Real intelligence' that is gleaned from books that people teach themselves to read can benefit working-class life, but schoolwise intelligence that is gleaned from textbooks or school authorities can come in conflict with working-class, especially black working-class, experiences and values" (Luttrell, 1989, p. 38).

From this statement, I would understand that reading for entertainment, personal growth or interest or information independently from school or education is highly valuable. I have known women on welfare who were avid readers of fiction. I knew one woman who regularly listened to books-on-tape that she borrowed from the library. She liked listening to good stories. Perhaps these women were more the exception than the rule. As a bookseller, when I think of the large numbers of individual women whom I have known and met over the years&emdash;some with college education, many not&emdash;it would be impossible to make statements about their literacy practices, their reading, based on class and race.

Coming from my own mixed-class background and from years of working in coalition with working-class women, I have encountered a variety of reading habits, not always determined by educational level. Many of these women have valued reading all types of books and magazines (fiction and non-fiction) as we participated in book groups, political action groups, and anti-oppression groups. I spent several years working in a kitchen with women from many different class backgrounds where we would talk books while chopping vegetables, serving soup and washing dishes. A cooperative gardening group made up largely of carpenters and midwives would talk books. I would assert that what all these working class women had most in common was the desire to read things that made sense and were not filled with highly academic, obtuse, and pretentious writing. Materials filled with elitism and educated talk were treated with disdain and distrust. They all wanted something real&emdash;and common&emdash;providing intellectual nourishment, political/theoretical insight and/or emotional and spiritual rejuvenation. Another thing in common was that all this book activity generally involved some form of community conversation which sometimes also lead to community action.

How does a statement like "poor women don't have time to read" reinforce the assumptions and stereotypes that non-reading women are poor and those poor women can't or don't read! Read what and for what reason? During the conversation circles, I met a homeless woman -- an avid reader -- who talked passionately about how reading helped her make sense of her life at various times -- even saving it. Some working women said they would prefer to do other things than read (for example, sleep or listen to music). I met immigrant Mexican women -- whose class status I did not know -- who were avid readers in Spanish. I met women who would much rather talk about things than read about them -- but who then also offered lists of topics they would find interesting to read about. Some of the women immigrants with little previous reading experience felt the importance of learning English for their survival in the U.S. Their reading focused on language learning though it may not have been an activity they would choose for entertainment or leisure. As was mentioned earlier, woman had all kinds of reasons for choosing to read or not to read (some practical and some for personal growth), and many mentioned various ways they use literacies in the day-to-day, especially with their children. Some women talked about reading only when they had to&emdash;for school or work or to get something done.

Many of the women in the conversation circles were in various stages of working, between working, looking for better work, moving, homelessness, crashing with a friends, living with their parents, receiving welfare or disability payments. From the way they talked about their families and experiences, it was clear some came from very poor backgrounds while others grew up in rural areas or in middle-class neighborhoods. They had a range of previous educational experiences though we did not talk about them in much detail. Do these women qualify as poor?

Many women discussed how reading could give them access to stories of other women's lives and perhaps help them not feel so alone. Some read with their children to help them do better in school. Some enjoyed reading in groups because it encouraged them to think differently about what they read. Reading aloud in a group helped one woman to slow her reading so she could understand better. Some women described how being able to read better would offer them some way out of their current situations. One woman talked eloquently about how school reading was separate and disconnected from her life but what she chose to read on her own gave her great comfort. One woman claimed she recently "got it" about being able to read and talked enthusiastically about "'stickin' her eyes on everything."

I'm serious. I'm so serious cause I understood it -- that was always the problem. I read something and I couldn't put it together. So now I'm wid it. I'll read anything because the more I do it, the better I get at it. ( -- learner, St. Paul MN, May 2001)

Several women working living on welfare assistance said they would read if they found something that interested them. And perhaps these women hold the key to the dilemma.

 

The statement "poor women don't have time to read" remains disempowering because it perpetuates a debilitating myth, maintains a deficit view of adult learners, and diminishes exploration of alternatives. Perhaps "poor women don't have time to read" because for women who struggle with reading there is very little accessible for them to read! They may or may not have time but reading doe interests them. Educators know that people with limited functional reading skills have devised all kinds of extremely clever ways to hide their inability to make sense of print-based media. Could it be possible that women say they don't have time to read, or say they will read if something interests them as a way to mask their limited proficiencies? Is it possible they would prioritize or more frequently choose reading as a leisure or self-learning activity if there were more available options for them to do so? Could it be that their choice not to read is defined by a lack of reading materials accessible (price & reading level) for them to choose from? Choosing to read, or not, can only be a real choice if there exists accessible reading options relative to ones interest and abilities.

 

Seldom are the visions and strategies of poor and working-class people written down and distributed, to become part of the way the world is described and possibilities for change are considered. This is one of the ways dominant discourses prevail and power is maintained. (Martin, 2001, p. 15)

I like it sometimes. Reading is the easiest when I have nothing to do and I am bored. (-- learner, Fall River MA, April, 2001)

I read what I have to but don't always understand everything I read.
(--learner, Baltimore, MD, April 2001)

Even though I don't like to read much, I'll read if the materials really interest me. It's been hard for me to comprehend the things I read but I know this is getting better. (-- learner, Atlanta, GA, January, 2001)

I struggle with reading but will stick with a book if it keeps my attention. If I lose interest, I will put it down.
(--learner, Baltimore MD, April 2001)

 I like to read adventure books and I understands most of what I reads. I also read the Gospels at night.
(--learner, Baltimore MD, April 2001)

I read to my daughter and I want to boost up her reading level. I want more education for me and my daughter and son. (--learner, Baltimore MD, April 2001)

If we don't read different kinds of stuff then we won't know what interests us.
(--learner, St. Paul MN, May 2001)

Reading is hard. And if the material is boring then its really much harder. When it's like that, I don't want to do it.
(--learner, St. Paul MN, May 2001)

I would prefer though, books about African American women. The only one I read was by Maya Angelou and that was just a gang of poems about us, you know what I'm sayin'? So if we can get more writers about what we need to do, what we need to try to do, what we can do to make our youth better not just you know, there's different cultures in here but I would like to know more about my black women -- you know, back in the day and all that other stuff. That's what I would prefer to read though I never picked a book out - Maya Angelou but that's a lot of poems.
(--learner, St. Paul MN, May 2001)

But we like stories that talk about our culture. It is easier to learn to read English when we like the story. Stories about women like us will help. (group summary, Minneapolis MN, May, 2001)

 

 

Several women talked about their excitement at finally being able to understand how to read . The conversation circles generated long lists of topics interested them and concerns they have. They talked about borrowing books from the library but also passing books hand-to-hand. Their willingness to talk about women-centered literacy materials speaks to the possibilities. If there was a world of available, affordable, and easily attainable writings on many subjects and generally more reading materials available in basic, plain, lower-level, easier, simple, readable,21 reading levels for women, might this open up a new world of possibility for them? For all of us?

Rachel Martin (2001) asserts that virtually any text can be used with learners, though her description still needs a teacher to mediate the access to it. Women challenged by print media do not always have access to reading specialists who can help them find their way to a text. There are many women for whom print-based materials present challenges who may never make it to a learning center. Learning centers only see the women who can get there. Many numbers of women are also prevented from educational opportunities for a variety of reasons. Having such women-centered literacy materials more easily available in a multitude of ways may be an additional way of reaching women in isolation.

According to the women who participated in the conversation circles, having access to authentic, interesting, thought-provoking, informative reading materials may encourage poor women to seek reading resources on their own. Publishers or educators who worry abut dumbing down the literary quality of published books should consider that accessible options may encourage some people to develop their literacy practices through consistent engagement with them.23 Part of the emancipatory process and transformation for women learners directly relates to their desire for access to women's writings&emdash;their own and others. Access to readable materials provide increased opportunity for critical engagement and action strategies to contend with the social issues with which they are already quiet familiar.

 

 

Teacher power

Though women learners did not really talk in detail about the kinds of relationships they have with current teachers, several of the literacy workers wrote that much of what they know from women learners has been through a variety of encounters. In addition to writing assignments and classroom discussion, literacy workers know the concerns of their students through discussion groups, private conversation, counseling and other interactions. Often these are informal. Some of the more difficult topics come up after many months when the women learners have developed some trust in the literacy workers. I believe this trust will support the networking capabilities and success of WE LEARN.

In this research, literacy workers had control over which groups of learners participated in the conversation circles and how the interaction would relate to the curriculum concerns of the sites. The long-term success of WE LEARN will depend on building a strong network of interested literacy workers willing to involve women learners in the process of creating and using women-centered literacy materials. Teachers and tutors willing to bring forth learners writings and to foster women's leadership will be important. Though it may be possible to have an outsider such as me or any other writing teacher to facilitate a series of classes, this process will be more effective with the support of a teacher or tutor directly connected to learners on a regular basis. Using samples of writing and learning from the experiences of other learning centers (see Appendix Participatory) can help to develop this process.

Also, for this to work, the tensions created by the deficit view of learners must be addressed and mediated. Because I wanted to know what women learners had to say about women-centered literacy materials and their reading practices, I thought they may have more freedom to speak if their teachers were not present in conversation circles. I could see how this might have facilitated more openness from learners in controlled situations. For example, would the attitude of the teacher at ABE Fall River affect the level of openness achieved by the women that circle? Would the women at Hubbs talked openly about their book reports and shared their ideas for solutions as easily if their teachers had been present? I suspect not. However, in the Expanding Life Choices, I could also see the ways in which Liz's presence helped facilitate a level of trust I may not have had on my own. Her knowledge of the women dared her to pose questions I may not have been able to on my own. In all cases, with or without the teacher, how did my own presence affect the levels of conversation? These layers of conversational power and control are important to acknowledge&emdash;and some of the success will depend on the atmosphere of trust, openness, and respect built within the situation and among all the participants (learners and teachers alike).

Several times, literacy workers mentioned the need for training in the area of using women-centered curriculum or materials. This training should not only include information about available materials but also ways to use them in the classroom with heterogeneous groups of learners. This would include not only bringing the materials to classroom use but also working with them in a dialogic and critical way so as to encourage learners to question issues of gender-based oppressions and those interconnections with other forms of social injustice and oppression.

As we saw above in the power of talk, literacy workers have a good deal of influence and power over the educational experience of learners, especially when it comes to selection of reading materials. In many ways, literacy teachers, tutors, and librarians mediate the access and direction of what women learners read or to the resources learners can access. This seems to be quite important given the teacher power related to curriculum development and pedagogical practices. "Choosing what to read is an ideological act....Choosing texts is a matter of choosing knowledge and choosing the values embedded in that knowledge" (Quigley, 1997, p. 159). In this way, having strong advocacy from literacy workers may be the best hope for the use and development of women-centered literacy materials.

More networking also need to happen between literacy workers and librarians. Each seems to be looking to the other for guidance and access to materials. Some of the major gaps in using women-centered literacy materials exists not always in the availability, but also in the basic knowledge of what IS available. Literacy workers have noted that more publishers need to be involved in preparing women-centered literacy materials.

Sharing resources and curriculums across programs will also be helpful. Literacy workers have been quite resourceful about what books, articles and resources they use daily. One literacy worker described her filing cabinet filled with folders of articles she has used over time. Throughout the questionnaires and conversations, literacy workers suggested pieces of books they have used. This is the kind of information that literacy workers can share with each other to make their teaching connected to the concerns of their learners. WE LEARN could become a referent space for this activity.

 

Creation of women-centered literacy materials - Participatory Educational Practices

In one of my earliest proposals for this dissertation project, I thought I might research more directly how to develop women-centered literacy materials with learners. As the project developed, this emphasis became secondary. Throughout the questionnaires, numbers of literacy workers have written or talked about the kinds of materials they have made for their classes or developed by the coworkers at their sites. A few sites included sample materials (see Appendix Laos). Literacy workers talked about how they have created materials with their learners. One literacy worker noted:

This area needs desperate attention -- a lot of good program and teacher produced work could be brought to others -- providing access at low cost. Reviews of material is also important -- for example, Making Connections is good but much different than what was expected and ultimately disappointing. A review may have helped. (literacy worker response to questionnaire request for additional comments, Spring 2000).

In a dissertation from 1991, Mary Kay Gillespie gathered information about the history of writing and publishing by adult beginning readers in the U.S. and, to a lesser extent, England and Canada. She provided a large number of examples of programs developing and publishing writings by adult learners. The programs have been working in isolation, however. "Programs are not linked to other kinds of writing collectives, nor is there a clearinghouse through which locally produced materials are distributed. Most writing projects continue to work independently at the grassroots level" (p. 58).

Through the development of the bibliography for the dissertation project and through the building of the Resource List, I have been able to locate some of these writings and teachers writings about the processes of developing them with their learners. Not only are learner writings being produced, but numbers of literacy workers and learner groups have written about their practical steps and experiences for how to write and produce learner-centered reading and curriculum materials. I have discovered a wealth of writing in this area. For literacy workers reading this report -- and as a response to the call for more training of literacy workers and tutors in this area -- I have developed a separate list of resources on the ways in which to facilitate the participatory creation of literacy materials with adults learners -- with a particular focus on those experiences of working with women (see Appendix Participatory). Hopefully, this list will move beyond the views of "generic" learner-centered materials and participatory practices (Campbell, 1992) and encourage the kinds of specificity necessary to represent the complexities of women learners lives and needs.

I would just add one caution based on the experiences I had with one of the book groups. Pat Campbell (2001) notes that in some cases learners are users rather than doe-ers. Even though women learners may be interested in reading women-centered literacy materials this does not mean they will have interest in or confidence to write/create such materials. The women at Caroline Center were excited about making a book, but women at Family Learning were not interested at all. Producing women-centered literacy materials will create access for learners to the power of print -- raise the legitimacy of their voices and viewpoints into the print-media forum. While this is extremely important to encourage women to write their stories or opinions, other options need to be explored as well -- literacy workers writing for example. Or as one learner insisted, writers and authors should come to conferences and listen to women and write for women learners a well. "Our work can have an emancipatory effect simply by creating experiences for women as women to tell their stories" (Neilsen, 1998, p. 109).

 

Summary Points

From the conversation circles with adult women learners and various forms of information gathering from literacy workers the following conclusions can be made.

There IS a need for women-centered literacy materials and simplified reading materials for adult women, in general.

If women-centered literacy materials were more easily available, women learners said they would use them, if they were interesting and if they could find them.

If women-centered literacy materials were more easily available, literacy workers said they would use them if they were appropriate to their learners both in content and reading level.

Women-centered literacy materials will most effectively be developed by learners within participatory learning settings. Small, independent, niche publishers (especially women's presses) and authors could also contribute in a significant way.

These authentic materials should cover a wide range of fiction genres (fiction, short stories, mystery, horror, drama, poetry, romance, letters, etc.). The writings can be for learning purposes as well as for entertainment, escape, or reflection.

These authentic materials should cover a wide range of non-fiction genres and topics (memoir, biographies, history, "how-to," personal growth, general information, etc. -- ).
See also Learners page and Appendix Section C (Q.2)

Print-based materials should be available in a variety of formats -- book form, chapter books, pamphlets, magazines, newspapers, broadsides or posters. Magazine-type format seemed most popular with women learners, though. They need not be assisted by other media but it may be useful to consider -- cassettes, CDs, computer software, websites, radio, TV, video, etc.

Layout and design of materials is extremely important. These factors need to be considered:

  • Larger print
  • Generous use of white space
  • Pictures, graphics, drawings, illustrations, etc.
  • Affordable price
  • Attractive cover art that avoid looking like a school book
  • Somewhat professional look so learners aren't embarrassed to be seen with them

Even women-centered literacy materials at basic reading levels need to cover a range of skills. Programs working with ESL learners report they need extremely simple, low-level English materials. Some learners and literacy workers would prefer to have access to well-translated bilingual materials.

Such writings can be used in classrooms in a variety of ways. There is some indication that book discussion groups support women in their reading. Group conversation both encourages reading and helps to open the content to wider analysis and deeper understanding. Women learn more about themselves and each other and their worlds.

Printed materials on women's issues would provide more credibility of the topics covered when used with learners or proposed for curriculum inclusion. Difficult issues addressed in the context of a story or piece of fiction or memoir would be especially useful. For materials on specific topics, open-ended writings that generate discussion and allow for a variety of interpretations would be beneficial.

Adult women learners want to be able to access these materials on their own. They want to get them from bookstores, libraries, friends, and all other sources where people generally tend to get their reading materials. In bookstores and libraries, though, sections or areas should be clearly marked and easy to find.

Adult women learners thought a booklist (like a regular catalog and NOT an assigned required list) or "book class" with recommendations and descriptions would also be useful. They want to be able to pick out their own reading materials but need the support of knowing where to look and what might be recommended.

Materials prepared by various literacy programs would probably be used by other programs depending on their content and context, quality, appropriateness and reading level. It was suggested that sharing resources could be one way for programs to network with each other.

In general, there is a need for more visibility and better distribution of the women-centered literacy materials that currently are available -- to both women learners and literacy workers.

Reviews written by women learners about reading materials would be helpful both to learners and literacy workers. Reviews written by literacy workers about the quality of the materials and how they have been used in programs would be useful to literacy workers.

Writers (authors) should be encouraged to participate in literacy conferences with learners to learn more about what is needed. They could help to write and develop basic, simplified writings.

Training is needed -- by literacy workers and tutors -- about ways to both create and to use women-centered literacy materials most effectively.

 

Future Goals, Strategies and Actions

(or -- "If you build it, they will come.")

NOTE: This call for action can also be found from the main page of WE LEARN under the section called : Future Projects.

 Historically, women's networks, ideas, and accomplishments in adult education have been ignored and marginalized thus encouraging the invisibility of women in general (Hugo, 1990). This invisibility prevents women literacy educators from having the opportunity to learn from each other and to build on their work and knowledges (Campbell, 1992).

We have all learned a lot, but we don't know what we've learned, or how to build on each other's efforts. The development of a larger organizing strategy in which these projects play a part remains the greatest challenge we face. (Fingeret, 1991, p. 4)

In a history of the local publishing of adult learners, Marilyn Kay Gillespie (1991) asserts, "we need to develop a national network for the collection, promotion and distribution of learner and teacher-written materials" (p. 197). A network would act as a central clearinghouse "where programs could send materials [both student and teacher writings] to be reproduced and sold to other programs around the country" (p. 198). Gillespie asserts a strategy to promote these materials and to act as technical consultants by sponsoring training and writing workshops, providing advise on production and publishing, and informing about funding sources. To my knowledge, in the past 10 years since her writing, such an effort has not been launched.24 For the long term, I propose WE LEARN could become such a network&emdash;especially for women-centered literacy materials.

 

 

General recommendations for WE LEARN network --
based on the information gathered to date
(Spring, 2002)

  Resource List -- database of women-centered literacy materials

The Resource List would include specifics of the title, brief synopsis, availability (including publisher contact information), reading level (if known or recommended), and format. It would be organized by subject matter and genre. The list will not only include literacy materials but also curriculum resources for educators. It also includes links to resources available on the Internet.

The list will primarily be available on the website, in a searchable database. The website will include links to reviews as they are received from literacy workers and women learners. It will also include links to publisher sites or literacy organizations. A print format of title information only will be available for a fee to cover reproduction and mailing costs.

Women learners and literacy workers through conversation circles, questionnaires, conversations and other correspondences have recommended the titles on this list. Information has also been gathered from conference exhibits, review publications, librarian lists, websites and other sources.

This is an ever-growing list. Additional recommendations will be added as they are received.

Sample:
Why Did It Happen to Me?, Carla Frenchy
Description: Carla gets bad news from her doctor. Something is wrong with the baby she is carrying. She turns to her family for help and advice. Pictures. Subjects: Pregnancy; Memoir; Learner Writings
Reading & Writing Centre, (Distributed by: Peppercorn Books & Press Inc.) 2000,
1-896886-18-3, Paperback, 14 pgs, 5 1/2 x 8 1/2, $7.00. Level: 5-8.

 

Website

The website will be one of the major places of visibility for WE LEARN. However, it IS recognized that many learners in particular and programs in general have limited access to Internet resources (see Appendix Internet Technology). Use of the Internet is growing, however, and at this stage of development for WE LEARN -- and given the national scope of the project -- a website is the most affordable venue for the sharing of information at this time.

The website includes general information about the work of WE LEARN and how to get involved. Sections of the website will be focused toward various audiences: learners, literacy workers, researchers. It will include the complete resource list and links to other relevant sites related to women and literacy, adult education, women's issues, women's literature, and feminist/womanist activisms.

The website is intended to be an interactive opportunity to which women learners and literacy workers can dialog and, send information, make conversation and connection. This aspect of the site needs some technological attention beyond my skills at this point. At some point, as funding becomes available to support the technology needed, it will need more attention -- perhaps connected to the computer training services of a literacy program or other professional volunteers.

At this time, the site is housed under the umbrella of www.litwomen.org. Depending on the growth and development of WE LEARN, it can be moved if necessary or advisable.

 

E-list

It has been suggested that WE LEARN have an e-list discussion group, open to anyone interested in women-centered literacy materials . This may be something to consider for the future. Immediately, there are 2 alternative approaches that can be used: 1) gather email addresses for broadcast announcements (see mailing list below); 2) encourage participation of the nifl-womenlit e-list.

Working in cooperation with nifl-womenlit could be one of the initial networking steps. It already has funding and institutional support. It is already active and available to both literacy workers and women learners -- and anyone else interested in the discussion. I have, as a function of WE LEARN, already guest facilitated a conversation about women-centered literacy materials. Many literacy workers who have participated in this research have come through links from this e-list. At this point, strengthening that network may make the most "common sense."

It may also be possible to establish e-lists for learners-only to give them the space they need for their own discussions and to communicate between literacy groups and conversation circles.

 

Regular publication

The specifics for this need to be decided, but it is clear that some regular "popular" publication -- probably in a magazine format and definitely NOT academic -- would be appreciated by both literacy workers and women learners. It may be one publication for both women learners and literacy workers -- perhaps with a special pull-out section for one or the other. It may need to be 2 separate publications. Devised in a participatory format, it would include (among other things)
- learner writings
- letters to the community or opinion statements
- articles on a variety of general and educational topics
- stories
- interviews
- artwork / pictures
- news in the literacy field
- current events of concern to women
- gossip
- book reviews from learners and literacy workers
- curriculum suggestions
- program news or project accomplishments
- grant opportunities
- and so on.

 It could be distributed through subscription, literacy programs, libraries, bookstores, social service organizations, workfare centers, schools, churches, grocery stores, etc.

 

Mailing List

A mailing list always makes for a good networking tool. Just a list can be used for distributing news about WE LEARN, developing contacts, building information sharing and dialog, collecting donations, creating activities, finding subscribers to publications, making resource lists of women-centered literacy materials available, and so on.

 

Board of Directors / Advisory Groups

When WE LEARN officially seeks non-profit status, a board of directors will be established. It should include both women learners and literacy workers. In addition, WE LEARN may need to establish a network of regional advisory groups to guide its work.

 

  

Recommendations for connecting to and
working with adult women learners

In many ways, the best ways for connecting with and involving women learners is an endless amount of energy and willingness to pursue person-to-person contact. Conversation circles, book groups, personal interview or conversation, one-to-one emails, and other options need to be continuously explored. This set of recommendations results from the conversation circles with women learners. Literacy workers and other learners are the best allies for making these contacts.

 

Newsletter / newspaper / magazine (see above under general recommendations)

 

Book groups (modeled on Women leading Through Reading)

These provide opportunity for discussion and socializing which raise issues for future reading, problematizing, solution, action; learner selection of materials; responsiveness to immediate needs of the group around day-to-day or on-going problems and concerns; entertainment. Can be offered in learning programs, libraries, schools, churches, etc.

 

Writing groups or opportunities

Contributions to local literacy publications; writings for special events (like International Women's Day or a radio program or other community event); work groups to do local book (like the women in one center wanted to do); memoir writing classes (as one group did); and other participatory learning activities (see Learner Writings: www.litwomen.org/ lwritings.html).

 

Working through literacy workers & librarians

Perhaps the most important way to work with learners is within their learning context, perhaps offering special classes, book groups, writing opportunities, social activities, research activities, and so on through their regular classroom work. In this way, cooperating literacy workers and librarians become crucial to the process.

 

Conferences

Learner workshops and "focus groups" at national literacy conferences (Laubach/LVA); VALUE; regional opportunities such as Partners in Literacy conference (MN). Also, attending and listening to learners interests and concerns at these events is also important.

 

Book lists & Resource Fairs & "Book classes"

Women learners want to see what kinds of materials are actually available. Suggested titles can be provided through a colorful catalog with an order form. Resource fairs or classes can be provided that allow learners to see what is available so they can make informed decisions later. Women learners should be encouraged to add their favorite readings to the resource list or to review the materials that are already there.

 

Leadership activities

Some possibilities for leadership of women learners include: Participating on the board; Recruiting (encouraging) the participation of more learners; writing book reviews; communicating through the website; formulating future research projects; designing and producing various print materials; defining & guiding the directions of WE LEARN; fundraising.

 

Support mechanisms

Women learners will need support mechanisms to realistically get them involved: transportation, childcare, paid expenses, accessible scheduling, stipend (for work) if possible.

 

Radio

I have been using radio opportunities with women learners in books groups. Community radio may be way to further alternative voices on the air waves but some reading program that used radio may be a way to reach out to women in isolated areas or communities. (see Learner Writings: www.litwomen.org/ lwritings.html)

 

Person-to-person contact

Perhaps the strongest allies women learners have is each other. This was exampled through the LVA conference and the WLTR book groups. One woman said "We want more women to join our group so we can learn more…I told my friends they should come." As WE LEARN progresses, it may be the person-to-person contact developed among learners that becomes its strongest place of participation and action.

 

Recommendations for networking with Literacy Workers

Again, person-to-person contact is the best. This will hopefully promote literacy workers enthusiasm which, in turn, will help them encourage learners to participate. Some of these suggestions may also work for librarians. Networking can happen through a variety of formal and informal venues.

 

Visibility on various literacy e-lists: NLA, NIFL-lists, etc.

 

Training opportunities / workshops / demonstrations

Several teachers have asked me about Women Leading Through Reading Book groups -- how to set them up and so on. It could be that offering a training opportunity at conferences or regional training days could be a way to foster more on-going interest in WE LEARN. Also, training and discussion about how to create and use women-centered literacy materials is also needed. Demonstrations at conferences on the WE LEARN website and on-going discussions about how to encourage other literacy workers or learners to participate will be helpful.

 

Conferences

Attend and exhibit and make as many one-to-one connections as possible

 

Contact Schools of Education

Especially those that have adult education / adult literacy programs

 

Board participation or advisory or fundraising capacities for WE LEARN

 

 

Recommendations for networking with Librarians

 

I don't have a real clear sense of how to work this since I had so few direct responses from librarians. My attempts to get them to respond to questionnaires through regular library avenues failed miserably. I think this will take more one-to-one contact similar to what I did for another women's group I once represented to librarians. My guesses on how to do this involves cultivating the following areas:

 

Contact OLOS (Office for literacy Outreach Services) an discuss best ways to make connection

 

Visibility on various librarian e-lists, especially OLOS

 

Participation in Annual and Midwinter ALA conferences,

as conference participant and as an exhibitor

 

Board participation or advisory or fundraising capacities for WE LEARN

 

Women Expanding

 

Most of the work in developing WE LEARN has been at my own initiative&emdash;though it is largely built on and affected by the knowledges and insights received from women learners and literacy workers. Before WE LEARN proceeds much further, the active participation, analysis and direct decision-making of women learners and literacy workers must be developed so that it can truly become an "engaged pedagogy" (hooks, 1994) and a collaborative network. WE LEARN was always intended to be directed by the stakeholders. Gathering and producing resources will be more effective and meaningful if it involves that network of people willing to share and build on the ideas and resources of each other. Hopefully this will help to create more resources for women learners and add to the transformative goals in curriculums / pedagogies.

 

Some of the immediate next steps to pursuing this participation include:

 

 

During the writing process of this dissertation, several additional possibilities for the future of WE LEARN began to develop.

 

The most significant possibility includes interaction with the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL). Daphne Greenberg, moderator of the womenlit-nifl e-list, has managed to secure a small grant from NIFL to pilot a women and literacy special collections list on the NIFL website. She has been pursuing this project for several years. She invited me, among others, to be on the core knowledge group to develop the list. After a discussion with Daphne about competing interests or potential conflict of interests, we agreed to a process of collaboration serving the NIFL collections while gaining visibility for WE LEARN, and reducing overlap to strengthen the integrity of both lists.

Secondly, through conversations on the library-lit e-list, I have been able to connect with a woman learner involved with developing learner involvement and leadership. She has been questioning why literacy organizations include adult learners in limited activities using their labor but not including them in the decision-making or use of finances they have collected. She wants literacy organizations to create real situations of power and leadership for learners on boards and staffs. Our connection is still tentative but hopefully will develop into some meaningful options to involve learners in the organization of WE LEARN.

A third option involves the possibility of WE LEARN to work more closing with the feminist bookstore network. A women's bookstore in Boston has been reviewing their mission in the community and plans to offer more literature-based activities in the community. They hope this will model options for other feminist bookstores across the country. Their project is still in planning stages and they want to include something related to women's literacy. We have had some initial and tentative discussions which may involve WE LEARN more directly, though what that might be is still unclear.

Finally, I have been thinking that one next step for WE LEARN would be to sponsor a "working retreat."26 Unlike a large conference, this would be a smaller group (fewer than 40 people) with a balanced number of women learners and literacy workers (including librarians) specifically gathered to discuss the next steps and future activities of WE LEARN. The meeting would need a clear enough agenda so people would be willing to attend and not feel like they were wasting their time, but still have an open enough agenda that they really could take participatory control and guide the decision-making.

It may be important for such a retreat to be connected to another event -- such as a pre-conference -- in order to make it more accessible to whoever might participate. Plans to organize a 4th International Women and Literacy Conference are just being formulated. At this time, it seems possible for WE LEARN to become integral to this process to have some significant space as part of the conference.

 

Through the work of this dissertation project in critical pedagogy, I have created WE LEARN to develop materials useful to adult women learners, and to provide an pedagogical innovation for literacy workers. It is a place for women-centered participatory praxis. WE LEARN will continue to encourage women-centered literacy materials as a way to affect women's literacy power bringing transformation and justice to women's lives. Hopefully, other such visions will continue to emerge. Now it is time for the next part of the journey.

 

Endnotes

1 This outsider position, however, does not situate me as an "expert" coming into a situation either.

2 demographics

3 Also, as mentioned in the Framework section earlier, various populations of women are still missing from this research.

4 Due to race, gender, class, language, personality, previous educational experiences and other "differences"

5 Fall River, MA & RCA -- excluding the conference conversations

6 Hubbs and Family Learning -- both meeting for several weeks

7 provide transportation, don't use buildings with physical barriers, change neighborhoods for meetins, change times of meetings, provide childcare, etc. etc.

8 The ESL memoir writing class was a special opportunity offereed during summer break. However, those learners may not have been clear about the conversation circle held in conjunction to the class. The teacher did not out it on her syllabus and the learners did not seem to know much about it when I worked with them.

9 In spite of mandatory attendance for one group (Expanding Life Choices), women in the other circles could choose to return to their classrooms for the subsequent discussions.

10 The teacher at ABE in Fall River acknowledged this when she stated this particular group would do just what they were told.

11 One observation is worth noting for possible future research topics on methodologies, namely, both of these sites were composed predominately (Hubbs) or exclusively (Caroline Center) of African American women.

12 Actually, this will be addressed later in the section called "The Power of Talk."

13 One of the translators of this discussion mentioned that Elena Poniatowski is one of the most famous contemporary Mexican writers, also politically active in Human Rights issues.

14 These differences may reflect trust issues or unwillingness to talk in a group about personal experiences with violence.

15 Doing hair, selling Tupperware, mending clothes or sewing, childcare, etc.

16 excluding conferences

17 Actually, there is a growing number of sport books on women which, to my mind, indicates more work needs to be done to provide the tools that will help learners find what they want.

18 In another group, a woman talked about preventing her daughter from dating -- "no boyfriends at the age of 10."

19 I do not know but have wondered if the absence of Somali women from the ELC group may have been because it was a women- only group. There is no real way to know.

20 Which is especially ironic since a 1999 Gallup poll shows that women read more books per year than men (Waddington, 2001).

21 or whatever we want to call it

23 Or perhaps they already know this and want to maintain their power and control over the printed media.

24 Perhaps one notable exception might be Peppercorn Books, a relatively new organization that specializes in distributing publications from small educational and social action organizations in the U.S. whose publications are not always easy to obtain, and from publishers in Canada, Great Britain, and South Africa. (http://www.peppercornbooks.com).

25 WE LEARN has been officially incorporated as an organization in the state of Minesota since the Spring of 2001.

26 Or perhaps a series of working retreats -- one on each coast of the country, or several regional meetings. This has been a vision of mine for many years and was initially what I had hoped for this dissertation research project. Tine and money are obvious restrictions, though.

 

References

Auerbach, E. Roberts (1992). Making meaning, making change: Participatory curriculum development for adult ESL literacy. McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics (ERIC) & Delta Systems, Inc.

Ballara, M. (1992). Women and literacy. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Zed Books Ltd.

Barndt, D. & Freire, C. (Illustrator) (1989). Naming the moment&emdash;Political analysis for action: A manual for community groups. Toronto: Jesuit Centre for Social Faith and Justice.

Bee, B. (1981). The politics of literacy. In Mackie, R., (Ed.) Literacy and revolution: The pedagogy of Paulo Freire (pp. 31-56). New York: Continuum.

Bee, B. (1993). Critical literacy and the politics of gender. In Lankshear, C. & McLaren, C., (eds.). Critical literacy: Politics, praxis, and the postmodern (pp. 105-131). Albany: SUNY Press.

Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M. and Goldberger, N.R., & Tarule, J.M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Publishers.

Boudin, K. (1999). Participatory literacy education behind bars:AIDS opens the dorr. In Shor, I. & Pari, C., (eds.). Critical literacy in action: Writing words, changing worlds (pp. 182-210). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann.

Brandt, D., Cristall, F. and Marino, D. (1982). Getting there: Producing photostories with immigrant women. Toronto, ONT.: Between the Lines.

Cameron, D., (Ed.) (1990). The feminist critique of language: A reader. New York: Routledge.

Campbell, P. (1992). Women and literacy: an emerging discourse. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 392 938).

Campbell, P. & Burnaby, B., (eds.). (2001). Participatory practices in adult education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chlebowska, K. (1992). Knowing and doing: Literacy for women (Women Studies). Paris: UNESCO.

Clark, W. and others (1994). Put it in print: How to produce a book of writings by adult literacy students. Eau Claire, WI: Literacy Volunteers of America - Chippewa Valley, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 374 235).

Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn't this feel empowering?: Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59 (3), 297-324.

Fingeret, H.A. (1990). Changing literacy instruction: Moving beyond the status quo. In Chisman, F.P. and Associates. Leadership for literacy: The agenda for the 1990s (pp. 25-50). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Fingeret, H.A. (1991). Literacy in the USA: The present issues. Hamburg, Germany: Paper presented at the Future of Literacy and the Literacy of the Future Conference, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 340 924).

Flannery, D.D. (2000). Connection. In Hayes, E. & Flannery, D.D., (eds.). Women as learners: The significance of gender in adult learning (pp. 111-137). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Foss, K.A. & Foss, S.K., (eds.). (1991). Women speak: The eloquence of women's lives. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Gillespie, M. (1990). Many literacies: Modules for training adult beginning readers and tutors. Amherst, MA: Center for International Education.

Gillespie, M.K. (1991). Becoming authors: The social context of writing and local publishing by adult beginning readers (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 06A, 1983.

Hayes, E. (2000). Voice. In Hayes, E. & Flannery, D.D., (eds.). Women as learners: The significance of gender in adult learning (pp. 79-109). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Heller, C.E. (1997). Until we are all strong together: Women writers in the Tenderloin. New York: Teachers College.

hooks, b. (1989). Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking black. Boston: South End Press.

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge.

Horsman, J. (1994). The problem of illiteracy and the promise of literacy. In Hamilton, M., Baton, D. and Ivanic, R., (eds.). Worlds of literacy (pp. 169-181). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.

Hugo, J. (1990). Adult education history and the issue of gender: Toward a different history of adult education in America. Adult Education Quarterly, 41 (1), 1-16.

Jarvis, R. (1996). Practicing at praxis: Doing critical, feminist pedagogy. Milwaukee, WI: 1996 4Cs, , [On-line], http://coe.west.asu.edu/students/bjarvis/96-598/4cs.htm.

Ledwith, M. (1997). Participating in transformation: Towards a working model of community development. London: Venture Press.

Ledwith, M. & Asgill, P. (2000). Critical alliance. Community Development Journal, 5 (3), .

Lloyd, B.-A., with Ennis, F. and Atkinson, T., (eds.). (1994). Women in literacy speak: The power of woman-positive literacy work. Toronto, ONT.: CCLOW - Canadian Congress for Learning Opportunities for Women with Fernwood Publishing.

Luttrell, W. (1989). Working-class women's ways of knowing: effects of gender, race, and class. Sociology of Education, 62, 33-46.

Mace, J., (Ed.) (1995). Literacy language and community publishing: Essays in adult education. Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Martin, R. (2001). Listening up: Reinventing ourselves as teachers and students. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

McBeth, S. (1994). Creating curriculum: A learner-centered approach. In Taylor, M. & Draper, J.A., (eds.). Adult literacy perspectives (pp. 145-153). Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Co.

Nash, A., Cason, A. and Rhum, M., McGrail, L., & Gomez-Sanford, R. (1992). Talking shop: A curriculum sourcebook for participatory adult ESL. McHenry, Il: Delta Systems, Inc.

Neilsen, L. (1998). Knowing her place: Research literacies and feminist occasions. San Francisco, CA: Caddo Gap Press.

Nonesuch, K., (Ed.) (1996). Making Connections: A Literacy and EAL Curriculum from a Feminist Perspective. Toronto: CCLOW - Canadian Congress for Learning Opportunities for Women.

O'Brien, M. (1981). The politics of reproduction. New York: Routledge Kegan &Paul.

Papachristou, J. (1976). Women together: A MS. book. New York: Alfred A. Knof.

Peyton, J.K. (1993). Listening to student's voices: Publishing students' writing for other students to read. In Crandall, J. & Peyton, J. K., (eds.). Approaches to adult ESL literacy instruction (pp. 59-73). McHenry, IL: Center for Apllied Linguistics & Delta Systems Co., Inc..

Plimpton, S. & Root, J. (1994). Materials and strategies that work in low literacy health communication. Public Health Reports, 109 (1), 86-92.

Quigley, B.A. (1997). Rethinking literacy education: The critical need for practice-based change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Rezai-Rashti, G. (1995). Connecting racism and sexism: The dilemma of working with minority female students. In Ng, R., Staton, P. and Scane, J., (Eds.). Anti-racism, feminism, and critical approaches to education (pp. 87-98). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Rigg, P. & Kazemek, F.E. (1985). For adults only: Reading materials for adult literacy students. Journal of Reading, 28, 726-731.

Samaritan House PAR Group, The (1995). Where there is life, there is hope: Women literacy students and discrimination. Department of Education and Training, Province of Manitoba: Literacy and Continuing Education Branch, [On-line], http://www.nald.ca/CLR/lifehope/cover.htm.

Sheared, V. (Spring 1994). Giving voice: An inclusive model of instruction&emdash;a womanist perspective. In Hayes, E. & Colin, S.A.J. Confronting racism and sexism: New directions for adult and continuing education No. 61 (pp. 27-37). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Solotaroff, T. (1987). The literary-industrial complex: How the corporate mentality has undermined the profession of publishing. The New Republic, June 8, 28-45.

Stino, Z. H. & Palmer, B.B. (1999). Motivating women offenders through process-based writing in a literacy learning circle. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43 (3), 282-291.

Tisdell, E.J. (1998). Poststructural feminist pedagogies: The possibilities and limitations of feminist emancipatory adult learning theory and practice. Adult Education Quarterly, 48, 139-156.

Torruellas, R.M., Benmayor, R., Goris, A., & Juarbe,A. (1991). Affirming cultural citizenship in the Puerto Rican community: Critical literacy and the El Barrio Popluar education program. In Walsh, C.E., (Ed.) Literacy as praxis: Culture, language, and pedagogy (pp. 183-219). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.

Ullman, C. & Becker, A. (1997). The process and the product: Involving students in choosing content and developing materials leads to change. Focus on Basics: World Education/NCSALL, Connecting Research and Practice, 1 (D), [Online], http://gseweb.harvard.edu/~ncsall/fob/1997/ullman.htm.

Waddington, C. (2002, January 6). Fiction, thy name is woman. Minneapolis Star Tribune, pp. A1, A12.

 

This is a section of writing for the Dissertation Project titled:

Women's Literacy Power:
Collaborative Approaches to Developing and Distributing Women's Literacy Resources

Mev Miller

Ed.D., Critical Pedagogy, University of St. Thomas, Minneapolis, MN USA

 

 Copyright © Mev Miller, 2002

WE LEARN
Women Expanding • Literacy Education Action Resource Network

www.litwomen.org/welearn.html
welearn@litwomen.org