Cuba’s “Yes,I Can” mass adult literacy campaign model in Timor-Leste and Aboriginal Australia: A comparative study

In the field of international adult education, mass literacy campaigns enjoyed wide support in the 20th century, when they were seen as a way to increase the participation of previously marginalised and excluded populations in national development. Cuba’s 1961 campaign achieved iconic status, but was only one of many successful campaigns in Latin America, Africa and Asia. In the 1990s, while mass literacy campaigns continued in many countries, scholarly interest in them declined under the influence of World Bank empirical critiques of their effectiveness and increasing postmodern scepticism towards the socialist “grand narrative” of liberation which underpinned some of the more famous examples. Recently, the mass campaign model has gained new impetus through Cuba’s international literacy missions, which use an approach known by its Spanish name, Yo, Sí Puedo [Yes, I Can]. This paper reports on the deployment of this model in two very different settings, one being a national literacy campaign in Timor-Leste, a newly-independent island nation in the Asia–Pacific; and the other a pilot campaign in an Aboriginal community in Australia. The authors have utilised participatory action research methods to evaluate the model in both countries, and locate their comparative analysis in the theoretical tradition of popular education.     

Constructing Scientific Explanations Through Writing

This study examined the writing strategies andtext characteristics associated withdiscovering a scientific principle by writingabout an experiment. Sixty-four universitystudents (non-science majors) carried out aphysics experiment concerning either buoyancy,or the forces acting on a balance scale, thenwrote an informal journal-style note about itwhile thinking-aloud. They providedexplanations of the phenomena beforeexperimenting, immediately after experimenting(before writing), and again after writing aboutthe experiment. Students' verbal protocolswere segmented and writing operations wereidentified; the rhetorical structures of theirtexts were analyzed; and each students' levelof general writing strategy was identified. Afactor analysis showed that six componentsaccounted for 76% of the variance in thesemeasures. Logistic regression analysis showedthat type of science experiment and two writingfactors, Problem Solving and Comparisons inText, discriminated 86% of cases in whichstudents made explanatory gains during thewriting interval. The results generallyexemplified a metacognitive, problem solvingmodel of writing to learn. However, incontrast to dominant metacognitive models,setting content goals, applying moderatelysophisticated writing strategies, and extensiveuse of content sources were important for learning.