Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorLyster, Elda Susan.
dc.creatorOpenjuru, George Ladaah.
dc.date.accessioned2012-01-20T06:43:33Z
dc.date.available2012-01-20T06:43:33Z
dc.date.created2002
dc.date.issued2002
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10413/4847
dc.descriptionThesis (M.Ed.) - University of Natal, Durban, 2002.en
dc.description.abstractThis was a comparative study of FAL and REFLECT'S adult literacy facilitator training processes in Uganda. It was based on the government's Functional Adult Literacy (FAL) programme, and Action Aid Uganda's (AAU) REFLECT Programmes.The purpose of this study was to: Find out the similarities and differences between the FAL and REFLECT facilitator training process. Establish how FAL and REFLECT facilitator training is organised. Establish how FAL and REFLECT facilitators are selected for training. Identify the teaching and learning materials used for training FAL and REFLECT literacy facilitators. Find out how the trained facilitators of FAL and REFLECT feel about the training and the approach they have been trained to use. Establish the kind of post training support arrangements provided for the trained adult literacy facilitators under FAL and REFLECT. These issues were all raised in the form of research questions and answered by the study. A qualitative research study was used to address the research questions. This included the use of focus group discussions, key informant interviews, questionnaires, direct observation and documentary analysis. The findings of this study are presented in chapter four under various headings applicable to both FAL and REFLECT. These are: the ideological view of literacy, selection of trainees and trainers, the training programmes, the training materials, funding for the training, employment arrangements after training, post training support arrangements, and evaluation of the training programme. From the findings, a general conclusion was drawn that the training processes of FAL and REFLECT were similar in the areas of organisation of the training programmes, selection of trainees, the sources of funding for the training programmes, deployment of trainees and evaluation of the training. Differences were found in the ideology which informs the two literacy approaches and therefore the training programmes for the literacy facilitators, the training methods and materials used and the post training support arrangements made for the trained literacy facilitators. The study concludes that the FAL and REFLECT literacy facilitator training is different. REFLECT has a better approach to training their literacy facilitators than FAL, although both approaches have many areas which should be improved for better training of their literacy facilitators. It was also noted that the differences between FAL and REFLECT occur in areas which are crucial for the success of a training programme and the performance of the trainees. This could explain the difference in the performance and effectiveness of the programmes using the two approaches. The recommendations call for serious attention to be given to the training of adult literacy facilitators to ensure that only qualified people are entrusted with the work of teaching adult literacy.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectLiteracy--Uganda.en
dc.subjectFunctional literacy--Uganda.en
dc.subjectAdult education teachers--Training of--Uganda.en
dc.subjectTheses--Adult education.en
dc.subjectReading (Adult education)--Uganda.en
dc.titleA comparative study of the FAL and REFLECT adult literacy facilitators' training process in Uganda.en
dc.typeThesisen
dc.description.notesPage 84 missing from original.en


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record