Following from the theoretical developments outlined above, this secti translation - Following from the theoretical developments outlined above, this secti Malay how to say

Following from the theoretical deve

Following from the theoretical developments outlined above, this section describes four key aspects of literacy in practice: the stigma of “illiteracy”; schooled literacy; second language literacy; and literacy and nationalism. In each case the oral dimension of literacy practices is prominent in the recent research. Many literacy campaigns, in both the developed and developing worlds (cf. Giere and Hautcoeur, 1990) have presented “illiteracy” in such a negative way that a “stigma” has been created where many people had operated in the oral domain without feeling that it was a problem. Where this has happened, the concept of “illiteracy” has itself become one of the major problems in people's ability to see themselves as communicators. The rhetoric of public campaigns frequently reinforces rather than challenges these images. The literacy campaign in the UK, for instance, during the 1970s attempted to elicit funds from government by claiming that one million people in the UK were “illiterate” and further millions were functionally unable to manage the reading and writing requirements of the society. A major conference in 1973 to present the case to government and funding bodies was entitled: “Status Illiterate – Prospects Zero” (Mace, 1979). As practitioners and researchers became more closely involved with those who came forward for tuition it became apparent that their “problems” were more complex and less easily described in terms of a dichotomy between literacy and “illiteracy” (Mace, 1979; Hargreaves, 1980; Street, 1994). A National Institute for Adult Education research project notes that the major issue raised by students was of “confidence” rather than of literacy skills in themselves: Many had found difficulty at school for a variety of reasons
(health, moving schools, stigmatization by teachers, etc.) and had a poor self-image educationally. Many held folk theories of literacy that meant they shared the common demeaning view of those who could not spell, or had problems with particular genres, with form-filling or official letters, etc. “Illiteracy” in common terminology is often synonymous with ignorance, stupidity, cognitive deficit, etc. where current research suggests the reality of people with literacy difficulties is varied and more complex, both socially and in terms of literacy skills. A similar pattern can be found in much development activity around literacy: King (1995) describes how the Mexican literacy campaign in the
1970s, for instance, generated “stigma” among mestizos in urban areas while Indians living in rural
areas, where literacy played little part in everyday life, had not yet internalized the stigma and so saw
little need to come forward to classes. Those running the campaign had a vested interest in creating
and publicizing the stigma. UNESCO and other agencies concerned with literacy work in the Third
World frequently represent the state of “illiteracy” as “living in darkness” (cf. Verhoeven, 1994) and
lacking the mental understanding needed for life in the “modern” world (cf. Oxenham, 1980) and early
academic research, based on misconceptions about the relationship between channels of
communication and cognitive skills (Clammer, 1976) helped to reinforce these folk theories.
0/5000
From: -
To: -
Results (Malay) 1: [Copy]
Copied!
Following from the theoretical developments outlined above, this section describes four key aspects of literacy in practice: the stigma of “illiteracy”; schooled literacy; second language literacy; and literacy and nationalism. In each case the oral dimension of literacy practices is prominent in the recent research. Many literacy campaigns, in both the developed and developing worlds (cf. Giere and Hautcoeur, 1990) have presented “illiteracy” in such a negative way that a “stigma” has been created where many people had operated in the oral domain without feeling that it was a problem. Where this has happened, the concept of “illiteracy” has itself become one of the major problems in people's ability to see themselves as communicators. The rhetoric of public campaigns frequently reinforces rather than challenges these images. The literacy campaign in the UK, for instance, during the 1970s attempted to elicit funds from government by claiming that one million people in the UK were “illiterate” and further millions were functionally unable to manage the reading and writing requirements of the society. A major conference in 1973 to present the case to government and funding bodies was entitled: “Status Illiterate – Prospects Zero” (Mace, 1979). As practitioners and researchers became more closely involved with those who came forward for tuition it became apparent that their “problems” were more complex and less easily described in terms of a dichotomy between literacy and “illiteracy” (Mace, 1979; Hargreaves, 1980; Street, 1994). A National Institute for Adult Education research project notes that the major issue raised by students was of “confidence” rather than of literacy skills in themselves: Many had found difficulty at school for a variety of reasons(health, moving schools, stigmatization by teachers, etc.) and had a poor self-image educationally. Many held folk theories of literacy that meant they shared the common demeaning view of those who could not spell, or had problems with particular genres, with form-filling or official letters, etc. “Illiteracy” in common terminology is often synonymous with ignorance, stupidity, cognitive deficit, etc. where current research suggests the reality of people with literacy difficulties is varied and more complex, both socially and in terms of literacy skills. A similar pattern can be found in much development activity around literacy: King (1995) describes how the Mexican literacy campaign in the1970s, for instance, generated “stigma” among mestizos in urban areas while Indians living in ruralareas, where literacy played little part in everyday life, had not yet internalized the stigma and so sawlittle need to come forward to classes. Those running the campaign had a vested interest in creatingand publicizing the stigma. UNESCO and other agencies concerned with literacy work in the ThirdWorld frequently represent the state of “illiteracy” as “living in darkness” (cf. Verhoeven, 1994) andlacking the mental understanding needed for life in the “modern” world (cf. Oxenham, 1980) and earlyacademic research, based on misconceptions about the relationship between channels ofcommunication and cognitive skills (Clammer, 1976) helped to reinforce these folk theories.
Being translated, please wait..
Results (Malay) 2:[Copy]
Copied!
Berikutan daripada perkembangan teori yang digariskan di atas, bahagian ini menerangkan empat aspek utama literasi dalam amalan: stigma "buta huruf"; dididik celik; celik bahasa kedua; dan celik dan nasionalisme. Dalam setiap kes dimensi lisan amalan literasi adalah penting dalam penyelidikan baru-baru ini. Kempen celik banyak, dalam kedua-dua dunia maju dan membangun (rujuk Giere dan Hautcoeur, 1990) telah dibentangkan "buta huruf" dalam apa-apa cara yang negatif bahawa "stigma" telah dicipta di mana ramai orang telah beroperasi di domain lisan tanpa perasaan bahawa ia adalah masalah. Jika ini yang berlaku, konsep "buta huruf" mempunyai sendiri menjadi salah satu masalah utama dalam kemampuan orang untuk melihat diri mereka sebagai penyampai. Retorik kempen awam kerap menguatkan bukannya cabaran imej-imej ini. Kempen celik di UK, misalnya, pada tahun 1970 cuba bagi mendapatkan dana daripada kerajaan dengan mendakwa bahawa satu juta orang di UK adalah "buta huruf" dan berjuta-juta lagi adalah fungsi tidak dapat menguruskan membaca dan menulis keperluan masyarakat. Satu persidangan penting pada tahun 1973 untuk membentangkan kes itu kepada badan-badan kerajaan dan pembiayaan berhak: "Status buta huruf - Prospek Zero" (Mace, 1979). Sebagai pengamal dan penyelidik menjadi lebih rapat terlibat dengan mereka yang datang ke hadapan untuk tuisyen ia menjadi jelas bahawa "masalah" mereka lebih kompleks dan tidak mudah digambarkan dari segi dikotomi antara celik dan "buta huruf" (Mace, 1979; Hargreaves, 1980; Street, 1994). A Institut Kebangsaan bagi projek penyelidikan Adult Education menyatakan bahawa isu utama yang dibangkitkan oleh pelajar adalah dari "keyakinan" dan bukannya kemahiran literasi dalam diri mereka sendiri: Ramai telah menemui kesukaran di sekolah untuk pelbagai sebab-sebab
(kesihatan, sekolah bergerak, stigma oleh guru, dan lain-lain) dan mempunyai imej diri yang lemah pendidikan. Banyak teori kaum diadakan literasi yang bermakna mereka berkongsi pandangan merendahkan martabat yang sama dari orang-orang yang tidak dapat mengeja, atau mempunyai masalah dengan genre tertentu, dengan bentuk-pengisian atau surat rasmi, dan lain-lain "Buta Huruf" dalam istilah biasa sering sinonim dengan kejahilan, kebodohan, defisit kognitif, dan lain-lain di mana penyelidikan semasa menunjukkan realiti orang yang mengalami masalah literasi adalah pelbagai dan lebih kompleks, kedua-dua dari segi sosial dan dari segi kemahiran celik huruf. Satu corak yang sama boleh didapati dalam aktiviti pembangunan banyak sekitar celik: King (1995) menerangkan bagaimana kempen celik Mexico dalam
tahun 1970-an, misalnya, dihasilkan "stigma" di kalangan mestizos di kawasan bandar manakala kaum India yang tinggal di luar bandar
kawasan, di mana celik bermain sedikit bahagian dalam kehidupan sehari-hari, belum lagi dihayati stigma dan sebagainya menyaksikan
sedikit keperluan untuk tampil ke hadapan untuk kelas. Mereka menjalankan kempen itu mempunyai kepentingan dalam mewujudkan
dan menerbitkan stigma. UNESCO dan agensi-agensi lain yang berkenaan dengan kerja-kerja literasi dalam Third
World kerap mewakili keadaan "buta huruf" sebagai "hidup dalam kegelapan" (rujuk Verhoeven, 1994) dan
kurang pemahaman mental yang diperlukan untuk kehidupan di dunia "moden" (rujuk Oxenham, 1980) dan awal
penyelidikan akademik, berdasarkan salah faham tentang hubungan antara saluran
komunikasi dan kemahiran kognitif (Clammer, 1976) membantu untuk mengukuhkan teori-teori kaum.
Being translated, please wait..
 
Other languages
The translation tool support: Afrikaans, Albanian, Amharic, Arabic, Armenian, Azerbaijani, Basque, Belarusian, Bengali, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Catalan, Cebuano, Chichewa, Chinese, Chinese Traditional, Corsican, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Detect language, Dutch, English, Esperanto, Estonian, Filipino, Finnish, French, Frisian, Galician, Georgian, German, Greek, Gujarati, Haitian Creole, Hausa, Hawaiian, Hebrew, Hindi, Hmong, Hungarian, Icelandic, Igbo, Indonesian, Irish, Italian, Japanese, Javanese, Kannada, Kazakh, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Klingon, Korean, Kurdish (Kurmanji), Kyrgyz, Lao, Latin, Latvian, Lithuanian, Luxembourgish, Macedonian, Malagasy, Malay, Malayalam, Maltese, Maori, Marathi, Mongolian, Myanmar (Burmese), Nepali, Norwegian, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Romanian, Russian, Samoan, Scots Gaelic, Serbian, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovak, Slovenian, Somali, Spanish, Sundanese, Swahili, Swedish, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thai, Turkish, Turkmen, Ukrainian, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Vietnamese, Welsh, Xhosa, Yiddish, Yoruba, Zulu, Language translation.

Copyright ©2025 I Love Translation. All reserved.

E-mail: