manley final draft

Running head: LITERATES IMPACTED TRAINING IN ORAL COMMUNITIES

Highly Literate Trainers Are Impacted

by Training Leaders Working in Oral Communities

Regina M.. Manley

Boise State University

1

LITERATES ARE IMPACTED BY TRAINING IN ORAL COMMUNITIES

Abstract

This phenomenological study examines what it is like for highly literate individuals to do

extensive training with leaders who are working in oral communities. Six groups of participants

shared how they experienced giving and received training for a 10 to 20 year period. Three

coding methods were applied and the information was checked by the participants and

triangulated with participants’ publications. The data analysis showed two common experiences.

First, the participants were receptive to learning differences and adapted training or

communication that reflected oral learning styles. Second, all experienced frustration with

pejorative attitudes of literates toward oral learners. Oral learners make up well over half of the

world’s adult population. The implications for training institutions is that their effectiveness

could dramatically increase if they would equally embrace equally oral-style training in their

programs as they develop leaders and teachers who will frequently be working with oral learners.

Keywords: oral learners; training; oral communities; culture;

2


Highly Literate Trainers Are Impacted

by Training Leaders Working in Oral Communities

Some individuals from highly literate societies dedicate a significant portion of their lives

to working in a culture with very little exposure to the printed word because they want to

influence the group in some way with their expertise or training. As time goes on, the impact of

living cross-culturally often takes surprising turns. The purpose of this study is to examine what

it is like for literates with a minimum of 16 years of formal schooling to receive training and to

give training in an oral culture where they have lived and worked for an extended period of time.

This phenomenological study will both describe and explore how the training experiences have

impacted the literates.

Walter Ong (2002) notes the importance of sound for oral cultures; their perceptions a

greatly impacted by the aural experience. He describes a common way that learning occurs in

oral communities, “Verbalized learning takes place quite normally in an atmosphere of

celebration or play” (1967, p.30). Parker (1988), using Ong’s characteristics of oral and literate

cultures, contrasted the way each learns. Oral cultures prefer repetition, inductive reasoning,

experiential learning and concrete examples. In comparison, literates are more likely to use

single declaration, deductive reasoning, employ more analysis and abstract concepts.

Communication among oral learners is story-centered, often indirect, involves discussion and

validity resides in the relationship. Literate communication is more likely to be direct, uses

illustration, comes through lecture and validity resides with acknowledged experts. Literate

learning is more individualistic and frequently experienced alone, for example, while reading in

silence.

3


When communicating across cultures, the challenges of the interactions impact those

involve (Dodson, 1998; Jandt, 2004). Social constructivist theory says that meaning is derived

through social interactions. This means that working cross-culturally will change both

individuals and groups as they interact and constitute knowledge together over an extended

period of time interacting through the training process (Bruner, 1973; Kraft, 2002; Soggard,

2001).

There is research about experiences of interacting with other cultures but there is a little

qualitative research in the area of how the literates have been impacted by their experiences

receiving and giving training in cross-cultural context among oral cultures.

This study will contribute to the current literature by describing the experiences of

literates in the context of training individuals who are working extensively in oral cultures. I

anticipate the changes in these literates’ perspectives that occurred from receiving and giving

training will increase an appreciation for oral cultures and shed some light on ways that training

can be done both in oral culture contexts and in literate culture contexts. This will be insightful

for others planning on working cross-culturally in settings where there is a significant gap

between cultures with many years of formal schooling and those communities where most

learning takes place without formal schooling.

Literature Review

The greatest portion of the literature review is constrained to the viewpoints of highly

literate scholars who have published due to the fact that nonliterates do not write, Hopefully, in

the future, more nonliterate viewpoints will be heard, possibly through greater access to

technologies using audio and video formats.

4


The literature review is divided into four parts. The first explores the extent of

nonliteracy. The second examines the characteristics of oral communities and compares them

with the characteristics common to a highly literate orientation. The third focuses on the ways

that nonliterates learn and some common misconceptions of literates working with oral cultures.

The last section, which is brief due to little research, looks at characteristics of effective teachers

working with nonliterate adults in oral cultures.

Extent of Nonliteracy

It is difficult to determine the extent of nonliteracy worldwide due to varying definitions.

In 2003 a UNESCO panel convened to discuss the problem of varying definitions of literacy and

determined:

Literacy is the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate and compute, using printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning in enabling individuals to achieve his or her goals, develop his or her knowledge and potential, and participate fully in community and wider society. (NESCO, 2005b, p. 21)

The same meeting encouraged the use of the term “nonliteracy” due to the negative connotations

of the traditional label of illiteracy. They also determined that literacy/illiteracy is not a

dichotomy but a “continuum of communication” (UNESCO, 2005b, p. 19). Literacy surveys in

taken in 1992 and later in 2003 by the United States Department Education show little changes.

About 15% of the population is illiterate and another 30% is at the basic level (Appendix 1).

Basic literacy is also called functionally illiteracy, meaning this group, although able to read,

does not have enough reading competency to work in a job that requires literacy skills.

Another problem is how literacy statistics are gathered. Grant Lovejoy (2008) describes

the 2004 UNESCO report regarding how various nations determine literacy. Bolivia, Ecuador

and Burkina Faso count as literate all those who give a simple “yes/no” response to the question

5


whether they are literate! In Malaysia, anyone over the age of ten who have ever attended school

is counted as literate. The term “oral communicator” is used to define individuals who prefer to

learn through oral communication. They may have been to school and in many countries they

will be counted in their census as literates. However, when it comes to learning, they either

cannot, do not, or will not learn through reading. In The extent of orality: 2012 update, Lovejoy

determined that close to 80% of the adults worldwide are oral communicators.

Oral cultures communication through oral means. Literate cultures, of course, also

frequently use oral communication but those with sufficient literate competency are not limited

to oral forms. In this paper, when we refer to oral communities, we are talking about

communities where the great majority are perceived as oral communicators because of their

strong preference to learn from a variety of nonliterate means - from radio, television, songs, and

most frequently through social interaction with other people in their community.

Characteristics of Oral Communities

Oral communities value oral communication and use oral strategies for instruction,

communication and transmitting culture. Finnegan says that oral communication is not simply a

characteristic of these societies; it is the very heart of their communication systems and is vitally

important to both their identity and ethnic cohesion (1992). Groups that have little or no

exposure to print are more communal in nature. Communication is usually story-centered,

indirect, involve discussion and trust of the message is linked to personal relationships. When

they learn they employ repetition, deductive reasoning, their experience and use concrete

examples. In contrast, literates who have been exposed to many years of schooling tend to favor

direct communication, the use of illustration and lecture. Validity is trusted from acknowledged

experts (Ong, 1982). See Table 1.

6


The importance of oral communication means that verbal skills are highly valued; those

who have exceptional ability in communicating are honored. The form may change according to

the culture. Most have expert storytellers or singers; others also value elaborate demonstrations

of praise, or name-calling! Ntseane (2007) says that in traditional African societies direct

statements are considered childlike. Wisdom is demonstrated by weaving parables and proverbs

into one’s speech. Tom Steffen (2005) speaks about the power of story in all languages.

Oral Cultures Highly Literate Cultures

Group Centered, Communal Individual Centered, More institutions

Communication Indirect Often uses story/proverb, discussion Reliance on trusted friends Enjoy verbosity

Communication Direct Use lecture and illustration Trusts acknowledged experts Prefers brevity

Learn Interaction, memorization, repetition,

experientially Prefer concrete example and deductive reason May include songs, traditional sayings

Learn Individually Prefer single declaration analysis Use abstract concepts Use inductive reasoning Divided into steps, May involve comparing and classifying

Events Spontaneous Involve movement, participation, and

experience

Events Observed or appreciated. Performance is metered. There are specific steps

Language Informal Dialect Characterized by utility

Language Formal Proper pronunciation Rules

Table 1: Comparing Oral Cultures and Highly Literate Cultures

Modified from Paul Koehler, Telling God’s stories with power: Biblical storytelling in oral cultures, (2007) p.15 and T4Global (2008) chart.

7


Adults who have knowledge are expected to share that knowledge. This means that

everyone has a dual role of both learner and teacher (Merriam, 2007). When a member of the

community wants to know or learn, they must learn from other members of society. This

interdependency means that oral communities are by nature collectivistic (Ong, 1982;

Thompson, 2014). Those who have special knowledge are expected to share with the group. In

order to share it, they must meet face to face and interact, usually teaching through

apprenticeship. Literates easily gain knowledge in solitude through reading books. When Brand

(2001) studied a group the Bambara in Mali he noted that “women and men saw themselves as

“individual parts of a larger whole, not as individuals, put as person in connection with others”

(p.4).

Akinnaso (1992) describes how this interdependency in community life, where practical

knowledge is shared for the good of everyone, reinforces the need for maintaining positive

relationships. In fact, the relationship is more important than the transaction (Jandt, 2004;

Thompson, 2013). The moral character of the individual is tied to the receptivity of the message

(Thompson, 2015). For example, if a young person is apprenticed to a skilled adult, it is

understood that not only the skill is being transferred but also the master teacher’s values will be

taught in the process. The skill and the character of the craftsman are seen as one whole.

Thompson says, “The worth of the message is not intrinsic in the message itself but is

considered valid if it comes from a respected source” (ibid, p. 14).

Knowledge is what can be recalled. Elders are respected for their storehouse of

knowledge. Goody describes them as “irreplaceable storehouse of information about the past”

(1992, p. 16).

8


How Nonliterates Learn and Misconceptions

Both formal and informal learning take place in oral communities. Akinnaso (1992)

describes how skills are gained through observation, oral instruction, imitation and practice. The

learner observes adults in a hands-on environment and is instructed as the skilled craftsman is in

the process of his trade. They eventually move from helper to fully training craftsman, such as a

fully trained carpenter (Ntseane, 2007). Formal learning also takes place for special purposes

such as divination or initiation (Akinnaso, 1992). The rites or rituals may transfer knowledge, but

the events themselves are an essential element in the process.

Instructional strategies include oral, visual and often physical activities. Oral art forms

including poetry, songs, epic narratives, dance or drama often include formulaic sayings and are

normally part of a formal learning setting (Finnegan, 1992). The memorization process may

involve months or years of training (Ong, 1982).

Stories are common to all people; they are a teaching tool used in all cultures. But for

nonliterates this is often a primary vehicle for teaching their history and inculcating values

(Merriam, 2007). The indirect, non-confrontational style of storytelling is preferred by many

cultures. Many oral learners memorize and retain stories with remarkable acuity. Tom Steffan

(2000) comments on the power of story today.

No more powerful teaching or research tool exists than that of storytelling. Whether incultural, psychological, or organizational analysis, preaching or teaching theology, andmore recently evangelism and follow-up. This communication mode is trans-historical,trans-generational, trans-gender, trans-cultural, and trans-disciplinary. Stories move theworld. (p. 90)

Many oral learners memorize and retain stories with remarkable acuity.

Instruction also frequently takes place without oral communication. Observation and

imitation are natural parts of the informal process of learning through daily life. Thompson

9


(2015) describes a scene where a young boy observes an older man turning on an off a water

spigot. When the older man leaves, the boy goes to the spigot and does the same. She notes that

children are expected to be part of adult life and to learn by observing and listening and then

practicing at their own pace. This socialization is very different from the literate society that

separates the children from the family for most of the day, entrusts them to people whom they do

not know who are “specialists,” the highly educated teachers, who train them in isolated age

groups, and this acculturation outside the home occurs for a minimum of 12 and up to 16 years to

complete before they are considered fully participating adults in the community.

Literates assume that nonliterates have similarly poor memories because literates are

trained to be dependent on writing to remember. Unaccustomed to oral practices, they assume

significant fluidity in the transmission of information. Goody states, “In oral cultures the slate

tends to be wiped clean at every generation, maintaining the appearance of homogeneity of

belief, of total attachment to cultural values” (Goody, 1992, p. 17). However, later Goody was

amazed by a report from an anthropologist who recorded a healer’s instructions in an oral

culture. Nine years later, the instructions were phoneme for phoneme exactly the same as when

first recorded (1992).

Rather than viewing oral cultures as complex societies with their own distinct

communication systems, literates frequently see oral cultures as “preliterate” (Thompson, 2015)

– a term that may carry a primitive connotation. Familiar with the power of literacy in their own

context, they may see advancing literacy as a simplistic solution to more complex issues.

Literacy is not a viable solution in the majority of cultures whose language has no written form!

The Ethnologue18th edition has listed 7,105 living languages and ascertained that 3,570 have a

10


developed writing system. They are certain that 606 have no written form, but there is no data to

indicate that the remaining 2,839 languages have a writing system (2015).

Literates’ high value of literacy can be problematic. When working with oral

communities they may insist on literacy before giving further instruction or fully depend on the

few literates within the oral community to disseminate the training. UNESCO’s educational

reports (2005b, 2013, 2014) show that literacy is the basic form of education that is taught in

their programs. It is the gateway to any further education. This is an example of the inability or

unwillingness of literates to learn and adapt to oral communities’ learning styles.

The literates’ dependency on literacy can be a barrier to effectively teaching and

communicating with oral cultures. We teach in the way we have been taught. This unfamiliarity

with how nonliterates use orality communication styles, including observation, storytelling,

proverbs, song, celebratory events and other activities causes miscommunication when literates

teach using literate techniques (Box, 2004; Willis & Evans, 2005). A few examples include using

abstract concepts, logic constructs, and exposition, teaching in steps or presenting information in

isolated parts.

Literates tend to be individualistic, perhaps from the many hours spent reading silently

and studying independently (Ong, 1982). This orientation is contrary to the collectivism of oral

cultures where the good of the group is more important than the likes and preferences of the

individuals. The difference orientations will need to be reconciled in all the complexities of daily

living.

Literates will need to adjust and adapt to different communication styles. Ong wrote,

“fulsome praise in the old residually oral, rhetoric tradition strikes persons from a high-literacy

culture as insincere, flatulent, and comically pretentious” (1982, p. 45).

11


Characteristics of Effective Teachers in Oral Cultures

While there are multitudes of studies describing oral cultures, there is very little written

about the characteristics of effective literate teachers working in these cultures and even fewer

emic perspectives from the members themselves. However, there are similarities in studies on

teaching adults. Knowles (2012), an authority on andragogy, recommends treating adults, as

adults, by providing a learning climate characterized by mutual respect, collaboration, trust

support, openness and authenticity. Thompson (2012) gives the following recommendations

relevant specifically to the context of literate teachers working with oral cultures: “1) The

teacher must be humble and accessible…. 2) Normal knowledge transfer is from older to

younger…. 3) Information should be put in context and long verbal discourses avoided. Stories,

poetry, songs, chants, dance…facilitate learning. 4) Learning and memorization of stories...are

important. 5) The needs of the student take precedence over the needs of the teacher” (p. 4).

Further work by Thompson (2015) taken from a Delphi study of 75 literate teachers working in

an oral culture discovered four more characteristics to be important. The literate teacher should

have an appreciation of the oral culture, an understanding of his or her own limitations as

literates, be culturally aware and know how nonliterate adults learn.

Oral communities have some common characteristics that are relevant to the way they

learn. The years spent in formal schooling shapes some of the characteristics and viewpoints of

literates. The differences between the literate and oral communities’ educational practices can

cause a significant communication disconnect. This qualitative study interviewing literate

instructors and trainers working with oral communities will attempt to increase knowledge about

these experiences, and compare and contrast the findings in an attempt to illuminate best

practices for the literates who will be working among oral cultures in the future.

12


Theoretical Framework

This study is conducted from a social constructivist perspective. Constructivists of all

varieties examine the relationship to reality by dealing with constructive processes in regard to

reality (Flick, 2004). Piaget considered cognition, perception of the world and knowledge as

constructs. However, social constructivists emphasize how meanings and understanding grow

out of social encounters. John Dewey expressed this view clearly in his pedagogic creed saying,

“The only true education comes through the stimulation of the child’s powers by the demands of

the social situation in which he finds himself.” (As cited in Flinders & Thornton, 2013, p. 33).

Social constructivism is based on specific assumptions in regard to the nature of reality,

knowledge, and learning. Reality is constructed through human activity and is nonexistent prior

to social convention. Knowledge, therefor, is a human product socially and culturally constructed

by individuals who create meaning through interaction with others and their environment

(Creswell, 2013). Learning is a social process that takes places as individuals interact with one

another as they are engaged in social activities.

This means that people are continually creating or constructing meaning from their

encounters, discussions and activities with others in the distinct environments and social

situations that they find themselves. Each individual brings their unique context to their

interaction with others. They are also impacted by the social context made up by those that are

involved in any situation. Meaning and knowledge are shaped and evolved by the

communication between the individual and the group that the individual encounters (EPLTT,

2012). Where there are common interests and assumptions between individuals and a group, this

shared understanding is called “inter-subjectivity.” These shared meanings can be expressed via

any object, or artifact, within a culture. They include the way things are done, a myriad of

13


actions, cues, interactions that occur as people live and respond to daily life. What is important is

not ascertaining the exact facts. According to Alfred Schütz, facts are only important through

their meanings and interpretations (Flick, 2004). Facts do not constitute what is known. What is

relevant is the perception, or meaning that the individual constructs. Jerome Bruner states,

“There is no such thing psychologically as ‘life itself’. At very least, it is a selective achievement

of memory recall; beyond that, recounting one’s life is an interpretive feat.” (as cited in Flick,

2004, p. 89).

This can be observed transactionally, when an individual moves to a new community that

is significantly different from their pervious experience. For example, when someone works in a

cross-cultural context, the communication challenges are more complex; miscommunication is a

common problem. The task of developing shared meanings is even more critical to the

newcomer due to the newcomer’s lack of shared meanings held in common by the group. The

group has in common understandings about a tremendous number of actions--ways of relating

and viewing the world--developed through their social interaction over years of experience

together. While some meanings will be shared by the newcomer, it is only through trial and error

that she will encounter or understand many of the group’s understandings, even partially.

The social constructivist framework emphasizes the importance of this social interaction

in the process of learning, making meaning, and interpreting the world. Literate trainers face

significant challenges when they are working with oral communities due to their dramatically

different orientations, much of which has been effected by the distinctly different ways that each

group has been educated – the literates in a very formal, somewhat individualistic manner and

the oral communicators in a manner that emphasizes relationship and community-centered

interdependence. By employing a social constructivist framework, I anticipate that the highly

14


literate trainers will experience changes in their perspectives as they as they “socially construct

knowledge” when training those working in oral communities.

Methods

This section includes a description of pheonomological method. Then, the participants

who participated in the study will be described, followed by the manner and timeframe during

which the interviews were gathered. Next I will discuss the data collection methodology and how

the data was analyzed. This will be followed by measures that were taken to increase validity and

reliability. For transparency, this is followed by my history of interest in the topic: why I am

studying this and how I have attempted to acknowledge my own subjectivity so that the reader

can assess if I have maintained the goal of writing and analyzing with a significant measure of

objectivity.

Phenomenology

The phenomenological method attempts to understand and describe several individuals’

“lived experience,” or experience of a phenomena, to reveal the immediate, pre-reflective

consciousness regarding these events (Hitzler, 2004) the essence of what is essential, so that

others can experience, to some extent, and understand empathetically their reality (Creswell,

2013). Using this methodology will highlight what is essential to the participants’ experiences.

Husserl, the founder of the phenomenological approach, believed that one could extrapolate the

general nature or “essence” of every day experience by exploring the experiences as phenomena

in a deliberate manner beginning with the observer’s examining their subjectivity and continuing

to review and evaluate the phenomenom separating isolated particulars from that which was

15


common to all of the participant’s experience. The end of the methods section examines this

issue of subjectivity.

Participants

There are six participants in this study. All but one uses Bible storytelling as the primary

tool for training those who are working in oral communities. They were chosen by first

reviewing my personal networks and acquaintances. Eight requests resulted in four individuals

who met the criteria. One interview was with a husband-wife team whom I interviewed together.

This group of four (three interviews) represents a convenience sampling (Miles & Huberman,

1994).

I met Frank while teaching the oral inductive Bible study method called Simply The

Story (STS). Over a period of three workshops, I trained Frank to become an STS workshop

leader. I met Luis and Ashley, the husband-wife team, and Oscar at International Orality

Network conferences. I had read Luis’s book and continue to receive his monthly newsletters. In

the last year I have had occasional email conversations with Oscar.

I contacted the two additional people referred by Frank and Oscar. These two individuals’

collaboration expanded the study to a snowball strategy (Cresswell, 2013). Frank recommended

that I interview Leonard because he has chosen to return to his historical roots and is living and

working in the oral community where he was born. Ellen was recommended by an ION

acquaintance because she worked directly with oral learners for many years in West Africa. She

also trained pastors who worked with oral learners. Ellen, worked directly with women who were

interested in the Christian stories though they were not Christians. She taught a number of

different groups and settings but spoke mainly of the first group she worked with during the

interview.

16


Frank, Luis and Ashley are actively teaching national Christian leaders overseas. Frank

lives in the Latin America country where he trains. Luis and Ashley travel several times a year,

but reside in the United States. These three are about their mid-sixties. Oscar, in his 80’s, has

been retired since 2002 but he continues to teach and train. Ellen, in her 70’s, just completed her

doctor of philosophy studies in the area of orality. These five are all North American Christian

missionaries. Leonard is Guatemalan. He is in his mid40s and is a pastor in the community

where most are oral preference learners. Oscar, Luis and Ashley train evangelists and “church

planters.” To be considered a church plant, the leader will have a group that meets at least

weekly and consists of no fewer than 25 “units” meaning 25 families. They may have a

relationship with another group but they are financially self-sustaining. They may meet in a

home rather than own or rent a building. See Table 2.

Interview Locations and Timeline

I collaborated to scheduled an hour-long interview times with each of the participants

between October 6th and October 18th. About three days before the interviews, I emailed an

updated list of questions and consent forms. Most of the interviewees were done by Skype with

both audio and visual contact. The exceptions were the interviews with Ellen and with the

couple, Frank and Ashley. Ellen’s interview was audio only; Frank and Ashley’s was a

conference call. All five interviews were done in English, but about a third of Leonard’s was

completed in Spanish to facilitate his comfort. The change to Spanish was unexpected, but

because I am bilingual, it did not cause problems. All interviews were audio recorded. Most

lasted about one hour and one extended to an hour and a half. The following questions were sent

in advance of the interview:

17


Interviewee Luis and Ashley Oscar Frank Ellen Leonardo

Principle focus Training Training Training Evangelism Pastoral care

Methodology Bible story Bible story Bible storyBible stories with pre and post questions

Bible and life examples

Who they trained or taught

Church planters Leaders Church planters

Rural church leaders Mayan Bible school

students Church leaders

Women* Mayan community

Range of literacy Mostly literate One nonliterate

Nonliterate Literate Highly literate

Literate Nonliterate* Literate Non-literate

Location India (Mexico)

World wide Central America

(Mayan) West Africa

Central America (Mayan)

Training year focus for this study 2002-2015 1985-2002 2002-2015

1989-1991* (1989-2010)

2000-2015

Table 2. Participants Chart* Trained in a variety of cultures, genders and literacy levels, but spoke primarily of the first group made up of nonliterate women during this interview.

18


1. Would you share how you came to work for several years among an oral culture?

2. How did you observe the people in the oral community training or teaching one another?

3. How did you train or teach the people in the oral community?

4. How did the ways you have been trained or taught in the past affect your initial approaches to doing training with the people in the oral community?

5. How did you experience training, or being taught, by the people in the oral community?6. What advice do you have for others who would come to work with people living in oral

communities?

Roulston (2010) describes the semi-structured interview format as including a number of

open-ended questions that guide the interviewer. These questions can be followed up, at the

interviewer’s discretion when the interviewer feels that they need more information or are

interested in exploring a particular point made by the interviewee in greater depth. I found this

interview process a challenge because sometimes my questions were not answered. The

interviewee either misunderstood the question or wanted to talk about something related but

different. I transcribed all five manuscripts, including the Spanish English interview.

Data Analysis

The first method of analysis that I employed was Attributive Coding in order to log the

essential information about the participants and context (Saldaña, 2009). I then applied Structural

coding by designing codes related to each of the six questions and organizing text responses to

each code and noting possible secondary codes in my logbooks as I went through each

manuscript. As questions and insights arose I would write them in my logbook. Then I applied a

modified form of Focused Coding by pondering the results from previous coding and searching

for commonality. I reviewed the documents several times and refocused the coding each time.

This resulted in two emergent themes. The first was an attitude of receptivity that was

coupled with adaptability. The second was a common frustration with literates who were

19


judgmental about oral learning styles or about oral learners. I contrasted these themes noted in

the Structural cycle of coding (ibid, 2009). I reviewed the manuscripts according to these two

common themes to see if they reflected the essence of the experience and noted, when possible,

the situations during which the individuals reported the experience. I found that both themes

were well represented in all of the interviews.

Reliability and Validity

There are three ways that increase the reliability and validity of this research-applying

multiple coding methods, triangulation, and confirming my findings directly with the

interviewees. The three different methods of coding making a robust and thorough examination

of the material. In addition, I examined previous documents written by the participants and

crosschecked that data with their transcripts. Finding corroborating evidence from different

sources, a form of triangulation, increases validity in qualitative research (Cresswell, 2013) states

that triangulating information Four of the five groups of interviewees had written books or

papers. Frank sent me two unpublished papers about orality and the Mayan art of seeing that

were part of his master’s degree studies. I had read Luis’s published book that explained in depth

the three-year project that he and Ashley did in India. Oscar has written two books about

storying. Many portions confirmed the experiences he shared about training both those working

in oral cultures and also from training nonliterates directly. Ellen just completed a dissertation of

a Delphi study on teaching nonliterate adults in oral cultures and has published frequently on this

topic. These writings along with a diary available on the Internet about her initial experiences in

West Africa confirmed the details she shared in the interview. I do not have published material to

collaborate Leonard’s experiences. Finally, and most importantly, I sent all the participants the

Findings section of the paper. All responded. A few had minor corrections that I applied. In this

20


respect, I believe I have represented their voices well and that they collaborate the perspective of

this research.

Subjectivity

Qualitative studies are frequently criticized for their lack of objectivity. With this in

mind, I will first discuss my history that has grown into a fascination and appreciation for both

oral and literate forms of communication. This is the first step toward objectivity, recognizing

and owning one’s subjectivity and attempting to account for it. This is called bracketing. The

researcher purposefully sets aside their own common sense, rules of interaction and judgment

about the observed phenomena is the first step in the phenomenological process (van Manen,

1990). This process attempts to make sure that the researcher’s preconceptions or theoretical

impositions do not significantly influence the study. The interviewee’s beliefs and perceptions

are considered neither right nor wrong, but valid representations of how the interviewee views

their world.

Of course, the researcher does influence the study by the fact that they choose the

phenomena of interest to study! The impact is minimized by showing genuine, nonjudgmental

interest in what the interviewees share, being an attentive and supportive listener, and by asking

open-ended questions (Roulston, 2010). For example, Clark Moustakas (1994) recommends the

following two questions as a guideline:

1. What have you experienced in terms of the phenomenon?2. What context or situation have typically influenced or affected your experience of the

phenomena?

Truth then emerges not as one objective view but as a composite picture of how people think

about their experience and how they interacted within the situation.

21


My interest in this study stems from my experiences living in Ecuador for 17 years. My

husband’s job was piloting small, single-engine planes into very short, grass and mud airstrips

carved that dotted the east side of the Andes mountains. Positioned on a plateau above the

rapidly descending hills into the Amazon basin, we met the transportation needs primarily of the

five indigenous groups spread sparsely throughout the region. In this area where there were no

roads, your choice was to walk for days or to fly for minutes.

When our family of six arrived, I had high hopes of making Ecuadorian friends and

becoming integrated into the local community where we lived. I was excited about learning a

new culture and in the process learning about myself and about my own culture. A new

language, a new culture and all the busyness of helping my husband and four children to adjust at

home, at school, and at work left little time for that coveted goal of integration. But time spent

with Ecuadorians was usually the highlight of my week.

One of the cultural differences that I noted when we lived in the main town of the jungle

province was how seldom people read or accessed books and how much they relied on oral

forms of communication. In a city of 60,000 inhabitants, there was neither newspaper nor library,

but there were five radio stations. Public events were announced by a loud speakers tied to the

top of trucks. I found the trucks annoying. Unlike a radio station, you couldn’t turn the dial as

they slowly drove very around your street blaring the invitations as loud as possible. I was

surprised by my friend’s response that she wouldn’t consider voting for a candidate if they had

not come through her neighborhood “asking” for her vote! Cross-cultural living was a constant

mix of discomfort and delight, adjusting to a world where the objects are physically the same,

but the interpretation of meanings connected to them could be vastly different. Encountering

these different perspectives, discovering commonly held values, piecing together insights into

22


how my Ecuadorian neighbors viewed life was a 17-year project. It could be frustrating,

exasperating, and funny or leave me feeling foolish. But in the end, I felt that I have been given a

great gift that broadened my perspective and enriched my life.

When we left Ecuador, I was able to pursue master’s degree studies with the goal of

becoming a literacy specialist; I wanted to enable some of those 6,000 language groups that had

no written vernacular to enjoy the wealth of information and liberty that I experienced through

the power of mastering reading and accessing the Bible for themselves. Wish this goal in mind, I

earned a Masters degree in Applied Linguistics from Biola University. Unfortunately, those three

years of study opened my eyes to see that while literacy in the national language, the trade

language or government language does open doors of opportunity, mother-tongue literacy is a

completely different situation. As Sarah Gudschinsky (1982) once commented wryly about the

topic, “If the whole world was a bathtub, would you learn to swim?” Mother tongue literacy may

gain access to just one translated book, the Bible!

In the midst of the disillusionment with mother-tongue literacy, I learned about the

beauty and rich communication styles embedded in communities made up of oral learners. The

information about how other cultures manage with minimal literacy continues to intrigue me.

This led to a curiosity about how others experienced teaching and training cross-culturally,

especially when the mix involves the additional challenge of working with those who can’t, or

don’t like to learn through a primary channel by which we highly educated adults have been

taught – the written word.

I went on to use my training to become a trainer of an oral inductive study method called

Simply The Story (STS). I trained church leaders around the world for five years. The value of

STS was the fact that it was the one storying method that could open the eyes of the gatekeepers,

23


who are all highly literate, to experience the power of story. Most workshops were a mix of

highly literates and low literates, sometimes nonliterates. The STS method required discussion to

involve only the story being discussed. This meant the highly literates could not bring in to the

discussion their exclusive knowledge gained from outside studies. Inevitably, the highly literates

would be surprised, sometimes astounded, by the wisdom that nonliterates would find in the

story. The low literates would be surprised also! The method enabled me to gain a voice for oral

strategies as an important part of training Christian leaders. Since that time, I have expanded to

embrace many other storytelling methods.

I continue to appreciate both literate and oral communication styles. I have much to learn

concerning the social, political and economic aspects relevant to literacy and education in our

societies. Reviewing this history and these viewpoints helps me to objectify my views and

bracket them as I examine the experiences of these highly literate interviewees as their live have

been impacted by working with oral learner communities or ten or more years.

Part of the difficulty of understanding the dynamics of what is occurring when multiple

cultures are interacting is the tendency to either romanticize what is different or, move in the

opposite direction of criticizing or judging what is different. I hope that being aware of these

tendencies will enable me to approach the interviews with a more object perspective and that

reviewing the material frequently and from a variety of perspectives through the coding process

that I will be able to experience clearly the essence of what is commonly experienced with this

phenomenon.

Findings

This section begins with a description about each of the interviewee’s experience

teaching Christian leaders who were working extensively with oral communities. Next, the

24


analysis section describes how the phenomenological “essence,” or common experience of these

participants this was derived and where it confirms or disconfirms the findings in the literature

review. Then the paper ends with some ideas for application and implications for further

research.

Luis and Ashley

Luis worked as a church planter among oral communicators in Mexico for 25 years.

During this time he was unaware of the concept of oral learners. After Mexico, he met and

married Ashley while furthering his studies in the United States. They interspersed their studies

with training the mid-level church planting leaders in India. While the pastors were positive and

receptive, Luis and Ashley were frustrated that they did not see any significant change or

application of the principles taught taking place after the training events. The pastors they were

training were literates with a range of 7-16 years of education. However, they were planting

churches in communities with illiteracy rates as high as 90%.

After learning about the characteristics of oral learners, Luis and Ashley decided to

implement a radically different methodology using exclusively, Bible storytelling. They learned

three or more stories every day of the five-day session. They could use song or drama to aid the

memory work and usually mastered the stories in their native language. In the evening they could

share things learned from the stories. Each week culminated with a grand celebration of in

multiple languages.

The initial reaction of many of the pastors toward this new methodology was very

negative. But after they practiced it with their churches and in evangelism endeavors, the

response was so dramatically positive that they all were excited to return to the second training.

One nonliterate pastor’s wife who had never felt she could work with her husband could now

25


minister alongside simply by sharing a Bible story relevant to the need. Just as important, Luis

stated, "The theme that we found among our storytellers that they would say is, ‘the person that's

most affected by the stories is not the person that is hearing the stories but the one who's learning

and telling the stories.’”

A complete training series included six 40-hour sessions, learning 110 stories ranging

from 200 to about 1,000 words in length. Each story was assigned a mnemonic symbol or

picture. By the end of the course, the pastors had learned to arrange the 40 Old Testament

symbols in chronological order and they were also required to train at least one other storyteller

to also tell all of the stories.

Luis and Ashley did not directly observe how the pastors did training or teaching in the

community; their responses were from the reports given in the feedback sessions. In this country,

the presence of a foreigner outside the city could negatively impact the church planters’

activities.

Ellen

Ellen and her husband were missionaries in West Africa in the late 1980’s when they

were asked to do a pilot project using Chronological Bible Storytelling. They prepared by

reading some books written by those who had developed the methodology. They worked in a

village where they had been invited by the chief to share with his people and visited one

afternoon each week.

Ellen trained by repeating the Bible story multiple times with a group of women. After

tending their children and chores, one by one, they would slowly gather around her to listen to

the Bible stories. Ellen would tell the entire story. Later they would learn it in parts of the story,

repeating it over and over until it was fixed in memory. Many times, women who had not been at

26


the story session would come the following week and also tell the story the exact same way.

Stories from the previous week would be reviewed. Ellen used about up to 20 pre story questions

and as many post story questions to check to see if the women understood the story. She

memorized the story in the local language but also relied on written notes during some of her

sharing. This method was slow and the first series took almost two years because the work was

disrupted by many interruptions including a famine. Ellen said that they settled on a 55 story set

for the West Africa region. Most groups finished in about six months; one completed the course

in six weeks.

Frank

Frank was first a missionary pilot and began to work full time training national pastors in

rural Bible schools in 2002. He and his wife, Yolanda, would spend two weeks living with the

students in a rural community. Frank appreciated the extra time that they had “doing life with

them.”

Frank read about Chronological Bible Storying, but it was in 2008 that he became

convinced to use more oral-learner centered teaching after attending a Simply The Story (STS)

workshop. This is his principle teaching approach three times a year with students in the local

Mayan Bible School. He also taught others through STS workshops. Frank demonstrates the STS

method two times, and then the students practice it in small groups. First they memorize a Bible

story and then lead an oral-inductive study of the passage; the Mayan dialects are encouraged.

Frank knows with certainty that five people continue to actively use STS in ministry. But the

process of looking intently at the Bible story and asking questions with the expectation of

hearing the Holy Spirit speak through the individuals in the group has caused Frank to become

27


appreciative of the unique perspective of the Mayan cultures. He stated, "They can bring out the

theology of the Scripture in areas that I would completely miss."

Oscar

Oscar’s was a media specialist for a mission organization. He became aware of the

Chronological Bible Teaching method when it was being developed in the Philippines. He

described his first workshop attempt working with illiterate tribal pastors near India as “terrible!”

In preaching, one can expound about the story. In Bible storying, one must know the story by

memory and tell it accurately without written cues. Also, discussion involves only the story, no

other Bible portions (except ones previously presented to the entire group). During tea and

breaks, he would quickly review and rehearse as much as possible and then present inside the

dark hut where they were meeting. He had to know the accurate Bible story well enough to help

the nonliterate pastors practice and retell the story. Only two attendees continued with the

method. After this experience, Oscar quickly began learning Bible stories, linking Bible stories

together to form a metanarrative, and adjusting story selection and length according to the

situation. Oscar trained in countries throughout Asia, Africa, and the Americas and even in the

United States.

The first training workshops were five days. He would tell the Bible story many times

and then they would talk about the story “until the people were ready to move on” to a new story.

Oscar started by using the Chronological Bible Teaching method. But he commented, "One of

the first lessons that I learned was that it was the stories that people remembered; it was the

stories that attracted people.” He changed the name to Chronological Bible Storying, dropped the

teaching aspect and moved to using simple, open-ended questions after the storytelling or

waiting for the people to initiate questions when they were ready. Repetition was important.

28


“When they know the story, they enjoy it better. And the more they hear it better they enjoy it.”

He learned patience as he retold the stories over and over again.

Oscar became attuned to the importance of learning from his translators and the national

storytellers. As he trained in a wide variety of people groups across the world he was continually

discovering what worked changed depending on the culture. This included which stories were

best to tell, where stories were told, how they were told, and how discussion was facilitated. For

example, in one culture, sacred stories are shared in a particular house, and in another the

location may be under a certain tree. In Africa, putting the story to song frequently both

cemented it to memory and enabled it to travel far and wide. In the Philippines, the people loved

discussing the stories. In contrast, among one Native American group, speaking after a sacred

story was offensive. In India, dramatizations of the stories of Jesus drew avid audiences made up

of both Christians and those who were actively anti-Christian. They thoroughly enjoyed the

entertainment even when they didn’t agree with prior approaches by the evangelists.

Leonard

Leonard is a Mayan Bible translator who grew up in a community composed of Latinos,

expatriates and Mayans. When he was a child he was teased about his heritage and for a while

embarrassed by his mother who wore traditional dress and could not read. As he grew he

developed a deep appreciation for the fact that his mother had a keen memory. He discovered

that many oral learners could remember stories in great detail and refer back to them in great

detail even though they had been shared years earlier.

Leonard returned to the community of his parents as an adult. At that time, he could not

speak his people's language very well. He shares this conversation that he had when he returned:

29


Although it is still difficult to communicate they helped me a lot. They said, “Praise God, you know how to read and write. You know how to read the Bible and you can tell us what the Bible says.” Then I said to them, “I can teach you, but you need to teach me also. We need to learn together. I need to learn from you and you from me.” So I believe this is all part of the exchange; it is the ability to be able to situate yourself and have an open-heart to speak with people, with elders, with youth, without regarding their age. Everybody has something to say and you have to listen with an open heart.”

To teach, Leonard uses agrarian examples to demonstrate spiritual truths. He says, "I'm

using mainly the technique of seeing, doing, and talking based on what the people are doing in

their daily life. There are many passages in the Bible that are useful for this.”

Leonard also teaches in a manner that respects the people’s ability to understand the

Bible for them, even though they do not read! As an example, he told about his experience with

a Mayan Christian who requested that Leonard remove the family idols from his home. This

Christian feared being cursed if he did it himself. Rather than comply as the authoritative pastor,

Leonard visited the brother many times and together they looked at what the Psalms and other

Bible stories said about God and about idols. This took several months. Then Leonard told the

brother that it was the brother’s decision to make. About six months later, Leonard met this same

brother. The man had removed the idols from the house himself because he no longer feared

their power. Leonard comments, “This was a lesson for me that even though these people may

not have a quick aptitude to respond, they can analyze and they can process information. It may

be six months or year, but they will come to a conclusion about what they should do. This man

became convinced by everything that he heard, by everything he asked, regarding what the

Scriptures said about idols.”

Leonard had some unique experiences being trained by in the manner of an oral

community when he visited his grandmother as a child. Here is his account of how his Mayan

group used to train their children.

30


Before, the father sat in the kitchen and there were three stones; this was the center for eating, for teaching, and for discipline. These three things would take place here. The father spoke to the mother; the mother spoke to the father; and the children would be listening. The children never said one word. When the father stopped talking, then the mother would talk. When they were finished the fathers would ask the children, "How was your day?" And the children would respond. If the mother had a complaint, then the son would be reprimanded by the father for the attitude that he had. This all took place around the three stones. This was a time of instruction, of learning, and of remembering for the children. There was one time in the morning, and one in the middle of the day, and another in the late afternoon. So the children grew up with this ability to learn from listening, and to learn from their parents. This is how they communicated and transmitted their culture to their children.

Analysis and Conclusions

The Connotation of Training

One of the most surprising findings was that only Leonard responded to the second

question, “How did you observe the people in the oral community training or teaching one

another?” This was partly due to the fact that many visited the community to train and did not

live among the people. Also, sometimes their presence in the oral community could negatively

impact the work of the national leaders they were training. However, Frank and Yolanda had

spent multiple two-week intervals living in the rural communities where they had taught. During

that time, they had a lot of free time to observe.

Upon reflection, I realized that the term “training” which was used in five of the six

questions, has a connotation that could make the question difficult to answer in the oral

community context. As literates, we experience training as an event. It is a workshop, a class, or

a course during which we are learning a specific skill for a specific purpose. It is often formal. It

has a beginning and end, and is usually done by an acknowledged expert. In contrast, we may

also learn from a book, but we will not likely call that learning “training.” Training then carries

this formal connotation. The oral learner learns most frequently in informal settings. The

daughter learns to cook by helping her mother day by day as she is making the meals. The son

31


learns carpentry from his father over a number of years. The task or ability is not seen in

isolation from a multitude of other things that each is learning, it is simply “doing life.” So a

literate may be observing “training” but it may not be seen as training because it is taking place

in an informal setting, with a non-specific beginning and end and by ordinary people who may or

may not be recognized as experts.

This formal connotation of training may also have affected how the participants answered

the question, “How did you experience training or being trained by the people in the oral

community?” While I had expected some insight about the their response to the training which

might include self reflection, the interviewees focused on what was learned. Once again, the

learning was often indirect. Oscar learned to recognize odd responses, such as laughter when he

had not done anything he meant to be humorous. Then he would ask what he had done wrong.

Ellen stated, “As I started working, the people themselves taught me – it was trial and error – the

people taught me how best to teach them.”

Common Themes

There were two common themes that arose from these participants’ experiences The first

was an attitude of receptivity that was evidenced by the participants response of adapting to the

oral community’s communication preferences. The second was frustration with literate prejudice

toward oral learners.

Receptivity and Adaptability

The essence of experiencing training with and among those working in an oral learner

community was to be continually receptive to learning from the people they were training and to

respond by adapting what they were doing to communicate more effectively. Constructing

meaning through social encounters affirms the social constructivist framework (Flick, 2004).

32


Most learning came from observing and only occasionally from being told directly what

they had done wrong. Luis and Ashley starting each training day with an hour of feedback from

the leaders about their field experiences over the previous months between trainings. These were

carefully recorded, transcribed and taken into account as they kept adjusting their training. They

confirmed Ong’s insight that learning frequently verbal and takes place in an atmosphere of

celebration or play. As a result, the training sessions that started with approximately 10%

celebration, Luis reported that presently it's closer to 50% of the training schedule. The elements

of song and drama that were originally used just as an aid to learn the stories, in some

circumstances became the principal form of communication.

Luis, in an email communication, corrected my first impression that they had learned the

importance of celebration through the process of many years of workshops. He stated that they

had understood Ong’s principle from the beginning because they had studied Ong’s

characteristics of oral culture. But I noted that was at least10 years after feedback from his

leaders, before the workshop changed to fully 50% celebration. This demonstrates that changes

in priorities and perspectives take time. It takes more than an intellectual acquiescence to the

principle. Change occurs in the framework of social interaction of the individuals involved.

Oscar learned that the leaders needed to decide which stories to present. He relates,

In the beginning, I had chosen stories according to my Christian worldview. I found after going through 60 to 80 stories in these training sessions that when these people went out among their own people to retell the stories, many of the stories were never told again because they simply did not resonate with the people.

He was always appreciative when his translators corrected him. Sometimes, elements of the

training had been copied without understanding, such as Oscar’s habit of holding a Bible when

telling a story. This was unnecessary when the storyteller was not a reader and looked ridiculous

if the leader was holding the Bible upside-down. The people taught him to be patient to repeat

33


the stories many, many times and the importance of review. This confirms some of the oral

learner characteristics (Ong, 1984; Thompson 2015). He learned when to discuss or not discuss,

who should answer the first questions, who should be present at a story session and where to

present a story and how. For every culture, there are many things to be mutually communicated

for better understanding when different cultures interact.

Frank highly valued being in relationship with the leaders he was training. He showed

this by spending time “doing life with them” and by being a receptive listener. Understanding

their perspective was more important than imposing his own. He stated,

I listen and I learn. I don't have a preconceived slot that I'm trying to put things in. This has just really brought me into relationship with other people on equal level even though they tend to put me on a higher level. This makes it possible for me to relate in an area that they know way more about. They're telling me, and I just keep restating things, to see if I understand what they're saying.

Unfortunately, Frank’s openness to the Mayan Christian’s voice has not yet uncovered the reason

why so few students are actively using the oral inductive Bible storytelling method in ministry

(they may well be applying it in personal study). But Frank continues adapting ways to teach the

method in a weekly small group setting in order to make training reproducible without the

complexities of a three- or five-day workshop. In addition, it is the regular interaction and

reflection that Frank finds satisfying as he continues to make meaning in a social context. This is

another evidence of social constructivism.

Ellen learned to be adaptable in her use of time and to make a priority of spending more

time building relationships. When she first arrived in West Africa she was very frustrated that the

people would not show up for lessons on time. As she gradually became adjusted to the oral

community’s ways of learning, she began to see how different oral and literate cultures are in

how they teach and train. She noted that as literates we arrange training around the expert’s

34


availability. In contrast, she learned to become available whenever the people stopped by for a

story. If they wanted her to come visit at a particular time, then she adjusted her schedule. She

also shares about regular storytelling sessions:

I learned that when I had a storying group that it was pretty much an all day experience. I was not stressed about it because that is what I was used to. I learned how to be relational. I learned how to spend time with the people, but it was never really comfortable for me.

I appreciated Ellen’s candor about how difficult it can be to make these cross-cultural

adjustments. Being receptive, relearning and adapting to new expectations about how things are

to be done in another culture can be difficult and exhausting. Ellen learned of the importance of

relationships. She comments,

So it isn't so much how we do it (Bible storytelling), it's that were willing to be vulnerable; we’re willing to be accessible; we’re willing to be in relationship and there is mutual respect there.

Relationships that are built on mutual respect and vulnerability also require a receptive attitude

and a willingness to adapt to the situation.

These changes did not take place in the first year of living overseas. Ellen adapted

gradually after multiple encounters. This supports the social constructivist principal that meaning

is negotiated through the different individual interactions and confirms what Jandt (2004) and

Dodson (1998) said about cultural changes taking place through those interactions.

Leonard’s advice to those working with oral communities also reflects this importance of

being receptive.

The first thing is to have a listening ear to hear. The second is to never criticize unless you have a reason to do so. All cultures have different points of view about different things, so we should not criticize on the first instance. We need to wait to understand for their motive for what they doing and then later we can talk about these differences. We should not do this from the first moment. First, we need to listen to how to hear. Second, we must not have a critical spirit. And third, we have to learn to ask the right questions.

35


Why are you doing this? How are you doing it? Why are you doing it? (by asking) trying to learn yourself. Then after this phase, I believe that one can began to think, how are these people thinking and how do I think? And, what is the message that Jesus Christ wants to say in this season these listeners.

Leonard had been through several years of seminary training and commented that there was very

little that he had learned there that was helpful in his ministry with his people. In contrast, as he

began living with them, he adapted by listening, by learning about their daily life, their beliefs,

and their customs. Later he used these experiences as the basis for his teaching.

Once again, we see the social constructivist process of learning through social interaction

had a greater usefulness in Leonard’s pastoral role than the literate, academic approach of three

years spent in the seminary environment.

All of these participants recognized that those they taught and trained were the cultural

experts in their local context. Training was a partnership and they were all co-learners. Their

receptivity and willingness to adapt demonstrated the importance of respecting adult learners

(Knowles, Holton & Swanson, 2012; Vella, 1995).

Judgments about Nonliterates or Nonliterate Learning Styles

The third commonality with the participants was experiencing frustration with the

negative attitudes of literates toward nonliterates. They encountered this in a variety of ways.

Ellen has observed that literates often have misconceptions about nonliterates when they

begin working with them.

So we tend to think of those who are not literate as children who are incapable of making decisions - incapable of deciding for themselves. They don't have access to the same information that we do, so it is very easy to set ourselves up as superior, thinking that we should make decisions for them and that we know what's best for them. Sometimes we, with our development organizations or aid organizations or even religious organizations, go in and we use literacy to our advantage as a power thing. We often treat the people as if they are children, as if we know best and they don't.

36


People who have wisdom about living where Leonard pastors have also been erroneously

judged because they do not read. He says, “(My people) have a lot of knowledge and wisdom

about our natural environment. They are very smart, yet some say we are stupid, because their

error is to not know how to read or write.” He admonishes those who want to work with oral

communities to come with humility and sincerity. His shares a common experience, “The

problem is that many people come with a an attitude of pretentiousness. …as someone who

wants to command and who wants to have things as they like it.”

Frank appreciates being able to see the biblical theology through the unique perspective

of his Mayan brothers. He ponders whether the source of some problems that the church faces

today are due to ignoring the Mayan Christian voice in interpreting the Bible in respect to their

cultural reality. He comments on the attitude that many expatriate missionaries have had. He

describes this as them saying, “We will bring you the message from our perspective, and you

learn to look at things from our perspective in order to understand the message.” This attitude,

the missionary’s lack of receptivity to the Mayan Christian perspective, grieves him. Frank asks,

“How do we unlearn that methodology in the traditional church? That's a challenge that we

face.”

Oscar and Ellen both give examples of many literate missionaries who could not adjust to

several elements essential to successful Bible storytelling. Some of these were the constant

repetition of the same story, the ability to allow for discovery learning rather than teaching or

preaching, and the importance of being relational with requires a much greater time investment.

Ellen says,

Literates are impatient about sharing the same story multiple times, but they forget that they had probably heard the gospel message many times multiplied before they came to a decision of faith. (Lines 129-148)

37


Oscar states that some of the greatest resistance about Bible storying comes from Bible

seminaries. It is interesting to note that when he is teaching Bible storying to seminary students

in the United States, he contextualizes it to the seminary students with a third option regarding

what post story questions should be used. The first option is to wait for questions from the

listeners. The second set is five simple, open-ended questions: What do you like about the story?

What do you learn about people from the story? What do you learn about God? What will you do

differently because you heard this story? Who will you share the story with? The last set of

questions can be extensive. The storyteller asks questions that will lead people to theological

insights that the storyteller sees in the story. Of course, Oscar is aware that this last set of

questions will not work in oral communities. On the other hand, he wisely understands that the

seminary student may not be open to the story method without this “compromise” between their

highly literate approach to learning and the oral learner’s approach!

Luis and Ashley faced considerable resistance within the organization they served. The

field results of planting churches and multiplying leaders who could train others through

storytelling exceeded all expectations. But key people in leadership criticized the program. Once

the head of the agency chastised some of their attendees because they had not brought Bibles to

the training sessions. The comment was made in ignorance; the man had no idea that the women

in the training that he had addressed could not read!

Luis and Ashley’s program shared working space with the organization’s Bible college.

Luis lamented,

They (the college) did not want to have much of anything to do with us, because they're bringing these village people in, cleaning them up, putting nice shirts and pants on them, and getting them to think in a Western way. It’s a status thing. All the people, including the teachers and the principal, are doing that because they like it and because that's the way they like to learn. So they feel threatened. We actually tried to get them to give us a one-year credit of class credit for our two-year course, but they were not even willing to

38


consider it, even though our Bible storytellers who finished our program knew far more Bible than their graduates.

Now, a decade later, Luis reports that the program is finally gaining wider acceptance within the

organization.

The change from a highly literate orientation to one that embraces oral communicators

learning preferences does not happen overnight. I feel that Luis sums this up the best when he

admits,

It's been a total paradigm shift for us. We just don't, we don't do anything we did before. I don't do any preaching, I don't do any teaching unless it's narrative, and that's what we're about now. … and that was a big shift for me, because I hadn't intended that. I was only going to teach people who were reaching oral communicators how to tell stories, I wasn't planning on being a storyteller myself.

These participants all found themselves changed through these interactions. Their

common experience was a receptivity and adaptability that enabled them to work well with the

leaders who were oral communicators or who were working in communities of oral

communicators. The frequent prejudice and lack of exposure to oral communicator culture was a

source of frustration due to common misunderstandings that literates have about oral learners or

how oral communities prefer to learn. Their receptiveness, adaptability and insights about

training those who work in oral communities can highlight for other literates an appreciation of

oral communities and their unique ways of learning.

Conclusions and Future Implications

This phenomenological study indicates that the highly literate trainers were impacted by

extensive interactions with oral learners directly and also with training leaders who were

regularly working with oral communities. These findings are limited to a group of Christians,

most who were actively using Bible storytelling as a primary communication tool. But the

information about their receptivity and adaptability will benefit literates who need to train and or

39


work among oral communities. A variety of challenges surfaced. Both literates and oral

communicators negotiated and constructed new meaning as their worlds and experiences

intersected. As Leonard stated, both have important information to contribute and an attitude of

humility and sincerity will enable better communication to take place. The potential for

miscommunication is always present when communicating across cultures. The information in

this study enables highly literates who will be working in similar contexts to be aware of the

importance of becoming a co-learner who is receptive and adaptive in the midst of training

others. This will enable them to more effective and better communicators about oral learners to

those literates that misunderstand the differences in ways oral learners learn.

This study has significant implications for Christian training institutions especially in

light of the startling statistic that up to 80% of adults are oral learners. Are these institutions

willing to become receptive and adaptive to the way that 80% of the world prefers to learn? How

could training institutions bring equal balance to both literate and oral learner approaches to

training? What is the price being paid by this tradition of limiting access to leadership training to

those who can master higher literacy skills? Does literate style training perpetuate a specialized

priesthood? Does it create unnecessary dependency in oral learners on the Bible school graduate?

If the pastors and leaders are tasked to “equip the saints for ministry,” shouldn’t these institutions

also included standard training in the ways that oral learners learn? Is it sufficient focus on

learning about the Bible while ignoring whether the students’ lives are being changed by the

biblical knowledge? What would that shift of emphasis look like in our seminaries?

Further research in effective communication and learning in oral communities could be

very useful toward improving the communication gap between literates and oral communities. It

would be helpful to study other non-religious groups who are working among oral communities

40


such as those focused on community development and health issues.

There is also very little written from the oral learner perspective. Modern technology makes it

much easier to produce and disseminate audio and video with minimal interface through print.

How can we get greater representation of the oral community’s voice and perspective? How can

we dispel the pejorative attitude of highly literates regarding oral learners and oral learner

communities?

41


APPENDIX A

42

LITERATES ARE IMPACTED BY TRAINING IN ORAL COMMUNITIES 43


References

Akinnaso, F. N. (1981). The Consequences of Literacy in Pragmatic and Theoretical Perspectives. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 12(3), 163–200.

Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S. J. (1975). Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Box, H. (1992). Communicating Christianity to oral, event-oriented people. (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest UMI dissertations publishing. (9306250).

Brand, S. (2001). Mediating means and fate: A socio-political analysis of fertility and demographic change in Bamako, Mali. Boston, MA: Brill.

Bruner, J. (1973). Going Beyond Information Given. New York: Norton.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Studies (3rd ed.). Los Angeles.

Dodson, C. H. (1998). Dynamics of Intercultural Communication (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Finnegan, R. (1992). Oral poetry. In R. Bauman (Ed.), Folklore, cultural performances, and popular entertainments (pp. 119–127). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Goody, J. (1992). Oral culture. In R. Bauman (Ed.), Folklore, cultural performances, and popular entertainments (pp. 12–20). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Gudschinsky, S. (1982). Literacy: The Growing Influence of Linguistics. In W. Winter. (Ed.), Trends in Linguistics: Sate-of-the-Art Report 2. Mouton: Berlin

Hitzler, R., & Eberle, T. S. (2004). Phenomenological Life-World Analysis. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A Companion to Qualitative Research (pp. 67–71). London: Sage.

Ihde, D. (1977). Experimental Phenomenology. New York: Paragon Books.

Jandt, F. E. (2004). An introduction to intercultural communication: Identities in a global community (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Koehler, P. F. (2010). Telling God’s Word with Power. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.

Knowles, M., Holton, E., & Swanson, R. (2012). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (7th ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

44


Lewis, M. P., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (2015). Ethnologue: Languages of the World, (18th ed.). Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Also, http://www.ethnologue.com

Lovejoy, G. (2008). The Extent of Orality 1. The Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry, 5(2), 121–133.

Lovejoy, G. (2012). The extent of orality: 2012 update. Orality Journal, 1(1), 11–49.

Luria, A.R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Merriam, S. B. (2007). Broadening our understanding of learning and knowing. In S. B. Merriam & & Associates (Eds.), Non-western perspectives on learning and knowing (pp. 173–188). Mlabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Co.

Mieder, W. (2014). Behold the proverbs of a people: Proverbial wisdom in culture, literature, and politics. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ntseane, G. (2007). African indigenous knowledge: The case of Botswana. In S. B. Meriam & Associates (Eds.), Non-western perspectives on learning and knowing (pp. 113–135). Malabar, FL: Krieger.

Ong, W. J. (1967). The Presence of the Word. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New York, NY: Routledge.

Roulston, K. (2010). Asking questions and individual interviews. In Reflective interviewing: A guide to theory and practice (pp. 9–32). Sage Publications.

Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Steffen, T. A. (2005). Reconnecting Gods Story. Waynesboro, GA: Authentic Media.

___ T4Global. https://t4global.org/about-us/oral-culture-people/

Thompson, L. W. (2013). Individualistic teacher, collectivisitc student. Published proceedings of paper presented at the Commission for International Adult Education (CIAE) International Pre Conference to the 62nd American Association for Adult and Continuing Education (AAACE) Annual Conference, convened in Lexington, Kentucky. Available from ERIC database, ED 547262.

45

https://t4global.org/about-us/oral-culture-people/

http://www.ethnologue.com/


Thompson, L. W. (2014). Teaching nonliterate adults: Insights from Illeris’s learning theory. Published proceedings of paper presented at the Commission for International Adult Education (CIAE) International Pre-Conference to the 62nd American Association for Adult and Continuing Education (AAACE) Annual Conference, convened in Charleston, South Carolina. Will be available from ERIC database.

Thompson, L. W. (2015). Perceptions of teaching nonliterate adults in oral cultures: A modified Delphi study. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Baylor Univsersity.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (UNESCO). (2005b). Literacy for all; Education for life. EFA global monitoring report 2006. Paris, France.UNESCO. Available from http://www.uis.unesco.org/library/Documents/gmr06-en.pdf

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (UNESCO). (2013). Second global report on adult learning and education: Rethinking literacy. Hamburg, Germany: UNESCO UIL Available from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002224/222407E.pdf

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (UNESCO).(2014), Teaching and learning; Achieving quality for all. Education for all 2013/4 report. Paris, France. Available from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-internatinal-agenda/efareport/reports/2013/

Vella, J. (1995). Training through dialogue. San Francisco; Jossey-Bass.

van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience. New York: State University of New York Press.

___ Wikipedia.Available from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_planting

Willis, A. (convener), & Evans, A. S. (convener). (2005). Making disciples of oral learners. Lima, NY: International Orality Network & Elim Publishing.

46

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_planting

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-internatinal-agenda/efareport/reports/2013/

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-internatinal-agenda/efareport/reports/2013/

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002224/222407E.pdf

http://www.uis.unesco.org/library/Documents/gmr06-en.pdf

http://www.uis.unesco.org/library/Documents/gmr06-en.pdf