illiteracy problems and solutions essay

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

A Review about Functional Illiteracy: Definition, Cognitive, Linguistic, and Numerical Aspects

Réka vágvölgyi.

1 LEAD Graduate School & Research Network, University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany

Andra Coldea

2 School of Psychology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland

Thomas Dresler

3 Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany

Josef Schrader

4 German Institute for Adult Education – Leibniz Centre for Lifelong Learning, Bonn, Germany

Hans-Christoph Nuerk

5 Department of Psychology, University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany

6 Knowledge Media Research Center – Leibniz Institut für Wissensmedien, Tuebingen, Germany

Associated Data

Formally, availability of education for children has increased around the world over the last decades. However, despite having a successful formal education career, adults can become functional illiterates. Functional illiteracy means that a person cannot use reading, writing, and calculation skills for his/her own and the community’s development. Functional illiteracy has considerable negative effects not only on personal development, but also in economic and social terms. Although functional illiteracy has been highly publicized in mass media in the recent years, there is limited scientific knowledge about the people termed functional illiterates; definition, assessment, and differential diagnoses with respect to related numerical and linguistic impairments are rarely studied and controversial. The first goal of our review is to give a comprehensive overview of the research on functional illiteracy by describing gaps in knowledge within the field and to outline and address the basic questions concerning who can be considered as functional illiterates: (1) Do they possess basic skills? (2) In which abilities do they have the largest deficits? (3) Are numerical and linguistic deficits related? (4) What is the fundamental reason for their difficulties? (5) Are there main differences between functional illiterates, illiterates, and dyslexics? We will see that despite partial evidence, there is still much research needed to answer these questions. Secondly, we emphasize the timeliness for a new and more precise definition that results in uniform sampling, better diagnosis, conclusion, and intervention. We propose the following working definition as the result of the review: functional illiteracy is the incapability to understand complex texts despite adequate schooling, age, language skills, elementary reading skills, and IQ. These inabilities must also not be fully explained by sensory, domain-general cognitive, neurological or mental disorders. In sum, we suggest that functional illiteracy must be more thoroughly understood and assessed from a theoretical, empirical, and diagnostic perspective.

On the Importance of Literacy

About literacy.

According to the recent literacy rate, 85% of the adult population in the world is literate, and therefore worldwide about 757 million people are illiterate ( UNESCO, 2015 ). Large-scale assessments measuring literacy skills indicate that in developing countries, illiteracy is more prevalent, while in developed countries, functional illiteracy is more prevalent ( Bhola, 1995 , p. 18). According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), literacy is defined as follows:

“ Literacy is defined as the ability to understand, evaluate, use, and engage with written texts to participate in society, achieve one’s goals, and develop one’s knowledge and potential ( OECD, 2013 , p. 59).” More detailed, find other institutions, e.g., UNESCO.

Literacy and basic knowledge cannot be clearly separated from each other. Even though the term “literacy” is a part of basic knowledge, it is a precondition as well as an outcome of basic knowledge. Literacy may refer to the ability to read and write, but also to application-oriented basic knowledge that develops during the whole lifetime, not only during school years ( Nickel, 2007 ).

Formal literacy has increased over the last decades. For instance, while in sub-Saharan Africa there are still 29.8 million children who do not have access to education, this number represents a one-quarter decrease from 2000. In contrast, in Europe “only” 0.7 million of children had never attended school in 2011 ( UNESCO, 2013 ). However, despite improvements in formal literacy, many people still have problems understanding formal texts. On the one hand, this is a problem because in today’s society, functioning literacy plays a significant role. It appears in every aspect of daily life, e.g., opening bank accounts, reading ingredients of food products, understanding medication or technical instructions, signing contracts, etc. ( Cree et al., 2012 ). On the other hand, this leads to fewer educational and employment opportunities and hinders living a successful life.

Possessing literacy has many benefits for individuals, families, communities, and nations. The improvement in literacy levels has beneficial effects on individual (e.g., self-esteem), political (e.g., democratic values), cultural (e.g., cultural openness), social (e.g., children’s health), and economic (e.g., individual income) levels ( UNESCO, 2006 ). On the other hand, functioning in a society without literacy becomes more difficult: those who cannot acquire basic literacy skills have fewer opportunities in every area of life ( Cree et al., 2012 ).

About (Functional) Illiteracy

So far, we have talked about literacy. However, many people do not achieve literacy because of inadequate schooling or even despite adequate schooling. On 1949, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) set the generalized functionality of literacy. The acquisition of reading and writing was regarded as basic rights: people should be enabled to become functionally literate in their own culture ( Bhola, 1995 ). A need for a standard and a workable definition materialized to differentiate between literates and non-literates (illiterates) and also to distinguish various levels in between. The result of the demand was realized at the General Conference of the UNESCO in 1978:

“A person is literate who can with understanding both read and write a short simple statement on his everyday life. A person is illiterate who cannot with understanding both read and write a short simple statement on his everyday life. A person is functionally literate who can engage in all those activities in which literacy is required for effective functioning of his group and community and also for enabling him to continue to use reading, writing, and calculation for his own and the community’s development. A person is functionally illiterate who cannot engage in all those activities in which literacy is required for effective functioning of his group and community and also for enabling him to continue to use reading, writing, and calculation for his own and the community’s development ( UNESCO, 1978 , p.183).”

The difference between literate and illiterate people is explicit here: illiterates had never attended school and are unable to read or write even single words while literates can ( Reis and Castro-Caldas, 1997 ).

In contrast with literacy and illiteracy, the difference between functional illiteracy, literacy and illiteracy is not obvious enough. Functionality, which is the essence of the difference between these terms, was never operationally defined. Recently, the number of functional illiterates in Europe was estimated to be about 80 million, their proportion is lowest in Sweden with 8% and highest in Portugal with 40% (e.g., in Eme, 2011 ; Grotlüschen and Riekmann, 2011a ). However, the frequently referred original International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS) report does not imply functional illiteracy ( OECD and Statistics Canada, 2000 ). Different definitions and different diagnostic assessment standards can lead to fundamentally different epidemiological estimations, so any estimations of functional illiteracy rates may be unreliable.

Diagnostics of Functional Illiteracy: Different Approaches

As there is no explicit assessment for functional illiteracy, researchers had to find other techniques to assess the number of functional illiterates or to identify functional illiterates for experimental studies.

The UNESCO, the OECD and the IEA (International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement) measure literacy and other key knowledge skills of children, young adults, and adults a large-scale, international assessment about strengths and weaknesses in different countries. Research such as the IALS and the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey (ALL) build on each other ( Thorn, 2009 ; UNESCO, 2009 ). These kinds of international tests generally measure literacy and numeracy skills in various ways, including mapping the whole literacy spectrum and grouping the performance and the abilities into discrete levels. The international, supranational and national political actors are first interested in large-scale assessments, not in individual diagnostics. Against this background, it is understandable (but nevertheless at least unfortunate) that the diagnostic materials lack test criteria (reliability, construct validity, criterion validity), which are demanded in standard individual diagnostic tests.

The IALS, the ALL, and the PIAAC (Survey of Adult Skills) all contain prose and document literacy tasks that purport to understand and use information from different text formats. The quantitative literacy and numeracy tasks measure arithmetic abilities in all three assessments, but problem solving tasks are only included in the ALL and in the PIAAC study ( Table ​ Table1 1 ). However, these studies usually analyze literacy in a theoretical way and give no practical diagnostic advice regarding the assessment of functional illiteracy. It can be only a conclusion from the result of the lowest achievement level.

Summary of international assessments.

A common way of diagnosing functional illiterates is based on the years of schooling . However, the standard seems to vary among cultures. In the USA, 12 years of schooling marks the limit of functional literacy ( Bhola, 1995 ), while in Latin America, only 7 years of effective schooling is sufficient to exceed the level of functional illiteracy ( Infante, 2000 In. Martinez and Fernandez, 2010 ). In the European Union, the compulsory education is between 9 and 13 years, so children can leave school between age 14 and 18 ( European Commission, 2014/2015 ). Therefore, we cannot consider compulsory education as the only diagnostic attribute of functional illiteracy.

Another common diagnostic practice is using grade-equivalent scores and reading-level match designs . This concept is concrete, easy to understand, and it does not require a new specific test because the researchers use general standardized assessments. This method is mostly used when low literate adults are assessed and compared with primary school children ( Greenberg et al., 1997 ; Thompkins and Binder, 2003 ; Greenberg, 2007 ; Rüsseler et al., 2011 ; Grosche, 2012 ; Eme et al., 2014 ). Comparing children who have already acquired basic reading, writing, and mathematical skills with low literate (functional illiterate) adults could answer a few questions. The developmental differences between children and adults can cause problems in interpreting the results of such studies.

The German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung) organized a national strategy to reduce the number of people who do not acquire basic literacy skills. To explore the problem, Grotlüschen and Riekmann constructed a representative household survey, the Level One Study (leo.). They specified five alpha-levels a priori in the lea. (Literalitätsentwicklung von Arbeitskräften; Grotlüschen et al., 2011 ), however, the validity of these five alpha-levels (even their eventual borders) has not yet been – to the best of our knowledge – never systematically evaluated in a diagnostic manner. Nevertheless, these five levels were applied to the leo. The lea. was constructed to measure employees’ different competence domains, including literacy and aimed to support individual teaching and development instead of comparing a person to a social norm ( Grotlüschen et al., 2011 ). The leo. aimed to assess people on the lower end of the literacy spectrum. The authors identified functional illiterates as those who perform in the first, second, or third level in the leo. According to their results, 14.5% of the working-age population (about 7.5 million people) in Germany is functionally illiterate ( Grotlüschen and Riekmann, 2011a ). It is important to note that 3.1 million adults (41%) of the estimated functional illiterate population were not native German speakers ( Grotlüschen et al., 2014 ). This is a point which we view as critical, because despite general reading and writing skills, we are all functional illiterates in most foreign languages. In our view (outlined below), language production and comprehension do not need to be that of a native speaker, but should at least be mastered without major problems before a specific deficit in functional illiteracy can be diagnosed. Otherwise, what seems to be a fundamental reading problem is simply a problem of not mastering sufficiently a foreign language. Finally, and unfortunately, the test lacks multivariate analyses of construct validity and only descriptive statistics are available. Consequently, results and conclusions have to be interpreted with caution.

The authors suggest the individual differences resulting from various social roles make it impossible to create a general functional illiteracy test. They argue that different skills are required, for example for a highly qualified IT expert or a motor mechanic ( Grotlüschen and Riekmann, 2011b ).

For specific professions this is a valid argument, but it also raises the question of whether a general construct of literacy exists. To return to the example, in everyday life, IT experts and motor mechanics have to operate machines (e.g., laundry machine), have to read their bank statements, have to take medicine (and read package inserts), have to compare prices in the supermarket, etc. Therefore, we assume that some basic functional literacy skills should exist.

While the leo. is not considered a universal instrument for functional illiteracy by its authors, the Tests of Adult Basic Education (TABE) is a universal instrument to assess the mastery of basic skills and skills-growth measurement. The test includes practical, life-skills stimuli in an adult-relevant context (life-skills, work, and education) and contains tasks from the very low literacy level (e.g., recognizing letters, signs) to the advanced level ( CTB/McGraw-Hill, 2008 ). The comprehensibility of the measured skills and the universality of the tasks suggest that it is possible to create an assessment to measure functional illiteracy, despite the fact that the main aim of the assessment is different.

It is important to note that functional illiterates (as low literate adults) would show floor effects in standard adult literacy (AL) and text comprehension tasks. This would make appropriate identification and within-group distinctions impossible. Therefore, it is worth considering the application of standardized tests for children to measure functional illiteracy. On the one hand, Egloff et al. (2011) argue for a competence-based approach to identify functional illiterates instead of a norm-oriented view . They suggest that it would be better to take different social expectations into account and handle the category of functional illiteracy as a less static phenomena. But on the other hand, they accept to use reading and spelling tasks (with child norms) with well-defined cut-off values to classify functional illiterates ( Egloff et al., 2011 ).

To sum up, many methods have been used to identify functional illiterates, but none of these methods are yet standardized and systematically diagnostically evaluated in a representative sample of functional illiterates and adults. Therefore, they cannot be considered adequate for measuring and identifying functional illiterates on the basis of the current data.

Who is Defined as Functional Illiterate?

Functional illiteracy is assumed to originate from cognitive or linguistic disorders and/or be associated with a sociocultural disadvantage ( Eme, 2011 ; Boltzmann and Rüsseler, 2013 ). The diagnostic assessments and therefore the definition of the sample in different studies is not consistent and sometimes not even explicit.

For a rough categorization, we can divide sample definition of functional illiteracy in scientific publications into three groups:

• simple (1) Some studies call their sample “functional illiterates,” but do not give any reason/explanation/diagnostic justification ( Van Linden and Cremers, 2008 ; Kosmidis et al., 2011 ). From an educational-psychological perspective, it is not acceptable to categorize a subgroup without any empirical reason for doing so.
• simple (2a) Some studies conduct experiments on adults taking part in basic courses [AL or adult basic education (ABE) classes] and call them functional illiterates ( Thompkins and Binder, 2003 ). The similarity between functional illiterates and AL or ABE students is appropriate but has its shortcomings. In particular, it is not evident why people take these courses. Did they have sufficient schooling and nevertheless did not learn to read and write? Did they have insufficient schooling for whatever reason without the chance to become literate? Do they have profound reading/writing problems or are they taking these courses for other reasons (e.g., because the job center recommends doing them)? In short, the problem is that we have no assessment of how severe their functional illiteracy problem really is and whether we are encountering functional illiteracy or real illiteracy due to insufficient schooling.
• simple (2b) It should be noted that there is also another group of studies concerning those who conduct experiments on AL or ABE students but do not call them functional illiterates ( Greenberg et al., 1997 ; MacArthur et al., 2010 ). Despite that, theoretical backgrounds and reviews (e.g., Eme, 2011 ) frequently use these articles, which point out one main limitation of the field.
• simple (3) Only a German and a French research group made explicit how they determine functional illiteracy in their studies. From the German side, Grosche (2012) used reading-level match design is his dissertation and labeled those ABE students as functional illiterates, who performed in two standardized reading tests in the level of first–fourth grade children ( Grosche, 2012 ). While Rüsseler et al. (2013) used German diagnostic reading and spelling tests and involved only those adults to their intervention study who performed worse than average fourth grade level ( Boltzmann and Rüsseler, 2013 ; Boltzmann et al., 2013 ; Rüsseler et al., 2013 ) 1 . The French group measured five components: phonological processing, orthographic processing, sentence comprehension, reading speed, and reading comprehension. Those ABE students who performed below the third grade level were then classified as functional illiterates ( Eme et al., 2010 ). Three problems stick:
• simple (i) The deficits of adult groups are defined as (severe) developmental delays. This cannot be taken for granted; for many adult deficits, and even for dyslexia, different patterns of deficits and developmental delays have been observed.
• simple (ii) Even if one accepts that functional illiteracy is merely developmental delay, there is an inconsistency as regards the severity of the delay. While Rüsseler et al. (2013) suggest lower performance than (average) fourth grade level, Eme et al. (2010) suggest a more severe performance deficit even below third grade level.
• simple (iii) The components for defining functional illiteracy differ between studies: while Rüsseler and colleagues use reading and spelling tests ( Boltzmann and Rüsseler, 2013 ; Boltzmann et al., 2013 ; Rüsseler et al., 2013 ), Eme et al. (2010) use a much broader range of test components. It is still unknown which approach is more valid. In most definitions, functional illiteracy is mainly about impaired understanding of texts. We suggest that diagnostic tests should operationalize this definition and focus on impaired understanding of texts, until other test components prove important for diagnostic assessment of functional illiteracy.

In sum, there is inconsistency in definition and assessment of functional illiterates in the scientific literature. There are only a few studies that include well-established methods in the fundamental sampling question. As the literature lacks a clear definition and clear assessment criteria, we use the term “functional illiterate” to refer to all the participants from the three groups of scientific papers.

Factors Contributing to Functional Illiteracy – The Scientific Aspect 2

Unfortunately, few studies 2 investigated differential diagnostic properties of functional illiteracy. Although there are related deficits that may or may not be part of functional illiteracy depending on the definition and the assessment tool. Here, we focus on three of these related deficits: language-related deficits, general cognitive deficits, and deficits related to numerical abilities (Supplementary Tables S1–S3 ).

Language-Related Deficits

The few articles that assess the basic skills of their specific sample separately have shown that functional illiterates have phonological processing deficits. Their profile is more similar to children with developmental dyslexia than to typical elementary school children. Adults performed much worse in phonological tasks than children matched for reading-level ( Greenberg et al., 1997 ; Thompkins and Binder, 2003 ; Grosche, 2012 ; Eme et al., 2014 ).

Functional illiterates’ spelling skills are also weak ( Greenberg et al., 1997 ; Thompkins and Binder, 2003 ; Eme et al., 2014 ): They rely more on orthographic processes ( Greenberg et al., 1997 ), although they may also have orthographic processing difficulties ( Greenberg et al., 1997 ; Thompkins and Binder, 2003 ; Eme, 2006 ). A comparison with reading-level matched children showed that their vocabulary size is also smaller ( Greenberg et al., 1997 ; Eme et al., 2014 ) and they are slower in naming tasks ( Grosche, 2012 ). Although functional illiterates seem to be a heterogeneous group, on the whole they performed poorer in phonology than in morphosyntax and semantics, with their low performance in oral language tasks being reflected in their written abilities ( Eme et al., 2014 ).

This issue is further complicated by the fact that functional illiterates may not be a homogeneous sample. Eme et al. (2010) suggested that functional illiterates can be divided into five subtypes according to their oral narrative abilities ( Eme et al., 2010 ). However, when the same research group examined the relationship between reading, spelling, and oral language abilities in a later study, the cluster analysis showed four profiles ( Eme et al., 2014 ). So, the subtyping problem is not resolved yet.

Other papers ( Eme, 2006 ; Grotlüschen and Riekmann, 2011a ; Rüsseler et al., 2011 ; Eme et al., 2014 ) mention that functional illiterates have problems in text understanding but only one study examined whether more fundamental factors cause this difficulty. The paper that compared matched normal readers with functional illiterates and children with reading and writing disabilities found that the perceptual skills of functional illiterates are weak but have no impact on reading abilities ( Rüsseler et al., 2011 ).

In sum, functional illiterates seem to have linguistic deficits in several domains, including phonological, orthographic and lexical processing, oral and reading comprehension, and verbal fluency. However, these deficits may not be homogeneous. It is important to note that correlated or co-morbid deficits are not necessarily functionally causal. What is more, they do not necessarily add unique variance to the diagnostic assessment. Finally, we do not know whether the linguistic inabilities described above are their main difficulties or whether these are due to or influenced by other more general cognitive factors (Supplementary Table S1 ).

Cognitive Deficits

Cognitive deficits of functional illiterates have also been reported. Van Linden and Cremers (2008) showed that functional illiterates performed significantly worse than literates not only in language processing, but also in all cognitive tasks such as in copying and recalling the Rey Complex Figure, visual organizational, and visual memory, mental spatial orientation as well sustained or split attention tasks ( Van Linden and Cremers, 2008 ).

Functional illiterates seem to have working memory difficulties: they performed worse than reading-level matched children ( Eme, 2006 ; Grosche, 2012 ) and than normal adult readers ( Grosche, 2012 ) in the verbal tasks. Comparing functional illiterates with children matched for reading-level, adults performed better on a backward, while they did not differ in a forward digit span task ( Thompkins and Binder, 2003 ). However, the studies only used digit or letter span tasks ( Thompkins and Binder, 2003 ; Eme, 2006 ; Grosche, 2012 ).

As regards perceptual skills, functional illiterates perform similar to children with reading and writing disabilities and differ from regular adult readers. This supports a developmental delay view on functional illiteracy ( Rüsseler et al., 2011 ). The authors suggest that perceptual training could develop functional illiterates, as it improved the reading and spelling performance of children with reading and writing disabilities ( Rüsseler et al., 2011 ).

In sum, it is clear that functional illiterates deviate from adults; their performance seems to be more similar to children. However, basic control variables (e.g., intelligence) are often missing, when the cognitive abilities of functional illiterates are assessed. Moreover, again participant selection could drive the results and the subsequent interpretations of deficits. Nevertheless, the available data point to the view that functional illiterates seem to show various cognitive deficits. However, the question about whether these deficits are (partially) causal for the functional illiteracy or just co-morbid impairments remains unanswered so far (Supplementary Table S2 ).

Deficits Related to Numerical Abilities and Dyscalculia

Although numerical abilities are measured as one of the basic skills and are considered as part of functional illiteracy (e.g., in IALS as quantitative literacy, Thorn, 2009 ; in ALL and in PIAAC as numeracy, Statistics Canada and OECD, 2005 ; OECD, 2013 ), research on numerical deficits in functional illiteracy has largely been neglected (Supplementary Table S3 ). Therefore, further experimental studies are needed to answer the question whether functional illiterates have numerical difficulties or not.

(Functional) Illiteracy Programs – The Practical Aspect

In order to eradicate illiteracy, governments, NGOs (non-governmental organization) and supranational agencies such as UNESCO fund numerous programs worldwide ( Abadzi, 2003 ), but the programs are assessed with great skepticism in the literature ( Shi and Tsang, 2008 ). It is important to note that the ABE programs are rarely targeted explicitly at functional illiterates, as they generally aim to increase the participants’ literacy skills 3 .

In Western societies, adult literacy programs are often offered to vulnerable or hard-to-reach learners. Some programs rely extensively on the use of technology and distance learning platforms (e.g., AlphaRoute in Canada), others are tailored to each participant’s needs, both in workshops and individual help (e.g., Fight Against Illiteracy in France). According to their main interest, we can differentiate from general literacy courses the work- (e.g., El Trabajo En Red Como Proyecto Educativo in Spain) and family-oriented (e.g., Family Literacy Project in Germany) programs ( Aker et al., 2010 ). Former supports the (re)integration to labor market ( Bhola, 1995 ), while latter’s key-strategy called the “Teach the parents – reach the children” approach in which parents and their children are working both separately and together. It aims at a long-term effect in the education of next generation ( Nickel, 2007 ). Furthermore, supplementing literacy and numeracy classes with technology, even mobile phones, is restricted by its reduced availability ( Aker et al., 2010 ).

Adult basic education classes are still struggling to overcome high drop-out rates, failure to pass literacy tests, and a fast deterioration of literacy skills. High drop-out rates are associated with younger age, worse blending, slower naming, and comprehension skills, as well as increased avoidance of reading difficult materials. Furthermore, current/past enrollment in ABE classes increased the probability of midpoint completion ( Greenberg et al., 2012 ). Therefore, the programs should pay more attention to the participants that fall within these categories. In Germany, Rüsseler et al. (2012) created and investigated the effects of a special training program called Alpha Plus. While the regular literacy courses offer reading and writing classes once a week, the intensive Alpha Plus training does not only improve reading and writing skills. But it builds also on the progress of other basic, daily and work-related abilities (e.g., perceptual and social skills). The program is clearly more effective than the regular classes offered to functional illiterates by the adult education schools in Germany. The efficiency of Alpha Plus was confirmed by behavioral, ERP, and fMRI studies ( Rüsseler et al., 2012 ; Boltzmann and Rüsseler, 2013 ; Boltzmann et al., 2013 ; Rüsseler et al., 2013 ). The success of the program is evident but the authors stress the large variability between the participants. The achievement would be larger if it could better handle individual differences (e.g., with more groups with smaller sizes; Rüsseler et al., 2013 ) and follow a more personalized adaptive learning approach.

To sum up, solving the problem of illiteracy and functional illiteracy is relevant to governments and various organizations and their efficiency show up in statistics ( UNESCO, 2015 ). But the development of programs based on scientific research (e.g., Alpha Plus: Rüsseler et al., 2012 ) could improve the efficacy of the programs and the persistence of the students.

Dissociating Functional Illiteracy From Illiteracy and Dyslexia

For establishing a solid picture about the construct of functional illiteracy, it is necessary to distinguish it from related constructs such as illiteracy and developmental dyslexia, and to define non-overlapping characteristics. Without such dissociation, functional illiteracy is just a new name for a deficit that is already part of other constructs.

Functional Illiteracy and Illiteracy: What Does Functionality Mean?

Illiteracy is a well-defined phenomenon and the diagnostic criteria for this group are clear-cut. It has been investigated since the 1970s and researchers have investigated many characteristics of illiteracy ( Huettig and Mishra, 2014 ). According to the original notion, the difference between functional illiterates and illiterates is that illiterates are unable to read, write, and understand short sentences. In contrast functional illiterates are unable to use their acquired literacy skills in daily life ( UNESCO, 1978 ), e.g., to read and understand a medicine label or a bank statement, fill out a job application, compare the cost of two items and choose the item that offers the best value ( Cree et al., 2012 ).

When we outline these studies, we focus on the same three related groups of deficits we distinguished for functional illiterates (Supplementary Tables S1–S3 ).

Language-Related Deficits in Illiterates

As the illiterates have never attended school and did not acquire basic language skills, they differ in most language-related abilities. It is known that phonemic awareness is not attained spontaneously, since associations of phonemes with graphemes emerge with reading acquisition ( Morais et al., 1979 ). Indeed, performances on phoneme addition, discrimination, deletion, and pseudoword repetition tasks (e.g., Greenberg et al., 1997 ; Thompkins and Binder, 2003 ) clearly demonstrated that illiterates have phonological processing deficits ( Morais et al., 1979 ; Rosselli et al., 1990 ; Reis and Castro-Caldas, 1997 ; Castro-Caldas et al., 1998 ).

Decreased performance was shown also in orthographic ( Petersson et al., 2000 ) and in lexical processing ( Kosmidis et al., 2006 ) when low literate and literate adults were compared.

In addition, researchers observed impairments in naming ability ( Rosselli et al., 1990 ; Ostrosky-Solis et al., 1999 ; Reis et al., 2006 ), in oral comprehension ( Rosselli et al., 1990 ; Ostrosky-Solis et al., 1999 ) and in verbal fluency skills ( Rosselli et al., 1990 ; Reis and Castro-Caldas, 1997 ; Ostrosky-Solis et al., 1999 ; Kosmidis et al., 2004 ) as well. Yet, it is important to mention that when using ecologically more valid categories in the verbal fluency task (e.g., supermarket), the difference can disappear ( Reis et al., 2003 ).

In sum, illiterates can be characterized by impairments in the whole spectrum of language-related skills (Supplementary Table S1 ), which are less variable than those of functional illiterates.

Cognitive Deficits in Illiterates

As lack of reading and writing acquisition affects language skills, could it be assumed that basic cognitive functions also depend on it? The need for assessing the cognitive abilities of illiterates materialized many years ago.

Illiterates performed significantly worse than the three other assessed educated groups (1–4; 5–9; 10–24 years of education) in abilities as orientation, verbal fluency, attention, perception, and motor functions ( Ostrosky-Solis et al., 1999 ; Dansilio and Charamelo, 2005 ; Landgraf et al., 2011 ). The latter was confirmed in visuo-motor integration tasks as well: while literates used a systematic visual scanning strategy, illiterates were less systematic and slower in a computerized visual-motor task ( Bramão et al., 2007 ).

Oral cultures have better long-term memory abilities, as they can preserve their traditional songs by rote learning ( Huettig and Mishra, 2014 ). Conversely, illiterates did not succeed in standardized working memory tasks ( Ardila et al., 1989 ; Reis et al., 2003 ; Kosmidis et al., 2011 ; Silva et al., 2012 ). In addition, Kosmidis et al. (2011) revealed that literacy per se and not formal schooling affected working memory skills.

In sum, illiterates perform worse in various cognitive skills than literates. The deficits seem more universal than in studies with functional illiterates. Lack of education and basic skill acquisition have been brought forward as the reason for the weakness of cognitive skills in illiterates ( Ardila et al., 1989 ; Rosselli et al., 1990 ) (Supplementary Table S2 ).

Deficits Related to Numerical Abilities in Illiterates

Although illiterates never attended school and never acquired number reading and writing, the majority of the tests that examine mental calculation or basic arithmetical abilities were administered to illiterates in written form. It is not surprising that these studies solidly verified that illiterates have poor mental calculation or basic arithmetical abilities ( Ostrosky-Solis et al., 1999 ; Reis et al., 2003 ; Landgraf et al., 2011 ; Silva et al., 2012 ). Only one experiment gave calculations orally where the illiterates achieved low score as well ( Rosselli et al., 1990 ). However, it is also possible that the deficits extend to basic number sense. Halberda and Feigenson (2008) have shown that early processing of non-symbolic information long before formal schooling influences arithmetic performance at a later age ( Halberda and Feigenson, 2008 ). Whether the so-called approximate number system (ANS) – measured by non-symbolic magnitude comparison – really contributes to symbolic and arithmetic performance when other symbolic factors are controlled is a matter of intense discussion ( De Smedt et al., 2013 ; Lyons et al., 2015 ). The answer to this question is not easy as performance in ANS tasks and their correlations with arithmetic seem to depend on the particular method involved ( Dietrich et al., 2015 ). Nevertheless, it would be helpful to assess more basic numerical abilities like the ANS or spatial-numerical capabilities ( Siegler and Opfer, 2003 ; Moeller et al., 2009 ) or indices of multi-digit integration ( Moeller et al., 2011 ; Nuerk et al., 2015 for a review) to identify basic numerical deficits in functional illiterates that might lead to deficits in later more complex arithmetic tasks.

In sum, illiterates performed less accurately not only in language-related tasks, but also in cognitive and mathematical tasks. But it remains unclear whether the lack of reading acquisition, the absence of formal education, or even basic perceptual and cognitive deficits underlying more than one skill drive their functional illiteracy (Supplementary Table S3 ).

Functional Illiteracy and Dyslexia: Different Constructs for the Same Sample?

Is it possible that functional illiterates are dyslexics with a new name?

We have outlined above that various language deficits are part of functional illiteracy. Some authors even claim that functional illiterates can somehow count as untreated developmental dyslexics ( Greenberg et al., 1997 ; Grosche, 2012 , but see diagnostic problematic outlined above). Therefore, it is unclear whether the terms “functional illiterate” and “dyslexic” reflect different terminology used to refer to the same group of people due to preference and history of the field, rather than due to actual differences between the two groups. It is surprising that we have not found any experimental research that has investigated this thesis. Therefore, we will outline developmental dyslexia in more detail, again with the same three subsections, language-related deficits, general cognitive, and numerical deficits (Supplementary Tables S1–S3 ).

Language-Related Deficits in Dyslexia

Developmental dyslexia is associated with abnormalities in a variety of brain regions, and has a strong genetic basis ( Lyon et al., 2003 ; Fletcher, 2009 ; Habib and Giraud, 2013 ). However, it is not clear whether the neurobiological changes are a cause or consequence of reading difficulties.

Dyslexic children have problems in at least three domains: decoding single words, reading fluency, and comprehension ( Fletcher, 2009 ). Leading theories suggest that the main problem in dyslexia is the phonological processing deficit. It can appear even at a single word level, independently of intelligence and is adequate for a dyslexia diagnosis ( Ramus et al., 2003 ). Such a deficit in phonological awareness was confirmed in children by many studies ( Joanisse et al., 2000 ; Casalis et al., 2004 ; White et al., 2006 ; Everatt et al., 2008 ; Landerl et al., 2009 ; Varvara et al., 2014 ; Zoubrinetzky et al., 2014 ). The most common tasks were phonological fluency ( Landerl et al., 2009 ; Varvara et al., 2014 ) and manipulation with phonemes as phoneme deletion ( Joanisse et al., 2000 ; Landerl et al., 2009 ; Chung et al., 2010 ; Zoubrinetzky et al., 2014 ) and spoonerism tasks ( White et al., 2006 ; Varvara et al., 2014 ).

The results suggest that the phonological symptoms associated with dyslexia persist into adulthood ( Hatcher et al., 2002 ; Ramus et al., 2003 ; Beidas et al., 2013 ; Bogdanowicz et al., 2014 ; Law et al., 2015 ). A study that compared adults with and without learning difficulties demonstrated that even high-achieving dyslexic adults are slower in phonological, semantic, and syntactic judgment tasks ( Rüsseler et al., 2007 ).

In spelling, the tendency remains similar: both dyslexic children ( White et al., 2006 ; Everatt et al., 2008 ; Chung et al., 2010 ) and adults ( Hatcher et al., 2002 ; Beidas et al., 2013 ; Law et al., 2015 ) showed difficulties in their performance. In contrast, dyslexic adults performed well in the semantic fluency task ( Hatcher et al., 2002 ) and vocabulary tasks (e.g., Cavalli et al., 2016 ) but the success of children were mixed ( Joanisse et al., 2000 ; White et al., 2006 ; Everatt et al., 2008 ; Landerl et al., 2009 ; Varvara et al., 2014 ).

Nevertheless, their reading and naming speed were also significantly slower than in children and adults without learning difficulties ( De Luca et al., 2002 ; Hatcher et al., 2002 ; Ramus et al., 2003 ; White et al., 2006 ; Everatt et al., 2008 ; Willburger et al., 2008 ; Boets and De Smedt, 2010 ; De Smedt and Boets, 2011 ; Beidas et al., 2013 ; Bogdanowicz et al., 2014 ; Suarez-Coalla et al., 2014 ; Law et al., 2015 ).

Basic language-related skills are necessary for accurate text comprehension ( Martens and de Jong, 2006 ). Therefore, it is not surprising that dyslexic children and adults systematically perform below-average on reading comprehension tasks ( Casalis et al., 2004 ; Fletcher, 2009 ; Rimrodt et al., 2009 ; Wiseheart et al., 2009 ; Rello et al., 2013 ). If texts are optimized according to word-frequency and word-length, thus using more common and shorter words, dyslexic adolescents and adults understand better and read faster written materials ( Rello et al., 2013 ).

Dyslexia is not only categorized by phonological deficit, reading fluency, and text comprehension; it is also considered to be a heterogeneous learning disorder ( Zoubrinetzky et al., 2014 ). Co-morbid language deficits and other cognitive difficulties are common. A regression study that aimed to examine the contribution of linguistic and cognitive factors to oral reading fluency in dyslexic adolescents found that word decoding, working memory, and vocabulary are the key predictors. The factors together explain 56% of the variance in connected-text oral reading fluency ( Rose and Rougani, 2012 ). Despite the regression analysis, one must keep in mind that these are still correlations. Whether co-morbid cognitive difficulties causally influence reading fluency or whether linguistic deficits cause associated cognitive problems over the course of learning and development is not entirely clear yet ( Beidas et al., 2013 ) (Supplementary Table S1 ).

In sum, we can conclude that dyslexic children have problems in phonological tasks, reading fluency, reading comprehension and associated linguistic and cognitive factors. Most such deficits observed in dyslexic children are preserved in adulthood. However, dyslexic adults may be able to compensate some of their deficits (e.g., in reading comprehension) and function better in language-related tasks than functional illiterates. Whether this summary of the literature holds, must be examined, with direct investigation of dyslexics and functional illiterates.

Cognitive Deficits in Dyslexia

In the last decades, auditory, visual processing, or attention deficits were suggested as being potential sources of dyslexia. Valdois et al. (2004) argue that phonological and attention deficits in dyslexic patients can present independently from each other ( Valdois et al., 2004 ). Accordingly, dyslexics struggle with attentional and perceptual difficulties ( Ramus et al., 2003 ; Ziegler et al., 2010 ; Leong et al., 2011 ; Beidas et al., 2013 ; Bogdanowicz et al., 2014 ; Varvara et al., 2014 ; Zoubrinetzky et al., 2014 ).

As regards cognitive abilities, most articles are examining working memory. It was shown that dyslexic children have poor working memory ( Beneventi et al., 2010 ; Varvara et al., 2014 ), which remains weak during adulthood ( Ramus et al., 2003 ; Abd Ghani and Gathercole, 2013 ; Beidas et al., 2013 ; Bogdanowicz et al., 2014 ). This deficit seems stable, considering that weak performance appears both in verbal (e.g., digit span, e.g., Everatt et al., 2008 ), in spatial (e.g., Corsi blocks, Landerl et al., 2009 ), and in visual (e.g., n-back, Beneventi et al., 2010 ) working memory tests. Exploring the four regions of executive functions (inhibition, planning, sequencing, and organizing abilities), researchers found that compensated dyslexic university students did not differ from the non-dyslexic control group in any of the functions ( Brosnan et al., 2002 ). A more recent study showed that in a set shifting task, dyslexic adults were slower than age and IQ matched controls. In contrast, in an inhibition task the reaction time did not differ, although the accuracy depended on the task ( Smith-Spark et al., 2016 ).

Experiments showed that dyslexic children have no problems in tasks requiring fine manual skills ( White et al., 2006 ; Everatt et al., 2008 ) but they have difficulties in balancing tasks ( White et al., 2006 ; Brookes et al., 2010 ). Conversely, adults did not show any problems in balance and motor coordination tasks ( Ramus et al., 2003 ).

In sum, diverse types of cognitive difficulties are inseparable from the symptoms of dyslexia both in childhood and adulthood. Over time, dyslexics can improve some of their skills but most of their problems are remained. Nevertheless, their deficits seem less universal than in functional illiteracy (Supplementary Table S2 ).

Deficits Related to Numerical Abilities and Dyscalculia in Dyslexia

Research examining mathematical abilities has shown that dyslexic children and adults generally solved basic arithmetical problems slower and less accurately than children and adults without dyslexia ( Hatcher et al., 2002 ; Simmons and Singleton, 2006 ; Boets and De Smedt, 2010 ; De Smedt and Boets, 2011 ).

A study examining children with reading disability and/or math disability found that all three groups showed difficulties in the examined neuropsychological measures. However, the impairments of reading and math disability group were the largest ( Willcutt et al., 2013 ). Studies confirmed that reading and mathematical learning disabilities have independent domain-specific deficits: in the case of dyslexia in phonological processing and numerosity in the case of dyscalculia. Nevertheless, there are some common domain-general “bridge symptoms” as rapid naming ( Wilson et al., 2015 ), working memory, processing speed, and verbal comprehension ( Willcutt et al., 2013 ). In contrast, another experiment described that the cognitive deficits of children with dyslexia and dyscalculia were only additive ( Landerl et al., 2009 ) (Supplementary Table S3 ).

The Triple-Code Model ( Dehaene and Cohen, 1995 ) supposes three distinguished mental representations of numbers within different brain areas. According to the model, we can distinguish visual representation (established in the left and right inferior ventral occipito-temporal areas), magnitude representations (established in the left and right inferior parietal areas), and verbal representation (established in the left-hemispheric perisylvian language areas). Thus, the numerical and linguistic representations work separately. Therefore, those who have poor numerical or poor reading skills might be differentiated clearly according to their anatomical and functional brain processes ( Dehaene and Cohen, 1995 , 1998 ).

In sum, we can state that reading disabilities do not go obviously hand in hand with mathematical weaknesses, therefore, not just dyslexics and dyscalculics but also functional illiterates and functional innumerates may represent separate groups (Supplementary Tables S1–S3 ).

Summary, New Definition, and Further Challenges

From the outline of the review, it is clear that the field of functional illiteracy has been under-represented in research despite its worldwide effects on social and economic levels ( UNESCO, 2006 ) and although millions of dollars are invested in remediation programs of (functional) literacy.

In this review, we clarified our knowledge about functional illiterates, especially how different approaches try to diagnose them, and in what areas they differ from illiterates and dyslexics.

We summarized the challenges of empirical research that hinder the researchers of the field as the lack of an adequate assessment and resources for programs and researches.

A comprehensive, exploratory examination is needed to guarantee the success of the literacy programs. This examination should assess in detail the basic foundations and the variables that play a crucial role in functional illiteracy, emphasizing not only the language, but the mathematical-related and cognitive skills which are essential in everyday life.

The first step in that direction is to establish a new, up-to-date definition that is adequate for experimental research:

Functional illiteracy is the incapability to understand complex texts 4 despite adequate schooling, age, language skills, elementary reading skills, and IQ. These inabilities must also not be fully explained by sensory, domain-general cognitive, neurological or psychiatric deficits.

Here we suppose the main criteria and justification that a working definition should contain:

Inclusion criteria:

• simple – very poor performance in a functional illiteracy assessment: despite the fact that there is no consensus about an operationalized definition of functional illiteracy, many self-claimed assessments tried to measure it, but there is no standardized and validated tool for this aim 5 ,
• simple – age: older than 16 years old. We suppose that children cannot be categorized as functional illiterates,
• simple – schooling: minimum 6–8 finished years, in agreement with the duration of compulsory education for single countries (in Germany it means 9 years),
• simple – proper (German) language use: fluent, native-like oral language skills without major difficulties (natives, bilinguals). We should take with great care people with migration background because we cannot be sure whether a person shows weakness because he/she is a functional illiterate or because he/she has difficulties in second language acquisition. Nevertheless, being a native speaker is in our view not a necessary criterion if the second language is sufficiently well mastered in oral language,
• simple – IQ: level of 70 or above.

Exclusion criteria:

• simple – neurological or mental disorder,
• simple – uncorrected speech, hearing, or vision problem.

Exclusion criteria for pure functional illiteracy: 6

• simple – dyslexia,
• simple – dyscalculia,
• simple – hyperactivity.

Further characteristics that describe functional illiterates:

• simple – impaired oral language comprehension,
• simple – impaired writing skills,
• simple – impaired arithmetic skills,
• simple – difficulties in functioning in society: problems with active, independent functioning in daily life.

Due to lack of empirical studies the underlying cause of functional illiteracy is still unclear. Rüsseler et al. (2011) suggested a combined model, where the unfavorable familiar background and school experiences could be identified as risk factors and together with biological and cognitive determinants could cause functional illiteracy ( Rüsseler et al., 2011 ).

As regards our five research questions in the beginning, they can be answered as follows. We propose four different social and cognitive aspects that can lead to functional illiteracy in itself or together:

• simple (1) Cognitive aspect: weak cognitive skills cause the inability to acquire proper basic literacy skills;
• simple (2) Educational aspect: primary and secondary school teachers have no opportunity to take care the individual level of each student, therefore the children with feeble abilities or low motivation fall behind in long-term;
• simple (3) Social aspect: the lack of an encouraging and motivating model in a child’s family for acquiring new skills, having new experiences, can lead to an unmotivated learning style in school;
• simple (4) Competency loss aspect: loss of competencies in adulthood caused by a decrease of cognitive demands (Q4).

The focus on cognitive and social aspects does not preclude that some of them (e.g., the cognitive aspects) are neurobiologically routed.

The review shows that despite formal education, functional illiterates do not possess basic skills (Q1). This general deficit can be theoretically distinguished from the deficits associated with illiteracy and dyslexia; illiterates lack formal education, while functional illiterates have had some schooling and therefore may have advantages from this education. Additionally, dyslexia has genetic underpinnings while social factors seems to have stronger impact on the development of functional illiteracy (Q5), therefore their diagnostic and remediation processes may differ as well.

From the summary we cannot conclude in which abilities functional illiterates have the largest deficit, because we did not find any research that aimed at measuring their mathematical abilities (Q2). We suppose that functional illiterates have both numerical and linguistic deficits. According to the Triple-Code Model, the underlying representations work separately ( Dehaene and Cohen, 1995 , 1998 ) but we do not know any research that has tried to confirm this in a functional illiterate sample (Q3).

Summarizing our presumptions about functional illiteracy in details, we define as functional illiterates those adults who attended the compulsory years in education but could not acquire basic reading, writing, and calculation skills. Their impairments negatively affect their effective functioning in everyday life. In particular, functional illiterates have poor language skills (writing, reading, oral communication) (e.g., difficulty understanding a medicine label) as well as poor arithmetic abilities (e.g., inability to compare the price of two products) that generally influence everyday life situations (e.g., get the information from a timetable). People belonging to this group have average or below-average IQ levels and their difficulties cannot result from any other kind of neurological or psychiatric disorder, organic problem, non-verbal learning problem, general learning difficulty or hyperactivity. Of course, these criteria do not exclude co-morbidities with such other impairments.

We would stress the need for methodologically more substantiated research, comparing basic linguistic, numerical and cognitive functions in normal readers, functional illiterates, dyslexic adults, and reading-level matched dyslexic children.

Author Contributions

RV, TD, JS, and H-CN made the review design, RV and AC did the literature search, and RV, AC, TD, JS, and H-CN wrote the paper.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

This research (“Basic foundations of functional illiteracy”) is funded by the LEAD Graduate School & Research Network [GSC1028], a project of the Excellence Initiative of the German federal and state governments. RV is a doctoral student of the LEAD Graduate School & Research Network. We acknowledge support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the Open Access Publishing Fund of the University of Tuebingen.

1 The authors explicitly wrote this criteria only in Rüsseler et al. (2013 , p. 242) but as they speak about the evaluation of the same training program in Boltzmann and Rüsseler (2013) and in Boltzmann et al. (2013) , we suppose that they used the same inclusion criteria.

2 Relevant studies for this review were identified by (1) carrying out a keyword search in EBSCOhost, PsycInfo, and Google Scholar. It was conducted for keywords functional illiteracy, illiteracy, literacy, adult dyslexia, child dyslexia, and several variations of these keywords and the basic abilities that we mention in Supplementary Tables S1–S3 . (2) And we were conducting a manual search for references cited in relevant papers.

3 http://www.unesco.org/uil/litbase/?menu=7

4 Beyond this scope of review but we define complex text as comprising at least of two sentences with some conjunctions or subjunctions and propositional relations between these sentences. Questions concerning such tests should be impossible to answer on the basis of understanding one single sentence alone. For a more precise definition we suppose computer linguistically quantifiable measures about the readability and complexity of a text (e.g., after the methods of Vajjala and Meurers, 2014 ).

5 According to our opinion, functional illiterates in general have fundamental problems in text comprehension. Therefore, we suggest using tasks based on text comprehension, enhanced with an interview about their educational background. We agree with Boltzmann and Rüsseler (2013) that children’s tasks are well suited for assessing the functional illiterate sample, e.g., because of their complexity that admit of the differentiation and their short length that is not frustrating. However, these tasks have not yet been normed to low literate adults.

6 We would like to stress that we do not want to exclude functional illiterates with dyslexia, but we would like to raise awareness that further research should pay more attention to the related linguistic and numerical impairments. It is likely that functional illiterates meet the criteria for dyslexia and because of the dissociation between dyslexia and functional illiteracy merits further investigations.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01617/full#supplementary-material

• Abadzi H. (2003). Adult Literacy: A Review of Implementation Experience . Washington, DC: The World Bank Operations Evaluations Department. [ Google Scholar ]
• Abd Ghani K., Gathercole S. E. (2013). Working memory and study skills: a comparison between dyslexic and non-dyslexic adult learners. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 97 271–277. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.233 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aker C., Ksoll C., Lybbert T. J. (2010). ABC, 123: The Impact of a Mobile Phone Literacy Program on Educational Outcomes . Washington, DC: Center for Global Development. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ardila A., Rosselli M., Rosas P. (1989). Neuropsychological assessment in illiterates: visuospatial and memory abilities. Brain Cogn. 11 147–166. 10.1016/0278-2626(89)90015-8 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beidas H., Khateb A., Breznitz Z. (2013). The cognitive profile of adult dyslexics and its relation to their reading abilities. Read. Writ. 26 1487–1515. 10.1007/s11145-013-9428-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beneventi H., Tonnessen F. E., Ersland L., Hughdahl K. (2010). Working memory deficit in dyslexia: behavioral and fMRI evidence. Int. J. Neurosci. 120 51–59. 10.3109/00207450903275129 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhola H. S. (1995). Functional Literacy, Workplace Literacy and Technical and Vocational Education: Interfaces and Policy Perspectives Paris: UNESCO, Section for Technical and Vocational Education. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boets B., De Smedt B. (2010). Single-digit arithmetic in children with dyslexia. Dyslexia 16 183–191. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bogdanowicz K. M., Łockiewicz M., Bogdanowicz M., Pąchalska M. (2014). Characteristics of cognitive deficits and writing skills of Polish adults with developmental dyslexia. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 93 78–83. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2013.03.005 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boltzmann M., Rüsseler J. (2013). Training-related changes in early visual processing of functionally illiterate adults: evidence from event-related brain potentials. BMC Neurosci. 14 : 154 10.1186/1471-2202-14-154 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boltzmann M., Rüsseler J., Ye Z., Münte T. F. (2013). Learning to read in adulthood: an evaluation of a literacy program for functionally illiterate adults in Germany. Probl. Educ. 21 Century 51 33–46. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bramão I., Mendonça A., Faísca L., Ingvar M., Petersson K. M., Reis A. (2007). The impact of reading and writing skills on a visuo-motor integration task: a comparison between illiterate and literate subjects. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 13 359–364. 10.1017/S1355617707070440 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brookes R. L., Tinkler S., Nicolson R. I., Fawcett A. J. (2010). Striking the right balance: motor difficulties in children and adults with dyslexia. Dyslexia 16 358–373. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brosnan M., Demetre J., Hamill S., Robson K., Shepherd H., Cody G. (2002). Executive functioning in adults and children with developmental dyslexia. Neuropsychologia 40 2144–2155. 10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00046-5 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Casalis S., Colé P., Sopo D. (2004). Morphological awareness in developmental dyslexia. Ann. Dyslexia 54 114–138. 10.1007/s11881-004-0006-z [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Castro-Caldas A., Petersson K. M., Reis A., Stone-Elander S., Ingvar M. (1998). The illiterate brain: learning to read and write during childhood influences the functional organization of the adult brain. Brain 121 1053–1063. 10.1093/brain/121.6.1053 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cavalli E., Casalis S., El Ahmadi A., Zira M., Poracchia-George F., Colé P. (2016). Vocabulary skills are well developed in university students with dyslexia: evidence from multiple case studies. Res. Dev. Disabil. 5 89–102. 10.1016/j.ridd.2016.01.006 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chung K. K. H., Ho C. S.-H., Chan D. W., Tsang S.-M., Lee S.-H. (2010). Cognitive profiles of chinese adolescents with dyslexia. Dyslexia 16 2–23. 10.1002/dys.392 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cree A., Kay A., Steward J. (2012). The Economic & Social Cost of Illiteracy: a Snapshot of Illiteracy in a Global Context . Melbourne: The World Literacy Foundation. [ Google Scholar ]
• CTB/McGraw-Hill (2008). Discover TABE 9&10. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dansilio S., Charamelo A. (2005). Constructional functions and figure copying in illiterates or low-schooled Hispanics. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 20 1105–1112. 10.1016/j.acn.2005.06.011 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Luca M., Borrelli M., Judica A., Spinelli D., Zoccolotti P. (2002). Reading words and pseudowords: an eye movement study of developmental dyslexia. Brain Lang. 80 617–626. 10.1006/brln.2001.2637 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Smedt B., Boets B. (2011). Phonological processing and arithmetic fact retrieval: evidence from developmental dyslexia. Neuropsychologia 48 3973–3981. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.10.018 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Smedt B., Noël M. P., Gilmore C., Ansari D. (2013). How do symbolic and non-symbolic numerical magnitude processing skills relate to individual differences in children’s mathematical skills? A review of evidence from brain and behavior. Trends Neurosci. Educ. 2 48–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dehaene S., Cohen L. (1995). Towards an anatomical and functional model of number processing. Math. Cogn. 1 83–120. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dehaene S., Cohen L. (1998). “Levels of representation in number processing,” in Handbook of Neurolinguistics eds Stemmer B., Whitaker H. A. (Amsterdam: Elsevier; ) 331–341. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dietrich J. F., Huber S., Nuerk H.-C. (2015). Methodological aspects to be considered when measuring the approximate number system (ANS) – a research review. Front. Psychol. 6 : 295 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00295 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Egloff B., Grosche M., Hubertus P., Rüsseler J. (2011). “Funktionaler Analphabetismus: eine aktuelle Definition,” in Zielgruppen in Alphabetisierung und Grundbildung Erwachsener. Bestimmung, Verortung, Ansprache ed. Projektträger im DLR e.V (Bielefeld: WBV-Verlag; ) 11–31. . [ Google Scholar ]
• Eme E. (2006). L′examen psycholinguistique et neuropsychologique de personnes en situation d′illettrisme. Rev. Neuropsychol. 16 3–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eme E. (2011). Cognitive and psycholinguistic skills of adults who are functionally illiterate: current state of research and implications for adult education. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 25 753–762. 10.1002/acp.1746 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eme E., Lacroix A., Almecija Y. (2010). Oral narrative skills in french adults who are functionally illiterate: linguistic features and discourse organization. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 53 1349–1371. 10.1044/1092-4388(2010/08-0092) [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eme E., Lambert E., Alamargot D. (2014). Word reading and word spelling in French adult literacy students: the relationship with oral language skills. J. Res. Read. 37 268–296. 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2011.01508.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• European Commission (2014/2015). Compulsory Education in Europe 2014/15. Eurydice – Facts and Figures. Brussels: European Commission. [ Google Scholar ]
• Everatt J., Weeks S., Brooks P. (2008). Profiles of strengths and weaknesses in dyslexia and other learning difficulties. Dyslexia 14 16–41. 10.1002/dys.342 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fletcher J. M. (2009). Dyslexia: the evolution of a scientific concept. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 15 501–508. 10.1017/S1355617709090900 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenberg D. (2007). “Tales from the field: the struggles and challenges of conducting ethical and quality research in the field of adult literacy,” in Toward Defining and Improving Quality in Adult Basic Education eds Belzer A., Beder H. (Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; ) 124–140. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenberg D., Ehri L. C., Perin D. (1997). Are word-reading processes the same or different in adult literacy students and third-fifth graders matched for reading level? J. Educ. Psychol. 89 262–275. 10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.262 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenberg D., Wise J. C., Frijters J. C., Morris R., Fredrick L. D., Rodrigo V., et al. (2012). Persisters and nonpersisters: identifying the characteristics of who stays and who leaves from adult literacy interventions. Read. Writ. 26 495–514. 10.1007/s11145-012-9401-8 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grosche M. (2012). Analphabetismus und Lese-Rechtschreib-Schwächen. Münster: Waxmann. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grotlüschen A., Kretschmann R., Quante-Brandt E., Wolf K. D. (eds) (2011). Literalitätsentwicklung von Arbeitskräften. Münster: Waxmann Verlag. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grotlüschen A., Riekmann W. (2011a). leo. – Level One Study. Hamburg: Universität Hamburg. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grotlüschen A., Riekmann W. (2011b). leo. – Level-One Studie. Literalität von Erwachsenen auf den Unteren Kompetenzniveaus In Presseheft. Hamburg: Universität Hamburg. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grotlüschen A., Riekmann W., Buddeberg K. (2014). “Functional illiteracy in Germany,” in Lifelong Learning and Governance. From Programming to Action – Selected Experiences from Asia and Europe eds Hintzen H., Knoll J. H. (Paris: UNESCO Insitute for Lifelong Learning; ) 55–67. [ Google Scholar ]
• Habib M., Giraud K. (2013). “Dyslexia,” in Handbook of Clinical Neurology, Pediatric Neurology , Part I eds Dulac O., Lassonde M., Sarnat H. B. (Amsterdam: Elsevier; ) 229–235. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Halberda J., Feigenson L. (2008). Developmental change in the acuity of the “Number Sense”: the approximate number system in 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-year-olds and adults. Dev. Psychol. 44 1457–1465. 10.1037/a0012682 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatcher J., Snowling M. J., Griffiths Y. M. (2002). Cognitive assessment of dyslexic students in higher education. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 72 119–133. 10.1348/000709902158801 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huettig F., Mishra R. K. (2014). How literacy acquisition affects the illiterate mind – a critical examination of theories and evidence. Lang. Linguist. Compass 8 401–427. 10.1111/lnc3.12092 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Infante I. (2000). Functional Literacy in Seven Latin American Countries. Santiago: UNESCO. [ Google Scholar ]
• Joanisse M. F., Manis F. R., Keating P., Seidenberg M. S. (2000). Language deficits in dyslexic children: speech perception, phonology, and morphology. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 77 30–60. 10.1006/jecp.1999.2553 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kosmidis M. H., Tsapkini K., Folia V. (2006). Lexical processing in illiteracy: effect of literacy or education? Cortex 42 1021–1027. 10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70208-9 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kosmidis M. H., Tsapkini K., Folia V., Vlahou C. H., Kiosseoglou G. (2004). Semantic and phonological processing in illiteracy. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 10 818–827. 10.1017/S1355617704106036 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kosmidis M. H., Zafiri M., Politimou N. (2011). Literacy versus formal schooling: influence on working memory. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 26 575–582. 10.1093/arclin/acr063 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Landerl K., Fussenegger B., Moll K., Willburger E. (2009). Dyslexia and dyscalculia: two learning disorders with different cognitive profiles. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 103 309–324. 10.1016/j.jecp.2009.03.006 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Landgraf S., Beyer R., Pannekamp A., Schaadt G., Koch D., Foth M., et al. (2011). Dissociating improvement of attention and intelligence during written language acquisition in adults. Int. J. Intell. Sci. 1 17–24. 10.4236/ijis.2011.12003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Law J. M., Wouters J., Ghesquière P. (2015). Morphological awareness and its role in compensation in adults with dyslexia. Dyslexia 21 254–272. 10.1002/dys.1495 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leong V., Hämäläinen J., Soltész F., Goswani U. (2011). Rise time perception and detection of syllable stress in adults with developmental dyslexia. J. Mem. Lang. 64 59–73. 10.1016/j.jml.2010.09.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lyon G. R., Shaywitz S. E., Shaywitz B. A. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Ann. Dyslexia 53 1–14. 10.1007/s11881-003-0001-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lyons I. M., Nuerk H.-C., Ansari D. (2015). Rethinking the implications of numerical ratio effects for understanding the development of representational precision and numerical processing across formats. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 144 1021–1035. 10.1037/xge0000094 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• MacArthur C. A., Konold T. R., Glutting J. J., Alamprese J. A. (2010). Reading component skills of learners in adult basic education. J. Learn. Disabil. 43 108–121. 10.1177/0022219409359342 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martens V. E. G., de Jong P. F. (2006). The effect of word length on lexical decision in dyslexic and normal reading children. Brain Lang. 98 140–149. 10.1016/j.bandl.2006.04.003 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martinez R., Fernandez A. (2010). The Social and Economic Impact of Illiteracy. Analytical Model and Pilot Study. Santiago: OREALC/UNESCO. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moeller K., Huber S., Nuerk H.-C., Willmes K. (2011). Two-digit number processing – holistic, decomposed or hybrid? A computational modelling approach. Psychol. Res. 75 290–306. 10.1007/s00426-010-0307-2 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moeller K., Pixner S., Kaufmann L., Nuerk H.-C. (2009). Children’s early mental number line: logarithmic or rather decomposed linear? J. Exp. Child Psychol. 103 503–515. 10.1016/j.jecp.2009.02.006 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morais J., Cary L., Alegria J., Bertelsen P. (1979). Does awareness of speech as a sequence of phones arise spontaneously? Cognition 7 323–331. 10.1016/0010-0277(79)90020-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nickel S. (2007). “Familienorientierte grundbildung im sozialraum als schlüsselstrategie zur breiten teilhabe an literalität,” in Literalität, Grundbildung oder Lesekompetenz? Beiträge zu einer Theorie-Praxis-Diskussion eds Grotlüschen A., Linde A. (Münster: Waxmann; ) 31–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nuerk H.-C., Patro K., Cress U., Schild U., Friedrich C. K., Goebel S. M. (2015). How space-number associations may be created in preliterate children: six distinct mechanisms. Front. Psychol. 6 : 215 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00215 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD (2013). OECD Skills Outlook 2013. First Results from the Survey of Adult Skills. Paris: OECD. [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD and Statistics Canada (2000). Literacy in the Information Age. Final Report of the International Adult Literacy Survey. Paris: OECD. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ostrosky-Solis P., Ardila A., Rosselli M. (1999). NEUROPSI: a brief neuropsychological test battery in Spanish with norms by age and educational level. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 5 413–433. 10.1017/S1355617799555045 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Petersson K. M., Reis A., Askelöf S., Castro-Caldas A., Ingvar M. (2000). Language processing modulated by literacy: a network analysis of verbal repetition in literate and illiterate subjects. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 12 364–382. 10.1162/089892900562147 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramus F., Rosen S., Dakin S. C., Day B. L., Castellote J. M., White S., et al. (2003). Theories of developmental dyslexia: insights from a multiple case study of dyslexic adults. Brain 126 841–865. 10.1093/brain/awg076 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reis A., Castro-Caldas A. (1997). Illiteracy: a cause of biased cognitive development. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 3 444–450. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reis A., Faisca L., Ingvar M., Petersson K. M. (2006). Color makes a difference: two-dimensional object naming in literate and illiterate subjects. Brain Cogn. 60 49–54. 10.1016/j.bandc.2005.09.012 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reis A., Guerreiro M., Petersson K. M. (2003). A sociodemographic and neuropsychological characterization of an illiterate population. Appl. Neuropsychol. 10 191–204. 10.1207/s15324826an1004_1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rello L., Baeza-Yates R., Dempere-Marco L., Saggion H. (2013). Frequent words improve readability and short words improve understandability for people with dyslexia. Lecture Notes Comput. Sci. 8120 203–219. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rimrodt S. I., Clements-Stephens A. M., Pugh K. R., Courtney S. M., Gaur P., Pekar J. J., et al. (2009). Functional MRI of sentence comprehension in children with dyslexia: beyond word recognition. Cereb. Cortex 19 402–413. 10.1093/cercor/bhn092 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rose L. T., Rougani P. (2012). Influence of verbal working memory depends on vocabulary: oral reading fluency in adolescents with dyslexia. Mind Brain Educ. 6 1–9. 10.1111/j.1751-228X.2011.01135.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosselli M., Ardila A., Rosas P. (1990). Neuropsychological assessment in illiterates II.: language and Praxic Abilities. Brain Cogn. 12 281–296. 10.1016/0278-2626(90)90020-O [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rüsseler J., Becker P., Johannes S., Münte T. F. (2007). Semantic, syntactic, and phonological processing of written language in adult developmental dyslexic readers: an event-related brain potential study. BMC Neurosci. 8 : 52 10.1186/1471-2202-8-52 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rüsseler J., Boltzmann M., Menkhaus K., Aulbert-Siepelmeyer A. (2013). Evaluation eines neuen trainingsprogramms zur verbesserung der lese- und rechtschreibfähigkeiten funktionaler analphabeten. Empirische Sonderpädagogik 3 237–249. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rüsseler J., Gerth I., Boltzmann M. (2011). “Basale wahrnehmungsfähigkeiten von erwachsenen funktionalen analphabeten und analphabetinnen,” in Lernprozesse in Alphabetisierung und Grundbildung Erwachsener. Diagnostik, Vermittlung, Professionalisierung ed. Projektträger im DLR e.V (Bielefeld: WBV-Verlag; ) 11–28. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rüsseler J., Menkhaus K., Aulbert-Siepelmeyer A., Gerth I., Boltzmann M. (2012). “Alpha Plus”: an innovative training program for reading and writing education of functionally illiterate adults. Creat. Educ. 3 357–361. 10.4236/ce.2012.33056 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shi Y., Tsang M. C. (2008). Evaluation of adult literacy education in the United States: a review of methodological issues. Educ. Res. Rev. 3 187–217. 10.1016/j.edurev.2007.10.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Siegler R. S., Opfer J. E. (2003). The development of numerical estimation: evidence for multiple representations of numerical quantity. Psychol. Sci. 14 237–243. 10.1111/1467-9280.02438 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Silva C., Faisca L., Ingvar M., Petersson K. M., Reis A. (2012). Literacy: exploring working memory system. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 1 1–9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simmons F. R., Singleton C. (2006). Arithmetic abilities of adults with dyslexia. Dyslexia 12 96–114. 10.1002/dys.312 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith-Spark J. H., Henry L. A., Messer D. J., Edvardsdottir E., Ziecik A. P. (2016). Executive functions in adults with developmental dyslexia. Res. Dev. Disabil. 53 323–341. 10.1016/j.ridd.2016.03.001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Statistics Canada OECD. (2005). Learning a Living. First Results of the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey. Paris: OECD. [ Google Scholar ]
• Suarez-Coalla P., Ramos S., Alvarez-Canizo M., Cuetos F. (2014). Orthographic learning in dyslexic Spanish children. Ann. Dyslexia 64 166–181. 10.1007/s11881-014-0092-5 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompkins A. C., Binder K. S. (2003). A comparison of the factors affecting reading performance of functional illiterate adults and children matched by reading level. Read. Res. Q. 38 236–258. 10.1598/RRQ.38.2.4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thorn W. (2009). International Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Surveys in the OECD Region. OECD Education Working Papers 26 Paris: OECD Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO (1978). Records of the General Conference. 20th Session Vol. 1 Paris: UNESCO. [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO (2006). “Why Literacy Matters,” in Education for All. Literacy for Life ed. UNESCO (Paris: UNESCO Publishing; ) 135–145. [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO (2009). The Next Generation of Literacy Statistics: Implementing the LITERACY ASSESSMENT and Monitoring Programme (LAMP). Paris: UNESCO Institute for Statistics Montreal. [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO (2013). Schooling for Millions of Children Jeopardized by Reductions in Aid. Education for All Global Monitoring Report. Paris: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO (2015). Adult and Youth Literacy. UIS Fact Sheet. Paris: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vajjala S., Meurers D. (2014). Readability assessment for text simplification: from analyzing documents to identifying sentential simplifications. Int. J. Appl. Linguist. 165 194–222. [ Google Scholar ]
• Valdois S., Bosse M.-L., Tainturier M.-J. (2004). The cognitive deficits responsible for developmental dyslexia: review of evidence for a selective visual attentional disorder. Dyslexia 10 339–363. 10.1002/dys.284 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Linden S., Cremers A. H. M. (2008). “Cognitive abilities of functionally illiterate persons relevant to ICT use,” in Computers Helping People with Special Needs eds Miesenberger K., Klaus J., Zagler W., Karshmer A. (Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; ) 705–712. [ Google Scholar ]
• Varvara P., Varuzza C., Sorrentino A. C. P., Vicari S., Menghini D. (2014). Executive functions in developmental dyslexia. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8 : 120 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00120 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• White S., Milne E., Rosen S., Hansen P., Swettenham J., Frith U., et al. (2006). The role of sensorimotor impairments in dyslexia: a multiple case study of dyslexic children. Dev. Sci. 9 237–269. 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00483.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Willburger E., Fussenegger B., Moll K., Wood G., Landerl K. (2008). Naming speed in dyslexia and dyscalculia. Learn. Individ. Differ. 18 224–236. 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.01.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Willcutt E. G., Petrill S. A., Wu S., Boada R., DeFries J. C., Olson R. K., et al. (2013). Comorbidity between reading disability and math disability: concurrent psychopathology, Functional Impairment, and Neuropsychological Functioning. J. Learn. Disabil. 46 500–516. 10.1177/0022219413477476 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson A. J., Andrewes S. G., Struthers H., Rowe V. M., Bogdanovic R., Waldie K. E. (2015). Dyscalculia and dyslexia in adults: cognitive bases of comorbidity. Learn. Individ. Differ. 37 118–132. 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.11.017 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiseheart R., Altmann L. J. P., Park H., Lombardino L. J. (2009). Sentence comprehension in young adults with developmental dyslexia. Ann. Dyslexia 59 151–167. 10.1007/s11881-009-0028-7 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziegler J. C., Pech-Georgel C., Dufau S., Grainger J. (2010). Rapid processing of letters, digits and symbols: what purely visual-attentional deficit in developmental dyslexia? Dev. Sci. 13 8–14. 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00983.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zoubrinetzky R., Bielle F., Valdois S. (2014). New insights on developmental dyslexia subtypes: heterogeneity of mixed reading profiles. PLoS ONE 9 : e99337 10.1371/journal.pone.0099337 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

716.651.0465 | Airport Commerce Park | 303 Cayuga Rd., Suite 180 | Cheektowaga, NY 14225

(716) 651-0465

Airport Commerce Park 303 Cayuga Rd., Suite 180 Cheektowaga, NY 14225

• Our History and Strategic Milestones
• Meet Our Staff
• Meet Our Board of Directors
• LNY Planning and Board Calendar
• Literacy Facts
• Capital North RAEN
• Northeast ADA Center
• New York Association for Continuing and Community Education
• NY Association of Training and Employment Professionals
• Literacy Assistance Center
• NY City Coaltion for Adutl Literacy
• NYS Community Schools
• NY Immigration Coalition
• Online Tutor Training (OTT)
• Regional Adult Education Networks (RAENs)
• NY State Support and Technical Assistance Center
• ADA Training
• Site Locations
• Provider Testimonials
• Provider Login: Executive Director Area
• Stop Reading Challenge
• Janice Cuddahee Fund

What Causes Illiteracy?

As you know, Literacy New York supports adult literacy initiatives, working with literacy groups throughout New York State. You may wonder though—Why are adults illiterate? What causes illiteracy? Here are some of the most frequent causes of illiteracy in adults:

• Parents with little schooling;
• Lack of books at home and lack of stimulation as to the importance of reading;
• Doing badly at or dropping out of school—many have not completed high school;
• Difficult living conditions, including poverty;
• Learning disabilities, such as dyslexia

Most often, "illiteracy in individuals stems from different, generally inter-related causes which, together, create a series of often insurmountable barriers for those concerned." (Literacy Foundation)

The good news is that illiteracy is a solvable problem, and the partner organizations that we work with can "cure illiteracy". There is hope for everyone, and it begins with the first step—linking up with an adult literacy organization.

Phone : 716.651.0465

Fax : 716.651.0542

Quick Links

• Find a Location

Login - LNY Board

LNY has earned this seal for accountability and transparency as a non-profit organization by posting audited financial statements to the public.

• May 31, 2022

Hidden in Plain Sight: The Secret Epidemic of Illiteracy in the United States

America has a literacy problem, and it’s worse than you think.

Amelia Lake | [email protected]

The ability to read is an essential skill for navigating the modern world, yet millions of adults in the United States have such poor literacy skills that they are unable to read basic sentences, fill out a job application form, or understand the instructions on their prescription labels. Without intervention, illiteracy has wide-reaching and devastating consequences, condemning its sufferers to shame, isolation, and poverty. Kirsten Levinsohn, executive director of New Haven Reads, a New Haven-based organization that works to foster children’s literacy skills, explains current legislative and community efforts to address this issue.

Text messages. Emails. News articles. Road signs. There is a good chance that you have encountered one of these things today, and odds are, decoding them from letters, to words, to meaning took about as much effort as breathing. The ability to read is something the majority of us take for granted, and yet it is one of the most fundamental skills needed to navigate and be successful in our modern world. But for all too many people—maybe some you know—it is an insurmountable barrier and a source of deep shame.

The numbers are staggering. As of 2022, ThinkImpact reports that an estimated 79% of American adults are literate. To put it another way, one out of every five American adults are functionally illiterate, meaning that today in the United States, almost 65 million people are unable to read basic sentences, fill out a job application form, or understand the instructions on their prescription labels. This is not merely a crisis of the illiterate, but also of the underliterate: a whopping 54 percent of all American adults read at or below a sixth grade level.

“Literacy is a basic human right,” says Kirsten Levinsohn , executive director of the New Haven-based nonprofit New Haven Reads. “Reading is fundamental. You can’t be successful by any measure if you don’t first learn to read…It’s easy not to think about it, especially if it doesn’t impact you. But it’s a tragedy for every child who doesn’t learn how to read, and it’s a tragedy for the family, the community, and the state as well.”

The root of the problem is in early childhood. All too often, students who perform poorly in school are allowed to fall through the cracks. Without proper access to services that can help a struggling reader or identify an undiagnosed reading disability early on, children who are most in need of intervention are simply passed over. “If you haven’t been taught how to read before third grade,” says Levinsohn, “it’s unlikely that you ever will, because teachers are moving on. You miss the transition from ‘learning to read’ to ‘reading to learn’.”

The social and economic toll is nothing short of devastating. Starting in school, illiteracy leads to feelings of inadequacy, shame, and isolation. Students with low levels of literacy are more likely to be chronically absent, suffer behavioral problems, and drop out of school, leading to a cascading chain reaction of negative consequences. Literacy Mid-South estimates that high school dropouts , lacking employment prospects, are almost four times more likely to be arrested and 63 percent more likely to be incarcerated than their peers. The burden is lifelong, with morbid outcomes—illiteracy has strong links to poverty , with some 43 percent of illiterate adults living under the poverty line, and a reduced ability to access health services. According to a study by Nursing , elderly individuals who are illiterate are more likely to die within 6 years than those who can read well enough to understand basic health information.

This suffering is not felt evenly across the board. Illiteracy is strongly generational, meaning that individuals who are illiterate are much more likely to have been raised by illiterate and undereducated parents. “Some people say, ‘Oh, the kids can’t read because the parents don’t care,’ ” says Levinsohn. “First of all, the parents do care. They care a lot—they just don’t have the opportunities that higher-earners have access to.” Indeed, family wealth, along with parental literacy level, is among the strongest predictors of a child’s academic success. According to Regis College , exposure to literature—specifically, being read to and having access to age-appropriate books—is a critical part of fostering a child’s reading skills outside the classroom. Yet more than half of all American families living in poverty (who are disproportionately likely to be people of color, rural, Indigenous, or foreign-born) do not have children’s books in the home. Low-income earners, facing additional financial stress and grueling working hours, have less energy and time to engage in their child’s education. As the saying goes, you don’t know what you don’t know, and this is no less true when it comes to education; illiterate adults often lack the knowledge to recognize when their child is falling behind. The end result is that parents who themselves are illiterate, through no fault of their own, are simply ill-equipped to properly support a child’s academic development.

Says Levinsohn, “what’s happening now in Connecticut is that there are huge gaps in reading attainment, often having to do with disparities in income and race, which reflect the inequities in our society. In New Haven right now, about 30 percent of kids are reading at grade level or better—which, if you say it the other way, means 70 percent aren’t, which is horrendous.”

It is worth noting that these statistics are all pre-pandemic. With school closures interrupting the education of millions of students, the situation has only worsened.

The blame lies partly in curriculum design. “This is not to bash teachers,” says Levinsohn, a former teacher herself. “They went into this field for a reason. They’re all working so hard. But not all of them have been trained in the science of reading, and the science of reading is not universally accepted.”

Levinsohn is referring to the so-called “reading wars” , an ongoing debate over how reading should be taught. This rivalry, which dates back to the 1800s, consists of two opposing schools of thought: whole-language and phonics. Proponents of whole-language theory see learning to read and write English as analogous to learning to speak—“a natural, unconscious process” that is best taught through “unstructured immersion”. Words are taught individually, much like Chinese characters, and children are encouraged to decipher their meaning through context clues. Phonics, on the other hand, sees written language more as a code to be deciphered. This method emphasizes phonemic awareness, meaning that it teaches children to identify the constituent sounds of words to sound them out. Despite overwhelming evidence that the phonics approach leads to better reading outcomes, there is no federal requirement for schools to implement it in their curricula.

For the past 20 years, there has been little change in reading outcomes. As Levinsohn puts it: “Obviously, doing the same thing over and over is not working.”

The “ Right to Read ” Act, passed last June by the Connecticut General Assembly under the sponsorship of Senator Patricia Miller, aims to close some of the gaps. With its $12.8 million budget, the bill makes provisions to ensure school districts can hire reading coaches for students who are falling behind. Furthermore, it establishes a Center for Literacy Research and Reading Success, which will oversee the development of reading curricula for students in grades PreK-3. Its focus is, in part, on ensuring that school districts—which previously had complete autonomy in designing their reading curricula—adhere to evidence-based practices of reading instruction. “There is a proven method for literacy instruction,” wrote Miller in an opinion piece for the Stamford Advocate, “and that we need to use it in all of our Connecticut classrooms. Our students are entitled to it.”

Levinsohn is optimistic about the bill’s potential. “It just needs to become a priority,” she says. “There needs to be money and resources at the lowest level so kids are getting the support they need.”

But legislation isn’t the only means of intervention. Community-based organizations like New Haven Reads can and do have a tremendous impact . The nonprofit, initially founded as a book bank, has been a part of the New Haven community for over 20 years and offers a number of programs intended to support literacy development in struggling children. Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, it sponsored school field trips for grades PreK-5 where students got to pick out five books to take home with them. “Unfortunately, a lot of kids don’t have books at home, or maybe they only have one or two,” Levinsohn explains. “We really try to put out books that would be at their grade level and their interest level. We also try very hard with this program and our tutoring program to have books that are diverse and have characters that represent our child readers.” All in all, New Haven Reads donates over 100,000 books a year , and has donated almost 2 million since its founding.

While the pandemic has forced New Haven Reads to temporarily shutter some of its usual activities, “we are still giving out books,” says Levinsohn. “Frankly, a lot to teachers. A lot of them don’t have books in their classrooms, which is quite sad. And even more sad is that a lot of schools have had to close their libraries for financial reasons, so the kids have less access to books.”

In addition to its book bank, New Haven Reads also offers a one-on-one tutoring program, which trains volunteers and matches them with a student with the intention of creating a long-lasting partnership. The program, which serves about 600 children per week, relies on the support of its roughly 400 volunteer tutors, many of them Yale affiliated—students and faculty alike. “For most of the children who come to us, all they need is a little extra individualized help,” Levinsohn says. “A lot of it is confidence for these kids. They feel that they’re stupid if they can’t read, and it’s so far from the truth. To see them grow and become more confident, it’s amazing.”

Despite the squeeze of the pandemic, New Haven Reads only intends to expand its array of services. In the works is an upcoming program intended to serve recent immigrants through a partnership with Integrated Refugee & Immigrant Services . And volunteers are always welcome.

“It’s the community at its best,” says Levinsohn. “It’s people from all walks of life coming together to support our city’s greatest asset—our kids.”

Writer’s reflection:

As a lover of language and a passionate learner, it’s difficult for me to fathom what it must be like to navigate everyday life, never mind education or work, without the ability to read. Yet for millions of Americans—our community members, friends, maybe even our own family—that is their reality. I want to extend my sincerest thanks to Kirsten Levinsohn for sharing her knowledge with me, and encourage readers to consider volunteering or donating to New Haven Reads and other organizations doing important work to tackle this issue.

• 2022 Spring Issue
• United States

Recent Posts

Breathing as a Human Right: Cancer Alley as a Case Study of Environmental Racism

The State of Reproductive Rights in Latin America-Ripples and Rollbacks

Resettlement and the Road Ahead

Commentaires

The Impact of Illiteracy and the Importance of Early Intervention

Nicola Miranda

Around 1 in 5 people are completely illiterate. Additionally, around 3 billion people around the world struggle with basic level reading and writing ( World Literacy Foundation  [WLF], 2018). This has significant economic, social, and health impacts at both an individual and societal level.

Economic Impact

The  World Literacy Foundation  (2018) reported that illiteracy and low levels of literacy have estimated to cost the global economy approximately £800 billion annually. Specifically, in the UK, illiteracy costs their economy around £80 billion in 2018 due to costs associated with welfare, unemployment, and social programs, as well as reduced government tax revenue and productivity. 

Furthermore, as the global economy moves more towards a knowledge economy, literacy is an essential skill for individuals and states to compete in the global economy. When a high proportion of the adult population has poor literacy skills, many positions remain vacant as insufficient individuals are adequately skilled to fulfill those roles. This results in slower GDP growth in the long term (Lal, 2015).

Social Impact

Individuals with low levels of literacy are more likely to experience poorer employment opportunities and outcomes and lower income. As a result, they often face welfare dependency, low self-esteem, and higher levels of crime. Moreover, people with a low level of literacy have limited ability to make important informed decisions in everyday life as they struggle with tasks such as filling out forms and applications, understanding government policies, reading medicine or nutritional labels, and more ( WLF, 2018 ).

Furthermore, parents who are functionally illiterate often prioritize work before education, have lower expectations in regards to schooling, and the children of parents who fail to complete primary school are more likely to follow in their footsteps and do likewise. This leads to a cycle of disadvantage through generations. On the other hand, strong literacy skills among parents will have positive impacts on their children’s lives as they are more able to help and encourage their children in their schoolwork and communicate with their teachers effectively ( WLF, 2018 ).

You can help by donating to the World Literacy Foundation here.

Just $10 can help to provide key educational resources to children..

Health Impact

Berkman et al.  (2004) found that people with low levels of literacy are more likely to experience adverse health outcomes, have poor health literacy, and practice poor health behaviors. For example, people with low levels of health literacy are more likely to experience:

• Higher hospital admission rates
• A lack of engagement with health services such as cancer screening
• A lack of understanding and adherence to medical advice

Moreover, the recent COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the great lack of health literacy globally. During this time, many people were challenged in understanding and applying the health information provided by health professionals and the government (Paakkari & Okan, 2020). Adequate health literacy is important in ensuring that people are able to understand and correctly apply health information to prevent disease, and the failure to do so increases the risk for disease transmission.

An Effective Solution: Early Intervention 

Early interventions targeting children in early childhood could be the most effective approach to increasing literacy skills in the long term. According to a  Harvard study  (2007), brain development occurs rapidly in the first few years of life, before formal schooling even begins, where over one million new neural connections are made every second. During these years, sensory pathways for early language skills and higher cognitive functions already begin to develop. 

Developing literacy and language skills before formal schooling sets a child up for success in school and life. Children with a poor foundation in literacy before entering formal schooling are more likely to struggle academically and to drop out of school, increasing their likelihood of facing poorer employment and social outcomes in the future. Moreover, the quality of the environment at home and early childhood services is one of the key factors for literacy development. Hence, early childhood is a critical stage for parents and early childhood services to facilitate learning experiences for children ( Royal Children’s Hospital, 2008 ).

Rather than addressing the issue of poor literacy in adults when it arises, it is better to prevent the problem and its consequences in the first place through early childhood interventions. While investments in early childhood programs are commonly argued to be a burden on state budgets and taxpayers,  Heckman  (2018) found that quality early childhood programs actually have a 13% return rate for investment per annum as a result of improved education, health, social and economic outcomes. With these significant returns, these early childhood programs will pay for themselves eventually over time. Therefore, investments in early childhood education, particularly for children from low socioeconomic backgrounds, will lead to short- and long-term social and economic gains.

For instance,  World Literacy Foundation’s  work in Victoria focuses on providing early literacy skills and school preparedness for children aged 0-5 years from low-socioeconomic backgrounds. For example, the organization’s work includes educating new parents to support their children in their learning, providing regular reading groups, and distributing books to young children who may lack access to them.

With the significant economic, social, and health costs low levels of literacy have on individuals, communities, and societies, this is a global issue that needs to be addressed. Investing in early childhood literacy programs will bring back greater returns not only economically, but also returns in health and social outcomes. 

Written by: Amanda Low & Nicola Miranda

• Berkman, N. D., Dewalt, D. A., Pignone, M. P., Sheridan, S. L., Lohr, K. N., Sutton, S. F., … Bonito A. J. (2004). 87 Literacy and Health Outcomes: Summary. In AHRQ Evidence Report Summaries . Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11942/
• Center on the Developing Child (2007). InBrief: The Science of Early Childhood Development . Retrieved from https://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/inbrief-science-of-ecd/#:~:text=In%20the%20first%20few%20years,brain%20circuits%20become%20more%20efficient
• Heckman. (2018). Social Media Content: Early Investments and Return on Investment for ECE/Childcare. Retrieved from https://heckmanequation.org/resource/social-posts-early-investments-and-return-on-investment-for-ece-childcare/
• Lal, B. S. (2015). The Economic and Social Cost of Illiteracy Overview. International Journal of Advance Research and Innovative Ideas in Education, 1 (5), 665. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311562787_The_Economic_and_Social_Cost_of_Illiteracy_An_Overview
• Paakkari, L., & Okan, O. (2020). COVID-19: health literacy is an underestimated problem. The Lancet. Public health, 5(5), e249–e250. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30086-4
• Royal Children’s Hospital. Literacy in Early Childhood. Retrieved from https://ww2.rch.org.au/emplibrary/ccch/PB13_Literacy_EarlyChildhood.pdf
• World Literacy Foundation. (n.d.). Australia. Retrieved from https://worldliteracyfoundation.org/australia/
• World Literacy Foundation. (2018). The Economic & Social Costs of Illiteracy . Retrieved from TheEconomicSocialCostofIlliteracy-2.pdf  

Did you enjoy reading this note?    Like and share !

You can help by donating to the World Literacy Foundation here

Just $10 can help to provide key educational resources to children, examples of illiteracy, types of illiteracy, cultural illiteracy, emotional illiteracy, civic illiteracy.

economic illiteracy consequences of illiteracy definition of illiteracy types of illiteracy what is the meaning of illiteracy what are the causes of illiteracy synonyms of illiteracy illiteracy and poverty historical illiteracy high illiteracy rate computer illiteracy biblical illiteracy cause of illiteracy science illiteracy civic illiteracy

More Recent Stories

Beyond Our Pages: Unveiling the Global Impact and my Journey as a 2023 Youth Ambassador

Essential skills for children’s written mastery

Over 100 students in Ibadan, Nigeria, benefited from a WLF Ambassador’s initiative.

The challenges and opportunities in 2024 to address high rates of illiteracy.

A Bright Start: World Literacy Foundation’s Resolutions for 2024

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Adult Illiteracy: A Global Social Problem

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 27 November 2021
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Shiv Prakash Katiyar 7  

222 Accesses

Adult illiteracy is a global social problem even today despite number of diligent efforts by different governments, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and other international organizations. The problem is not only restricted to developing nations but also prevalent in developed countries. Illiteracy in the USA is approximately 1% but 60% of the adults in American jails and 85% of minors in juvenile custody are functionally illiterate.

Illiteracy is the most important factor which inhibits the socioeconomic development of society. At the individual level, illiteracy blocks the overall development by preventing from imparting the ability that education provides to their children and more significantly causes lack self-esteem in the individual which leads them to isolation from the mainstream society. At the societal level, they face challenges in functioning effectively in the knowledge-driven world, in community involvement and civic participation.

The present chapter is an attempt to analyze the pattern of illiteracy across the globe. The study is based on secondary data, sourced from the UNESCO and other international organizations for statistical analysis of illiteracy at regional and gender level. The data analysis reveals patterns, nature of illiteracy, and significant factors responsible for prevalence of illiteracy. The study aims to address the issue of illiteracy at a global level.

One is never too old to learn. — Thomas Middleton

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Disability, Poverty, and Schooling in Post-civil War in Sierra Leone

Education Interrupted: English Education Policy from the Rubble in Syria

Chand, P. (2015). Status and trend of literacy in india (adult and youth), Database for literacy programmes-2011 (pp. 1–200). Indian Adult Education Association.

Google Scholar  

Cree, A. et al. (2012). The economic & social cost of illiteracy: A snapshot of illiteracy in a global context . Final Report from the World Literacy Foundation , April , p. 1–18 .

Dighe, A. (1991). Women and literacy-some policy considerations. Indian Journal of Adult Education, 52 (1&2), 35–59.

Govinda, R., & Biswal, K. (2005). Mapping literacy in india: Who are the illiterates and where do we find them? (pp. 21–23). UNESCO.

Government of India. (2009). Sakshar Bharat (p. 1). Ministry of Human Resource Development.

Gunawardena, C. (1997). Problems of illiteracy in a literate developing society: Sri Lanka. International Review of Education, 43 (5–6), 595–609.

Article   Google Scholar  

Harman, D. (1971). Illiteracy: An overview (pp. 1–20).

Roser, M. & Ortiz-Ospina, E. (2018). Literacy . Retrieved on 20 Sept from https://ourworldindata.org/literacy

Ranjan, R. (2004). Impact of literacy programmes on development in Tamil Nadu-a perspective. Indian Journal of Adult Education (New Delhi), 65 (3–4), 36.

Richmond, M., et al. (2008). The global literacy challenge (p. 23). UNESCO.

Rao, B. S. V., & Gupta, P. V. (2006). Low female literacy: factors and strategies. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 46 (1), 84–95.

Rezaii, A., & Izadi, S. (2012). The social causes of illiteracy in Iran. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46 , 5631–5634.

Shah, S. Y. (2003). Lessons from adult education programmes in the East and South-East Asian Countries: A case study of Thailand. International Journal of Adult and Lifelong Education, 1 (1), 56–69.

Shah, S. Y. (2018). Adult education in India: Provision of opportunities for literacy, numeracy and basic skills. Indian Journal of Adult Education, 79 (3), 5–19.

Thangal, N. (2013). Social and economic consequences of illiteracy. International Journal of Behavioral Social and Movement Sciences, 2 (2), 1–9.

UIS Information Paper. (2013). Adult and youth literacy national, regional and global trends, 1985–2015 (p. 132). UNESCO Institute for Statistics.

UNESCO Education Strategy 2014-2021. (2014). The unfinished EFA Agenda (p. 63). UNESCO.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Adult and youth literacy, UIS Fact Sheet , September 2013, No.26, p. 1.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics. UIS Statistics in Brief. Global Literacy Profile 2011, p. 1.

Wagner, D. A. (2011). What happened to literacy? historical and conceptual perspectives on literacy in UNESCO. International Journal of Educational Development, 31 , 319–323.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

National Institute of Educational Planning & Administration (NIEPA), New Delhi, India

Shiv Prakash Katiyar

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Social Work and Social Welfare, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

Rajendra Baikady

Department of Social Work, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India

Nicolaus Copernicus University, Torun, Poland

Jaroslaw Przeperski

Department of Social Work, University of Johannesburg, Auckland Park, South Africa

Varoshini Nadesan

Inst of Social Welfare & Res, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Islam Rezaul

Sch of Philosophy & Social Development, Shandong University, Central Campus, Jinan, China

Jianguo Gao

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Katiyar, S.P. (2022). Adult Illiteracy: A Global Social Problem. In: Baikady, R., Sajid, S., Przeperski, J., Nadesan, V., Rezaul, I., Gao, J. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Global Social Problems. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68127-2_160-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68127-2_160-1

Received : 06 September 2021

Accepted : 06 September 2021

Published : 27 November 2021

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-68127-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-68127-2

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Social Sciences Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Important COVID-19 information:  Our Programs  |  FAQs  |  Resources for families

• Join our Team
• Resource Hub

July 25, 2017

The problem with illiteracy and how it affects all of us

The first few years of a child’s life are some of the most important. Beyond the crying, cooing, napping, and stumbling that marks toddlerhood, there’s a whole lot of cognitive development occurring. In fact, about 80 percent of a child’s brain is developed by age three, with a key period of development occurring in their language and literacy skills.

Unfortunately, the quality of early childhood education a child receives is often determined by his or her economic status. Studies  have shown that by age 5, half of children living in poverty are not academically or socially ready for school. By fourth grade, the divide increases with 80 percent of low-income children reading below grade level. These children often fall behind during critical early years, which not only negatively affects their performance in the classroom, but can also impact their social skills, health, and economic status later in life. And this problem extends to our broader society and economy, too.

Literacy and health

According to research , low literacy levels are often correlated with poor health outcomes, including higher rates of hospitalization and more frequent outpatient visits, than when compared to adults with higher levels of literacy. Additionally, low-literacy adults are less likely to have preventative healthcare screenings or properly adhere to prescribed medication intake. This lack of understanding around health information and an impaired ability to make sound health decisions has implications on our larger society—over $230 billion per year is spent in health care costs linked to low-literacy adults. An outcome that could be easily avoided.

Reading ability and an individual’s health status are so closely correlated, that in recent years, the medical community has begun to treat reading as a public health issue. Medical providers are encouraged to play an active role in helping to combat the literacy crisis. In 2014, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a toolkit   that provides resources for health care providers and doctors to speak to parents about the importance of early literacy. It encourages parents to read, talk, and sing with their children and outlines how pediatricians can implement a literacy promotion program with their patients. Resources such as this toolkit instill the importance and the joy that comes with reading for children and their parents.

Literacy and the workforce

Not only do low-literate adults experience greater health difficulties, they often struggle in the workforce. According to economist William C. Wood , the financial-earning gap between adults with the lowest levels of literacy and those with the highest is staggering. Almost half of this population is living in poverty and therefore struggle to provide a living for their family. Low-literate adults are over ten times more likely to receive public financial aid and on average only earn $300 per week, even while working full-time. Additionally, 64 percent of these individuals have never used a computer while a mere 27 percent hold a high school diploma or GED.

Employers are less likely to hire individuals who haven’t finished high school, thus leading to longer periods of unemployment. High rates of unemployment and the resulting loss of tax revenue end up costing the United States upwards of $225 billion per year.

Woods suggests that policies designed to increase an individual’s skills and abilities and make applicants more competitive in the workforce tend to yield the best outcomes. By providing low-literate adults with the training to acquire job skills, we allow them to catch up with their more educated peers and take steps to advance our society as a whole.

What can we do?

Low literacy is a national crisis that affects all of us and our broader economy. The earlier we intervene, the larger impact we can make. By taking the time to understand the facts of this issue and working together to combat the literacy crisis head on, we can help to ensure children are getting the resources and attention they need to be strong readers and successful members of society.

Together we can make a difference and transform the lives of our children and communities by getting involved in advocating for education and volunteering in schools.

Learn more about becoming a reading partner .

Related Posts:

March 4, 2015

Study finds volunteers can boost reading proficiency and resources in schools

February 22, 2015

Empowering Students to Believe They're Awesome

Engaging communities. empowering students..

Thanks to our partners

• Close Menu Search
• Tips and Lessons
• Classroom in a Box
• Journalism Training
• News Literacy Principles
• Media Literacy Articles
• Curriculum and Lessons
• Q and A with the Pros

SchoolJournalism.org

News & Media Literacy Corner

• Recent News

Take Action: Only YOU Can Prevent Media Illiteracy

Frank Baker , Author and Media Literacy Advocate | March 2, 2021

The inability of many of today’s students to evaluate information online for truthfulness has become a crisis in American education.

Even though most students now use the Internet as their primary tool to learn what’s happening in the world, the education system has been slow to acknowledge the problem and begin a serious search for solutions.

I hope you’re ready to do your part, and that you’ll find what I’ve shared here useful in shaping a better educator response to a global trend that Oxford researchers describe as “industrialized disinformation” and the Rand Corporation calls “the era of Truth Decay.”

In 2016 researchers at Stanford University’s History Education Group (SHEG) labeled students’ lack of critical thinking about information they find on the web as “dismal.” (A  more recent   study  found college age students similarly deficient.)

Since the release of the Stanford report four years ago, “policymakers and educators have introduced a wave of initiatives aimed at equipping students with stronger digital literacy skills,”  an October press release from Stanford noted. “But as the 2020 election approaches and many of those students become first-time voters, SHEG researchers have found few signs of progress” in the intervening years, according to NPR’s report. ( Source )

SHEG co-founder Sam Wineburg lamented the failure as “a threat to democracy.” He urged policymakers and educators to focus on and fund effective ways to teach students how they can separate truth from fiction in digital media.

We’re still very much seeing students struggle to make sense of the information they encounter. In 2019 we released the most extensive  study  to date on how young people go about trying to verify a claim on social media or the internet, based on research with more than 3,000 high school students matching the demographic profile of students across the United States.

More than half of the students believed that a grainy video on Facebook of ballot stuffing provided “strong evidence” of voter fraud during the 2016 U.S. primaries, even though the clips were actually shot in Russia. More than 96 percent failed to recognize that a climate change denial group was connected to the fossil fuel industry.

These are claims that are easily discernible in two or three steps on the internet. So sadly, no – young people’s ability to separate fact from fiction hasn’t improved in the last four years.

In early 2020, the Rand Corporation released a major report,   “Media Use and Literacy in Schools – Civic Development in the Era of Truth Decay.”   Its key details and recommendations have important ramifications for current and future instruction in schools.

One major finding of the “Truth Decay” report:

…nearly 80 percent (of the secondary teachers surveyed) described (their students’) “limited ability to evaluate the credibility of online information” as a moderate or major problem.  92 percent of the teachers said “students must learn to critically evaluate information for credibility and bias—it’s a crucial citizenship skill.”   (Source )

Some science teachers  have reported  that students trust YouTube videos more than the instruction they receive in class. It appears students often believe misinformation about climate change, the flat Earth, and vaccine safety, and may challenge conventional science facts. The Rand report seems to confirm that –  finding that teachers reported “students have made unfounded claims in class based on unreliable media sources.”

Just this week, three researchers at the Oxford University Internet Institute (OII) released a report,  Industrialized Disinformation , that found “evidence of organized social media manipulation campaigns in all 81 countries surveyed in 2020, a 15% increase.” The report speaks of “cyber-troops” which it defines as

“…social media accounts that spread doctored images, use data-driven strategies to target specific sections of the population, troll political opponents, and mass-report opponents’ content so that it is reported as spam. These accounts can be either automated or human.

Facebook and Twitter revealed that they removed more than 317,000 accounts and pages from their platforms in a 22-month period (Jan 2019 to Nov 2020), but they are up against an industry that has become “professionalized, with private firms offering disinformation-for-hire services,”  says  Dr Samantha Bradshaw, a researcher at the OII.”

Do our K-12 students realize they live in a social media-soaked world where battles like these are going in the background of their daily digital lives? Would you agree that we have a responsibility to help them understand the breadth and depth of the problem and how they can respond effectively?

Concerns about online misinformation have a long history among educators. In 1998, in the early days of the internet, education technologist Alan November presciently noted that not enough educators were dedicating instructional time to teaching students how to deconstruct the new World Wide Web. His now-classic essay  “Teaching Zach To Think”  is a must-read for every educator. [As you read it, ask yourself if much has changed in 22 years.]

More recently, the educational challenge has been framed as “internet literacy.” In May 2009, the International Reading Association published “New Literacies and 21st Century Technologies” – a landmark report ( PDF ) that expanded on the concept of literacy and urged educators to recognize the need to embrace “new literacy” education.

Yet, when they were published in 2010, the influential Common Core ELA standards made only one substantive reference to the need for students to be smarter about online information. College and career-ready students were expected to “gather relevant information from multiple print and digital sources, assess the credibility and accuracy of each source and integrate the information while avoiding plagiarism.”

“At the top level, they’re saying, yes, we recognize literacy means being digitally literate,” said Bridget Dalton, an associate professor of literacy studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. “But when you go to specific standards in reading, there’s not a lot there to guide you.” ( Source )

In a UConn Today article, Dr. Donald Leu, Director of the New Literacies Research Lab  at the University of Connecticut, agrees that schools are “the key to solving the fake news problem.” Yet, he noted in 2016, teachers have not been trained adequately nor do they have sufficient resources to fully address this 21st century literacy challenge. “If I were going to invest in one thing, that’s where I would invest – giving teachers the instructional tools they can use to teach kids to think critically about online information.” ( Source )

Educators will find more guidance, from a standards perspective, in  The Future Work Skills 2020 report  which recognizes the “New Media Ecology” we live in and recommends the key skills students need. The New Media Ecology demands that educators acknowledge the “new communication tools require new media literacies beyond text.”

How do we help students become better thinkers about everything they consume? One answer is “media literacy,” which provides learners with the critical thinking skills to analyze, question and create media messages. Understanding how to identify credible sources is a critical skill and an important step toward full digital citizenship.

To evaluate information, students need to consider several factors: Author; Currency; Accuracy; Purpose and Audience. I recommend that you introduce your students to each of the concepts and these questions they need to consider when evaluating information. ( Source )

• is the author qualified to write on this topic?
• does the author have affiliations with reputable institutions?
• does the author cite other sources in a reference list?
• for websites such as YouTube, is it clear who is posting the content?
• is the information up to date for your purpose?
• is the website content current for your purpose?
• check the publication date for all content
• is the information factual and correct?
• is a reference list or bibliography included?
• can the information be confirmed by research, statistics or studies?
• does the author provide a particular perspective (e.g. political, historical, gendered, or religious)?
• are multiple viewpoints presented?
• are the author’s conclusions based on personal opinion or evidence?
• who is the information for: the general public, scholars or professional practitioners?
• is this reflected in the writing style and terminology?

As you begin to help students become better critical thinkers, you may wish to consider printing these factors and questions as a handout or making a poster for your classroom.

Some experts are suggesting that this type of evaluation may be insufficient or outdated. Instead they recommend Mike Caufield’s SIFT model: STOP, INVESTIGATE, FIND and TRACE, which includes “4 Moves and a Habit.”  Read how to incorporate “the Four Moves” here .

Many education organizations are already on record urging schools to teach digital literacy and digital citizenship, and several now offer curricula. See the Recommended Resources at the end of this post. ISTE – the International Society of Technology in Education – has long promoted digital citizenship and teaching standards  and offers educators guidance .

Why aren’t students better at doing this?

Although I could not locate any current research that fully answers this question, I have some ideas. I believe that today’s students have weak media and information literacy skills because:

• Teachers have had little, if any, professional development in how to teach media literacy, so they don’t.
• The ELA teaching standards may reference critical thinking about web content, but this standard is often not a priority and also not a part of every discipline’s standards.
• Some educators have the mindset: “It isn’t part of what I’m responsible for teaching.”
• Librarians have a role as teachers of “information literacy,” but some may not be keeping up with the times, which include widespread intentional efforts to deceive.
• Colleges of education don’t offer courses so new teachers don’t get instruction.
• The existing “digital literacy” curriculum is insufficient and/or ineffective.
• Parents, who may not monitor their student’s online habits, don’t recognize the weaknesses in their child’s critical thinking skills or know how to address them.

Do any of these ring true in your experience?

In a recent webinar I hosted, one teacher offered this reason: she said her students are part of a generation that wants things fast, so they hurry and don’t bother to verify because it would take too long. Does this sound familiar? If so, what strategies might encourage them to slow down and engage?

A Call to Action

So now that we know what the problem is, what are some things we can do? In general, state and local boards of education, state departments of education, and district-level leaders in every state must make media and information literacy a much higher priority.

Only when these literacies are identified as “must do” and appropriately assessed will teachers receive the time, training and continuing support to become media literacy educators. If federal elections and Constitutional principles are at stake, it makes sense for Congress and the executive branch to provide funding to rally educators around this goal.

At the school and district level, my colleague Chris Sperry of Project Look Sharp recommends an integrated approach that has teachers from all disciplines and grade levels engage their students in the practice of asking  key questions for media analysis  as part of content area instruction.

Through  constructivist media decoding  (Project Look Sharp’s approach), educators can teach both core subject area knowledge and media literacy habits. “If teachers use this engaging methodology across the curriculum,” says Sperry, “our students will be better prepared to manage current and future epistemological threats to our democracy.

If we need to add another “hero” to our growing list in this new decade, I nominate the nation’s school librarians. They are the “go to” educators for teaching the so-called “digital natives” how to not only use the Internet, but also how to think critically about that use at the same time. If you’re fortunate enough to have a teacher specialist in that role in your school – and you have not yet collaborated to help your students get “up to speed” on verification skills – now would be a good time.

Do you feel prepared or overwhelmed?  Where will you go for advice and assistance? How will you proceed? I hope this post offers you some ideas and direction. Providing opportunities for our students to be engaged in critical thinking about online content is not only important, but urgent in these times of social and political unrest and uncertainty.

What action will you take? Only you can prevent media illiteracy.

Recommended Resources

► From my perspective, it is clear that many students  are not taking the time  to verify what they consume. Verification skills should become a priority. If you missed my previous post,  Verification: It’s The Number One Vocabulary Word of 2020 , now might be a good time to read it.

► Another MiddleWeb post,  Helping Our Students Identify as Generalists , also explores the idea that even when students understand the basics of fact-checking and information-mining, they still need to be motivated to use their skills.

► Project Look Sharp provides over 500  free lessons  for this work,  searchable  by keyword, subject, level or standard, as well as  video demonstrations  for leading media decoding activities (online and in person).

► The Rand Corporation has recently followed up its “Truth Decay” study with  recommendations for media literacy standards  for schools.

►  The In-School Push to Fight Misinformation from the Outside World  (Hechinger Report, 2021)

►  Everything You Need to Teach Digital Citizenship  (Common Sense Media, 2019)

►  Be Internet Awesome  (Google game and resources)

► The  Media Education Lab  at University of Rhode Island offers insights and free curriculum materials addressing media literacy and propaganda.

►  Civix News Literacy/Canada Helping Students Fight Information Pollution

►  Why Can’t a Generation That Grew Up Online Spot the Misinformation In Front of Them?  (Los Angeles Times op-ed – Sam Wineberg & Nadav Ziv. 11/6/20)

►  Create to Learn: Introduction to Digital Literacy  by Renee Hobbs (Wiley Blackwell, 2017)

►  Why Learn History (When It’s Already On Your Phone)  by Sam Wineberg (University of Chicago Press, 2018)

►  Sharpen Your Critical Thinking: Five Simple Strategies  (A BBC Ideas Video)

►  Media Literacy Starts with SEARCHing the Internet  (ISTE Blog – Jodi Pilgrim and Elda E. Martinez – 10/23/20)

►  Teaching Adolescents How to Evaluate the Quality of Online Information  (Julie Coiro, Edutopia, updated 8/29/17).

►  Evaluating Sources in a ‘Post-Truth’ World: Ideas for Teaching and Learning About Fake News  (New York Times Learning Network)

►  “Misinformation in the Information Age: What Teachers Can Do to Support Students.”  ( Social Education , NCSS ,   Joe Kahne and Erica Hodgin (2018).

► “ Rx for an Infodemic: Media Decoding, COVID-19 and Online Teaching .” ( Social Education , NCSS, Chris Sperry and Cyndy Scheibe (2020).

• media literacy
• misinformation
• News Literacy Project
• school journalism

Enter the Seventh Annual First Amendment Matters PSA Contest

Winners Announced in the SchoolJournalism Media Literacy Contest

Media Literacy Contest for Scholastic Journalists is Open

Literature: A Portal to Anti-Racist Teaching and Learning 

Empowering HS Journalists to Report on Race, Equality, and Social Justice

Diagnosing Propaganda Techniques in Campaign Ads: Civic Discourse and Media Literacy

Media Literacy Resources: Navigating a Digital Society

Lesson Plans

Lesson: Is it news or opinion?

Media Literacy in 2018: Top Five

Combating Apathy in an Era of “Fake News” and Standardized Testing

Comments (0)

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Welcome, Login to your account.

Prove your humanity

Recover your password.

A password will be e-mailed to you.

Illiteracy: Meaning, Causes, Effects, Consequences and Solutions

What is the meaning of illiteracy?

Illiteracy is a state whereby one is unable to read and write. In its simplest form, it can be defined as lack of any or sufficient education.

Sometimes people who have had very basic education also experience challenges in reading and writing.

Illiteracy can also mean ignorance or the lack of knowledge in a specific subject. For example, a person may have gone to school but does not know how to operate a computer. Such an individual has no literacy in computer and is known as computer illiterate. Nearly every job advertised requires one to have computer literacy due to the digitization of most processes at the workplace.

A mistake in reading or writing that is seen to be characteristic of an illiterate person is also referred to as illiteracy. For this definition, a speech or letter that has several errors can be said to be full of illiteracies.

Functional illiteracy, on the other hand, is used to describe a situation where a person has writing and reading skills considered inadequate to perform employment duties that demand reading and writing skills that go beyond the basic level.

The challenges of illiteracy cut across:

• Geographical location

What are the causes of illiteracy?

There are so many reasons why an individual can be illiterate. These are some of the causes of the inability to read or write:

• Illiteracy among parents: Many illiterate parents do not put much emphasis on the importance of education. Several of those born to parents who can neither read nor write end up being illiterate. This is especially true in remote areas where many people in the older generation have not gone through formal education. The reverse is true for those who have been brought up by parents with an elaborate educational background. They realize the necessity of taking their children to school and therefore ensure that they receive a good education.
• Lack of family support: This can be the cause of illiteracy more so where a child has difficulty reading or writing because of dyslexia. In a situation where the family does not understand the child’s condition, it may simply be assumed that he or she is not a bright person and maybe school is not meant for everyone. Supportive family members help a child overcome reading disability and go through formal education with minimal challenges.
• Unemployment of the educated: Some people believe that the only reason someone should go to school is so that he or she can get a good job and make a good life. Without the promise of employment, education is not a necessity to them. In a country where many of the educated are unemployed, there may not be enough motivation for the illiterate to go to school. After all, they reckon, why would you spend so much money paying for your education when there is no promise of a return on investment? In countries where those who have gone to school have good jobs and reasonable incomes, there may be sufficient motivating factors for people to get rid of illiteracy.
• Lack of awareness: In places where several members of the local population do not understand why it is important for them to go to school, the level of illiteracy may be high. Disinterest in the benefits of formal learning can also be caused by lack of awareness on the importance of going to school. The number of illiterate people in urban areas tends to be lower than that of those in rural areas. People in towns are more aware of the need to eliminate illiteracy, the challenges that arise from lack of education and the social benefits of being literate compared to those who live in the remote place.
• Social barriers: Many social barriers such as restrictions on girls’ education in some societies lead to illiteracy among the affected segment of the population. Education of the girl child has been an issue in some parts of the world leading to the formation of different organizations focused on championing the education of women. Forcing children into marriage is another social issue that causes illiteracy in the community. Family or social norms where female education is not allowed also causes illiteracy. In societies where the caste system is still in force, those who fall into the wrong caste may not get the opportunity to go to school. They are condemned at birth to remain illiterate.

• Lack of affordable education facilities: Those who live in very remote areas with few or no education facilities may remain illiterate. The nearest school might be found several miles away. Instead of going through the tiresome process of walking for long distances on a daily basis just to go to school, many choose to stay at home. Lack of access to education facilities in rural areas has contributed a lot to the high number of illiterate people in these places.
• Poverty: Poor parents with low incomes find it difficult to pay school fees. They are forced to choose between providing basic needs such as food, shelter and clothing and taking their children to school. In countries where basic education is not free, the number of children who do not go to school tends to be higher compared to places where basic education is free and mandatory.

What are the consequences and effects of illiteracy?

What are the consequences of Illiteracy? How does illiteracy affect the life of an individual and the society? These are some of the effects and consequences of the inability to read and write:

• Hinders economic and social progress: Illiteracy greatly inhibits the economic and social progress of an individual as well as that of the country. Education gives one the power to seek opportunities and pursue them. People who have gone to school or are well educated have the expertise and intelligence to make good investment decisions and drive the growth agenda of a nation. Illiteracy, therefore, hinders the development of the country.
• Poverty: Illiteracy leads to poverty. Education equips one with the right skills and expertise for gainful employment. A person who has not gone to school and is unable to read and write may experience a hard time in finding a job especially in a world where the corporate environment is increasingly in demand for employees who are well-trained and can cope with an industry driven by technology. Without a reasonable source of income, taking care of the dependent family members may prove to be difficult.
• Child marriage: This is also a problem that may come about due to illiteracy. Parents may fail to recognize the benefits of taking children to school to learn how to read and write. Instead, the girl child may be forced into early marriage. It may also be a means of raising money through dowry payments to support the rest of the family members. In a way, the girl child is viewed as a property in some cultures. They can be traded to help the family make ends meet. The practice is especially rampant in areas where a lot of people have not gone to school.
• Difficult life: An illiterate person can lead a difficult life in so many ways. The inability to find gainful employment can subject one to a life of poverty with poor living conditions. There can be a lack of basic necessities such as good shelter, clothing and decent meals. Illiteracy can also make one a societal misfit more so in areas where many people have gone to school and have the ability to read and write. Such a person can be the center of ridicule and suffer from stress and low self-esteem. Without the ability to read and write, it can be hard to read instructions which in some cases may have dire consequences. They say ignorance is bliss but that is not true when a person’s life is on the line.
• Social crimes: Through education, a person can cultivate some civic sense and develop behavior patterns that are socially acceptable. Illiterate people may engage in unlawful acts in the society due to lack of employment or simply as a result of being uncultured. In countries where the number of those who have not gone to school is high, social crime levels also tend to be high.
• Underpayment, Underemployment, Unemployment: We live in a world where the job market favors people who are properly educated with useful skills to drive company growth. Many illiterate people are thus underpaid, underemployed or unemployed. They are unable to earn income and in many cases perform a lot of duties with little pay.
• Intergenerational Illiteracy: The issue of illiteracy can cut across generations within a family. It can become cyclic in such a way that even the third or fourth generation family members suffer the same fate. Intergenerational Illiteracy mainly comes about because education is given little to no value in the family setup. The children that come along will thus see illiteracy as the norm and not make any effort to learn how to read and write.

What are the possible solutions to stop or control illiteracy?

• Free education: The provision of free education in schools, colleges, and universities by the government can play a major role in reducing the level of illiteracy in a country by getting more people to school. Since some people fail to attend school due to lack of money to pay for the fees, offering free education can increase the number of people attending school and subsequently reduce illiteracy levels within a society.
• Awareness: Creating awareness about the importance of education can help people understand why they need to go to school. Non-governmental organizations, government agencies, and other concerned parties should put in place deliberate measures to create awareness in the society and reduce the number of people who are unable to read and write.
• Grants: Offering grants, subsidies, and scholarships can reduce the financial burden that parents and students bear in paying for education. It would make it possible for students to learn without interrupting their education due to lack of school fees. Parents would also channel the money that would have been used to pay for school fees towards other income generating projects. The cost of financing education can prove to be too high especially for those who live in poverty.
• Late night classes: Working people can opt for late night classes. In this way, they can learn even as they earn income through their daytime jobs.
• Free books: The government and different foundations can offer free books in schools to encourage students to develop a reading culture. Offering free books can also reduce the financial burden placed on parents in the provision of textbooks.
• Digitization: Since we live in the age of technology and information, creating digital platforms for reading and learning can help reduce illiteracy in the society. It can also help take care of the challenge of shortage of education facilities. Digital libraries can provide a good platform for those who live far away from urban centers to expand their knowledge base and become more informed.
• Lower educational cost: Even though education has its rewards, it is very costly to finance. Many graduates usually leave school with huge debts in the form of student loans. It makes saving and investing difficult. The cost of university education has been a key political and social issue in many nations. By lowering the cost of education, the government can make it easier for people to study up to the highest level possible.

The value of education cannot be underestimated. Many people like to think of it merely as a process to gain skills and expertise necessary for the job market. Even though education gives an individual a competitive advantage in the job market, that is not all that it does. Going to schools plays a major role in the mental as well as social development of a person. The lessons learned and the experiences that a person goes through while in school prepares him or her for life in the society. One can learn problem-solving skills and develop social intelligence necessary to overcome everyday life challenges. Illiteracy, therefore, has no room in the modern society. The more the number of people who have gone to school, the better the community. Everyone should aspire to be educated and gain knowledge because of the important benefits of being literate.

Caste System: Meaning, Features, Causes, Effects, and Solutions

Short Paragraph on Importance of Corporations

Essay on Social Issues in India (causes, effects and solutions)

Dowry System in India

Illiteracy in India

Untouchability in India

Gender Inequality in India

Overpopulation in India

Bonded Labour System

Child Labour in India

Paragraph on “Save Girl Child”

Dowry System in India – Causes, Effects & Solution

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Home / Essay Samples / Education / Illiteracy / Illiteracy in Pakistan: Causes and Solutions

Illiteracy in Pakistan: Causes and Solutions

• Category: Education , World , Life
• Topic: Illiteracy , Pakistan , Problems

Pages: 8 (3598 words)

Views: 3266

• Downloads: -->

Introduction

Illiteracy in pakistan.

• Parents with little schooling;
• Lack of books, stationary and other staff
• Lack importance of reading and writing
• Showing bad performance in studies and then dropping out of school — many have not completed high school;
• Difficult living conditions
• Learning disabilities, such as dyslexia, dysorthographia, etc.

Problems caused by illiteracy

Illiteracy rates, recommendations, conclusions.

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Humanity Essays

Gratitude Essays

Hope Essays

Adversity Essays

Kindness Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->