News & Events
Adult Literacy Research Project: What we have learnt
By Michelle Circelli
Quest*
Issue 1, Autumn 2009
Research on adult literacy and numeracy helps educators respond to the needs of their adult learners. From 2002 to 2006 the Australian Government funded the Adult Literacy Research Program (ALRP), which was managed by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER). The program boosted adult literacy and numeracy research in Australia. Topics covered included:
- the conceptualisation of literacy
- the social and economic impacts of ‘low’ or ‘poor’ literacy and numeracy
- the professional development needs of literacy practitioners
- teaching and learning approaches, including specific teaching strategies, for different learner groups and delivery contexts.
The research also looked at literacy and numeracy issues relevant to Indigenous and ethnic communities, and within industry, volunteer and community settings.
What have we learnt from the ALRP work?
A starting point is a definition of literacy. ‘Literacy’ involves a range of complex and diverse skills and understandings (Lonsdale & McCurry 2004). This is apparent in the prevalence of concepts such as health literacy, financial literacy and digital literacy.
With respect to defining numeracy, we point to Coben’s definition: ‘to be numerate means to be competent, confident, and comfortable with one’s judgements on whether to use mathematics in a particular situation and if so, what mathematics to use, how to do it, what degree of accuracy is appropriate, and what the answer means in relation to the context’ (Coben 2000a, p.35, cited in Marr & Hagston p.11). Numeracy cannot be considered as entirely separate from literacy as these skills are often used in conjunction with one another (Townsend & Waterhouse 2008). However, several reports comment that many people have significant fear about ‘doing maths’ that links back to negative schooling experiences and do not acknowledge their existing practical numeracy skills.
We have also learnt about the relationship between literacy and social capital and human capital, and the subsequent impact on economic wellbeing. By looking at adult literacy courses, it was found that there can be positive social capital outcomes from participation, even when there is no evidence of improved literacy attainment. Where the latter is achieved, the combination of improved reading, writing and/or speaking skills as well as better interpersonal/ intrapersonal skills often results in greater wellbeing. It also became clear that different learners acquired different benefits from literacy programs (Black, Balatti & Falk 2006).
Looking at what learners want, most of the research focused on learners who were in classroom-based programs. Less is known about learners in community programs or in the workplace. However, the studies of what learners in each of these groups prefer provide remarkably consistent messages, notably, that learners prefer training that is time-efficient, personally relevant, non-threatening and easily accessible. They see the quality of the trainer as critical and value trainers who know what to do, are empathetic and supportive. The research also suggests that most prefer to work with a trainer who has the relevant vocational skills and knowledge. Literacy and numeracy specialists without the vocational knowledge they seek are less well regarded. Learners also welcome regular feedback, including formal assessment (Miralles 2004; Hayes et al. 2004; Burgoyne & Hull 2007; Marr & Hagston 2007; Miralles-Lombardo et al. 2008).
A number of the projects focused on different delivery approaches. Most current provision for adult literacy and numeracy in Australia is through dedicated programs. Work by NCVER (2006) found there were nearly 190,000 students enrolled in literacy and numeracy courses in the VET sector in 2004. Just over 60% of these were dedicated or ‘stand-alone’ courses focusing on literacy and numeracy skills development. In recent times, the learning cohort has been changing, with an influx of learners with multiple disadvantages such as youth at risk, refugees and students with undisclosed psychiatric disorders (Mackay et al. 2006).
The issue of integration with mainstream vocational education has also been examined. Integration here refers to the acquiring of literacy and numeracy skills within broader skills development, and where literacy and numeracy learning is placed in authentic and real-life settings (McKenna & Fitzpatrick 2005, p. 7). Wickert and McGuirk (2005) identify examples and principles of the successful integration of literacy learning into Australian community and workplace settings. McKenna and Fitzpatrick canvassed the practices of experienced VET teachers who offered an integrated approach to language, literacy and numeracy in the community services sector. They found that many practitioners used to the stand-alone English language communication programs initially found the integrated model challenging and were often unable to 'see' the language, literacy and numeracy that had been integrated into VET competencies. Redevelopment of Training Packages and subsequent professional development over the last eight years has resulted in the ‘building in’ of language, literacy and numeracy to Training Packages. However, there are still contested views about the quality of delivery and proven efficacy of an ‘integrated’ approach. Further, McKenna and Fitzpatrick, and Wickert and McGuirk warned that integrating literacy and numeracy provision is complex and potentially costly, requiring new ways of operating and a new range of skills from teachers.
While vocational qualifications will continue to be offered by training providers in institutional settings, training that occurs in the workplace is increasingly important. The effectiveness of work-based training for the delivery of literacy and numeracy training is not well researched but the work of Townsend and Waterhouse (2008) does provide some insights into what works and why. This study found the degree of company commitment, through the provision of a supportive environment, training in work time and adequate funding, all influenced the impact of work-based programs. Nevertheless, Townsend and Waterhouse caution that, even in companies with high commitment, there are major pedagogical challenges and it should not be assumed that training providers and individual trainers know how to teach literacy effectively in the workplace.
Although thousands of students are involved in non-accredited, community based literacy and numeracy programs each year, little is known about its impact. There is notable diversity in terms of course focus, structure, teachers, learners and methodologies (Dymock 2007). Specialists in community programs are also split on the issue of whether they should formally monitor and report on learner progress. However, all organisations surveyed believed that their programs resulted in ‘strong development of learners’ language, literacy and numeracy skills and self confidence, with levels of self confidence slightly higher than skills levels’ (p.9). This work was extended when Dymock and Billett (2008) considered assessment instruments that might capture wider learning outcomes in non-accredited programs. They found that learners and tutors gained personal and educational benefits through the process of assessment and acknowledging learning outcomes.
Access to professional development, as well as the nature and quality of that learning is always a critical one. The literacy and numeracy workforce in Australia is made up of four distinct groups, namely, specialist providers of literacy and numeracy tuition; Workplace English Language and Literacy (WELL) practitioners; vocational trainers who are incorporating literacy and numeracy into their delivery of training packages; and volunteer literacy and numeracy tutors in community settings. Mackay et al. (2006) found that the professional development needs varied between the groups and that a ‘one size fits all’ approach was not appropriate. There were some common needs. Professional development that was preferred was of short duration, face-to-face, hands-on and interactive and provided by experts. Opportunities for sharing good teaching practice with peers were seen as a simple and effective way to address gaps in skills and knowledge.
While there is currently no national funding program available for adult literacy and numeracy research two of the federal government’s current policies implicitly stress literacy and numeracy: the social inclusion agenda, which ties the social and economic development of the community closely together; and the push for skills reform through programs such as the Productivity Places Program. Implicit in these policies is the underlying need for literacy and numeracy skills to be of a level that will allow for the potential of all individuals, and current and prospective workers in particular, to be fully realised. These policies together with the wide-ranging consideration being given to the outcomes from the 2006 Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey bode well for a renewed focus into adult literacy and numeracy.
This article is based on the findings from two pieces of work that reflect on the research undertaken. NCVER commissioned two projects. The first, undertaken by Louise Wignall brings together the key messages from the ALRP projects in a ‘wiki’ for practitioners. The Adult Literacy Resource (www.adultliteracyresource.edu.au) is designed to get adult language, literacy and numeracy practitioners thinking about how they can apply the key messages from the ALRP research in their work.
The other, considers how the ALRP has contributed to the adult language, literacy and numeracy sector (Kate Perkins forthcoming). It also draws attention to areas that were not addressed during the life of the program and highlights how literacy and numeracy issues fit in the current political focus of social inclusion and skills reform. For further information visit NCVER’s website www.ncver.edu.au.
*The Quarterly Newsletter of Adult Learning Australia Inc (ALA), the peak body for organisations and individuals involved with adult learning in Australia.
References
Balatti, J, Black, S & Falk, I 2006, Reframing adult literacy and numeracy course outcomes: A social capital perspective, NCVER, Adelaide.
Burgoyne, U & Hull, O 2006, Classroom management strategies to address the needs of Sudanese refugee learners, NCVER, Adelaide.
Dymock, D 2007, Community adult language, literacy and numeracy provision in Australia: Diverse approaches and outcomes, NCVER, Adelaide.
Dymock, D & Billet, S 2008, Assessing and acknowledging learning through non-acccredited community adult language, literacy and numeracy programs, NCVER, Adelaide.
Hayes, C, Golding, B & Harvey, J 2004, Adult learning through fire and emergency service organisations in small and remote Australian towns, NCVER, Adelaide.
Lonsdale, M & McCurry, D 2004, Literacy in the new millenium, NCVER, Adelaide.
Mackay, S, Burgoyne, U, Warwick, D & Cipollone, J 2006, Current and future professional development needs of the language, literacy and numeracy workforce, NCVER, Adelaide.
Marr, B & Hagston, J 2007, Thinking beyond numbers: learning numeracy for the future workplace, NCVER, Adelaide.
McKenna, R & Fitzpatrick, L 2005, Integrated approaches to teaching adult literacy in Australia: A snapshot of practice in community services, NCVER, Adelaide.
Miralles, J 2004, A fair go: Factors impacting on vocational education and training participation and completion in selected ethnic communities, NCVER, Adelaide.
Miralles-Lombardo, B, Miralles, J & Golding, B 2008, Creating learning spaces for refuges: The role of multicultural organisations in Australia, NCVER, Adelaide.
NCVER 2006 Australian vocational education and training statistics: Adult literacy and numeracy courses, 2002-04, NCVER, Adelaide
Townsend, R & Waterhouse, P 2008, Whose Responsibility? Employers' Views of Developing their Workers' Literacy, Numeracy and Employability Skills, NCVER, Adelaide.
Wickert, R & McGuirk, J 2005, Integrating literacies: Using partnerships to build literacy capabilities in communities, NCVER, Adelaide.
