Research

Summary page

Research

Reframe, rename, revitalise: Future directions for the language, literacy and numeracy
National Reporting System

Funded jointly by the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA), and the then Department of Employment, Education and Training, the National Reporting System (NRS) was intended as:

...a mechanism for reporting the outcomes of adult English language literacy and numeracy provision, in the vocational education and training system, in labour market programs and in the adult community education sector. (ANTA 1995)

It has long been used in other ways as well—as a means of evaluating the content and emphasis of adult basic education curricula, as a framework for the development of curriculum and assessment materials, and in the consideration of the language, literacy and numeracy requirements of training packages. However, its uptake by literacy and numeracy practitioners has been confined mainly to those required to use it as a reporting tool for the Commonwealth-funded Workplace English Language and Literacy (WELL) program, and the Language Literacy and Numeracy Program (LLNP).

Project aim

'The NRS Future Directions' project was designed to provide initial insights into how the NRS is currently being used and how it is perceived by a group of people familiar with its concepts and use. This exercise was seen as a necessary precursor to any changes that might be made, and was not meant to be a full-scale review in its own right.

The methodology involved:

a review of relevant literature
monitoring of relevant sessions at the Australian Council for Adult Literacy (ACAL) national conference
detailed interviews with a core group of 50 interested parties, some recommended and others selected at random. A further 30 people provided input during less structured discussions.

During the study, the NRS was considered as an instrument for describing language, literacy and numeracy competence; as a reporting mechanism within the WELL and LLNP, and as a mechanism for non-reporting applications. Information was gathered about its strengths and weaknesses and the types and degrees of support required for effective application for different purposes. Interviewees were asked to identify key issues and possible future directions for the NRS, as well as current and future priorities in regard to adult literacy and numeracy, and in relation to education and training generally.

Key findings

The NRS as an instrument for describing language, literacy and numeracy

Responses suggest that the NRS has built a strong following amongst those with the background knowledge and opportunity to become expert users. Expert practitioners reported finding the NRS an extremely useful tool for thinking about a student's strengths and weaknesses, for planning, for designing appropriate assessment materials, and for curriculum development and evaluation.

Academics interviewed generally considered the conceptual underpinnings sound. However, they, and most practitioners, suggested that the conceptual base be streamlined to produce a more straightforward instrument. Almost all agreed that there was no need to start again from first principles, but that the process should aim, as one interviewee explained, to make the NRS ëmore elegantí. While a revised NRS would incorporate new knowledge and understandings about literacy and numeracy, and reflect practitionersí experience after eight years of application, it should maintain the toolís current ability to capture the richness and complexity of language, literacy and numeracy across contexts.

The NRS as a tool for reporting within the Workplace English Language and Literacy, and Language, Literacy and Numeracy programs

There is a need to separate the NRS instrument from the rules and logistics associated with reporting to funding bodies. Practitioners of the Language, Literacy and Numeracy Program identified some rules that appeared to go against the principles of the NRS and had issues with the logistics and time involved in reporting to funding bodies. However, most stated that the NRS framework had influenced the way they thought about their students' skill levels, the way they taught and the way they assessed. However, some WELL practitioners were more critical of the usefulness of the tool, questioning the effort that went into learning about the NRS, its limited application within the program, and its lack of real impact on teachers or learners.

Support required for effective application as a reporting tool

Interviewees identified four essential components of an overall ëpackageí to support its use as a formal reporting tool. These were:

a level of background knowledge of language, literacy and numeracy sufficient to be able to appreciate the conceptual aspects of the NRS and interpret them appropriately
regular opportunities for interactive professional development activities
accessible, relevant support materials
time.

If any one of these were missing, many felt it would be hard to sustain the NRS (current or revised) in the future.

Non-reporting applications

This survey confirmed that the NRS continues to be 'more than a reporting tool'. For example, it found strong support for the NRS as a tool for reflective practice, and widespread application as a framework for developing curriculum and assessment materials. Some interviewees had developed simplified versions of the NRS—in effect, its key concepts only—as part of processes to raise language, literacy and numeracy awareness in industry. In the vocational education and training (VET) sector, training package developers are required to use the NRS as part of their design brief, although interviewees familiar with the results of this application felt that this directive had operated with varying degrees of success.

Plotting future directions

In considering the future of the NRS, several possible goals were discussed:

to maintain the status quo
to make the current NRS more user-friendly and accessible
to increase uptake of a current or revised NRS in order to improve practice
to push for national uptake as a reporting mechanism
to reframe and reposition the NRS as a general language, literacy and numeracy framework
to link the NRS directly into the mainstream of education and training.

No interviewee wanted to maintain the status quo. There was strong support for a review and revision of the NRS to make it more user-friendly, in the hope that this would increase take-up by other practitioners. There was little support for the idea of simplifying the NRS for use as a reporting tool by non-practitioners. However, those who were already using the NRS for nonreporting purposes supported the idea of reinventing it as a general language, literacy and numeracy framework which would raise awareness of key concepts outside the small language, literacy and numeracy field. Some interviewees could also see a specific role for a simple, conceptually elegant framework, based on the current NRS, as a key tool for addressing language, literacy and numeracy issues within revised training packages.

There was little interest in (and indeed some resistance to) any push for adoption of the NRS as a reporting system at state and territory level.

Conclusions

There are indications that the NRS is more firmly entrenched within the adult language, literacy and numeracy context than may be immediately apparent. Importantly, the NRS appears to have a base of support amongst influential people in the field, and has become an integral part of the philosophy and methodology of a number of expert—and highly regarded—practitioners.

Although once recognised as ahead of its time, the instrument now needs updating, particularly in light of developments in information and communication technology. It also needs streamlining conceptually. Thus, it is timely to conduct a formal review focused on ways of improving a useful tool. If this review is specifically designed to facilitate constructive exploration and sharing of ideas across the language, literacy and numeracy field, it could also contribute to general professional development, and build a broad sense of ownership of the revised version. There is no point in going ahead with the development of new applications for the NRS until a review has been completed. However, discussion of future directions and possibilities should be considered by professionals in the field.

If broader uptake is envisaged, face-to-face professional development opportunities for both new and experienced users should be envisaged and resourced as an integral part of any future NRS
'package'. A new look, streamlined NRS will undoubtedly be more user-friendly, but it will never be easy to grasp and use as a reporting tool. Its very strength in managing diverse aspects of language, literacy and numeracy in context provides challenges for new users that can be more effectively addressed through interactive professional development than via print-based manuals. More experienced users also benefit from the chance to hone their understandings through opportunities to share ideas and insights.

Although the NRS has gradually become interwoven into the fabric of adult literacy, it does not have a high profile, and has not become an integral part of mainstream adult education, despite recognition of the need to increase literacy and numeracy understanding and skills within the VET sector. However, the concepts encapsulated within the NRS could be extremely useful in this regard, and could be promoted as part of the revision of training packages. Nevertheless, even a revitalised NRS is likely to present as 'too much information'. A literacy and numeracy framework, based on key NRS concepts, would provide an effective awareness-raising tool, be easier to promote, and be more likely to be adopted.

Since its implementation, the NRS has been 'more than a reporting tool'. Any revision should involve the exploration of the potential for a new framework for thinking, analysing and discussing language, literacy and numeracy in multiple contexts. Despite some people's reservations about the term, a framework provides the scaffolding upon which many things can be built. The NRS has already proved to be flexible enough to become the support structure for multiple purposes. Developing a new entity, and calling it a literacy and numeracy framework, would signal a formal recognition of multiple applications which has not been possible with the NRS.

The framework could be developed in several formats for various purposes and audiences. A full (revised) version would still offer the richness of the original NRS, while a simplified version might introduce key concepts about literacy and numeracy to non-specialist audiences, and thus become an important tool in the push to improve general workplace understanding of language, literacy and numeracy. Even though there might be different versions of the framework, they would all be built on the same foundations, using the same terms and levels. Besides maintaining consistency, this would provide a link between specialists, workplace trainers and industry.

Recommendations

Continue to use the NRS as a key tool in reporting on adult literacy and numeracy performance.

Review and revise the current NRS. Develop a package incorporating the instrument itself, a revised set of rules for use for reporting within Commonwealth programs, a set of user-friendly support materials, and professional development activities designed for specialist users. Design the review process as a vehicle for professional development in its own right. Use it to further explore a range of options for future directions for the NRS and build a sense of ownership of the outcomes.

Explore the potential to use the key concepts and structure underpinning a revised NRS as the basis for the development of a literacy and numeracy framework (with a new name) which could be presented in different formats and levels of complexity for a range of audiences and purposes. This option could also be incorporated into the proposed review.

Review the arrangement for provision of NRS training and ongoing mentoring within the Language, Literacy and Numeracy and Workplace English Language and Literacy programs. Consider ways of funding and delivering ongoing language, literacy and numeracy training to other target groups, for example, through Industry Training Councils and professional bodies.

If a new language, literacy and numeracy framework is developed, promote it through interactive professional development programs tailored for different groups to enhance their understanding of language, literacy and numeracy.

Devise a strategy to ensure that a new framework (or failing that, the revised NRS) plays a key role in determining the language, literacy and numeracy aspects of revised training packages.