Community adult language, literacy and numeracy provision in Australia: Diverse approaches and outcomes

This study explores the scope of non-accredited (where the learners do not receive a formal certificate) community adult language, literacy and numeracy provision in Australia. It looks at the extent of provision, the characteristics and motivations of the students, learning outcomes and pathways to other education and employment, and how providers can best be assisted to maintain and expand their programs.

• Thousands of adults each year receive non-accredited community language, literacy and numeracy assistance in Australia. Many choose this form of assistance because they either do not need or would struggle with accredited courses.
• For learners, development of language, literacy and numeracy skills appears closely linked to the development of self-confidence. Both aspects need time to grow.
• Teachers and tutors have a key role in developing both skills and self-confidence. Therefore greater attention to initial training and professional development is essential, as is a broad approach to assessment.
• Providers believe that non-accredited language, literacy and numeracy teaching makes a valuable contribution to the community and that greater recognition and funding are warranted.

Purpose

Even a rudimentary scan of the educational marketplace reveals a wide range of organisations offering some sort of support for the development of English language, literacy and numeracy in adults. The purpose of this research was to map a particular sub-sector of that provision: non­accredited community adult language, literacy and numeracy. In contrast to accredited training, little is known about the extent and impact of non-accredited adult literacy, language and numeracy training. Furthermore, external reporting of non-accredited community education courses in Australia, unlike that for accredited courses, is more piecemeal.

Approach

For the purposes of this study, the term ‘non-accredited’ was used instead of ‘community’ when referring to language, literacy and numeracy provision in the context of the national collection of information. However, in the case studies and in the report, the focus is on the community aspects of provision. ‘Non-accredited’ was taken to mean any language, literacy and numeracy course for which no accredited qualification was awarded, including those for which a statement of attainment or statement of attendance was given. It also included courses where language, literacy and/or numeracy were embedded as a specific component, for example, in a cooking class or computer course. Work-based non-accredited language, literacy and numeracy courses were not a focus of this study, but are an aspect of provision which needs further research.

Data were collected by a national survey sent to providers identified through the Reading Writing Hotline database (a national referral resource administered through TAFE NSW), as well as through the cooperation of peak bodies such as the Australian Council for Adult Literacy, Adult Learning Australia, government departments, and a range of other key agencies. In total, 125 eligible organisations from each state and territory, except the Northern Territory, responded to the survey. In addition, seven case studies were undertaken at selected sites in three states. These case studies comprised interviews with 37 people, including program coordinators, teachers, tutors and students in urban and rural areas and from a mix of program types. The case studies provided the detail required to better understand this diverse area of educational provision.

Findings

The study found that in some instances non-accredited adult language, literacy and numeracy programs operate alongside accredited courses through a variety of organisations in most Australian states, including the full range of adult and community education (ACE) providers, community English as a second language centres and ethnically based associations, disability support providers, technical and further education (TAFE) institutes, and private registered training organisations.

Diversity of programs

The diversity of this sub-sector was considerable: examples of courses included speaking English clearly, statement of attainment in foundation and vocational education, numeracy and literacy for special needs clients and literacy support group for students. There were also embedded literacy courses, especially in the disability area. Course lengths ranged from six to 400 hours, with informal arrangements at drop-in centres. Those in one-to-one volunteer programs usually met for two hours a week, for as long as the need existed, sometimes for several years. Volunteer tutors contributed to just over a third of the programs, usually one to one, with a small group, or supporting a teacher with a larger group. About a third of providers used a structured curriculum, but in many programs the content was based on the learners’ needs. There was a range of educational prerequisites for teachers and tutors, with some 30% of organisations having no minimum requirement except interest and commitment. Generally there was a strong commitment by providers to professional development, although less than half made specific provision for it.

Students

Because of the variety of ways in which organisations reported the data and the nature of learners’ attendance, it was not possible to arrive at an accurate figure for the number of students who were receiving non-accredited language, literacy and numeracy help. However, there appeared to be around 4000 students engaged with the 125 providers who responded. The majority of the organisations indicated that most of their students were aged between 30 and 49 years, with strong representation from the 20-29 years and 50-59 years cohorts. A wide range of reasons why adults seek such help were given, with learning English for everyday purposes seen as the major motivation. The need for social contact and the desire to take more control over their lives were also strong motivations. Only around one-quarter of the program coordinators believed that students participated primarily for employment-related reasons.

Outcomes

All organisations believed that as a result of their programs there was strong development of learners’ language, literacy and numeracy skills and self-confidence, with levels of self-confidence slightly higher than skills levels. In line with the general emphasis on learners’ needs, assessment in about 75% of the programs was mainly through a combination of small assessment tasks, with assessment of progress based on observations and student feedback. Some providers had a fairly loose approach to monitoring learners’ progress and in some instances tutor assessment was not closely monitored by coordinators.

Given the variety of motivations, the difficulties many of the students had experienced with education in the past and the various commitments and life issues they needed to deal with, a smooth linear progression along pathways to other education and training or to employment seems an unrealistic expectation. It appears that many learners through these courses simply want to improve the quality of their lives and their capacity to interact with the wider community - in whatever ways they conceptualise these at the time. Nevertheless, only a very small number of organisations believed that none of their students went on to other training or employment.

Amongst providers, particularly those in the community, English as a second language, and disability support categories, there was a strong belief that outcomes apart from vocationally related ones should be given more recognition. According to these providers, the contribution of non­accredited language, literacy and numeracy courses to both personal development and social capital should receive greater acknowledgement, particularly through funding support.

Implications

Three particular issues arose from the study that need further consideration: government recognition, professional development, and assessment.

Recognition

The development of language, literacy and numeracy skills and a growth in self-confidence form the basis for individuals to interact with and make a positive contribution to the wider society. In this context therefore some respondents believe that more recognition by government of the value of community non-accredited language, literacy and numeracy provision is vital. As some states have shown, funding is one significant way in which support can be expressed by governments. Such funding should also take into account that, at this level, learners need time to develop both self-confidence and basic skills. In response, some providers believe they need to be able to demonstrate the quality of their programs; the implementation of an appropriate national reporting mechanism is one means to facilitate this.

Professional development

Because the development of language, literacy and numeracy skills for these learners runs parallel to the growth in self-confidence, the teacher–student relationship in one-to-one tutoring, in individual support in classes, and in small group work appears to be very significant. This is especially so for people who for various reasons have been academically unsuccessful at school, who are learning English for the first time, or who have an intellectual disability. It follows that the personal qualities of teachers and tutors are also crucial. If compassion, commitment and an interest in language (and sometimes numeracy) are complemented by initial training and ongoing professional development, the teaching and learning should be more effective.

Monitoring progress

A more sustained approach to monitoring progress may be warranted in some programs to enable a greater understanding of how students are faring in terms of both personal growth and skills development. A more considered approach to assessment is likely to ensure and demonstrate the efficacy of non-accredited language, literacy and numeracy provision. A broad approach to assessment will ensure that growth in self-confidence and in language, literacy and numeracy skills are both recorded and acknowledged.

Conclusion

This study has found that there is a strong continuing demand for non-accredited community language, literacy and numeracy courses in Australia from the many adults who do not need or who have difficulty with accredited courses, and that a wide variety of agencies are currently providing such services. It has also shown that such programs are as much concerned with self-confidence as they are with developing language, literacy and numeracy. The report has also demonstrated that a combination of three factors is likely to ensure that this important sub-sector of education and training receives appropriate acknowledgement: firstly, government recognition of the benefits of language, literacy and numeracy provision; secondly, ongoing monitoring of the quality of provision by the providing organisations; and, finally, reporting of outcomes, in addition to that currently undertaken.