Theodore Lewis
University of Minnesota
Mildred Griggs
University of Illinois
assisted by
Stephan Flister
Amadou Konare
University of
Minnesota
Jason M. Githeko
Norah C. Chemengen
University of Illinois
National Center for Research in Vocational Education
University of
California at Berkeley
2030 Addison Street, Suite 500
Berkeley, CA
94704-1058
Supported by
The Office of Vocational and Adult Education
U.S.
Department of Education
July, 1995
FUNDING INFORMATION
| Project Title: | National Center for Research in Vocational Education |
|---|---|
| Grant Number: | V051A30003-95A/V051A30004-95A |
| Act under which Funds Administered: | Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act P.L. 98-524 |
| Source of Grant: | Office of Vocational and Adult Education U.S. Department of Education Washington, DC 20202 |
| Grantee: | The Regents of the University of California c/o National Center for Research in Vocational Education 2150 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 1250 Berkeley, CA 94704 |
| Director: | David Stern |
| Percent of Total Grant Financed by Federal Money: | 100% |
| Dollar Amount of Federal Funds for Grant: | $6,000,000 |
| Disclaimer: | This publication was prepared pursuant to a grant with the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education. Grantees undertaking such projects under government sponsorship are encouraged to express freely their judgement in professional and technical matters. Points of view or opinions do not, therefore, necessarily represent official U.S. Department of Education position or policy. |
| Discrimination: | Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states: "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance." Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 states: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance." Therefore, the National Center for Research in Vocational Education project, like every program or activity receiving financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education, must be operated in compliance with these laws. |
This report examines five case studies of workplace literacy initiatives.
Except for the Twin Cities Opportunities Industrialization Center (TCOIC),
which is the actual name of that institution, pseudonyms are used throughout
when referring to people and institutions. Broadly defined, workplace
literacy in this study refers to the several kinds of capabilities and
dispositions (such as the three Rs, learning how to learn, teamwork,
problem-solving skills, and communication skills) that are now thought to
comprise the necessary possessions one needs in order to function competently
in today's workplace.
In the first case, Redwood Technical College, a two-year postsecondary
vocational institution, collaborated with the Union Educational Bureau to
deliver a basic skills program to housekeepers and food service workers at four
hospitals under the terms of a federal grant. In the second case, North Oaks
Technical College, also a two-year postsecondary vocational institution,
executed a workplace literacy project on contract for a high-tech manufacturing
company. In the third case, a private provider, the Workplace Education Center
(WEC), delivered a basic skills program to nonsalaried workers at the branch of
a large bank. In the fourth case, this same provider delivered an English as a
Second Language (ESL) program to immigrant service workers at the branch of a
large chain of hotels. The fifth and final case describes the approach of the
TCOIC, a nontraditional vocational institution that focuses on marginalized
populations, and which places heavy emphasis on basic skills even as it offers
technical skills.
The problem was to understand better what transpires within workplace literacy
programs--what are their premises and claims, their curricular stances, and
their approach to teaching and learning--with the intent of resolving the basic
question of whether vocational institutions can claim uniqueness or a
comparative advantage over other providers in the workplace literacy
enterprise.
Case methodology allowed detailed examination of the five initiatives. The
inquiry took the form of formal and informal interviews, document examination,
and on-site observation.
Based on a review of literature, a set of premises or hypotheses was set forth
to provide a framework against which each case could be interrogated. These
premises/hypotheses were that vocational education institutions would have a
comparative advantage in the extent to which they (1) had long traditions of
collaborating with industry to derive workplace-based curricula, (2) catered to
diverse and marginalized populations among whom could be found enclaves of
illiteracy, (3) provided both initial and upgraded training geared to lifelong
learning, and (4) offered basic skills in the functional context of technical
skills. These premises/hypotheses were loosely set as criteria that helped to
resolve the question of uniqueness and comparative advantage.
Taken together, the cases unearthed some critical features which, if present,
seemed to strengthen the case for a vocational institution claiming uniqueness
or comparative advantage over other providers in the workplace literacy
enterprise. Among these features were the following:
A primary conclusion of the study was that to lay claim to uniqueness or to comparative advantage, a requirement was that vocational institutions should play to their strengths, which include a tradition of hands-on learning, and keeping basic skills and theory tightly connected with technical skills, either in applied instruction (e.g., welding math, business English) or in physical proximity to allow literacy classes to act as a vocational hook.
We thank the cooperating staffs and workers of the two technical colleges, the union, the hospitals, the high-tech manufacturing company, the private literacy provider, the bank, and the hotel that are anonymously represented here for their generosity. We thank the staff of the Twin Cities Opportunities Industrialization Center (TCOIC) for allowing us the full run of their school. Rosemarie Park, project consultant, is thanked for her insights and suggestions. We thank Jerome Moss for reading a draft of the report and offering insightful suggestions.
This report describes five case studies of workplace literacy initiatives.
They include (1) a study of the role of a two-year postsecondary technical
college as a partner and provider in a federally funded workplace literacy
project (other partners being a union and four hospitals); (2) a study of the
role of a two-year postsecondary technical college on contract with a high-tech
manufacturing company to deliver a program of basic skills for a cross section
of its workers; (3) a study of a basic skills program for hourly paid employees
at a large urban bank; (4) a study of a hotel services' English as a Second
Language (ESL) program that was designed to improve the basic skills of
immigrant employees; and (5) a study of the operations of an accredited
alternative vocational institution that specializes in serving the poor and the
educationally and socially marginal, along with remedial and workplace literacy
programming. In all cases, the researchers spent extensive periods of time
observing and collecting data via formal and informal interviews of individuals
and small groups. In addition, artifacts at the sites were examined.
The problem of the study was that what is known about workplace
literacy is still sparse. There was a need to try to answer the basic
question, "What do workplace literacy programs look like, and what can we learn
from them that would be instructive for vocational education policy and
practice?" The purpose was to try to resolve the defining question, "Can
vocational education institutions lay claim to a comparative advantage over
other providers in the workplace literacy enterprise?" From this basic
question sprung several related questions that helped to give form to the logic
of the inquiry. These included the following:
Although workplace literacy programs, being education for work, are clearly in
the realm of vocational education, they are not necessarily perceived as such
even within the field. Because they focus not on technical skills, but largely
on decontextualized basic skills that can conceivably be taught away from
traditional vocational education laboratory environments, they have become the
province of an array of providers (e.g., public schools, community colleges,
and unions), all of which are legitimate claimants to a niche in the workplace
literacy enterprise. A central premise underlying the study, then, was that
vocational education institutions will increasingly be called upon to assume
leadership and collaborative roles in fashioning and executing workplace
literacy initiatives. Many are currently involved in such roles as partners in
the National Workplace Literacy program. These new roles will compel
institutions to reconsider and, perhaps, reconceptualize their approaches to
curriculum, and to program planning and delivery. To respond competently to
new demands engendered by the problem of workplace literacy requires a
knowledge-base upon which to draw--a knowledge-base which, in the context of
vocational education research, is still in its nascent stages. The more
prominent studies (e.g., Gowen, 1992; Hull, 1991, 1992, 1993; Kalman &
Fraser, 1992; Schultz, 1992) have alerted us to ideological and other
contentions that attend workplace literacy programs--contentions such as the
functional/critical literacy debate, along with the relationship between
socioeconomic status (SES), ethnicity, and basic skills. Insights from these
studies have helped fashion the conceptual framework that is to be detailed
next. However, studies to date have not addressed the question of whether
vocational education institutions can lay claim to a unique niche, or to a
comparative advantage, in the workplace literacy enterprise--a status that
would set it apart from other entities as a provider of workplace literacy
programming.
To set the stage for the inquiry, it was necessary to fashion a conceptual
framework (discussed earlier) based upon a review of literature. The purpose
of this framework was to help define the parameters that would guide our probe,
and to highlight issues and contentions about which we needed to be aware as
the work progressed and as we tried to give meaning to our observations. From
a practical standpoint, the review served the functional purpose of helping to
set forth criteria for the selection of cases and guidelines for the framing of
questions for interview protocols. An outline of the framework follows.
This literature review provides the conceptual framework that has guided the
inquiry. Its basic thrust is to locate the problem of workplace literacy in
the wider discourse of education for economic competitiveness in the new global
economy. Changes in the nature of work, concomitant changes in the kinds of
capabilities that workers are now expected to bring to the workplace, and the
resulting need for education and training institutions to rethink their
curricular and instructional premises and strategies are discussed. What the
role and the response of vocational institutions in particular ought to be in
this quest to upgrade the literacy skills of workers is examined. Because
adult literacy is by nature a politically sensitive construct, a purpose of the
review was to help uncover issues and variables with which one must contend in
trying to gain a deep, balanced understanding of the problem in the context of
workplaces. One such issue is the problem of defining what is meant by
workplace literacy. Another is the question as to whether jobs are becoming
more or less complex. Yet another is the correlation between societal levels
of literacy and SES.
To come to terms with these issues, and also to suggest anchoring points for
the inquiry, the review examines (1) the global economy and economic
competitiveness as context for worker education and training, (2) the changing
nature of work and new skill requirements of workers, (3) problems in defining
workplace literacy, (4) what works in workplace literacy programs, (5)
evaluating existing workplace literacy programs, and (6) vocational education
and the changing workplace.
Education and training systems have emerged as key variables in the quest by the industrialized countries to gain a competitive edge in the new global economy. A recent monograph sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (Benton & Noyelle, 1992) speaks of the changing conception of literacy, from the goal of civic participation to that of economic performance. The study points out that this change "responds to important shifts in the nature of the world economy and related changes in the organization and sectoral distribution of jobs" (p. 13). Regarding the more specific question of the correlation of skills and economic performance in the new global economy, the study sets forth the following:
Most observers of the economy would agree that the middle of the 1970s marked a shift from the post-war Fordist era, characterized by the domination of mass production and the vertically integrated firm to an era of more intense global competition involving more complex and more flexible production networks. This shift has had important implications for the organization of work. Within firms, the Fordist approach centered on the pursuit of a highly fragmented division of labor and the breakdown of work into sets of simple, easy to learn tasks so that workers could be interchangeable or, for that matter, could be replaced by machinery. Facing more competitive, more fragmented, and highly volatile markets, many firms in the late 1970s and especially the 1980s responded by altering the structure of production in order to emphasize quality, diversification, customization, timeliness, rapid innovation, and customer service. Although sustaining high levels of productivity remains critical, the quality of work exacted from employees has become at least as important as the quantity. Not surprisingly, it is now widely recognized that firms face intense pressures to enhance the skill level of the workforce. (p. 13)
Thurow (1992) points out in his book, Head to Head, that in the new global economy, unlike in the past, countries do not necessarily become rich because they possess abundant raw materials. Natural resources have virtually dropped out of the competitive equation, he argues. What assumes primacy now are new technologies--more process than product technologies. And, according to Thurow, in the next century "the education and skills of the workforce will end up being the dominant competitive weapon" (p. 40). Elaborating, he points out the following:
In the century ahead, natural resources, capital, and new-product technologies are going to rapidly move around the world. People will move--but more slowly than anything else. Skilled people become the only sustainable competitive advantage.
If the route to success is inventing new products, the education of the smartest 25% of the labor force is critical.... If the route to success is being the cheapest and best producer of products, new or old, the education of the bottom 50% of the population moves to center stage. This part of the population must staff those new processes. If the bottom 50% cannot learn what must be learned, new high-tech processes cannot be employed. (p. 52)
Thurow argues that the quality of the team affects the overall income. He points to the way the noncollege-bound are catered to in Germany through the dual apprenticeship system. The Germans are not the best educated, he argues, but they are the world's best in the range of mid-level, noncollege skills. He argues that, "In the end the skills of the bottom half of the population affect the wages of the top half" (p. 56). American firms, Thurow argues, spend less on training than do Japanese or German firms. When they do, the emphasis is on managerial and supervisory skills. Thus, skilled workers are not as ready to adapt to the new breakthrough technologies.
Though they probably lag behind their Japanese and German counterparts in terms of the depth of investment in worker training, there is recent evidence of increasing commitment in American companies toward such training (e.g., Benton, Bailey, Noyelle, & Stanback, 1991; Carnevale, Gainer, Villet, & Holland, 1990; Eurich, 1985; Fowler, 1992; Gordon, Ponticell, & Morgan, 1991; Merex Corporation, 1991). This increasing commitment clearly comes from an awareness of the burgeoning importance of human capital in the global economic environment. Eurich (1985) notes in the following that education has come to be seen as a business need:
Gradually major companies are making human resource investments just as they would make capital investments--in essential education and training that will give employees skills, knowledge and attitudes that will make them more productive and competitive.... If America is to be an effective international competitor, then innovation, vitality, and effective training of the workforce are key ingredients. (pp. 2, 3)
However, skilled capability is but one (though a very important) variable in the international competitiveness equation. Training is not a panacea that can be expected to solve competitiveness difficulties. Benton et al. (1991) point out that training must be blended with larger goals such as promoting a work environment that is supportive of lifelong learning and adopting a posture that is responsive to change. Benton et al. also point out that those adults with the poorest education do not even make it into the workforce. This observation shifts the capability focus from the workplace to the school system.
Many employers believe that the basic skills deficiencies they now witness in the workplace are the result of faulty schooling (e.g., Gordon et al., 1991; Lee, 1988). Gordon et al. (1991), for example, argue that it is the school system that has failed to produce a skilled workforce. They speak of the "progressive failure" of American schools, reflected in the high illiteracy rates among adult workers who are high school graduates. They complain that schools are out of touch with the world of work and competition:
Public schooling objectives still focus largely on industry-based skills: read, write, count, add, subtract, multiply, divide, spell, punctuate, comprehend and communicate. Success in information technologies and service occupations depends on an entirely different set of skills: diagnose, determine, estimate, obtain information, organize information, identify alternatives, analyze, plan, coordinate, work collaboratively, implement and monitor. (p. 6)
But while the demands of the new global economy have raised the level of
concern regarding literacy levels in the workforce, there is no clear consensus
that the education and skill requirements of jobs are significantly increasing.
While many new jobs in the economy require higher levels of education, many
others do not. There is some contention as to whether jobs are being
upskilled, deskilled, or some combination thereof, referred to as "mixed"
effects (e.g., Form, 1987; Spenner, 1985). Using workforce trend data,
Rumberger (1981), and more recently Hadlock, Hecker, and Gannon
(1991)--provides support for deskilling and mixed effects, pointing to a
decline in jobs that require higher education. On the other hand, Bailey
(1991) points to a steady increase in jobs in the economy requiring higher
education. The view remains that credentials act merely as screens in the
labor market, having no substantive link with jobs (Berg, 1970).
Just what the skill needs of employers are is an unresolved issue. The
Commission on Skills of the American Workforce (1990) found that the primary
concern of 80% of employers was not the literacy needs of workers, but, rather,
finding workers with a good work ethic and good social skills. Just 5% of
employers felt that the education and skill requirements of jobs were
increasing significantly. This finding seemed not to fit with much of the
rhetoric issuing from business and industry and official circles.
While there remains contention as to whether or not the education requirements of jobs are increasing, or whether or not employers are truly concerned about decreased levels of literacy in the skill pool, the policy perspective has been that there is need for federal intervention and leadership on these questions (e.g., Barton & Kirsch, 1990; Chisman, 1989; Chisman & Campbell, 1990). Barton and Kirsch (1990) conclude that a large gap exists between the literacy skills of a large proportion of young adults and the needs of workplaces--with the problem being particularly acute among minority populations. They call for immediate action on the part of the state. That the federal government has been responsive is evident in the passage of the National Literacy Act of 1991, and in the funding provided via the National Workplace Literacy Program.
As can be gleaned from the discussion above, a central feature of the new
global economy is that mass production is yielding to flexible production. An
increasing number of workers must now possess multiple skills and must be able
to change as production requirements change (e.g., Bailey, 1989; Bailey &
Noyelle, 1988; Berryman, 1988; Wallace, 1989). In an insightful treatment of
this issue, Wallace (1989) places technology at the heart of the workplace
revolution. Speaking of a "brave new workplace," he points to the dominance of
the microchip and the personal computer in the new economy. Information itself
has become a product, he argues, because of the capability of these devices to
assemble, store, and retrieve large amounts of data. Computer and micro-based
technologies make possible "high-flex workplaces" featuring flexible,
specialized production systems as opposed to standardized mass production
systems. These changes have varying effects. One clear conclusion is that
technological change is disruptive. As to effect on education, Wallace
predicts volatile careers with multiple detours. What really are the skill
requirements of the new workplace? Wallace says that a college degree will
probably be the prerequisite for most good jobs. But for a host of reasons,
the degree will continue to be out of the reach of many. In any case, most
jobs will have more modest educational demands, but these demands are changing,
and, contentions aside, seem more than ever to be requiring a basic skills
foundation.
In the Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) (1991)
report, for example, the demands of workplaces upon schools are said to include
a foundation of basics inclusive of the three Rs, thinking skills, and personal
qualities. Arguing that there is a clear link between basic skills in the
workforce and economic competitiveness, Carnevale, Gainer, and Meltzer (1988)
set forth their own version of the skills that employers want. These skills
included learning to learn, the three Rs, communication, creative
thinking/problem solving, self-esteem/goal setting, motivation/personal and
career development, interpersonal skills, and organizational
effectiveness/leadership. In an elaboration on these ideas, Carnevale (1991)
distinguishes between "academic basics"--reading, writing, and computation--and
other basics. He claims that, on average, American workers spend from 1.5 to 2
hours daily reading a variety of materials (i.e., forms, charts) on the job,
and speculates that these reading requirements will "increase and deepen
because the growing complexity and scale of global economic activity will
require more written communication" (p. 108). Carnevale points to some general
trends in the nature of work such as the shift from specific to general skills,
the shift from concrete to abstract skills, and the primacy of social skills
such as self-esteem and self-awareness.
An important point made by Carnevale et al. (1988), and touched upon by Barton and Kirsch (1990) and Benton et al. (1991), is that not all of the workforce lack basic skills. However, there are pockets where the problem is chronic. Carnevale et al. (1988) note that
The educated and trained half of the American workforce competes well with the white-collar and technical elites of its economic rivals. But the other half of the workforce is not as well prepared, and this is where the U.S. is losing the competitive race. (p. 7)
In Carnevale et al.'s (1988) study, distinguishing characteristics of those with low basic skills included (1) having frequent arrests, (2) being an unwed mother, (3) being welfare-dependent, (4) being a high-school dropout, and (5) being unemployed. As Barton and Kirsch (1990) point out, high percentages of these groups would tend to be minorities, a fact which adds a degree of complexity to the issue from the standpoint of social policy.
Because the new workplace is said to call for a variety of skills, one must
speak in terms of the literacies required for successful performance
therein. There must, of course, be the academic basics--reading, writing, and
mathematics. But as discussed previously, there is now a need for oral
communication skills, for the skill of working in teams, problem solving
skills, and so on. Since reading is so ubiquitous across workplaces and jobs,
it has loomed large in the discourse on workplace literacy, and must be dealt
with in order to come to terms with the meaning of workplace literacy.
Outside of the workplace, reading ability has often been used as an index of
literacy. But reading in the context of one's job must be taken differently
from reading at school. What, then, is workplace literacy?
Seeking to define literacy in the context of workplaces, Sticht (1988)
distinguishes between general and specific literacy. General literacy (e.g.,
vocabulary and arithmetic operations) correlates with how much education one
has acquired. Specific literacy proficiency is confined to circumscribed
realms (e.g., electronics). Sticht reports that people with high levels of
general literacy are more likely to make use of their literacy skills at work
and to perform better on work-related tests than those less literate. Specific
literacy or knowledge adds an increment of reading proficiency to those low in
literacy skills. Practice also improves reading level for a specific task.
Specific literacy may offset low general literacy. In other words, the
workplace could mediate one's level of reading proficiency.
On the specific question of links between literacy and vocational competence, Sticht (1978) asserts that there is a clear relationship between reading ability and the reported use of reading skills rather than listening and languaging (or auding) skills. According to Sticht's study, more able readers were more likely to use print medium to complete work-related tasks. Use of reading increased as one's reading skill increased Furthermore, the use of print led to jobs being performed more accurately. Sticht concludes the following:
If, by vocational competence, we mean the ability to perform job-tasks with high degrees of accuracy, then these findings suggest that the acquisition of reading [skills] may serve to augment the seeking of job information over that which personnel do by auding, and that the propensity to seek job information from printed sources may pay dividends in terms of improved vocational competence. (p. 9)
Sticht identifies two kinds of reading tasks: (1) reading to do and
(2) reading to learn. The former serves as an external memory and tends
to be used much more on job sites than in school.
Diehl and Mikulecky (1980) found that job-related literacy was probably the
most important type of functional literacy. Subjects used reading materials to
perform their jobs, not necessarily because such reading materials were
absolutely essential to performing the job, but because they were available.
About 63% of the reading tasks they observed were reading to do tasks.
The reading was repetitive. They concluded that many jobs that have reading as
a requirement may be unduly discriminatory, based on a false estimation of the
reading demands of the job. They found, too, that on job-related materials,
workers can read up to two grade levels higher than their assessed reading
level. What's needed, then, is an information-rich environment.
After reviewing literacy work for the U.S. Army, Sticht and Mikulecky (1984)
found that in job reading training programs, reading of job materials led to
larger gains than did general reading. From this they assert that "if reading
training is given in a well specified domain, then skill in that domain will
improve" (p. 32). This idea of specific literacy, and of reading to do,
is supported by functional context theory, which posits that biological
circumstances and the context in which learning takes place determine what is
learned, how it is learned, and whether the learning will transfer. According
to Sticht and Hickey (1991), context can be thought of in two
dimensions--the world "outside the head" and that "inside the head." The
former dimension of context refers to one's external environment, including
one's work surroundings. The latter refers to the mind--to one's cognitive
abilities. When fully articulated, functional context theory includes a
developmental model of literacy and a conception of learning as information
processing. Functional context learning requires building new knowledge from
old, dwelling on problems from the environment where the learning is to be
used, and providing opportunities for practice and transfer.
The generalization one can make, therefore, might be that workplace literacy is specific literacy--it is literacy in the functional context of the workplace. But as Park (1992, p. 132) points out, where workplace literacy is concerned, the problem of definition is not easily resolved. And indeed, defining workplace literacy in contextual terms--distinguishing between general and specific literacies--is contentious. For example, Barton and Kirsch (1990) vehemently state that
to envision distinct, separate kinds of literacy that are called upon in isolation from another is not a very useful concept. Specific literacy skills are not things that can be turned on and off in different settings. Life is not so compartmentalized; it is, in fact, a seamless web. All citizens need a broad base of literacy skills to function in the school, in the family, in the community, in the voting booth, and in the workplace. The challenge is to understand how such skills and knowledge in these several contexts are similar, and how they are different, as part of a critical effort to find ways to promote their development. (p. 32)
The idea that literacy should tend to be general--even in the context of workplaces--is the position of trade unions, notably the AFL-CIO. For example, Sarmiento and Kay (1990) posit a worker-centered approach to workplace education and training programs. Such an approach, they argue, "enables workers to fulfill many different kinds of learning objectives--from occupational advancement to self-advancement" (p. 32). We see this controversy in Gowen (1992) who speaks of the resistance of workers to job texts as the sole source of content for their reading (p. 91). Workers wanted to write stories that had meaning beyond their jobs.
Despite the contentions, the generalization most evident in the literature
regarding the definition of workplace literacy, or what constitutes literacy,
is that the skills must be tied to the context (Park, 1990). Enumerating the
characteristics that make for effective workplace literacy programs, Cornell
(1988) suggests that skills should be taught within a "meaningful context" to
ensure transfer, and for the political reason that firms are more likely to
support training if they see its link with training and performance. Park
(1990) suggests that workplace literacy programs should contain two basic
elements: (1) the premise of an assessment of the reading, writing, and math
skills of the employees; and (2) the development of training programs in the
three Rs that could deliver "the basic job skills needed for performance and
job promotion" (p. 9). A study of the first year of the National Workplace
Literacy Program revealed that two factors common to successful programs were
(1) literacy task analyses and (2) instructional materials that were linked to
literacy skills required on the job (Kutner, Sherman, Webb, & Fisher, 1991;
U.S. Department of Education, 1992).
Mikulecky, Henard, and Lloyd (1992) argue that successful programs must be
flexible, and must cater to the needs of a diversity of learners. For example,
basic skills training could be coordinated with several other types of
training, including ESL, GED, functional literacy, and so on (p. 6). To assure
success there must be a systematic study of the job site, including a
collection of work samples, an inspection of job descriptions, task analyses,
and the building of political support (such as collaboration with unions)
(e.g., Kalman & Fraser, 1992; Mikulecky et al., 1992; Park, 1990; U.S.
Department of Education, 1992). However, there are caveats. Mikulecky et al.
(1992) point out that any gains in literacy proficiency are lost in the absence
of opportunity to practice. Park (1992) asserts that links between workplace
literacy instruction and productivity are tenuous. This observation would
certainly hold true for episodic programs. To realize productivity gains
requires time for the accumulation of expertise.
How are workplace literacy programs to be evaluated? From the National
Workplace Literacy Program, several indices of success have been set forth,
gleaned from exemplary projects. They include improved communication, reading,
and math skills; high program completion rates; improved self-confidence; and
increased productivity by some employees (U.S. Department of Education, 1992).
Mikulecky and Lloyd (1992) recommend using a combination of standardized and
customized instruments for evaluation. They suggest, in addition to indices
such as improved reading ability and increased productivity, that improved
family literacy (e.g., parents being able to model literacy practices for their
children) might be an expected outcome of workplace literacy programs.
Just what is evaluated depends upon the literacy philosophy one entertains.
If literacy is seen in purely instrumental terms, then improved productivity
might be the only criterion of relevance. As Park (1992) points out, this is
not an easy criterion to assess. Mechanisms must be put in place to foster
valid and reliable estimation of productivity changes. In their study of the
impact of workplace literacy programs, Mikulecky and Lloyd (1992) utilized
indices such as data on employee attitudes (e.g., absenteeism and grievances
submitted). They also sought to monitor both process (e.g., frequency of use
of job aids) and content (e.g., specific job knowledge) aspects of
productivity.
Because workplace literacy programs invariably issue from a functional,
instrumental need, intrinsic measures such as improved self-confidence or
carry-over into family literacy cannot be expected alone to gain the support of
firms. The case for such measures must be argued by worker representatives
(e.g., Sarmiento & Kay, 1990). What might be needed to make some of the
more intrinsic claims of workplace literacy programs more palatable is
demonstration of how such effects can ultimately redound to the objective
benefit of firms.
That vocational education plays a major role in preparing youth and adults for roles in the workforce cannot be disputed. However, with changes in the workplace and in the nature of work, it has become clear that vocational education, though still having a crucial role, requires a new conceptualization to be relevant to the human capital needs required in the global economy. Workplaces alone cannot meet these needs of the American workforce. Vaughan (1991) argues, "Economic success--internationally and in all our communities--depends on investments in human capital. And vocational education investments play a major role" (p. 448). He notes that employers cannot fill the basic skills gap through training, since "only forty-five percent of high school dropouts receive any occupational training on the job" (p. 448). Vaughan reasons that, "because vocational programs are closely linked to labor markets, they can quickly and economically train displaced workers in skills that are in demand, thus drawing poor people into the economic mainstream" (p. 448).
This sort of reasoning resonates in the provisions of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Act of 1990. The purpose of the Perkins Act is
[T]o make the United States more competitive in the world economy by developing more fully the academic and occupational skills of all segments of the population. (American Vocational Association, 1990, p. 49)
This conception of a role for vocational education in preparing the workforce for today's competitive environment is driven in large measure by unfavorable comparisons with trading partners, notably Germany (e.g., U.S. General Accounting Office, 1990). Reflecting on the Perkins Act, Warnat (1991) sets forth that vocational education must become more proactive. It must make the public more aware of its role and potential as "the primary preparer of the nation's world-class work force and where our work force stands in the global economy" (p. 25). But, with the retreat from vocationalism noticeable in American public schools (e.g., Gray, 1991; Wirt, Muraskin, Meyer, & Goodwin, 1989), it cannot be said that there is consensus regarding the nature of vocational education's role. It is clear that vocational education must adjust to the times.
One plank of the Perkins Act is the integration of vocational and academic curricula. The Perkins Act provides funds to support programs that
integrate academic and vocational education in such programs through coherent sequences of courses so that students achieve both academic and occupational competencies.... (American Vocational Association, 1990, p. 86)
Addressing this question, Jennings (1991) offered the following view:
There's little doubt that American students need to boost their academic skills, and Congress believes vocational education has the ability to do just that. (p. 18)
There has been much support for the idea of integration (e.g., Gray, 1991;
Grubb, Davis, Lum, Plihal, & Morgaine, 1991; Rosenstock, 1991; among
others). Many see this thrust as the way to change the course of vocational
education from occupationally specific technical skill development to a more
generic orientation that is premised on a broader conception of the
requirements of today's industry and jobs. There is the view that vocational
classrooms must become more deliberately attuned to workplace basic
skills.
As an example of such a thrust at the level of the classroom, Martinez and
Badeaux (1992) report an increase in academic achievement when mathematics and
English were taught in the context of welding. Feller and Daly (1992) describe
efforts made by counselors to show the relevance of new workplace basics in the
context of vocational education. In their examination of vocational education
classrooms that work, Stasz, Ramsey, Eden, DaVanzo, Farris, and Lewis (1993)
observed generic skills which they classify as "basic enabling skills" (e.g.,
reading, writing, and filling out forms), "complex reasoning skills," and
"work-related skills and attitudes" such as self-esteem and self-management (p.
3).
One of the major funding categories of the Perkins Act is Tech Prep. As set forth in its original conception by Parnell (1985), Tech Prep seeks to articulate the curriculum of the last two years of high school with two years of postsecondary vocational education. It is premised on the integration of vocational and academic content at the "prep" stage, where courses such as mathematics and science are expected to be taught in the functional or applied context of vocational courses. As Gray (1991) points out, the Tech Prep idea now has great legitimacy among vocational educators as a model of the future--as a way to shift secondary vocational education away from occupationally specific training, while providing for transition between schooling and the world of work.
Discourse on the basic skill needs of the American workforce must take into consideration the fact that the demographic character of the workforce is changing. As discussed earlier, there are pockets of low basic skills in the workforce, tending to correlate with social class, race, and ethnicity. Recent immigrants could be expected to have low levels of proficiency in English, which translates into communication difficulties in the workplace. Vocational education has traditionally played a major--if controversial--role in the work life of those at the margins, and is being called upon to play a role in readying immigrants for the workforce by providing them with needed technical skills. In the process, it can offer them a chance to learn English in contexts of jobs. Indeed, vocational education, because of the opportunities it provides for contextual learning and practice, may be a more suitable vehicle for the enculturation of immigrants than regular education. Beyond opportunity for practice, it allows opportunities for transfer of learning (e.g., Housel, 1991; Kidder, 1991).
Vocational education traditionally caters to noncollege-bound students among
whom concentrations of low levels of literacy can be expected. Oakes (1985)
has shown this propensity of vocational education programs to attract minority
and otherwise disadvantaged students. Vocational education attracts
disproportionate numbers of low SES students. But from the discussions above,
it can be seen that many of the clientele who traditionally will be attracted
to vocational education, whether in the secondary or postsecondary sector of
the school system, would likely be the same clientele found to be lacking in
the skills employers want. Sensitive to changing requirements in the
workplace, vocational institutions have increasingly had to take on a remedial
skills role (e.g., Grubb, Dickinson, Giordano, & Kaplan, 1992, p.
118).
Since vocational education is a natural preserve of those communities at the
literacy margin, it cannot help but be at the front lines of the war on
workplace illiteracy. This awareness of vocational education's role--this
need for vocational institutions and programs to reflect literacy more
deliberately--is evident in the more recent literature of the field (e.g.,
Barrick & Buck, 1987; Breeden & Bowen, 1990; Busse, 1992; Ciancio,
1988; Davis, 1988; Dees, 1990; Keeley, 1990; Knell, 1990; McIlvoy, 1989; Pritz,
1988; Seamon & Newcomb, 1990). A central theme is that the three Rs along
with problem-solving, communication, and interpersonal skills, must become the
business of vocational education. Keeley (1990) speaks of finding out through
analysis the academic content of each job. Literacy skills must be documented.
Barrick and Buck (1987) identify eight keys to employability: (1) personal
skills (e.g., honesty and a good self-image), (2) problem-solving and
decision-making skills, (3) relations with others, (4) communication skills,
(5) task-related skills (e.g., completing work on time), (6) maturity, (7) good
health and safety habits, and (8) commitment to the job. Dees (1990) describes
how using computers in vocational instruction to teach basic skills decreased
the dropout rate in a high school vocational program. She speaks of the "basic
skills conundrum," which is that "time spent remediating students with reading
and math deficiencies is time lost to vocational preparation," and, yet,
students need to remedy these deficiencies to meet graduation requirements and
to be successful on the job (p. 30). Ciancio (1988) describes the challenge of
finding methods to teach literacy skills to adults using Principles of the
Alphabet Literacy System (PALS), an IBM solution to the problem. Pritz (1988)
posits that academic skills should be "embedded in vocational tasks" (p.
25)--that vocational and academic skills should not be taught in isolation from
each other. Addressing the problem of workplace literacy directly, and the
role for vocational education, Knell (1990) calls for vocational teachers and
administrators to collaborate with stakeholders (e.g., business leaders,
unions, community representatives, social services, and so on) to deal with the
problem. They could take the lead in the formation of state institutions
constituted solely to deal with the problem. Busse (1992) asserts that what
employers want, and what vocational education must provide, are workers who are
self-confident, intelligent, cooperative, possess technical knowledge, dress
properly, possess good math and reading skills, and have a willingness to be
involved in the company's "entire operation" (p. 47). There is evidence that
vocational education clients understand the need for new basics. A sample of
community college occupational graduates and other former students rated
English as the most important general education course in their associate
degree program. They also rated communication skills and critical thinking
skills as two important clusters of courses (Vogler & Armistead,
1987).
From the very way in which workplace literacy is defined, and the way in which
the problem is framed, a clear role for vocational education seems to be
possible. In the first instance, vocational education, by nature, tends to
teach basic literacy skills in context. Related math and English (e.g.,
welding mathematics and business English) are vocational education staples.
Further, the traditional curricular procedures of the field are consistent with
those posited as being good practice and likely to engender successful
workplace literacy programs (e.g., techniques such as examination of job
descriptions, task analyses, and so on). Another enabling factor would be the
traditional ties with industry and the use of industry sources (typically
advisory committees) to determine content. What is needed now is for
vocational educators to more deliberately emphasize the dimension of literacy.
An example of this is having vocational educators collaborate with reading
specialists to create their curricula (Kakela, 1993).
This conceptual framework sought to establish a link between the new reality of competition in the global economy and increasing calls for literacy in the workforce, then to establish that there must be a role for vocational education. Our review has helped make the case that there is indeed a role for vocational education in readying the workforce for changing times, but that it differs from the traditional technical skill-specific role. Vocational education is in step with the larger discourse on the human resource requirements for competitiveness in the global economy. The need for the inclusion of basic skills in vocational curricula is evident--that is, basic skills broadly conceived to include not just the three Rs, but also problem-solving, interpersonal, and communication skills--however, it is broadly conceived. Because workplace literacy quintessentially thrives in a functional context, and because those deficient in basic literacy skills are more likely to patronize vocational institutions than other institutions, it is imperative that vocational educators come to embrace the new possibilities that these realities present.
The review has helped to crystallize some basic premises or hypotheses that can undergird our approach to the cases. They include (1) that because of its traditional role in the education of disadvantaged populations (a role that is legitimized in the Perkins Act of 1990), and the fact that these populations are the ones that need workplace literacy skills most, vocational education may play a natural role as a workplace literacy provider; (2) that vocational education institutions may have a comparative advantage as a literacy provider because not only do these institutions provide initial job preparation, but they also can provide upgrading preparation to meet the changing nature of jobs and skills and the lifelong learning needs of workers; (3) that vocational education institutions may have a comparative advantage over other providers because of their tradition of working cooperatively with industry to develop workplace-based curricula, and the flexibility they display in so doing; and (4) that vocational education provides a natural vehicle for the teaching of literacy skills within a functional context--for integrating literacy skills with technical content.
We set out through observation of selected workplace literacy initiatives to
better understand how workplace literacy programs are configured and run in
order to clarify the possible roles for vocational education institutions in
such programs, whether within their walls or on-site in actual workplaces. We
decided to focus on a limited number of programs and to adopt the case study
approach to inquiry. To assure reliability, data collection was triangulated
through use of multiple sources of information, including on-site observation,
document examination and analysis, collection of artifacts, and formal and
informal interviews of key informants (e.g., Yin, 1994).
The review of literature provided the framework that guided the logic of the
inquiry. This framework highlighted theoretical issues that helped in the
framing of questions for the development of protocols used for semistructured
interviews and in sensitizing us to what we should look for as we observed, and
what possible meaning we could deduce from our observations. Among the more
important issues unearthed by the review were (1) the problem of defining
literacy, (2) general versus specific literacy (or functional versus critical
literacy), (3) misconceptions about what workers know, (4) assumptions of
functional context theory, and (5) worker versus management conceptions of what
workers need to know.
The staff were interested in selecting initiatives that were each distinctive
so that together they could provide a comprehensive picture of the range of
possibilities and problems that workplace literacy programming presents, and
that could allow insight into the question of whether vocational institutions
can claim a comparative advantage over providers in the workplace literacy
enterprise. Accordingly, based on our understanding of the literature, we
first outlined a set of dimensions that would guide our choice of initiatives
to study. Since our methodology was to involve in-depth, ethnographic methods,
we needed accessible, within-state initiatives where we could spend the long
hours needed. Nothing in the literature suggests that there are major
between-state differences in the approach to workplace literacy. Much of the
variation in such programs can be substantially observed within-state if, a
priori, one deliberately takes such variation into account in selecting
initiatives. Accordingly, we chose sites from the respective states of the
principal investigators.
Rather than using a random sampling, we selected initiatives for study on an
estimation of the extent to which they reflected important workplace literacy
program dimensions, and the value each would add to our overall understanding.
Dimensions along which each initiative was chosen included the following: (1)
whether it appears--or at least claims--to adopt practices deemed within the
context of the workplace literacy enterprise to be exemplary (e.g., literacy
audits, functional context curriculum development, testing of workers, and job
and task analyses); (2) the employment status of the trainees (such as entry
level, dislocated worker); (3) whether there were significant numbers of
immigrants or ESL trainees; (4) type of firm (e.g., high-tech versus low tech,
service versus manufacturing, or small versus large); (5) how it is funded
(e.g., state, federal, or other); (6) where it is located (urban, suburban);
(7) sector of the economy (public versus private); (8) ethnic or racial
diversity (e.g., significant numbers of non-white trainees); (9) approach to
literacy (general versus specific or functional); (10) reason for program
(e.g., multiskilling, basic skill improvement, or new technology); and (11)
whether or not a vocational institution was involved. These criteria
highlighted important dimensions along which workplace literacy programs vary.
It was agreed that five well-chosen initiatives, varying along lines as
entailed here, could provide the intelligence on workplace literary programs we
needed. Since the primary interest was to be able to gain sharper
understanding of the possibilities for vocational institutions, we decided that
it was imperative that workplace literacy initiatives involving vocational
institutions be included among the cases.
Based on the described criteria, the staff were able to identify and gain
permission to study five suitable initiatives set in our respective states. Of
these, three involved accredited vocational institutions, and the other two a
common private provider operating in one state. Informal consultation with
officials at the U.S. Office of Educational Research and Improvement and with
state officials revealed a perception that this was an exemplary private
provider, a perception which was evidenced by a track record of state and
federal funding of competitive workplace literacy proposals. Because its
specialty was education for work, this provider was philosophically a
vocational entity. However, if it was viewed against a model of what we know a
vocational institution to be, it would be considered by vocationalists to be an
outlier or even a pretender. Its seeming credibility was such that this
provider could not be ignored. Staff surmised that comparison of its approach
with that of accredited vocational institutions would set the unique claims of
the latter in sharper relief. Beyond a description of two initiatives of this
provider, a separate account of its modus operandi is provided. Following a
description of each case, hypotheses derived from the conceptual framework (set
forth earlier) are reflected upon as an estimation is made about the efficacy
of claims regarding uniqueness or comparative advantage that vocational
institutions can make.
To set the stage for the cases, a thumbnail sketch of each case is now set
forth as an advanced organizer for the study. The cases are as follows:
Case 1--A hospital services workers project (Skills for Tomorrow)
Case 2--A high-tech manufacturing company's basic skills project (Skills
2000)
Case 3--A banking basic skills project (NEET)
Case 4--A hotel ESL project for immigrant service workers
Case 5--A workplace literacy-focused, community-based vocational institution
Case 1 describes a federally funded workplace basic skills project entitled Skills for Tomorrow that was a collaboration between a union, four hospitals, and a two-year postsecondary technical college. The role of the college was of interest in this case. The problem was to upgrade the basic skills of workers so that they could understand written workplace documents better and so that they could improve their interpersonal skills and gain greater awareness of the operations, with the ultimate effect of becoming multiskilled and ready to assume tasks other than those in their regular areas of work. The trainees were primarily food service and laundry workers. The description is based on one year of on-site observations, interviews, and document inspection. The college administered its part of the project through its customized services department.
Case 2 also features a two-year postsecondary technical college as provider, this time in a company-sponsored basic skills program called Skills 2000. Again, the focus was on the role of the college. The college was working with a high-tech company operating out of a small midwestern town, situated about one and a half hours away from the metropolitan center. The college engaged the services of a literacy expert, and under her guidance pretested a cross section of the company (including engineers, managers, and maintenance workers), and analyzed the level of actual workplace reading and math skills needed as the basis for developing the curriculum. As with Case 1, this college also administered the project out of its customized services unit. An important asset of the college was that it has been a provider of Adult Basic Education (ABE), and accordingly has staff who have been attuned to the problem of literacy in the context of work.
Case 3 is a description of a basic skills program for hourly paid employees at the branch of a major metropolitan bank. The provider was the Workplace Education Center (WEC), a nonprofit entity that specializes in workplace literacy training. The problem was that workers were having difficulty understanding clients' written instructions to the bank regarding remittances. Some workers had difficulty converting sums expressed in words to numerical form.
Case 4 is a description of a hotel workers' ESL training program, designed to improve the spoken and written English of service workers, predominantly Spanish speaking. As with Case 3, the deliverer was WEC. This program was jointly funded by the state (through special funds set aside for promoting workplace literacy training) and the hotel.
Different from the four previous cases, Case 5 describes the operations of an alternative vocational school run by a community-based organization. The school specializes in community outreach and is a haven for populations that are difficult to reach such as welfare recipients, the unemployed, immigrants, ethnic minorities, and so on. Its curriculum is a mixture of technical training and literacy training. Its facilities feature basic skills (i.e., reading and math) labs, run by trained specialists and teachers from the public school system. Its funding sources are varied, and include state reimbursement for placement of students, Pell Grants, and others.
This hospital project was federally funded under the National Workplace
Literacy Program, and was intended to improve the capacity of the partners, the
Union Educational Bureau (representing its local health care union), Redwood
Technical College, and four hospitals "to develop systematic workplace literacy
approaches and strategies that assist hospital service workers in overcoming
job-specific skill deficits posing barriers to their continued employment,
increased productivity, and career advancement" (as cited on p. 3 of grant
proposal). The occupational classes targeted were primarily food service
workers and housekeepers. The duration of the program was eighteen months, the
norm for initiatives in the National Workplace Literacy Program.
The need for the project was argued in the grant proposal on a number of
grounds, as follows: (1) the targeted classes of workers lacked basic skills;
(2) immigrants needing ESL proficiency were included; and (3) new medical
technologies were changing the nature of work in the health care industry. It
was thought that approximately 15% of the targeted classes of workers were
underperforming and would benefit from the proposed training.
The needs of the hospitals were set forth against the backdrop of the
perceived nationwide decline in the level of literacy skills in the workforce.
Concerns were expressed about the sharply declining quality of applicants for
hospital service worker positions. It was argued that the state's formal
vocational training infrastructure prepared only a fraction of hospital service
workers. Redwood was the only technical college in the state offering programs
for these classes of workers. The proposal pointed out that, increasingly,
Redwood was being asked to expand these programs and that "integrating literacy
and basic skills approaches with job-specific skill training is viewed as the
most effective and efficient means for ensuring the productivity and retention
of service workers" (as cited on p. 15 of grant proposal). It was argued
further that there was need for consideration of "cost-effective methods for
delivering job-specific literacy skill programs on an ongoing basis," that
within the state "basic skills and technical skills can be integrated and both
taught at a fraction of the cost of separate types of programs" (grant
proposal, p. 15). This ideal of integrating basic skills with technical skills
unfortunately did not materialize in the project since technical skill training
was not allowed under National Workplace Literacy Program rules. The project
had to proceed under this constraint--a severe one for a vocational
institution.
Benefits expected to accrue from the project included productivity gains for the company, and literacy upgrade and career enhancement opportunities for workers. The following excerpts from the grant proposal are instructive:
A comprehensive training curricula (sic) that encompasses the full range of literacy and basic skills required of hospital workers across varied occupational classifications would be developed and implemented for the specific purposes of assisting workers in the four participating hospitals to retain their current positions, increase their productivity, successfully upgrade their skills in relation to industry changes, and create new opportunities for career advancement.
All training will be outcome-based and linked directly to expected job performance criteria that will allow for systematic evaluations of hospital workers by employees on an ongoing basis beyond the funding period.
Cost-effective strategies for the delivery of training via technical college education partnerships will be fully developed and evaluated. (p. 16)
Participation in the program was to be voluntary, limited to unionized workers of the classes indicated above. This requirement that the program be voluntary was another constraining factor, in that it offered the real possibility that those most in need would not submit themselves for the courses. They would not want their shortcomings exposed if they could help it.
The four hospitals in the project (to be referred to hereafter as hospitals A, B, C, and D) together employ 17,804 full-time and part-time workers, accounting for approximately one-fourth (24%) of the state's total hospital workforce. Of the 17,804 workers, 2,830 are classified as hospital service workers (i.e., nursing assistants and orderlies, dietary aides and food service workers, and housekeepers and building maintenance/custodians). A brief thumbnail sketch of each hospital follows.
Hospital A, an urban hospital, has a workforce of 2,026 full-time and 3,558 part-time employees. Some 740 of these workers (i.e., unionized health and nonhealth support service staff) were targeted for the project. This hospital is known nationally for its programs in an array of fields such as cardiology and orthopedics. It is also known as a center of excellence in nursing training in the state.
Also urban, Hospital B employs 2,580 full-time and 2,507 part-time staff. About 942 of these workers are classified as hospital support personnel. This is a teaching hospital and clinic, known worldwide for excellence in various specialties including organ and bone marrow transplantation and cardiopulmonary disease.
Hospital C, also urban, has 2,268 full-time and 2,092 part-time employees. Approximately 676 of these are service workers. It is well-known statewide and nationally for programs of excellence in an array of fields including cardiovascular medicine and obstetrics and gynecology.
Hospital D, which is suburban, employs 1,307 full-time and 1,466 part-time employees. Of these, 472 are health and nonhealth support staff. This hospital is known for its work in trauma and crisis intervention. It specializes in a broad range of patient services in fields such as mental health, cancer, and geriatrics.
The Union Educational Bureau is a service arm of a major national union. As
set forth in its mission statement, its purpose is to "help raise the quality
of life of the Union membership ...." Its primary function is to "provide
information and referral services." It does this by working cooperatively with
"existing human service agencies." The bureau works in partnership with
educational agencies to offer workplace literacy programs for its clients. It
also specializes in educational programs for dislocated workers.
The bureau holds the philosophy of collaboration between labor, management,
and education partnerships in the planning and delivery of services to its
clients. It was in that vein that it joined with Redwood and the hospitals for
the project to be described here, with the clients coming primarily from the
local health care union, along with two other local service worker unions.
Redwood Technical College is a two-year postsecondary vocational institution
located in the suburbs of a large midwestern city. Accredited by the North
Central Association of Colleges and Schools, it offers over fifty majors
leading to diplomas, and, in conjunction with a nearby community college,
several Associate of Applied Science (A.A.S) degree programs. As indicated
above, the college is unique in that its curriculum is completely
individualized and outcome-based. Like other technical colleges in the state
and elsewhere, it has ties with industry, but here again it has unique
strengths through its customized training infrastructure, which is specially
staffed and which constitutes a deliberate thrust of the college. This
customized function is augmented by the college's distance education
capability. The college can tailor programs to specific employer needs. It
specializes in needs assessment and instructional design.
Redwood is sensitive to the contemporary work scene. Its mission
statement speaks of commitment to training "a diverse population
with lifelong educational opportunities leading to productive, meaningful lives
for the benefit of a global society ...." Goals set forth in its brochure
indicate, among other things, an obligation to "provide a skilled workforce for
the global economy" and to teach not just technical skills, but problem-solving
and creative thinking skills. The following excerpts of goal statements taken
from a college brochure reveal that basic skills have been integral to
programming, and that the emphasis here is increasing:
Within recent years the college has been customizing literacy training for industrial clients and has been acquiring expertise along these lines. This expertise has been recognized to the point where these two entities in tandem have won large federal grants under the National Workplace Literacy Program, with Redwood having major curricular, logistical, and instructional responsibilities. As indicated above, a major intent of these grants is to help the partners develop workplace literacy capability. Because participation in workplace literacy programs is a fairly new line of activity for vocational institutions, we sought to gain first-hand knowledge, through qualitative processes, of what is required of these institutions in such programs, what expertise they bring, what the limits of this expertise are, and, therefore, what the niche is to which they can lay claim.
As indicated above, the workers targeted by the program came primarily from food and housekeeping services. Of the 210 who participated, 150 (70%) were Caucasian, 38 (17.7%) were African American, 13 were Native American, 6 were African, 4 were Asian, and 3 were Hispanic. Two-thirds were female and one-third were male. In sum, the workers targeted were diverse, with the African-American representation being about three times that found in the state, the latter anomaly being a function of the low status of the jobs that were targeted for the program. The relatively high proportion of women was also a function of the classes of jobs targeted in the program.
Our purpose was to gain an in-depth understanding, through first-hand observation, of the unique role of Redwood in the implementation of this workplace literacy training program to be able to draw inferences that could be instructive for other vocational institutions as they consider venturing into workplace literacy programming. Were there aspects of Redwood's approach that appeared to give it a comparative advantage as a literacy provider? Accordingly, our focus was on the process of partnering, the basic philosophy of workplace literacy that guided the project, the approach to curriculum development that this philosophy engendered, the actual curriculum, and the approach to instruction.
Consistent with our purpose, the investigation concerned itself with the
philosophy and processes (e.g., partnering, developing the curriculum, and
approach to instruction) adopted by Redwood as it implemented its part of the
project, and not with promised outcomes of the project (e.g., increased
productivity or improvement in literacy). In any case, the project staff did
not establish the controls nor collect the data that would allow an evaluation
of measurable outcomes.
Our scope was limited to an examination of philosophy and processes. Instead
of stated outcomes, we used as our referents well-founded theoretical and
research-based positions (e.g., conceptions of the nature of literacy,
functional context theory, and the skills employers want) to be found in the
literature. Whenever we interrogated any of the stances or actions taken in
the project, it was against our understanding of positions to be found in the
literature.
We sought and got permission to observe Redwood at work from the inside, as it executed its part of the project. Key informants involved with the project at Redwood, the hospitals, and the Union Educational Bureau were interviewed. They included college administrators, Union Educational Bureau officials, hospital project representatives, union stewards, instructors, and workers. We became an unobtrusive part of the project and were able to make close observations in the field for a period of nine months. During this period we conducted approximately fifty hours of formal, taped interviews, spent more than two hundred person/hours making observations at the sites (e.g., classes in session and promotional events) and conducting informal interviews, and examined documents related to the project (e.g., minutes of meetings and curriculum and instructional materials). We achieved triangulation through this process of observations, interviews, and document analysis, and through cross-checking of data across multiple sources. Finally, two successive drafts of our final report on the project were shared with the Redwood staff to substantiate the authenticity and accuracy of the observations and interpretations.
Just what makes a vocational institution suited to conduct workplace literacy
programming? This was a central concern of this study. Examination of the
institutions that have successfully won grants in the National Workplace
Literacy Program reveals that they constitute an eclectic array of deliverers,
including community colleges, universities, departments of education, school
districts, unions, community-based organizations, private contractors, and
two-year vocational/technical colleges. One reason for this diversity of
deliverers is that no single institution can claim a monopoly on literacy
capability. The literacy market possesses many segments (e.g., ESL, ABE,
technical skills and processes training), however, eventually these deliverers
must specialize in some way. They must carve out market niches based upon
their unique capabilities.
To try to discern Redwood's unique claims, we interviewed its project staff,
Union Educational Bureau officials, and hospital representatives attached to
the project. In addition, we examined the college's promotional brochures.
Since Redwood had been invited to be a partner in the project by the Union
Educational Bureau, we asked "Jane," the president of the bureau, to explain
the role that the college was expected to play. Jane indicated that while the
union had been "the administrative recipient of the grant dollars," Redwood
performed "the lion's share of the work ... they get the lion's share of the
budget." She pointed out that "they are curriculum specialists," who are able
to customize work-based programs for the classes of workers represented by her
union. "Ralph," another high-ranking official at the bureau, concurred that
the college brought "a great deal of sophistication" to the task of fashioning
workplace-based literacy curriculum. From the standpoint of the union
officials involved, then, it was its expertise in curriculum and instruction
design and delivery that made Redwood a suitable partner in the project.
Conversations with Bret, who had been president of Redwood, and John, who had
direct responsibility for the customized services aspect of the college's
workplace literacy thrust, provided unique insight on the peculiar strengths
they felt the college brought to this new area of programming. Excerpts from
joint interviews with them follow:
Researcher: We are interested in what vocational education institutions can do to foster workplace literacy ... what role vocational institutions can play.
Bret: First of all I think you've already mentioned that we are dealing with workplace literacy here and not just the overall concept of literacy. And that's the reason we became involved in it. [It] was specifically because the workplace has been [and] obviously fits in with the mission of the college and education for employment. It's maybe a key issue with productivity and making employees just better employees. It's a technical college. That was really our background, to make sure that we are training for employment. Up until four or five years ago we were not doing much in literacy as such. But we did find from our meetings with the [Union] Educational Bureau, as well as with employers, that there was a fairly consistent need out there for companies to be involved with literacy types of activities. So we are the experts on the instructional part [emphasis added] that is where we came in to this.... I think that is how we viewed it. That's why the [union] felt that we were a key partner in this ... is that they have the expertise in working with employees in a variety of service areas--we have the expertise of delivery of instruction. So that was our key role in that, and that's why we wanted to become involved in the whole process of working with literacy.
This perception of expertise in instruction geared to the workplace was consistent with the view held by union officials. But we were interested in whether Redwood did not now have to add a literacy-specific piece to its normal repertoire of competencies.
Researcher: You're bringing that instructional piece, but did you not have to add the literacy piece on to that? Traditionally, the vocational institution focuses on what does it take to get the job done. Do you now not have to add the literacy piece? Or do you just have to do the same thing you were doing before?
Bret: It was a combination of both. One is that our definition of literacy ... is the basic skills that employees need to be successful on the job.... With that definition then, some of the things that we had been doing were right in line with that definition. But there were some other things that we needed to add. We added those really as part of the various projects that we were involved with. What we added was really a lot of work with employers and the employees to find out what skills they needed [emphasis added], so it wasn't just our assumption of what was needed, but it was actually going in and asking the other people in the companies, management, and the staff that are there as to what they needed.
What Bret was suggesting here was that from his institution's perspective, workplace literacy meant the ability to perform jobs competently. That being the case, the college was not entirely a newcomer to this area of programming. Literacy in the context of workplaces did not necessarily have to mean the three Rs.
We suggested to Bret that perhaps it was the practical nature of vocational teaching and learning that made his institution suited to such literacy programming. He concurred, explaining as follows:
It's been an applied approach, in that it's not just doing it in the classroom. But what we've done is related it specifically to the situation that the employees will be in, so that they are not just hearing about some things, but they're actually living it. They know what's going on. Everything that is done had been done in an applied context [emphasis added]. And that is, in my opinion, why technical colleges are so unique and so important to the whole area of workplace literacy.... Many other institutions, whether it's a K-12 school district or whether it's the university, their instruction is not as applied, is not as workplace applied as the technical colleges. I think that is the key difference in what we are talking about here.
From the perspective of college personnel, then, it was a tradition of customizing curriculum for workplaces and offering applied courses that made the institution a natural for being a partner in workplace literacy. These could be described as technical competency reasons.
One alternative that these officials did not explore was that the institution had face validity--that it was credible on account of what it embodied, namely a postsecondary education opportunity. We were to hear this perspective expressed elsewhere. When asked about Redwood's contribution to the project, a business representative of the local union offered the credibility explanation:
Representative: I think it was absolutely necessary.... Really, in my mind, [Redwood] legitimized the whole program ... I mean they're teachers ....
Researcher: What if it had been City public schools, rather than a vocational school? Would it have been any different?
Representative: Well, in my mind, [a] vocational school would be more--progressive wouldn't be the word--but most of the people that are in the bargaining unit have either their diploma or GED. Most. Now a lot of them ... sure don't. And not that [that] really matters, but it seems like votech probably turns more people on.... In other words, if City public schools would have offered it, people would have said, oh, you're dumb. You have to go back to school. Votech offers it, it's [not] secondary education, it's advanced education.... That's what I meant by progressive.
Jim, a hospital official associated with the project, expressed the view that Redwood was "attractive" to workers. It was relevant--unlike regular schooling. But on the question of its unique contribution to the project, he was willing to allow that conceivably another provider, such as a school district, could in the same circumstances deliver an equivalent program. The following excerpts capture these thoughts:
Researcher: [Redwood] as a technical college, of course, has a vocational background. Do you think that made any difference? Say one of the school districts had come with the same kind of offer ... ?
Jim: I don't know that I can give you an honest answer. I think that the fact that they are a vocational school is attractive.... If a City school district came, I do not know if there would be any resistance or difficulty (getting people involved) or if it would be easier.
Researcher: I can ask the question better. Do you see anything in what (Redwood) has done that has been good that's because they are a vocational school?
Jim: Again it's hard to say. I think it will all depend on if a school district were to present this, how they would do it? How you do it and how you present it and how it's packaged is [going to] make a big difference.... I think that the idea of it being a vocational school is attractive to our employees.... I can't say for sure, but my guess is that, knowing that this is a vocational-based organization that's putting the time and effort into it would create something of an expectation of our employees, well, this is going to be relevant training. This isn't [going to] be social studies and geography. This is [going to] be aimed at specific job skills. But I'm not saying that the school district couldn't put it together. I'm saying [that], I think, was an underlying expectation when you are talking about vocational school.
When the views of all parties canvassed on the question of Redwood's workplace
literacy credentials are taken together, four clearly perceived strengths of a
technical college emerge: (1) a tradition of working with industry to
determine work-related needs, (2) the ability to convert workplace-based needs
analyses into curriculum, (3) an appeal to workers as higher education and not
public school remedial education, and (4) the acceptability by workers on the
perception that programs will be workplace relevant.
One obvious strength of a college that could not find a place here was the
ability to deliver technical skills, which, as indicated before, was not
allowed in the context of the grant. Thus, the curriculum that Redwood could
offer, though workplace-based, had to be taught, and indeed was taught, under
school-like conditions. In the circumstances, the view that a nonvocational
provider might be an equally credible partner in the project was not
unreasonable. In partnership with unions and industry representatives, it is
quite conceivable that school districts can develop capability to deliver
workplace literacy programs, especially when such programs do not require a
technical skill component and when they focus mainly on decontextualized
workplace basics such as the three Rs, communication, and so on. To carve out
their special niche, vocational institutions must illustrate clear separation
of their capabilities from that of competitor providers; they must do so by
claiming ground where others cannot easily traverse and/or by showing that they
are better at doing what competitors do. They cannot seriously claim monopoly
on the teaching of reading, writing, or mathematics. As Bret points out above,
their strength is in work-based applied curriculum and instruction. They are
not literacy specialists per se.
Since basic skills are so central to the discourse on literacy, we were interested in whether the ability to deliver such skills could be part of the case for Redwood being a workplace literacy provider. Workplace basics include learning to learn, the three Rs, communication, creative thinking/problem solving, self-esteem/goal setting, interpersonal skills, and leadership (Carnevale et al., 1988, p. 16). These skills correlate with those set forth in the SCANS Report (1991). As indicated above, vocational institutions have a tradition of teaching the theory related to skilled occupations--welding mathematics, business English, or technical writing. And, due in part to accreditation requirements, such institutions have been increasing the general education component of their programming. We sought to establish just what the status of this aspect of programming was at Redwood. Excerpts from an interview with Bret and John are instructive.
Researcher (paraphrased): How are things like mathematics, English, [or] communication, programmed in your curriculum, separately, across the board, or within courses? It seems to me that a technical college must have things like basic numeracy--basic skills.
Bret: There's different approaches to that in our programs that offer Associate degrees. The general education requirements, such as English and math ... are done through the community college. So those courses are no different from most college courses. Now there are some specific applications that are done at the college. For example, in the area of technical report writing, that is not a general education course that's at the community college ... it's one that we have specifically to meet our needs. So that's an example. So we do both. And so, in some cases, it's our technical faculty that does the teaching of that because they have the background. But in the other areas it's the general education faculty, from our campus or from ([he community college].
Bret explained further that collaboration with the community college was part of an understanding within the state. When a technical and community college are co-located, the latter must provide the general education, and the former the technical aspects of programs. This rule points to the fact that, in normal circumstances, technical colleges are not viewed in the first instance as general education or basic literacy providers. But they have a respected tradition of making the close connection between general and technical skills (i.e., welding math, business English). That Redwood had such a tradition is evident in the following excerpts:
John: Going back to basic skills and the curriculum area ... I spent a little over fifteen years as a classroom instructor--the auto-body shop. And [in] the curriculum that I wrote, there were units that dealt with math. And I can give you some specifics. One would think that, well, you're going to teach spray painting. Well, it's not enough just to mix chemicals and adjust the spray gun. There's a whole set of materials that are developed to accompany it that dealt with weights, measures, and volumes. Because if you don't understand those things, you can't mix paints in the proper proportions.
Researcher: In some ratio?
John: Right. Right. And in the major collision repair, we were teaching measurements, and we're talking not only in inches but in the metric system. We're dimensioning. And also in the front end steering, basically what we're teaching is geometry, because it's all angles. So in every one of those modules that we developed for the curriculum, for those areas, there were math components. So we were teaching the occupational math in the context for the auto-body trade. And that is really the gist of the type of math when you talk about context. To me it's a very live, very real example.
Teaching ratios in the context of measuring paint and mathematics in the context of auto-body repair are unique pedagogical events that set vocational institutions apart from other institutions. This is quintessential functional context instruction, a defining capability and natural preserve of such institutions.
As indicated above, the grant proposal took the line of the mainstream literature on workplace literacy, citing the need to teach literacy in context. To do so required literacy audits, inclusive of the testing of workers, job analysis, task analysis, and examination of literacy samples. We were interested in hearing firsthand articulation of the philosophy of workplace literacy and examining how it became operational in practice. Here we relied on interviews with Redwood's project staff.
The basic question, "What is workplace literacy?," needed to be asked of the project staff of Redwood in order to help us understand the philosophy brought by the institution to the project. The definition of workplace literacy is not without contention. For example, labor representatives are likely to subscribe to a more expansive definition than corporate representatives (e.g., Sarmiento & Kay, 1990). Some commentators have interrogated the dominant functional literacy paradigm, juxtaposing it against a conception of critical literacy (e.g., whole language, or Freire & Macedo's [1987] notion of reading the world and the word) that they believe is more likely to lead to worker autonomy, and to fuller participation in the democracy (e.g., Gowen, 1992; Greene, 1991; Hull, 1992, 1993; Kazemek, 1991; Resnick, 1990). These commentators tend to view literacy not as a set of skills to be learned but rather as a form of cultural practice. They believe that one is socialized into literacy practice through various forms of apprenticeship in institutions that include schools, family, community life, and workplaces. They remind us of the critical nexus between literacy and existence--that workers have an existence beyond work--as parents, consumers, and so on. The arena of debate, therefore, becomes (1) what should be the content of the workplace literacy curriculum, and (2) how broad its scope should be.
In The Politics of Workplace Literacy, a case study of African-American hospital workers (employed in housekeeping, food service, and laundry), Gowen (1992) points out the cruciality of literacy philosophy in determining curricular and evaluative issues in the project. She explains as follows:
Margaret (a project consultant) holds the most influence in developing lessons and materials. She represents one perspective on workplace literacy. Her definition of the problem and its solution fit within the public discourse about workplace literacy.... Her goal is to help workers to develop the skills necessary to survive in the current system and to advance within it. On the other hand, Aisha (project instructor) holds a very different conception of the problem and its solution. As a social activist with a background in self-help models and Freirean study groups, Aisha believes that the system needs to be changed. She sees the goal of workplace literacy instruction as empowerment through the development of a critical consciousness in order to change the current social, political and economic system. In the middle and pulled in both directions for a variety of reasons are Noreen, Karen, Rose, Amanda, and Sarah.... These differences in the way the literacy problem is conceptualized by the various members of the project have a significant influence on the development and outcomes of the classes. (p. 22)
Gowen goes on to point out that a hope of the project staff was that the training program would help the hospital primarily, but would also transfer into other areas of the employees' lives, "developing self-esteem and creating initiative for more education and advancement" (p. 37). Gowen continues with the following:
Thus, the King Memorial project is initially grounded in the belief that what is good for the employer is good for the employee--to be flexible, to define self in terms of work, and to seek advancement in the system. And if employees see personal value in this training, Margaret hopes that some of them will seek further education on their own time. What this story does not include is the possibility that employees might perceive their literacy needs differently--that they might believe that what is good for their employers is exploitative of them, or that the system might not be as open as Margaret believes it to be. (p. 37)
And, indeed, Gowen (1992) reports that the workers found ways to resist the
curriculum, which had focused narrowly on their work tasks. One worker
protested, "I don't want to know nothing about no mopping and dusting" (p. 93).
Another reported that her favorite assignment was having to watch the movie
Raisin in the Sun and to write a personal response. She took pride in
that essay. Yet, project staff of opposing literacy perspectives had disagreed
on the efficacy of that particular assignment in the context of a literacy
program for cleaning personnel.
We surmised that how workplace literacy was conceptualized and defined by
Redwood would dictate and guide its curricular and instructional actions. We
expected, consistent with the project proposal, the curriculum development
traditions of vocational institutions, and the stated preference of the U.S.
Office of Education and its National Workplace Literacy Program auditors (e.g.,
Kutner et al., 1991; U.S. Department of Education, 1992), that the functional
context approach would be uniformly approved.
We asked Pete, curriculum specialist for the project, to tell us how he defined workplace literacy and to explain how that definition guided his curricular actions. Included in his answer was the following:
When you're in a setting where people are doing a specific job, and they actually have a job, then you have to be much more specific. That's what I see is the difference between workplace literacy and training ... and basic education.... It's organized towards some specific set of problems that people have to solve with that information. It's sort of like the example of a calculator. A calculator is only a tool towards solving some problems. You can focus on teaching people how to use a calculator or you can focus on the problems that they have that they use the calculator for.
Pete was drawing the line here between specific and general literacy, much like Sticht (1988, p. 68) does in his discussion of the issues inherent in defining illiteracy. This distinction between the specific and the general is central to the case for the functional context approach. Pete explained further that workplace literacy had to do with those prerequisite skills that enabled one "to do [one's] changing job."
Researcher: OK. I think that's crucial. In other words, flexibility seems to be a big part of it. Are you flexible enough [to cope with change]?
Pete: Yes, yes. And related directly to that is that the job characteristics are changing in such a way that they're now multi-tasking all these employees. Asking them to do many things out of the specialty area that they were trained in before, and therefore they can't keep up because they don't have the background in the five things they were trained in.... So it's the changing work environment that is creating some of the--what I am calling "literacy" problems.
To be workplace literate, then, meant being able to cope with impending changes in one's work environment and one's job. This way of conceptualizing literacy matched a human resource priority at the hospitals which was to create a multiskilled worker. The status quo was that workers specialized. In the case of food service workers, as Pete explained, one could be doing desserts, the other could be on the tray line, and so on. Now the hospitals were interested in cross-training. Pete explained further:
Instead of having the kitchen person be the one who does the food, serves the food, brings it back, and the nursing assistant person be the one who measures the intake and output of who ate for the medical charts, and the environmental services people be the ones who come in and measure this and measure that, and clean the rooms and make sure everything is fine, now they want to assign a cadre of people to that unit and they do all those things.
Bret explained the college's perspective on workplace literacy:
What we are saying [is that] workplace literacy is the basic level skills that employees need to be successful on the job. The traditional view of literacy has been a matter of reading, writing, and perhaps some math skills. And our definition was perhaps a little bit broader than that, but ... it was geared to the workplace and the skills that employees need to be successful.
John responded with this characterization of how literacy ought to be considered in the context of the project.
I think there's a common perception. It revolves around the word literacy. The perception is that when you hear the word literacy, or lack of literacy, in the case that we're dealing with, that we, many people automatically just assume, make the assumption, that we're talking basic skills, reading, writing, and math. But what we're looking at is the differential between basic ... what we would call basic educational skills, reading, writing, and math, and the reading, writing, and math necessary to perform their jobs ... my definitions have changed as we've gone through because it's emerging, and the last one that I wrote is "using printed, written, verbal, and technology-based communication in a work-based context to achieve the goals of the work organization and the individual."
John went on to point out that at the core of the issue of workplace literacy is the need to cope with workplace changes such as new technology or new ways of communicating. The problem is external to individuals. It is forced by the dynamic character of today's workplaces. One has to keep up with the new knowledge and the new technology, or by default come to the condition of workplace illiteracy. He suggested that the solution is to acquire the disposition of lifelong learning.
Jane, a literacy specialist at Redwood, whose additional role was to publicize, organize, and implement the program, explained that the project was aimed at the 20% or so of workers who "can't quite understand the material that is presented through their job--the people that are having just a little bit of trouble with the reading, the writing, the math." According to Jane, while it was not a goal of the course to teach poor readers how to read, they were not turned away:
We didn't turn anybody away. If someone came, and I don't know that anyone has come in the project that flat-out can't read anything--but we had some very low readers and we just helped them out. We helped them through it. But what I'm saying is, if we really had someone who couldn't read, the goal of the project is not to teach them to read. The goal of the project is to help them out with their job, with this workplace and the application of the material that we have [emphasis added]. But if we start them out as a rank beginner who can't read at all, we're not [going to] teach them to read. But they would still take the class, so we had, especially with our ESL people, people that did have difficulty. But they made it through. And they enjoyed it, and we gave them the help they needed. But it's not a teaching you to read class. Even the reading class was not a teaching you to read class. It was taking words apart and a whole different emphasis. [If] you couldn't read word one, this wasn't for you.
These four key members of the project staff had concurred in their conception of workplace literacy. To them, the core challenge for workers was how to cope with the changing work environment and their changing job-tasks. And for the bottom 20% or so of the workforce, this challenge was acute, particularly where their changing job-tasks required added increments of proficiency in job-related reading, writing, mathematics, or communicating. The conceptions they set forth were in tune with the mainstream discourse.
As alluded to above, one of the challenges for the project staff that was imposed by the grant was to differentiate between training (which would be the responsibility of the hospitals and beyond the scope of the grant) and workplace literacy. This was not an easy separation for project staff to make, since training problems that result from change fitted with their operative definition of workplace. Furthermore, responsibility for dealing with supposed illiteracy in the workplace falls to training departments. The difficulties the project encountered here are captured in the following excerpt:
Jane: Because we were careful that we're not offering training courses, we can't just offer classes in learning how to do the math for a specific thing because now we're training people. And the grant is very sensitive about training people. If everyone can't make this, (or) do this math formula, then that's a training issue. It's not a workplace literacy issue.
What Jane was saying here speaks of a fine separation indeed. The teaching of mathematics related to a specific aspect of work was a training, not a literacy issue. But the teaching of workplace mathematics in a general, decontextualized sense wasn't. And indeed, when mathematics was taught in the project, the disposition was to decontextualize and to cluster skills across jobs rather than specialize within jobs.
The grant proposal set forth the view that "training must be derived by way of direct identification, observation, and validation by workers and supervisors" (p. 18). Needs assessment strategies inclusive of task inventorying, job analyses, interviews, and observation of samples of literacy materials related to the job were promised, leading to individualized and outcome-based curriculum design. Specific project tasks set forth for Redwood included
[(a)] development of curricula (organized in multiple self-paced modules); (b) editorial review of these training resources by the project steering committee, workers, hospital representatives, and others; and (c) field tests and evaluations of the training materials.
We were interested in examining this approach closely.
This section deals with how the workplace literacy philosophy articulated by
project staff was actually translated into curricular actions. It is based on
a combination of interviews with college project staffers, hospital
representatives associated with the project, union administrators, and
inspection and analysis of project curriculum documents. Because curricular
approach is so much a part of the unique claims that a technical college can
make about its suitability to conduct workplace literacy programs, we allow
college project staffers to speak at length in their own voices in this
section. For triangulation purposes, their comments are juxtaposed against
that of hospital representatives.
The basic curricular approach adopted by the college was consistent with
functional context theory as articulated by Sticht, Armstrong, Hickey, and
Caylor (1987) and as set forth in the prescriptive works of Phillipi (1988) and
Cornell (1988). Central to the approach was collaboration between workers and
their representatives, managers and supervisors, and project staff. The
project curriculum and literacy specialists conducted on-site needs assessments
by interviewing workers, supervisors, and managers and by shadowing and
observing workers as they performed their tasks. Data so gathered was later
verified or clarified through further meetings. Some workers were voluntarily
tested to determine the reading level to which project curriculum materials
should be aimed.
The curriculum development process was as much political as it was technical. Our inspection of the records of the project staff revealed that they had organized several joint meetings at the hospital, which were designed to get consensus as to what were the problems that needed to be solved. Excerpts from interviews with Redwood project staff provide the flavor of how the needs assessment leading to the curriculum was approached.
John: The approach that we've taken is that when we enter into a project or when we develop curriculum, we are not going to buy anything off the shelf. That's the attitude that we go in there with. Because every workplace is different. What we do is truly customized to that work environment. I can give you some good examples in the hospital project. As we developed the curriculum, we found common needs that could be presented in all four hospitals, that being the modules that dealt with [measurement and mathematics] basically. And we taught basic math skills by using the measurements that they would use on the job--to ... the custodial maintenance group ... the nursing assistants group, and ... the dietetic technicians group.... And those were pretty consistent across the hospitals--those needs. When it came to the written communication part of it, and also the part of it that was [human relations] "Understanding Where You Work," we had four unique organizations. So really ... we had a module written for that written communication, that's the "Writing That Works" module, and the "Understanding Where You Work" modules. We had to do four hybrids. We had the framework. But we had to custom tailor it, the curriculum model that we developed, we had to further customize it to an additional level for each one of the four worksites. And we use the materials that they used daily in their jobs [emphasis added]. They're the materials that these people saw every day, they handled every day, but they never really understood. And it gave, as Bill said, it gave meaning. It kind of, it brought their job alive.
Researcher: Now ... that customizing, is that a part of the tradition of the tech college and the way in which you would do business anyway?
John: Yes.
Researcher: ... that if an employer calls you ... You would go in and see what it is, whatever their occupation is, and then you would work backward from that?
John: Yes. It has to start--the whole process has to start with an evaluation of the workplace, to see what the processes are. And we approach it from the aspect of what things cause you the most problems. Or as Pete [curriculum specialist] would say, where's the pain? What's causing you pain in your operation?
Researcher: So in other words you haven't had to go and learn that part of it. That, in a sense--that has been traditional ... this idea of going into a company or going in to talk to any client and figuring out what the client needs and then working back ... that's sort of the way in which you do business?
John: Absolutely ...
Bret: It's also the background that the technical colleges have, even in regular programming. When we do any kind of a new program we have to go and talk ... deal with an advisory committee.... Even though it's off the shelf [the curriculum], there's still a history, and a background of getting information from the field.
John: The whole system I think--the technical college--whether you're dealing with our day school classes or customized classes or customized training, is really user-driven. And it's needs-driven. By the need of the industry, or in the cases that we're dealing with workplace literacy, by the need of the individual workplace.
Researcher: So in a sense all you have to do here then, because you already have the, shall we say, technology, to go out there and figure out what it is that this workplace or this individual or this whole group needs, and you could just simply ask the literacy question to the extent that that's what is needed in addition to the other things, without missing a step. Because you already know how to do that.... Is that about right?
John: Yes, in a general sense. If we go into the worksite and we're in this discovery process, that's really what it is at first. You're trying to discover exactly what the needs are. You look at many levels. You can't ask just the manager, because all you are going to get are some of the right answers ... You also have to ask the individual who is at the hands-on level, or production level out on the floor what the problem is also. And you'll find invariably that perceptions are different as to what the needs are.
What these project staffers were saying was that their traditional needs assessment technology now served the college in good stead when they performed literacy audits. The basic mechanism of determining the nature of the problem, and designing curriculum to remedy it, was virtually the same.
We asked Pete to provide specifics, as he reflected on his needs assessment processes. The dialogue that follows provides insight:
Pete: We have to spend some time telling them [workers] what we're going to do with them first. In other words, we have to explain that we're looking for the pain.... We have to make it real clear what we're doing and what we want them to help us to do. And then once that's clear [we ask] what are the problems, and that's a questioning process. What is it about your job, for example, that you find most difficult to do? We don't say, "Can you read well, can you write well?" None of that.... You get them talking and the listening starts to accumulate.
Researcher: So you zero in?
Pete: ... we don't want to know all the things that are involved in doing their job.
Researcher: You don't do a task analysis?
Pete: Well, it's a task analysis for the problem, but we don't do a job