This client is a four-star hotel situated in the downtown area of a major metropolitan city. The hotel is part of a large international chain. This location employed approximately 1,500 employees, 350 of whom were housekeepers. The employer recognized a need for a workplace literacy program when the majority of the housekeeping staff shifted from American to immigrant, mainly Mexican women. Most spoke English only haltingly. A small number spoke virtually no English. The employer estimated that about 60% of the housekeepers required training. Most of the people who supervised the housekeepers were native English speakers who spoke little or no Spanish. There was a clear occupational hierarchy, premised along immigrant/nonimmigrant lines. Housekeepers were often unable to communicate with their superiors or to report such things as a leaking faucet, torn drapes, a broken lock, a burned-out light bulb, or a stain on the carpet.
The duties and responsibilities of the housekeepers included cleaning the
hotel's guest and meeting rooms and hallways; keeping an itemized record of the
sheets, towels, and cosmetics that are dispensed in guest rooms; keeping a
record of their work time; reading their daily work assignment sheets and
weekly work schedules; and filling work orders for broken items in need of
repair. They were expected to know and obey hotel employee regulations such as
which entrances to use during working hours, areas of the hotel that they were
prohibited from entering, and how they should walk down hallways when in
groups. The housekeepers' work frequently brought them into close contact with
the hotel guests, to whom they often could not provide answers to basic
inquiries because of their limited-English proficiency (LEP).
The WEC initiative was designed to teach them to use English well enough to
communicate with English-only speakers, to read work-related documents such as
daily work assignments, to report broken or malfunctioning furniture or
equipment, and to comprehend customers' requests for services.
The employer sought to resolve the problem through training in the form of a workplace literacy program that would teach the housekeepers to use English in the context of their jobs. Since it did not have its own capability, the hotel contracted with WEC to conduct the initiative. A proposal to conduct a Housekeepers English Language Program was prepared by WEC staff, and submitted to the State Literacy Grant Program (Office of the Secretary of State). The proposal won a grant of $10,000.
After funding was received, WEC staff began their four-step implementation process: (1) literacy audit, (2) participant recruitment, (3) curriculum development, and (4) instruction. An extract from an interview with the program instructor/coordinator provides a glimpse of the processes that occurred before instruction began. This staff person was chosen for the instructor/coordinator role on the basis that she was fluent in Spanish.
Researcher: How was the program planned?
Instructor/Coordinator: We normally decide who the target for training is and how many people are involved. After this was done, we conducted a literacy audit including assessment of employees.
Researcher: What is involved in a literacy audit?
Instructor/Coordinator: We talked to the HRD people and four or five key persons in management in order to find out what their goals were and understand the problem better. We interviewed supervisors to identify problems that the housekeepers had and get to know what the housekeepers' work was all about. We looked for very specific answers.
Researcher: What about the assessment?
Instructor/Coordinator: We had a one-on-one interview with every employee that was interested in the program. The interview lasted about twenty minutes and was conducted using the FSI (Foreign Service Institute) oral interview format. We counseled employees regarding their skill level and gave information about community adult education services when necessary.
Researcher: What happened next?
Instructor/Coordinator: I followed a housekeeper around to see what they do. After the interviews and my observation of the actual job-tasks, I came up with a list of competencies. What we do is look at each competency and decide what skills are needed in order to carry out the task involved in the competency. For example, we might decide that some basic math is needed in order to perform a certain computation on the job.
I am the coordinator of this program. I am also the instructor. Sometimes we hire part-time instructors for a specific program. In some programs, the instructor and coordinator may be two different Center staff. I prefer that the instructor be present during the literacy audit so that they may observe the real context and be better able to understand the employees' needs (instructor's clarification). After the audit I went back to the office [WEC] and came up with about twelve competencies. I then went back to the supervisors and consulted with them regarding these competencies. They okayed them.
Of note here is that the literacy audit in this program was performed by the assigned instructor. The instructor explained that it was important that the person who is going to provide the instruction be involved in conducting the needs assessment and basic skills audit because to do so increases her or his understanding of the context of the worksite. This seemed to be a useful insight.
Based on the information gathered from the literacy audit, the WEC staff identified twelve competencies that served as bases for the general objectives of the initiative. The detailed curriculum was based on these competencies. This list of competencies was presented to the managers and supervisors for their comments. In this program, the instructor reported that the supervisors agreed with her list of competencies. She emphasized that it was very important to obtain the supervisors' support.
There was no difficulty recruiting employees to participate in this initiative. Of the eighty employees assessed, sixty-nine were found to be in need of training. The program could accommodate only thirty-five, who were selected--after much deliberation by the employer and WEC--on the basis of seniority, a criterion that did not necessarily match the level of need. Being assessed for training was a novelty for these workers, some of whom participated with some trepidation. A staffer pointed out the following:
Some of the needy employees were afraid to come [for assessment]. These [housekeepers] are the neglected employees in the organization. Higher-up employees are offered excellent training. This kind of training [for housekeepers] is partly to address skill deficiencies and partly PR.
The trainees were grouped for instruction on the basis of their level of English language proficiency (or lack thereof). Three groups were formed using this criterion: (1) beginners, (2) intermediate, and (3) relatively advanced. This case is based on observations on the group which had the least initial proficiency (beginners).
To select participants, a twenty-minute interview was held with each of the eighty employees to assess their English language abilities. The oral Foreign Service Institute (FSI) interview protocol was used to obtain a global measure of language proficiency. It assessed five aspects of language: (1) accent, (2) grammar, (3) vocabulary, (4) fluency, and (5) comprehension. The FSI was regarded as a standardized test. The instructor said the following:
The assessment indicated that there were several levels of English competency. We identified three levels for this program including beginners, intermediate, and relatively advanced. It has been possible to offer courses to different competency groups. The present group were the beginners, although they are now advanced beginners.
The roles of the employer, WEC, and trainees were spelled out in the grant proposal. The partners were required to hold to these. WEC staff was to provide the overall administrative guidance, collect the data, develop the curriculum, develop the workplace context-based instructional materials, and deliver the instruction. The employer and representatives (e.g., supervisors) were to provide information on the employees, their jobs, and their perception of housekeepers' needs. They were also to provide some job-related materials that the trainer could incorporate into the training. During the literacy audit, it was the employer contact person who scheduled interviews with supervisors and organized the employees for the skills assessment interviews. The following are extracts from interviews with the instructor about participant involvement that provide some insight:
On employers: They like to get credit but do not want too much work. They are tied up by lots of other matters. I am trying to get the Housekeeping Department because they know the real needs as opposed to the Human Resource Department who are a bit remote from the realities of the housekeepers' jobs.
On supervisors: Some supervisors are very interested in what trainees learn, but some are not. It is very important to get their support for the program.
On trainees: I always ask them what they want to learn.
Though their input was sought, the experience was that, by and large, trainees
tended to agree to whatever they were offered at the outset, but as instruction
progressed, they would begin to give input and make special requests to be
taught what they felt they needed to know. There was evidence of this during
classroom observation of instruction.
WEC held weekly staff meetings at its offices to discuss and review the
progress of all the workplace literacy initiatives that were in progress.
Staff frequently shared information about their experiences at worksites, what
they thought they had learned from their interaction with diverse groups of
workers, and what they thought the implications were for conducting literacy
classes.
Part of the initial agreement between the employer and WEC was that classes
would be scheduled during the housekeepers' workday and that the employer's
matching funds would cover hourly pay during the classes, the provision of the
instructional site, facilities, and the cost of instructional materials.
Scheduling the classes during the employees' workday assured good attendance
and avoided the need to provide support services that employees may have
otherwise needed such as child care and transportation.
The employer took the lead role in deciding when to schedule classes. Based
on the volume of customers, the hotel has a high season and a low season. Both
were to be avoided. The hotel's high season is when the volume of work is such
that it requires that all employees work long hours. The low season is when
hourly employees are, at times, required to work fewer hours or not at all.
Scheduling classes became a search for an intermediate period, neither too busy
nor too inactive, a search that was often a source of frustration for the
instructor.
The initiative, like others funded through the same state grant program,
consisted of nine weeks of instruction for a total of thirty-six contact
hours.
As indicated above, the literacy audit had identified twelve competencies (learning objectives) on which the detailed curriculum was based. These competencies were as follows:
By a mapping process, these competencies were translated into a set of
teachable skills. This was done by studying each competency and making
decisions on the set of skills required to master the competency. These skills
were then decontextualized into five categories: (1) reading, (2) writing, (3)
speaking, (4) listening, and (5) culture.
WEC has developed the procedures for developing a customized curriculum such
as this (Conrath, Jones, Larsen, Locsin, Lynch, Mrowicki, & Schnell, 1991).
These procedures include
These steps lead to a syllabus whose core components include (1) course competency, (2) core basic skills, (3) company-specific terminology, (4) activities, and (5) resources and materials.
The curriculum, which was partly developed prior to the start of instruction, was used flexibly, and allowances were made for additional content or changes in approach during the course of instruction. The most frequent reason for such adjustments was employee needs as perceived by the trainer. The training was highly work-specific, partly due to the funding requirement, partly due to the perceived purpose of the program from WEC's perspective. However, the nature of the skills that were to be addressed made it easy for the trainer to select illustrations that were relevant both in the trainees' personal lives and the workplace. The following excerpt of conversation with the instructor/coordinator is illustrative:
Researcher: Do you include life skills in the curriculum?
Instructor/Coordinator: The curriculum is very work-specific. We are sensitive about this because the employer is paying the employees to attend class. However, the work here is easy to relate to the home environment because a hotel room is very similar to a bedroom. A bathroom at home is much like the one in the hotel. They [trainees] learn things that are also relevant to their private lives. Curriculum materials are usually not all completed in advance of the course. It has been the hope of the Center [WEC] that packaged materials could be used, but so far we haven't succeeded. It is still necessary to custom-produce materials for each program. We use some commercial materials like picture dictionaries.
Typically, classes we observed started off with informal conversation about
the employees' jobs and homes or about a general topic such as the weather.
Large group instruction was the prevailing mode; however, it was often
supplemented with individual work. The lessons were structured into segments,
each lasting about fifteen minutes. Each lesson was similar in format and
technique. The trainer presented a picture of a hotel room to every trainee.
The objects in this picture were numbered, and below the picture each was
named. They included items like nightstands, quilts/comforters, doorknobs, and
headboards. The trainer would say the name of each object, then ask the
trainees to repeat after her and to match the word with the corresponding item
in the picture. This part of the lesson combined vocabulary with
pronunciation. The trainer used a question-answer method extensively, asking
each trainee in turn, "What is number ____?," and so on.
Using the same picture, she went on to discuss the position of objects in
relation to others, asking, for example, "Where is the night stand?" The
trainees seemed to have some difficulty with this aspect of language and with
constructing answers like "behind the bed" or "above the sink." The younger
employees seemed more willing to answer questions than the older women, who
were shy and did not want to make mistakes that had to be corrected by the
trainer.
Another exercise consisted of written statements that matched with drawings or pictures. The session would proceed as follows:
Instructor: I want you to read the statement below each picture and tell me whether it is true or false. For example, the first one says, "There are four tooth brushes in the holder. True or false?"
Trainee: True.
In a third activity, the trainer gave the trainees the following list of words related to the workplace:
She said each word in English and asked the trainees to repeat after her. The trainees did not know the meanings of some of the words, so she explained each and asked them to mime their meanings, for example: "smelly" (hold your nose), or "noisy" (cover your ears). Some trainees also had difficulty with pronunciation and so the trainer spent some time getting them to repeat the words several times. We observed that by this point in the lesson, a few trainees had begun showing signs of tiredness, evidenced by yawning. The more lively trainees, however, were quite enthusiastic and seemed to enjoy the activities.
Next, the trainer asked the trainees how they cleaned bathtubs. Through repeated questioning, hints, and suggestions, the class came up with a list of steps describing how to scrub a bathtub, a task that was part of their job description. The session went as follows:
Instructor: How do you clean the bathtub in the room? What do you do first?
First trainee: You put soap on the green pad, then scrub the tub.
Second trainee: You put on plastic gloves, then put "Softscrub" on the green pad.
Instructor: Do you wet the green pad first?
First trainee: Yes. You wet the green pad, then put "Softscrub" on it.
Instructor: Then what do you do next?
Third trainee: You turn on the hot water faucet.
Instructor: So, first you put on plastic gloves. Let's write this. First you put on plastic gloves. Then you wet the green pad. Then you put "Softscrub" on the green pad. Turn on the hot water faucet. What happens next?
First trainee: You scrub the tub, then rinse it with water.
Instructor: OK (writing on the white board). You scrub the tub, then you rinse the tub with water. Do you do anything else?
Fourth trainee: Yes. You have to dry the tub.
First trainee: You dry the tub with a hand towel, then put a bathmat on the tub.
Eventually, after many interjections and probing by the instructor, a
procedure for cleaning the tub was obtained. This was written on the board,
and trainees took turns reading through the list with the teacher (and other
trainees), correcting those who had difficulty pronouncing the words. The sole
Tibetan student sometimes answered questions in Hindi, causing others to ask
her to repeat the word and explain its meaning in English. The others seemed
interested in her language and made efforts to teach her Spanish words. This
side exchange became a part of the lessons, though the teacher was not involved
in it. Many times there was some cooperative learning, with less proficient
trainees asking others the translation of a word from Spanish into
English.
During the fifth part of the lesson, with the trainer's assistance, the
trainees each drew a labeled diagram representing a vertical section of the
hotel building. She then asked them to point to the locations of various
places such as the Plaza Level or Ballroom. When they were fairly confident
about these locations, the instructor took up the role of a guest asking
directions. For example:
Instructor: Excuse me, where can I get a hair cut?
First trainee: Go down to the Plaza level. Walk through the Green Tunnel to the other wing of the hotel. There you will find the Business Center. There is a barber there.
Instructor: Where can I find a cash machine?
Second trainee: Go down to the Concourse level. You will find a cash machine near the elevator.
The role-play ensured that each trainee got an opportunity to practice her
skills and improve her knowledge of the geography of the hotel. Many needed
guidance as they attempted to give directions. Some of the directions were
quite complex. The more complex they were, the less fluent the trainees'
responses became as they paused to picture the directions or find the right
words and phrases. It was apparent that many of them were pleased by this new
skill they were acquiring. The last few minutes of the lesson were spent in
review.
In another lesson, the trainer presented picture stories and had the trainees
explain what was happening using complete sentences, or asked them to identify
a problem depicted in a picture. These illustrated problems included a leaking
toilet, a torn curtain, a burned-out ceiling light, and so forth. In all such
instances, the trainer taught pronunciation, meanings of words, vocabulary,
correct spelling, and correct ways of saying and reading things to ensure that
each trainee was understood by others and could read and understand
instructions, signs, and so on.
While instruction was delivered in English, to enhance understanding the
teacher sometimes allowed brief conversations in Spanish which all but one
participant spoke. The instructor was fluent in Spanish. In one unit in which
trainees were taught how different hangers matched with different garments, the
names of items of clothing were written below the drawings of hangers in both
languages. For example: blouses--las blusas; jackets--los
sacos; skirts--las faldas. The instructor said that this approach
is sometimes needed to help students make the transition between the two
languages.
The instructor had collected some job-specific material and scenarios from
supervisors, and these were used in language instruction. For example, the
following list of bathroom rules was used during one of the lessons on
reading:
At times content was introduced by trainees. For instance, students often identified words encountered in their work environment for which they did not know the meaning. The meanings of these words or phrases were identified in class (e.g., "The elevator is out of order."), and students practiced using them in sentences about job-related situations.
The state-mandated pre-/posttesting was performed using the Foreign Service
Institute (FSI) oral interview which, as explained previously, yields a global
measure of language proficiency by assessing five aspects of language: (1)
accent, (2) grammar, (3) vocabulary, (4) fluency, and (5) comprehension.
Beyond the FSI, informal assessments based on comprehension of job-related
materials were used throughout the program, especially at the end of each unit.
Units were organized around the objectives and competencies. The trainer gave
a mid-course test in which the trainees assessed themselves. This was intended
to enable them to identify their particular strengths and weaknesses.
The following "fill-in-the blanks" exercise titled, "How To Clean the
Bathtub," was administered following the language proficiency lesson:
How To Clean the Bathtub
1. Put on plastic ________________.
2. ____________ the green pad.
3. Put "Softscrub" on the green _____________.
4. Turn on the hot ______________ faucet.
5. Next, ______________ the tub.
6. Rinse the tub with ________________.
7. ________________ the tub with a hand towel.
8. Put ________________ on the tub.
This type of informal assessment of trainee language proficiency achievement was used regularly and was designed to suit job-related tasks. A more formal customized pre-and postassessment was used at the beginning and at the end of the course to measure learning based on the twelve competencies. The trainer explained that assessment in ESL was more difficult than, say, math, because of the problem of specifying the required standards in easily measurable terms. She said that language is principally a speech skill which is more subjective in nature than other basic skills with which WEC deals. Other issues about measurement of learning are brought out in the following comments from interviews with the instructor:
Researcher: How do you assess how much learning has occurred during the program?
Instructor/Coordinator: We prefer to use customized tests for our own purposes, though state and federal funding mandate the use of standardized tests. Customized tests are based on company materials. It is difficult to get the grade level for customized tests. The state has its recommended tests for math, reading, and so on. I like to give a midterm test which I may or may not correct. It is intended for self-assessment of trainees. I feel that pre-/posttests encourage teaching to the test. What if needs change? I like flexibility.
All of the participating trainees were immigrants. The class was made up of eight Mexican women and one Tibetan woman. All except two were married. They had received very limited education in their native countries, usually up to the level of lower elementary school (third to sixth grade); therefore, in most cases, they could not write well even in their native languages. One of the participants, despite having been in the United States for twenty-five years, spoke very little English. Spanish speakers in this city were served by a Spanish cable channel and a Spanish FM radio station. As the instructor explained:
There is a self-contained Spanish community in ______ [name of city]. They can go literally for days without hearing a word of English. I only hope they have English speaking neighbors. I like mixing people up and getting them to interact.
Since the Mexican women lived in a Spanish neighborhood, they could literally
function without hearing a word of English. This meant that they needed
English only at the workplace. However, some of the women reported language
problems at their children's school and at the stores.
Three of the participants dropped out of the class for reasons that we were
not able to determine. Usually, two to three trainees were missing from each
class session, mainly because work was not offered on that day due to few
guests. When they were not on duty, some did not attend the classes; others,
however, attended even on their days off. Hence, attendance seemed to be tied
to the volume of work at the hotel. It was difficult in these circumstances to
believe that the training was viewed as important by management.
The following two situations were recounted by the instructor about some of the difficulties that were a direct consequence of the hotel policies:
Incident one: The women come in or go out through the rear entrances. They are not allowed to move to certain areas. As a result, when guests ask for directions the employees will often reply, "Don't know," because they do not know the geography of the hotel well. One of the first things we did with the group is take a tour of the hotel. The management were amazed that the housekeepers knew so little about some parts of the hotel.
Incident two: There was an incident that really upset the women. One day when I came in they were all crying. One of the ladies' husband had been involved in an accident when lighting a stove. The stove exploded, seriously burning both husband and son. The husband survived for three hours, but the boy died on the way to [the] hospital. A message was delivered to the hotel about the accident, but the housekeeper concerned did not get the message until the end of her shift. By then it was too late; the husband had passed away. The women were very upset about it, saying that their coworker would have seen her husband alive if only the message had been delivered immediately.
The latter incident brought out some of the inequities that the housekeepers experienced at the job. It emerged that some of these situations were a result of the relatively unassertive nature of the women. The instructor reported that she took this opportunity to motivate them to aspire to better jobs and to learn English as a way to move ahead. A majority had not considered that possibility, which may explain why some of them had not been motivated to learn English.
An important support service provided by WEC was to link trainees with neighborhood adult education providers for any additional basic skills training that they desired outside of the planned curriculum. This was done by providing the trainees with information about neighborhood training services, and providing encouragement to give trainees the courage to walk into these places to sign up for courses.
Program evaluation took the following four forms: (1) participant reaction, (2) participant learning, (3) transfer to the job, and (4) personal use. We report on each in turn.
WEC used reaction questionnaires that were completed by the trainees at the end of the course. They were, however, considering the use of alternative means, such as focus groups, to overcome what they called the "glowing rating" syndrome whereby trainees were found to be reluctant to criticize a course or an instructor because they felt that it would reflect negatively on them or their company. As a result, employee responses to the reaction questionnaire were not very useful to the instructor. It was the view of the instructor that in the minds of the trainees, the instructor was always right.
The state requires that a posttest be done, using one of the state recommended standard tests, but the workplace education provider preferred to use customized tests to assess the trainees' strengths and weaknesses with respect to the desired competencies. This testing was based on job-related materials and was not easy to relate to grade levels. Learning was measured principally by customized testing. The instructor did not favor pre-and posttesting because she felt that it encouraged instructors to teach for the test because good test results would reflect favorably on the instructor. In addition to testing at the end of the course, the instructor used a midterm test which was often graded by the trainees themselves and was principally designed to indicate the amount of progress made by trainees without being intimidating.
Supervisors were asked to complete evaluation forms as a means to assess the transfer of competencies to the job by judging the change in employee performance with respect to the relevant competencies. Some of the changes noted were not directly related to these competencies. For example, the supervisors (anecdotally) reported a general improvement in job performance which the instructor thought resulted from increased motivation and self-esteem as well as a new determination. Class discussions about promotion and the need to improve one's job position came up when referring to general life and job-related problems. The instructor encouraged the trainees to talk about their life outside the hotel as a way to motivate the learners to put more effort into improving their English skills.
Unknown to the instructor, two of the women were attending additional English classes in their own private time. It amused the remaining women when they noticed that these two were also the only single women in the class. According to the rest of the group, they (single women) had the time because they did not have family commitments.
The hospital services case showed WEC as being in the role of provider of ESL training, working with Spanish-speaking adult students. As Carnevale et al. (1988) note, immigrants constitute one segment of the population that is deficient in basic skills. They also constitute one of the faster growing segments of the American workforce. WEC was, therefore, at the cutting edge of human resource development in the new economy. By showing capability in working with such a population, WEC was illustrating expertise beyond what can normally be expected of mainstream vocational institutions. To claim comparative advantage in the workplace literacy enterprise, these institutions will have to become versed in serving new clientele, many of whom will be non-English speaking.