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.