April 30, 2012 Facilitation provided and Report prepared by: Anne Ramsay Learning Tree Consulting
Introduction “The more certification you have, the more likely you are to get the job. It boils down to that.” Focus Group Participant
“[It was a] job requirement for my posting – employer said you need education to stay in the position.” Focus Group Participant
Across Canada each day, thousands of adults participate in workforce-related training and education. Canadian Literacy and Learning Network (CLLN) engaged a consultant to facilitate a discussion among a group of five adults who had participated in workplace/workforce education and training. Workplace education refers to programs that are delivered onsite at the workplace to increase the skills of workers to do their jobs. Workforce training refers to programs based in the community that help workers (employed and unemployed) to gain skills for the workplace. The Focus Group participants were gathered from across Canada (Alberta, Ontario and New Brunswick) and each had various workplace education experiences ranging from Essential Skills upgrading and GED preparation to trades training and becoming bilingual. Each participant gained confidence, skills, income and higher-level positions in their workplaces as they engaged in training. The overall goal of the discussion was to gather insights regarding Literacy and Essential Skills (LES) programming from adults who had experienced such programming in their communities across Canada. The outcome of the Focus Group session was to
inform policy development from the consumer or client perspective. “[Training is] about job prospects and advancement opportunities.” Focus Group Participant
The structure of the full-day session was developed in collaboration with CLLN senior staff and the consultant. The purpose, outcomes and objectives of the session are stated below. The detailed agenda for the session can be found in the Appendices. It was developed to address the proposed outcomes for the session. The underlying intent of the Focus Group was to create a culture of trust in wahich participants could freely express their opinions, experiences and ideas regarding LES programming for adults in Canada. Purpose of Focus Group: The overall purpose was to convene a Focus Group of adult students to inform Canadian Literacy and Learning Network (CLLN) about future directions for student involvement and feedback at the national level. The adult students targeted were those who currently attend or have attended Literacy and Essential Skills (LES) programming in the past twelve months and who are currently employed (full or part-time). CLLN decided to recruit up to ten students from across Canada. Two learners, who fit the target group, were invited to participate from CLLN’s Committee of Adult Literacy Learners (CALL).
Canadian Literacy and Learning Network 4May 2012
Outcomes: 4 Improved understanding of learner/student participation at the national level 4 Deeper understanding of the supports required for student participation 4 Enhanced knowledge of program design factors that lead to student attraction and retention in LES programs 4 Increased clarity of CLLN’s role, if any, in student involvement
Key Findings “A cross-cutting challenge is the rate of illiteracy in Canada. Statistics Canada report that four out of 10 Canadians aged 16 to 65 have low levels of literacy which inhibit employment in today’s knowledge economy.” Dr. Rick Miner1
“I wanted to improve myself. I knew it was a job requirement that I needed to upgrade. I had a realization. I want to do more so I know I need to learn more.” Focus Group Participant
Objectives: 4 Design and deliver a context setting presentation to the focus group to help them understand the adult literacy field at the national level 4 Design and facilitate a Focus Group process to solicit input and opinions from students regarding LES program design 4 Complete a report documenting the results to be used in future planning
Please note: For the purposes of this report, the terms “student” or “learner” refer to an adult who participates in workplace (on-site) or workforce (in the community) training and development including Literacy and Essential Skills (LES) programming. The term “Focus Group participant” or “participant” refers to the five individuals who participated in the CLLN Focus Group Session held on April 30, 2012.
The overwhelming message from Focus Group participants was that students (individuals who participate in LES programs) should have a voice in the development of LES programming in Canada. Further, students are interested in making programs more responsive, helping to improve the quality of programming and helping to ensure that programs are accessible to adults across Canada. Their experiences, insights and opinions are important and valuable for informing program design, teaching approaches and policy development for adult education and training. Students want to have a seat at the table with government, business, labour and educators when LES training is being developed. They also believe that all of those key stakeholders should actively participate in the creation of an LES system in every province and territory in Canada that is responsive, accessible and meets adult education principles. The Focus Group participants seek equitable provision of high quality LES programs across the country, which support workers to gain skills and knowledge for the ever-advancing demands of the economy and society.
‘If we all benefit, then we should all invest in it.’ This statement represents the recurring theme that emerged within the Focus Group discussions. LES programming benefits all parties involved in labour force development and management: workers (citizens); employers; unions; government; and educators. If all parties benefit then each should invest in the provision of programming, ideally investing in equal shares or within realistic limits. Adults who are working could
1
People without Jobs, Jobs without People: Submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance Pre-
Budget Consultations 2011, Association of Canadian Community Colleges, August 2010. memoires/201008_FinanceBrief.pdf
http://www.accc.ca/ftp/briefs-
2
invest more than those who are unemployed or living on welfare. Examples: a) Workers investing their personal time and costs (travel and childcare), unions actively recognizing the program content and supporting the cost of the program, and management supporting program costs and providing some work time to attend the program provided on-site. b) Government providing funding for program supports (mileage and childcare) and for program delivery in the community in response to identified needs (content of the program) and investments made by unions and/or business along with workers and job seekers investing their time and paying a material fee. c) Management covering the cost of program fees, providing program space and recognizing the program completion certificate in the salary grid while government covers the instructor costs and workers invest their time to attend along with signing an agreement to remain with the company for a set time after completing the program, e.g. 1 year.
and inflexible and who provided a positive environment and framework for learning. Participants provided examples of positive teaching practices from their own experience. They also outlined training experiences that were not positive including nonstop lecturing, lack of content knowledge, insensitivity, and lack of responsiveness to questions. Overall, a respectful educator who worked with students, did not condescend and supported reflective learning was most preferred by the Focus Group participants. “[My instructor], she opened my eyes and got me thinking, looking deeper, to look for different venues to learn.” Focus Group Participant
“It was great to sit together in an open environment. So if I turned to a classmate, we would be able to help each other out while the teacher is helping another student. The teacher encouraged us to. I like the open concept like that.” Focus Group Participant
“I like structure in a classroom. Clear deadlines and expectations are important. I like deadlines to motivate me to work.” Focus Group Participant
Program Design The Focus Group discussed the five key elements of program design: teaching approaches; materials and curriculum; physical resources and setting; learner needs and characteristics; and the accountability framework. They discussed these elements in relation to programs they had participated in and in regard to creating the “ideal” LES program. Teaching Approaches The Focus Group participants were very clear about the importance of an effective instructor who follows adult learning principles and thoroughly understands the content of the program or course. LES programs in particular need highly trained adult literacy educators who understand the needs and challenges of adults with Essential Skills limitations. Educators need to possess expertise in the topic area as well as being trained in adult education principles. They strongly expressed their preference for a knowledgeable, compassionate instructor who acts as a resource and support to students while treating them as adults, not children. They preferred educators who were not rigid
Materials and Curriculum The content of the program should be dictated by the central topic and informed by the investors (government, union, business and workers). Educators must also inform the curriculum development by using their expertise to shape a responsive program based on stated needs of the investors. Materials should be current and relevant to the goals of the program. Participants preferred that materials (course guides, textbooks, handouts, etc.) be provided for free to students enrolled in a program, when possible. The cost of materials can be a barrier to enrollment. If another investor can cover material costs, then it supports enrollment and student retention. Focus Group participants mentioned online learning was as an important option, but not a “cure all” for LES training. It is an option for delivering courses to rural and remote areas, but it must never be the only option. Some students will not have the technical computer skills to negotiate online learning especially LES programming. In regard to evaluation of learning, the instructor should design the framework for the
3
evaluation of learning to recognize progress. It is up to the teacher to decide if a student has successfully completed the outcomes of the course. “The money was put up front. It was a limited time offer. It was more of an incentive. All books were provided.” Focus Group Participant
“Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I like a classroom environment. Ask my teacher directly or discuss with my classmates. When I have a question online, it’s frustrating and challenging to engage and get questions answered.” Focus Group Participant
Physical Resources and Setting The comments regarding the location of programs and courses varied according to the topic and target group. There were pros and cons for both on-site (workplace-based) and off-site (community-based) locations. For example: If a topic specifically related to a workplace, such as workplace communication, safety training or equipment operation, then on-site training was viewed as advantageous. If a course was workforce related but not company specific, such as LES for the Food Processing Industry or Math for Construction, then community-based locations were preferred. On-site locations make it convenient for workers to access training and for management and unions to support the program. Focus Group participants expressed the idea of companies having dedicated training rooms for LES programming. Conversely, on-site can also be a barrier to recruiting workers into a program that may be viewed as controversial, e.g. basic skills or literacy classes, or is not supported by union and/or management. Further, on-site training can compromise the confidentiality of an individual worker seeking to upgrade their skills. Communitybased program locations were viewed as open and accessible as long as they were on a public transportation route, had parking and were in safe areas of the community. The Focus Group participants noted that too many times communitybased LES programs were located in poor quality buildings in less desirable areas of a community. This situation seems to exist across Canada according to the Focus Group. Poor quality locations imply a message of insignificance and diminished value for
the students in LES programming. It reinforces a stereotype that individuals with Essential Skills in Levels 1 and 2 are not capable, teachable nor employable. It was not the fault of the delivery agency, but a limitation in adequate funding. Once again, if there was shared investment, programs could be located in updated buildings within safer areas. The message would be that Essential Skills training is part of the overall continuum of workplace/workforce training and development. Updated buildings were also mentioned as important for being able to offer technology (capacity for cabling and Internet access). The Focus Group participants mentioned that access to computers and Internet was vital to any program. Technology is present in all jobs in the modern economy; therefore all LES programs should include technology as part of learning. Ideally, the technology should reflect the technology available in the workplace or generally used in the workforce. As well, technology supports effective learning for a variety of learning styles, an important adult education principle. “It has to be accessible for everyone, even if they don’t drive. Parking should be available.” Focus Group Participant
“You need comfort in a classroom. You don’t want to be sitting in a hard wooden chair.” Focus Group Participant
Learner Needs and Characteristics Focus Group participants recognized that different students have different needs (current level of skills, job goal, income level, etc.) and characteristics (gender, culture, first language, religion, etc.), which may be influenced by geography and income level. Therefore, programs must be customized to those specific needs and characteristics while being offered within a high-quality and equitable framework of accessible programming across Canada. For example: unemployed adults in New Brunswick need childcare and transportation subsidies to attend an LES program being offered in an accessible location. There must be current computer technology with high-speed Internet access to facilitate online learning, career exploration and job search. Participants voiced past experiences with inequities in program delivery and learning supports. In one case, a participant, receiving Employment Insurance (EI) at the time, attended an
4
LES program and received a nominal amount of mileage reimbursement. The individual then had to report the reimbursement as income on their income tax, in spite of having lived on an extremely limited income (EI benefits) that year. It is an example of how a support for enrollment and attendance can become a deterrent to success. Focus Group participants emphasized the need to “normalize” learning at all skill levels, whether it is management training for executives, skills training for technicians or workplace communications (LES programming) for workers on the factory floor. It should not matter the level of an individual’s skills and knowledge; the focus should be on training and development for everyone in the workforce. It should be of equal importance and value to the workplace (management and unions) and government. “We are all at different places and that’s ok.” Focus Group Participant
“Everyone’s entitled to learning. If someone is laid off and they want to pursue a career they should be able too. This means childcare and transport would be provided and paid for.” Focus Group Participant
“Childcare fees were paid for and it made a huge difference.” Focus Group Participant
Accountability Framework Throughout the discussions the concept of shared investment into the program came up time and time again. The Focus Group participants felt strongly that funding should be available for the delivery of on-site
(workplaces) and off-site (in the community) programming for worker skills development. Further, that the funding should come from a shared investment of stakeholders including government, business, unions and workers, within limitations. By sharing investment, it shares the accountability for the program. It ensures that program design will reflect the combined needs of business, unions, government and workers. As an answer to the longheld employer concern that employees who are trained always “jump companies” shortly after training, the Focus Group suggested training agreements. An agreement outlines the length of time that an employee agrees to stay at a company after receiving training or they must pay back the company for the cost of the training, e.g. 1.5 years. Focus Group participants cited examples of companies where this is already in practice. It was vital that all programs and courses offered students paper recognition for completion. Paper credentials, which were recognized in the workplace, were a key motivation for enrolling in and completing programs. Even programs that are more focused on personal goals or the skills development of the individual should offer certificates since there is a positive spin-off benefit to the workplace. A more educated workforce is a more flexible and productive workforce. The Focus Group felt strongly that the program instructor or teacher should decide on the criteria for successful completion of the program. Although, the criteria for success should be informed by the perspectives of other stakeholders. “The money should come from the government, company and union – each with equal funds to the program. That way each has equal say and not one stakeholder has control or sway.” Focus Group Participant
Diagram of Program Design Elements by Anne Ramsay, April 30, 2012 Materials and Curriculum – Syllabus Resources, authentic materials
Teaching and Instruction Adult education principles
Learners – target groups and characteristics (needs, goals, supports)
Setting and Physical Resources – space, technology, equipment, location in the community
Accountability - to consumers (students), funders, stakeholders Measurements of quality and quantity for effectiveness, efficiency and customer satisfaction
5
Student/Consumer Participation
Supports for Participation
When the Focus Group participants were asked about ongoing involvement of students in discussions about LES programming, they whole-heartedly supported continued dialogue for many of the reasons already discussed. They did voice the caution that not all individuals will want to participate but the option should be provided. Adult students offer rich experiences and insights, which can be of great benefit to all stakeholders (government, educators, unions and industry sector organizations). In any performance management system, consumer satisfaction and feedback is vital to improving effectiveness and efficiency. The ongoing involvement of students from across Canada will provide CLLN with information that can assist LES program design and influence discussions of labour force management.
All Focus Group participants agreed that face-to-face meetings must include reimbursement for travel costs (hotel, flights, mileage, meals, etc.). While meetings held on weekdays were acceptable, they suggested that meetings held on weekends might appeal to some individuals who cannot get release time from their employer. Further, a letter of acknowledgement should be sent to the employer thanking him/her for supporting the employee to attend the meetings. The letter would provide a two-fold benefit. It would thank the employer while raising the profile of the importance and value of Literacy and Essential Skills in the workplace. Focus Group participants expressed the need for wage replacement if meetings are held on weekdays or regularly scheduled workdays. It is important that if an individual gives up their wages for one or more days to offer feedback at a meeting, then some compensation for their time is appreciated and needed, especially for individuals earning lower wage rates. Another support that may be important to offer is a childcare subsidy, especially for those individuals living on limited incomes such as a disability pension, Employment Insurance or welfare.
The Focus Group suggested a variety of strategies to invite dialogue and feedback. These strategies included: face-to-face opportunities at provincial/territorial and national levels such as focus groups, individual interviews and meetings; online communication such as surveys, posted on the CLLN website (open-ended and scheduled) and interviews conducted via Skype; telephone interviews (random and solicited); and communications via the existing infrastructure of literacy organizations in Canada, such as learner committees within provincial/territorial coalitions. The Focus Group recognized the need for a variety of strategies to reach the wide range of students across the country. Different target groups may prefer specific strategies. For example: face-to-face meetings may be more effective with Aboriginal learners who value interactive and collective dialogue. The key point is to invite feedback and open dialogue from adults who have attended the wide variety of LES programming options offered across Canada. “I want to see where this information goes and the process afterwards.” Focus Group Participant
CLLN’s Role in Student Participation When asked about the role of Canadian Literacy and Learning Network (CLLN) in soliciting student feedback, the Focus Group expressed the need for and importance of a national perspective. CLLN, in cooperation with the provincial/territorial organizations, could gather information to reflect the variety of experiences and needs across Canada. It is important to have an influence at both the national and regional levels since standards and delivery of programs may vary widely. CLLN can “roll up” information into a national picture of LES programming to communicate to key stakeholders including unions, business, government and industry sector organizations. The Focus Group would like to see CLLN host future focus groups and online surveys. These events would need to be supported financially as outlined above under “Support for Participation”. Focus Group participants targeted a wide variety of groups and organizations as potential beneficiaries for student feedback. These groups included, but were not limited to: sector councils; professional associations; chambers of commerce;
6
various levels of government from federal to municipal; educator associations and coalitions; nonprofit agencies and associations; and union organizations and worker groups. They believe there is tremendous potential for sharing student feedback, which will lead to improved LES programming and policy. “Enjoyed the session and getting points of view from one side of the country to another is learning in itself.” Focus Group Participant
“Good opportunity to show how different people learn and to pull together to show new learners you can do it and you can go places with this.” Focus Group Participant
Conclusion “Canada’s economy will be sustained only if two conditions are met. First, we must increase the size of our labour force and/or its participation rate to fill the void left by retiring baby boomers. Second, we must increase overall skill levels are we transition to a more knowledge-based economy.” Dr. Rick Miner2
Literacy and Essential Skills programming is focused on increasing the skills of workers for the benefit of the workplace, the individual and the economy. This CLLN initiative set a goal of soliciting student feedback about LES programming via a Focus Group format to answer three key questions: 4 What is important to students about program design? 4 How does program design support or hinder student retention and participation? 4 What is CLLN role in soliciting student feedback at a national level? It is clear from the comments provided by Focus Group participants that these questions were answered and a future direction suggested. The adults who participated in the Focus Group possessed a range of rich, collective experiences with workplace (on-site) and workforce (community-based) education
2
and training. They spoke knowledgeably and confidently about what aspects of program design attracted them to training and supported their success. They emphasized the need for a national perspective on LES programming in order to improve the consistency of program quality and accessibility across Canada. The Focus Group suggested an ongoing plan of soliciting student feedback through various communication channels (online, interpersonal and interagency). They reflected a positive enthusiasm for the necessity and usefulness of student feedback as a means for overall system management and performance improvement. The three pillars of performance management are consumer satisfaction, effectiveness and efficiency. Each pillar plays a role in performance improvement and program design and development. The old adage, “the customer is always right” is a helpful one, but one that has not always been comprehensively and consistently cultivated within the Literacy and Essential Skills system. By including consumers (adult learners or students) in the dialogue about how programs are designed, valuable insights can be gleaned from the very individuals that stakeholders seek to engage. There are many diverse needs within various sub-groups that consist the overall LES target group of adults in Essential Skills Levels 1 and 2. Student feedback can help government, business, unions and educators to better understand and meet those diverse needs. The Canadian Literacy and Learning Network (CLLN) website outlines the purpose of the organization as: “We share knowledge, engage partners and stakeholders and build awareness to advance literacy and learning across Canada. We believe that literacy and learning should be valued – at home, in the workplace and in the community.” This mandate puts CLLN in an excellent position to facilitate student feedback and share it with key stakeholders. Given adequate funding, this role will give voice to LES program consumers while supporting the development of excellence in Literacy and Essential Skills programming across the country. According to its website, the mandate of the federal Office of Literacy and Essential Skills (OLES) is to be:
People without Jobs, Jobs without People: Submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance Pre-
Budget Consultations 2011, Association of Canadian Community Colleges, August 2010. http://www.accc.ca/ftp/briefsmemoires/201008_FinanceBrief.pdf
7
“a Centre of Expertise with a workplace focus, building awareness and capacity in "what works" in order to improve the literacy and essential skills of adult Canadians.” Given this mandate, OLES has a unique opportunity to reach the consumers of LES programming through the student feedback strategies outlined in this report. The end users of the service, namely LES students or consumers, should inform, “What works”. It would ensure that investments into programming are utilized to meet consumer/taxpayer needs with high levels of quality. The last word in the Focus Group process was given to the student participants. They emphasized the need to train everyone involved in Canada’s labour force to improve skills, raise productivity and support the growth of the economy. One participant provided this anecdote: “On the flight here, someone asked where I was coming and I told him and he said “Oh with the temporary foreign workers.” That is a stigma.
Why don’t we train our own people who are on employment insurance. Why aren’t we keeping our own workforce? We should train them rather than outsourcing employment to foreign workers.” While the need for immigrants to supplement the absolute number of workers in the labour force has been well researched and established, the point of training current workers should not be discounted. Training workers (employed and unemployed) will ensure that Canada has a flexible, skilled workforce ready to meet the rising demands of the knowledge economy, which places a high premium on high-level skills. The Focus Group participants are successful examples of how the investment into workplace/workforce training and education benefits not only the individual (personal income), but also the economy as a whole. Developing a feedback lope for student experiences can only aid in the overall goal of a highly skilled, Canadian labour force.
8