At the end of the day, “pragmatism” is called for — an acceptance of the uses and limitations of each approach and an understanding of how one can usefully complement the other, taking into account the work setting, the goals of the training program and the resources available to carry out an evaluation (Descy and Tessaring 2005: 13, 15). Recent literature and studies support the use of a combined quantitative and qualitative evaluation of workplace literacy and essential skills training (Gray 2006: 74-6; CAEL 2006: 105; Descy and Tessaring 2005: 13, 15; Noel 2005: 39-44).
“Hard” quantitative measures can be based on in-house records and statistics, pre- and post- training assessments or “tests” that are broadly, creatively and fairly defined, control charts and checklists, benchmarking and productivity analyses, including ROI. The qualitative component of an evaluation can also benefit from a variety of information-gathering techniques, such as interviews, focus groups and surveys involving employers, managers, supervisors, instructors and program participants, qualitative assessments and other feedback from instructors on classroom performance and attitudes, role-playing and mock situations, journals, portfolios and narratives produced by participants, observations of workplace behaviour, meeting minutes, etc… Time and resources permitting, triangulation and the use of a control group are recommended. Throughout, the process should aim for balance, complementarity and respect for the fundamental principles of feasability, validity, reliability, confidentiality, anonymity and unobtrusiveness, (Gray 2006: 76-7; Salomon 2009: 17-18; Benseman and Sutton 2007: 9-10).
This review of international literature on workplace literacy and essential skills training produced between late 2006-early 2009 supplements the larger work on the topic published by Alison Gray in 2006. Taken together, these two reports provide a systematic overview of the main lines of research and practice in the field in the past decade. In the process, they point out challenges and obstacles, highlight best practices and discuss issues debated in the literature.
Many forces are driving and shaping workplace literacy training. As Gray observed, it is a complex situation that calls for action on various fronts: The government’s role is crucial at many levels, but sectors, employers, unions, training providers, as well as employees must all do their part, work in partnership to understand the benefits of workplace literacy training, determine where the basic skills needs are and how best to address them. No one group can do it alone. Beyond commitment, engagement and partnership, workplace literacy and essential skills training needs to be supported by solid funding and greater investment from both government and business, an energetic information campaign, advocacy, quality control and greater access.
The literature offers much in terms of best practice recommendations on getting training programs off the ground and running, delivery, learning models and evaluation. At the same time, it points to some serious gaps in the research. Evaluation, in particular, has been inadequately implemented or studied to date. Policy impacts are also just beginning to be assessed. Workplace literacy continues to be a developing area. There is still much to think about, investigate and discuss.
We offer this review and the three days of discussion and reflection at the 2009 Summer Institute as contributions to moving forward on all these fronts.