Learner Focus group report

Canadian Literacy and Learning Network 4May 2012

Introduction

“The more certification you have, the more likelyyou are to get the job. It boils down to that.”

Focus Group Participant

“[It was a] job requirement for my posting – employersaid you need education to stay in the position.”


Across Canada each day, thousands of adults partici-pate in workforce-related training and education.Canadian Literacy and Learning Network (CLLN)engaged a consultant to facilitate a discussion amonga group of five adults who had participated in work-place/workforce education and training. Workplaceeducation refers to programs that are delivered on-site at the workplace to increase the skills of workersto do their jobs. Workforce training refers to programs based in the community that help workers(employed and unemployed) to gain skills for theworkplace. The Focus Group participants were gathered from across Canada (Alberta, Ontario andNew Brunswick) and each had various workplace education experiences ranging from Essential Skillsupgrading and GED preparation to trades trainingand becoming bilingual. Each participant gainedconfidence, skills, income and higher-level positionsin their workplaces as they engaged in training. Theoverall goal of the discussion was to gather insightsregarding Literacy and Essential Skills (LES) programming from adults who had experienced suchprogramming in their communities across Canada.The outcome of the Focus Group session was to

inform policy development from the consumer orclient perspective.

“[Training is] about job prospects and advancementopportunities.”


The structure of the full-day session was developedin collaboration with CLLN senior staff and the consultant. The purpose, outcomes and objectives ofthe session are stated below. The detailed agenda forthe session can be found in the Appendices. It was developed to address the proposed outcomes for thesession. The underlying intent of the Focus Groupwas to create a culture of trust in wahich participantscould freely express their opinions, experiences andideas regarding LES programming for adults inCanada.

Purpose of Focus Group:

The overall purpose was to convene a Focus Group ofadult students to inform Canadian Literacy andLearning Network (CLLN) about future directionsfor student involvement and feedback at the nationallevel. The adult students targeted were those whocurrently attend or have attended Literacy and Essential Skills (LES) programming in the pasttwelve months and who are currently employed (fullor part-time). CLLN decided to recruit up to ten students from across Canada. Two learners, who fitthe target group, were invited to participate fromCLLN’s Committee of Adult Literacy Learners (CALL).

April 30, 2012

Facilitation provided

and Report prepared by:

Anne Ramsay

Learning Tree Consulting

2

Outcomes:

4 Improved understanding of learner/student participation at the national level

4 Deeper understanding of the supports requiredfor 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

Objectives:

4 Design and deliver a context setting presentation to the focus group to help themunderstand 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, theterms “student” or “learner” refer to an adult who participates in workplace (on-site) or workforce (inthe community) training and development includingLiteracy and Essential Skills (LES) programming. Theterm “Focus Group participant” or “participant” refersto the five individuals who participated in the CLLNFocus Group Session held on April 30, 2012.

Key Findings

“A cross-cutting challenge is the rate of illiteracy inCanada. Statistics Canada report that four out of 10Canadians aged 16 to 65 have low levels of literacywhich 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 tolearn more.”


The overwhelming message from Focus Group participants was that students (individuals who participate in LES programs) should have a voicein the development of LES programming in Canada.Further, students are interested in making programsmore responsive, helping to improve the quality ofprogramming and helping to ensure that programsare accessible to adults across Canada. Their experiences, insights and opinions are important andvaluable for informing program design, teaching approaches and policy development for adult educationand training. Students want to have a seat at the tablewith government, business, labour and educatorswhen LES training is being developed. They also be-lieve that all of those key stakeholders should activelyparticipate in the creation of an LES system in everyprovince and territory in Canada that is responsive,accessible and meets adult education principles. TheFocus Group participants seek equitable provision ofhigh quality LES programs across the country, whichsupport workers to gain skills and knowledge for theever-advancing demands of the economy and society.

‘If we all benefit, then we should all invest in it.’

This statement represents the recurring theme thatemerged within the Focus Group discussions. LESprogramming benefits all parties involved in labourforce development and management: workers (citizens);employers; unions; government; and educators. If allparties benefit then each should invest in the provisionof programming, ideally investing in equal shares orwithin 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. http://www.accc.ca/ftp/briefs-

memoires/201008_FinanceBrief.pdf

3

invest more than those who are unemployed or livingon 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 responseto 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 withthe company for a set time after completing the program, e.g. 1 year.

Program Design

The Focus Group discussed the five key elementsof program design: teaching approaches; materialsand curriculum; physical resources and setting;learner needs and characteristics; and the accountabilityframework. They discussed these elements in relationto programs they had participated in and in regard tocreating the “ideal” LES program.

Teaching Approaches

The Focus Group participants were very clear aboutthe importance of an effective instructor who followsadult learning principles and thoroughly understandsthe content of the program or course. LES programsin particular need highly trained adult literacy educators who understand the needs and challengesof adults with Essential Skills limitations. Educatorsneed to possess expertise in the topic area as well asbeing trained in adult education principles. Theystrongly expressed their preference for a knowledgeable,compassionate instructor who acts as a resource andsupport to students while treating them as adults, notchildren. They preferred educators who were not rigid

and inflexible and who provided a positive environmentand framework for learning. Participants provided examples of positive teaching practices from their ownexperience. They also outlined training experiencesthat were not positive including nonstop lecturing,lack of content knowledge, insensitivity, and lack ofresponsiveness to questions. Overall, a respectful educator who worked with students, did not condescendand supported reflective learning was most preferredby the Focus Group participants.

“[My instructor], she opened my eyes and got methinking, looking deeper, to look for different venuesto learn.”


“It was great to sit together in an open environment.So if I turned to a classmate, we would be able to helpeach other out while the teacher is helping anotherstudent. The teacher encouraged us to. I like the openconcept like that.”


“I like structure in a classroom. Clear deadlines andexpectations are important. I like deadlines to motivate me to work.”


Materials and Curriculum

The content of the program should be dictated by thecentral 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 onstated 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. Thecost of materials can be a barrier to enrollment. If another investor can cover material costs, then it supports enrollment and student retention. FocusGroup participants mentioned online learning was asan important option, but not a “cure all” for LEStraining. It is an option for delivering courses to ruraland remote areas, but it must never be the only option. Some students will not have the technicalcomputer skills to negotiate online learning especiallyLES programming. In regard to evaluation of learning,the instructor should design the framework for the

4

evaluation of learning to recognize progress. It is up tothe teacher to decide if a student has successfullycompleted the outcomes of the course.

“The money was put up front. It was a limited timeoffer. It was more of an incentive. All books wereprovided.”


“Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I like a classroom environment. Ask my teacher directly or discuss withmy classmates. When I have a question online, it’sfrustrating and challenging to engage and get questions answered.”


Physical Resources and Setting

The comments regarding the location of programsand courses varied according to the topic and targetgroup. There were pros and cons for both on-site(workplace-based) and off-site (community-based) locations. For example: If a topic specifically relatedto a workplace, such as workplace communication,safety training or equipment operation, then on-sitetraining was viewed as advantageous. If a course wasworkforce related but not company specific, such asLES for the Food Processing Industry or Math forConstruction, then community-based locations werepreferred. On-site locations make it convenient forworkers to access training and for management andunions to support the program. Focus Group participantsexpressed the idea of companies having dedicatedtraining rooms for LES programming. Conversely, on-site can also be a barrier to recruiting workers intoa program that may be viewed as controversial, e.g.basic skills or literacy classes, or is not supported byunion and/or management. Further, on-site trainingcan compromise the confidentiality of an individualworker seeking to upgrade their skills. Community-based program locations were viewed as open and accessible as long as they were on a public transportation route, had parking and were in safeareas of the community. The Focus Group participants noted that too many times community-based LES programs were located in poor qualitybuildings in less desirable areas of a community. Thissituation seems to exist across Canada according tothe Focus Group. Poor quality locations imply a message of insignificance and diminished value for

the students in LES programming. It reinforces astereotype that individuals with Essential Skills inLevels 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, ifthere was shared investment, programs could be located in updated buildings within safer areas. Themessage would be that Essential Skills training is partof the overall continuum of workplace/workforcetraining and development. Updated buildings werealso mentioned as important for being able to offertechnology (capacity for cabling and Internet access).The Focus Group participants mentioned that accessto computers and Internet was vital to any program.Technology is present in all jobs in the modern economy; therefore all LES programs should includetechnology as part of learning. Ideally, the technologyshould reflect the technology available in the workplace or generally used in the workforce. As well,technology supports effective learning for a variety oflearning styles, an important adult education principle.

“It has to be accessible for everyone, even if theydon’t drive. Parking should be available.”


“You need comfort in a classroom. You don’t want tobe sitting in a hard wooden chair.”


Learner Needs and Characteristics

Focus Group participants recognized that differentstudents have different needs (current level of skills,job goal, income level, etc.) and characteristics (gender, culture, first language, religion, etc.), whichmay be influenced by geography and income level.Therefore, programs must be customized to those specific needs and characteristics while being offeredwithin a high-quality and equitable framework of accessible programming across Canada. For example:unemployed adults in New Brunswick need childcareand transportation subsidies to attend an LES program being offered in an accessible location. Theremust be current computer technology with high-speedInternet access to facilitate online learning, career exploration and job search. Participants voiced pastexperiences with inequities in program delivery andlearning supports. In one case, a participant, receivingEmployment Insurance (EI) at the time, attended an

5

LES program and received a nominal amount ofmileage reimbursement. The individual then had toreport the reimbursement as income on their incometax, in spite of having lived on an extremely limitedincome (EI benefits) that year. It is an example of howa support for enrollment and attendance can becomea deterrent to success. Focus Group participants emphasized the need to “normalize” learning at allskill levels, whether it is management training for executives, skills training for technicians or workplacecommunications (LES programming) for workers onthe factory floor. It should not matter the level of anindividual’s skills and knowledge; the focus should beon training and development for everyone in theworkforce. It should be of equal importance and valueto the workplace (management and unions) and gov-ernment.

“We are all at different places and that’s ok.”Focus Group Participant

“Everyone’s entitled to learning. If someone is laid offand they want to pursue a career they should be abletoo. This means childcare and transport would beprovided and paid for.”


“Childcare fees were paid for and it made a huge difference.”


Accountability Framework

Throughout the discussions the concept of shared in-vestment into the program came up time and timeagain. The Focus Group participants felt strongly thatfunding 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. Bysharing investment, it shares the accountability forthe program. It ensures that program design will reflect the combined needs of business, unions, government and workers. As an answer to the long-held employer concern that employees who aretrained always “jump companies” shortly after training,the Focus Group suggested training agreements. Anagreement outlines the length of time that an employeeagrees to stay at a company after receiving training orthey must pay back the company for the cost of thetraining, e.g. 1.5 years. Focus Group participants citedexamples 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 completingprograms. Even programs that are more focused onpersonal goals or the skills development of the individual should offer certificates since there is apositive spin-off benefit to the workplace. A more educated workforce is a more flexible and productiveworkforce. The Focus Group felt strongly that the program instructor or teacher should decide on thecriteria for successful completion of the program. Although, the criteria for success should be informedby the perspectives of other stakeholders.

“The money should come from the government, company and union – each with equal funds to theprogram. That way each has equal say and not onestakeholder has control or sway.”


Materials and Curriculum – SyllabusResources, authentic materials

Learners – target groups and characteristics(needs, goals, supports)

Teaching and InstructionAdult education principles

Setting and Physical Resources – space, technology, equipment, location

in the community

Diagram of Program Design Elements by Anne Ramsay, April 30, 2012

Accountability - to consumers (students), funders, stakeholders

Measurements of quality and quantity for effectiveness, efficiency and customer satisfaction

6

Student/Consumer Participation

When the Focus Group participants were asked aboutongoing involvement of students in discussions aboutLES programming, they whole-heartedly supportedcontinued dialogue for many of the reasons alreadydiscussed. They did voice the caution that not all individuals will want to participate but the optionshould be provided. Adult students offer rich experiences and insights, which can be of great benefitto all stakeholders (government, educators, unionsand industry sector organizations). In any performancemanagement system, consumer satisfaction and feed-back is vital to improving effectiveness and efficiency.The ongoing involvement of students from acrossCanada will provide CLLN with information that canassist LES program design and influence discussionsof labour force management.

The Focus Group suggested a variety of strategies toinvite dialogue and feedback. These strategies included:face-to-face opportunities at provincial/territorial andnational levels such as focus groups, individual interviews and meetings; online communication suchas surveys, posted on the CLLN website (open-endedand scheduled) and interviews conducted via Skype;telephone interviews (random and solicited); andcommunications 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 ofstrategies to reach the wide range of students acrossthe country. Different target groups may prefer specific strategies. For example: face-to-face meetingsmay be more effective with Aboriginal learners whovalue interactive and collective dialogue. The keypoint is to invite feedback and open dialogue fromadults who have attended the wide variety of LES programming options offered across Canada.

“I want to see where this information goes and theprocess afterwards.”


Supports for Participation

All Focus Group participants agreed that face-to-facemeetings must include reimbursement for travel costs(hotel, flights, mileage, meals, etc.). While meetingsheld on weekdays were acceptable, they suggestedthat meetings held on weekends might appeal to someindividuals who cannot get release time from theiremployer. Further, a letter of acknowledgementshould be sent to the employer thanking him/her forsupporting the employee to attend the meetings. Theletter would provide a two-fold benefit. It would thankthe employer while raising the profile of the impor-tance and value of Literacy and Essential Skills in theworkplace. Focus Group participants expressed theneed for wage replacement if meetings are held onweekdays or regularly scheduled workdays. It is im-portant that if an individual gives up their wages forone or more days to offer feedback at a meeting, thensome compensation for their time is appreciated andneeded, especially for individuals earning lower wagerates. Another support that may be important to offeris a childcare subsidy, especially for those individualsliving on limited incomes such as a disability pension,Employment Insurance or welfare.

CLLN’s Role in Student Participation

When asked about the role of Canadian Literacy andLearning Network (CLLN) in soliciting student feedback,the Focus Group expressed the need for and importanceof a national perspective. CLLN, in cooperation withthe provincial/territorial organizations, could gatherinformation to reflect the variety of experiences andneeds across Canada. It is important to have an influence at both the national and regional levels sincestandards and delivery of programs may vary widely.CLLN can “roll up” information into a national pictureof LES programming to communicate to key stake-holders including unions, business, government andindustry sector organizations. The Focus Group wouldlike to see CLLN host future focus groups and onlinesurveys. These events would need to be supported financially as outlined above under “Support for Participation”. Focus Group participants targeted awide variety of groups and organizations as potentialbeneficiaries for student feedback. These groups included, but were not limited to: sector councils; professional associations; chambers of commerce;

7

various levels of government from federal to municipal;educator associations and coalitions; nonprofit agenciesand associations; and union organizations and workergroups. They believe there is tremendous potential forsharing student feedback, which will lead to improvedLES programming and policy.

“Enjoyed the session and getting points of view fromone side of the country to another is learning in itself.”


“Good opportunity to show how different peoplelearn and to pull together to show new learners youcan do it and you can go places with this.”


Conclusion

“Canada’s economy will be sustained only if two con-ditions are met. First, we must increase the size ofour labour force and/or its participation rate to fillthe void left by retiring baby boomers. Second, wemust increase overall skill levels are we transition toa more knowledge-based economy.”

Dr. Rick Miner2

Literacy and Essential Skills programming is focusedon increasing the skills of workers for the benefit ofthe workplace, the individual and the economy. ThisCLLN initiative set a goal of soliciting student feed-back about LES programming via a Focus Group for-mat to answer three key questions:

4 What is important to students aboutprogram 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 FocusGroup participants that these questions were answered and a future direction suggested. The adultswho participated in the Focus Group possessed arange of rich, collective experiences with workplace(on-site) and workforce (community-based) education

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 improvethe consistency of program quality and accessibilityacross Canada. The Focus Group suggested an ongoing plan of soliciting student feedback throughvarious communication channels (online, interpersonaland interagency). They reflected a positive enthusiasmfor the necessity and usefulness of student feedback asa means for overall system management and performanceimprovement.

The three pillars of performance management areconsumer satisfaction, effectiveness and efficiency.Each pillar plays a role in performance improvementand program design and development. The old adage,“the customer is always right” is a helpful one, but onethat has not always been comprehensively and consistently cultivated within the Literacy and Essential Skills system. By including consumers (adultlearners or students) in the dialogue about how programs are designed, valuable insights can begleaned from the very individuals that stakeholdersseek to engage. There are many diverse needs withinvarious sub-groups that consist the overall LES targetgroup of adults in Essential Skills Levels 1 and 2. Student feedback can help government, business,unions and educators to better understand and meetthose 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 believethat literacy and learning should be valued – athome, in the workplace and in the community.”

This mandate puts CLLN in an excellent position tofacilitate student feedback and share it with key stake-holders. Given adequate funding, this role will givevoice to LES program consumers while supporting thedevelopment of excellence in Literacy and EssentialSkills programming across the country.

According to its website, the mandate of the federalOffice of Literacy and Essential Skills (OLES) is to be:

2 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/briefs-

memoires/201008_FinanceBrief.pdf

8

“a Centre of Expertise with a workplace focus, build-ing awareness and capacity in "what works" in orderto improve the literacy and essential skills of adultCanadians.” Given this mandate, OLES has a uniqueopportunity to reach the consumers of LES programmingthrough the student feedback strategies outlined inthis report. The end users of the service, namely LESstudents or consumers, should inform, “What works”.It would ensure that investments into programmingare utilized to meet consumer/taxpayer needs withhigh levels of quality.

The last word in the Focus Group process was given tothe student participants. They emphasized the need totrain everyone involved in Canada’s labour force toimprove skills, raise productivity and support thegrowth of the economy. One participant provided thisanecdote: “On the flight here, someone asked where Iwas coming and I told him and he said “Oh with thetemporary foreign workers.” That is a stigma.

Why don’t we train our own people who are on em-

ployment 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.

Learner Focus group report

Documents

Transcript of Learner Focus group report