'One size does not fit all’: how five tertiary education organisations embed literacy, language and numeracy: case study findings

Linda Leach

4.1 Introduction

This case explored the organisational factors affecting delivery of embedded LLN in an Institute of Technology and Polytechnic (ITP). The case study ITP is located in a North Island city. It offers a wide variety of courses, from certificate to degree level, that focus on vocational outcomes. It offers face-to-face and online modes, part- and full-time courses. It also has a recognised regional facilitation role.

In the organisational structure LLN delivery is the responsibility of the Academic Director. Recent changes have resulted in several people and groups now reporting to him: a Foundation Learning Review Team; a Literacy and Numeracy Steering Group (replacing the former FLQA Group), which is responsible for embedding; the Literacy and Numeracy Co-ordinator; the Language, Literacy and Numeracy Advisor; the Flexible Learning Facilitator; and the Staff Development Advisor. Interest in embedded literacy began in 2007, with three people attending regional clusters. Developments have accelerated through 2009. LLN provision has focused on programmes at levels 1-3, although tutors teaching above these levels have expressed an interest in learning more. From 2010 the ITP will address embedding at all levels.

For this case study three individual interviews were conducted with managers and two with tutors; three focus groups involved a total of 10 tutors. In this section the findings from the data analysis are presented under three headings: Governance and management, Pedagogy, and Professional development. Governance and management have been combined to better fit the data from the case. When quotations are used they are reference to the interview or focus groups and page, for example, P3:1, P4:2.

4.2 Governance and management

At this ITP, organisational change for embedded literacy has been driven from within the organisation. The vision, strategic planning, policy setting and monitoring have been led by organisational staff. The changes have, however, been supported by the governing body. Evidence for this is provided in approved institutional documents. For example, Investing in a Plan includes a key performance indicator related to increasing foundation-level skills of students in level 1-3 programmes and the ITP applied for Capability Development Funding in 2008. In its application it identified a key goal to “include literacy and numeracy embedding in (its) core business at organisational level” (p. 3). Partnerships with other regional providers and Industry Training Organisations (ITOs) are encouraged and fostered

The vision to embed literacy and numeracy at the ITP was initiated by staff members. One had good knowledge of adult literacy, was networking closely with colleagues nationally, was informed about research, had completed the National Certificate in Adult Literacy Education (NCALE) and became aware of the direction the TEC was beginning to take: “All foundation tutors at polytechnics were obviously going to be targeted as people to deliver the literacy and numeracy in their pre-existing courses” (P3:1). It took time to accept the new direction but, together with the “very astute” line manager, who saw that “this is something we are not going to have an option about” (P3:5), a case was made to management. They “have been on board … our CE and our Academic Director have been right there from the beginning and it’s been fantastic” (P3:2). While the rationale presented to management included accessing the funding and support available from TEC – “the carrot there is money” (P3:2) ‒ it was also based on a belief that embedded literacy “had the underpinning of sound research” (P3:3) and a realisation that “20 of our staff and five managers are going to get rich staff development” (P3:7). Management support was crucial because “selling an idea has got to trickle down from the top” (P3:5).

There is a sense in the ITP that there was no real choice; they had to embed. “I don’t think there was any choice given to us” (P1:5); “A huge emphasis has been put on it from TEC” (P2:1); “TEC requires us all to understand and accept that embedding literacy and numeracy in all foundation programmes is a reality – we have no option” (Literacy and numeracy embedding overview, p. 1).² This has resulted in LLN developments that align closely with TEC expectations. An example is the case of language. Initially language was included in developments but this was refocused to literacy and numeracy when TEC took the emphasis off language: “We were starting to develop something about Te Reo, but when we realised that wasn’t going to be a compulsory thing it went away” (P1:4). However, once committed to the organisational change approach promoted by the government through TEC and evident in the literature (Skills for Life Development Centre, 2006), the Institute engaged in strategic planning and policy development, with a focus on certificate courses from levels 1-3. This resulted in significant change. As one person put it: “The Institution has gone from sod all and a bit of one-to-one literacy support … to all of a sudden involving the whole of the Institution. It’s pretty exciting but it’s a big undertaking” (P5:1). Another said: “This is a very good organisation strategy that has been well supported” (P4:10).

Literacy and numeracy embedding appeared in Investing in a Plan 2008 and the Foundation Learning Strategic Plan 2008; a Literacy and Numeracy Steering Group was established and linked to the Foundation Learning Quality Assurance (FLQA) Working Group; a new Literacy and Numeracy Policy replaced the Foundation Learning Policy in February 2009 and a Flexible Learning Policy was developed; Literacy and Numeracy Capability Funding was approved for 2009, providing essential resources in a smaller institution; two positions (Literacy and Numeracy Co-ordinator and Language, Literacy and Numeracy Advisor) were created and appointments made in April 2009. A commitment to professional development saw three staff attend the initial regional clusters, then 25 attend the TEC literacy and numeracy clusters in 2008 and 2009. Structurally, the new literacy positions and the Steering Group report to the Academic Director. They work in a Staff Development Team that includes the Staff Development Advisor and Flexible Learning Facilitator, thus providing valuable linkages. Further linkages are created by Academic Advisors. Located in each department they work alongside tutors while collaborating with the literacy specialists: “They are very much the champions of policy” (P5:12).

Operational planning for LLN embedding has focused on the capability development action plan. Programmes to be targeted for LLN embedding from 2009 to 2011 have been identified and plans to implement embedding have been developed and approved. These include: programme reviews to ensure LLN outcomes are explicit; mapping LLN components to the progressions; diagnostic assessment; use of appropriate resources and deliberate acts of LLN teaching; rewriting and development of course materials as appropriate; providing staff development; and supporting staff to complete qualifications such as the National Certificate in Adult Literacy Education (NCALE). Plans are in place for 2009-2011.

Embedding is being led by a group of people whose vision initiated the process and people who have now been appointed to positions with responsibility to lead development. Staff at the institution recognise the leadership role key people have played, including one seen as the champion: “People see her as a natural champion and that helps with the process” (P1:5); “It is personality driven. If we’ve got someone like [name] to do it, it’s brilliant” (P2:14); “They are such lovely people to work with and they believe in what they are doing. They are experts in their field and have a wonderful way of working with people, drawing them in and getting them involved” (P4:2). Commitment to embedding has also created a sense that it is being driven. For example, purposes one and two in the Literacy and Numeracy Co-ordinator job description begin “Drive institute-wide”; the Literacy and Numeracy Capability Development Funding proposal (p. 3) identifies key ‘drivers’ as the Tertiary Education Strategy and the Key Performance Indicators, and one participant said, “There are two … on the ground now to drive this project and I think driving is what is going to be required” (P3:1). In spite of this there is a view that embedding is at an early stage: “Embryonic in development” (P1:1); “It’s still in its infancy” (P2:1); and that change has been slow: “It’s a very slow, slow progress” (P2:1); deliberately slow: “We have been trying to implement it slowly … we are not pushing” (P1:1); while “Making sure the momentum continues” (P4:6). While take-up by staff does vary: “We have got the early adopters that are positive … but we have also got pockets of absolute resistance” (P1:1) there has also been a lot of interest: “We also talked about a trickle starting off then we had a literacy and numeracy tsunami on our hands … the take-up has been amazing” (P3:8).

Learning cultures for staff are being crafted in a variety of ways. Being part of literacy and numeracy clusters has “brought people together for the first time … we are viewing ourselves as cross discipline teams … for the first time people are seeing this huge cohort of cooperation” (FG1:3); “It’s had a uniting effect on the tutorial staff across departments where you would usually be polarised and isolated” (FG3:4). Team teaching “worked really well in the classroom” (P4:4); specialists are seen as “that team of support” (P2:14) and individuals are working together in partnerships and teams. Support for staff is most evident in release to attend professional development clusters, the development of personal plans to monitor workload and the provision of literacy/numeracy specialists within the Institute. The availability of a Flexible Learning Facilitator to assist with embedded literacy and numeracy is a support that is not yet well used: “People’s lives are just so busy and it’s just another thing they don’t have time for” (FG1:7).

Time emerged as the major issue facing staff: “The biggest problem we face is time. People have time allocated to do it [attend clusters] but often other responsibilities and duties encroach” (P4:6); “There are so many other things a tutor has to grapple with. … I can see our tutors … just ‘what am I doing with the students at nine o’clock?’ let alone ‘how am I embedding literacy?’” (P5:2); “People are time poor … our poor tutors are stretched in a million different ways” (P4:3); “If you are really taking care of your students it’s hard to find time for other things” (FG2:3); “Wouldn’t 48 hours in a day be wonderful?” (FG2:8). A second issue concerned getting cover for teaching release. While the funding was available and appreciated, it was not always possible to get a replacement tutor:

They have a highly specialised teaching area; they haven’t got people lined up behind them ready to step in, so the handover, at the times it has to be [to fit the clusters], is just impossible. So he hasn’t been able to make good on the funding that is available. (FG2:3)

I can say I was given 100 hours within my workload plan to enable me to do this (attend clusters) and we managed to find someone who could come first term, but for the second term she is not able to come in so I’m going to have to miss some … you need to be there for the whole thing. (FG3:2)

Let’s take welding tutors. You can’t just pull in some welder for two hours a week … freeing up tutors does become an issue. (P5:6)

The third concern was that the TEC funding the Institution relies on to facilitate embedding may disappear:

I’ve seen this before with projects that come from the Ministry … they give us ... money and we do it for two years and then it dies … so with the literacy I suspected it would be the same. (P4:4)

4.3 Pedagogy

At an institutional level, pedagogy has been supported by the development of relevant policies and quality assurance processes: “We’ve recently reviewed all of our course development policies and documents … as we have been aware of what’s coming, so we have already implemented it within all our guidelines for developing courses” (P1:10). At programme level, pedagogy was thought about in different ways. Participants talked about one-to-one literacy support, team teaching by a vocational tutor and literacy specialist, and the version of embedded literacy being promoted by TEC – the vocational tutor learning to identify and teach the literacy and numeracy skills in their course content. Some felt there was still a place for one-to-one provision: “We are meeting the needs that embedding can’t do because it isn’t dealing with the one-to-one issue” (FG2:2). Some thought different literacy needs require different approaches:

We classify a learner as ‘can’, ‘can do with help’, ‘can’t’. The ‘can do with help’, I firmly believe will blossom with the tutor providing embedded literacy and numeracy … but certainly the high needs people … that is not the job of a vocational tutor. A vocational tutor can’t do specialist work. (FG2:7)

Some thought that a variety of pedagogies was desirable: “The more ways you have available the better I would think. … I would not support one initiative because you may only capture one group of students … you have to come at it from different perspectives” (P4:11). Some valued team teaching and wanted it to continue but again noted funding issues: “Yes, team teaching happened here last year, but we have moved on from that as TEC don’t really want to fund that anymore” (P2:2); “I would like to see more team teaching” (P2:3). The government approach to embedded literacy also had its advocates:

I’ve never liked the concept of literacy programmes. Four hours a week and learn to read. I’ve always thought that was crap. … I’ve never liked the concept of the introduction to literacy studies. If you really seriously want to improve the literacy in somebody who wants to be a photographer, put him in a photography course and put the literacy and learning skills in there and I can assure you, if they have the ability, they will have the best chance of learning. So it’s a great concept – bring it on! (P5:16)

Some realised embedding had been occurring in the ITP prior to the recent initiative: “She didn’t realise herself … that she was doing this embedding and so we had it started” (P1:4); “In some ways embedding literacy and numeracy has been going on without us kind of knowing” (FG3:5). There is a clear intention in the Literacy and Numeracy Policy that the LLN requirements will be identified: “Delivery materials … will be mapped to ensure that the literacy and numeracy demands of courses are identified” (4.1). For some tutors, pedagogy emerged at the lesson level: “It’s about pulling the lesson plans apart; we can add in literacy and numeracy … that is the biggest thing” (FG1:5).

A few felt their pedagogy was under pressure:

Teaching unit standards when we have had our class contact hours cut. … We are being measured on outcomes such as retention and completion. … I have to shoot for the goal and that is to prepare them for the assessments … as much as I would like them to get the numeracy, get the literacy and certainly embed it in our resources and our assessment … we’ve had to cut out all these nice frilly things. I absolutely agree with you … we’re teaching the same content in a lot fewer hours and big classes. (FG3:6)

Others saw embedding could be achieved in: “Small steps … he does some pre-reading activities, introducing the vocabulary … alerting them to key words … small, small steps that become part of their routine and they do it automatically and in minutes not hours” (FG2:15).

The amount of assessment with unit standards was referred to as a complicating factor in LLN embedding, particularly in relation to the progressions: “They are already writing and dealing with assessments, 240 of them, so to overlay the complexity of progressions around someone’s literacy and numeracy development, nah … they [teachers] might go and hang themselves” (FG2:5). However, assessment was most often spoken about as diagnostic assessment:

We stopped immediately and redirected them to the Introduction to Tertiary Studies because we don’t want to see students fail. It’s not good for their self-confidence and their future achievement and so it’s better that they go down in the courses and succeed at that level and then slowly build up. … You want to be kind to them but realistic as well. (FG3:7)

I think we could be a lot more proactive if we had a test of some sort … which is linked to the progressions we have been working on and if you could find out where the chinks are in the students’ knowledge then you could hone in … or if it is critical then we have to redirect them elsewhere where they get specific help to continue on the course … it would be fairer to the student and would help us. Because much as we would like to, the time situation is a problem. (FG3: 8-9)

One manager was aware of the potential for diagnostic assessment to be used as a deficit approach (Crowther et al., 2003; Tett & Maclachlan, 2008) and to cut across principles of embedded LLN:

As long as alongside that screening questionnaire staff are looking at their programme and saying, “Well, there is an issue with the textbook; it’s not just the student. How else could we embed literacy and numeracy concepts in our teaching?” So they are looking at what they can do and not just saying, “Well, toss the student away.” (P4:9-10)

The Literacy and Numeracy Policy also suggests that a deficit approach could be avoided: “Students who do not meet the academic entry criteria requirements will undertake a pre-entry assessment task (literacy and numeracy) to enable them to enter the programme of study or be referred to an alternative programme” (4.3, emphasis added). There was a concern that an assessment based on the progressions could be overwhelming for tutors:

When tutors could see that 10 students had a weakness here and five had a weakness there … they would struggle to know what to do with it. … It will be like “What the hell do I do?” (FG2: 15)

Teaching in the Institution is clearly focused on students. A statement in the institutional document A guide to effective teaching and learning states: “Our students (learners) are the reason we exist. They deserve to get the best teaching and learning opportunities that we can give them” (p. 3). Staff also commented: “It’s about the students as well. It’s only going to benefit them” (FG1:13); “I don’t know of anyone who isn’t here to support their students” (P1:4). They work to improve student outcomes: “The better you get at putting [ideas] across and the more variety [of methods] then it’s going to benefit the students” (FG3:5); “Our success rate in exams went up 100% and students that we knew never ever had the capability of passing exams, with that help and support [team teaching] were getting through” (P4:4). Outcomes were understood as more than hard outcomes, for example as soft outcomes and value added:

We have even gone a little bit further than that and have developed a chart for monitoring soft outcomes. … So if we ever get into a situation where we are talking about completion, retention and we are looking at value added, we have actually got some evidence behind it. (P1:11-12)

Adult education principles are integrated into the good teaching practices espoused in A guide to effective teaching and learning and an awareness of them was evident in some comments: “They might be fantastic tradespeople but they are new to teaching adults” (P5:2); “There is a need I am seeing with the embedding that they are more about staff development teaching adults” (P5:16). Several phrases about pedagogy recurred throughout the interviews. Embedding literacy was seen as “good teaching” involving “deliberate acts of teaching” in a way that was “built in not bolted on” (Millar & Falk, 2002; Wickert & McGuirk, 2005). “In the cluster groups I just recognised good teaching strategies, learning strategies rather than teaching, good learning strategies” (P5:5):

The thing with embedding literacy is that it’s not a whole lot of extra work, just good teaching practice … it’s a matter of slotting in five or 10 minutes somewhere to make sure the students have understood, which is good teaching practice. (FG1:3)

There are also efforts to link embedded LLN pedagogy with flexible learning through the appointment of a Flexible Learning Facilitator, resulting in a growing awareness among tutors:

I used to pooh-pooh it. I used to say, “No you can’t do e-learning with foundation students,” until I realised e-learning isn’t at all distance learning. … It can be classroom based where students work individually and I found that a really good way to help. (P2:3)

Most staff seemed to be aware of the progressions and referred to them as part of LLN embedding: “One of the progressions in reading is the critical reading” (FG2:12); “They will do an online assessment to see where they would sit on the progressions” (FG1:9); “Because I have experience of the progressions I was able to make sure that we were covering the progressions” (P2:5). Some saw some potential issues for staff: “I think for them [tutors] to cope in their busy worlds with the detail of progressions and the different categories is a complexity I don’t see them managing” (FG2:14).

There were different views on whether embedded LLN was functional or critical (Maclachlan & Cloonan, 2003), focusing on the development of human capital (Reio et al., 2005) or social capital outcomes (St. Clair, 2008) at this ITP. Some thought the focus was functional:

A critical aspect of the politics of literacy and things like that is just alien speak for those people [level 2] and it’s not needed. They actually need informational stuff to help them get skills and knowledge that help them do something pragmatic. (FG2:12)

It is nearly all functional. … I think it [critical literacy] would blow the mind of half the vocational tutors. (P2:13)

Others thought there was a place for critical literacy:

Many people would argue that you could teach critical reading from the initial introduction to reading. … I do not believe you have to be at a certain maturational level to be a critical person and understand how people are positioning you against themselves. (FG2:12)

Some saw a progression across programme levels:

Levels 1-3 I suspect it will be functional … but really, at the end of it [degrees], you want to produce a graduate who is a critical consumer of knowledge and information … they [students] are really meant to be going out there and being able to do a job, and hopefully, to think on top of that job. (P1:13-14)

One reflected views in more recent literature that the functional/critical divide is too simplistic (McCaffery et al., 2007):

I don’t see … much of a division between the two. … I like to look at the whole person. … I am really behind people being employable and being able to go through a promotion within their workplace … embedding literacy is good for that because I think it gives grounding not only in your vocational field and your course-specific literacy and numeracy but it’s going to enlarge your views as a person as well. (P3:14)

4.4 Professional development

The need for adequate professional development is highlighted in the literature (Askov et al., 2003; Tett & Maclachlan, 2008; Wickert & McGuirk, 2005) and evident in the ITP data. There is a commitment to professional development for LLN embedding at the organisational level: purpose 5 in the Capability Funding Development Proposal highlights professional development and identifies specific goals and actions relating to providing staff development opportunities, releasing tutors to attend them and supporting tutors to complete the National Certificates in Adult Literacy Education (NCALE) (Educator) and (Vocational). Information on LLN embedding is to be included in staff induction (Capability Funding Development Proposal) and foundation learning courses will be developed and delivered by staff who have completed the appropriate induction and training (Literacy and Numeracy Policy 4.4). A Staff Development Advisor was appointed in July 2009 and the job descriptions for the Literacy and Numeracy Co-ordinator and Language, Literacy and Numeracy Advisor, both appointed in April 2009, include the provision of training for staff, development of resources and collaboration with the Staff Development Advisor. The ITP plans to offer LLN clusters, modelled on the TEC ones, from 2010. This organisational commitment is especially important given that “staff development was a big black hole here … it wasn’t even running a CAT [Certificate in Adult Teaching] course so there was nothing happening for our tutors” (P3:6-7) and that “staff development hasn’t been on the radar for a while … so there is a hunger and a thirst from staff to learn more” (P4:3). It also demonstrates the importance of the professional development opportunities available through the TEC literacy and numeracy clusters.

Professional development has focused on these TEC clusters: three tutors completed the regional clusters; 25 completed the literacy cluster in 2008; and 25 were engaged in the numeracy cluster in 2009. Most staff have welcomed the opportunity for professional development: “We were fearful that this was another thing on top of people. But we have been genuinely surprised at how people have lapped it up” (P1:15); “It is some of the best tutor development that has come out of the system for tertiary tutors – it’s great” (P5:3); “From the first day you could see the light bulbs going on all around the room. Like, ‘this is not difficult, I can do this’, and in actual fact it is damned good professional development. … I used to love going and got a lot out of it” (P4:2); “For me it’s been very relevant … it gives you a fresh approach” (FG3:11).

There were additional benefits from attending the cluster, most importantly the impact of working together: “Bringing people together and owning those problems within their courses and talking to each other and sharing experiences, whether they have experienced that in business, in construction, in building, has been really valuable” (FG2:2); “I have valued even more hearing how maths is being taught and applied in the different courses across campus” (FG3:4). Many also referred to the awareness-raising effect of the clusters: “Awareness … it’s the realisation of how much there is in the programme of literacy and numeracy” (FG1:10); “The more I attended, the more I saw the kind of things they were talking about” (FG1:2); “It really raised awareness and I think we used it to identify students with some literacy problems that probably wouldn’t have been identified without the clusters” (FG3:2). The success of the clusters also lay in the approach taken by the presenters: “The people who run the sessions are so positive and are such good teachers that it’s fun, almost like I feel everyone would benefit” (FG3:4); “At the same time the presenters are doing best practice teaching as well, so you get ideas from them” (FG3:5). One downside of the clusters is the time they take: “The clusters are quite time consuming” (FG1:5); “In some weeks it was eight hours of meetings on top of what you already have … and there was no time to do any work in those weeks and I thought it was outrageous” (FG2:17); and, for some, the time they are scheduled: “The time schedules were really peak teaching times … so you had this conflict of interest [be student centred or attend the clusters]” (FG3:2).

While the focus of professional development has been the clusters, in-house professional development is now also available through the recently appointed advisors and other qualifications are also supported by the ITP. One tutor is enrolled in the Master of Literacy and Numeracy; one has completed the Master of Education (Adult Education); one has completed the NCALE (Educator) and five are enrolled; and one has passed the NCALE (Vocational) and two are enrolled. There were some different views on the NCALE: “I would like to think that numbers of our tutors will do the NCALE” (P3:13); “For me the NCALE is a piece of paper to keep the ivory tower people happy because I have a literacy qualification but the … cluster work was actually far more useful and valuable for me” (P2:9).

Issues related to qualifications emerged. Some tutors, who already hold a professional qualification and have a Certificate in Adult Teaching (CAT), now face being required to complete the NCALE as well:

I can see that [NCALE] being fraught with difficulties … for us to start asking the automotive tutor and everyone to now do another qualification, I can see that it’s not going to be well received … so we may just have to be clever and try to repackage it so that people are exiting or getting trained with both [CAT and NCALE] and then make that not as stiff a hurdle as it currently looks like when separate. (P1:8-9)

I have the Level 5 NCAET [National Certificate in Adult Education and Training]. I have ticked that box. I have done what I had to. And if they are going to give me another box to tick, well. I did that because it was a job requirement and was free. But if you now say to me it’s a job requirement and I’m going to have to pay something towards it, I don’t know if I’ll be so inclined. (FG3:9)

Some reward structures are in place to recognise qualifications. A financial reward may be given to staff who attended cluster meetings without a reduction in teaching hours (Capability Development Funding Proposal). More importantly, the NCALE would be considered in any career progression application: “Brownie points, yes, informally … that would definitely be the brownie point in your portfolio” (P3:13). Finally, some people identified a sensitive professional development issue that will take careful handling and potentially has an important impact on successful LLN embedding: “Some of the staff actually have literacy and numeracy issues, so to actually expect them [to do qualifications] is quite a hard concept” (P1:9).

4.5 Conclusion

A number of organisational factors in embedded LLN provision emerge from the data in this ITP. Many related to the findings in the literature review. They are summarised in the following bullet points:

• There is a whole-of-organisation focus.
• A champion has influenced organisational commitment to LLN.
• Government funding and professional development have been major drivers, though there is also a professional commitment to LLN provision.
• Policies and procedures inform organisational direction and practice.
• An organisational plan for developments to 2011 is in place.
• There is a commitment to professional development.
• Some partnerships with ITOs have been developed.
• Staff appointments support LLN delivery.
• Teaching is student centred; LLN provision is student centred.
• LLN provision is promoted as ‘good teaching’, as ‘deliberate acts of teaching’ and as ‘built in not bolted on’.
• Partnership between flexible learning, staff development and LLN is fostered.
• While aligning with the government-supported approach to embedded LLN, staff also understand that there is no single model of embedded provision.
• The friendly approach of the ‘specialists’ is a key factor in tutor take-up; these people work well together and with tutors.
• Opportunities exist for vocational and literacy specialists to work together.
• While some focus on functional literacy, there is recognition of critical literacy.

Footnotes