Adult Literacy, Employability Skills and ‘Participatory Parity’

Author(s):

Lyn Tett(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2014

Network:

07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

07 SES 06 B, Participation and Belonging through Adult Education

Paper Session

Time:

2014-09-03

15:30-17:00

Room:

B005 Anfiteatro

Chair:

Ghazala Bhatti

Contribution

There is an extensive literature that demonstrates both how dominant discourses in society negatively position those that do not have the literacy skills that are regarded as ‘normal’ and also how these discourses are internalized by adults so that they regard themselves as deficient (e.g. Feeley, 2012; Hamilton & Pitt, 2011; Tett, Hamilton & Crowther, 2012). The literature (e.g. Barton et al., 2007; Cieslik, 2006; Worthman, 2008) also shows that these injustices are often manifested at the individual level through the incorporation of a negative learning identity that makes people reluctant to engage in further education and training. This means that those with low literacy skills are particularly likely to suffer social injustices that exclude them from fully participating in society. However, having a literate population is regarded as important globally almost solely because of an assumed link between a high level of skills in a country’s population and its prosperity (CEC, 2010; 2011; Nóvoa and Yariv-Mashal, 2003; OECD, 2012). This assumption drives the development of policy indicators internationally through the OECD (OECD, 2012; 2013) and, through the setting and measurement of key competences and outcomes and the collection of these data as part of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC), throughout the EU (DG-EAC, 2007; Lawn and Grek, 2012). In the field of adult literacy both the international comparisons conducted by the OECD and the setting and measurement of key competencies by the EU are focused on skills and employability rather than the wider measures of social inclusion that prioritise an individual’s overall well-being. For example, the Commission has prioritised enabling ‘low-skilled, unemployed adults …to gain a qualification or take their skills a step further’ (CEC, 2010 p8) with little acknowledgement that ‘adults bring something that derives both from their experience of adult life and from their status as citizens to the educational process’ (Jackson, 1995: 187). This means that these comparative measures can lead to narrow, employability focused, outcome measurements that may exacerbate, rather than alleviate, the broader social injustices that literacy learners’ experience.

This paper will use Nancy Fraser’s (1998; 2003; 2008) theoretical framework that focuses on three aspects of social justice: redistribution of opportunities; increased respect for the participants’ perceived status as competent individuals; increased participation in decision-making processes; to investigate the impact of the narrow outcome measurements derived from the OECD and EU for literacy programs. Fraser (2003) has argued that every injustice should be treated as both economic, requiring material redistribution, and cultural, requiring the recognition of people’s identities and cultural diversity, which means that all issues must be assessed from both outlooks without reducing one to the other. She regarded her third dimension of ‘participatory parity’ as setting ‘the procedures for staging and resolving contests in both the economic and the cultural dimensions’ (2008 p17). Parity in this sense can only be achieved when individuals can participate on an equal footing in decision-making processes, particularly when considering issues that directly affect them.

Using this lens the paper will draw on data from eight literacy projects based in Scotland 4 of which focused on narrow employability outcomes whilst the other 4 had a more holistic perspective. It will ask three research questions: do narrow skills based programmes exacerbate earlier injustices; if so what type of programmes contribute to alleviating some forms of social injustice; what factors contribute to the achievement of participatory parity by literacy learners?

Method

The data used were collected from literacy projects based in economically poor urban areas in Scotland. Eight case study organizations were selected from two different types of provision: 1) adult basic skills provision that was designed to enhance employability; 2) holistic projects where literacies learning formed part of a network of services for adults that needed additional support due to their mental health issues including substance dependency. Observation sessions and interviews were conducted with the tutor from each project responsible for face-to-face teaching (eight) and 40 adult learners. The learners were an opportunistic sample and that were broadly representative in terms of the age, ‘race’ and gender profile of the participating group. Time spent in the programme by participants ranged from six weeks to one year, with a median of six months. Three types of data were gathered: first, researchers observed two class sessions for two hours (six weeks apart) and recorded: the methods, types of materials and assessment strategies used; tutor and peer interactions; the learning support strategies used. Second, tutors were interviewed about their approaches to teaching, learning and assessment and asked: what factors contributed to the learners’ active participation; the expected outcomes of the projects; any differences between their own expectations and those of their funders. The data from the observations and the interviews with the tutors were audio recorded, notes were made and then entered into a database, transcribed and analysed using the software package ‘File-Maker Pro’. The learners were interviewed near the beginning and after completion of their learning programmes through semi-structured interviews using an autobiographical approach. Learners were asked about: their key life events; their attitudes to learning; their current circumstances and imagined futures. Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was used to identify, analyse, and report patterns within these interview data so they were first sorted chronologically to construct linear learning histories. Working from the histories, emergent analytic topics became evident. Next, the data were coded by these themes and a secondary analysis was completed and independently checked by two researchers. Data from all these sources were used to identify: 1) what factors encouraged or impeded learning from the perspective of both learners and tutors; 2) the impact of the project’s outcomes on the teaching and learning curriculum. Fraser’s theoretical lens was then used to identity how far these projects contributed to participatory parity.

Expected Outcomes

The findings show that the learners had experienced maldistribution in terms of their access to material goods as well as misrecognition because their skills and experiences were constructed as inferior and these two spheres were intertwined and reinforced each other dialectically. The factors that contributed to greater social justice as a result of participation in the literacy projects included changes in the learners’ and others’ perceptions of their status, enhanced likelihood of obtaining employment and increased participation in decision-making about significant issues in their lives. However, the sphere of decision-making was restricted to the local family and community level and most were excluded from the political sphere, where the power imbalances and negative discourses they experienced could be most effectively interrogated. The people that were most able to challenge the social injustices they had experienced were those that reported strong positive changes in their levels of personal agency and identities as learners. This was most likely to occur in the four projects where literacies learning formed part of a network of services for adults that needed additional support due to their mental health issues. This was because these projects critically engaged learners in re-evaluating their experiences in ways that promoted social awareness and critiqued existing inequalities rather than simply concentrated on improving their employability skills. Moreover, the pedagogical approaches used in these latter projects were more likely to adopt what Lave and Wenger (1991) describe as a ‘learning curriculum’ that focuses on the resources, goals, and contributions of the learners’ themselves rather than a ‘teaching curriculum’ that focuses on the priorities, goals and outcomes of the institution. It can be concluded therefore that EU and OECD outcome measures that focus on narrow employability skills have exacerbated the social injustices experienced by literacy learners and not contributed to participatory parity.

References

Barton, D., Ivanic, R., Appleby, Y., Hodge, R. & Tusting, K. 2007. Literacy, lives and learning, London, Routledge Braun and Clarke 2006. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77-101 Cieslik, M. 2006. Reflexivity, learning identities and adult basic skills in the United Kingdom, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27(2), 237–250 CEC 2010. Council conclusions on the social dimension of education and training, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:135:0002:0007:EN:PDF CEC 2011. Council conclusions on the role of education and training in the implementation of the ‘Europe 2020’ strategy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2011:070:0001:0003:EN:PDF DG-EAC, (2007) Key Competences for Lifelong Learning – A European Framework, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/publ/pdf/ll-learning/keycomp_en.pdf Feeley, M. 2012. ‘Affective power: exploring the concept of learning care in the context of adult literacy’ (pp. 131-146). In (Eds.) L. Tett, M. Hamilton & J. Crowther, More Powerful Literacies, Leicester: NIACE Fraser, N. 1998. ‘Heterosexism, Misrecognition and Capitalism: A Response to Judith Butler’, New Left Review, 140-149 Fraser, N. 2003. ‘Social Justice in the age of identity politics: redistribution, recognition, and participation’ (pp. 7-109). In N. Fraser & A. Honneth (eds.), Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosphical Exchange. London: Verso Fraser, N. 2008. Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalising World. Cambridge: Polity Press Hamilton, M. & Pitt, K. 2011. ‘Changing policy discourses: constructing literacy inequalities’ International Journal of Educational Development, 31, 596-605 Jackson, K. 1995. ‘Popular education and the state: a new look at the community debate’ in Mayo, M. and Thompson, J. (Eds.) (182–203) Adult Learning, Critical Intelligence and Social Change, Leicester: NIACE Lave, J. & Wenger, E. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lawn, M. and Grek, S. 2012. Europeanizing Education: governing a new policy space, Oxford: Symposium Nóvoa A. & Yariv-Mashal, T. 2003. Comparative Research in Education: a mode of governance or a historical journey? Comparative Education, 39 (4): 423-438 OECD, 2012. Better skills, better lives: a strategic approach to skills policies, Paris: OECD OECD 2013. OECD Skills Outlook 2013: First Results from the Survey of Adult Skills http://www.oecd.org/site/piaac/Skills%20volume%201%20%28eng%29--full%20v8--eBook%20%2801%2010%202013%29.pdf Tett, L., Hamilton M. & Crowther J. 2012. More Powerful Literacies, Leicester: NIACE Worthman, C. 2008. The positioning of adult learners: appropriating learner experience on the continuum of empowerment to emancipation, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 27(4), 443-462

Author Information

Lyn Tett (presenting / submitting)

university of Huddersfield

School of Education and Professional Development

Huddersfield

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.