See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/242468873

Action Research Initiatives

Article

CITATION READS
1 791

4 authors:

Franco Vaccarino Margie Comrie

55 PUBLICATIONS 207 CITATIONS

Massey University
76 PUBLICATIONS 416 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Niki Murray Frank Sligo

Massey University Massey University Wellington
56 PUBLICATIONS 251 CITATIONS 86 PUBLICATIONS 706 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Frank Sligo on 29 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Action Research
Initiatives:
THE WANGANUI ADULT LITERACY
AND EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMME

Franco Vaccarino Margie Comrie

Niki Culligan Frank Sligo
 Action Research Initiatives:

The Wanganui Adult Literacy and Employment Programme

ii
 Action Research Initiatives:

The Wanganui Adult Literacy and Employment Programme

Franco Vaccarino

Margie Comrie

Niki Culligan

Frank Sligo

http://literacy.massey.ac.nz/

Department of Communication and Journalism

Massey University

Series: Adult Literacy and Employment in Wanganui 0603

iii
Series: Adult Literacy and Employment in Wanganui ISSN 1176‐9807

2006

0601 Perspectives of Adult Literacy Learners 2004‐2006: A report from the Wanganui Adult
Literacy and Employment Programme
0602 The Wider Voice: Wanganui Community Perspectives on Adult Literacy and Em‐
ployment 2005‐2006
0603 Action Research Initiatives: The Wanganui Adult Literacy and Employment Pro‐
gramme
0604 In Their Own Words: Policy Implications from the Wanganui Adult Literacy and Em‐
ployment Research Programme
0605 Voices from the Wanganui Adult Literacy and Employment Programme
0606 Perspectives of Wanganui Employers and Providers of Adult Literacy Services 2005‐
2006: A report from the Wanganui Adult Literacy and Employment Programme
0607 Wanganui’s Enhanced Task Force Green: Opportunities for Those Seeking Work.
0608 Common Threads: A Report for the Wanganui Community on the first stages of the
Adult Literacy and Employment Programme
0609 Tipping Points: Nodes of Change for Adult Literacy and Employment

2005

0501 Barriers to adult literacy: A discussion paper

0502 Perceptions, needs and issues: A discussion paper
0503 Provider survey ‐ phase 1. The provision of adult literacy services in Wanganui
0504 Theoretical understandings of adult literacy: A literature review

ISBN 0‐9582646‐8‐6
ISBN from 2007: 978‐0‐9582646‐8‐6

Copyright © The Authors, 2006

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of study, research or review, as permitted by
copyright law, no part of this report may be reproduced by any means without permission in
writing from the copyright holders.

Cover design by Fusion Design Group Limited, PO Box 12188, Palmerston North:
www.fusiongroup.co.nz

Published by the Massey University

Department of Communication and Journalism,
Wellington and Palmerston North, New Zealand.

iv
This report is dedicated to the memory of the late Dr Su Olsson
(1942–2005), friend, colleague, and objective leader
in the Literacy and Employment Programme.

v
vi
Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 1

Introduction 3

Action Research: A Review of the Literature 5

Action research through the ages 5
Defining action research 7
Characteristics and principles of action research 9
Collaboration 9
Problem solving 10
Practical experience 10
Change in practice 10
Reflexive critique 10
Theory development 10
Public results 11
Action research design 11
The cyclical nature of action research 12
Action planning 14
Action research protocol 14
Types of action research 16
The role of reflection 17
Participatory action research 18

Action Research in the Literacy and Employment 23

Project 23

Concluding remarks 24

Stepping through the Looking Glass: Action Research at Training For You 26
Developing the research idea 26
The research site 28
Cycle One – The pilot 29
Initial planning 29
Research process flowchart 31
Questionnaire development 32
Conducting the pilot study 32
Analysing the pilot 33
Reflection and revision of research following the pilot study 36
The second cycle of action research 36
Wider benefits of the pilot study 37

Establishing a Family Learning Project at Castlecliff School in Wanganui 39

Introduction 39
School background 39

vii
 Aims of the family learning project 41
Methodology 42
Information sheets and consent forms 42
Questionnaires 42
Parent and child time 42
Family learning sessions 42
Interviews 43
Action research component 43
Workshop 44
Questionnaires 46
Parent questionnaires 46
Family learning sessions 47
Reflections 47

Workplace Literacy: The Workplace of the 21st Century 49

Literacy in the workplace 52
The importance of literacy skills in the workplace 54
Workplace skills 54

Workplace Literacy Provision: A Formative Evaluation of an Emerging

Workplace Literacy Provider 56
Introduction 56
The research site – Literacy Aotearoa (Whanganui) 56
Proposed methodology 57
Areas of potential investigation 57
Proposed key stakeholders 58
Future directions 58

References 59

Appendix A: Parents Questionnaire Training For You 67

viii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Conventional Research Process p. 13
Figure 2. Action Research Cycles p. 13
Figure 3. Kemmis’ Action Research Protocol p. 15
Figure 4. Kemmis’ Action Research Protocol p. 43

ix
x
Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the NZ Foundation for Research, Science and Technology
for its support of this research under grant MAUX0308 Literacy and Employment.

This research programme could not have proceeded without the fullest possible in‐
volvement of the Wanganui community. In particular, the success of the research is
due to the foresight of the Wanganui District Library, later joined by the Whanganui
Community Foundation, Literacy Aotearoa (Wanganui), and Te Puna Mātauranga O
Whanganui. Under the Library’s leadership, this research programme has benefited
enormously from the support of many other local and national organisations, includ‐
ing the Wanganui District Council, Enterprise Wanganui, WINZ, the Corrections
Dept, Police, TEC, the Ministry of Education, and GoodHealth Wanganui.

Many Massey colleagues also offered invaluable support, including Dr Bronwyn

Watson, Dr John Franklin, Sharon Benson, Christine Morrison, Nicky McInnes, and
Nigel Lowe.

We are indebted to many other friends and colleagues not named here for their in‐
sights and support to date in this research. However, all remaining errors and omis‐
sions in this discussion paper are of course the responsibility of the authors alone.
Further, the points of view expressed in this paper are those of the authors, and are
not necessarily endorsed by the community groups which, as is normal in a diverse
society, will have their own perspectives on the issues covered here.

1
2
Introduction

Individuals who decide to carry out action research want to find ways to understand
their situations better, and ascertain what changes can be made to improve both their
own situations and that of others. A positive feature of action research is that it starts
in practice, and individuals generate their own theories out of that practice. As
McNiff (2000, p. 26) points out, “action researchers are real people in real situations”.
An action researcher asks the question “how can I improve or change what I am do‐
ing?” This implies the investigation explores what the researcher is currently doing
in order to make changes or improve what is being done, thus allowing the re‐
searcher to understand the situation more fully. This, in turn, assists research‐
ers/practitioners to evaluate their own work and make relevant changes, if necessary.
In other words, individuals reflect on their own work. This self‐reflection is a key
element within action research and allows researchers to plan what changes can be
made, implement these changes, and then reflect once again. Action researchers not
only enquire into others’ lives, but also simultaneously address their own function as
researchers and practitioners.

The action research projects within the Literacy and Employment Project feature a
mix of types of action research, arising from collaborations with Wanganui
community members that have identified areas in need of research. The projects
below represent areas in which community members would like to see change or
development. In our projects, we employ the term process consultation where, as re‐
searchers, we manage the process by which information is gained, and work along‐
side participants to set goals, develop and implement plans, and interpret resulting
information.

The action research projects discussed in this report include:

1. Stepping Through the Looking Glass: Action Research at Training For You

This is a pilot study of an action research programme based at Training For You, an
adult literacy training provider in Wanganui. The action research was conceived and
designed by Training For You’s Learning Centre Supervisor in consultation with the
Adult Literacy and Employment team, and management and tutors at Training For
You. The purpose of this action research project is to enhance self‐reflective practices
among students as to their learning, and concurrently, among tutors as to their tutor‐
ing, to improve the learning and teaching experience.

2. Establishing a Family Learning Project at Castlecliff School in Wanganui

The home is a child’s first school and the parent or caregiver the child’s first and most
important teacher. The concept of family learning builds on this natural learning

3
bond. Family learning comprises the different ways parents, children, and extended
family members use literacy during their day‐to‐day tasks and activities at home and
in their communities. In Year 1, parents or caregivers play a crucial role in assisting
their children consolidate emerging literacy skills that ease their subsequent acquisi‐
tion of language, literacy, and cognitive skills, which form the basis for success in the
learning context. This action research project involves Year 1 children and their par‐
ents at Castlecliff School. The intention is for the School to implement an ongoing
family learning project for all Year 1 children entering the school. The primary re‐
search intention is to ascertain how well a family learning intervention assists and
addresses learning goals within a school context.

3. Workplace Literacy Provision: A Formative Evaluation of an Emerging Workplace

Literacy Provider

Literacy Aotearoa (Whanganui) was approached by local businesses interested in

learning more about how to support their staff to up‐skill their literacy needs. The
opportunity not only to develop a workplace literacy programme, but also to docu‐
ment and evaluate this process of development was recognised as a valuable learning
tool. In acknowledgment of the value in sharing information and learning through‐
out the adult literacy sector and cross sectorally, Literacy Aotearoa (Whanganui) ap‐
proached the Adult Literacy and Employment team, offering the opportunity to
document this through a formative evaluation process. While this project is still in its
initial design stages, an outline of the proposed method, approach, and future direc‐
tion is given.

4
Action Research: A Review of the Literature

Many of the research projects in the larger Wanganui Literacy and Employment pro‐
ject have an action research component to them. In this report we discuss the initial
findings of the action research projects undertaken thus far. In order to position these
projects within an action research theoretical framework, a brief overview of action
research is provided, before describing each project in more detail.

Action research through the ages

Action research was born when social scientists and practitioners, “concerned not
only with the generation of scientific knowledge but also with its usefulness in solv‐
ing practical problems, worked to bridge the gap between theory and practice” (Se‐
lener, 1997, p. 58). The exact origins of action research are not very clear, though.
Some authors, such as Kemmis and McTaggart (1988), Zuber‐Skerrit (1992), Holter
and Schwartz‐Barcott (1993) maintain that action research originated with the Ameri‐
can social psychologist and educator, Kurt Lewin. McKernan, however, points out
that action research as a method of inquiry ʺis a root derivative of the scientific
method reaching back to the Science in Education movement of the late nineteenth
centuryʺ (McKernan, 1991, p. 8). McKernan (1991) continues that action research had
been undertaken by social reformers such as Collier in 1945, Lippitt and Radke in
1946, and Corey in 1953, all prior to Lewin. McTaggart (1992) cites work by Gstettner
and Altricher using group participation in 1913 in a community development initia‐
tive in Vienna.

Regardless of the exact beginnings of action research, Kurt Lewin’s work is generally
taken as the starting point, when he wanted to use “research in a ‘natural’ setting to
change the way that the researcher interacts with that setting” (Ferrance, 2000, p. 7).
He recognised the important role of participation in planned changed processes, and
constructed an action research theory, describing action research as ʺproceeding in a
spiral of steps, each of which is composed of planning, action and the evaluation of
the result of actionʺ (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988, p. 8).

This spiral or cyclical process involved a “non‐linear pattern of planning, acting, ob‐
serving, and reflecting on the changes in the social situations” (Noffke & Stevenson,
1995, p. 2). Lewin argued that to ʺunderstand and change certain social practices,
social scientists have to include practitioners from the real social world in all phases
of inquiry” (McKernan, 1991, p. 10). McFarland and Stansell (1993, p. 14) argue that
“Lewin is credited with coining the term ‘action research’ to describe work that did
not separate investigation from the action needed to solve the problem”, and thus, by
constructing this action research theory, Lewin paved the way to make action re‐
search a method of acceptable inquiry (McKernan 1991, p. 9).

5
Lewin’s (1946) model, amalgamating research and action to enhance understanding
and generate change, highlights that the introduction of action into the scientific
model “by no means implies that the research needed is in any respect less scientific
or ‘lower’ than would be required for pure science” (Lewin, 1946, p. 35).

Masters (2000) provides an overview of the movements that have had historical and
philosophical influences on action research. These are:

• The Science in Education Movement of the 19th and early 20th centuries in
which the scientific method was applied to education, particularly in the
work of Boone (1904) and Buckingham (1926) (McKernan, 1991, p. 8).
• The Experimentalist and Progressive educational work, especially of John
Dewey, ʺwho applied the inductive scientific method of problem solving as a
logic for the solution of problems in such fields as aesthetics, philosophy,
psychology and educationʺ (McKernan, 1991, p. 8).
• The Group Dynamics movement in social psychology and human relations
training used in the 19th century to address the social problems of this period
through qualitative social enquiry (McKernan, 1991, p. 9). It was used again
in the 1940s, such as by Kurt Lewin. According to McKernan (1991, p. 9),
“Lewin argued that social problems should serve as the locus of social sci‐
ence research. Basic to Lewin’s model is a view of research composed of ac‐
tion cycles including analysis, fact‐finding, conceptualisation, planning, im‐
plementation and evaluation of action”.
• Post‐war Reconstructionist Curriculum Development Activity. McKernan
(1991, p. 10) points out that action research in education was used during this
period as “a general strategy for designing curricula and attacking complex
problems, such as inter‐group relations and prejudice through large curricu‐
lum development projects”. However, by the end of the 1950s, action re‐
search was being attacked and in decline. Sanford (1970, cited in McKernan,
1991, p. 10) suggests this decline was related directly to the split between sci‐
ence and practice. However, there were also cultural, political and economic
changes during the time that could have undermined the credibility of action
research.
• The teacher‐researcher movement, which started in the United Kingdom,
mainly with the work of Lawrence Stenhouse (1971) who directed the Hu‐
manities Curriculum Project. McNiff (2002) points out that Stenhouse main‐
tained curricula should be organised in schools so they were significant and
pertinent to the experience of students, who should be encouraged to take re‐
sponsibility for their own learning. He also endorsed the concept of the
teacher being a researcher as well.

Discussions on action research tend to fall into two groups. One is the British tradi‐
tion, which is inclined to regard action research as research oriented towards the im‐
provement of direct practice, and is generally linked to education. The other tradi‐

6
tion, more prevalent in the United States, and probably more widely used in the so‐
cial welfare field, is of action research as “the systematic collection of information that
is designed to bring about social change” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992, p. 223).

Academics, particularly in higher education, further developed action research. They

viewed it as a helpful and practical way of working in professional education, mainly
teacher education. “They began studying and clarifying the steps involved, and also
the principles underpinning action research, such as the need for democratic prac‐
tices, care and respect for the individual, and the need for disciplined enquiry”
(McNiff, 2000, p. 8). Nowadays, action research is also well‐known in other profes‐
sional learning contexts such as management education, organisation studies, and
social and health care work. Gabel (1995, p. 1) points out that “action research has
been described as an informal, qualitative, formative, subjective, interpretive, reflec‐
tive and experiential model of inquiry in which all individuals involved in the study
are knowing and contributing participants”. This means action research is a course of
action devised to empower all individuals concerned with the intention of improving
the practices carried out within the educational experience. McNiff (2002, p. 9) em‐
phasizes that “no one tells another what to do in action enquiry; we all share and
value one another’s learning”. It is important to view action research as an individ‐
ual, or a group of individuals, working together collaboratively to explore given areas
of concern, acknowledge what they know, and then generate new knowledge.
Aguinis (1994, p. 419) adds to this by stating that action research can be seen as the
“application of the scientific method to problem solving and fact finding in organiza‐
tions, with the difference that there is an active participation not only by the re‐
searcher but also by the members of the organization”.

Defining action research

From an educational perspective, McNiff (2002, p. 6) states that the term “action re‐
search” refers to “a practical way of looking at your own work to check that it is as
you would like it to be”. It is often referred to as practitioner‐based research as it in‐
volves practitioners, and is also known as self‐reflective practice as it involves indi‐
viduals or practitioners reflecting on their own work. This self‐reflection is a key
element within action research. Action researchers do not enquire solely into others’
lives, but also simultaneously address their own functioning as researchers. McNiff
(2000 p. 6) captures this aptly in her statement that “action research is an enquiry
conducted by the self into the self”.

Action research is known by many other names too – participatory research, collabo‐
rative inquiry, emancipatory research, action learning, and contextual action research.
These are all, however, variations on a principle. O’Brien (2001, p. 1) states that “put
simply, action research is ‘learning by doing’ – a group of people identify a problem,
do something to resolve it, see how successful their efforts were, and if not satisfied,
try again”.

7
As action research is open‐ended research in which techniques are examined system‐
atically and scientifically, it starts with a concept, perception, or idea that has been
developed, rather than starting with a fixed hypothesis. Central to this is the devel‐
opmental process of following through the perception or idea, seeing how it is pro‐
gressing, and constantly checking its development. Seen in this way, action research
is a form of self‐evaluation.

Ferrance (2000, p. 2) maintains that implicit in the term action research is the notion
that the researcher or practitioner “will begin a cycle of posing questions, gathering
data, reflection, and deciding on a course of action”. Gilmore, Krantz, and Ramirez
(1986, p. 161) state that

action research ... aims to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in
an immediate problematic situation and to further the goals of social science
simultaneously. Thus, there is a dual commitment in action research to study a
system and concurrently to collaborate with members of the system in chang‐
ing it in what is together regarded as a desirable direction. Accomplishing this
twin goal requires the active collaboration of researcher and client, and thus it
stresses the importance of co‐learning as a primary aspect of the research proc‐
ess.

Widely accepted definitions of action research include:

A systemic inquiry that is collective, collaborative, self‐reflective, critical and under‐

taken by participants in the inquiry. (McCutcheon & Jung 1990, p. 148)

[Action research] ...aims to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an

immediate problematic situation and to the goals of social science by joint collaboration
within a mutually acceptable ethical framework. (Rapoport, cited in Hopkins, 1985)

Action research is simply a form of self‐reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in

social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own practices,
their understanding of these practices, and the situations in which the practices are
carried out. (Carr & Kemmis, 1986, p. 162)

[Action research] … seeks to bring together action and reflection, theory and practice,
in participation with others, in the pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing
concern to people, and more generally the flourishing of individual persons and their
communities. (Reason & Bradbury, n.d., p. 1)

According to Ferrance (2000, p. 9), four basic themes emerge from these definitions:

1. empowerment of participants

8
 2. collaboration through participation
3. acquisition of knowledge, and
4. social change.

The procedure through which researchers go to attain these themes is a spiral of ac‐
tion research cycles consisting of major phases that will be discussed later.

Characteristics and principles of action research

A number of characteristics and principles set action research apart from other tradi‐
tional forms of research. These include: collaboration between researcher and practi‐
tioner; solution of practical problems; practical experience; change in practice; reflex‐
ive critique; theory development; and publicizing the results of the inquiry (Holter &
Schwartz‐Barcott, 1993; Zuber‐Skerritt, 1992; Reason, 2001; Winter 1989).

Collaboration
The focal point of collaboration requires interaction between a researcher or a re‐
search team and a practitioner or a group of practitioners. These practitioners are in‐
dividuals who know their particular field from an internal perspective and know
how things are done. The researcher is an outsider who has expertise in theory and
research. The collaboration between these two parties can fluctuate from intermittent
to continuous collaboration throughout a project (Hart & Bond, 1995; Holter &
Schwartz‐Barcott, 1993). The researcher is often seen as a co‐worker researching with
the practitioners. This group may be expanded to include all individuals who will be
affected by the practices (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; Zuber‐Skerritt, 1992). Sankar,
Bailey, and Williams (2005, p. 5) emphasise that “the role of the researcher is not that
of an expert who does the research, but that of a resource person. He or she becomes
a facilitator or critical friend who acts as a catalyst to assist stakeholders in defining
their problems clearly and to support them as they work towards effective solutions
to the issues that concern them”.

Reason (2001, p. 2) points out that an essential value of action research strategies is to
increase the involvement and participation of individuals in creating and applying
knowledge about themselves and about their worlds. He continues:

…it is no longer possible to do research on persons. It is only possible to do re‐

search with persons, including them both in the questioning and sense making
that informs the research, and in the action which is the focus of the research.

These collaborative relationships need time to develop successfully.

9
Furthermore, a collaborative component presupposes that each individual’s ideas
and views are equally important as potential resources for generating interpretive
categories of analysis, negotiated among the participants (Winter, 1989).

Problem solving
One of the key purposes of action research is as a tool to solve practical problems in‐
dividuals may experience in their professional or private lives, or within their com‐
munity. A problem is defined relative to a particular setting or situation which has
been decided by the group, organisation, or community. Various data collection
methods such as observations, interviews, and questionnaires can be used to identify
the problem (Holter & Schwartz‐Barcott, 1993).

Practical experience
Reason (2001, p. 2) mentions that while most forms of academic research detach “the
knower from what it is to be known, and conduct their research from a distance
(through surveys and questionnaires, for example), action research is rooted in each
participant’s in‐depth, critical and practical experience of the situation to be under‐
stood and acted in”.

Change in practice
The outcomes and insight achieved through action research should lead to practical
changes and improvement in the problem areas identified. The outcomes should not
only be of theoretical importance (Zuber‐Skerritt, 1992). The change in practice de‐
pends on the type of problem which was identified (Holter & Schwartz‐Barcott,
1993). Reason (2001, p. 2) states that possibly the primary purpose of action research
is “to develop practical knowing embodied moment‐to‐moment action by re‐
search/practitioner, and the development of learning organizations ‐communities of
inquiry rooted in communities of practice”.
Reflexive critique
Reflexive critique ensures that individuals reflect on issues and processes and make
explicit the interpretations, biases, assumptions and concerns upon which judgments
are made. As a result, practical accounts can give rise to theoretical considerations
(Winter, 1989).

Theory development
A significant objective of action research is that the results help the researcher expand
current theories and develop new ones (Holter & Schwartz‐Barcott, 1993). Through
the process of action research, practitioners are able to develop a logical and consis‐
tent justification for their work. All the evidence collected and the critical reflection
that takes place help create a “developed, tested and critically‐examined rationale”
for the practitioner’s area of practice (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988, p. 25). O’Brien
(2001) states that “for action researchers, theory informs practice, practice refines the‐
ory, in a continuous transformation”.

10
Reason (2001, p. 3) points out that action research endeavours to develop theory
which is not merely abstract and descriptive but rather is a guide to inquiry. He
states that “a good theory arises out of practical experience, articulates qualities of
practice to which we aspire, and challenges us”.
In addition, the change process brought about by action research potentially threat‐
ens all previously established ways of doing things, thus there is also an element of
risk in conducting action research.

Public results
The theories and solutions produced from the action research should be made public
to other participants and also to the wider community who may have an interest in
that particular setting or situation (Zuber‐Skerritt, 1992, p. 14). The characteristics of
action research are succinctly presented in the CRASP model developed by Zuber‐
Skerritt (1992, p.15). Action research is:

Critical collaborative enquiry by

Reflective practitioners being
Accountable and making the results of their enquiry public,
Self‐evaluating their practice and engaged in
Participative problem‐solving and continuing professional development.

Action research design

A number of models and different approaches with diverse and multiple interpreta‐
tions of action research have developed over the years; as is true of scientific enquiry
on the whole. Some individuals highlight technical aspects, while others focus on the
values that inform action research. The different perspective of the nature and focus
of action research, who does it, why, and how it is done, often create energetic delib‐
erations, heated debates, and even valid disagreements. Ultimately, as McNiff (2000,
p. 8) emphasises, “there is no one ‘correct’ way; you must decide what is right for
you, and develop your own views”.

Stringer (1999) maintains that action research operates within three basic phases:

Look – constructing a picture and collecting information. When evaluating, one

outlines and describes the problem to be investigated and the context in which
it is set. One also describes what all the participants have been doing.
Think – interpreting and explaining. When evaluating, one analyses and
interprets the situation, and reflects on what the participants have been doing.
Areas of success, as well as problem areas are considered.
Act – resolving issues and problems. When evaluating, one judges the worth,
effectiveness, appropriateness, and outcomes of those activities. One takes
action to devise solutions to any problems identified.

11
Elliott (cited in Hopkins, 1985), however, adds an additional step or phase and
suggests that the essentials of action research design are:

Reconnaissance and General Plan – where an understanding of a problem or issue

is developed, and plans are put together for some type of intervention.
Action – where the intervention is implemented.
Observation – where, throughout the intervention, relevant and important
observations are gathered in a variety of forms. Basically, this is monitoring
the implementation by observation.
Reflection and Revision – where the new strategies are implemented, and the
cyclic process repeats, continuing until a satisfactory understanding of the
problem or issue is accomplished.

Regardless of the terminology used to typify action research, the basic principle
underpinning it is that this research involves “identifying a problematic area,
imagining a possible solution, trying it out, evaluating it (did it work?), and changing
practice in the light of the evaluation” (McNiff, 2000, p. 7). This is a basic problem‐
solving process. However, to turn it into an action research process, researchers need
to state why they want to examine or explore a particular issue and collect
information or data to show the process. Such information or data act as evidence in
terms of whether the researchers believed they were moving in the direction they
were anticipating reaching in the first place. Essentially, the methodology of action
research is that researchers need to evaluate what they are researching, and
continually ensure that what they are researching is actually working and reaching
the desired objective/s. Action research cannot be conducted on a once‐off basis, but
is rather a continuous process – hence its cyclical or spiral nature.

Stringer (1999, p. xvi) comments that general themes that emerge from the diverse
approaches to action research “all acknowledge fundamental investment in processes
that:

• are rigorously empirical and reflective (or interpretative)

• engage people who have traditionally been called ‘subjects’ as active
participants in the research process and
• result in some practical outcome related to the lives or work of the
participants”.

The cyclical nature of action research

McNiff (2002, p.11) provides a very clear and succinct procedural overview of the
cyclical nature of action research where the basic steps of an action research process
constitute an action plan. These basic steps are that we:

12
 • review our current practice,
• identify an aspect that we want to investigate,
• imagine a way forward,
• try it out,
• take stock of what happens,
• modify what we are doing in the light of what we have found, and con‐
tinue working in this new way (try another option if the new way of
working is not right),
• monitor what we do,
• review and evaluate the modified action, and so on …

McNiff (2002) states that fundamentally there are two processes at work: firstly the
researchers’ systematic actions as they work their way through these steps, and
secondly, their learning. She (2002, p. 11) says that “your actions embody your
learning, and your learning is informed by your reflections on your actions”. The
action research cycle can thus develop into new action research cycles, as additional
areas of investigation materialize. Clearly, action research does not proceed in an
orderly linear way as conventional research often does, starting with a hypothesis
and proceeding to a conclusion (depicted in Figure 1 below):

Figure 1. Conventional Research Process (adapted from Wadsworth, 1998).

Instead of a linear model, action research advances through cycles, ‘starting’ with
reflection on action, and proceeding round to new action which is then further re‐
searched. It is worth noting that the new actions differ from the old actions, in that
they are literally in different places. This is clearly illustrated in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2. Action research cycles (from Wadsworth, 1998).

Hughes (2000, p. 1) states that “some action research projects start off with fuzzy
questions. The first action research cycle may provide fuzzy answers to lead to less

13
fuzzy questions, less fuzzy answers and so on, until later cycles are able to provide
precise answers to specific questions”. Dick (2003, p. 4) maintains that the “cyclic
process confers a valuable flexibility. It isn’t necessary for the researcher to have a
precise research question or a precise research methodology before beginning a re‐
search study. Both the research process and the understanding it yields can be re‐
fined gradually over time. In other words action research is an emergent process
with a dual cycle: an action cycle integrated with a research cycle”.

Action planning

Although there are several action plans available, the one highlighted here, devel‐
oped by Jack Whitehead, has become popular around the world, that is, the one
(McNiff, 2002). The aim of creating a plan is for researchers to ask critical questions
about their own practice, and find the answers for themselves. The actual process of
asking questions is as important as finding the answers. Whitehead’s modified ver‐
sion of an action plan is presented by McNiff (2002, p. 14):

• What issue am I interested in researching?

• Why do I want to research this issue?
• What kind of evidence can I gather to show why I am interested in this is‐
sue?
• What can I do? What will I do?
• What kind of evidence can I gather to show that I am having an influence?
• How can I explain that influence?
• How can I ensure any judgements I might make are reasonably fair and
accurate?
• How will I change my practice in the light of my evaluation?

Although this is not meant to be prescriptive but is rather a suggested approach, it is

important to bear in mind that everyone is responsible for their own practice and
therefore for asking their own questions.

Action research protocol

The protocol for action research is iterative and cyclical in nature. Its intention is to
cultivate a deeper understanding of a particular situation, starting with the
conceptualization of a problem or issue and progressing through several
interventions and evaluations. Kemmis (in Hopkins, 1985) provides a diagrammatic
representation of an action research protocol (Figure 3), with each cycle comprising
four steps: plan, action, observe, and reflect.

14
Figure 3. Kemmis’ action research protocol (cited in Hopkins, 1985).

Later protocols manifest changes in the goal as determined by experience during

reflections on earlier iterations of action research. However, the protocol used in the
action research projects within the Literacy and Employment project discussed in this
report, is the one depicted in Figure 3. Specific details of the stages will be explained
in the individual sections reporting on the action research projects undertaken.

Dick (2003, p. 1) states that being iterative, “action research is an emergent

methodology – it accumulates understanding gradually. It can begin with very loose
ideas about what is happening in the relevant system”. As seen in Figure 3, the
iterative nature of action research is displayed along with the major steps of planning,
action, observation and reflection. Gabel (1995, p. 2) states, “this may be thought of
as similar in nature to the numerical computing technique known as successive
approximation – the idea is to close in upon a final goal or outcome by repeated
iterations”.

15
Types of action research

O’Brien (2001) explains that by the mid‐1970s four main types of action research had
emerged: traditional; contextural (action learning); radical; and educational action
research.

1. Traditional Action Research

Traditional action research originated from Lewin’s work and incorporates the con‐
cepts and practices of field theory, group dynamics, T‐groups, and the clinical model.
This traditional approach leans towards the conservative, and typically preserves the
status quo regarding organisational power structures.

2. Contextural Action Research (Action Learning)

Contextural action research, also known as action learning, is an approach derived

from Trist’s work on relations between organizations. Eric Trist, a key contributor to
the field from the immediate post‐war era, was a social psychiatrist whose group at
the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London participated in applied social
research, initially for the civil repatriation of German prisoners of war. Contextural
action research involves reconstituting the structural relations among individuals in a
social environment; is domain‐based, in that it attempts to engage all affected parties
and stakeholders; is holographic, as each participant comprehends the working of the
whole; and emphasizes that participant’s act as project designers and co‐researchers.

3. Radical Action Research

The radical stream, with its roots in Marxian dialectical materialism and the praxis
orientations of Antonio Gramsci, focuses on emancipation and addressing power im‐
balances. Gramsci, an Italian political activist jailed by Mussolini, advocated the
“renovation” and the “making critical” of the workers’ common sense (Selener, 1997,
p. 13). Participatory Action Research, often found in liberationist movements and
international development circles, and Feminist Action Research, both aspire to social
transformation through an advocacy course of action to strengthen peripheral groups
in society. Participatory Action Research will be dealt with later in a separate section.

4. Educational Action Research

Educational action research has its beginnings in the writings of John Dewey, the
American educational philosopher of the 1920s and 30s, who believed all professional
educators should become involved in community problem‐solving. Its practitioners
operate largely out of educational institutions, and concentrate on developing curric‐
ula, professional development, and applying learning within a social context.

16
The role of reflection

Possibly the major factor involved in action research is the concept of praxis. Schön
(1983) describes using reflection to create models from a body of previous
knowledge. These models are used to reframe a problem or issue; then interventions
are carried out which lead to outcomes which are analyzed further. This reflection‐
in‐action model concedes there is very little or no separation of research from
practice, and little or no separation of knowing and doing. Schön’s model enhances
the iterative and investigative nature of action research. McNiff (2002, p. 6) points
out that in traditional forms of research “researchers do research on other people”.
However, with action research, researchers do research on themselves, and enquire
into their own lives. This involves researchers asking themselves why they do the
things they do, and why they are the way that they are. An action research report
demonstrates how researchers have carried out a systematic investigation into their
own behaviours and the reasons for those behaviours.

Roberts (n.d.) points out that with action research in organisations, “the researcher(s)
tries to directly improve the participating organisation(s) and, at the same time, to
generate scientific knowledge”. He goes on to say that “this means that genuine ac‐
tion research projects should search for organisational improvements “during the
research, rather than after the research”. Although the term ‘scientific’ is not always
clearly definable, Roberts states that research projects without “systematic reflection
and learning” cannot be considered genuine action research projects. Reflection is
therefore a critical component of action research.

According to action research theory, “change does not come about as a result of
spontaneous acts, but through reflection on and understanding of specific problems
within their social, political, and historical contexts” (Selener, 1997, p. 105). There is,
therefore, interplay between understanding and change: understanding is motivated
by interest in change. In addition, change leads to a clearer understanding of a par‐
ticular situation (Usher & Bryant, 1989).

Reflection is a tool for promoting actions, and as Selener (1997, p. 105) points out, “ac‐
tion research is intended to lead to actions which promote improved educational
practices”. Ideally, action research as conceived by Lewin is an ongoing process of
reflection and action. Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) reiterate that action research
involves a self‐reflective spiral of activities: planning; action; observation; reflection;
re‐planning; and action.

Sankar, Bailey and Williams (2005, p. 4) point out that “critical reflection is a form of
analysis that not only explores how and why things happened but identifies the as‐
sumptions underpinning the analysis”. They add that an action research approach
“places much greater demands on those responsible for ‘action’ in the ‘research’ to be

17
involved in the ‘critical reflection’ processes, than is common with many research
approaches, where the responsibilities for action and research are separated”. As a
result of this, action research approaches are generally very collaborative.

Reflection in participatory action research is that moment where the research partici‐
pants examine and construct, then evaluate and reconstruct their concerns (Grundy,
1986, p. 28). Reflection includes the pre‐emptive discussion of participants where they
identify a shared concern or problem.

Participatory action research

Although there does not always seem to be a clear distinction between action research
and participatory action research (PAR), and in fact it is at times used interchangeably,
we have felt it necessary to differentiate between the two. Reason (2001) talks about
action research, participatory research, action learning, action science, action enquiry
and co‐operative enquiry, which in fact are “all contemporary forms of action ori‐
ented research which place emphasis on a full integration of action and reflection, so
that the knowledge developed in the inquiry process is directly relevant to the issues
being studies”.

Huizer (1997, p. 2) points out that

…in grassroots work in Third World countries a form of action research has
emerged which tried to utilize the research itself as well as knowledge ac‐
quired through it, to enhance the grip of the local people, the participants on
their own communities. From research objects they became research subjects…

defined as participatory action research. Seymour‐Rolls and Hughes (1995) state that
participatory action research is “a method of research where creating a positive social
change is the predominant driving force”. Greenwood, Whyte, and Harkavy (1993,
p. 177) capture the essence of participatory action research by stating that it “is a form
of action research in which professional social researchers operate as full collabora‐
tors with members of organizations in studying and transforming those organiza‐
tions”. It is a research approach that highlights ongoing co‐learning, participation
and transformation.

Greenwood et al, (ibid) continue by reasoning that participatory action research “en‐
hances problem formulation, hypothesis formulation, data acquisition, data analysis,
synthesis, and application”. Thus, conducting participatory action research is a very
collaborative process between researchers and members of a group or organization.
Participatory action research has as its main aim the finding of solutions to tangible
and concrete problems and disagreements. The results of such research, though, if
performed systematically and consistently, also contribute to a greater knowledge of

18
conflict‐solving methods as such, which can be applied to a range of concrete situa‐
tions. This is essential for the replication elsewhere of general theoretical knowledge
in this area, from which grassroots groups in different circumstances can benefit
(Huizer, 1997).

Elder and Chisholm (1993, p. 123) state that

…participation in the sense of co‐researcher status for participation is …. one

of the main characteristics of the emerging forms of action research …. Partici‐
pants are truly co‐researchers whose insider ‘local knowledge’ is as necessary
for valid scientific sense‐making as the outsider researchers’ technical expertise
and abstract general knowledge.

This is what distinguishes participatory action research from more traditional ap‐
proaches, and as Bartunek (1993, p. 1222) points out, this “implies that participants
contribute to the scholarly, as well as practical, outcomes of interventions”. Participa‐
tory research combines three key activities: research, education, and action. Selener
(1997, p. 17) adds that “it is a research method in which people are actively involved
in conducting a systematic assessment of a social phenomenon by identifying a spe‐
cific problem for the purpose of solving it”.

The distinctive features of participatory research are, first, the group or community’s
participation in the whole research activity which, second, is a process in which re‐
search is directly related to transformative actions (Selener, 1997). Dick (2003, p. 2)
states that “participation, by building shared understanding and shared commitment,
increases the motivation for collective and collaborative action”. Wadsworth (1988)
stresses that such research “is not participation followed by research and then hope‐
fully action. Instead there are countless tiny cycles of participatory reflection on ac‐
tion, learning about action and then new informed action which is in turn the subject
of further reflection”.

Selener (1997) provides participatory action research approaches which have been
developed and applied in four broad areas:

1. Participatory research in community development has its roots in Latin America

where it developed into its present form and where its main ideology
evolved in the early 1960s. Liberation theology and the sociology of libera‐
tion were two participator research approaches that showed the commitment
of Latin American social scientists to become active participants in the libera‐
tion of the poor and oppressed. Participatory research has been inspired by
Paulo Freire, critical consciousness, conscientization, and empowerment.
Freire introduced the concept of conscientization, meaning “the identification
and critical analysis of social, political, and economic contradictions, leading
to organized action to solve immediate problems and to counter the oppres‐

19
 sive aspects of society” (Selener, 1997, p. 14). Empowerment in participatory
action research allows individuals to construct and use their own knowledge.
Furthermore, Reason (2001, p. 1) points out that Freire emphasized “the im‐
portance of helping disadvantaged people develop critical thinking so that
they could understand the ways in which they were disadvantaged by the
political and economic conditions of their lives and could develop their own
organized action in order to address these issues”.

Thus the traditional role of the researcher has changed from an ‘objective’ ex‐
ternal role to a ‘committed’ co‐investigating one. This approach is mainly
applied in community‐based rural and urban developments in Latin Ameri‐
can, African and Asian countries, and is generally applied by educators,
community organizers, and facilitators. Members of an oppressed or ex‐
ploited community or group collaborate actively in identifying problems, col‐
lecting data, and analyzing their own situation in order to improve it. “A
major goal of participatory research is to solve practical problems at the
community level” (Selener, 1997, p. 12). This area of participatory research
will be explored further after the description of the four broad areas.

2. Action research in organizations “is an enquiry process intended to solve practi‐

cal problems and generate new knowledge through collaborative efforts by
researcher(s) and client(s)” (Selener, 1997, p. 8). Kurt Lewin recommended
learning about social systems by seeking to change them through action re‐
search.

3. Action research in schools has been carried out by teachers, principals, supervi‐
sors and administrators.

4. Farmer participatory research was developed mainly by agricultural researchers

and other rural development workers, and emphasizes the participation of
farmers in the “generation, testing, and evaluation of technology to increase
or promote sustainable agricultural production” (Selener, 1997, p. 10).

In participatory research there needs to be a balance between the knowledge, skills

and experience provided by the researcher and that provided by the group or com‐
munity. Maguire (1987, p. 37) argues that

…participatory researchers caution against either dichotomy: “They know, I

don’t know” or “They don’t know, I know”. Instead participatory research
offers a partnership: “We both know some things; neither of us knows every‐
thing. Working together we will know more, and we will both learn more
about how to know”. Participatory research requires that both the researcher
and the members of a group be open to personal transformation and consci‐

20
 entization. Participatory research assumes that both parties have knowledge
and experience to contribute.

Greenwood, Whyte, and Harkavy (1993, p. 177, footnote) clarify the need to add the
term participatory to action research:

It is interesting to note that many of our Scandinavian colleagues are surprised

by the American insistence on adding the term “participatory” to “action re‐
search”. From their perspective, action research is impossible without partici‐
pation. However, there are enough examples of non‐participatory action re‐
search in the United States to make the distinction meaningful to us.

21
22
Action Research in the Literacy and Employment
Project

Our projects feature a mix of types, arising from collaboration with Wanganui
community members which has identified areas needing research. These are not
necessarily problems per se, but represent areas in which community members would
like to see change or development. Community members in concert with university
personnel identify problem areas, collect the data then analyse the situation in order
to suggest desirable forms of change. Our Wanganui projects are certainly enquiry‐
based in that researchers and community members are actively involved in
researching various specified areas. An important intention is to generate new
knowledge to be disseminated throughout the community, then to be used by other
organisations or groups who are in similar fields. We see this as participatory action
research (Greenwood, Whyte, & Harkavy, 1993) in that we are professional social
researchers in collaboration with members of Wanganui training institutions, organi‐
zations or schools. Although our research projects do not engage the oppressed in
the same sense as might happen in Latin America, for example, they are nonetheless
community‐based.

As Selener (1997, p. 111) points out, action research is methodologically eclectic and
innovative and “does not follow any specific research methodology. The nature of
problems to be solved, the conditions in which they exist, and the action researcher’s
preferences and criteria will determine the appropriateness of the method to be
used”. That is, each project or study is unique and needs to be treated independently,
not forced into a particular framework. Our projects can be categorized under the
action research umbrella, but each is unique, with its own context, aims, characteris‐
tics, unique problems and solutions. Thus we seek to apply eclectic and creative
methodologies within each project. We agree with Dick (2003, p. 2) that “the actual
research methodology can also be adjusted and improved as understanding grows”.

Dick (2002) comments on participation, saying it is not an “all‐or‐none” affair. In‐

stead it comprises a continuum, ranging from much contact to a situation where the
community organizations do the research themselves with little or no assistance.
Dick (2002) states that some individuals would argue that it is not possible to have
action research with low levels of participation; however, opinions vary. Dick (2002,
p. 4) describes this continuum by distinguishing among non‐involvement, represen‐
tation, and participation. In non‐involvement the researcher does it all; representa‐
tion uses a small group of individuals who may speak on behalf of a bigger group;
and participation implies that all the stakeholders in a particular project are involved.

23
In our projects, we employ the term process consultation, which as Dick (2002, p. 5)
points out, “describes an approach which offers greater involvement to participants”.
As researchers, we manage the process by which the information is gained, work
alongside the participants to set the goals, develop and implement the plans, and in‐
terpret the resulting information. We agree with Uhlmann’s (1995) comment that: for
“real change to occur, participation by the people actually in the situation under re‐
search or affected by the outcomes (stakeholders) also has to occur”. She emphasizes
that participation by the stakeholders is essential because:

• they are familiar with the situation under research so they are able to
identify the initial issues very clearly
• they know the history and can tell the researchers what has been tried,
and what might be culturally acceptable
• they are able to act themselves and to evaluate solutions intimately as to
their suitability for their particular environment, and
• they will be there after our involvement in the research is complete and
will be able to progress the actions because they will have learnt about the
issues along the way.

Because the action research projects undertaken in this Literacy and Employment
project do not follow an identical model, the rationale and method used in each will
be explained separately.

Concluding remarks

Linking the terms “action” and “research” emphasizes the central features of this
methodology. Action research is appropriately named as it does just that: it pursues
action and research outcomes. As Dick (2000, p. 5) states, “action research is a family
of research processes whose flexibility allows learning and responsiveness. Vague
beginnings can move towards better understanding and practical improvement
through the critical analysis of the information, the interpretation of it, and the
methods used”. Hart and Bond (1995, p. 46) state that an action research project is
not necessarily fixed in any one approach, that is “during the life of an action research
project it may shift from one type to another as it moves through the spiral of cycles”.

Wadsworth (1997, p. 78) provides a very apt overview of action research stating that
it “is not merely research which it is hoped will be followed by action! It is action
which is intentionally researched and modified, leading to the next stage of action
which is then again intentionally examined for further change and so on as part of the
research itself”. Action research is not a problem‐solving method per se in that it does
not try to find out what is wrong, but as Ferrance (2000, p. 2) points out, it is “a quest
for knowledge about how to improve”.

24
As shown, action research is cyclical, participative, qualitative, and reflective. It is
cyclical, in that certain similar steps recur in a similar order at different stages of the
research, thus enhancing responsiveness by all the parties involved. It is
participative, in that researchers and other parties are active participants in the
research. It is qualitative, in that it deals more frequently with language rather than
numbers, it may be more time‐efficient and it is also easier to be flexible and
responsive to whatever situation. It is reflective, in that critical reflection on the
process and outcomes are crucial aspects of each cycle.

McNiff (2002, p. 13) provides a vivid description of the quality of action research: it
“is judged rather as ballroom dancing or ice skating: specific steps are executed in a
specific sequence with anticipated outcomes”. Building on this metaphor, let’s put on
our dance shoes and ice skates and glide into the presentation of the action research
projects we have undertaken.

25
Stepping through the Looking Glass: Action Research
at Training For You

When you have a student… you want to give them a voice in their world …
and also be able to read that world. So it’s being able to see that world fully
and also to have a voice about that world. You have to be able to ask the right
question to actually help them to read their world and voice what makes
them unique. (Margot Syder)

This section of the report describes the pilot study (in Kemmis’s terminology, Cycle 1)
and the first stages of a wider follow‐up (Cycle 2) of an action research programme
based at Training For You (TFY). The action research was conceived and designed by
Margot Syder, Learning Centre Supervisor at TFY, in consultation with the Adult Lit‐
eracy and Employment team, along with management and tutors at the training pro‐
vider. The role of the project team was largely facilitation, helping Margot develop
her ideas in a series of discussions. We also produced and printed the materials re‐
quired and conducted an analysis of the initial results for feedback and further reflec‐
tion. The aim was for the action research project to spring essentially from the needs
and interests of the training provider and to be conducted, interpreted, redesigned,
and owned by Margot and Training For You.

Developing the research idea

Training For You is one of the twelve adult literacy providers in Wanganui that
worked with the Adult Literacy and Employment team during the first phase of the
project in 2004 and 2005. Training For You management and staff had taken part in
interviews about their work as part of the first provider survey (Neilson & Culligan,
2005). Also, 17 Training For You students, along with participants from other adult
literacy providers, had shared life and learning experiences during interview sessions
conducted between November 2004 and January 2005 (Comrie, Olsson, Sligo, Culli‐
gan, Tilley, Vaccarino, & Franklin, 2005).

In early 2005, project team members gave a presentation to Wanganui adult literacy
providers about the concept of action research, describing how it might be applicable
in the local community. Margot Syder, the Learning Centre Supervisor at Training
For You, was extremely enthusiastic, recognising that working with researchers from
the project would give her a chance to explore various ways to improve teaching out‐
comes.

26
Margot has been teaching in the adult literacy field for 8 years. She has training and
experience with Literacy Aotearoa and Speld, has studied for her Adult Teaching
Certificate and for a number of Adult Education papers. Like most teachers, she had
a number of ideas for changing and developing teaching methods, several of which
sprang from a concern to give students at Training For You the skills to take them on
to further education if they wished. In particular, she had become interested in how
students perceived their own literacy, how they were assessed, and whether an accu‐
rate understanding of their skills and learning might be related to continued im‐
provement of their skills.

This research interest came from observing that beginning students often had little
idea of their own skills and of the literacy skills required to obtain the jobs or further
training they aspired to. Pre‐assessment, planning and goal setting along with train‐
ing appeared to encourage self reflection on students’ knowing and learning. Margot
had related these observations to theory about metacognition that she had encoun‐
tered while studying for her academic papers.

She said her initial concern was

Whether students reflect upon the progress they make, what reflections they
do make, and how we can help them reflect upon their learning so that they
can become more effective communicators and become more ‘literate’... in the
fullest sense of the word.

Margot describes herself as a practical person, adding that action research attracted
her as a way of combining theory and practice:

Sometimes as a literacy tutor I feel like I’ve got a can opener and I’m trying to
peer inside their head and work out how their brain thinks, so I can actually
help them. It’s as if you have to get down to actually understanding how they
learn and how they think and what they think about literacy before you can ac‐
tually help them. I do think that in that sense it’s imperative to understand the
whole area of cognition and metacognition.

She added that it was crucial for students to work out what strategies work for them.
Clearly, strategies have to be specific for students and different from those that have
been tried before: “Otherwise these students who have done ten years of school
surely would have progressed more. If it’s just been a matter of giving them the op‐
portunity, they would have learned.”

While as a tutor Margot teaches students specific skills that work, she believes that if
students are to take these skills and use them in other contexts they need to be taught
strategies: “Then I think they have to think about what those strategies are and
whether they work for them.” Her belief from observation was that giving students a

27
chance to analyse their learning will simultaneously give them the opportunity to
become more autonomous learners.

The research site

Training For You Ltd began in 1995 operating equine courses (horse care and knowl‐
edge) in the Wanganui region. Since then the company has grown into a training
provider offering Teacher Aide, Childcare, and Equine courses in the Taranaki and
Manawatu. It also offers equine and childcare courses for all secondary schools in the
Wanganui region through Gateway and STAR (Strategic Tertiary Alignment Re‐
source) courses.

Training For You students enjoying their courses

The organisation is NZQA‐approved to deliver:

• National Certificate in Equine Level 2 and 3 courses – 48 weeks.

• National Certificate in Early Childhood Education and Care Level 3 – 48
weeks. Also includes National Certificate in Employment skills Level 1.
• Certificate in Teacher Aiding (Level 4), developed by Training For You –
45 weeks.

The project centres on the organisation’s headquarters at the Wanganui Racecourse

and involves the courses taught there: equine studies (up to 2 students); early child‐
care (up to 17 students); and teacher aide (up to 12 students).

28
Students hear about the course from advertising and all students meet the criteria of
being either Training Opportunities (TOPS) or Youth Students (as defined by Work
and Income).

When students begin these year‐long courses in late January they receive an initial
assessment of their skills and learning, involving self‐assessment where students as‐
sess themselves against vocational, literacy, and numeracy expectations; formal as‐
sessments in vocational literacy in reading, writing, and numeracy; tutors also assess
oral and listening skills during the interview process. As a result, students’ individ‐
ual goals are ‘scored’ on a matrix. The matrices form the basis of one‐on‐one path‐
way planning sessions where students and tutors discuss learning strategies and set
individual goals for the course, learning, and literacy. These pathway plans are re‐
vised each term. At the end of the course, in an individual exit assessment, students’
plans and goals are reviewed and their achievements discussed.

The action research design builds on these practices which are already in place, add‐
ing a further process to encourage greater and more frequent reflection in students.
As will be seen, the process also has encouraged reflection on teaching and assess‐
ment practice among the tutors.

Cycle One – The pilot

Initial planning
The planning process took place over about 3 months. Margot met with the team in
March 2005 where she described how TFY worked and the areas she was interested
in researching. Over the following weeks she gradually narrowed down to her cen‐
tral research question: Does incorporating metacognitive skills [into a training programme]
aid literacy achievement?

Her challenge then became how to incorporate such skills into the teaching pro‐
gramme. The team discussed with Margot ways in which students could be encour‐
aged to reflect on their learning processes more regularly during the course of their
training. It was eventually decided that this could be accomplished by adding an
initial questionnaire, using regular diaries or logbook questionnaires and adding a
final questionnaire to the exit interviews. The processes would be incorporated into
the already established process of initial assessment, regular appointments with liter‐
acy tutors, and exit interviews.

The logbooks would be filled in by students on a weekly basis. If students did not
keep their diaries they would be asked to record their week during the regular meet‐
ing with their tutor and the tutor would record the answers.

29
At the same time, the tutors would also fill in a weekly logbook questionnaire, de‐
signed as a mirror image of the one that students were completing. Additionally,
tutors would take part in regular half‐hour focus groups to reflect on literacy teach‐
ing strategies and strategies used to encourage reflection.

The flowchart created by Margot is reproduced on the following page and illustrates
the steps in the process. At this stage the plan was for Cycle One to be conducted
over terms three and four to allow for an interim review and a chance to adapt any
questions in the diaries.

30
Research process flowchart

Information & Consent forms

developed.
Collate historical Initial Assessment infor‐
mation onto matrices.
Ethics approval gained.

Have an interim review of data

and a series of discussions at Participants: Students taught literacy and en‐
staff meetings at the beginning couraged to incorporate metacognitive strate‐
of term 4, to reflect on the group gies through reflections, in weekly journal
on strategies used and determine entries. Where students have not kept a jour‐
if any changes to the process/ nal they will be asked to recall their week
programme need to be made. orally, and the literacy tutor then records this.
Photocopies of entries collected.
Continue with amended ques‐
tions, if any, as per 3rd term. Questions to be formulated into individual
booklets: set 1 to be answered, using a 4 point
scale, at commencement only; set 2 to be
asked weekly during literacy one‐on‐one ses‐
sions; and set 3 answered as a written or oral
response at commencement and once again
Literacy reviews and final as‐ later (recorded by literacy tutor).
sessments completed
Tutors: ½ hour focus groups used to reflect
Practicum feedback upon literacy and metacognitive strategies
used throughout the week, as per set 1 of
Final tutor and student evalua‐ questions; notes to be recorded.
tions collated
Questions from set 2 formulated into individ‐
Information discussed with stu‐ ual booklets, answered using a 4‐point scale,
dents and exit questions and and answered on a weekly basis.
evaluations to proceed A simple tick box record to be kept of the
range of metacognitive strategies and form of
literacy instruction used across each pro‐
gramme.
Collate course outcomes

Analyse the effectiveness of the

programme and assessment Redesign assessment process and literacy
process programme

Final evaluation

31
Questionnaire development
Margot was asked for initial ideas for the questionnaires, which the team then wrote
up as a draft. This went back to Training For You and further changes and amend‐
ments were suggested in discussions and emails. This cycle was repeated several
times revising and refining the questions and logbooks until Training For You was
satisfied with the results.

The action research project then went through the formal process of the Massey Uni‐
versity Ethics Committee and approval was granted on 15 September 2005.

Logbooks and questionnaire and booklets (see appendix A) were printed at Massey
University in early October ready for the final term of 2005.

Conducting the pilot study

As mentioned above, the pilot was conducted during Term 4, 2005 (from mid‐
October to mid‐December). Eleven students from the teacher aide and early child‐
hood courses participated, and the process for these students included:

• Completion of the pathway plan and literacy review feedback form. They
were asked whether they could understand the process and whether they
found the process helpful.
Completion of weekly log books. Initially, time was spent explaining
some of the questions, so the students had a good understanding of what
was expected from them. Students completed the weekly log books when
they visited the staff at Training For You for their normal one‐on‐one lit‐
eracy meetings. Students reflected back on the whole previous week or the
end of the week that had just finished.
• Completion of the self‐appraisal form at the end of the programme. This
was designed to indicate whether students’ metacognitive abilities had
improved across the duration of the course.

Five tutors participated in this pilot study. They were asked to complete question‐
naires and participate in meetings to discuss their perception of the effectiveness of
the metacognitive strategies employed and to reflect on how they tutor literacy with
the aim of making their teaching more responsive to students’ needs. The intention
was that this in turn should enable students to fulfil individual goals in employment
and/or going onto further study. The process for tutors included:

• Completing weekly log books.

• Completing weekly feedback and appraisal results forms which looked at
methods used to teach literacy skills; methods they thought students
found most helpful; literacy skills identified as a requirement for students
to progress onto higher learning; measurement of progress in developing
these literacy skills; methods of evaluation to assess the success of the lit‐

32
 eracy programme; and how students perceived the effectiveness of the lit‐
eracy programme.

Analysing the pilot

The project team analysed the results in January 2006, sending a detailed 36‐page re‐
port back to Training For You at the end of the month. Some of the main results are
summarised below.

Students’ Pathway plan and literacy review feedback: The pathway plan and literacy re‐
view feedback form was completed by all the students at the beginning of the study
(in the first week of Term 4). The results showed that this initial process is helpful in
building understanding of skills and self reflection. Nine of the eleven students said
their literacy skills had been assessed in a way they understood, and nine said they
had understood the goal‐setting process. All the students reported finding the proc‐
ess helpful in planning their goals and all said they were now better able to reflect on
their skills and those required to meet their goals.

Students’ Weekly Log Books: Students were requested to complete weekly log books.
These log books consisted of nine questions with a Likert scale in which students
ticked a block; and four open‐ended questions looking at issues such as helpful liter‐
acy skills, helpful methods in improving literacy, the usefulness of the literacy pro‐
gramme, and any suggested changes to the literacy programme.

Perhaps the key finding was that the number of students filling in the log books
dropped off after the first 4 weeks. By the final week – week 7 – only two of the
eleven students were still filling them in. This led to Training For You reducing the
number of times log books were used in Cycle Two.

Bearing this drop off of responses in mind, we present some general results from the
logbook analysis below.

In the first 2 weeks, half the students sometimes figured out what they needed to
know. By the third week and beyond, students said they often or very often figured
out what they needed to know. This is a positive shift in that the teaching and learn‐
ing is helping students take the responsibility and initiative of working out what they
need to know. Another positive aspect of the study reveals that while students ini‐
tially tried to memorize everything they might need to learn, over the course there
was a gradual move towards memorizing only on certain occasions. It is possible
students had come to realise that memorizing everything was not very beneficial.

The logbooks, however, showed that only occasionally did students check to see
whether they remembered what they had learnt, indicating that tutors could possibly
build in activities to encourage students to stop more often and think about what
they remember from a particular session or week’s work.

33
While students were inclined to continue to try to memorise new material as the term
progressed, the inclination to look for additional sources of information if they did
not understand something they had learned did increase. They appeared very often
to try to relate new material to things they had previously learned and to try to figure
out how the skills and information they were learning might be useful in real life
situations. In an open‐ended question students identified maths and writing as the
most useful skills to achieve course objectives. However, this could be because maths
and writing are the skills students struggled with, rather than being the most impor‐
tant literacy skills required. Reading, speaking, computer skills, understanding, re‐
search, and creative skills received comparatively few mentions.

Students also commented on what methods they found most helpful in improving
their literacy and how useful the programme was to them – with the majority indicat‐
ing the programme was very useful. This was reinforced by suggestions they made
for improvement: the need for more literacy work; more maths work, including
‘hands on’ practice of measurement; more one‐on‐one sessions; and more challenge
in terms of deadlines and expectations.

Students’ Exit Process Feedback Form: Ten students completed this between 9 and 16
December. The Likert scale responses showed the students felt they had achieved
those personal and literacy goals that had been identified at the beginning of the
course; they felt they had achieved their modified goals; and that this had affected the
way they approach their learning.

In responses to open‐ended questions about skills they intended using in the future,
half the students mentioned writing, maths and skills to help understanding. Three
mentioned learning to study. Two mentioned both computer skills and reading skills.
Other comments included listening, speaking skills, CV writing, and shopping and
budgeting.

Students also commented on the impact of the difference between their goals and
their literacy assessment. Most of these comments centred on the fact that this helped
them focus and change their learning, that it had increased their understanding, and
showed them what they needed to do. Two students said the process had given them
confidence to achieve more than they thought.

Tutors’ Weekly Logbooks: Five tutors took part in the pilot and were asked to fill in log
books consisting of nine questions where tutors checked a block on a Likert scale and
provided any additional comments. While all five filled in their logbooks in the first 3
weeks, their participation dropped off after that. This again raises questions about the
overall data reported here, and about the best method of collecting data in the main
project.

34
Tutors reflected on their students’ learning in a series of questions that paralleled
those questions filled in by individual students. The results generally revealed that
tutors were less sanguine about students’ learning than the students themselves.
Compared with their students, tutors rarely ticked the ‘very often’ box.

The tutors believed that when learning, students ‘sometimes’ figured out what they
needed to know. Across the 6 weeks of logbook records tutors overall thought stu‐
dents forced themselves to check to see if they remembered what they had learnt ‘on
occasion’. Some tutors said that students did this often, while one tutor said that they
almost never did this. Tutors gave mixed responses when asked if they felt students
tried to figure out which concepts they had not understood, but it appears that gen‐
erally, tutors felt students did attempt to do this. Tutors felt generally students re‐
membered main points and tried to relate new material to things they had previously
learnt. However, tutors believed that students almost never or only sometimes
looked for additional information when they did not understand concepts.

More positively, although there were mixed responses, it appears tutors thought their
students tried to work out how the information or skills they were learning might be
useful in real life situations they might face.

Across the weeks, there were 23 comments from tutors on what factors helped de‐
termine the success of the literacy programme. Five of these related to the importance
of one‐on‐one tutoring. Relating course content to real life in various ways was also
mentioned five times. Tutors’ own preparation and planning was mentioned several
times, as were student motivation, use of different strategies, and links to different
learning styles. Other comments included: recognising the teaching moment, involv‐
ing everyone in group work, reviewing goals, and students developing self‐
evaluation and self‐monitoring strategies.

The most common methods used to teach literacy included, in order of frequency,
relating or comparing real life or prior knowledge; mind maps or graphic organisers;
activities structured to learning style; games; class, group discussions, brainstorming,
questions etc; goal setting and planning; one‐one‐one teaching; handouts, worksheets
or checklists.

Methods tutors thought students found most helpful or were most responsive to in‐
cluded: those structured to learning style; those relating to or comparing with real life
or prior knowledge; games; and class or group discussions, brainstorming or ques‐
tions. The literacy skills tutors identified as a requirement for students to progress
onto higher learning included (in order of most frequent mention): maths; writing;
reading; speaking; and understanding. Tutors felt the teaching of literacy skills was
successful and listed a variety of methods they used to assess individual progress and
the success of the programme.

35
Overall, tutors believed the literacy programme was effective. Their comments re‐
flected the range of student ability and motivation, that students were enjoying the
work, or gaining confidence, and that the programme was working for most stu‐
dents.

Reflection and revision of research following the pilot study

The full results from the pilot study were discussed by Training For You tutors in
February 2006, and their responses fed back to the team to plan the next cycle. The
initial analysis contained comments and interpretations from the Massey team which
were discussed and frequently questioned by the staff at Training For You. While
tutors had found the process valuable, they also made clear their concerns about the
large amount of time the process was taking.

A number of changes and refinements to questions for students and tutors were dis‐
cussed with the Massey team and it was also suggested that questions in the log‐
books should be reduced. The reflection task for tutors was clarified. It was further
decided that logbooks would be filled in less frequently and this should be done at
times connected to key parts of each course – for instance, following a practicum.

The second cycle of action research

The second cycle of action research at Training For You is currently underway. Ques‐
tionnaires and logbooks were redesigned and the new versions were presented to the
Massey University Ethics Committee for approval in March 2006. Training For You
tutors decided on ten critical dates for logbook reflections, which followed times
when crucial ‘chunks’ of learning would have been completed in the courses.

The second cycle started in April 2006 with students filling in the pathway plan and
literacy review feedback forms. The reflection process will continue across the whole
year with students and tutors from all three major certificate courses in the Wanganui
campus (Equine Skills, Early Childhood Education and Teacher Aiding) taking part.

It is planned to collate the first stage of data in August, which will provide an oppor‐
tunity for feedback into some practices for the second half of the year. Training For
You hopes that, following a final collecting and analysis of data at the end of the year,
the amended process of reflective logbooks will become incorporated as a regular
part of the teaching process in the organisation.

36
Wider benefits of the pilot study

It became clear that the research project was also having an effect on the tutors and
their teaching. Two aspects became obvious: the pilot study, as discussed above,
helped the organisation assess whether logbook processes and other forms of reflec‐
tion were ‘working’ for students and tutors and how to incorporate these processes
more effectively; the process helped tutors assess the effectiveness of the initial as‐
sessment and pathway process and reflect on parts of their literacy teaching.

In reflecting on the success of the pilot study, Margot Syder commented that tutors
regularly discussed their logbook responses with her and during these sessions ideas
were produced and help offered and asked for where necessary. When tutors were
asked in the logbooks what had succeeded in their teaching, they began to analyse
why. “Sometimes they’ve talked about the factors around what has helped the stu‐
dents. Sometimes they’ve talked about for themselves, what worked… So they talked
about the methods that they used and it was really interesting because what we
found is that some tutors just kind of wrote ‘worksheets’ down. And I said, ‘Yes, but
how did you actually teach it?’ So they found that they had to really think about it.”

Most important, tutors began to question their assumptions about students’ literacy
learning, which in class is blended seamlessly with the knowledge needed for their
specialty, for example, the concept of volume is taught as part of mixing baby feeding
formulae, and so on. When asked how progress in literacy/numeracy was measured
in such situations, tutors were sometimes vague. The pilot process combined with
their talks with Margot had helped them recognise this:
In fact, as a result from those sorts of comments, we’ve now decided that in
each unit and each module that we do, we’re going to start with some particu‐
lar integrated literacy component that we will concentrate on and we will have
some form formative assessment – not necessarily formal – in there. Then we
can actually see whether they’ve actually learnt, whether it was adding time or
something like that…that they can actually do that. We currently do that in the
learning centre, one‐on‐one, but not in the class.

The pilot study had a double effect – influencing teaching and assessment strategies
and shaping the study for the second cycle.

37
38
Establishing a Family Learning Project at Castlecliff
School in Wanganui

Introduction

The home is a child’s first school and the parent or caregiver the child’s first and most
important teacher. The concept of family learning builds on this natural learning
bond. Family learning comprises the different ways parents, children and extended
family members use literacy during their day‐to‐day tasks and activities at home and
in their communities. In Year 1, parents or caregivers play a crucial role in helping
their children consolidate emerging literacy skills. These literacy skills ease their sub‐
sequent acquisition of language, literacy and cognitive skills, which form the basis for
success in the learning context. Sharing books and literacy activities with children
helps them develop those essential emergent reading skills needed before learning to
read (for example, how pages are turned, how pictures work, and how the story is
structured).

A family learning project with Year 1 children at Castlecliff School in Wanganui be‐
gan in early 2006. Parents or caregivers attend fortnightly workshops to learn how to
share books and literacy activities with their children. The method includes ques‐
tionnaires given to the children and their parents or caregivers; the project will be
closely monitored and observations documented; and final interviews with all stake‐
holders (children, parents or caregivers. teachers, principal) will take place.

This is an action research project, and the intention is for Castlecliff School to imple‐
ment an ongoing family learning project with all Year 1 children entering the school.
The primary research intention is to ascertain how well family learning intervention
helps address learning goals within a school context; and to establish high‐quality
family learning practice in New Zealand.

School background

Castlecliff Primary School is a co‐ed school, with years 1 to 6, situated in Polson

Street, Castlecliff, Wanganui. It is ranked at Decile 1 on a ten‐point scale: Decile 1
schools draw their students from areas of greatest socio‐economic disadvantage,
while Decile 10 schools are in areas of least disadvantage. The school has been part of
the Castlecliff community for more than 125 years, and works to reflect the highest
values and aspirations of the parent community in its education programme, which is
aimed at helping all students find and develop their talents. The school’s mission

39
statement is ʹLearning for life in a supportive environmentʹ and its motto is ‘deeds not
words’. Castlecliff Kids have PRIDE, and the following values are promoted:

P Peacefulness Maungarongo
R Respect Taumatatanga
I Integrity Rangatiratanga
D Determination Manawanui
E Excellence Taumatatanga

To provide a professional and expert overview of the school, the following summary
of the April 2003 Education Review Office (ERO) evaluation (Education Review Of‐
fice, 2003) is provided:

Castlecliff School is a medium sized Wanganui primary school with two par‐
tial immersion classes. Students benefit from the extensive playgrounds and
considerable extra classroom space available to support learning pro‐
grammes. A large, newly remodelled library and modern computer suite
provide students with high quality information and communication technol‐
ogy learning experiences.

Students and teachers work together in an environment that focuses on posi‐

tive behaviour. Students participate in a wide range of activities in multi‐
level class groups. They are friendly, well mannered and generally interact
positively with each other. All teachers use an effective range of teaching
strategies and classroom management skills to encourage positive outcomes
for students. They provide appropriate learning experiences, outline well‐
defined expectations and give clear guidelines to encourage students’ inde‐
pendence. Students are on‐task and enthusiastic about learning.

Self‐review information collected indicates that many students need consid‐

erable extra support in their learning. The curriculum is effectively arranged
to give extra emphasis on developing students’ literacy, numeracy and social
skills. New achievement indicators were developed across these areas as a
result of an assessment contract with Massey University. The indicators now
give a high level of coherence to focused planning, assessment and evalua‐
tion. They focus teaching by identifying the next steps for learning for each
student, class and year group. Teachers are continuing this development in
2003 to encourage more student goal setting and self‐assessment.

Teachers and trustees are successfully achieving their mission: to promote

learning for life in a supportive environment. A whole‐family focus within
the school links health, behaviour and learning needs. The board gives prior‐
ity to providing extra support personnel, funding extra teachers to reduce
class sizes and ensuring the staff has access to school‐based specialists.

40
 Teachers effectively work with and assist community agencies to benefit stu‐
dents. A well‐established, community based Tu Tangata programme pro‐
vides extra support for students in classrooms and the playground.

Extensive professional development promotes ongoing teaching improve‐

ment. All students receive instruction in the new numeracy teaching strate‐
gies. Castlecliff School is the lead school in a cluster of six currently partici‐
pating in an information and communication technology (ICT) contract. Stu‐
dents benefit from the modern programmes developed as a consequence of
this professional development.

The highly professional principal focuses on continuous, whole‐school im‐

provement. Considerable emphasis is placed on his leadership of pastoral
care for students and on keeping the school community involved and in‐
formed. He encourages the board and the parents to question achievement
results in order to increase the discussion on how to improve learning. Cas‐
tlecliff School benefits from a stable staff where teachers, teacher aides and
Tu Tangata personnel are well supported by their principal and students en‐
joy a secure environment.

Trustees are enthusiastic, well‐informed, and highly visible in the school.

They place a high priority on community consultation and developing goals
by this process. The board has effective self‐review strategies in place and
reports outcomes from review to the school community. The board recently
developed a new charter, and is using achievement plans and targets in
readiness for Ministry of Education reporting requirements in 2004.

Aims of the family learning project

The overall aim of this project was to establish family learning time to promote the
development of literacy, numeracy and communication skills in Year 1 children at
Castlecliff School. The goal was to determine what a successful school‐based family
learning project can achieve.

Other aims include:

• To improve quality family time together, and also improve parent or care‐
giver‐child relationships
• To provide children with opportunities to enjoy books, and literacy in
general, with their parents or caregivers
• To show parents or caregivers the important role they can play in support‐
ing their children’s learning and literacy development

41
 • To show parents or caregivers the importance of spending quality time
with their children
• To have a broader knowledge of activities to share with their children,
e.g., games, art

As noted, a research goal is to demonstrate what high‐quality practice comprises in

family learning, especially in a low decile school. Also desirable is to evaluate the
effects of a family learning project set within a community environment.

Methodology

Once approval was obtained from the Massey University Human Ethics Committee,
the principal and Year 1 teachers invited parents of all Year 1 children to take part in
an information session in which the family learning project was discussed. Some
parents could not, for various reasons, participate. The Year 1 teacher was asked to
spend additional reading time with those children whose parents could not partici‐
pate.

Information sheets and consent forms

Once the appropriate information sheets had been distributed to the parents, consent
forms were given to those who could participate. The project was explained to the
child by both the parents and the teacher. When the children had been asked by their
parents if they were happy to be part of the project, the parents signed the consent
form stating that their child could participate. The children also signed a consent
form. The Year 1 teacher and the principal also received information sheets and
signed consent forms.

Questionnaires
As the Year 1 children were not ready to complete a questionnaire, the researchers
asked the Year 1 teacher to interview the children and complete the questionnaire.

The parents’ questionnaire was distributed to those parents who had agreed to take
part before they attended the workshop.

Parent and child time

Parents were requested to spend 10 minutes a day, at least three times a week, shar‐
ing books and literacy activities with their children.

Family learning sessions

The parents and children who were able to attend the Family Learning Sessions every
fortnight were observed by one of the researchers (to see how the parent and child
interacted; how they shared books; what questions were asked; etc.).

42
Interviews
Interviews, about 30 minutes long, will take place at the end of the project.
Participants involved in interviews include:

- the children
- the parents
- the Year 1 teacher, and
- the principal.

Action research component

In this action research project we are using Kemmis’ action research protocol as out‐
lined in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Kemmis’ Action Research Protocol (cited in Hopkins, 1985).

In establishing the context for the action research intervention, namely setting up this
Castlecliff family learning project, it was important for us to identify the key issues
correctly, hence the focus for action. Very often parents, particularly of children with
emerging literacy, do not realise the important role they play in helping their children

43
learn and acquire literacy skills. Learning is not confined to formal schooling, but, to
a great extent, also takes place outside the school. By regularly sharing books with
children, parents become involved in their children’s learning and as a result the
children feel their parents are interested in their achievements. Children and parents
often develop a special bond when they spend quality time together sharing books
and literacy activities.

Our planning included the need for the researchers to monitor the fortnightly family
learning sessions, intervening whenever necessary, and being ready to provide par‐
ents with additional information or suggestions.

In the final stage, not yet reached, the researchers, principal, Year 1 teacher, parents
or caregivers and children will all have the opportunity to focus on the outcomes of
the intervention. Outcomes will be evaluated to ascertain whether goals were
achieved, whether the original diagnosis was correct, and whether the action taken
was appropriate. The review in this stage leads to the revised plan of the following
cycle, thus creating the spiral characteristic of action research.

Workshop
The first Castlecliff School workshop, began at 3.15 pm, and was attended by 11 par‐
ents/caregivers, namely four mothers, four fathers, a couple, and a grandfather, and
all were responsive and positive about reading to their children. The presence of the
principal and the enthusiastic class teacher was a great bonus as they comprised a
local, accessible link with the project’s aims. Their support was visible and appeared
to encourage parents.

While the children were free to come and go, which created a relaxed atmosphere,
and parents could leave when they needed, we will need to determine another more
convenient time as ending at 4.30 pm appeared too late for people anxious to attend
but at the same time needing to return home reasonably early.

After the introduction and the distribution of the handouts, parents were asked what
benefits they believed might come from sharing books with children. During these
discussions parents offered ideas about how such reading might help their children.
They were then asked to discuss with the group or with a partner how they share
books with their child.

The presenter then asked the parents whether they felt there were any right or wrong
ways to read books with children. It was emphasised that it is not just the act of read‐
ing a story to a child that is important, but particularly the nature of interaction be‐
tween the adult and the child. We then focused on how to share books with children.

44
 Next we looked at the importance of pic‐
tures in story books, and that “a picture
paints a thousand words”. Pictures extend
a child’s imagination, and there are so
many things a picture can “say”. Parents
compared the sentence “this is a cow” to
a picture of a cow. The picture of the
cow enables children to talk about dif‐
ferent aspects of the cow. Parents looked
at the picture of a cow provided in their
This is a cow handouts, and were asked to say what
questions they could ask their children
about this picture. The purpose of this
activity was to show parents how much information can be “read” and developed
from a picture of a cow.

Parents were very responsive and participative in this workshop. They asked many
questions and were very keen to try new ways of sharing books with their children.

Parents who attended the workshop were given a children’s storybook where the
words had been masked. To demonstrate the importance of “reading” the pictures as
well as focussing on the words, parents were asked to look at the pictures and create
their own stories.

45
Questionnaires
The parents completed an initial questionnaire on their family’s reading habits. At
the time of this report, the Year 1 teacher is still in the process of “interviewing” each
child who is participating in order to complete the questionnaire. Results from the
parents’ questionnaire are presented below:

Parent questionnaires
Ten parents completed the questionnaire. They were asked to state the activities their
children enjoying doing at home. The usual children’s activities such as games, rid‐
ing bikes, drawing, and watching movies, were reported. Three parents mentioned
that their children enjoy reading. In the next question (the questionnaire is attached
as Appendix A) nine parents wrote that their children enjoy reading, whilst one par‐
ent responded “yes” and “no”, possibly because the child might not be interested at
this stage. This parent went on to say that the child does, however, enjoying reading
a poem book. Other parents said their children enjoyed reading King Kong books,
adventure books, and books with bright pictures. Others said that the favourite
books are the ones “she brings home” or the books “she’s got at home”.

The parents were asked whether they read with their children. Only one parent re‐
sponded negatively; one said “most nights”; one said “sometimes, otherwise her mom or
grandmother reads to her”; and one said “when he’s in the mood”. And this is a real chal‐
lenge – getting a child to be “in the mood to read”!

Parents were asked whether they enjoyed reading. Four responded “yes”; one said
“yes, if I have the time”; two answered “sometimes”; two said “not really”; whilst one did
not respond. When they were asked what they enjoy reading, the range was from
children’s books, to military style books, to “all sorts” of books. Four parents read the
newspapers, and most read a variety of magazines.

Parents were asked whether they use the library. Seven responded “no”; one said “I
don’t get time to go there”; one said not often, 3 times per year”; and one said “yes, once a
month”.

They were asked whether they believed that reading with children is important, and
seven said “yes”; one said “definitely”; and two said “very important”. Those parents
who replied ‘yes’, were asked why they believed reading with children was impor‐
tant. Some of their responses included:

To help them with their learning

They learn a lot about different things
So they can learn
It is part of their learning
For the child to learn that reading is important for learning and skills
Good spending time learning together

46
 Because you both can get some time together in reading
Because kids copy their parents.

Clearly, these parents believe that reading with their children is important as it can
help them with their learning; and reading together means spending time together.

Family learning sessions

Oh no, what is the pig going to do now?!?

Three family learning sessions were planned for Term 2. However, these were not
successful. At the first session, only one parent arrived with her daughter. Some of
the children did not go to school that day as they were sick. Another parent sent her
apologies. The observation of the parent who was there went well, and it was evi‐
dent that some of the information from the workshop had been incorporated into this
family’s reading repertoire. For the second and third sessions, no one arrived.

Reflections

At the workshop, the Year 1 teacher and the principal suggested the material handed
to the parents might have been too difficult. As the principal is keen to make this
project a compulsory component for all Year 1 children entering the school, the idea

47
is to simplify the workshop by producing a booklet with limited words and lots of
photographs and illustrations (to cater for all or most adult literacy levels), for exam‐
ple:

Point to pictures and ask

questions, for example,
“what do you think the
donkey is doing here?”

As was noted above, only one parent attended the first monitoring session, while no
parents attended the 2nd and 3rd sessions. The question is how to motivate parents to
attend? This question will be discussed with the principal during the next term.

We could start in Term 3 by “reworking” the existing programme and testing it on

the Year 1 entrants (thus starting the next cycle of action research), while maintaining
the current parents on the “old” programme to obtain information on what is work‐
ing, what isn’t, why, what to improve.

Another issue is one of timing: when is the ideal or most convenient time to run
workshops and monitoring sessions? Some parents fetch their children from the
school then go to another school to fetch other children; or they may have sports
commitments and thus not be able to stay directly after school. However, evening
sessions or Saturday morning sessions may be costly as parents need to come to the
school solely for the family learning session.

A suggestion from the Year 1 teacher has been to use the last hour of school, i.e. from
2 pm to 3 pm every fortnight, for family learning sessions. Parents could come in any
time between 2 pm and 3 pm, choose a book with their child, sit in an allotted area in
the classroom and share the book. The researcher or monitor would then sit in the
background and observe at a little distance. This way, parents might feel less threat‐
ened that the researcher might be watching them in a judgemental way.

48
Workplace Literacy: The Workplace of the 21st Cen-
tury

Modernisation, dating from the late nineteenth century to the post‐war boom, saw
radical changes in the workplaces, for example, the change in production methods
from coal and steam to new technologies using electricity. Mass production systems
abounded, for example, the production systems of Henry Ford. During the so‐called
Fordist era, there was a sharp distinction between mental and manual aspects of jobs.
Gee, Hull, and Lankshear (1996, p. 26) point out that “workers, hired from the neck
down, had only to follow directions and mechanically carry out a rather meaningless
piece of a process they did not need to understand as a whole, and certainly did not
control”. In these work settings, management was typically hierarchical and central‐
ised, and employees were generally regarded as interchangeable.

Since then, the workplace has undergone radical changes, and as Gould (2002, p. xv)
points out, organisations have been “reinvented, downsized, streamlined, and reor‐
ganized. Technology has created an entirely new world of work, which requires em‐
ployees with new skills and competencies. The flattening of the traditional manage‐
ment structure and the rapid pace of technological innovation and change has trans‐
formed the workplace into a rapidly evolving electronic setting in which people work
together as teams to meet goals”. This is reinforced by Lonsdale and McCurry (2004,
p. 21) who state that “older manufacturing industries which depended on physical
capital – such as manual labour, the transportation of raw materials, factories and
warehouses – have been displaced by industries that depend on intellectual assets”.
Jobs have also been restructured and many involve complex data bases and share‐
ware (Searle, 1999).

The world economy is changing significantly, “with an increasing emphasis on the

creation and application of knowledge as the foundation for prosperity and social
inclusion” (Ministry of Education’s Tertiary Education Strategy, 2002, p. 10). Rapid
transformations in technology and communication systems have forced us to change
the way we think and work. Peterson, Ott, and Wilson (2002, p. 1) believe “we must
change the way we prepare for work, if we are going to remain competitive for the
next 100 years”. This not only includes individuals entering the workforce, but also
individuals who are already in the workforce. Mikulecky (1990, pp. 456–7) notes that
“as new jobs are created and old jobs disappear, new levels and types of print‐
communication skills for employment are also created. In addition, a significant per‐
centage of existing middle‐level workers need to increase their skills as their jobs
change or increase in difficulty”.

In the past, it was easier for many individuals to function effectively in the workplace
with limited literacy and numeracy skills. However, restructuring associated with

49
the technological, economic and global demands of the 21st century, is causing many
of these individuals to lose their jobs. In the current work environment most jobs
require good basic literacy skills. Employees need a much broader set of skills than
they did 20 or 30 years ago; and if they are to adapt and be part of the intense global
workforce, they need to continually learn new skills. According to Verizon (n.d.),
“basic skills include being literate in reading, writing, math and English language
proficiency. But basic skills also include the ability to interpret instructions and make
decisions. In today’s work environment, communicating effectively, solving prob‐
lems, resolving conflicts and working with people from other cultures are basic
skills”.

If they possess basic literacy skills, employees can access industry‐specific training,
boost their career prospects, and stand a better chance of remaining within an in‐
creasingly competitive job market. Comings, Sum, and Uvin (2000, p. v) point out
that “our workers are what fuels the state’s economic engine. They are our competi‐
tive advantage”.

Current discourses on work, often labelled as a “new work order” (Gee, Hull, &
Lankshear, 1996), indicate an important transformation from the traditional industry‐
based economy to the knowledge‐based service and information economies of the 21st
century. Castleton (2002, p. 559) states that “these discourses privilege a particular
account of work that creates new social realities and identities in workplaces, deline‐
ating new ways of being a worker”. This “information revolution and new knowl‐
edge‐based economy is reshaping how work is performed and where” (Ott, 2001, p.
1); and individuals need a concrete foundation of essential skills.

The Association of Canadian Community Colleges (2003, p. 6) argues that “one result
of the knowledge economy is that skills training in isolation is no longer sufficient.
As technology evolves, the knowledge and personal competencies that provide the
foundation for skills acquisition have become as important as the skills themselves”.
Our current knowledge economy requires skilled workers in particular to have
knowledge as well as personal competencies to gain new skills quickly, to perform
individually, to work well in groups, as well as deal with change as a part of life.
Johnson (2000, p. 7) points out that “in the workplace in particular, expectations of
what people need to know and be able to do are continually increasing across occu‐
pations – and the stakes have never been higher for those with low skills”. The 21st
century workplace therefore demands high‐performance employees.

That is, in order to meet the needs of the new workplace, employees need to be multi‐
skilled and adaptable and, according to Lonsdale and McCurry (2004, p. 22), to en‐
sure their ongoing employability, they “need to be receptive to lifelong learning”.
Johnson (2000, p. 7) also comments that in order to survive and prosper in the con‐
stant changes in the workplace, “adults need to continuously improve their knowl‐
edge and skills through a lifetime of learning”. The phrase lifelong learning has be‐

50
come an integral part of being a skilled worker in the new economy. Fischer (2000, p.
265) points out that “learning can no longer be dichotomized into a place and time to
acquire knowledge (school) and a place and time to apply knowledge (the workplace).
Today’s citizens are flooded with more information than they can handle, and tomor‐
row’s workers will need to know far more than any individual can retain”.

David Kearns, CEO of Xerox Corporation, stated that “literacy – real literacy ‐ is the
essential raw material of the information age. We are entering an era of lifelong
learning that merges work and education” (cited in Peterson, Ott & Wilson, 2000, p.
1). Comings, Sum, and Uvin, (2000, p. ix) point out that “as we focus our efforts to
tackle the twenty‐first century skills challenge, it is important that we think in terms
of the need for lifelong learning. Lifelong learning is the expectation of continuous
revising and upgrading of skills throughout a person’s life to keep pace with a chang‐
ing economy”. The report ‘Highlights from the Second Report of the International
Adult Literacy Survey: Literacy Skills for the Knowledge Society’ (2003, p. 12) notes
that

…although literacy is not the only determinant of employment levels, strong

literacy rates make a labour force more productive and employable over the
long run, providing incentives to attract capital investment and job creation.
Continuously upgrading the skills of populations and workforces through
strategies for lifelong learning should be part of the policy responses to tackle
poor, low‐wage jobs and persistent unemployment.

Mikulecky, Lloyd, Kirkley, and Oelker (1996, p. 64) state that “in an increasingly
global economy, the demands on workplaces to serve customers and compete on a
world level are growing all the time. As businesses face these challenges, literacy
demands also continue to expand”. Peterson, Ott and Wilson (2000, p. 9) point out
that “today’s employers demand more from their workers than basic reading, writing
and math competencies. They want to employ individuals who are flexible, willing
to learn technical skills and perform whatever functions are needed as the company
grows and changes”. Searle (1999, p. 1), too, states that “many jobs that traditionally
required minimal basic skills are becoming more complex, demanding higher‐level
reading and technological skills”.

Peterson et al. (2000, p. 12) also emphasise that “poor literacy skills have an economic
cost”; they cost companies that employ the workers, and also the workers themselves.
According to a report from the National Business Alliance (1996, p. 4), low levels of
literacy and inadequate basic skills entail “a hidden cost, the drag on productivity
and competitiveness”. Workers with low or inadequate basic skills have lower earn‐
ings, limited employment opportunities, and often depend more on public resources

Peterson et al. (2000, p. 7) provide a list of basic literacy skills that includes broad ar‐
eas such as communication skills, decision‐making skills, interpersonal skills, and

51
lifelong learning skills that “enable workers to not only be more effective and produc‐
tive workers today, but they also help them adapt and change to the demands of a
rapidly changing workplace”. Comings et al. (2000, p. vii) point out that “workers
now need solid literacy and math skills just to get their foot in the door of today’s
workplace, and over the next few decades, the expectations will only increase”.
Searle (1999, p. 1) argues that a critical technological literacy is required in the work‐
place, implying “a meta‐knowledge of the diverse meaning systems within the work‐
place as well as an understanding of the structures”, which Luke (1997, p. 11) refers
to as the “new digital data sphere”. Birkerts (1994) indicates that currently we are in
a ‘proto‐electronic’ age, which is an era of rapid shift from print‐based literacies to
electronic literacies.

Literacy in the workplace

Although there are many definitions of literacy in the literature, it is clear that one can
no longer refer to literacy as a singular entity, but rather we need to think in terms of
literacies. The increase in these literacies are at times termed “new literacies”, al‐
though, as Lonsdale and McCurry (2004, p. 32) state, “it is not clear whether these
literacies constitute ‘new’ sets of skills and understandings necessary for a trans‐
formed world, or involve the application and adaptation of ‘old’ skills (reading, writ‐
ing, speaking)”.

Street (1984) provides a distinction between ‘autonomous’ and ‘ideological’ literacy

models. In autonomous or ‘functional’ models, literacy is regarded as a measurable
individual attribute, is considered separate from context, is largely print based, with
its underlying purpose being “to imbue into individuals an acceptance of the domi‐
nant ideologies and its explicit purpose is to enhance the economic productivity of
the nation” (Lonsdale & McCurry, 2004, p. 7). In contrast, the ideological or social
practice models argue for multiple, learner‐centred literacies in which critical think‐
ing skills are important, to be assessed through ethnographic tools. These models
have a strong focus on social context and “a consequent shift from narrow vocational
outcomes for individual learners to more holistic outcomes related to empowerment
and capacity‐building for both individuals and communities” (2004, p. 8).

The International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS) defines literacy skills as “the ability to
understand and employ printed information in daily activities, at home, at work and
in the community – to achieve one’s goals, and to develop one’s knowledge and po‐
tential” (OECD, 2000, p. x). This, and the Government’s resulting Adult Literacy Strat‐
egy, are clearly rooted in an autonomous approach and lead, as Isaacs (2005) has
commented, to deficit approaches to policy development, that is, addressing what
people appear to lack in respect of functional literacy, rather than what they can do,
in respect of literacies.

52
There is no clear universal definition of literacy, but rather the focus is increasingly
on implications of what literacy entails within diverse contexts. Thus, when working
within the literacy field, it is imperative to formulate a clear description or definition
of what literacy entails within that specific context. As De Valenzuela (n.d.) states,
“the definition of ‘literate’, depends on the skills needed within a particular environ‐
ment”.

In the Ministry of Education’s Tertiary Education Strategy (TES) (2002, p. 37) literacy
is incorporated within foundation skills, which are defined as “a bundle of skills such
as literacy, numeracy technological literacy, communication skills, teamwork, ‘learn‐
ing to learn’ and self‐confidence skills”. The TES states that “these foundation skills
are the same core skills that are described by other names in different nations, for ex‐
ample, ‘key skills’, ‘basic skills’, essential skills’, ‘literacy defined broadly’”.

The Ministry of Education’s Learning for Living (2005, p. 1) talks about ‘foundation
learning’ which:

…covers competencies in literacy, numeracy and language. In practice,

foundation learning for adults may be defined as the application of a com‐
plex web of reading, writing, speaking, listening, critical thinking, problem
solving, numeracy skills and communication technology so that people can
achieve their own goals in meaningful social, cultural, vocational and/or
learning contexts. Foundation learning may be in English or Te Reo Māori.

Hull (2000, p. 650) points out that “it’s become customary to characterize literacy in
the world of work as reading and writing to mediate action and to contrast that pur‐
pose for literacy with school‐based ones”. Some researchers have categorized literacy
at work as “reading to do” whilst school‐based literacy is primarily “reading to
know” (Diehl & Mikulecky, 1980).

Mikulecky, Lloyd, Kirkley, and Oelker (1996, p. 8) state that “the demands made on
skills of workers are increasing all the time. As part of teamwork, planning, and
quality control, workers need to be able to solve problems that often involve the ap‐
plication of several skills. Literacy in the workplace requires a combination of prose
literacy, document literacy, and quantitative literacy”. Workers need prose literacy
when accessing manuals, or reading or writing newsletters and memos. Document
literacy includes tables, forms and charts, while quantitative literacy includes calcu‐
lating, and solving problems with numbers. Mikulecky et al. (1996) continue by say‐
ing that very often in order to perform a workplace task, different types of skills are
required together, for example, calculation, reading charts or technical material, han‐
dling data, and problem solving.

Most employers want to hire employees who can be productive from the minute they
start a job. However, if basic skills are not in place, individuals are either not hired,

53
or employers need to make sure the employees who are hired receive the required
basic skills training, which initially may slow down their productivity, but in the long
term, the employers will benefit.

Verizon (n.d.) states that “literacy is the foundation for other basic skills, yet large
numbers of people in the labour pool are tagged as illiterate. ... however, illiteracy
probably is not the inability to read anything at all, but rather the inability to read
well enough to fully understand important written material”. Similarly, illiteracy or
innumeracy is not the inability to do maths, but rather an inability to do the level of
maths required in the workplace.

The importance of literacy skills in the workplace

Verizon (n.d., p. 4) points out the benefits of investing in basic skills training:

• higher employee productivity

• lower employee turnover rate
• lower insurance costs due to fewer accidents
• employees better able to move into higher skilled jobs
• employees capable of performing a broader range of tasks
• better work climate due to improved ob satisfaction.

Hull and Grubb (1999, p. 311) note that the “growing concern is that many workers
and prospective workers are not up to the task, having been poorly or insufficiently
educated and having grown accustomed to jobs that do not expect much”. Comings
et al. (2000, p. 6) state that “a person’s literacy skills and education almost always de‐
termine his or her success in the labour market”.

Workplace skills

The Association of Canadian Community Colleges (2003, p. 2) has adopted the fol‐
lowing definition of Essential Workplace Skills:

The generic set of skills, attitudes, and behaviours that are necessary in any
career area and which are essential to any person aiming to be successful in
obtaining and progressing in his or her job. The essential employability skills
are the foundation skills to a fulfilling personal and work life. These include
literacy, numeracy, and document use, inter‐personal and intra‐personal
skills.

The United States Department of Labour convened The Secretary’s Commission for
the Achievement of Necessary Skills (SCANS) (1992) to examine the demands of the

54
American workplace. This report described the needed know‐how of the workplace,
and defined two categories: foundation and competencies:

Foundation:
(a) basic skills (ability to read, write, perform arithmetic and mathemati‐
cal operations, listen and speak);
(b) thinking skills (ability to think creatively, make decisions, solve prob‐
lems, visualize, know how to learn, and reason); and
(c) personal qualities (ability to display responsibility, self‐esteem, so‐
ciability, self‐management, integrity, and honesty.

Competencies:
(a) resources (ability to identify, organize, plan, and allocate resources,
e.g. time, money, materials, space, staff);
(b) interpersonal skills (ability to work with others on teams, teaching
others, serving customers, leading, negotiating, and working well
with people from culturally diverse backgrounds);
(c) information (ability to acquire and use information, acquiring and
evaluating data, organising and maintaining files, interpreting and
communicating, and using computers to process information);
(d) systems (ability to understand complex inter‐relationships, under‐
standing social, organisational and technological systems, monitor‐
ing and correcting performance, and designing or improving sys‐
tems); and
(e) technology (ability to work with a variety of technologies, selecting
equipment and tools, applying technology to specific tasks, and
maintaining and troubleshooting technologies).

There is a considerable corpus of literature that provides lists of general skills that
encompass many job categories and are necessary for success in the job market of the
21st century. From research findings presented by Savisaar (1998), Ledbury and
Matheson (1998), and Wills (1995), employers require the following characteristics
from employees: an ability to get along with others; communication skills; personal‐
ity; generalist skills; and computer skills. In Cassel’s (1998) research, similar re‐
quirements were found in Fortune 500 companies, and he determined that large or‐
ganisations were looking for potential employees with the following skills: team
work; ability to solve problems; interpersonal skills; oral communication; listening;
personal career development; creative thinking; leadership; goal setting/motivation;
writing; organisational effectiveness; computation; and reading. In addition,
McBride’s research (1999) identified the top ten characteristics employees look for in
potential employees: honesty/integrity; motivation/initiative; communication skills;
self‐confidence; flexibility; interpersonal skills; strong work ethics; teamwork skills;
leadership skills; and enthusiasm.

55
Workplace Literacy Provision: A Formative Evaluation
of an Emerging Workplace Literacy Provider

Introduction

The report ‘Barriers to Adult Literacy: A Discussion Paper’ (Sligo, Comrie, Olsson,
Culligan, & Tilley, 2005, p. 3) noted that in New Zealand “the success or otherwise of
adult literacy initiatives and their impacts upon workplaces and communities in New
Zealand is not yet well understood.” Literacy Aotearoa (Whanganui), a subcontrac‐
tor to the Literacy and Employment Project, has been approached by a number of
businesses wanting to support staff to up‐skill their basic literacy needs. Many of
these approaches come from small business owners. Small businesses suffer as much
from the negative aspects of low literacy and numeracy skills as do large organisa‐
tions, but they have less capability to deal with it in‐house. Regardless, employers
are keen to support their staff and provide them with the essential skills they require,
and, long term, the benefits of such a course of action would accrue to the wider
community.

Management from Literacy Aotearoa recognise that while a number of New Zealand
training organisations have developed workplace literacy services, the outcomes of
development processes and practices are not widely reported. The opportunity to
document and evaluate a development process from the outset is recognised as a
valuable learning tool. Because of this, and in acknowledgment of the value in shar‐
ing information and learning throughout the adult literacy sector and cross sectorally,
Literacy Aotearoa (Whanganui) has approached the Department of Communication
and Journalism, Massey University, offering the opportunity to document the devel‐
opment process through a formative evaluation process.

The formative evaluation of the workplace literacy programme is currently in its ini‐
tial design phase. Therefore, the following information regarding aims and involve‐
ment of key stakeholders is provisional in nature at this stage.

The research site – Literacy Aotearoa (Whanganui)

Literacy Aotearoa (Whanganui), is a community organization and a foundation skills

training provider, and specializes in delivering services that meet the needs of the
local community.
As a member of Literacy Aotearoa, the local branch works in accordance with the
national mission statement and definition as follows:

56
 Literacy Aotearoa is established to develop accessible, quality literacy services that en‐
sure the people of Aotearoa are critically literate.
Literacy Aotearoa defines literacy as listening, speaking, reading, writing, numeracy
and critical thinking, interwoven with the knowledge of social and cultural practices.
Critical literacy enhances people’s ability to get their message across effectively, ana‐
lyze and understand the implications of text and other forms of communication and ac‐
tively participate within their families, communities and workplaces.
Critical literacy enhances people’s ability to contribute to and improves society, locally,
nationally and internationally.

Proposed methodology

Literacy Aotearoa (Whanganui) aims to develop a workplace literacy service that

supports people with lower levels of literacy skills to perform workplace tasks. For‐
mative Evaluation will be used as the research tool in this study, and will consist of
documenting the processes involved in the development of a workplace literacy pro‐
gramme, so that other agencies wishing to develop similar programmes could poten‐
tially use this process as a model. Formative evaluation has been described as fol‐
lows:

Formative evaluation is typically conducted during the development or im‐

provement of a program or product (or person, and so on) and it is conducted,
often more than once, for in‐house staff of the program with the intent to im‐
prove. The reports normally remain in‐house; but serious formative evaluation
may be done by an internal or an external evaluator or preferably, a combina‐
tion; of course, many program staff are, in an informal sense, constantly doing
formative evaluation (Scriven, 1991, as cited on Northern Arizona University
Web Server, para. 3).

This process will be linked to an action research participatory approach where stake‐
holders set the research/evaluation questions.

The evaluation will focus on the experiences of and outcomes for the agency as it
markets and plans one or more workplace literacy programmes within companies in
Wanganui.

Areas of potential investigation

Areas of potential investigation could include:

• The effectiveness of skills auditing in awareness raising and identification

of need

57
 • The range of need across workplaces and commonalties of need
• The resourcing required to develop programmes to cater for individual
need and company needs
• The development of relationships and networking arrangements inclusive
of the range of stakeholder engagement.
• The effectiveness of workplace interventions on employees attitude and
ability to perform workplace tasks
• Approaches and effectiveness of marketing and promotion of workplace
literacy services with a regional community.

Proposed key stakeholders

Within this development project Literacy Aotearoa (Whanganui) proposes to work
closely with the following stakeholders and agencies:

• Workbase, the New Zealand Centre for Workforce Literacy Development

• The Department of Communication and Journalism, Massey University,
Palmerston North, who will provide research support and mentoring
throughout this project
• Local employers who require workplace literacy services and agree to be
a part of the development process
• Workplace learners who will engage in learning and evaluative processes
• Unions
• Industry Training Organisations
• Private Training Providers in the region who have an interest with Work‐
place Literacy Developments
• Other community stakeholders

Future directions

The formative evaluation of a workplace literacy programme is planned to begin in

August 2006. The research team has hired an experienced formative evaluator who
will travel regularly to Wanganui to document the development of the programme.
The evaluation process is proposed to continue for a 1 year period, with appropriate
time for analysis and interpretation, with an end date proposed of 1 August 2007.

58
References

Aguinis, H. (1994). Action research and scientific method: Presumed discrepancies

and actual similarities. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, (29)4, 416–431.

Association of Canadian Community Colleges. (2003). Essential employability skills

case studies. Retrieved 1 March, 2006, from
http://www.accc.ca/ftp/pubs/studies/200311‐EES.pdf.

Bartunek, J.M. (1993). Scholarly dialogues and participatory action research. Human
Relations, 46, 10, 1221–1233.

Birkerts, S. (1994). The Gutenberg elegies. London: Faber and Faber.

Bogden, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action re‐
search. Lewes: Falmer.

Cassel, R.N. (1998). Career readiness for the communication age based on Fortune 500
job‐skills needs. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25, 4, 222–225.

Castleton, G. (2002). Workplace literacy as a contested site of educational activity.

Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45, 7, 556–566.

Comings, J., Sum, A., & Uvin, J. (2000). New skills for a new economy: Adult educationʹs
key role in sustaining economic growth and expanding opportunity. Boston MA:
Massachusetts Institute for a New Commonwealth, Boston Foundation.

Commission of the European Communities. (2000). A memorandum on lifelong learning:

A commission staff working paper, Brussels. Retrieved 1 March, 2006, from
http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/life/memoen.pdf

Comrie, M., Olsson, S., Sligo, F., Culligan, N., Tilley, E., Vaccarino, F., & Franklin, J.
(2005). Perceptions, needs, and issues: A discussion paper. Palmerston North and
Wellington: Department of Communication and Journalism, Massey Univer‐
sity.

De Valenzuela, J. S. (n.d.) Definitions of literacy. Retrieved 9 February, 2006, from

http://www.unm.edu/~devalenz/handouts/literacy.html

59
Diehl, W., & Mikulecky, L. (1980). The nature of reading at work. Journal of Reading,
24, 221–227.

Dick, B. (1999). Qualitative action research: improving the rigour and economy. Retrieved
13 April, 2006, from http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/rigour2.html

Dick, B. (2000). A beginnerʹs guide to action research. Retrieved 3 March, 2006, from
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/guide.html

Dick, B. (2002) Stakeholders and participation. Session 4 of Areol – action research and
evaluation on line. Retrieved 13 April, 2006, from
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/areol/areol‐session04.html

Dick, B. (2003). What can action researchers learn from grounded theorists? Paper pre‐
pared for the research symposium at the Australian and New Zealand
ALARPM/SCIAR conference, Gold Coast, 4–5 May 2003.

Education Review Office. (2003). Education Review Report: Castlecliff School (April).
Retrieved 27 July, 2006, from
http://www.ero.govt.nz/ero/reppub.nsf/0/34EC5DA18B6F7ADECC256D26000C
228B/$File/2346.htm?Open#_ftn1).

Elden, M., & Chisholm, R. (1993). Emerging varieties of action research: Introduction
to the special issue. Human Relations, 43, 121–142.

Ferrance, E. (2000). Action research. Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Labo‐
ratory at Brown University: Brown University. Retrieved 3 April, 2006, from
http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/themes_ed/act_research.pdf

Fischer, G. (2000). Lifelong learning: More than training. Special Issue on Intelligent
Systems/Tools in Training and Lifelong Learning. In R. Mizoguchi, & P. A. M.
Kommers (Eds.). Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11, 3/4, 265–294.

Gabel, D. (1995). An introduction to action research. Presidential Address. National As‐

sociation for Research in Science Teaching (NARST). Retrieved 3 April, 2006,
from
http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/danowner/actionrsch.html

Gee, J., Hull, G., & Lankshear, C. (1996). The new work order: Behind the language of the
new capitalism. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Gilmore, T., Krantz, J., & Ramirez, R. (1986). Action‐based modes of inquiry and the
host‐researcher relationship. Consultation, 5, 3, 160–176.

60
Gould, M. C. (2002). Developing literacy and workplace skills: Teaching for 21st century
employment. Program coursebook and curriculum guide (2nd ed.). Indiana: National
Education Service.

Greenwood, D. J., Whyte, W. F., & Harkavy, I. (1993). Participatory action research as
a process and as a goal. Human Relations, 46, 2, 175–192.

Grundy, S. (1986) Action research and human interests. In M. Emery & P. Long (Eds.)
Symposium, 22–23 May 1986, Research Network of the Australian Association
of Adult Education.

Hart, E., & Bond, M. (1995). Action research for health & social care: A guide to practice.
Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Holter, I. M., & Schwartz‐Barcott, D. (1993). Action Research: What is it? How has it
been used and how can it be used in nursing? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 128,
298–304.

Hopkins, D. (1985). A teacherʹs guide to classroom research. Philadelphia: Open Univer‐

sity Press.

Hughes, I. (2000). Your action research project. Sydney: AROW, University of Sydney.

Huizer, G. (1997). Participatory action research and peopleʹs participation: Introduction and
case studies. Retrieved 3 April, 2006, from
http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/SUSTDEV/PPdirect/PPre0030.htm

Hull, G. (2000). Critical literacy at work. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43, 7,
648–652.

Hull, G. & Grubb, N. (1999). Literacy, skills and work. In D. Wagner, R. Venezky, &
B. Street (Eds.), Literacy: An international handbook (pp. 311–417). Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.

Isaacs, P. (2005). Literacy, adult education and value for money. New Zealand Journal
of Adult Learning, 33, 1, 66–78.

Johnson, A. H. (2000). Changing skills for a changing world: Recommendations for adult
literacy policy in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Wellington, NZ: Department of Labour.
Retrieved 28 May, 2006, from
http://www.dol.govt.nz/PDFs/AliceJohnsonReport.pdf

61
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (Eds.) (1988). The action research planner. Geelong: De‐
akin University Press.

Ledbury, A., & Matheson, C. (1998). The key to employment. Adults Learning, 9, 6, 8–
10.

Lewis, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2, 4,
34–46.

Lonsdale, M. & McCurry, D. (2004). Literacy in the new millennium. Adelaide: NCVER.
Australian Council for Educational Research.

Luke, C. (1997). Technological literacy. Melbourne: Language Australia

Maguire, P. (1987). Doing participatory research: A feminist approach. Amherst, MA:

University of Massachusetts, Center for International Education, School of Education.

Masters, J. (2000). The history of action research. Action Research E‐Reports, 3. Re‐
trieved 1 March, 2006, from http://www.fhs.usyd.edu.au/arow/arer/003.htm

McBride, J. (1999). Job‐search strategies to begin the next millennium. National Asso‐
ciation of Colleges and Employers, 42, 14–18.

McCutcheon, G. & Jung, B., (1990). Alternative perspectives on action research. Theory
into Practice, 29, 3 144–151.

McFarland, K. P., & Stansell, J. C. (1993). Historical perspectives. In L. Patterson, C.

M. Santa, C. G. Short, & K. Smith (Eds), Teachers are researchers: Reflection and ac‐
tion. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

McKernan, J., (1991). Curriculum action research: A handbook of methods and resources for
the reflective practitioner. London: Kogan Page.

McNiff, J. (2002). Action research for professional development. Concise advice for new ac‐
tion researchers (3rd edition). Retrieved 1 March, 2006, from
http://www.jeanmcniff.com/booklet1.html

Northern Arizona University Web Server. (n.d.). Summative vs. formative evaluation.
Retrieved 24 July, 2006, from
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/edtech/etc667/proposal/evaluation/summative_vs._form
ative.htm

62
McTaggart, R., (1992). Action research: Issues in theory and practice. Keynote address to
the Methodological Issues in Qualitative Health Research Conference, Friday
27 November 1992, Geelong: Deakin University.

Mikulecky, L. (1990). Basic skills impediments to communication between manage‐

ment and hourly employees. Management Communication Quarterly, 3, 4, 452–
473.

Mikulecky, L., Lloyd, P., Kirkley, J., & Oelker, J. (1996). Developing and evaluating
workplace literacy programs: A handbook for practitioners and trainers. Philadelphia
PA: National Center on Adult Literacy.

Ministry of Education. (2002). Tertiary Education Strategy 2002/07. Retrieved 10 May,

2006,
http://www.tec.govt.nz/downloads/a2z_publications/tertiaryeducationstrategy
‐2002‐2007.pdf

Ministry of Education. (2005) Learning for living. Issue 4. Retrieved 12 April, 2006,
http://www.minedu.govt.nz/web/downloadable/dl10446_v1/issue‐4.pdf

National Business Alliance. (1996). The cost of illiteracy. Work America: Workforce Eco‐
nomics, 2, 1, 3‐6.

Neilson, D., & Culligan, N. (2005). Provider Survey – Phase One: The provision of adult
literacy services in Wanganui. Palmerston North and Wellington: Department of
Communication and Journalism, Massey University.

Noffke, S. E., & Stevenson, R. B. (Eds). (1995). Educational action research: Becoming
practically critical. New York: Teachers College Press.

OʹBrien, R. (2001). Um exame da abordagem metodológica da pesquisa ação [An

Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action Research]. In Roberto
Richardson (Ed.), Teoria e Prática da Pesquisa Ação [Theory and Practice of Action
Research]. João Pessoa, Brazil: Universidade Federal da Paraíba. (English ver‐
sion). Retrieved 13 April, 2006, from
http://www.web.net/~robrien/papers/arfinal.html

OECD. (2000). Literacy in the information age: Final report of the international adult literacy
survey. Canada: Statistics Canada.

Ott, J. A. (2001). Improving workforce literacy for 21st century jobs. South Carolina: Clem‐
son University SC: Institute on Family and Neighborhood Life; New Bruns‐
wick, NJ: Rutgers, The State University, John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce
Development.

63
Peterson, E. A., Ott, J., & Wilson, K. (2002). Promoting workplace literacy and basic skills
development. South Carolina: Clemson University. Institute on Family and
Neighborhood Life.

Reason, P. (2001). Learning and change through action research. In J. Henry (Ed.),
Creative management. London: Sage. Retrieved 10 April, 2006, from
http://www.bath.ac.uk/~mnspwr/Papers/LearningChangeThroughActionResea
rch.htm

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds). (n.d.) Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry
and practice. London: Sage. Retrieved 10 April, 2006, from
http://www.bath.ac.uk/~mnspwr/Papers/HandbookIntroduction.htm

Roberts, A. (n.d.) Action research. Retrieved 1 March, 2006, from

http://distributedresearch.net/wiki/index.php/Action_Research

Sankar, M., Bailey, R., & Williams, B. 2005. Doing action research. Community Eco‐
nomic Development Action Research (CEDAR) Project. New Zealand: De‐
partment of Labour.

Savisaar, E. A. (1998). Matching yourself with the work of work. Occupational Outlook
Quarterly, 42, 3, 2–19.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New
York: Basic Books.

Searle, J. (1999). Online literacies at work. Literacy and Numeracy Studies 9, 2, 1–18.

Selener, D. (1997). Participatory action research and social change. New York: Cornell
Participatory Action Research Network.
Seymour‐Rolls, K., & Hughes, I. (1995) Participatory action research: Getting the job done.
Retrieved 13 April, 2006, from
http://www2.fhs.usyd.edu.au/arow/arer/004.htm

Sligo, F., Comrie, M., Olsson, S., Culligan, N., & Tilley, E. (2005). Barriers to adult liter‐
acy: A discussion paper. Department of Communication and Journalism, Massey
University: New Zealand. Series: Adult Literacy and Employment in Wanganui,
0501. ISSN 1176‐9807.

Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Stringer, E. T. (1999). Action research: A handbook for practitioners. New Park, CA: Sage.

64
Uhlmann, V. (1995) Action research and participation [On line]. Retrieved 13 April,
2006, from
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/partic.html

U.S. Department of Labour, the Secretary’s Commission for the Achievement of Nec‐
essary Skills (SCANS). (1992). Learning a living: A blueprint for high performance.
Washington, DC: US Department of Labour (SCANS).

Usher, R., & Bryant, I. (1989). The logic and problems of action research. In R. Usher,
& I Bryant, Adult education as theory, practice and research. Routledge: London
and New York.

Verizon. (n.d.). Workforce literacy: Equipping your workforce for the 21st century. Re‐
trieved 25 January, 2006, from
http://www.proliteracy.org/downloads/Workforceliteracy.pdf

Wadsworth, Y. (1997). Everyday evaluation on the run (2nd ed.). Australia: Allen and
Unwin.

Wadsworth, Y. (1998). What is Participatory Action Research? Action Research Interna‐

tional, Paper 2. Retrieved 3 April, 2006, from
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/ari/p‐ywadsworth98.html

Wills, J. (1995). Skills standards: A primer. Voluntary skills standard and certification.
Washington, DC: Institute for Educational leadership.

Winter, R. (1989) Learning from experience: Principles and practice in action‐research.

Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.
Zuber‐Skerrit, O. (1992). Improving learning and teaching through action learning and ac‐
tion research. Draft paper for the HERDSA Conference 1992 University of
Queensland.

65
66
Appendix A: Parents Questionnaire Training For You

Please could you complete the following questionnaire about your child in
Year 1 at Castlecliff School

How would you describe your

child (e.g. quiet, outgoing, etc.)?

How many children are there in

your family?

How does s/he get along with

his/her brothers and sisters (if

s/he has any)?

How does s/he get along with

his/her other family members

(e.g. cousins)?

Does s/he have many friends?

How does s/he get along with

these friends?

What activities does s/he enjoy

doing at home?

67
Does s/he enjoy reading?

If yes, what does s/he enjoy

reading?

Do you read with your child?

If yes, how often per week? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+

(circle)

And, what type of stories

does your child like?

What is his/her favourite

book?

Do you enjoy reading?

What books or magazines do

you read?

Do you use the library?

If yes, how often do you use

68
 the library?

Do you think reading with

children is important?

If yes, why do you think it’s important?

For the next couple of questions, please circle whichever applies:

In the last week, how many times has your child looked at or read books or
magazines?
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+

In the last week, how many times has your child seen you reading or writing?
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+

In the last week, how many times have you read/looked at books with your
child or listened to him/her read?
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+

69
Department of Communication & Journalism
College of Business
Private Bag 11-222
Palmerston North
New Zealand

http://literacy.massey.ac.nz/

The Adult Literacy and Employment Programme contains

an action research component. This report provides an
introductory literature review, and reports on the initial
stages of three action research programmes. One of these
is based within an adult literacy training provider, a second
within a local Wanganui primary school, and a third is a
formative evaluation of the development of a workplace
literacy programme.

ISBN 0-9582646-8-6
978-0-9582646-8-6
ISSN 1176-9807
Adult Literacy and
Employment in Wanganui

View publication stats