Workplace basic skills courses boost taste for learning – but not productivity

15 April 2009

The government may believe that workplace literacy courses can boost productivity but employers are more sceptical, according to researchers.

Companies that introduce basic skills tuition tend to do so because they believe that it can increase the motivation and loyalty of staff, not because they expect any increase in output, finds a report from the Institute of Education, London.

There is also little evidence that employers think poor reading and writing skills are a problem among their own staff. “Policymakers often assume that poor basic skills are widespread and have a significant negative impact on workplace productivity,” says Dr Andrew Jenkins, a member of the research team. “But we found little evidence that the employers in the workplaces we sampled were concerned about their employees’ basic skills and did not expect gains in output or productivity as a result of improved literacy skills.”

The team tracked 575 employees on government-funded literacy courses in 50 workplaces over three years. The aim was to find out whether such tuition resulted in long-term improvements in literacy skills, changed attitudes to education and better jobs for those who took the courses. The researchers also tried to establish whether there were benefits for employers, including productivity gains.

They found that workplace learning had the power to change individuals’ attitudes to study and help them re-assess their ambitions and capabilities. Employees were more likely to undertake further education as a result of the training, either a recreational course in a subject such as painting, or a programme of study that would help them start a new career.. Only non-native English speakers wanted to carry on improving their English.

Tests given one and two years after completion of the training showed moderate gains in participants’ reading ability, with younger learners, women and those with English as a second language improving most.

The degree to which the courses benefited individuals was directly related to their belief in their ability to learn. Once on a course, “fragile” learners did as well as their colleagues, but they were less likely to sign up in the first place. While three-quarters stated that the course had made them feel differently about education, very few reported direct economic benefits. Only around one in ten said it would help them gain promotion or a better job, and a mere 2 per cent thought it would help them earn more money.

Earlier this month another Institute of Education academic, Professor Anna Vignoles, told an Institute of Fiscal Studies conference in Cambridge that “short, sharp” basic skills courses designed to improve adult literacy and numeracy were largely ineffective and would not improve Britain’s economic competitiveness. The Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills countered that the £5 billion the Government had invested in adult basic skills in recent years had been well spent.

However, this new report also suggests that most of the workplace courses were too short to have much effect on literacy. Unless people’s jobs demanded and encouraged literacy, gains tended to be small and short-lived. It was only learners who used their skills both in and out of the workplace who showed consistent improvement. Most of the courses stopped as soon as the funding came to an end, typically after 30 hours, and only a small minority of employers offered any follow-up.

“Our research confirms the appetite for learning among many adults who have not found it possible to attend classes. It also underlines the importance of a far wider range of factors than wanting to improve performance or productivity. These include boosting confidence, helping children with their homework and pursuing interests outside work.”

Dr Jenkins will present this report at the American Educational Research Association conference in San Diego on Wednesday 15 April.

The project was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council as part of its Teaching and Learning Research Programme, the biggest-ever investment in education research in the UK.

---

Press releases, papers and documents published on this page are the intellectual property of an organisation unrelated to Central Lobby. We promote their parliamentary and political campaigning activities as they are subscribers to the Central Lobby service.

As such, Central Lobby does not edit, endorse, or attempt to balance the opinions expressed on this page. The content of press releases and other such types of content are the responsibility of the originating organisation.