Anniesland College: Using the Wheel CDROM
Paul Cassidy
The research was carried out at Anniesland College and Ruchill Community Learning Centre and set out to investigate the effectiveness and possible use of Learning Connection's 'Wheel' CDROM. The 'Wheel' is intended to develop a holistic approach to planning, it "... not only depicts the complexity of the interaction and dialogue that should be occurring between learner and tutor, but also provides a systematic process to ensure that the practice encompasses all aspects of literacies development." (2005:24). The key question was whether 'the Wheel' was an appropriate resource and one that could be implemented in our provision.
The project was the 'formalisation' of an ongoing process. We had been reviewing our existing ILP as part of the planning and review processes. During this review it was decided to pilot the use of the CDROM with a number of learners during the third and final phase of the academic year. This was with a view to either developing our existing ILP process or implementing a new approach with 'the Wheel' as our key planning and review tool.
Literature review
"Negotiating the ALN curriculum with a learner is a process, not an event." (Curriculum Framework. 2005 :79) 'An Adult Literacy and Numeracy Curriculum Framework' for Scotland provides essential information and guidance on the theory and practices that should direct literacies learning and teaching in Scotland. In this instance it is clear that both tutor and learner perceptions of the curriculum, and in essence the ILP that defines the curriculum, should be a carefully considered and ongoing process as opposed to a singular event. Furthermore: "It is important that the learner understands the purpose of the learning plan and that it is used throughout the learning cycle . . . It is also important that the learner understands the language on the form." ( CF. 2005:77) If tutors do not have an appropriate level of knowledge and understanding, then the ILP and the purpose it serves may be relegated to simply another paper based exercise. It must be used as a live document, that is referred to throughout the planning and review processes. In the first instance the format and language used on the ILP paperwork must facilitate easy access - this is anticipated as a key issue in the terminology used by the initial version of the CDROM.
A recent cross-sectoral report on the quality of adult literacies provision in Glasgow indicated that the use of ILPs is a key area for improvement: 'Learning Planning, Guidance and Support and Integrated Provision were rated as red indicating that quality improvements in these areas should be prioritised.' ( GCLSP 2008:4). While this report examines practices in Glasgow, its findings may also apply to literacies learning and teaching practices nationally:
"Although tutors and learners recognise and use learning plans to set goals, often these are generic and not contextualised ( e.g. improve spelling). Most plans did not indicate the long-term goals of learner... assessment of the plans confirmed this and further revealed that tutors have difficulty supporting learners to set realistic, specific goals, which are related to the four key areas of learners' lives - personal, family, work and community." ( GCLSP 2008:11)
These are important and significant concerns if a social practice approach to adult literacies learning is to be fully developed in Scotland. It is often difficult for adult learners to formulate their goals. Therefore a key role of the tutor is to develop the actual processes of planning and reviewing learning. The tutor often has to support the learner with setting specific rather than generic goals and discuss these in relation to knowledge and understanding, rather than just the acquisition of skills. Furthermore, these goals must be contextualised; short and long-term goals, while they may take some time to formulate, must necessarily relate to the learner's domains of practice.
The same report also found that 'there was little indication that learners were reflecting on how their learning was making changes in their lives or the actual or anticipated application of skills.' (2008:11) Review and reflection are vital aspects of the learning process and, most importantly, without recognising the importance and application of day-to-day literacies we move further away from a social practice approach. It would seem that there is a link between establishing contextualised goals and reflection upon the anticipated or direct application of new skills, knowledge and understanding. That is, without ' SMART' and domain specific goals, both learner and tutor will be unable to discuss their 'application'. These issues appear to highlight the gaps in our understanding and application of a social practice approach (see: Maclachlan, 2006.)
Fawns and Ivanic (2001) consider form-filling from a critical perspective - in terms of power and identity and as a complex social practice. While the focus here is on the practices and nature of bureaucracy there are implications for literacies practitioners and provision. When we consider that the ILP should direct the work that is undertaken, this becomes a key issue. It is suggested here that a far more critical approach to ILPs and the processes involved is necessary, that provision and tutor training is more focused on the key issues around both the learners' and tutors' perception of forms, the ILP and the social practice approach. There are important issues here around the representation of the learner's voice and identity and the relationship between tutor and learner.
Methodology
The first stage of the project involved delivering a training session on the use of the Wheel CDROM to colleagues in the Support for Learning team and was followed by a focus group. Further evidence was drawn from a previous training session 1 and from informal interviews with colleagues based on their use of the CDROM. My own reflections on the process also inform the findings. The three learners who were invited to take part in the project had recently started attending our dedicated literacy provision. Once the ILP process had started, and soon after the CDROM had been used, semi-structured interviews were carried out and learners were asked to reflect on their experiences during the initial and planning stages of the ILP process. This qualitative approach, in terms of the limited scale and timescale of the project, appeared the most appropriate.
As part of a wider discussion with colleagues on methodology during the research process, an ethnographic approach was suggested for future practitioner research as it:
". . . can provide a space to examine constructs such as motivation and engagement; crucially, it can change the way we talk about a problem. It can also provide understanding of complex situations and it locates explanations in their cultural context; in this way it complements other broader research, such as surveys." (Barton 2006:2)
This approach seems particularly appropriate in terms of practitioner research; as both process and product it can best describe learners' and tutors' 'motivation and engagement' in relation to specific literacies events and practices, in this instance the ILP and the processes involved. While it appears that there have been considerable improvements in practice there are still aspects of the ILP process, highlighted in the report on the quality of provision (2008), that are problematic and that require definite and purposeful development.
Findings and analysis
The findings of the research project are in two parts; the first covers the initial tutor focus group and is complemented by feedback from the previous training event. The second discusses the interviews carried out with learners and tutors.
Tutor focus groups
Key features of the CDROM
A number of participants initially found the Wheel 'overwhelming'. Visually and in terms of the textual content, it contained almost 'too much information'. The terminology used was generally thought to be 'difficult'; while a number of tutors were familiar with the terms employed it was recognised that for tutors and learners who were new to, or only minimally involved in work around core skills, that this could prove to be something of a barrier. It was noted that it was possible to alter the initial wording and further that by using this terminology it offered a 'bridge' to possible accreditation and would possibly develop a better understanding of core skills requirements and 'demands'.
More importantly, it was felt that without alteration the language could 'put some learners off'. All the tutors involved were aware of the importance of developing a level of understanding and confidence with the learner during the initial stages of the process. Tutors from both events commented on the resources that were available on the CDROM; the video and audio files were in the main thought to be very good, although a number of pictorial representations were unclear. In terms of the actual planning and review sections, tutors at both events commented on the excellent support and guidance that was contained on the CDROM (there are files and supporting notes for both planning and reviewing).
Advantages and disadvantages of using the CDROM
The resources available were thought to be a significant advantage of the CDROM; the tutor support material was easily accessible and provided a constant and consistent focus for tutors in relation to the processes involved in planning and reviewing learning. From a tutor's perspective, having a toolkit and stock of information/support was recognised as a significant advantage. It was also generally agreed that navigation was clear and straightforward. The use of a CDROM would also be an advantage in terms of using ICT with learners with existing ICT skills or those who wanted to develop them - particularly younger learners. The versatility and adaptability of the CDROM was also discussed. It was agreed that organisations and tutors across different sectors could use the resources available to complement or fit with existing practices or it could be adapted as a training and development tool, for example for use with ITALL. A number of tutors commented on the advantages of the video and audio resources available, particularly those of learners relating their own experiences.
The use of ICT was also considered problematic, especially for learners with little or no experience of ICT. It was stated that the mode used, whether it is a PC or a laptop, could present, in a literal sense, an additional physical and/or psychological barrier. The key question here is one of ownership. For learners already apprehensive about the learning process, and in terms of the recent report on provision in Glasgow (2008), it would appear that commitment to, and ownership of ILPs is an issue in provision across the different sectors. For tutors in a number of contexts where there are no readily accessible IT facilities, this mode of delivery is even more problematic. There was some discussion regarding the resources and support available to tutors working in different sectors. Without adequate access to ICT resources and support the CDROM may not even be a consistent option for some tutors. This was related to the issue of staff training and professional development for literacies tutors.
It was also generally agreed that using the CDROM could be more time consuming than using a paper based ILP and that this has significant implications for tutors, especially those working with groups. However, the most significant, certainly the most commented upon disadvantage, was the terminology used on the Wheel. There was further discussion, as indicated previously, around the issues of accessibility and professional/core skills development.
Pilot of CDROM
As a result of the training session held with colleagues it was agreed that we would pilot the CDROM with learners in dedicated ALN provision. We discussed further the potential for adapting the CDROM and the resources available for a number of different types of literacies provision that we undertook, for example with full-time students attending support for learning and in relation to an SQA funded project on core skills development.
Learner interviews
Initial engagement in the process
At the start of the planning process all of the learners involved found the Wheel 'a bit daunting '. In terms of the visual impact and the terminology used, this had been discussed with both groups of tutors and was anticipated. For one learner in particular, the start of the planning process was: "... a bit scary ... I was really nervous anyway, especially when it comes to filling out forms." The other learners echoed this anxiousness and related these feelings to the nature of what they perceived as essentially an interview/form filling process. Despite these feelings there was agreement that through discussion with the tutor and as the process developed i.e. as the text, meaning and purpose were analysed, the learners all became quite comfortable and engaged more with the process.
The terminology, that of 'core skills', was discussed further and while it was initially difficult, the guidance of the tutors involved and the notes and support available on the CDROM itself became particularly useful. One learner thought the terminology was "fairly self-explanatory". My own experience suggests that, while we recognise or anticipate some difficulties, we do a large number of learners a disservice in feeling that we cannot work with and through the language barrier. There is also the option on the CDROM of using pictorial representations for these subject areas or changing the text.
Furthermore, using the Wheel ensures that we start the learning experience with a clear picture (literally) of what is involved, starting with the learner at the centre of the process. From this point, and before thinking about subject areas, there must also be discussion around the different domains of practice and the nature and acquisition of skills, knowledge and understanding. In terms of a social practice approach these are key principles; using the Wheel would thus develop and hopefully establish this approach to learning. As one learner stated: "I realised it was all to do with me . . . I didn't really realise this before . . . that it was about what I had to do in my life, to learn what was important to me."
In terms of the subject specific questions all the learners mentioned the support that was available, for one learner specifically how it helped to clarify seemingly repetitive questions and what was actually being asked. The key here for all the learners was the discussion and interaction with the tutor. They felt that, even though they were using ICT, the discussion generated by the guidance resources was very positive and constructive. It was also stated by both learners and tutors that through discussion of the different areas they were able to discover, as one learner put it, other areas of interest. Having an overall view of what was available prompted further discussion and consideration of broader learning options.
Everyone involved commented positively on the additional resources such as video, audio and picture files. For one learner the video clips were particularly good as they prompted thought and discussion around situated literacies. For another learner the clips of learners discussing their own experiences were particularly relevant as she recognised some of the issues and feelings experienced when starting the group.
ICT as a mode of delivery
The use of ICT was a key issue for the tutors' groups and was discussed in some detail with the learners during the interviews. It should be noted that two of the learners were already doing a short computing course and were therefore relatively confident users of this sort of technology. This obviously had a significant bearing on their responses and both were very positive about using the CDROM. All of the participants commented that learners who had little or no experience using a PC might well be intimidated, even put off by this way of working. However, it should be noted that the learner without much IT experience was not put off by using the PC - in fact he commented that it was a way of working and learning that they had wanted to "find out more about it". In relation to the next stage of planning he felt he would have far more control of the process. One learner commented that by working this way it "felt much more like my own work". She also felt that it would be easier to track, store and find information and that being able to save and manipulate the data was an excellent opportunity/feature.
The key here was the feeling of ownership of the process on the part of the learners. This way of working had no negative effect on the working relationships - in fact by the design and nature of the process it appeared to involve tutors and learners together to a greater degree than our paper based ILP.
Planning
While most of the interviews focused on the CDROM we spent some time discussing the relevance and nature of planning and literacies learning. Only one of the learners had considered planning as an aspect of the learning process before coming to provision. The key here is that for all the learners, planning and reviewing essentially consideration of and reflection on their learning were not particularly important factors in their perspectives on learning before they engaged with provision and the Wheel. One learner commented, in relation to the importance of planning: "I can't be left to my own devices!" Another learner spoke about the need for this guidance and the importance of structure - that after a short period back in learning she had recognised the importance of clear steps or stages. The learner added that: "... if nothing else planning and reviewing the learning would be really good for tutors as well . . . they would understand you more . . . where you were coming from." The learners' comments and discussion appeared to confirm the need for appropriate and focused planning and reviewing and for discussion around contextualised, detailed and achievable goals.
Findings and implications
In general, both tutors and learners responded positively to the Wheel. The resources available were particularly beneficial for tutors - having a toolkit to help with planning and reviewing was a significant advantage. The terminology used on the Wheel was the most obvious drawback for a number of tutors. The issue of accreditation, as it relates to the terminology, was discussed as a part of the ongoing development process in adult literacies - it will not be appropriate for every learner but this is not to say that the Wheel could not still be adapted for different learning contexts and to suit individual learners or groups.
ICT as a mode of delivering
The use of ICT was a key issue. Although this did not present any problems for the learners involved, tutors were only too aware that for some learners it could present an additional physical and/or psychological barrier to learning. The learners involved commented that it presented an ideal opportunity into a new way of learning and working, essentially it would help to develop their confidence and skills in this area. I would add that using the Wheel also appeared to develop the learners' perspectives and understanding of the planning and review processes - the learners seemed more involved in the process, more able to take control of it. As highlighted in the report on provision in Glasgow ( GCLSP 2008), the development of tutors' and learners' awareness of the importance of planning and reviewing and their commitment to these processes are key issues.
It would be possible to utilise the CDROM as the central element in our own ILP process, certainly in terms of planning and reviewing learning. However, it would also be necessary for us to develop other paperwork/templates as important elements of the process are not included on the CDROM. At the moment we also discuss soft indicators such as motivation, timekeeping and confidence. As part of the initial process we would continue with our learning agreement, learning styles quiz, and most importantly a literacy/numeracy diary for learners.
For many of the tutors involved in the training and focus groups, time was a key issue - not just in terms of using the CDROM but also the lack of opportunities available for professional/staff development. Many did not feel confident enough about using the Wheel as they simply were not familiar enough with it or would have the time to (re) develop their ILP processes. Using ICT presented just as much of a barrier - a number of tutors commented on their lack of (appropriate) ICT resources and support. There was a significant contrast between tutors working in different sectors regarding this issue.
Planning and reviewing learning
In terms of the key findings of the report on provision in Glasgow (2008), it would appear that there is a definite need for the development of practice in this area. It was clear from the learners involved that planning and reflection were not particularly important factors in their perspectives on learning, at least before using the CDROM. While self-directed learning is an aspect that tutors aim to develop, this often takes some time and certainly during the initial stages of learning there is a need for more support and guidance. As one learner commented: "I can't be left to my own devices!" This speaks of a key myth in adult learning (see: Brookfield 1989); that of the confident, self-assured and self-directing learner. Another learner spoke about the importance of this guidance and the definite need for structure - echoing the previous learner in expressing a need for a clear plan and relevant, contextualised goals.
References
Barton, D. (2006) What is Ethnography? From www.nrdc.org.uk (Accessed 5/3/06)
Brookfield, S. (1989) Myths and Realities in Adult Education. In: RAPAL Bulletin No. 23.
Fawns, M & Ivanic, R. (2001) Form-filling as a social practice: taking power into our own hands. In: Crowther, J., Hamilton, M. and Tett, L. (eds) Powerful Literacies. Leicester: NIACE.
Maclachlan, K. (2006) Don't look north through rose tinted spectacles: Tensions, Struggles and Guiding Lights in Scotland - A Reflection. Research and Practice in Adult Literacy. Volume No. 60, Summer 2006.
McAlindon, A. (2005) The Curriculum Framework for Scotland: The Wheel. In: Reflect, Issue 4. October.
Glasgow Community Learning Strategy Partnership - Quality Task Group (2008) Report on Pilot Evaluation of Quality of Adult Literacy and Numeracy ( ALN) Learning Programmes in Glasgow 2006-07. Glasgow's Learning.
Learning Connections (2005) An Adult Literacy and Numeracy Curriculum Framework for Scotland. Communities Scotland, Edinburgh.