VAILL 2013

Adult literacy colleagues: I hope you will consider participating in the Virginia Institute for Lifelong Learning (VAILL) 2013 conference to be held at Radford University in July. 

"VAILL is a staff development opportunity funded by the Office of Adult Education and Literacy in the Virginia Department of Education for adult education practitioners who work in programs funded by that office. Practitioners can attend this three day event by completing and submitting the registration form along with the registration fee. During the course of the three days, participants will choose the workshops they attend. This year, they will be able to choose workshops from the following strands: ABE/ GED, Career Pathways, GED 2014 and Close Out of GED 2002, ESOL, Program Leadership, Secondary Credentials, Literacy, and Technology. Participants come from across the Commonwealth so there is the opportunity for learning in structured workshop sessions and during meals and other activities. Publishing vendors will be present to “show and share” their wares for use in adult education programming" (VAILL planning board). 

We are looking for workshop proposals on technology integration, adult education best practices, ESOL literacy and civics instruction, and workforce / employment skills.  This is a wonderful opportunity to share your expertise with adult ed colleagues from around the state.   If you are interested in attending as a participant, registration,which includes dorm lodging and meals for the entire conference, in only $30!

I hope you will consider VAILL 2013 this July at Radford. Thanks so much and hope to see you there!  Susan

Taking the Time

"We don't take the time to meet one to one with others, to hear their interests and dreams and fears, to understand why people do what they do or don't do what they don't do." (Gecan, M., All Real Living is Meeting, Going Public, p. 21)

I couldn't help but pause as I read this statement.  This class has really done so much for me in terms of realizing the importance of taking the time to slow down and really pay attention.  Pay attention to the world around us, the world we may not know, and perhaps the world of someone else's meaning.  Text can be so powerful, and sometimes it is important to really step back, or perhaps step inside, to see if we are truly achieving what we hope.  When I began my project this semester, I truly began looking at the course and text I chose because I wanted to know why people "don't do what they don't do".  I wanted to gain a more comprehensive view of how people view the course, it content, its comprehension and what it represents. 

I began my journey by first reading the policy and online content with a more critical lens.  What I discovered was language that I'd read before, but was truly seeing perhaps for the first time.  Both forms of text were riddled with a feeling of power and language that conveyed fear.  Fear that was hoped to drive compliance; but was perhaps overlooked in its ability to also create the resistance encountered. I was also surprised to learn, as an employee, how much the training really didn't cover. 

We are held accountable for the knowledge of all that the policy includes, and yet the training only highlighted what the creator found to be of value.  There was so much that I had honestly forgotten (or perhaps had not seen); how many others are there potentially that are also unaware? 

Enlightened by what I had already discovered on my own, I was surprised by how much more insight the interviews provided.  I entered into each of these interviews with the assumption that all would be open and honest with me regarding the subject matter.  Each person that I interviewed one-on-one appeared to be very candid during the interviews and provided great insights as to how people struggled with digital literacy, literacy in the traditional sense, time insufficiencies for completion, and the effect that terms like "corporate" and "just get it done" really had on the true learning and completions that were taking place (or not taking place). My small focus group participants proved the most interesting of all perhaps however; not so much in terms of our topic but on a more personal level.  While the information gleaned from this particular interview was helpful in terms of my study, I was also provided a window into how I myself may be perceived by others within my organization.  During the interview one of the participants responded to a question with, "I'd rather not say" for instance, and I in truth was absolutely shocked.  I have known them both for quite some time and use to work very closely with them.  So to have one convey such mistrust (?) really caught me off guard.  I can only help but wonder now in how many ways one's position truly impacts the many things that go on within our workplace.  How power, or fear by association, can color so much of our world; often more than perhaps we even realize.

So as I conclude this semester, I can't help but feel as if I have only begun to graze the surface of this study regarding whether or not stated goals can be met through online training methods.  My opinion may have forever been changed as to whether or not completions (or lack of) can truly only be attributed to the illiteracies or struggles as defined by the traditional sense.  I have realized the importance of asking oneself; is it comprehension or awareness of where to go and find the information they may need that we seek to instill?  Because the answer to such a simple question can greatly influence the best choice in a course's delivery method and/or content.  I also consider a difference in understanding of online literacy in general; too many words on the screen can water down focus and perhaps comprehension.  So to ensure true learning when using this method, perhaps it's best to keep it short and sweet.

"We begin by covering some familiar territory in addressing the language and literacy barriers that discourage involvement, interest and engagement with the training in the classroom, but then we push further by examining the social practices of literacy outside the classroom that present quite a different picture.  The contradictions between literacy use promoted in idealized training sessions and literacy use on the floor are dramatic and offer convincing evidence for adopting a complex, socially situated view of literacy." (Belfiore, Defoe, Folinsbee, Hunter, Jackson, 2004, p. 196)

Reflection on Reflections -2-

Thank you all for your amazing ideas in the comments on my first reflection. 

There are some more ideas I would like to share with you about my project.

The second theme I see in my research about the blog reflection is about self identity and personal meanings. I wonder what does the blogs mean to them. Do they feel positive or negative about it? How they understand the identity issues in their posts?   By analyzing all the data, I believe there are both positive and negative feelings among students about this issue. Some students report that they find their own voice in the post. As student A said, she was very shy, and it is still hard for her to share her ideas with a group of people openly. The blog serves as a great platform for her to overcome her shyness and express her thought. She feels that although she missed many posts, she owns each of the pieces she had there. Therefore, she does construct personal meaning for herself through the blog.  However, some others feel differently. Some students, such as student O, were explicit about their carelessness about the blog. When hearing "it is not me", or "I don't remember what I have wrote about", I feel that the blog is not part of the student's identity and has no meaning for them. They are not really devoting to it and owning their work, but checking boxes for others. I feel the same way when student R said that he wrote in "professional voice" in the blog. The so-called "professional voice" is also what I have observed in their posts. In some posts, students are not talking about their own experience. There is no "I" in their post. It is more objective than subjective. The authors' feeling are alienated from the posts.

I am not sure how to evaluate this phenomenon, since it leads the discussion back to the purpose of the blog. If the goal is to let students think about their daily life and reflect on their learning experience, then "I" should be invited in their posts and their writing should be part of their identity. However, if the blog is expected to be a space where students ponder about general questions and practice academic writing, then the objectivity should be appreciated. When having these two situations, I cannot help asking myself who has the right to decide the purpose of the blog. If the instructor has the power, will it still be "learner-centered" education? If the students does, are they mature enough at this point to make the best decision for themselves? Or, as raised by Joyce, should the college also teach students to deal with tasks they have to do although they may not like it? I just keep posing questions, but cannot find the perfect solutions to them.

The third theme about the blog reflection is social pressure, which I find fascinating. Generally there is pressure form writing and responding. In terms of writing, the awareness of the audience, especially the audience of higher level,  nerves students a lot. As some of them said, knowing that the instructor and GTA are reading their posts, they tend to say what they think will please us. Also, the characteristic of digital literacy makes people feel more vulnerable about putting their ideas out there. Different from traditional paper, the Internet records anything that even occurred on it. People can always go back and check what other have posted in the blogs. Therefore, it is natural for students to feel uncomfortable to share their real feelings through the blogs.

Also, when responding to others, students tend to be sweet smiling faces instead of challenging questioners, especially, as Student R mentioned, after two students had a conflict about the way of challenging others' ideas. Responding in writing language is the primary way for students to comment on each other's posts. They are expected to be thoughtful and respectful in their comments. Here comes the questions about the differences between personal and public speech, as well as writing and oral language. As instructors, we did start the conversations and prepare students well for the task until the conflicts happened. Due to the lack of relavant skills, students get worried about their social relationships and decide to shut their changeling ideas down.  Therefore, when do it next time, we may think about what we need to do to prepare student better for the tasks they are assigned with. Also, student may get irritated when reading others  comments because they misunderstand their tone or intention.  Accordingly, it may be helpful to spare some class time to discuss about what is going on in the blog. By having face-to-face communication, students may understand each other better, and become genuin curious about others' ideas.

Honestly, I didn't expect to find such a rich body of information and to learn so much. At this point, I am really glad to that I did this, which gives me many ideas about what to do when I have my own class. Also, thank you, my dear professor and classmate, for your constant encouragement :)

All of our reflections

It's been good reading everyone's final reflections. We have covered so much ground, and as much as Dr. Muth has given us (and it's been a lot, but wonderful to read), it has been enlightening to see how we view our jobs and what we think of what we do. I have so much more ground to cover, and I'm looking forward to everyone's view of literacy. I think we know more than we recognize, and sharing our views, perspectives, and considerations gives all of us a new lens through which to view literacy.


Joyce M.

How I See It Now

 

When I started my 1-2-3 project I simply disliked my artifact, found it to be of little value, and something that needed improvement.  It was just the tip of an iceberg.  As I started my research into my artifact it became bigger, more powerful and something that needed to be abolished; it took my instructional assistant away from me, it gave me no valuable input and I grew to truly despise it.  It was a large iceberg ready to destroy my trip.  By the time I was done my research the hate had become exhausting; I was ready to throw up my hands and say it just doesn’t matter.  I had come to wonder if in truth my artifact had no value?  Had it been simplified so many times over the years that it had become inconsequential?  Was I just going to be plotting a trip around this iceberg and dealing with the waste of time?  This was where I was at the near end.

So I reflected back and wondered again had some of my interviewees been as blasé about the whole thing as they had seemed?  As my study ended I had taken the electronic version of my artifact to my supervisor and she had like it, she’s planning on implementing a similar example next school year.  I walked away feeling something good might evolve from my work.  Yet, I did ponder Dr. Muth’s questions about my interviewees… Did loyalty to the system prevent me from hearing the whole story during my interviews, or did I miss something?  This week I went back to three of my interviewees and showed them the new form.  After a brief explanation of “my project went well”, “thanks for your input” and “look how things might change, maybe electronic” I just sort of casually tossed out there “what do you think?”

These new encounters could not be called interviews, but I needed to see reactions, to see if I had misread cues from earlier.  I got three different reactions:  First - “Oh, glad to help, looks like it might apply to the IEP more,” this from the general education teacher that had expressed that she taught many individualized students and filled out many un-individualized forms.  She seemed receptive; maybe I had read her correctly.  Second – “Electronic? Hmmm, who is inputting this?” this from my instructional assistant.  She was looking at the work load, logically concerned about her duties.  When I said that “was undetermined at this point” she finally looked closer at the form, and thoughtfully nodded her way through the sections.  Without poking into her brain again, I assumed she weighed her duties and the needs of the students and decided she would do her job as she always did as she respects the system.  Third – “Why change it?” this from the general educator that completes the forms in the mailroom.  When I shrugged he looked down at it.  “Electronic might be easy”, he added.  I can’t help but think his initial reaction was true, and his follow up question was to satisfy my need for him to speak.  He scanned the form and handed it back.  I still don’t know where he stands; his apparent lack of concern still grates on me.  If he feels more it's secret.  He’s just going to do what needs to be done by the system.

Now I ask myself if it is possible to discredit full conversations with a 30 second recap?  Probably not, but in this day and age when people are told by the media to feel lucky that they have jobs, do people resist the system in silence?  Probably; I suspect they were silent with me even in our 30 second recap.  The things in the workplace that I don’t agree with I do anyway, and those things that I value I seek to do well.  I use the existing artifact because I was told to by the system, now I am hoping to see a change in the future so what I silently resisted can now have value for me.  Maybe I've found a way to melt some of the iceberg down, live with it and maybe I'll eventually come to stake a claim in the change.

Final Reflections

Susan's presentation

It has taken me some time to digest the feedback and understand the missed opportunities in my presentation.  I have given a lot of thought to the presentation format we used and how it worked to enhance or diminish the meaning of my material.  While I  thoroughly enjoyed assembling a multi-media text to share my work, I think I relied on "readers"  to make too many inferences from pictures and arrows.  In addition to information I omitted (by choice or ignorance), many ideas were implied but not explicitly stated.

 I believe a written paper would have served me better, allowing me to see the gaps in my work; however, I think there was an important purpose in sharing our work with the class.  Through multi-media presentations, classmates were afforded the opportunity to learn from each other in a way that exchanging written papers would not have allowed.  We interacted with the presenter, and each other, by completing an activity and posing questions.  In this way, we learned more than if we had completed our projects in isolation and / or simply read each others' papers.

Now we have the opportunity to use this blog as a tool to reflect and address feedback on our work,.  Maybe we can continue learning from each other.  For example, Susangale's post expanded my knowledge of validity,  Annie's post helped me better understand teacher-student power relationships, and Joyce's post helped me understand how literacy is viewed/valued by our society.   In that spirit, I'm asking for help to better understand and describe stakeholders I overlooked, hinted about, but did not explain or describe explicitly in my presentation.  I'm struggling for words that will describe rather than other or vilify this group.  Please allow me to explain.

In my analysis of an ideology that treats literacy as an independent variable (Street, 1984), I described a linear model that positions learners as objects.  Literacy is added, measured, and studied.  This model is contrasted with the socio-cultural model (Purcell-Gates, Perry, Briseno, 2011) that treats literacy as an embedded  practice.


I further described how I did not challenge the linear ideology; I was blind to my position in it, not realizing my part or the way I benefited from it.  I actually put my little picture at the end of the equation, but I did not explain further.  What I missed was describing the stakeholders in this model--the group that is threatened, or fights the war on illiteracy.  This is the group that benefits from the status quo (like a teacher who needs a job), and therefore does not question this ideology.  This is the group that holds power and is threatened by change.  This is the group that defines a point between literacy and illiteracy and, around it, constructs enough scientific data as to forget the underlying assumption: literacy is treated as neutral thing that is isolated and measured.  Brian Street (1984) describes this group as follows

From the point of view of many States, who badly needed such investments, literacy programs represented an input factor whose success was to be assessed in terms of the economic return.  This meant that ultimate determination of the programme lay with financial and commercial interests, with governments acting simply as mediators and providers of the 'risk capital' in terms of the infrastructure of education and training.  The subjects themselves were a form of 'plant' whose effectiveness could be maximised by the employment of new 'educational technology' in the form of 'literacy skills', thereby enabling greater surplus to be extracted from them (p. 184). 

It was easy to describe these anonymous stakeholders as capitalist villains.  It was too easy to build my case.  True, this was a simple, student  representation of a complex ideology, but I did not provide another perspective in addition to my own.  My project lacks validity without another point of view.  This was my other critical omission.

In the few lines remaining on this post, I can add that the linear ideology serves a purpose.  Without it, we would have chaos. By conducting more interviews and showing data that support this model's successes, I could build a case for the need to measure and quantify literacy in some way.  The linear model exists to provide accountability to stakeholders such as governments and taxpayers.  The linear model provides a much needed service; many people realize success in its programs.

Thank you for reading this long post.  Reflecting via this blog has helped me better understand how to improve what I presented to you in class.  I would love to hear your thoughts on my project.  Susan 

Reflecting on Discourse One Final Time; Yet Realizing the Changes In My Own Forever

I feel I must apologize (again?) before I even really begin, for many may be starting to wonder if I have learned anything else this semester outside of the concept of Discourse (with a capital D).  I also know that Dr. Muth is eager for us to share more about our projects through our blogs before the semester ends; but I am over eager to share a few recent reflections with all of you first.  Perhaps I am experiencing what Christine Woodcock would describe as embodied knowing?  For as I read chapter 5 of Belfiore, I nearly ran to my computer in an effort to write my thoughts down before the emotion I felt subsided…And I find myself equally as eager, of course, to hear your opinions about them….

As I find myself immersed in the Belfiore team's ethnographies once again,  I am struck by the similarities between  the reflections in this text and thoughts of my own during the interviews and compilation of this semester's project.  But my reference to a possible embodied knowing experience above, came as I read page 213.   On this page we find a portion of Sue Folinsbee's accounts regarding Janet, a trainer, with Texco.  In this particular example, Folinsbee mentions that Janet is describing a required form and how to fill it out.  Folinsbee notes that as the training goes on, the employees seem to visibly relax and the conversation to be more comfortable.  A different feel than when they had previously been reviewing documents with unfamiliar and complex language.  On the surface, this may not appear to be that much of an 'ah ha' moment; but I immediately wrote the words "use their Discourse" with emphasis next to this particular section due to an experience of my own just a few hours before.

As I sat in my office today, I was distracted slightly as I heard robust laughter coming through the closed door of one of our training rooms.   I found myself listening after that, eager to hear what may have caused such excitement in a training session that can usually have a somewhat serious undertone (conflict and management of difficult people).  I marveled at the skilled facilitator's ability to relate to his audience and entertain, while still instilling the knowledge and awareness that they sought and perhaps needed.  No true 'nuggets' of wisdom floated through the door frame after that, so I soon went back to my work.  At the conclusion of the session, I approached the facilitator eager to discover what secrets he may have for me.  But as I mentioned to him that it sounded as though it had gone well; he commented that although he felt it had, he had really had to work hard for it.  He must have noticed my quizzical look in response, because he went on to explain that his typical jokes and examples had fallen flat with this particular audience at first.  He typically had done this type of training with high-level managers with great success; so had not considered the difference he may find with a group outside of that Discourse.  After "bringing it down a level" and truly relaxing his style a bit more; the group began to relate more to him, share their stories and the session seemed to go a lot easier overall.

As he described all of this to me, I couldn't help but smile as I considered the stories that I had found within the pages of our text, Reading Work, and various other articles throughout the semester.  As I shared the potential word for what he had experienced, he smiled back (feeling justified in his approach perhaps?).  We continued a brief discussion about the complexities that we can find sometimes within our own organization.  A relatively good sized company made up of such a variety of individuals; a seemingly similar world on the outside, but one with such different needs when one really takes the time to look closely.

As a facilitator, I recognize that I may not always know what the Discourse of my audience may be.  And I may not even have the ability to recognize it each time and adapt when needed.  But for those times when I find myself among a sea of blank faces, I wonder if I will know now to try a different approach or consider my words more carefully. And will the documents that I produce or be presented with ever be viewed the same way?

Whether I am to simplify or professionalize my language, or to ensure that I use the correct jargon; I appreciate my newest lens and what it can provide for me.  For the text on a page is not as flat as the piece of paper it is on; a view my newest Discourse has thankfully granted me.

Validity – Let me count the ways…

I was having a little problem understanding what exactly was being referred to as “validity” during the project presentations. I finally figured out it was a difference in discourses (surprise!). My discipline has taught me these discourses around validity constructs:

·         Face validity – the degree to which a measure seems to be measuring what it is intended to measure

·         Content validity – how well a measure covers the range of meaning associated with a concept

·         Predictive validity – how well a measure is associated with future behaviors, etc.

·         Construct validity – how well a measure of a concept is associated with a measure of another concept of a theory that it should be associated with

·         Internal validity – agreement between a study’s conclusions about causal connections and what is actually true (I figured out I was getting closer to the class objective with this one)

Needless to say, I was hearing validity with my “measurement” ears and I wasn’t sure what I was supposed to be addressing.  My bookshelf, however, contains a nice selection of research methodology resources and in Action Research (McNiff and Whitehead, 2006) I found this: “…when we claim our theory has “validity” we say it has truth value and is trustworthy… (has been) demonstrated as having truth value through a rigorous process of public critique” (Pp20-21).

McNiff and Whitehead (2006), discuss the researcher’s validity by raising questions about whether a “practitioner is competent to judge their own work and how they will assure the “watching public” that their findings are credible and trustworthy.” To do this the practitioner/evaluator must make their “evaluation processes visible and show that (processes) are rigorous and robust, and produce strong evidence to show that they as practitioner-researchers are competent and capable” (p. 70).  My methodology entailed having the class “discover” the text alongside me in order to make the processes visible. My qualifications as a research-practitioner, while frequently referenced in class, were not explicitly stated in the presentation.  Further reading discussed “claims-making” and how the researcher’s awareness of validity threats and attempts to control for those are documented.  It is important for the researcher-practitioner to articulate the values that inspired the work, as well.

I began to understand that I needed to ask myself – why did I choose this topic? After giving that some thought, I came up with the following, which I hope will address my bias and improve the validity of my analysis.

Scholarly activity and research are essential activities of the university, as is teaching, creative expression and service.  A review of evaluation practices show a mix of ¼ service and ¾ teaching and research are generally acceptable, teaching success demonstrated by class loads, evaluations, etc.,  and research by publications and/or funding.   “Scholarly activity and research” for teaching faculty have, largely, been measured by the number of quality publications.  My claim: There is a culture shift wherein “funded” research is being weighted more heavily in importance than ever before. Dollars count. Why is this important to me? I am not a tenure/tenure-track faculty, nor am I evaluated by the same standards as tenured faculty, so what is in it for me? I realized this had to do with my values and beliefs.

I am a student of organizational culture and change management. I gravitate towards looking at things through a cultural lens. Throughout my career, I have worked to create environments that can bridge workplace obstacles so that people can “do what they are there to do” – yes, I think I can say I coined that in as much as any of us “coin” commonsense.  I am also a “research practitioner” meaning I do research within the organizational structure of the university – and routinely navigate all of the requisite policies and procedures. I know what it means from a practitioner point of view to conduct research within the university structure. I know how time-consuming and confusing the system can be.  I am aware of what supports are available and what ones are lacking or non-existent. 

My bias? – concern about how this culture shift is going to be managed – about how the organization is going to address the problem of a lack of infrastructure to support the expectation for faculty to pursue ever greater amounts of “funded” research – and all layers that go with that expectation.  How do my concerns affect my study? I am motivated to do something, like maybe raise my voice in the context of my project.  But I have tried to do so in such a way that other “experts” can draw their own conclusion about the discourse in Theme II.  

Thanks for reading....susangale

Valuing Literacy

So now I reflect on what I learned and how I used it. In preparing my study, I first looked at the training manuals we use for teaching computer classes. They use non-contextual learning; they teach students how to perform tasks in a program. When I teach, I try to give my students context for using the skills. The books normally follow a company through their office tasks, and I try to apply these to the students’ everyday work environment. But then I started thinking about the culmination of the training. There isn’t a final exam or grade. I thought about the degree I earned last year for four years’ work at VCU. I wondered if the certificates students receive have value. I do have a bias in that I would like to think that the certificate actually had value for the student and was not simply documentation of completion. My case study was to try to find out if my hopes were realized, so I don’t know that I could be fully objective; I needed to make sure I recognized my biases.

In preparing interviews, I knew that the topic would make it difficult to have direct interviews. I don’t have co-workers to whom I could direct questions, other than the director for the program I teach in. Stephanie, the director of Think Again, was very helpful in telling me about the program, how classes are selected, how faculty are selected, and the purpose of the program. I asked her about the students who take the class, and she indicated that many of them were either currently working in a subject for which they were taking a class or wanted to work in a field and needed some classroom training to get experience before trying to get employment. I prepared questions for interview surveys, because I thought that was the best way to direct questions regarding the training and the resulting certificate. It was a difficult set of questions to craft, because I needed to start with the reason for the training and lead into the value of the certificate itself. I think as a student it would be difficult to answer the latter set of questions simply because most of us don’t really think of setting a value for a piece of paper, so responders would need to think about what that paper represented. This is not something we spend much time reflecting on. My survey had fifteen questions, and I tried to keep them open ended, but there was no question that I was leading them to think about putting value on the certificate. Had I phrased my questions differently, I think I might have been a little more – maybe cynical – about putting value on a piece of paper. It would cause responders to question the value of the training as a whole and the paper as a representation of their efforts. No one wants to think that work they put forth is not of value, so of course they would want to respond that the training, hence the certificate, would have value.

It was difficult conducting phone interviews with hiring managers. Going in asking for information about their employees and how they work to improve their skills is something recruiters and managers would like to put a good face to. Again, no one wants to think that training is of little value in a job, so managers would like to think that the representation of the training, the certificate, would have value. As I discussed training and its value in a corporate environment, I found something I thought I might but was hoping I wouldn’t, from a personal/professional satisfaction perspective. Managers felt that training was helpful, but practical experience was more valuable in most cases. Some certificates, or what they represented, had more value than others. According to one manager, having the ‘initials’ on one’s signature block, made a difference in the perception of an employee. For one company, the staff create a professional plan each year that includes training. This is considered important for all employees, clerical to professional. The recruiters and manager I interviewed were trying to be helpful. I think that asking them to discuss the value of a certificate for training kind of geared them to putting value on it, because it would be defeatist for someone professional to answer that formal training was of little value. 

I would like to have interviewed students who had taken training at some of the local ‘universities’. One school has the tag line, “It’s all about the training”. When I think of college, I think of learning, not training. But looking at some of the offerings online, I saw more of a focus on training for employment, so for these certificates, there would have been more value. I had the opportunity to talk to two people in a medical office who had the type of positions advertised by local ‘colleges’. One had begun in the office as a temp and learned the job as she worked, so when the position was advertised, she had the experience rather than the training, but got the job. The second person had taken the training for the position. She indicated that while the training and certificate helped her get the job, it was a lot of money for a position that could be taught on the job.

Taking the raw data to conclusions was difficult. In the background I kept hearing my voice telling me that there should be a value to the certificates. When I heard neutral comments or read responses in the survey that were not always positive, I was a little dismayed. My vested interest didn’t exactly interfere, but I did try to put the best light on what I heard/received. I had wished that there were a way for students to have had face to face interviews with someone who was more neutral. I’m sure a consideration for them was to please me as the interviewer. The same consideration applies to the recruiters and hiring manager I interviewed. I indicated at the outset what I was going to be discussing, so I’m sure they wanted to put a positive spin on the value of training and the certificate it represented. Most respondents to the survey either provided the certificate to their supervisor for their personnel record or hung it in their office space. The physical representation of their achievement was valuable enough for them to have the reminder in their office. The key words I heard were achievement, accomplishment, commitment, and recognition.

It would not be a stretch to say that coming from a different perspective, that is, different stakeholders could legitimately come to different and valid conclusions. The value of the certificate depended on what the certification was. One recruiter said that the certificate could help, but all three indicated that it would not be a deciding factor. As a stakeholder, hub workers could come to different conclusions. They might find that the certificate helped them find employment or achieve a promotion, but others might find that while the certificate was nice, it didn’t necessarily change their position or perception by others in the organization. As a trainer/educator, yes, I did have my bias hoping to find that all stakeholders would find value in the certificate. My values definitely impacted on my findings. I think like all researchers, we have results we would like to find, and we look for those results in what we receive. It would be interesting to have someone outside the environment look at the survey results and interview answers and see what they came up with. Realistically I have to admit that the certificate as a literacy event has some value to everyone who earns it, but does not always have the value I would like to find.

At some point I may have the opportunity to review this and take it further. Recognizing my position both as a student and a teacher has given me perspective on tangible representation of intangible skills. I read chapter 5 of Belfiore and continued reading into chapter 6.  In it, the authors talk about the social practices of the literacies. I tried looking through this lens at my research. While some of the motivations for literacy learning included recognition, respect, and status – something I heard from my surveys – I also was struck by how my view of the certificate as a literacy event was more managerial than objective. I wanted to think the certificates had value in the workplace. In practice, though, I have formed an opinion that the literacy event meant less than I would have hoped. The theory and the practice were somewhat at odds. Employers in theory would like to have certified employees, but if a student or employee had certified, it did not necessarily empower them. As I read, I wondered if a student would take more initiative in their job as a result of what they had learned. Could a former student question a supervisor with the knowledge they had attained as a result of their training? Could the certification give them more of a voice than they might otherwise have? I am sure this varies in differing work environments. Did it make them a better communicator to co-workers and supervisors? These are questions I don’t have answers to. Did I do critical research? I think to an extent I did. Having read Belfiore again, I think I might look at the literacy another way, as weaving into practice rather than the end result.

So the first semester of my literacy journey ends. I learned that I have so much more to learn, which seems to be the case for every class I take. Thank you all for sharing your knowledge and patience.

Joyce M.