.

I thought that I would start by raising some of the issues in relation to language, literacy and numeracy in training packages . Then I’ll look at one of our projects which unpacks language, literacy and numeracy. It’s an ITAB project which is a Workplace English Language and Literacy (WELL) funded project but which we haven't actually started yet. I’ll be looking at the design of the project, using a training package that allows for teachers to use innovative curriculum and to create the spaces to look at issues like critical literacy with their learners.

While it's easy to raise the issues, I don't actually have any answers with which to address them. This is partly because implementation is still at a relatively early stage, so what holds true for one group of learners in one workplace, doesn't necessarily reflect what's the best approach or the reality for learners in another site. Training packages themselves vary in the way they address language, literacy and numeracy. Sometimes this is a reflection of the stage at which the training package itself was developed. For example, if it was early in the process, there may not have been an awareness of how to address language, literacy and numeracy because a lot of those guidelines were, as Rob Bluer said, developed on the run. These inconsistencies in approach – in what to look for and how to read them - make it difficult for teachers and trainers when they are working with training packages.

Language, literacy and numeracy in training packages need to be addressed in two key areas. Language, literacy and numeracy, as we all know, underpin almost everything that goes on at work, so we need to read the units of competence looking at language, literacy and numeracy as underpinning or enabling skills. If they are underpinning or enabling skills, how explicit should they be and where should they be addressed? If they are made explicit, is there a possibility that this will lead to an over-emphasis on language, literacy and numeracy? Will this then form a barrier to the people that we deal with, non-English speaking background people or people with low literacy? If they are not made explicit, how do workplace trainers (who may not have a language, literacy and numeracy background) know how to address these skills? How do they know how to build them into their program, how not to over emphasise and how not to under-emphasise them? And that leads on to the third issue. Does that mean that we should have separate communication skills units within training packages? Does this encourage the teaching of discrete units rather than a more holistic approach in which communication is seen as fundamental to all workplace practices and processes? If you have discrete units of communication skills, does it ensure that communication skills are actually addressed rather than being seen as soft skills that are peripheral to what really accounts for work? We've debated this within our office many times but nobody really knows the best way to address it. They're issues that really need a lot of thinking about and issues that teachers need to workshop themselves if they are to address them within the workplace.

Most of our work involves using training packages in industry through the WELL program. The way we normally go about identifying the language, literacy and numeracy components is by having an initial meeting with a company to identify the skills it wants us to provide training for. As part of our submission for funding, we then map this against what we think are the relevant units of competence in the relevant training package. We then identify the language, literacy and numeracy requirements for jobs in that particular workplace around those particular skills. That doesn't necessarily mean a reductive view of what language is in the workplace. If we're looking at a holistic approach to a job description, then that obviously includes workers talking to workers about their jobs, about their lives and about what they've done on the shop floor. It doesn't just involve talking about jobs. Looking at a machine, while you're standing there watching packets of soup go through, often gives you ample time to exchange personal bits of information on the shop floor. It involves workers talking to supervisors, it involves workers talking to unions, to Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) delegates, to tradespeople to come and fix machines. It may involve them in talking to teachers, trainers, and researchers who come out to find what goes on in their workplace.

At this point, we identify the language, literacy and numeracy requirements that are specified within the designated units of competence. We look at the enabling and underpinning language, literacy and numeracy skills. Then we map these against the National Reporting System (NRS) both as part of our planning and as part of our reporting commitments. We then design a holistic, broad range of contexts, looking at language as it occurs in a procedural context, in a technical context, in a systems context, and cooperative and personal too. Our skills as teachers come in when we get to the stage of designing the curriculum and assessment tasks for the program. That's where it allows the space for us, as teachers, for innovative and critical curriculum design. One of the ways that I can exemplify this is to talk about a project that we're hoping to get going.

This project is in a laundry. It hasn't started so I can't say whether it's going to work or not although we've worked at this site before. This company is about to move site and they’ve taken on a number of new workers because some people didn't want to travel the distance. The managers said they had taken on board some of the messages they had learnt from the previous WELL program, especially the need to include people at all levels of the workplace in what you are going to do. If you impose things afterwards, they just don't work. So, right from the beginning they set up meetings. They carefully explained to people why they were moving, what they hoped to get out of it, why they hoped people would come with them as well as the new workplace practices that they wanted to put in place. They've also just taken over another business and the two businesses are going to be integrated.

The managers said they ran the weekly meetings and they thought they were being really inclusive of everybody. But nobody ever said anything. There they were talking and there were these blank faces and they said to us, "What did we do wrong?" We said that as we weren't there, we didn’t really know, but that, "maybe one of the problems is that if you don't have everybody involved in the talking, then maybe you've lost them right from the beginning." As most of the people were Vietnamese or from mainland China, perhaps they were not culturally used to participating in meetings.

Our WELL program is going to be handing over the running of these weekly meetings to the workers themselves. There will be three people, hopefully, in each meeting who will have responsibility for going around beforehand and talking to a range of stakeholders to find out the issues to be addressed, including management, union delegates and operators. They will draw up an agenda, chair the meeting and write up minutes so that everybody has a record of what happened. Then they will follow through with the actions that arise from those meetings and then hand that process over to the next group of three. I know this is still using language within a workplace context. It is still looking at one form of mainstream language, and it's not necessarily looking at encouraging a diversity of languages or language forms within that context. However, I still think it allows us as teachers the opportunity to help learners engage in critical debate about what's going on in the workplace.

Why are we looking at our project like this? What is the agenda for management? What is the agenda for all stakeholders in the workplace? It allows us to critically unpack what language is about, how we use it and why we use it in a range of contexts. This can then be mapped against the workplace units and the appropriate units of competence within the training package, so that we're meeting the needs of a whole range of stakeholders within the program. I believe that there is space there for us, for the freedom that we're used to, in terms of meeting learner needs and addressing the needs of individuals within the workplace.