The Impact of Adult Literacy Classes: The Characteristics and Activities of Clients. P.Griffin, J. Pollock, S. Casey, S. Neeson, M. Fitzpatrick, K. Corneille. Assessment Research Centre, RMIT, Melbourne, Paper presented to the annual conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education. Perth, November, 1993 The field of adult education is relatively young as a profession. It is still emerging through a constantly changing pattern of political, ideological, philosophical and methodological approaches. The field was given a boost in the late eighties by the impetus of the international year of literacy, and the publicity given to the issues associated with adult literacy. Coincident with this was the need for Australia to restructure its economy, industry and education system. The international year of literacy coincided with a growing awareness that Australia's industry had to become more competitive, that English in the workplace was essential, that the capacity to process information, to participate in problem solving, process numerical and textual information in printed, computer and signage media were essential skills. The rapidly changing nature of the workplace, the realisation by employers that the workforce needed to be literate and numerate, and the rising numbers of unemployed led to an irresistible pressure on the community to raise the literacy levels to a point where all citizens could participate in employment, in community affairs, social exchanges and responsibilities and in education and training opportunities. With the urgency associated with the successful lobbying of adult literacy groups, the government put aside millions of dollars to address a problem highlighted in the national study of adult literacy (Wickert, 1989). Despite the limited nature of that study because of its self selecting sample, the restricted view of literacy it entailed and the inaccurate reflection of Non English Speaking Background population, the study influenced government, industry, education and community groups to an large extent. It is perhaps a reflection on the novice nature of the research strength of the adult literacy field, that the study, replicating a small fraction of a similar study in the USA, (Kirsch and Jungerblut, 1986), could have such an effect. It is also a reflection of the changing economic and industrial scene that the community, government and industry were ready to be told the message of the study... "Higher levels of adult literacy are essential. Lack of literacy costs millions of dollars, large proportions of the community and the workforce in particular are functionally illiterate. In an era of economic rationalism, such messages are seized upon as strong evidence for rational and instrumental approaches to education. So in the late eighties and early nineties adult education received the simultaneous boost of funds, credibility and importance to levels that it had never had before. Along with this increased profile came the ideological, political and philosophical struggle for ascendancy. Existing power groups espoused a single philosophy and ideological approach, were sustained by the theories of Halliday (1974) and motivated by the philosophies of Freire (1973). Along with the higher profile and the insistence that literacy and industry success were inextricably connected, came a struggle for control over the curriculum, the disbursement of funds, and the kudos that came with the additional presence outside the further education or community classroom. Industry insisted that workers released for classes learned to read, workers who attended classes in their own time associated the development of literacy skills with increased opportunity for advancement in employment or, for the unemployed, access to the workforce. Alternatively, workers who were identified as illiterate, were often surreptitiously identified for 'out placement' when 'downsizing' in industry began. Enterprise management adopted the attitude that it was a cost they should not have to bear if the work suffered because of languages and literacy difficulties among the workers. There was a preference to employ already literate workers and to screen out those who could not demonstrate basic literacy skills. Survey after survey illustrated that management and workers alike considered that literacy and numeracy were to become increasing important in the workplace and in the lives of people generally. Industry was also engaging on a restructuring of workers' roles. With the introduction of total quality a management, quality assurance and international best practice pursuits, workers were expected not only to be literate and numerate, but to be multi skilled, constantly retrained and flexible. The importance of literacy in education and training was inextricable linked to its importance in the workplace. A reflection of the importance is evident in the funds made available by the government. The Workplace Language and Literacy program, for instance, funds programs in literacy and language in the workplace and helps to support enterprises that release workers to learn literacy skills during work time. This is in part in recognition that the management have argued that it may be partly the government's responsibility to contribute to the reduction in the deficit in literacy skills among the workforce. On the other hand, many industries and employers have accepted the responsibility for workers employed in times when literacy was not considered as important. These enterprises have established their own language and literacy programs, at times fully funding them for the workforce, at other times supported by the migrant education program, by the adult literacy program, by the workplace language and literacy program or a host of other specialised programs designed to maintain employability or to develop unemployed person's skills to the point where they become employable. These are all perceptions of the role of literacy in peoples lives from the perspective of employers, governments and providers. They do not necessarily represent the goals of participants in literacy programs. The importance of literacy in education and training in work, community and social aspects of life were firmly established in the perceptions of the government, educators, industry leaders and community groups. Literacy has become a prime focus of most aspects of the community. While adult literacy programs have been in progress for decades, little is known about the impact of the programs, about the effect on the participants, about the impact on industry, or on productivity, on training, flexibility of the workforce, or even what has happened to students who have participated in the programs. It is relatively simple to collect anecdotes of students who have succeeded and have been introduced to reading, opening up a new dimension on their lives. On the other hand, the media is fascinated by the negative side of literacy and insist on reporting on levels of "illiteracy". Literacy workers focus on "literacy" and now refuse to recognise or use the word illiteracy. For those who have proceeded to further education, every literacy teacher has an anecdote of the success story. It should be possible to collect transcripts of their further education results. However, documenting the destinations of students from adult literacy classes is less easily carried out for the vast majority of them. Very little research has been done on the field of literacy and adult basic education in Australia. There has been a great deal of theorising (as much in recognition of the lack of a theoretical basis for the work), a great deal of posturing and curriculum development, many attempts to identify an approach to assessment and a diversifying of professional groups. Industry has been in a quandary as to whether to afford the basic competencies of literacy and numeracy the status of vocational competencies. Literacy organisations, often language and literature based, have redefined numeracy as "literacy with numbers" in what appears to be an attempt to maintain control over all aspects of adult basic education. At times the fate of the adult learner has diminished in importance in the continuing process of change. The amount of money involved, the power and influence available to key individuals and organisations has meant that at times that the focus has been on lobbying and influencing public servants who control the funds rather than on the impact of the programs on the learners. While this "big picture ' battle was waged, most practitioners worked on, often oblivious to the power struggle being waged in capital cities and bureaucratic organisations and simply set about the task of helping adults learn to read and to develop their language skills. A tiny minority also focused on the capacity to deal with numerical information and to carry out mathematical applications of everyday exercises. Very little has been written about or by those who carry out the task of developing the literacy skills of individuals. Certainly no Australian longitudinal studies have been conducted, and only a few studies of individuals aspirations and expectations have been reported. (Brennan et al, 1986.) Internationally there have been very few longitudinal studies although at least two are currently under way (Bossort, 1993; Smith, 1992). No Australian studies have been conducted into the impact of literacy programs on the lives, education, work or community participation. Adult Literacy Participants' Goals: Ten factors were identified by Thomas (1984) for adults to take part in basic education programs. They were educational advancement, self improvement, literacy development, diversion (hobby), community and church involvement, economic need, family responsibility, job advancement, launching themselves in social activities and urging others. It is often assumed that students motivations are stable and that they lead, through participation, to positive outcomes and the realisation of all their hopes embodied in the expression of the motives for participation. Fingeret, however, (1983) illustrated that the effects of adult basic education participation were not all positive. There were risks attached to the program for participants. Learning to read and write may mean that established friendships were fractured, students may become alienated from existing support networks. In fact,... less often. (Fingeret, 1983, 144). The adult learner is generally assumed to have a basic need to learn to read and to develop in a personal sense. As Thomas and Fingeret illustrate the motivations and outcomes can be diverse, The expectations outlined by Brennan and others were predictable, but lacked insight into the risks and potentially diverse set of possible losses from participation in adult basic education classes. System Goals: Adult education practitioners, have been subjected to a confusing range of developments in recent years, particularly after the international year of literacy. Policy makers and practitioners have both been redefining and publishing their goals for students, (OACFEB Framework), programs such as SkillShare have developed into more than developing reading, numeracy and writing skills. The courses have been devised to address needs seen as access to employment, retaining employment, changing jobs, gaining access to further education, improvement of self esteem, helping children and others with reading and access to information, participating more in the community, improving communication skills, developing general life skills, developing better family interrelationships and other motives of the providers. Particularly strong has been the movement, potentially based on Freire but lately emerging from the critical literacy thrust is the empowerment of marginalised groups in the community and the politicising of adults into more active political participants in the community. These goals have all been articulated by the providers, more particularly by the policy makers and organisations associated with adult basic education classes (OACFEB, 1993; Luke and Gilbert, 1993) but there does not seem to have been any attempt to identify whether the participants share the goals in the overt or covert agendas of the providers. Given that the present longitudinal study is not to be evaluative, it will not be possible to address the issues of whether participants achieve these goals and if so what was it about the program that enabled the achievement or if not what was lacking. No Australian study has asked whether the changes brought about in their lives as a result of participation were positive or negative. Program evaluations in adult basic education have focused on curriculum, on methodology, on ideology and philosophy of the practitioner, on the assessment, on the process, but the opportunity to focus on outcomes, apart from the Brennan study, has rarely been given. Studies that have were essentially focussing on and reinforcing the presumed outcomes as established by providers. In general, this is an acceptable form of evaluation and provides immediate and formative information on how to improve the presentation and content for the short term outcomes of the course. However, it is possible that participants' views of the programs may change once they have been out of the program for some time. The immediate gains may be diminished by experiences. Bosset contends that client's experiences over a ten year post program period makes the validity of evaluations of current programs questionable when life goals are taken into account. Low literacy students are vulnerable and impressionable when attending programs. It may, for instance, be the first time anyone acknowledges their needs, their insecurity and their past sense of failure in education. Adult basic educators establish rapport with the students and evaluations of programs reflect their personal impressions of the teachers as well as the impact of the program. Adult students even tend to continue to attend classes even if the program and the development of skills is causing personal upheaval in their lives as the support and encouragement is regarded as positive. It is important therefore to ask students after some time has passed, and the personal relationship with the teacher other students and the curriculum has diminished, whether the program has had a lasting impact on their lives. The focus of studies may not have been inappropriate in the past. It is important that the program is well conducted. It is important that the students enjoy the program, and that relationships with teachers and other students are productive and socially rewarding. But it is also important that the outcome of the program and what happens in the clients' lives as a result of the program is documented and evaluated. This type of information can have far reaching impacts on planning curriculum for long term changes in programs. Given the insistence however, that the present study avoid evaluations of the providers, the programs or the teaching, any impact on the curriculum, the efforts of advocacy groups or even government policy is problematic. The population: There have been studies into the reasons for participation in adult basic education programs (Brennan et. al., 1986). Other studies have emphasised the benefits to the self esteem of the participants. There have been other studies of the nature of the adult basic education students, but few of the adult basic education population. Thomas in her study of Canadian students emphasised the varied nature of the adult education student group. So unknown is the population of adult literacy students that the Australian Government uses a study of literacy among the adult population for the definition of the adult literacy student population. That study, (Wickert, 1989) used a self selecting population comprising 14% Non English Speaking Background for the study. These figures had no relationship to the need to enrol in adult basic education classes, nor did they have any impact on actual enrolment figures. The results of the study could not be generalised to the Australian population given the way in which they were established. A sample of 1476 from more than 7500 identified, and more than 4500 approached makes any generalised use of the results extremely doubtful. Nevertheless, so badly needed were any results of Australian adult literacy levels that the study results were never questioned. Government, industry and educators eager to secure the profile that the results could give seized upon the data and used them for a range of purposes. After several years the data have become established as the benchmark for adult literacy studies. Adult literacy programs are been funded by a range of organisations including the Department of Employment, Education and Training, the Department of Immigration, the Department of Industrial Relations, State employment rehabilitation programs, and various community groups. The initial sample, reported by Pollock (1992) indicated that the population of adult basic education students did not reflect the breakdown interpreted from the Wickert study. This is not surprising given that the two studies addressed different populations. The Wickert (1989) survey was a study of the literacy of the Australian adult population. The data has bee interpreted as indicating that the lower quarter of the populations in terms of literacy levels identifies those in need of literacy training. However, identifying the lower quarter of these did not therefore define the adult population that elects to attend literacy classes. The longitudinal study does not even address the population that attends literacy classes but in particular the population that elects to attend classes funded by that government Department of Employment, Education and Training. The three populations are very different and the Wickert (1989) study cannot be used to as a definition of the sampling frame for the longitudinal study. There are a number of reasons for this apart from the definition of the population for the study. The figures quoted from Wickert, (1989) should not be used as a guide for literacy studies and for this study in particular for a number of reasons. a. The achieved sample was 1496 and this was a sub sample of the number of people in the target sample (more than 7000). Only 198 of the target sample were NESB, if first language other than English is taken as a definition of NESB. If primary language usage were taken as the definition, then only 134 would be defined as NESB. This latter figure represents less than 10% and the former represents 17% of the study overall sample. The proportion of NESBs among the group who declined to participate is not reported anywhere. However if between 10 and 17% of the overall Wickert sample is NESB, it could not be representative of the Australian Population. The self selecting nature of the study made it problematic as a guide for sample composition. b. The lower literacy group is undefined. Levels of literacy were studiously avoided in the Wickert study and many of the figures reported in the study are "of those who attempted the item". This inflates most figures. c. The percentages required by DEET, (See Appendix A) 45% of the lower 25%, translates into 11.5% of the total population. 11.5% of the sample translates into 172 persons. This is 86.9% of the NESB sample. If the Wickert study is taken as a definition of the Australian adult literacy situation as DEET requires, then it must be concluded that 86.9% of the Australian NESB population require literacy assistance. This is an untenable position. The debate on the literacy needs of the NESB population is not central to the study. The impact of the programs on participants is the focus of the study and issues associated with population figures need to be addressed only when considering the background of the participant in affecting the outcomes. However the impact of the insistence of a pre determined population description (or outcome of the study) was extremely disturbing. d. A reanalysis of the Wickert data finds that 47% of NESB's are in the lowest quartile. It is possible that this figure has been misinterpreted or misreported as "45% of the lowest quartile being NESB". There are also serious implications for the implementation of the National Languages and Literacy Policy and the attendant shifts of funds away from migrant education programs towards basic education programs to help support the supposed proportion of ESB and NESB groups in migrant and basic education programs. e. Using the Wickert study as a guide to the composition of literacy classes in Australia is a flawed approach. More troubling is the influence that the self selecting sample has had on the development of the National Languages and Literacy Policy, funding of language and literacy programs and the estimates of costs associated with literacy deficits, but this is another matter that needs to be dealt with in another forum. The study does address the destinations of adult literacy students for two major groups. These are the Non English Speaking Background (NESB) and the English Speaking Background (ESB) clients of the Department of Employment Education and Training programs. To achieve this a purposeful sample of approximately 50% of English Speaking Background and Non English Speaking Background adults has been drawn. This has been done in accord with the directions of the funding authority in the full knowledge of the limitations of such a sample and the restrictions that it will place on generalisations. The question for the study is thus delimited to "What are the destinations of persons attending literacy classes funded by the Department of Employment, Education and Training." It is accepted that under these circumstances, it was unlikely that the study would develop a sample that would truly reflect the overall population in adult literacy classes. A further limitation of the study brief is that no definition of NESB has been established by the funding agency at any stage. The initial sample of 74% NESB reflected whether their first language was other than English. It does not address their fluency in mother tongue or in English or whether their first language is now English. This sample has been adjusted to match the funding agency requirements. Accordingly some redefinition has occurred in terms of the population and the sample used for the study. The approach has also altered. A case study approach is now preferred, using set sites and monitoring students over time from a reduced number of sites, representing industry, TAFE, SkillShare and community organisations. The programs also represent labour market and concurrent literacy programs in metropolitan and rural settings. In addition, the selection of sites also represents a breakdown of NESB and ESB clients in approximately even proportions. There are some difficulties with the selection in terms of confounding site with program, but since statistical generalisation is not an issue, the richness of the description now possible will more than compensate for this. The Method: A matrix was developed depicting the personal, process and contextual factors that can influence the educational, employment, social and community destinations of adult literacy students. Investigations of recent studies of adult literacy revealed that similar survey studies had been conduced in Australia , USA and Canada. Based on the interview protocols for these studies, an intensive structured interview protocol was developed, trialed and administered to 417 adult literacy students. Each interview averaged 45 to 50 minutes. Subjects were asked a range of questions in each of four areas dealing with education, employment, social and community activity. Within each of these areas they were asked to comment on the personal, process and structural circumstances of these four aspects of their lives. Items were prepared in employment for example on Personal matters such as confidence, self esteem, satisfaction, aspirations, morale, motivation and perceptions. In the employment process, items were prepared to address mobility (promotion), involvement/interaction, absenteeism, productivity, flexibility, re-skilling, status - changes to, skill base acquired, language(s) used, literacy activity, numeracy activity. Employment circumstances were explored through items relating to participation - status, type of opportunity, locality, mobility, duration, skill base required (Awards), Occupation Health and Safety, and income. Information pertinent to education focussed in the personal section on peer and self, family attitudes, significance of others' and aspirations, motivation - extrinsic, intrinsic, morale, persistence, perceptions (ability to describe), needs, morale. The process information addressed time involved, mode, knowledge of offerings, uptake of opportunities - starting points, participation, mobility, awareness, success/failure, resources needed, learning/teaching style, financial, promotion outcomes, formal and informal, language(s) used, literacy activity, numeracy activity. The context or circumstances were addressed through viability, accessibility - including learning resources, time available, cost, articulation arrangements, appropriateness, support services, e.g child care, delivery mode, agency/provider, location, certification required and education background. Social aspects of the clients involvement in adult basic education classes were addressed in the personal domain through items addressing family roles, expectations, aspirations, age, gender, marital status, priorities, confidence - in self in future, security, sense of control, social and interpersonal confidence. The Process domain was dealt with using items addressing roles, social interaction, leisure activities, family rituals, language(s) used, literacy and numeracy activity. The social context was covered using items on family size, ethnicity, status, family structure, peer group nature, financial status, life circumstances - family responsibilities and careers. Community matters encompassed personal factors such as knowledge of facilities, aspirations, motivation, approach/avoidance, identity, perceptions and descriptions, welcome tone. The community processes included interaction, use of facilities, involvement and participation, cultural pursuits, language(s) used - home, community, work, school, literacy activity, numeracy activity, VCE participation, neighbourhood watch involvement, CES, reliance on - other people, symbols and survival strategies. The community context addressed culture(s), location, services available and communication of socio-economic profile of the community, employment figures, education services, community facilities/clubs, support services, ethnic composition, stability, religious facilities, values and climate and activity level/vigour. Every effort has been made to ensure that confidentiality is assured. No intention exists of any evaluative study of any agency involved in adult literacy programs. For this reason, no agency, or individual will be identified in the study report. After the initial data collection, it is hoped that contact with the students will be direct and to a large extent, independent of the provider agency. The data was collected by 41 field workers, each of whom conducted an average of 10 interviews over a two week period, in agencies such as adult migrant, TAFE, industry, church, SkillShare and other community programs. The data collection continued until the end of 1992 and recommenced after the Christmas break in 1993. The initial results are presented to give an overview of scales and baseline data. Follow up work in the form of public forums in Shopping centres have also been conducted encouraging participants to come and make themselves known to the researchers. The second round of interviews began in October 1993 and is continuing. The study will now focussed on cohorts students in the workplace, in TAFE in Skillshare and in community programs. These cohorts have been selected to ensure roughly equal proportions of English and non English Speaking backgrounds and to represent the range of programs funded by the Department of Employment, Education and Training. Conducting surveys in adult education had become problematic given the large numbers of studies undertaken. Many centres are weary of being studied to the point where research projects were beginning to interfere with the programs. Despite this, cooperation with the project has been excellent. TAFE college, AMES centres, SkillShare, Community organisations, Unions, Workplaces, and other groups connected with the provision of adult literacy classes have been extremely cooperative in assisting with the data collection in the initial phases. Access to classes has been excellent in most cases. There were several reasons for the initial reluctance to participate. There was a belief that the project had an evaluative focus. While it will provide the opportunity for the research to investigate the utility of programs, the project has studiously avoided evaluation approaches in establishing the initial data base. Many centres have needed reassurances on this issue and some effort has been made to assuage their apprehensions. After, and perhaps as a result of, a quiet beginning of the project, it is anticipated that most of the misgivings have been overcome. The project team has not to this time established a high profile of the project. It is envisaged that from now on the project information will be disseminated widely and that papers, reports and updates will be routinely provided to the field of adult literacy. Further data collection has been carried out in interstate centres. Arrangements were made for data collection in Western Australia, New South Wales and Queensland. The original study proposal set out the plans for data collection predominantly in one state. The budget for the project was drawn up on that basis and attempts to expand beyond the state have to be limited for financial reasons. The data has been collected in the large metropolitan region, city regions elsewhere, country locations and remote organisations. As such it is representative of the adult education programs organised by the Department of Employment, Education and Training. Data Preparation. Data 417 subjects have been collected using the initial data base and it will be possible to compare the sample to the data sets from both the USA and Canada on key marker variables given that the same items were included in the questionnaire. Arrangements are being made to complete this step in the project. Maintaining contact with the sample is a difficult issue for a longitudinal study of such a transient population. Letters with reply paid envelopes have been sent out to subjects with instructions regarding change of address. This in many cases begs the question with literacy students and alternative methods have to be found to maintain contact. There are proposals for social events to be organised, in which all subjects in geographic regions will be invited to social events, additional lottery tickets will be sent out, vouchers and other means of keeping the subjects in touch. They will also be invited to contact the research team as changes occurring their living conditions. Many have done so. The shift to follow up through providers and a focus on cohort groups will make it an easier but not and easy exercise. Preliminary Results. Three areas of concern have been continuously in the focus of adult educators. These are the literacy and numeracy activity and the self esteem of the adult clients of the programs. Client goals are also important and have been investigated in the survey. The following results present these areas of interest and their relationship to language, employment and gender. Literacy Activity. Studies by Wickert (1989), Kirsch and Jungeblut (1986) and by Canada 2000 (1988) have consistently identified a range of text based materials that are commonly encountered. These materials, were described in a checklist administered to the survey respondents. Then using latent trait analysis, the cohesiveness of the elements of the checklist was examined. The purpose was to describe general literacy activity. The lists include items that pertain to the workplace however and the number of unemployed in the study will make the initial interpretation of the scale problematic. In each case, however, the literacy and numeracy activities of the respondents have been shown to form a scale from which it is possible to identify general levels of activity rather than the specific activities. The following figures present the results for these three areas of concern. The respondents were asked to indicate the materials they had read in the last six months. The figures below illustrate in sequence, the fit of the item to the scale, the level of activity associated with each item and the distribution of the activity level for the three variables, gender, language background and employment status. The fit is determined using the mean square residual based on INFIT analysis. Two standard errors are used for the limits of fit and this then bases the fit on effect size thus reducing the tendency for the fit to be influenced by sample size. The placement of the item on the scale is illustrated in Figure 2. Those persons at the top of the scale are those who read the most items. Those at the bottom read the least. The items at the top are read by the fewest people, those at the bottom by the most. There is an implicational relationship among the items. The third figure illustrates how the activity levels differ for the subgroups. These three presentations are repeated for Numeracy, Self Esteem and Community Attitude. Only the reading activity scale is affected by employment status and further analyses are being conducted for the employed and unemployed groups. ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- Item Fit to reading Activity Scale ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- MNSQ 0.63 0.71 0.83 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 --------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------- +---------+----- 1 personal letters in eng. . | * . 3 notices . * | . 4 health/hazard warnings . * | . 5 street directions/signs . * | . 6 union n'letter . | * . 7 timetables/schedules . * . 8 brochures/junk mail . | * . 9 tech. reports . * | . 10 manuals . * | . 11 catalogues . | * . 12 bills/invoices . | * . 13 labels (shops/work) . * | . 14 order forms . * | . 15 video/computer screens . | * . 16 sets of instructions . *| . 17 manage. n'letter/TQM . * | . 18 memos . | * . ================================================================================ ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- The Reading Activity Scale ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- 4.0 PERSONS | READING ACTIVITY XX | | | | 17 Management Newsletters | 3.0 | XXXXX | | | | XXXXXXXXX | 6 Newsletters, memos, | 18 2.0 | 9 Technical reports | XXXXXXXXXXX | | | XXXXXXXXXXXXX | | 1.0 | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX | | 10 Manuals | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX | 14 Order forms | 0.0 XXXXXXXXXXXX | | 4 16 Health warnings, instructions | 15 Computer screens. ATM's XXXXXXXXXXXX | | 1 Personal letters XXXXXX | | 11 Catalogues -1.0 XXXXXXX | 7 Timetables, Notices | XXXXX | 13 Labels | XXXXXXX | 8 Brochures, Junk Mail | -2.0 | 5 12 Street Directory, Bills XXXX | | | | X | | -3.0 | | | | X | | | -4.0 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- Each X represents 3 PERSONS ================================================================================ Mean 9.3 Median 10.0 Std Dev 3.7 Reliability of estimate 0.99 18 + | | | | --+-- --+-- --+-- --+-- --+- - | | | | --+-- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-+- + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-+-+ | | | | | 12 + +-+-+ | | +-+-+ | +-+-+ | | R | | | | | | | +-+-+ | | | | E | | | | | | | | | | | | * | A | | | | | | | | | | | | | D | | * | | * | | * | | * | | * | +-+- + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-+-+ | | | | +-+-+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-+-+ | +-+-+ | | | | | | | | | 6 + | +-+-+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | --+- - | | | | | | | | | | --+-- | | --+-- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 0 + --+-- -+-- --+-- | | | | +----------------------------------------------------- M F N E Un Em NUMERACY ACTIVITIES Item Fit MNSQ 0.63 0.71 0.83 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 --------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------- +---------+----- 3 item 3 . |* . 4 item 4 . * | . 5 item 5 . * | . 6 item 6 . | * . 7 item 7 . * | . 9 item 9 . *| . 10 item 10 . * | . 11 item 11 . * | . 12 item 12 . | * . 13 item 13 . | * . 14 item 14 . * | . 15 item 15 . *| . 16 item 16 . | * . ================================================================================ ITEM NAMES 3. measuring in metric 4. finding the area of a space 5. estimating liquid quantities 6. guess a kilo of fruit/veg 7. adding numbers, prices, measures 9. counting things 10. finding percentages 11. identifying fractions 12. using a calculator 13. using a computer 14. reading & interpreting graphs/tables 15. working out probabilities 16. working out scores in sport ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- MATHEMATICS ACTIVITY SCALE ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- 4.0 | | | XXXXX | | | 3.0 | | | | XXXXXXXXX | | | 2.0 | | XXXXXXXXX | | | | XXXXXXXXXXX | 15 Probabilities 1.0 | | 13 16 Sport Scores, Computer XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX | 14 Graphs, Tables | XXXXXXXXXX | 4 Areas | 11 Fractions 0.0 | XXXXXXXXXXXXXX | 10 Percentages | 5 Capacities | XXXXXXXXXXXX | | XXXXXXXXXX | 3 Metric Measures -1.0 | 12 Calculator | XXXXXXXXXX | 6 Weights, of food etc. | | XXXXXXXXX | | 7 Adding numbers, prices etc -2.0 | | 9 Counting things XXXXXX | | | | | -3.0 | XXXX | | | | | | -4.0 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- Each X represents 3 students ================================================================================ Reliability of estimate 0.99 15 + | | --+-- --+-- --+-- | | | | | | --+-- | --+-- | --+-- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10 + +-+-+ | +-+-+ | +-+-+ | M | | | | | | | | | | A | | | +-+-+ | | +-+-+ | | +-+-+ T | | | | | | | | | | | | | H | | * | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | * | | | | * | | * | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | * | | | | * | | | +-+-+ | | | | | | | | | | | | 5 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-+-+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | --+-- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 0 + --+-- --+-- --+-- --+-- --+-- +----------------------------------------------------- ------------ M F N E UN EM SELF ESTEEM ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- Item Fit MNSQ 0.63 0.71 0.83 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 --------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------- +---------+----- 1 item 1 . * | . . | . 2 item 2 . * | . . | . 3 item 3 . | * . . | . 4 item 4 . *| . . | . 5 item 5 . | * . . | . 6 item 6 . | * . . | . 7 item 7 . | * . . | . 8 item 8 . * | . . | . 9 item 9 . | * . . | . 10 item 10 . * . . | . 11 item 11 . |* . . | . 12 item 12 . * | . ================================================================================ 1. Friends are a big part of your life 2. Friends often come to you for advice 3. You have an active social life 4. T.V. is your primary form of entertainment 5. You stay home most evenings 6. You are an active member of your church/temple 7. You play close attention to your health 8. Everything in general is changing too fast 9. Your opinions on things don't count very much 10. You often find yourself feeling lonely 11. Other people you talk to seem to know more things than you do 12. You often think about your personal safety RESPONSES CATEGORIES: 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. undecided 4. agree 5. strongly agree ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- Self Esteem scale all on feel (N = 413 L = 12) ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- 3.0 | | | | | | | | X | | 2.0 | | | | 11.5 Others Know more | 9.5 Opinions don't count | | | X | 2.5 3.5 needs reassurance, | 6.5 10.5 Active in church, feels lonely | needs to be socially active 1.0 X | 4.5 lots of T.V. things changing fast XX | 8.5 12.5 personal safety concern XXXX | 1.5 friends important XXXXXX | 6.4 XXXXXXX | 5.5 6.3 9.4 XXXXXXXX | 7.5 XXXXXXXXXXXXX | XXXXXXX | 10.4 11.4 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX | 4.4 9.3 XXXXXXXX | 10.3 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX | 3.4 4.3 8.4 0.0 XXXXXXX | 6.2 XXXXXXXXX | 2.4 8.3 11.3 XXXXX | 3.3 12.4 XXX | 5.4 7.4 XXX | 5.3 12.3 X | 1.4 2.3 X | 7.3 9.2 10.2 X | 1.3 | 4.2 | | -1.0 | 11.2 Comfortable with knowledge, | 12.2 health, safety, pace of change, | not social, but active | 8.2 | 3.2 | 5.2 | | 1.2 2.2 7.2 Unconcerned about friends or health | | | -2.0 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- Each X represents 3 students ================================================================================ Reliability of estimate 0.72 64 + | | | | --+-- | | | --+-- --+-- | | | --+-- | --+-- | | | | | | | | --+-- | | | | | | | | | | | | 48 + | | | | | | F | | | | | | +-+-+ E | | +-+-+ | | | | | E | +-+-+ | | +-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+ | | L | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | * | | | | * | | * | | | | * | | | | | * | | | | | | * | | | | | | | | | | +-+-+ | | | | | +-+-+ | | +-+-+ | | | +-+-+ | | | | | | | | | | | +-+-+ | | +-|-+ | 32 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | --+-- | | | | | | | --+-- | --+-- | | --+-- --+-- | | --+-- +----------------------------------------------------- ------------------- M F N E UN EM COMMUNITY ATTITUDE Item Fit on Community Attitude Scale(N = 413 L = 10) ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- INFIT MNSQ 0.63 0.71 0.83 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 --------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------- +---------+----- 1 item 1 . * . 2 item 2 . * | . 3 item 3 . | * . 4 item 4 . | * . 5 item 5 . | * . 6 item 6 . * | . 7 item 7 . * | . 8 item 8 . * | . 9 item 9 . * | . 10 item 10 . | * . ================================================================================ How important do you feel it is.... 1. that a person owns a house 2. that a person got at least a high school education 3. that a person be involved in the community 4. that a person has a well paid job 5. that a person has an active social life 6. that a person has a satisfying job 7. lives in a friendly community 8. helps others less fortunate in the community 9. encourages others to obtain higher skill levels 10. that a person is good at mathematics RESPONSES CATEGORIES: 0. not important 1. don't know 2. important 3. very important ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- Community Attitudes Scale ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- | | | | | | XXXX | 3.0 | | | | | | XXXXXXXXXXXXXX | 3.3 Involve in community | | 2.0 | | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX | X | | 5.3 Active social life XXXXXXXXXXXXX | | | 10.3 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX | 1.0 | XXXXXXXXXXXXXX | 8.3 9.3 help others less fortunate XXXXXXXXXXXXXX | encourage others to higher skills X | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX | 4.3 well paid job, own a house, XXXXXXXXXXXXXX | 1.3 7.3 friendly community XXXXXXXXX | XXXXXXXXX | 3.2 XXXXXXXXXX | 2.3 6.3 XXXXXXXXX | 5.2 0.0 XXXXXXXXX | 10.2 XXX | 4.2 XX | 1.2 9.2 XXXX | 3.1 5.1 10.1 X | 1.1 4.1 7.2 8.2 XX | 2.2 X | | | 2.1 6.2 7.1 don't need education, -1.0 | 8.1 9.1 don't help others, | friendly community doesn't matter | X | 6.1 don't need satisfying job | | | | | -2.0 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- Each X represents 2 students ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- Mean 22.7 Std Dev 4.8 Reliability of estimate 0.67 36 + | | | | | --+-- --+-- --+-- --+-- --+-- --+-- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-+-+ +-+-+ | +-+-+ | | +-+-+ | | | | +-+-+ | | +-+-+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | 24 + | | | | | * | | | | | | * | A | | * | | * | | | | | | * | | | T | | | | | | | | * | | | | | T | | | | | | | | | | | +-+-+ | | | +-+-+ | | +-+-+ | | | | +-+-+ | +-+-+ | +-+-+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | --+-- | | | | | | 12 + | | | --+-- | | | | | | | | --+-- | | | --+-- --+-- --+-- | +----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ SEX M F N E UN EM PAGE2 v€‹h.Œ³AŽ8st 2. that a person got at least a high school education 3. that a person be involved in the community 4. that a person has a well paid job 5. that a person has an active social life