Basic-skill courses “have little impact on output”

Citation

(2009), "Basic-skill courses “have little impact on output”", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 41 No. 6. https://doi.org/10.1108/ict.2009.03741fab.003

Basic-skill courses “have little impact on output”

Article Type: Notes and news From: Industrial and Commercial Training, Volume 41, Issue 6

Companies tend to introduce basic-skill tuition because they believe that it can increase the motivation and loyalty of staff, not because they expect an increase in output.

Dr Andrew Jenkins, research fellow in the Centre for Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning, at the Institute of Education, London said:

Policymakers often assume that poor basic skills are widespread and have a significant negative impact on workplace productivity, but we found little evidence that the employers in the workplaces we sampled were concerned about their employees’ basic skills. The employers did not expect gains in output or productivity as a result of improved literacy skills.

Researchers tracked 575 employees on Government-funded literacy courses in 50 workplaces over three years. They found that workplace learning had the power to change individuals’ attitudes to study and help them to reassess their ambitions and capabilities. Employees were more likely to undertake further education as a result of the training, either a recreational course in a subject such as painting, or a program of study that would help them to start a new career.

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

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

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