Adult Learner Perspectives on Skill- and Life-Based Outcomes Following Literacy Remediation

Abstract

Using the situated expectancy value theory (SEVT), we explored self-perceived attainment perspectives of adults with low literacy on skill-based (i.e., reading, writing, listening, speaking) and life-based (i.e., management of day-to-day challenges, use of skills in daily living, confidence) improvements following a literacy-focused remediation program. Participants (N = 103; Canadian, urban adults) completed a remediation program for low literacy via one-on-one tutoring over a period of 1 year. Four to six months into the program, participants completed a survey that asked about their perspectives regarding improvements in skill- and life-based areas of functioning. A series of Chi-Square tests provided evidence for self-perceived improvements in skill-based functioning in reading, writing, listening and speaking. Perceived improvements were not noted in areas not targeted by the remediation, namely, math and computer literacy. Further, there was a significant, positive correlation between self-perceived improvement and (1) self-perceived ability to deal with daily challenges, (2) self-reported use of literacy skills in day-to-day activities, and (3) overall confidence. Together, these findings underscore the importance of including activity- and participation-based outcome measures when evaluating adult literacy remediation. In addition, this work demonstrates an application of SEVT to explore changes over time in continuing adult education.

1. Introduction

For most adults, literacy skills are relatively automatic, and their self-efficacy (i.e., confidence in their abilities to complete these tasks) is high. However, an alarming 15–40% of adults have low reading and writing proficiency skills (OECD 2019), and 48% of adult Canadians only read at a high school level (ABC Canada Literacy Foundation 2005, 2023) (see also OECD 2019 for a comprehensive breakdown of the literacy competency of Canadians). For these individuals, the struggle to complete modest tasks that require reading and writing, such as text messaging or answering emails, can cause overwhelming apprehension, feelings of dejection and low self-efficacy. This results in the avoidance of activities needed to maintain social relationships, leading to withdrawal, isolation, depression, anxiety, and decreased quality of life (Harackiewicz et al. 2016; Macdonald 2009).

In addition to the struggle to fully participate in and uphold social connections, individuals with disrupted written communication skills report decreased success in educational environments, fewer opportunities for employment, and lower paying jobs (Macdonald 2009). In response to these findings that literacy skills impact multiple aspects of an individual’s overall wellbeing, considerations should be made for how an individual performs in their everyday environment, measured using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) put forward by the World Health Organization (2001) and The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO n.d.) recommendations for lifelong learning. Specifically, activity and participation in day-to-day living and functioning must be individually assessed. Consequently, the purpose of this work is to document and describe the perspectives of urban Canadian adults with low literacy who have participated in an intensive one-on-one, community-based literacy learning program and their “perceived improvement” (Malicky and Norman 1996), as it has been established that literacy affects much more than just reading and writing.

Using the situated expectancy value theory lens (SEVT) (Eccles and Wigfield 2020) and a quantitative non-parametric approach, three questions were posed in the collection of survey data: (1) What are adult learners’ self-perceived changes in skill-based domains? (2) What are adult learners’ self-perceived changes in life-based domains? (3) What are the relationships between self-perceived changes in skill- and life-based domains?

1.1. Literature Review

Many literacy remediation approaches/programs have been developed to focus on skill-based training (Boets et al. 2013; Bruck 1993; Kemp et al. 2009; Law et al. 2015; Maughan et al. 2009; Pennington et al. 1986; Tops et al. 2012; Wilson and Lesaux 2001). When applied in adulthood, these interventions produce substantial variability in literacy profiles (Manis et al. 1990; Siegel et al. 1995). In Canada, stakeholders have spearheaded adult literacy programs with the aim of providing accessible and effective remediation (Quigley et al. 2006; Taylor et al. 2003, 2011). For example, AlphaRoute, a Canadian adult literacy program that ran from 1996 until 2011, utilized a blended learning approach (i.e., in-person and online), while administering a range of activities using individualized student learning plans (UNESCO n.d.). Although it was valued by practitioners and learners, rapid changes in the digital landscape (e.g., availability of online platforms such as YouTube) and the subsequent expectations of users ultimately rendered the government-funded program unsustainable.

With respect to the latter point above, programs that do not adapt to meet the currently defined realm of ‘literacy’, quickly become obsolete as the definition of literacy is continually evolving. Notably, in 2019 a Survey of Adult Skills defined literacy as “the ability to understand, evaluate, use and engage with written texts in order to participate in society, achieve one’s goals, and develop one’s knowledge and potential” (OECD 2019, p. 41). Thus, regardless of a literacy-based intervention’s effectiveness in moving an adult ‘upward’ on some scale via a collective standardized set of reading measures (i.e., there are numerous problems associated with a ‘numbers’ approach to literacy improvement Quigley et al. 2006; Taylor et al. 2013), a critical element that must be associated with these programs is the learner’s self-perceived changes in their skill- and life-based domains. Such self-perceived changes may have an equally robust impact on quality of life.

1.2. Theoretical Framework

In the current study, we employed the theoretical framework of Eccles and Wigfield (2020), namely, the situated expectancy value theory (SEVT). From this perspective, we are interested in adult learner perspectives of attainment following a literacy remediation program (i.e., situationally specific) in a Canadian first-world context (i.e., culturally bound). In a recent work, Patterson and Paulson (2016) indicated that continuing adult education/learning may serve as a channel towards the achievement of life-based goals. As such, we are interested in exploring how individuals understand and interpret their own performance in both skill-based (i.e., reading, writing, speaking, etc.) and life-based (i.e., community, social engagement, etc.) domains, and the extent to which these self-perceived attainments are related to each other. This avenue of inquiry is a necessary step as (1) it provides a voice to Canadian adult learners who have been somewhat neglected in the Canadian adult literacy context (Taylor et al. 2011, 2013) and (2) it provides a necessary starting point towards advancing our understanding of the role of remediation in the modification of relationships between skill- and life-based domains (Eccles and Wigfield 2020).

This premise is echoed in recent work by (Klauth and Mitchell 2022) that sought to explore adult learners’ perspectives about a one-on-one community-based literacy program. Ultimately, they argued that an increase in literacy attainment will be obtained once we begin to consider the contextual experiences of the adult learners, which in turn impacts motivation and the delivery of optimized one-on-one programs (Klauth and Mitchell 2022). As such, it is imperative to explore new avenues of inquiry and support that include a more holistic social framework (Macdonald 2009) by allowing stakeholders (namely individuals with low literacy) to reflect upon their own perceived gains in skill- and life-based areas of day-to-day functioning.

Here we consider two main angles with respect to perspectives on activity and participation in day-to-day living following one-on-one literacy tutoring/learning. Skill-based perspectives are those areas of functioning for which the adult learner is currently seeking remediation. With respect to the current study, this includes reading, writing, listening and speaking (as per Walter’s (1999) definition of literacy as skills). Unlike the traditional objective measures of reading performance (e.g., response time, accuracy, fluency, etc. on standardized tests), which tend to be researcher and/or clinician derived, we consider the adult learner’s perspective on how they feel they are improving in each of the above mentioned domains. This perspective is important to document as the standardized measures may not capture the subtleties experienced by adult learners (e.g., finding it easier and/or more fun to read to their young child (Darkenwald and Valentine 1985; Malicky and Norman 1996; Taylor et al. 2003). In a large study conducted by Darkenwald and Valentine (1985), adult perspectives (N = 294) were queried in the reading and writing domains following a seven-month adult education intervention. The authors found that 82% of learners reported better reading in the classroom and 62% reported better writing in the classroom. Thus, irrespective of what the objective measures may indicate, perceived improvements in literacy skills following remediation is also important to investigate.

Life-based perspectives are those areas of functioning that go beyond the skills being treated, to include ‘life-based’ abilities/constructs, for example overall confidence, achievement of goals, social participation, etc. Such perspectives can have profound and long-lasting effects for individuals following skill-specific remediation (Malicky and Norman 1996). In the aforementioned (Darkenwald and Valentine 1985) study, the authors found that 100% of the participants in their study reported at least one benefit related to employment and earnings, and 92% reported feeling better about themselves. These same individuals also reported skill-based benefits that went beyond the classroom into social activities (i.e., 66% for reading, 49% for spelling). The purpose of the current study is to provide an updated account of adult perspectives on skill- and life-based changes following literacy-based remediation.

2. Hypotheses

Skill-based perspectives. Following remediation, adults will report self-perceived improvements in skills including reading, writing, listening and speaking. Self-perceived improvements will not generalize to skills beyond the remediation program (e.g., math and computer literacy).

Life-based perspectives. Following remediation, there will be a positive relationship between self-perceived improvements and (1) management of daily challenges, (2) use of skills in day-to-day functioning, and (3) overall increased confidence. We also anticipate that outcomes associated with life-based perspectives will be positively related to outcomes associated with skill-based perspectives.

3. Methods

3.1. Participants

Participants included adult learners (N = 103) who completed a community-based non-profit literacy program. Upon completion of 4–6 months in the program, adult learners completed a survey (see detailed description below) to assess their perspectives on gains in the skill-specific areas (i.e., reading, writing, speaking, etc.) and domain-general areas (i.e., participation in community activities, job success, etc.) (see Appendix A). This study was approved as a secondary use of data by the relevant Research Ethics Board at the University of Alberta and was carried out in accordance with the rules of the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975 (see https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/; accessed on 22 May 2023), revised in 2013. As the surveys were initially collected for a non-research purpose, the participants did not provide informed consent. All data was completely anonymized.

3.2. Procedure

Adults seeking literacy remediation initially contacted a non-profit community organization. The process to begin remediation is initiated by the learner who contacts the organization by phone, enquiring about the community services and programs. The community organization offers four different programs: literacy, math, computer and English second language learning. Here, we focus on adults who participated in the literacy program. During this initial phone call, the literacy program coordinator explains their available services and collects information from the caller to make sure that they are eligible to join the literacy program (i.e., individuals must have verbal communication abilities) and if the literacy program is the right one for them (i.e., does the individual have stable resources to enable regular communication).

The literacy program coordinator typically asks a standard list of questions to the caller (i.e., how did the caller hear about the organization, why would they like to improve their literacy skills, what are their struggles, what are their goals, etc.). The coordinator also emphasizes during the call that the organization is a tutoring program, not a school. If the learner decides to join the literacy program, they make an appointment with the coordinator to identify their learning needs and a starting point in the program. During the initial visit, information about goals, availability to meet with tutors, computer access, barriers to learning, etc. are established with the coordinator. Once the initial meeting is complete, the adult learner is informed that they will be receiving a phone call from the coordinator once the organization has an available tutor. The tutor and learner match is based on multiple factors, including availability, preference, location and personal interests.

At the first learner-tutor meeting, the coordinator explains the program materials. Volunteer tutors are matched with adults who have low-level reading, writing, comprehension, math, or language skills. A learning plan is developed for each learner to meet their individual goals and build the necessary skills/resources to meet these goals. Adult learners work at their own pace and tutor meeting times are flexible, including evenings and weekends, as adult learners can be employed. Learners are encouraged to bring or identify materials they want to review to the tutoring sessions to maximize the ecological validity of the training. The tutor–learner pair usually meet for at least two hours per week and the learner is expected to do additional work at home.

During the time period that the data included in the current paper cover, the organization recorded 74 tutors for the literacy program who contributed approximately 5000 overall hours to various literacy programs at the organization. Relevant to the current work, 3015 h of one-on-one instruction were reported by the tutors and 5393 h of home study were reported by the adult literacy learners. There are no minimum skill requirements to enter any offered program, and financial barriers have been minimized as programs are offered outside of working hours and at no cost to the adult enrolled. The length of time the learner remains in the program depends on their goals, learning style, and enrolled program. For example, a math learner may be in the program for only six months, while a literacy learner may be part of the program for six years. There is no end date to any program—a learner can continue services for as long as they desire. Learners also have the option to leave for extended periods (i.e., years) and return when they wish to resume training. To track learner progress and satisfaction, the organization administers a survey to learners after 4–6 months of participation in the program (see Appendix A). This survey was developed in house to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of the first few months of the program and to identify areas for improvement. This unpublished survey has not been formally evaluated for test–retest reliability, internal consistency, or criterion validity.

The literacy remediation program administered is in-line with other evidence-based practices that have been implemented in Canada (e.g., AlphaRoute) and promoted via (UNESCO n.d.). All materials were designed to increase in complexity over time, be explicit in instructional aims, and target the interests and goals of the adult learners. Some of the program materials were developed in-house by an experienced reading specialist, and other materials were selected from external sources by a reading expert. At intake, the learner’s reading skills are evaluated and a reading level is assigned. Each level includes explicit instruction in phonology, vocabulary, decoding, spelling, morphology, and syntax, combined with leveled books for home reading practice. The subject matter of the material specifically targets adult learners, not children, and includes both fiction and nonfiction topics such biographies, history, science, and technology (see https://grassrootsbooks.net/collections/hi-lo-chapter-books, accessed on 22 May 2023). Learners and their tutors work through each level together. Learners also select books at their reading level for home practice, and the tutor is available to assist them with other needs that may arise (e.g., writing an email).

3.3. Analysis

Skill-based perspectives. A series of Chi-Squared tests were run to determine the extent to which learners indicated that they were improving their skills related to six domains: reading, writing, listening, speaking, math, and computer skills.

Life-based perspectives. A series of Chi-Squared tests of independence were run to determine the extent to which adult learners reported making progress towards their learning goals and: (1) felt they could deal with life’s challenges better as a result of their learning, (2) reported using what they learned in everyday life, and (3) felt more confident as a result of their learning. In addition, a series of Kendall’s tau b correlations were run to test for relationships between skill-based and life-based perspectives.

4. Results

Skill-based perspective: Overall, learners reported significant improvement in four domains: reading, writing, listening and speaking skills (all p’s < 0.001) (see

Table 1. Chi-square test associated with frequency counts of “I am improving my skills”.

	N	df	X2	p-Value
Reading	100	4	44.93	<0.001 *
Writing	98	6	27.83	<0.001 *
Listening	97	6	30.60	<0.001 *
Speaking	98	6	21.93	0.001 *
Math Skills	96	6	8.30	0.217
Computer Skills	96	6	8.63	0.196

* Notes a significant finding.

and Figure 1a–d). Notably, we did not expect changes in math or computer skills as these were not targeted for remediation.

Life-based perspectives: Each of the Chi-Squared tests of independence were significant and positive, such that, as learners reported greater progress in meeting their learning goals, they also reported: (1) being able to more effectively deal with life’s challenges (X² (4, 97) = 31.40, p < 0.001; Kendall’s tau b = 0.476), (2) use their skills in everyday life (X² (4, 101) = 49.35, p < 0.001; Kendall’s tau b = 0.530), and (3) feeling more confident (X² (4, 100) = 38.72, p < 0.001; Kendall’s tau b = 0.449). There was no relationship between progression to meet learning goals and involvement in community/work (X² (6, 99) = 9.94, p = 0.127; Kendall’s tau b = 0.191).

We also explored the extent to which life-based progress was significantly related to skill-based progress (

Table 2. Associations between life-based perspectives and skill-based perspectives (* Kendall’s tau b, p < 0.001).

LIFE-BASED	Overall (I Am Improving My Skills)	Progress	Everyday Use	Confidence	Community/ Work Involvement	Life Challenges
SKILL-BASED
Reading	0.503 *	0.329 *	0.279 *	0.261 *	−0.040	0.217
Writing	0.433 *	0.370 *	0.369 *	0.367 *	0.021	0.237
Listening	0.422 *	0.279 *	0.410 *	0.413 *	0.196	0.248
Speaking	0.350 *	0.326 *	0.275 *	0.390 *	0.235	0.279

). Overall, reports of skill improvement, progress, everyday usage, and confidence were significantly and positively correlated with skill-based improvements in reading, writing, listening and speaking. Notably, there were no significant relationships between the life-based reports on community involvement or ability to deal with life’s challenges and any of the skill-based reports (i.e., reading, writing, speaking, listening).

Employment and Education. For adult learners who had specific goals with respect to employment (N = 35), 20 reported getting a new job, 7 reported getting a promotion, 1 reported getting a raise and 7 reported losing their job. For adult learners who had specific goals with respect to education (N = 43), 18 reported attending a program, 4 reported enrolling in a program and 21 reported planning to enroll in a program.

5. Discussion

Here we set out to describe and document adults’ perspectives on skill- and life-based changes following participation in a community-based adult literacy program in an urban Canadian setting. From a person-centered perspective, adult learners felt they were improving in reading, spelling, speaking, and listening skills. In addition, we found significant relationships between learners’ reported progress in meeting learning goals, and their (1) ability to deal with life’s challenges, (2) ability to use their skills in everyday life, and (3) overall confidence. Finally, we found that improvements in skill-based domains were significantly related to improvements in life-based domains. We discuss the importance of these findings in the continued exploration of adult learners’ perspectives on skill- and life-based outcomes.

As expected, we found that low-literacy adults felt that the one-on-one tutoring they received from the organization improved their literacy skills. Such findings are in line with previous self-reported outcomes following long-term adult literacy remediation (Darkenwald and Valentine 1985; Merriam and Kee 2014). The skills targeted in the remediation program were in line with current recommendations (Taylor et al. 2013), and included targeted practice on small units of sound (e.g., phonology), letters (e.g., orthography), and meaning (e.g., morphemes), along with explicit instruction in decoding and vocabulary. The organization also aimed to conduct this tutoring in a collaborative environment, providing support towards independent learning. Moving forward, it will be important to consider the magnitude of the effect of the remediation program, including both objective (e.g., reading speed, accuracy, fluency, etc.) and subjective (i.e., expectations, perceived performance, etc.) impacts on reading performance. There may also be aspects of the tutoring program that could be enhanced to further improve literacy skills. For example, Taylor et al. (2003) identified that peer support is highly advantageous in adult education, and Merriam and Kee (2014) promoted the consideration of learning preferences (e.g., virtual meetings, gaming interfaces). In line with SEVT (Eccles and Wigfield 2020), utility-value intervention, which includes the learner’s active reflection on the personal impact of literacy, is also a fruitful avenue for inquiry in the adult literacy context (Harackiewicz et al. 2016). The extent to which these alternative intervention approaches differentially impact skill- versus life-based perspectives of learning remains to be explored.

It is not known to what extent the learners’ independent learning, namely their homework and/or engagement in non-formal learning (Taylor et al. 2013), contributed to enhanced literacy skills. Considerations from other allied health fields, such as speech-language pathology, have provided recommendations for literacy remediation in children, with upwards of several hours a week of devoted training with the target to maximize intervention success. While no such recommendations have been made for adults, given the logistics, challenges, and complexities associated with adulthood (e.g., employment, family, etc.), combined with the fact that literacy is one of the most difficult skills to learn, multiple hours of instruction/training over multiple weeks, months, and years is likely needed to achieve mastery.

In the adult education literature, non-formal learning opportunities/environments (e.g., social gatherings, reading to a child/elder, book clubs) are becoming increasingly recognized as important by literacy advocates. Mr. Borhene Chakroun, Director of the Division of Policies and Lifelong Learning Systems at UNESCO, stated there is a “need to leverage the potential of diverse learning spaces and expand these spaces beyond formal education” (International Conference on ‘Transforming Literacy Learning Spaces’ 2022, p. 13) and there is a “lack of recognition of non-formal and informal literacy learning spaces such as workplaces, communities, and families as well as the limited acknowledgment of and funding allocated to non-formal and informal literacy programmes” (International Conference on ‘Transforming Literacy Learning Spaces’ 2022, p. 13). In the urban Canadian adult literacy program studied here, opportunities for non-formal learning were also provided. For example, a sing-along group was hosted that provided adult learners with additional opportunities to practice reading and pronunciation, increase vocabulary and ultimately, interact with peers in a different setting. The extent to which such non-formal experiences impact the trajectory of adult literacy skill attainment warrants targeted inquiry.

Future work that tracks learning and self-perceived outcomes associated with literacy remediation on a regular and repeated basis are necessary to better understand the trajectory of learning and self-perceived achievement in relation to past experiences. This particular pathway is underscored in the recent revision/review of the SEVT, where Eccles and Wigfield (2020) made several recommendations for future work. That is, they underscored the importance of exploring how relationships among constructs within the framework (i.e., self-perceived attainment, subjective task value, motivation, etc.) change over time, in addition to the impact of remediation on these relationships. The current work provides a useful starting point for these future endeavors, whereby we have a documented ‘baseline’ established for the relationship between self-perceived achievement in skill- and life-based outcomes.

It is important to note that the survey questions were specifically relevant to the ‘achieved-past experience pathway’ outlined in the SEVT (Eccles and Wigfield 2020), as they were comparatively framed between past and current ability (i.e., “I am making progress…”, “I have improved my skills in …”, “I am more able ….”). As such, we provide some evidence here for an improvement in self-perceived achievement compared to previous attainment, following targeted remediation for literacy. The extent to which traditional literacy interventions versus alternative interventions (i.e., utility value interventions) (Harackiewicz et al. 2016, p. 31) strengthen and/or weaken the connections between self-perceived outcomes is an exciting avenue to be explored.

We also provided evidence that low-literacy adult learners felt that remediation improved their skills in various life-based domains. As we expected, querying this perspective provided additional information about subtleties that surpassed traditional objective measures (Klauth and Mitchell 2022). For example, adults who reported high goal success with literacy skills also reported high overall confidence. These peripheral, or generalized, effects of literacy remediation are important to study and understand as they are an additional mechanism to further skill improvement (Belzer 2017; Klauth and Mitchell 2022). For example, a sense of learning success with the skill, leads to increased confidence in life, which in turn leads to more active opportunities to practice the skill. In past qualitative inquiries, adult literacy remediation has been reported to have substantial impacts on relationships, violence, time pressure and stress, financial pressures, cognitive and academic challenges, and socio-emotional competencies (Malicky and Norman 1996, p. 26). While there are many different paths for the skill- and life-based perspectives to influence each other, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a tight coupling between these two constructs and there will likely be benefits to exploring them mutually in future work (Eccles and Wigfield 2020).

While we have already mentioned some weaknesses of the current study, there are a few additional caveats worth noting. First, demographics of the participants were not available apart from the sample being urban Canadian adults. Thus, we do not know to what extent age, sex, gender, socioeconomic status, etc., contributed to the findings reported here. We anticipate that co-varying for such factors would likely mediate the reported effects to some extent. Second, we did not collect data on the length of time spent in the program. However, the survey was completed at around the 6-month mark for all participants, regardless of their ultimate time spent in the program. These limitations result from the differences at the intersection between the priorities associated with the community-based monitoring of progress (i.e., reporting to stakeholders and funding organizations) and academic-based monitoring of intervention (i.e., dissemination in scholarly journals and/or conferences). The secondary analysis approach chosen here was a direct manifestation of this intersection (see Nienkemper and Grotlüschen 2019 for a similar secondary analysis approach) and thus we caution the reader of the generalization of the findings reported here, and encourage substantial reflection on the impact of these different organizational perspectives to minimize potential harm (Nienkemper and Grotlüschen 2019). In addition, we expect that remediation effects on both skill- and life-based perspectives are non-linear and more detailed, and thus, longitudinal data is needed to make conclusions about the remediation trajectory. Finally, we cannot make conclusions about the reasons for the success of the community program, which could include one-on-one tutoring, flexibility in tutoring hours, sense of community, sense of support, etc. More than likely, it is some combination of all these factors.

6. Conclusions

The purpose of this work was to document and describe adult learners’ perspectives of skill- and life-based changes during a community based literacy remediation program. It is of great importance to consider client-oriented perspectives on improvement in the context of holistic remediation (Malicky and Norman 1996; see https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/icf-beginner-s-guide-towards-a-common-language-for-functioning-disability-and-health; accessed on 22 May 2023) as individuals ultimately function in complex, social environments (Belzer 2017; Eccles and Wigfield 2020). Here we provide evidence that adult learners report self-perceived improvements in skill-based domains (i.e., reading, writing, speaking and listening) as well as life-based domains (i.e., confidence, use in daily activities, etc.) after a minimum of six-months of participation. Furthermore, these two perspectives are positively related such that perceived improvements in one domain are related to perceived improvements in the other domain. While we show that remediation in the skill-based domain results in positive outcomes in the life-based domain, the extent to which this relationship can also be seen in the reverse order (i.e., training in life-based domain facilitates improvements in skill-based domain) remains to be seen. Ultimately, our findings reinforce the call for studies on self-perceived attainment and performance in formal and non-formal learning environments, including perceived activity and participation in day-to-day living and functioning. Furthermore, we have demonstrated the utility of the SEVT in the study of adult literacy remediation.