Evaluating Workplace English Language Programs

Abstract

Companies across the United States provide workplace English classes to non-native-English-speaking employees to increase productivity, retention, and on-the-job safety. Institutions that financially support the programs often require evidence of learning through standardized tests as a prerequisite for continued funding. However, the tests present challenges. It is often hard to find accepted tests that match the highly customized content and level of the classes. It is not clear if the learners can adequately demonstrate their learning as measured by standardized assessments, or if alternative assessments could contribute more meaningfully to their estimations of learning. In this study, 21 learners in a 10-week workplace English course took standardized pre- and posttests of listening and reading proficiency. The participants' learning was also measured qualitatively by learning journals. Paired correlations and a paired samples t test applied to the learners' scores on the standardized tests demonstrate that the learners did not perform significantly better after 30 hours of instruction. However, the learning journals demonstrated considerable learning gains, especially in terms of increased motivation, confidence, willingness to communicate, and job satisfaction. Discussed are reasons behind the discrepancies between the two forms of testing and implications for funding agencies and workplace English language programs alike.

Notes

¹Set up in 1991 by the National Literacy Act and reauthorized by the Workforce Investment Act in 1998, the National Institute for Literacy is a federal agency that is concerned with child and adult literacy issues. It is a resource center and administers grants to literacy programs. The Institute is regulated by the No Child Left Behind law. More information can be found at the National Institute for Literacy Web site: http://www.nifl.gov

²The U.S. Department of Education's Office of Vocational and Adult Education is a federal office that concerns itself with high school, career, technical, adult education, lifelong learning, community colleges, workforce literacy and preparation, and economic development. Adult education and literacy programs are funded through this federal office through grants to states. The amount each state receives is based on a formula established by Congress. States, in turn, distribute funds to local eligible entities to provide adult education and literacy services. Programs that receive funding must demonstrate learning outcomes as regulated by the states. More information can be found on the Office of Vocational and Adult Education Web site: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/index.html

³The Workforce Investment Act was signed into law in 1998. It stipulated certain workforce improvement plans and funds that could be received by states to improve workforce education and literacy. More information on the act can be found at the following Web site: http://www.doleta.gov/usworkforce/wia/act.cfm

⁴The names of the institutions have been changed to protect the participants' anonymity.

⁵Approximately 4 weeks before classes began, all eligible employees who wanted to enroll in workplace English classes were administered the CASAS ESL Appraisal assessment as a placement test (see Table 1 for more information on CASAS). The test assesses listening, reading, and oral skills. Results were used to appropriately place learners by proficiency into two levels of classes. Those who tested at the novice level (according to the test norms) were placed into beginning-level classes. Those who tested at the intermediate level were placed into intermediate-level classes.

⁶Of the 15 employees in the class whose data were not used, 8 were labeled as “inactive” in the workplace English course because of very low and inconsistent attendance and/or their absence on testing days. The other 7 consistently came to class and were tested but did not complete learning journals, mostly because, as a few of them stated in interviews, they did not have time outside of class to do so and/or they felt their English writing abilities were not developed enough to complete a learning journal on a volunteer basis (and outside of class time).