Some statements mention the need for both quantitative and qualitative information (for instance, McLeod, 1995; Massachusetts Workplace Literacy Consortium, 1999; Holland et. al., 2001) while others, such as the CLC (2000), concentrate more on the satisfaction of participants, changes they observe in themselves and in what they can do. The think tank participants identified four areas for gathering information:

• satisfaction of the participants in the program

• knowledge acquisition

• knowledge transfer

• impact on business and other stakeholders

(McLeod, 1995, p. 19)

Consider…

What counts as demonstrations of learning in a workplace setting and who determines how successful those demonstrations are? How can we ensure that the voices of all the partners are part of evaluation procedures?

Some of the learning objectives for workplace programs are aimed at language and literacy practices on the job. In those cases, educators could follow the learning process onto the job and see how well participants are able to incorporate what they have learned into their daily work routine. This follow-up requires educators to be out in the work area more often, observing how work is accomplished, what literacies are required and how they are practiced. As mentioned above in the curriculum section, literacies are interwoven with social relations at work, which may account for different demonstrations of learning than originally conceived. With that possible difference in mind, educators gather information from various partners on what counts for success — workers/learners, supervisors, union representatives, managers or staff. Evaluators look for similar patterns across a range of perspectives and take account of significant differences.

Educators find the direction and support of a workplace committee/team invaluable in ensuring that all interest groups are involved in the evaluations.