| dc.contributor.author | Benseman, John | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2013-02-13T00:51:33Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2013-02-13T00:51:33Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2010 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10652/2049 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_NZ |
| dc.rights | All rights reserved | en_NZ |
| dc.subject | workplace literacy | en_NZ |
| dc.subject | workplace numeracy | en_NZ |
| dc.subject | workplace language | en_NZ |
| dc.subject | New Zealand | en_NZ |
| dc.subject | workplace education | en_NZ |
| dc.title | Planning and teaching effective workplace literacy, language and numeracy programmes : what does research tell us? | en_NZ |
| dc.type | Journal Article | en_NZ |
| dc.rights.holder | Billy Osteen | en_NZ |
| dc.subject.marsden | 130108 Technical, Further and Workplace Education | en_NZ |
| dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation | While there is any amount of writing about what differentiates between effective workplace literacy, language and numeracy (LLN) programmes and their less effective counterparts, only a fraction of this writing is based on original research studies (Ananiadou, Jenkins et al. 2003; Ananiadou, Emslie-Henry et al. 2004; Gray 2006). Most of the literature (see for example, The Conference Board of Canada 2005) is based on surveys of opinions (usually employers’) or simple post-course evaluations.
This article outlines which factors enhance the effectiveness of workplace LLN programmes based on detailed evaluation findings from 18 workplace courses run in New Zealand companies. | en_NZ |
| unitec.institution | Unitec Institute of Technology | en_NZ |
| unitec.publication.spage | 19 | en_NZ |
| unitec.publication.lpage | 28 | en_NZ |
| unitec.publication.volume | 38 (2) | en_NZ |
| unitec.publication.title | Journal of Adult Learning Aotearoa New Zealand | en_NZ |
| unitec.peerreviewed | yes | en_NZ |
| dc.contributor.affiliation | Unitec Institute of Technology | en_NZ |
| unitec.institution.studyarea | Education | |
