And yet in their initial survey to develop their typology of literacy provision (of 271 providers), the researchers found that:
A full 73% of the reporting practitioners described adult literacy classes that are teacher-directed and involve their students primarily with activities and texts that are designed for ‘only school-type’ settings and not for use in the ‘out-of-school’ lives of the students (op. cit., p. 75).
A review of writing and research about teaching styles (Brown, 2004) concluded that research supports the concept that most teachers teach the way they themselves learnt and because most teachers have themselves been successful in formal learning situations, they replicate this model in their own teaching, irrespective of the context or the nature of the learners. Brown also points out that many teachers resort to known styles because of their lack of awareness of adult learning theory and alternative models.
The evidence on any particular teaching style being more effective than others is both limited and inconsistent. Rachal (2002) for example, carried out a review of research comparing the effectiveness of teaching in an andragogical way as espoused by Knowles and more conventional teaching methods. His findings showed mixed results, with little evidence to support Knowles’ andragogical model.
Conti’s (1985) study of 65 experienced Adult Basic Education (ABE) teachers (teaching a total of 837 students in GED and ESOL classes) used his Principles of Adult Learning Scale to classify the teachers’ teaching styles. The test showed that their teacher-centred styles were not congruent with adult education literature. When measured against the students’ achievements in the programmes, the GED students learned more in a teacher-centred environment (probably because of the immediacy of passing a formal exam). However with students working at a basic level of literacy and numeracy and the ESL students, the collaborative teachers achieved larger learner gains. The authors concluded that this difference is related to the complex needs of these learners, especially with building positive self-concepts and learning to take risks.
An Australian study of literacy teachers (McGuirk, 2001) involved two questionnaires (one for managers and one for teachers) sent to 555 providers offering accredited curricula across the country. A total of 252 were returned – 76 managers and 176 teachers. This figure represents a 14% return rate for managers and 32% for teachers, although the authors caution that this figure is difficult to confirm, given the uncertain nature of the initial sampling frame. Because the questionnaires involved self-report, the study does not give any indication how closely actual practice matches the responses. We have only included the data from the teacher questionnaires as this list matches our purposes most closely.
The respondent teachers were asked to select ten teaching activities from a list of 41 they used most often and then rate their ‘top five’. The list of activities in order of preference was: