While having open entry/exit of learners is seen as a challenge to these teachers, most see it as part and parcel of their sector. ‘No-shows’ were perceived as a greater challenge because of the loss of learning momentum that results, necessitating recapping and consolidation and the risk of learners feeling that they are not making progress, leading to early withdrawal.
The picture that emerges from the brief portrait of literacy, numeracy and language teachers in this study does not readily match what our literature review indicated as ideal for effective practice, which was that teachers who are well trained in LNL-related processes are central to enhancing literacy gains. Full-time teachers with ready access to PD are the most likely to be effective and they need adequate planning time. Probably only a minority of the teachers in this study could substantially meet these criteria.
LNL’s marginal status is also reflected in the poor quality physical environments in which the teaching often takes place and the paucity of resources available to the teachers. Nonetheless, the teachers in this study had endeavoured to make their teaching spaces welcoming and comfortable for their learners. There is often a strong determination by the teachers to make their teaching spaces and the way they run their programmes demonstrably different from schools, which has a negative association for many literacy, numeracy and language learners that these teachers feel they are constantly trying to overcome in their work.33
Literacy, numeracy and language teaching is dominated by the use of whiteboards and their smaller equivalents, the note-sheet or butcher’s paper. While we saw virtually no use of published literacy, numeracy and language textbooks, there was widespread use of worksheets, some of which were commercially produced (especially in relation to unit standards), but most were compiled by the teachers. The worksheets were used for a variety of purposes, but predominantly for consolidation or practice of skills taught. Learners independently working on worksheets enabled the teachers to work individually with students – effectively offering 1:1 tuition within group settings. Indeed, some classroom settings operated as a series of 1:1 teaching episodes, rather than a conventional classroom. While most of the teachers (especially the less experienced ones) clearly valued their worksheets, a few were critical of their use, saying that they did not necessarily fit the specific learning needs of students and could not be readily tailored to individual interests.
While we observed only three of the 15 teachers actually using computers in their teaching, all but one reported that they were able to access them and used them to some degree in their teaching. We did not see any CAI software of the type reported in our literature review (Benseman et al., 2005, Section 3.3.3) in use. Most of the software in use or available to the teachers was of commonly-used commercial origins; the computers were therefore mainly used for teaching word-processing type skills and carrying out independent research projects. Their use enabled the teachers to move around individual learners, effectively ‘plate-spinning’ as they provided 1:1 teaching while other students worked on their projects.
There was variable access to the Internet, although most of those without access said they expected to improve this situation in the foreseeable future.
33 This criticism of schools is a consistent theme in LNL research (Benseman & Tobias, 2003). It is important to note that ‘school’ often refers to experiences of 10-50 years ago, which may differ from current school practices.