Three key questions to ask in relation to literacy, numeracy and language provision are, how much tuition do literacy, numeracy and language learners access (programme duration), how is the tuition made available (programme intensity) and how intensive is it (teaching intensity)? While the literature review showed that programme duration of at least 100 hours is needed for literacy gains, this study also probably points to programme intensity and the intensity of teaching as important co-requisites. Therefore simply ensuring long programme duration (which might include considerable no-shows or even partial withdrawal for periods of time) is probably not a sufficient condition for ensuring learning gain. In all probability, high teaching intensity, with accompanying programme intensity and duration is the ideal, but rarely achievable because of how LNL resources are allocated and the difficulties for many adult students to be available in this way.
We saw considerable variations in terms of duration and intensity among the 15 teachers in this study. Some of these variations occurred because of the different skill levels of the teachers – for example, some group teachers managed to achieve considerable teaching intensity through their teaching skills and other strategies (such as dual teaching and use of videos), while others’ teaching of literacy, numeracy and language was considerably less intense. Similarly, while some tutors teaching 1:1 probably offered intensive 1:1 teaching, others working in this format did not. In other words, these three dimensions of programme delivery varied not only from teacher to teacher, but also because of the programme formats (see following section) and the way the programmes were funded (programmes for the unemployed tended to be funded for longer duration).
Both the literacy, numeracy and language research literature and the professional adult learning literature (Purcell-Gates et al., 2002) point to the value of linking curricula to learners’ interests and life events as adults. This study has shown that making curricula authentic can probably be done in a number of ways.
While we did not find any evidence of content taken from schooling contexts, we did see a limited interpretation of using authentic curricula. In most cases, this meant that the teachers interpreted the learners’ interests ‘on their behalf’ – typically, they chose content that they thought was adult-appropriate and of topical interest. The other interpretation of authentic curricula was the contextualisation of material (e.g. in workplace sessions).
However, there were very few occasions where it was clear that the learners directly determined the content of the teaching material, especially arising spontaneously in the course of a teaching session. Indeed, on the few occasions where learners spontaneously suggested examples or incidents from their experience, these were largely seen as a diversion from the (teacher-directed) course content.
It is not clear as to the implications of these different interpretations of authentic curricula; in particular, there is potential to explore the differences between content that is totally learner-generated (in the sense that Malcolm Knowles (1984) intended in his concept of andragogy) in comparison with content that is relevant, current and adult-appropriate, but chosen by the teacher. Linked to this question is the degree of flexibility that particular teaching contexts have to pursue a more learner-directed type of programme.