Although not as focused on teaching practices as the two American studies, this English study’s findings resonate with the American findings. They found for example that while there was some teaching targeted on identified reading difficulties, this focused reading instruction “did not comprise a significant amount of the teaching that occurred during the sessions” (op. cit, 8). The researchers concluded that learners’ lack of progress is probably attributable to not enough time being spent on reading activities. Furthermore, the teaching strategies being used probably didn't match the range of difficulties that learners have with word identification and decoding. They also commented that teachers did little work at sentence level, comprehension beyond the literal and phonics. Grouping learners with similar skill levels enabled teachers to spend more time teaching reading than in classes of heterogeneous learners.

1.2 Quality of teaching

Because much literacy, numeracy and language provision is not subject to inspection like other educational sectors, there is very little information about how well LNL teachers perform vis-à-vis their counterparts in other sectors, either in New Zealand and overseas. One exception to this is in Britain, where the Adult Learning Inspectorate (ALI) carry out systematic reviews of literacy, numeracy and language provision and has recently published a report that details the generalised observations of 35 inspectors based on a total of 650 inspections (Adult Learning Inspectorate, 2003). The providers included workplaces, Jobcentre Plus, learndirect centres, community providers and over 100 further education colleges. The report concluded:

Evidence from inspections of colleges over the past two years shows that teaching is generally much weaker in literacy, numeracy and ESOL than in other areas of learning. The proportion of good teaching is lower and the proportion of unsatisfactory teaching higher than the average across all subject areas. Lesson observations carried out on visits to the sample of 40 colleges show that some of the weakest teaching is in ESOL and in learning support sessions (op. cit., 13).

The ALI report goes on to say that from their perspective as inspectors (based on their multiple site visits, teaching observations, scrutiny of learners’ work, programme records and discussions with learners, tutors and managers) effective literacy, numeracy and language teachers plan thoroughly, use an appropriate range of activities and learning materials (especially in terms of their relevance to learners), employ skilful questioning techniques and give constructive feedback. These teachers are able to challenge learners in ways that are not threatening to them, explain tasks clearly, structure tasks clearly and set these tasks at manageable levels that help build the learners’ confidence. They include initial assessments in the Individual Learning Plans (ILPs), focus their teaching on the needs identified by these assessments and are specific in the learning goals, which are reviewed regularly with the learners.

On the other hand, ineffective teachers (especially those who have not been trained to teach) ask questions that are too general and fail to set specific tasks that require learners to demonstrate their learning. The inspectors reported concern over a number of the literacy, numeracy and language tutors’ own literacy, numeracy and language skills, which inevitably made it difficult for these tutors to teach these skills effectively.

Because of its peripheral location within education, this form of quality assessment of literacy, numeracy and language teaching remains the most under-researched area of the literacy, numeracy and language field.