Executive Summary

The aim of this study was to gain an overview of how teachers teach literacy, numeracy and language (LNL) in New Zealand, by observing 15 literacy, language and numeracy teachers from tertiary institutions, community organisations, workplaces and private training establishments. The teachers were observed for an average of 167 minutes over two sessions; they were also interviewed after the first observation session. The sample included 1:1 teachers, as well as those who teach in small groups and classes. Data from the observations was recorded on specially designed data sheets; notes were taken by the observers and both the sessions and interviews were recorded wherever possible.

Main findings

(these are discussed in fuller detail in Sections 5 and 6 of the report)

Teacher status and background

• teachers were predominantly female, aged 40+ years and Pakeha
• they held a wide range of qualifications, including school teaching qualifications, but only a small number held LNL-specific or adult education qualifications
• there were wide variations in the amount of teaching they did per week and the time they spent on preparation
• they had been able to attend variable amounts of professional development over the previous year
• some of their teaching positions had less than ideal conditions.

Physical environment and teaching resources

• there were wide variation in the physical environment and teacher resources available, from good to much less than ideal
• computers were widely available, but were mainly used for word-processing rather than computer-aided teaching

Generic teaching

• all teachers had created positive, supportive learning environment and they had a high level of commitment to the welfare of their learners
• teachers talked much more than learners(up to 60% of the time), even in classes
• questioning plays a very prominent role in the teaching process; however, teachers mostly asked 'closed' questions and did not use questions as scaffolds for further teaching
• there was some evidence of teaching meta-cognitive skills and limited amounts of sustained discussion or debate

Forms of provision

• considerable variations were observed in the length of programmes, the amount of teaching per week and the actual amount of literacy teaching that took place within programmes
• teachers used 'authentic' curricula, largely in terms of them choosing content that was adult-appropriate and topical; there was little evidence of learner-directed content
• there were wide variations in the amount of LNL teaching that observed in integrated programmes
• 1:1 and group teaching both have distinctive, positive features

Teaching of LNL skills

• only a limited number of deliberate acts of reading teaching were observed by researchers
• most teachers used a relatively small range of teaching methods
• most spelling was taught incidentally and was closely linked to teaching of reading
• miscues were rarely used as teaching opportunities when learners were reading
• numeracy teaching was clearly linked to diagnosed learning needs and numeracy tasks were graded to match learners' skills
• researchers observed only a few sessions where writing was taught; teachers said they found the teaching of writing difficult and that writing was often left out of teaching sessions to make room for other activities
• teachers appeared to use the same teaching strategies for ESOL as for others for whom English was a first language
• speaking and listening skills were seen as important means of building social and personal skills and were interspersed with the teaching of other skills.

Recommendations

The study recommended a number of research projects to follow on from this, including:

• a large scale survey of tutors
• an investigation of how LNL teaching takes place in integrated programmes
• an action research project that investigates effective ways to challenge and change tutors' behaviours, as part of on-going professional development
• dissemination of these research findings to tutors in the field.

Introduction

This research study of how literacy, numeracy and language (LNL)¹ teachers actually teach is the first of its kind in New Zealand , and one of a small number internationally. It is part of a growing body of research in this area (Benseman, 2003).

The purpose of this study was to start the process of exploring literacy, numeracy and language teaching by observing how 15 tutors in a cross-section of LNL contexts actually teach their students these skills. The results of this study should not be taken as a definitive study where the results can be generalised to all literacy, numeracy and language teachers in New Zealand . Rather, as an exploratory study involving only a small number of teachers and limited observation durations, it is intended to give a glimpse into what probably goes on in a reasonable number of these classrooms. As such, we hope that the findings will provoke debate not only about whether or not our findings are truly indicative of literacy, numeracy and language provision, but more importantly, what literacy, numeracy and language teachers should be doing as teachers. In relation to this latter point, readers are directed to the literature review (Benseman, Sutton, & Lander, 2005) on effective literacy, numeracy and language teaching completed in conjunction with this study. Where appropriate, results from this literature review have been included in the discussion of the findings from our study.

We would like to sincerely thank the literacy, numeracy and language teachers, managers and learners who courageously volunteered to participate in this study. All of them gave graciously and generously of their time, both in letting us observe their teaching and also in follow-up interviews. We trust that we have done them justice in how we have reported their work as teachers in what is undoubtedly a demanding, but satisfying, sector. In particular, we would like to acknowledge the teachers' commitment and concern for the best interests of their learners.

Literature review

Despite its centrality to literacy, numeracy and language programmes, there are only a few observational studies of teachers in the process of teaching. There is a large literature of opinion pieces about pedagogical practice (actual and ideal - see for example, Imel, 1998), but very few empirical studies of actual practice.

Summary to literature findings

The aim of this study was to gain a broad overview of what actually occurs in a range of New Zealand LNL contexts. The purpose of this brief literature review therefore is to review what other researchers have documented about what actually happens in literacy, numeracy and language teaching and issues related to this form of teaching. The literature had two major themes.

Firstly, all of the research reviewed points to the importance of the relationships teachers build with learners as an integral component of the sort of learning environment where learners are likely to make gain. Researchers reported that tutors are very learner-centred and supportive in their dealings with students; this attribute is considered to be very important with learners with high levels of need. Conversely, the actual teaching that took place was teacher-directed, with minimal learner input or participation being observed. Researchers thought teachers perceived themselves much more learner-directed in their teaching than was seen happening.

Secondly, a number of reports discussed how provision may not contain as much explicit teaching as learners' needs might warrant, and in particular there was little direct teaching of reading. The corollary is that literacy, numeracy and language teachers need considerably more training and professional development in those core competencies.

Research methodology

This observational study is part of a larger research project that has included a literature review of literacy, numeracy and language teaching effectiveness (Benseman et al., 2005) and the mapping of current literacy, numeracy and language provision in New Zealand (Sutton, Lander, & Benseman, 2005) . The methodology was therefore informed in the first instance by the findings of the major literature review and then the additional literature review reported above.

Findings

The findings section of this study starts with a report on the characteristics of the participating teachers, their organisations, their learners² and the main components of their teaching that we observed, followed by a description of the teaching we observed.³. The final section then is a summary discussion of key points and themes that have emerged from the study. Where appropriate, the findings and themes are related to the findings of other studies reported in the literature review above and our earlier literature review on literacy, numeracy and language effectiveness (Benseman et al., 2005) .

A number of points should be noted in relation to the findings being reported here:

• we start with the background of the teachers, the learners and the programmes before going on to generic elements of the teaching process and finish with the specific teaching of literacy, numeracy and language; this order is used in the sense of a series of concentric circles of increasing importance that culminate with the specifics of LNL teaching
• readers may be surprised by the amount of reporting on 'non-LNL' aspects of the observations; this balance reflects both how much of the teaching in these programmes involves elements that are not specific to literacy, numeracy and language and also how limited the teaching of LNL was in many cases
• similarly, the incidence of the various components reported (e.g. writing vs. reading vs. spelling) simply reflects the incidence of these elements being taught at the time of our observations (we did not set out to sample different forms of literacy, numeracy and language)
• we are not able to make strong links between the various components and teaching effectiveness (for example does the physical environment have an impact on learner outcomes), which would have required extensive pre- and post-testing of learners to examine these types of linkages
• while we are not able to make definitive statements about the incidence of some findings (such as the specific frequency of various teaching methods), we do try to indicate generally how often we observed most of the factors; again, to provide greater detail in this respect would be both misleading and beyond the scope of this study's methodology
• we are providing an overview of what occurs in a cross-section of 15 literacy, numeracy and language teachers; the statements made about these teachers cannot be extrapolated out to the sector as a whole (a larger study would be needed in order to make these statements).

Summary and discussion

This final section of the report provides a discussion of the study's major findings and relates them where possible to the related research literature (Benseman et al., 2005) .

Concluding comments

Finally, we would like to make some closing comments on what we see as the most important themes to emerge from this study.

Firstly, literacy, numeracy and language is a challenging field in which to work. Conditions and support services are rarely optimal and in addition, literacy, numeracy and language learners are educationally some of the most challenging people to teach. Our observations and the feedback from the teachers underlined the extent of the social and educational issues that many of these learners have.

Secondly, we were constantly reminded of the teachers' commitment, empathy and support for their learners. What keeps these people involved in this sector is their strong belief in the value of what literacy, numeracy and language programmes offer and the intrinsic interest of what they do in their jobs. For some of these teachers, the sense of commitment means that they regularly go 'beyond the call of duty' in order to help their students.

Thirdly, LNL is a truly diverse sector. Although we deliberately chose 15 teachers in a range of contexts, we were still aware of diversity across a number of dimensions:

• teachers, including their employment conditions, experience, types of qualifications and skill levels
• contexts, including workplaces, community organisations, tertiary institutions, marae, schools and private companies
• programme formats, including 1:1, small groups and classes, short vs. long duration, full- vs. part-time attendance
• learners, including motivational levels, availability and skill levels.

Fourthly, generic teaching and classroom management skills play a significant role in literacy, numeracy and language teaching. Our study has shown not only the high incidence of these elements, but also their importance in the teaching process. In this regard, we identified the management of equitable participation in teaching activities, the balance between teacher and learner participation, balancing support and challenge, affirmation, metacognition skills, the gradation and sequencing of content and especially questioning all to be worthy of note.

Fifthly, we did not see as many deliberate acts of literacy, numeracy and language teaching, whether as stand-alone or in response to errors or omissions, that we had expected to see. This finding is entirely consistent with overseas observational studies.

Sixthly, the range of teaching methods, both generic and LNL-related, was not very extensive. The teachers appeared to rely heavily on a small number of methods and did not indicate awareness of many alternatives in their interviews.

Finally, integrated literacy, numeracy and language programmes are still very much an unknown factor in literacy, numeracy and language provision. Our study has shown that in some integrated programmes there is very little specific teaching of literacy, numeracy and language skills, but others manage to intersperse literacy, numeracy and language teaching into the teaching of non-literacy, numeracy and language curricula. This finding may have been unduly influenced by the short duration of our observations, but certainly warrants further research investigation.

Recommendations

We believe that this study has pointed to a number of major research areas that warrant further investigation:

• An in-depth study of a representative sample of LNL teachers as to their backgrounds, teaching philosophies (and how they operationalise these), current practices and employment conditions, their professional sources and supports and the issues they face.

• An investigation of how teachers teach literacy, numeracy and language in integrated programmes, leading to a variety of models of good practice that take into account the diversity of programme forms.

• A longitudinal study of learners that tracks them through the whole teaching learning process from initial contact to leaving the programme (including observation of teaching sessions). This study would also show a greater depth of information about teachers' practices and provide more useful information on learner progression as well as other related issues such as 'no-shows' and withdrawals.

• An action research project that investigates effective strategies for challenging and changing teachers' behaviours.

• A project to ensure wide dissemination of this study's findings into both initial tutor training and professional development programmes.

Footnotes

1. For a more detailed discussion about the dimensions of literacy, numeracy and language in New Zealand see Benseman, Sutton & Lander (2005). While we have generally tried to avoid acronyms in our writing, LNL is used as a shorter alternative to 'literacy, numeracy and language'.
2. We have used the terms student and learner interchangeably when referring to the participants; similarly, we refer to teachers and tutors synonymously.
3. All of the sessions were observed by a single observer, but the text refers to the observer as we in a collective sense of the research team.