“I let him set the pace:” Volunteer Tutors’ Perspectives on Teaching in Adult Literacy Programs and Their Implications for Training

This paper reports on the roles that volunteer tutors in one-to-one adult literacy programs adopt with regard to instructional goals and lesson management. It suggests the importance of rethinking tutor training, and raises questions about the importance of instructor role in this adult learning context Volunteer-based, one-to-one instruction has long been a mainstay of adult literacy instruction; volunteers make up approximately 43% of the workforce in federally funded programs (State administered adult education program 2000 adult education personnel, 2000) and are the primary instructors in countless other community and faith-based programs that are funded by other means. Adult literacy volunteers usually participate in pre-service training, 1220 hours duration, and are then matched with adult developing readers and writers. The training (format, content, instructional strategies) they undergo, what subsequently occurs instructionally, and the relationship between these and learner outcomes is virtually unresearched. Although there are many significant avenues of inquiry within this broad topic, the purpose of this paper is to report on one important aspect of the training-instruction-learner outcomes equation, the perspective on teaching that is assumed in tutor training and then played out by volunteer tutors and adult learners in the instructional context. It addresses the question, “What is the relationship among the program’s perspective on teaching (as embodied in tutor training), the tutors’ stated perspective on teaching, and what actually occurs during one-to-one instruction? ” By looking across four diverse program contexts, significant implications for tutor training practice can be derived. Theoretical Framework Research in this area raises issues in two realms. First, it calls into question the extent to which a relatively small number of hours of pre-service training can actually prepare volunteers to achieve program goals and help adult learners reach their literacy goals. Second it begs the question of what is an appropriate role for educators and learners to assume in a one-on-one tutoring relationship. Tutor Training Sandlin and St. Clair (in press) provide a helpful synthesis of the little research that has been done on the quality of instruction when volunteers tutor adult literacy learners. While largely dated, this research suggests their motivation to help is beyond doubt. However, questions about tutors’ efficacy surface frequently, and typically revolve around the adequacy of training (Ceprano, 1995; Kazemek, 1988; Meyer, 1985). Although conducted under highly artificial circumstances with predetermined categories of “best practices,” Ceprano (1995) argued that volunteers often fall short in selecting appropriate materials, responding to reading errors, and developing comprehension strategies. She does not provide evidence to suggest that professional staff are any more effective than volunteers; Bell, et al. (2004), in fact, suggest that many paid teachers lack both training and expertise in evidence-based reading instruction. However, Ceprano’s research clearly suggests that the volunteer sector is failing to reach its potentiality. She implicates tutor training in her analysis. Pomerance (1990) is one of the few researchers who has done an in-depth, naturalistic examination of tutor-student instruction in one program. In particular, she looked at the relationship between tutor beliefs and tutor practices. She did find a mismatch between tutor beliefs about literacy and adult learning and their actual practice. Tutor training appears to be both the possible culprit and the potential answer to the problematic practice of volunteer tutors. Educator Role There is much theoretical and empirical work which focuses on the role of the adult educator. Even debates about nomenclature (e.g., facilitator, teacher, resource, mentor) indicate a range of perspectives on the educator’s function in identifying learning goals and developing learning plans, as well as his/her claims to subject area knowledge and expertise, and judgment of learner outcomes (Brookfield, 1986). Pratt (2002) offers one useful typology of perspectives on teaching--transmission, developmental, apprenticeship, nurturing, and social reform--which can function as a lens through which we can analyze teacher beliefs, intentions and actions. He defines perspectives as “an interrelated set of beliefs and intentions that gives direction and justification to our actions” (p. 6). Pratt reminds us that perspectives are not the same as actions, but that they can help us reflect on these overt indications of more internalized guiding principles by providing an analytic framework for doing so. I suggest that not only do teachers have teaching perspectives, but that they are also reflected in adult literacy programs via tutor training, program materials and curriculum, and the nature of ongoing support to tutors and learners as they work together. Discussions of teacher-learner interactions in adult literacy education in particular are often shaped by assumptions about the role and responsibility of the players vis a vis making various learning decisions. Those who advocate for learner-centered and participatory approaches (e.g.,(Auerbach, 1992; Fingeret & Drennon, 1997; Gaber-Katz & Watson, 1991) sometimes make this argument based on adult learning theory, others on political grounds related to the goal of bringing about social justice. Less frequently, such arguments have been connected to the congruence between learner power and control in the instructional context and a whole language approach to instruction. Issues of role and power are at least as relevant in a one-to-one tutoring context as in a classroom where most research related to these issues has been done. If anything, they are amplified by the intensity of a one-to-one relationship. Pomerance (1990) suggests that what makes tutoring unique is the potential to tailor instruction to the learner’s goals, skill levels, interests, strengths and challenges. Such tailoring becomes particularly relevant when a learner-centered/participatory approach is taken, and is very much in line with the assumptions of andragogy, as expressed by Knowles, et al. (1998). Research design This paper reports on one aspect of a larger study which looked at the relationship between program context and the teaching and learning transaction (vis a vis definitions of literacy, paradigms of reading and writing instruction, and assumptions of adult learning) in oneto-one instructional settings among volunteer tutors and adult learners in adult literacy programs. For comparison purposes, four diverse programs were selected to participate: Lincoln County Library Literacy (LCLL), Essex County Literacy Volunteers (ECLV), Center for Lifelong Learning (CLL), and Polkville Literacy Council (PLC). Data collection consisted of participant observation of tutor training, and one interview with key staff in each program. Three student-tutor pairs were selected at random from within each program’s pool of potential participants who met criteria for selection (instructional focus on literacy rather and English as a second language, working in the program regularly for a minimum of three months). Each of the twelve pairs audio-taped three consecutive sessions of their tutoring (36, in all) as examples of their instructional transactions. All tapes were transcribed for the purposes of analysis. Twenty-two of the twenty-four students and tutors were subsequently interviewed by telephone about their educational backgrounds, training, reasons for participating, and for clarifications of the taped tutoring sessions. Findings Two of the key principals derived from Knowles’ theory of andragogy (1998) are that adults are self-directed and that readiness to learn is connected to adult roles and tasks. Similarly, many practitioners and theorists suggest the importance of adults articulating their own goals for learning (felt need), working with educators to build learning activities designed to attain these goals, taking an active role in their learning by making decisions and choices about what and how they learn, as well as assessing their progress toward their desired accomplishments. In other words, creating learning situations in which adult learners can take authority over their own learning, or what I call here “lesson management,” is considered a hallmark of what is considered good practice in adult education. The data analysis for this study focused in particular on these two aspects of adult learning, building instruction around learner identified goals, and lesson management, and the ways in which tutors enacted their roles in these two realms. Working toward a goal In tutor training, the importance of working on student identified goals was underscored in all four programs. For example, during their trainings two of the programs, LCLL, ECLV, not only voiced the importance of building learning activities around student goals, they also devoted time to specific activities designed to help volunteers understand this more fully. Although CLL does not have a specific activity in their training related to teaching to student goals, the importance of doing so was reiterated frequently throughout the training and concrete examples were given on how to do this in relation to many specific skills that were discussed. As one staff member said, “We constantly talk about student goals and using real life materials. You probably heard this in the training. You’ve got to say it a lot because if you don’t, they will definitely fall back on [more traditional subject matter]. ” While the PLC staff would agree with the other programs about the importance of learner goals, centering instruction around them is not on the front burner when they described the program. Much of the training is dominated by “how-to” instruction for using gra