In 2000, TESOL stated that the field needs staff who are both highly qualified and adequately compensated, whose salaries and benefits are on a par with K-12 teachers, and who get paid preparation and professional development time. Millar (2008) found in analysing a set of case studies from across Canada that “[t]he most successful teachers were trained and experienced in both language and literacy education, adapted their curriculum as needed, and were culturally aware.” (p. 103)
There is a lack of research into ESL pedagogy for adults; however, the discussions of effective pedagogical practices that do occur emphasize the complex and multifaceted nature of ESL learning processes. They suggest that a multifaceted teaching approach is therefore required to accommodate different learner backgrounds, interests, learning styles and literacy levels. Most authors cite the What Works Study, which concluded that three instructional strategies were instrumental in improving literacy and language development (Condelli & Wrigley, 2003):
“Connection to the outside world” means bringing in content such as flyers, government communiqués, utility bills and the like. This kind of material contains information of practical interest and importance to the learner. TESOL (2000) recommends that the curriculum be “aligned with what adult English language learners need to know and be able to do.” They also suggest involving community resources and groups in ESL programs.
“Use of native language for clarification” is often cited as a positive measure. If instructions are given to students in their native tongue, they are able to focus on the task, and not be stressed over whether or not they have understood the directions correctly. The Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks (2000) suggests using the learners’ first language for conceptual work.
“Varied practice and interaction”, the third strategy, refers to using multiple modes of teaching. The Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks (2000) says:
“Many ESL Literacy learners prefer "experiential" learning and so the connection to real life in both content and skills developed in the classroom is important. As much as possible, think about the real-life applications of any skills you plan to cover.” (p.xii)
Another study as yet unpublished that deals with instructional methods is the Explicit Literacy Impact Study (Cronin, Silver-Pacuilla, Condelli). This study examines the effectiveness of an “explicit literacy intervention” targeted to ESL students with low literacy levels. Explicit instruction differs from implicit in that the “rules” (and the exceptions) of the language are taught explicitly instead of being “implied” in the teaching. The authors believe that this approach holds promise for learners, although there has been no supporting research. As complicating factors, they note that different first languages present different challenges, and that there is lack of professional development and no reliable assessment tool. The research paper, “An Evaluation of the Impact of Explicit Literacy Instruction on Adult ESL Learners” was not available at the time of writing.