Statement 1
Tutors believe that a learner who does not succeed in a classroom learning format will be helped by one-on-one tutoring.

This statement is based on two different patterns in the data: a criticism of classroom learning, and a belief in the value of individual attention for better learning. Tutors in this study were quite critical of the "education system". Although the open-ended question used to elicit responses asked "If you wrote a letter to the minister of education about adult learners and literacy, what would you say?", most responses ignored the adult learner focus and centered on criticism of the Canadian education system in general. Very few of the tutors demonstrated an awareness of how adult education operates in their province. Although their criticisms may be valid, they generalized their perceptions of the education system to include all branches— including adult education. Their criticisms focused on the flaws of classroom-based learning, such as: insensitive teachers, a wide spectrum of student needs within groups, students who "fall through the cracks" in the "traditional" school system, and students who are "herded along" or streamed through "teacher-developed equations". Some comments specifically mentioned the supposed vulnerability of adults in group settings and questioned why adults would return to a school setting where they previously encountered problems. Adult education programs were criticized for their ineffectiveness and for not paying over-stressed teachers enough. These tutors accept the organisation’s learning philosophy of one-on-one instruction as being the alternative.

Tutors were generally quite positive about the benefits of one-on-one instruction. Tutors believe that the one-on-one format is more productive and that the learner can be more relaxed. Learners can benefit from the networking aspects of the interaction, and can also concentrate on their weaknesses more. These characteristics reflect the profile of one-on-one tutoring as presented to the tutors during their training.

As evidenced by their responses, tutors accepted a duality between classroom-based instruction and individual instruction without considering any other alternatives. This duality could be a consequence of the organization’s decision to use only one-on-one tutoring for adults. Given that few tutors were able to talk specifically about adult education, this duality should also be interpreted within the tutors’ general lack of awareness of the field of adult literacy education. The belief, illustrated in statement 1, reflects a limited exposure to other practices of literacy education, and as a result, an unquestioned reliance on the value of individual instruction.