In many ways, the classroom content was distinct from the content of the other two settings. The original learning goal of the classroom was to help support and prepare students to do well in the other two settings through the development of literacy skills. These skills, once mastered in the classroom, could then be used to support learning in the coffee shop or job placements. In addition, if a student encountered a literacy-based difficulty in one of the other two settings, it could be brought into the classroom and addressed. There was a major problem with this thinking though: the students did not see the classroom as a support for the literacy requirements of the coffee shop. In their view, the content of the classroom, except for employability, was not related to the content of the coffee shop. Ironically, it was in the coffee shop—and not the classroom—that the students actually acquired a new literacy practice. An example of this disconnect occurred when students were learning about fractions. The intent was to build their knowledge of doubling fractions related to measuring ingredients but the choice of materials used (a worksheet) and not used (the actual ingredients and recipe) distanced the activity from its purpose. Students even had to acquire additional and different kinds of knowledge to complete the activity. Why was the classroom content not seen to be connected to the other settings? In addition, why did the coffee shop become the setting in which a new practice was learned as opposed to the classroom, which focused on literacy development?

Sub–Question 2: What are the physical and non–physical aspects of the settings that shape the context for literacy and learning?

The physical and non–physical aspects of the settings worked together to shape learning and literacy in each. Besides examining what aspects shaped the settings, it is also important to look at who planned and organized learning. The context of the classroom mimicked that of a traditional elementary class. Many factors (including the physical setting, the background of the instructors, the funder's expectations and support) came together to form a schooling environment. The class depended on cast–off furnishings from the school system, and was located in a former vocational school. The instructors taught in elementary schools longer than adult literacy settings, and were familiar with this learning culture. In addition, the students expected this type of learning in the classroom. They were drawn to enroll in a school board program with expectations of what learning might look like in such an environment. These expectations may have been based on their own experiences in formal education settings and on the experiences of their children in elementary schools. Finally, one of the few widely–used documents produced by the funder for use by instructors drew heavily on an elementary school curriculum to describe literacy (Literacy & Basic Skills Section, Workplace Preparation Branch, Ministry of Training Colleges and Universities, 1998). The intention of the document was to help instructors assess progress in literacy skills, but it also became the dominant way in which instructors viewed literacy development.