The distinction between learning and doing also became apparent when students placed greater value on the learning or perceived potential for learning that occurred in one of the three settings—the classroom, coffee shop, and job placement. Students found themselves preferring one setting over another because they felt that a particular setting could provide them with what they wanted and needed. This type of preference led to confusion, or even resistance to one or more of the settings. This was evident during the registration and assessment process for the program, when students inquired about participating in the employment preparation program in order to learn to operate a cash register. When told that enrollment required participation in all three settings, not just the coffee shop, some decided not to register. Conversely, students who felt they only needed to improve their literacy skills in order to find employment, decided not to enroll because they didn't want to participate in the coffee shop setting. If students have such clearly defined ideas about learning literacy and learning about work, is it possible to combine both in a program?

What factors contributed to the distinction between literacy as schooling and learning as doing? The people directly involved in the program—the instructors and the students—and the program itself all contributed to the entrenchment of the divide between literacy as schooling and learning as doing. Students who attend the employment preparation program have developed clear views of learning literacy that are tied to traditional academic schooling. In fact, in their minds, as described by Marion, learning is schooling; it is reading, writing, grammar, vocabulary, and spelling. Instructors were aware of this and wanted to promote other kinds of learning activities, but instructors themselves gravitated towards the development of literacy skills in the classroom setting. According to one of the instructors, it was what the students wanted. They were feeling pressure from the students to teach literacy skills. In addition, most readily available materials took a literacy–as–skills approach and few alternatives were available. Finally, the program structure may have also contributed to the idea that learning literacy is schooling and learning about work is doing. The main function of the classroom setting was to support the literacy–based activities that occurred in the coffee shop, on the job placement, and in an actual job. For example, if a student was having difficulty reading a recipe while preparing muffins in the kitchen, literacy skills could be developed in the classroom in order to enable the student to read the recipe and bake without difficulty. Or, if a student encountered problems with a literacy activity at his or her job placement, he or she could return to the classroom to focus on the skills in order to perform it at the placement independently. The classroom was viewed as a basis of support for the activities that occur in the coffee shop and on the placement. But in reality, the students didn't often encounter challenging literacy tasks on their placements or in the coffee shop once they mastered reading the recipes. In addition, the types of jobs available to the students—jobs that have no educational requirements—have very few literacy demands. When asked about challenges in their job placements or in the coffee shop, students rarely mentioned literacy, but instead talked about personal challenges, such as overcoming shyness, willingness to try a new task, and understanding the expectations of a particular environment. If students perceived learning literacy as schooling and learning about work as doing, what can be done to connect these two dissonant ideas? Can a literacy–as–practices approach provide a framework that allows students to also see literacy as doing?