The notion of practices becomes the central element of the definition, and its development is supported by the other three elements. Each of the supporting elements can inform the development of literacy practices and, in turn, practices informs the development of skills, tasks, and critical reflection. This flow suggests that only through the active engagement in literacy practices can skills, tasks, and critical reflection have meaning.

A limitation of the definition (and a limitation of the situated learning and literacy frameworks) is that it does not adequately support a description of the role of the individual. How does one talk about personal factors within a practice–based definition of literacy? The need for this became apparent during the study when students talked about their goals, their learning needs, and their desire to make changes in their lives. Returning to the original definition may help to make a link to personal reflection. Part of the original description of critical reflection states that critical literacy is the ability of people to use text in order "to decode critically their personal and social world and thereby further their ability to challenge the myths and beliefs that structure their perceptions and experiences" (Giroux, 1988 as cited in Lytle and Wolfe, p. 11). Critical reflection not only addresses issues at a social level (such as race, gender, and class), but it also encompasses issues at a personal level. Although not specifically stated in the definition, I would argue that reflection at a personal level includes emotive, spiritual, cognitive, and behavioural issues. To emphasize both the personal and social nature of critical reflection, these terms have been added to the definition.

Thinking about literacy development in this way incorporates all current approaches without alienating one over the other. For example, a skills–based approach too often ignores critical reflection, and visa versa. In this re–conceptualization, none of the approaches are ignored, but simply reconfigured around the central idea of practices. Why should practices become the central tenet of a literacy definition? I would argue that practices forces us to see how literacy is used in day–to–day life, and it is only through this understanding that adults with limited literacy abilities can begin to develop their own uses for literacy. Currently, the focus of literacy development is on helping adults learn how literacy works (skills) and learning to use literacy to complete a task. To a lesser extent, adults are also learning to use literacy to activate change (critical reflection). If practices are simply the basis for understanding how literacy is used in different settings, on different occasions, at different times, with various tools, and by different people, then all literacy and learning activities occur within a practice situation. They do not take place within a vacuum. The key question that arises is, what is the learning situation and does it match the learner's goal? This clearer conceptualization of adult literacy development with its focus on practices that are supported by skills, tasks, and personal/social critical reflection, is a useful tool for seeing and understanding how literacy is currently developed and the adjustments that need to be made. Similar to its supporting role in the thesis, the literacy definition will continue to be used in the following section that explores the study's contributions to program development, policy, and research in order to provide a streamlined and consistent structure.